Everyone knows what post is, and you can do it how frequently you want to.

So your main question seems to be how does activity level get counted in relationship to posts.

You can earn a maximum of 14 activity points per each 2 week activity period based on your post number, and you have to have at least one post per activity period to earn up to 14 activity points per activity period.  If you average at least 14 posts per activity period, then you will earn the maximum 14 activity points per each 14 day activity period.

The OP of this thread already has some further description of activity level, and below is a link to a whole other thread discussing activity level calculations.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582736.0

Get the fuck out of here with your patronizing nonsense and your attempt to act like you have some kind of superior knowledge when you don't...

And your case for supposed superior knowledge is undermined further by both your newbie status and your coming into the thread with guns ablazed and acting like you know your way around here.  I don't need to defend my numbers, especially to a poster like you who has been on the forum and in this thread in your current persona for only a couple of days and is already engaging in ad hominem attacks and denigrating of the ideas and online personas of your thread (and forum) status superiors.    

Even though I agree with a lot of the points of Tman, that you have a lot of shitty posts, I also believe that you have decent posts, too, and accordingly, I have decided to give you two merits.

Part of my point here is to demonstrate that there are going to be varying level of standards in terms of members deciding to give merits and on what basis, and in that regard your ability to receive merits is partly subjective, and members are going to view your posts and your intentions in different ways. 

My giving you merit is no way intended to controvert Tman's assertions, because I looked at your above attached post, and I thereafter browsed through some of your post history.  At that point, I decided to give you two merits before I even saw Tman's post.  After I read Tman's post, I considered only giving you 1 merit, but in the end, I decided to stay with my original decision to give you 2 merits - because I had already decided to do so on independent grounds from Tman's valid assertions about the overall apparent low quality of your posts, which leaves a bad impression of your intentions to just throw a bunch of garbage without reading the threads in which you are posting.

If you keep attempting to improve your posts, learning and helping others and interacting with substance, then it is likely that you will receive merits with the passage of time, at least enough to reach member status (which is 10 merits).  Surely Full member, Sr member, Hero and Legendary rankings will be more difficult to achieve, but I doubt that it is impossible for you to achieve as long as you attempt to contribute in the forum...  

I also get quite annoyed when it seems that some posters are not reading any of the thread prior to posting and then interacting in a way that is not really contributing because they could have easily found out the answer to their question(s) by reading more parts of the thread (of course you should not have to read all 100 pages of a thread but at least if you read a few pages, including OP, and then you read a few of the last several pages, then you will be a bit better informed on the themes of the thread..

And surely finding topics that interest you will be helpful too, but perhaps it would be better to read significant aspects of threads first and maybe post half as many posts (at least in the beginning).. maybe averaging fewer than 8 posts per day rather than your current average of around 15 posts per day...  .  

I also believe that we are stuck with this merit system, and even if you believe that it is going to be difficult to receive merits, the longer you are on the forum, and the more people get to know you, the easier it is going to be to interact and to receive merits.

Seems that we can talk about anything that we want - as long as we are not trolling and pumping out disingenuous disinformation regarding bitcoin.

I am not too keen on some of the recent IQ discussion or the ongoing racial bullshit that comes from posters like roach, so sometimes we do need to filter through that kind of substance in order to read some more interesting bitcoin related posts.

I will say that I kind of agree with you regarding the implications of a "professional" power top, and probably a better phraseology might have been for Bob to have self-described as an "experienced" power top or something like that, but I don't know details about Bob, except that he does seem to have decent amount of on-topicness in this thread, even when he is telling trolls to FUCK off.... or he is making some connection with his personal life..  haahahahahah... and I don't think that Bob is attempting to mislead anyone about anything, even though we all emphasize matters from time to time in ways that might be a bit stirring for some folks to accept who have different life experiences and depending on the audience.  

Now you, on the other hand, we have no fucking clue about the extent of your genuineness (except that it appears that you are not genuine  nor credible) with your repetitive conclusionary negative on bitcoin talking points, which are typical traits of trolls... to pump out distracting arguments, but fail and refuse to provide credible decent personal details that would cause us to conclude that you are an actual genuine person, rather than merely a paid shill that might be smart, but really makes a lot of dumbass points in order to distract us from really discussing substantive and meaningful bitcoin matters.  I don't have too much hope in your nonsensical pattern, so far.  

