~
Fair points that some companies have created efficiencies in selling things that used to be traded on some of these subs. These companies have also (mostly) ironed out problems related to scammers. Most people probably don't want to spend their bitcoins on stuff especially in a bull market, hence few listings. Most people are probably too wary of scams to do much trading here also, especially since it's pretty much a free for all and scams aren't moderated. Selling physical stuff here requires you to give out personal information as well which many people won't want to do. We have had bull markets in the past that has caused bitcoin to go up further than it has in the past several months. All of your other concerns have always been a problem with trading on this forum. I have also noticed that advertising revenue is down about 70% (in USD terms) since January 2019 (prices were similar to January 2019 in January 2020). Well the price has gone up significantly since the start of 2019 so it's inevitable that people won't spend more in bitcoin. [/quote]In terms of USD, revenue is down by ~70%. It is down by more in terms of BTC. I think this is an indication that advertising on bitcointalk may be less profitable. The fact that bid increments are so high when compared to the selling price may also push the final price down. Should changes be made to the merit system? Should changes be made to the trust system? Is either system being implemented in ways that are less than ideal?
Why would merit be a factor? And what could or should be changed about trust? I don't think it matters whether people are trading here or not, especially from an admin point of view. I am trying to start a conversation. Merit could be a factor if people responding to offers/threads have difficulty communicating, and don't want to pay $35 (for a copper membership) just to talk about a trade. If threads are not getting a lot of responses/sales, additional sellers will not want to create additional threads. If it appears that traders do not have accurate trust ratings, it may make people uncomfortable to risk their money to a stranger. I think the administration should care about how much trading goes on around the forum. I believe it is an indicator of the forum's influence, and an indicator of how many 'real' people are using bitcoin because of the forum. ~
It appears that buyers (and people that respond to marketplace threads) have also declined. I have also noticed that advertising revenue is down about 70% (in USD terms) since January 2019 (prices were similar to January 2019 in January 2020).
How did you determine that? Is there a site that gives that information? I'm an ignoramus when it comes to stuff like that, so it's probably common knowledge that I never learned. But whatever, that's a huge drop. The last round for the ad slots brought in a total of 0.02 BTC, which is worth around $620. There was a round for the ad slots that ended on January 12, 2019, which bitcoin was trading at ~$3653, that brought in a total of 1.44 BTC, or around $5,200. I may have actually looked at other auctions when I made my statement because the difference between these rates is more than 70%. Should changes be made to the merit system? Should changes be made to the trust system? Is either system being implemented in ways that are less than ideal?
I think the merit system is functioning just fine, and you don't see many complaint threads in Meta anymore. The trust system on the other hand....we could debate that until 2022 and probably beyond. Suggestions have been made and ignored by Theymos, so I don't think anything is going to change in the near future. I don't know what's responsible for the drop in activity on the other boards, but I do know that traffic to bitcointalk has dropped significantly over the course of the last year and suspect that may have at least something to do with it. There might be an argument to either lower the threshold to become a full member, or to add an additional rank with a lower merit requirement. |
|
|
|
|
I have noticed that several marketplace subs have become less active than in the past, especially considering that we are in the middle of a bull market.
For example:
*The bottom of the 1st page of currency exchange has a thread last posted in 9 days ago.
*Lending has threads last posted in almost a month and a half ago on the 1st page
*Long term offers has threads last posted in over a year ago
*Auctions have threads last posted in 33 days ago on the 1st page
*Goods have threads last posted in 11 days ago on the 1st page
The above lack of trading activity is concerning to me. In the past, all of the above subs have had much more activity. I would expect more activity given the current bull market.
Does anyone have ideas as to what is causing the above? Does anyone have ideas as to what might attract more trading activity on the various marketplace subs?
I have also noticed that advertising revenue is down about 70% (in USD terms) since January 2019 (prices were similar to January 2019 in January 2020).
Should changes be made to the merit system? Should changes be made to the trust system? Is either system being implemented in ways that are less than ideal?
edit:
I think one solution might be for the forum to take steps to encourage LN use. A common theme I have noticed is high transaction fees when priced in USD for on-chain transactions.
|
|
|
|
But you are wrong about Section 230:Under section 230, "internet" companies can remove content they deem "objectionable". That is not what Section 230 does. Without Section 230, a site effectually has two choices: Either don’t do any moderation at all, not even of spam—or risk being held liable as a publisher with editorial responsibility for each post by every user. Including anonymous, untraceable parties who registered using Tor—including people who may be trying to set you up for trouble. If you run the site, then among other things, you need to fact-check everything that every user says—just in case someone said something legally defamatory; and that is only the beginning of your liability. —Or else, let the spammers take over and drown out all conversation. I would have to disagree with you on this point. Without 230, an internet company (such as this forum) would be liable for all content as if it was the publisher, regardless of moderation policy. This will probably mean any potentially defamatory content will need to be removed, or be verified as 'true'. This is the same standard that editorial pages use when publishing an opt-ed in their editorial section. Without Section 230, for example, theymos would need to delete all of the posts in the argument between OgNasty and Vod. I mean all posts, on both sides. Otherwise, the forum would be legally liable for the factual accuracy of all of their mutual accusations and recriminations. theymos would be liable for defamation for any false, libelous statements made by either of the parties. Now, from the other direction, consider the example of what would happen if I were to set up my own site. For the sake of argument, pretend that I am subject to American jurisdiction—and pretend that I am amenable to legal process of any kind. ;-)If I run a site, I will categorically ban anyone who glorifies and rationalizes the use of marijuana and LSD. I mean that I will ban them personally, not only censor their posts. They tend to post insane nonsense. It is a waste of time to debate with self-made nutcases. They behave in ways that are poisonous to communities—and also, I just don’t like them! Indeed, more generally, “I dislike you” will be a gloriously subjective TOS reason for permabans. Muahahaha! My site, my rules—bye! So-called “people” whom I ban on the basis of my personal whims are free to go post on Gab.com, which allows any legal expression except for pornography. Of course, I support Gab’s right to exist, despite their lack of enforcement of pure Nullianism. Leave aside for the moment the problem that I dislike so many “people”, my site may be in danger of allowing only nobody and a nonexistent cat.Does this mean, in your opinion, that I am a “publisher” taking editorial responsibility, and I should thus be liable for the content posted by users on my site? That would be the effect of repealing Section 230.In a narrow context, yes I think you would be a 'publisher' if you were to take the stance that no one can '[glorify] and [rationalize] the use of marijuana and LSD'. I don't think you would be a publisher of all content, only content that specifically defames someone resulting from this policy. A better example might be this: Say, for example, you ban content saying that PN7 did not steal a loaf of bread from the market on Monday, February 1, and allow content that says PN7 did steal a loaf of bread from the market on Monday, February 1. If someone makes a post saying that PN7 stole a loaf of bread on Monday, February 1, this should be treated as if you are the publisher. This is because you are telling your userbase this is the only position they can take, and you are preventing the accused from defending themselves personally or via proxies. |
|
|
|
Resulting in O(n + k log k + 2k). In this particular case one might even argue that n > k log k + 2k, therefore O(2n) = O(n) However, it's late here and I don't like to argue.
You only need enough memory to keep the new addresses in memory and enough disk space to keep both the new and old version on disk at the same time.
You are correct. I had not considered updating the list not from scratch. Accessing a single line from a file can degrade performance, and it should be considered if paying for more RAM would be cost effective considering the additional time required to update the list. |
|
|
|
Any prosecution of Trump will be transparently political. His political enemies have been calling for him to be jailed for too long for most Americans to believe otherwise.
This is where it gets kind of muddled. BEFORE he was elected there were some tax / finance / fraud cases against him that were put on hold. Now that he is out they are moving forward. That is not political. If they start adding on more charges for things that happened in say 2019 then yes there might be a political bias. But, if they were investigating in 2014 to 2016 and had a case that they just did not bring because of the election, then it's not political. I was aware of a civil tax dispute between the IRS and Trump from prior to the election, but I was not aware of any pending criminal cases/investigations against Trump from prior to the election. In most instances, a case being investigated in 2014 probably could not be brought today due to the statute of limitations laws (for most things Trump would possibly be charged with). Bringing charges against someone for political reasons is not necessarily illegal, so any conviction may stick provided the relevant statutes were violated. The problem is political. I can see there being a backlash against charging a former US President with crimes resulting in him going to prison. This backlash could ultimately lead to pressure on the Biden administration to drop the charges. There is also the risk of charging Trump but not obtaining a conviction. This would make any prosecution look politically motivated, and could delegitimize the Biden DOJ. |
|
|
|
I don't think the word "organized" would describe Trump's role in the riot in the Capital. The role that Trump may have played in causing the riot was his speech, and any criminal prosecution would run into first amendment issues.
It seems to be a pretty common misconception being pushed by the media that 'the speech' is the only thing to consider regarding Trump and the attack on the capital. Of course that's not true. You need to look at all the evidence. The tweets, the violent rhetoric, that blatant lies being repeated over and over. The speech was a pep rally before the big game. All the work has already been done, now it's time to get hyped and win the game. Also, the event was literally organized by him. It is not illegal to lie, even repeatedly. I am not sure what you are referring to that you describe as "violent rhetoric". You should also cite the specific tweets you have concerns with (as posted on twitter.com) that you believe instigated the riot. |
|
|
|
@PrimeNumber7 I think you'll find that other Forums are a lot less tolerant of bad behaviour when compared to this one which is probably why there is such a proliferation of scammers here that aren't as apparent elsewhere.