To the extent that WO participants should take you seriously at all, I doubt that there is any reason to get very excited until BTC prices break one way or another in a broader range than the range that you are suggesting, such as $6,666 for the bottom and $10k for the top.  

Otherwise, if we stay in this $6,666 to $10k range, then there is no reason to get excited or write home about it or try to prognosticate some kind of deeper meaning merely because we are bouncing around and even breaking out in a smaller kind of way...

Gotta think BIGGER mFj     !!!!!!!!  

NOT   NotLambchop!!!

I am not really keeping score, but there are ways that any of us BTC HODLers/Accumulators can plan ahead in order that we do not run out of either bitcoins or cash no matter what is BTC's price direction... .In that regard, the only way that any of us can get roached^tm is if we gamble too much with our stash - whether it is the trading stash or the stash more broadly, we have to maintain formulations that cause us to never to run out, no matter the price direction.

By the way, maintaining a "trading stash" should not give license to being sloppy in our conceptualizations or causing us to take BIGGER risks, merely because we are ONLY using our "trading stash."

One way in order to NOT run out of either BTC or cash, we can calculate a percentage, so for example, I had authorized myself to sell up to 1% of the value of my whole BTC holdings for every 10% BTC price rise.  We can use other amounts or conceptualize of our selling/trading limits in other ways, too. 

Any of these kinds of forumulations of sales authorization limitations would likely assure that we would never run out of bitcoin, even if BTC prices  were to shoot up 100x   - but merely preparing for 10x can be decent too since BTC price rises do not tend to shoot completely straight up 10x without having a few corrections along the way that would allow for a reformulation of the plan and even reallocation of BTC/ or dollars based on how fast and how far the price had gone up... which also allows a refueling with bitcoins, too.

Another possible way would be to authorize yourself to sell only profits that came through BTC prices rises, so for example 50% or less of your profits. 

Accordingly, if you have 10 bitcoins, and BTC prices go up $100, then you might authorize yourself to sell up to $500 and to trade with those funds (that would be $500 = (10 x $100) / 2)...   Those are formulations for on the way up, and you can make similar kinds of formulations for on the way down by considering how much fiat you have accumulated and then spreading the total amount of fiat that you have available in fiat down the possible price downfall scenarios and perhaps preparing for extreme downfalls - including for up to a 95% price decline... and projecting ahead in order that you would never run out of dollars within that range of price correction.....

Of course, any of us can become stressed and nervous about major price corrections and even retroactively second guess ourselves in terms of we should have sold more when the price was up or we should have bought more when the price was down... however, either way, if we go forward with moderation and a plan, w are likely going to be able to tolerate greater levels of volatility, profit from the volatility and don't get so stressed out about the whole volatility matter because our plan includes preparation for relatively extreme price movement scenarios.. and frequently, even the most extreme of our preparations won't get tested as long as we continue to prepare and to tweak along the way.

I almost was going merit you in the real world, based on your seemingly innovative "mind merit" concept; however, I looked at your 40 posts, and seems to me that none of those posts are in the ballpark of merit worthy (a lot of just seeking bounty).. so I will just wait until perhaps I see a few meritorious posts from you before jumping to prematurely merit beyond mere thoughts of it.

Send me a pm in the future (within the next two weeks - offer expires), and link to this post, and I will give you a merit if you can point out a few decent posts that I agree are worthy of merit.

HODL and COMPLAINL is a plan.

Don't tell anyone, but I am just using the $6,666 as a reference in order to try to get Torque's attention.

It would be worse, and that is part of the problem with jimmywh's proposal and similarly aligned ones.   

O.k..... Then you must have already sold then? 

Or are you going to ride out this supposed bad situation with faith that you do not believe in?   

I personally believe that support from here down to $6,666 is a lot greater than you are making it out to be, in part based on the amount of trade volume that already had taken place to reverse at our most recent $6k bottom...

Surely, nothing is inevitable, but seems that we should be prepared to HODL and BUYDL, like I already mentioned... and thereafter everything will be just fine... that's my tentative working plan.   

Again your phraseology of the grandfather situation is a bit much, and even if you have good intentions with your proposal, I fail to see your attempt to question bygones be bygones under the previous system.   

Certainly, I have no intention to protect the bad conduct and abuses of previous posters, but the new system is not an attempt to rectify past bad conduct (to the extent that it existed) but instead to reward future good conduct.  So, I think that any system, such as your proposal that seems to meddle too much with the past, goes too far and creates additional injustices that are not necessary to stir up.