You are correct in saying that bitcointalk is more tolerant of bad behavior than many other forums are. This is largely due to the libertarian values theymos has. It is very difficult to moderate scammers. There are many instances in which projects appear to be a scam, but it is difficult to know if this is actually the case due to varying definitions of "scam" when it comes to projects, and because many projects will end up failing (and getting hacked) even if they are run legitimately. I also don't think the forum administration wants to impose rules on people to force them to conduct business a certain way. It is rare to see a scammer get away with large sums of money in this forum. Most scammers are only able to get fairly small amounts. On other forums, when scamming is moderated, it is more common for a scammer to trick many people, and to get away with a lot of money because of the false sense of security. |
|
|
|
This is similar to why Trump did not prosecute or even appoint a special counsel to investigate Clinton. The President doesn't have the authority to prosecute anyone. I don't think he has the authority to appoint a special council either, but I might be wrong about that. The Attorney General has the authority to appoint a special counsel and has the ultimate authority to direct prosecutions. The Attorney General is accountable to the President. If the President directs the Attorney General to take an action he refuses to take, the President can fire the Attorney General. The President can also install an (acting) Attorney General that is loyal to him, such as one that would describe himself as the President's "wingman". Trump has not been involved in his businesses for at least the last 4 years, but he was likely not involved in the taking out of any loans during his campaign, which would go back about 5 and a half years. I don't think Trump would have committed fraud, and decided to run for President six months later. <> If he ends up facing any serious criminal charges, they would most likely be related to Jan 6th terrorist attack he organized. I don't think the word "organized" would describe Trump's role in the riot in the Capital. The role that Trump may have played in causing the riot was his speech, and any criminal prosecution would run into first amendment issues. there would be too much pressure from voters for Biden (or whoever is President) to either pardon Trump or have the DOJ drop the charges. What makes you think that? Any prosecution of Trump will be transparently political. His political enemies have been calling for him to be jailed for too long for most Americans to believe otherwise. |
|
|
|
|
I think this would have been a good example as to when it is time to go to the hospital. It also may have been a good idea to contact the company that made the device for help in regaining access to his account.
|
|
|
|
Assuming he's charged within the next few months and it doesn't go to trial, I expect it to be 3-4+ years from now.
A more likely scenario is he refuses any plea bargain and spends the rest of his life successfully finding ways to delay the trial/sentencing.
Politically speaking, it would be very difficult for the DOJ to prosecute Trump. Any prosecution of Trump would be seen as politically motivated and there would be too much pressure from voters for Biden (or whoever is President) to either pardon Trump or have the DOJ drop the charges. This is similar to why Trump did not prosecute or even appoint a special counsel to investigate Clinton. This leaves the state AGs to possibly prosecute Trump, but the backlash to a prosecution by a state AG would be nationwide, bi-partisan, and there would be pressure to drop the charges. I could see the NYAG trying to prosecute Trump, and the current NYAG has a history of stretching the law in her prosecutions. The statute of limitations for Fraud in New York is 6 years, and IMO the NYAG would most likely go after Trump for some kind of fraud related to loans he took out against his buildings. Trump has not been involved in his businesses for at least the last 4 years, but he was likely not involved in the taking out of any loans during his campaign, which would go back about 5 and a half years. I don't think Trump would have committed fraud, and decided to run for President six months later. Long story short, I don't think Trump is going to jail. |
|
|
|
If the above were to be employed, someone could potentially know when many investorsspeculators are going to be bidding up certain stocks in advance and could trade accordingly.
They are already doing it but in a more traditional way. The suspect is that the whole Robin Hood app is anything more than a giant big data collector for Wall Street firms, where they can literally "spy" on each account, signalling the hottest topic/trend/strategy put in place by retailers. I am not so sure about this. Large institutional investors want to keep their positions private when they are in the process of buying or selling a stock because when they start to buy or sell, it generally means they will buy or sell a lot of said stock. A retail investor on the other hand will not typically trade large enough amounts to move the market. There are also other ways to monitor retail trading activity, such as monitoring odd lot trades. What I was referring to was someone actually creating the illusion that there is interest in a stock when said interest does not exist, but the illusion of the interest creates actual interest. |
|
|
|
|
It is an advertisement for a website that appears to be promoting BSV.
They are trying to attract attention by sending a transaction to many addresses. If you look at one of the 'vanity'* addresses, you will see they have received many transactions with outputs going to all those same addresses, in the same order.
*whoever sent the transactions likely does not have knowledge of the private keys to these addresses.
|
|
|
|
If Trump can moderate himself, and avoid attacking his critics, there is the potential he will both be able to get out the vote of his base and avoid turning off moderates. Trump remains widely popular among Republicans, and he enjoys strong support among his base. I don't blame McCarthy for meeting with Trump. |
|
|
|
|
I have caused some testnet coin to be sent to the address you posted via faucets. You should send the coin back when you are done with testing.
If you are wanting larger amounts, and/or are planning on giving testnet coin to players/customers, I would suggest mining your own testnet coin.
I also think there is limited value to allow potential customers to receive testnet coin as a way to test your website. Deposits and withdrawals are not a major concern to customers as long as deposits are quickly credited and withdrawals are quickly processed, IMO. If you want potential customers to test your site, you may as well create your own testing coin that does not support deposits or withdrawals.
|
|
|
|
A copy of the Complaint can be found here. I don't think Dominion was smart for filing this lawsuit. Giuliani almost certainly does not have significant assets, so Dominion is not going to recover what they are alleging are damages even if they win the case, and the case will give an opening for Guiliani to look for and air out any potential dirty laundry of Dominion's employees, and scrutinize Dominion itself. I doubt the outcome of the case will change many minds regarding Dominion, including those that are decision-makers deciding if local governments will employ Dominion. It’s not even about being smart or not, it’s just a way of making a court say that he should shut-up for his claims being totally wrong and having no backing in the least. I assume they also want the courts to show that everything he has said is wrong as a way to ensure that people on the state and local level will continue to buy their machines — as places where Republicans hold power are going to be wary about using these systems if their voters think they enable fraud. No court is going to tell Giuliani to shut up. This is regardless of if his claims are frivolous or not. IMO Giuliani was trying to discredit Biden's Presidency, similar to how the Steele dossier was used to discredit Trump's Presidency. In both cases, innocent people were caught in the crossfire. As I said above, I don't think the outcome of this lawsuit is going to change anyone's minds who is a decision-maker regarding deciding if a local government is going to contract with Dominion or not. If you read the lawsuit, Dominion calls out some of the sponsors to Giuliani's podcast, even though they are completely irrelevant to the case. I think Dominion was trying to put pressure on Giuliani's advertisers to drop him so that Giuliani would retract his statements. |
|
|
|
The polling you cited lists a 77% approval rating for 'Committing to a government-wide focus on racial equity'. This means that either most people do not know what "equity" means, or the polling is not reliable (or both). The polling was not accurate just a few months ago, and I don't have any reason to believe it would be more accurate today. There have been reports of potential threats at the inauguration and subsequent events. If you want to say that these aren’t true then that’s fine, but we did just have people storm into the US Capitol so it’s fair to say that we should have protection for the congresspeople and civilians that work in the Capitol.
I am sure there are reports of potential threats to all sorts of things. This doesn't mean the people who are making these threats are nothing more than 'keyboard warriors' and are otherwise not serious. Another way of looking at current troop levels in DC is that we have more troops in DC than we do in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. I don't think any serious person believes we need more troops in DC than we do have fighting ISIS. |
|
|
|
In short, we need AI to beat another AI  This is actually how GANs work. A generator model will create fake content and a discriminator model will try to differentiate between the real and fake content (aka try to detect the fake content).
Here is one example as to why someone may want to use the forum to test a model that is ultimately deployed elsewhere: The reddit sub 'WallStreetBets' has been credited for causing GameStop (and other stocks) to go up tenfold in a number of days. Some of this is likely due to a short squeeze and a flurry of call options buying. I am curious if there are any bots interacting with redditors that are creating the appearance of more hype around the stock than there really is. Bots posting content and interactions on 'WallStreetBets' would not receive the same scrutiny as they would here. I don't have any actual knowledge one way or another that this is actually happening. If the above were to be employed, someone could potentially know when many investorsspeculators are going to be bidding up certain stocks in advance and could trade accordingly. |
|
|
|
Considering there were not even any demonstrations, it is fair to say the 25,000 troop level was excessive.
No it's not. It's illogical to say that. The point is to reduce the chances of anyone attempting anything to as close to 0 as possible, not have just enough soldiers to win a shoot out. +1 to this. Not sure why it even matters the amount of troops that are in DC (on a relative level) — We literally just had thousands of people overwhelm the Capitol police and storm into the Capitol building. It’s not like Joe Biden is personally ordering these people to arrest his political enemies — it’s just for protection of the Capitol and those inside. It was actually hundreds of people that stormed the capital, not thousands. Twitchy is endorsing a police state. I believe the purpose of the military presence is to prevent protests in response to Biden's widely unpopular agenda. To put things into perspective, there were several hundred national guard troops sent to DC in June to help with security when the riots were actually ongoing, and many times larger than the riot on January 6. |
|
|
|
It looks like this particular subforum has the same settings/permissions as the Serious Discussion and Ivory Tower subs. Maybe this was used for testing before Serious Discussion was created? I can confirm that signatures do not display in the other - Philipians sub. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