Assuming another leg down?  Which I assume that you are assuming such other leg down would be below $6k?   


Don't you got ur selfie no more money left for buying?


I am assuming that if we get anywhere near $6k, perhaps even breaking below $6,666  (that one is for you Torque-ster).. then the next support would be in the $3k to $4k price range.. which is fucking low.. ... .. so certainly, I am also hoping that support from here down to $6,666 is going to be able to stand up... and we are not breaking lower than $6,666.. Get out your HODL and your BUYDL.. ammunition, peeps.

Your phraseology of "grandparent advantage" causes a pretty strong inference that you do not understand the basic fairness that is meant to come from the employment of such a principle.  Grandfather clauses are not meant to cause injustices, disadvantage, unfairness or exploitation of new users in favor of old but instead are meant to allow a fair transition in systems that does not prejudice prior membership or prior members' reliance on earlier terms.. it is a kind of basic transitional remedy that is used in a lot of places to cause fairness rather than unfairness.

You do not have to have a lot of crypto currency experience in order to find threads that interest you and to attempt to constructively engage with
various thread participants.  Through that engaging process you can learn and also provide your life experiences and opinions to the conversation, which may result in your earning merits....   You likely have a better chance with those kinds of interactive posts, rather than seeking bounty type activities.


Seems a waste of time to attempt to figure out why people give out merits.  I used a lot of my initial distribution of merits to give to posters that I already know and based on past contributions that I believe that they have made to me and/or the forum.  It is likely that the intitial sending of merits is not going to be as reflective as future sending of merit, and the system will likely adapt to members getting used to merit and perhaps looking at current posts rather than historical.  However, there is also a subjective component to merit, too, which leaves discretion in the hands of the person who has smerits to give (rather than attempting to make some kind of objective validation regarding which posts or posters are more worthy of merit, which seems a waste of time endeavor).

A sound reason to NOT start from zero is because a decision has already been made about how to implement, and the decision has already been implemented for more than two weeks.  Therefore, realistic propositions should be to attempt to work with what we already got and what is already implemented, rather than going backwards to a time before the decision had been made and implemented.   In this regard, we are not at a deliberative stage to determine what system is going to be implemented, but instead at a situation that contemplates where to go with a system that has already been implemented. 

Accordingly, it seems quite fantastical for you to be attempting to put any burden on me or anyone else who defends the status quo system that has already been implemented to come up with good reasons for the change that has already been decided and implemented. 

It seems to me that if you are making a proposal to make changes to this already existing system in the way that you are suggesting, then you have the burden to show why your proposed changes would be better.  I see that you are not opposed to keeping the ranks, but you just want to start from scratch with the merits - even though Theymos had already said that he chose to initially distribute minimum merit for each rank as a means to coordinate the past with the future.  I agree with you that the number of initially distributed merits were based mostly on a combination of activity level and rank.. and really if you look at OP and some subsequent explanations by Theymos, the current implementation and initial distribution of merit was primarily based on prior Rank, except for the hero members who ended up receiving additional merit in accordance with their having achieved at least a 775 activity level. 

Yet, having said all that, so far, you have not given too much facts and/or logic for your proposal to start from scratch except to attempt to shift the burden to someone else, such as me, to defend a decision that has already been made and already coordinated initial merit distributions based on rank, which seems like a BIG waste of time to hypothesize starting from scratch when even the current implementation does not contemplate the starting point that you are choosing.

Totally agree RoomBot... Surely we can have some sympathy and attempt to hold the hands of newbies part of the way, yet at some point, peeps gotta be doing a bit of their own due diligence and figure out some of the specifics of this GRAND paradigm shifting technology.. otherwise, they just gonna be left running after the train...

Yeah, maybe they don't care right now, and yeah maybe they are too nervous about the whole bitcoin scary situation, but down the road, they might come to realize that they could have, should have, would have been in a much more comfy position with just a relatively moderate-sized investment of their time and money.

Hero members received 500 because of grandfather clause concept.  You received 10 merits, as a member, based on grandfather clause concept.

You are living in a fantasy world if you believe that a new system would start from zero, so any proposal that you were to make should attempt to figure out a way to start from something rather than your current bold (to be noticed) proposal of starting from zero.  By the way, you are assuming a non-existent situation when you say that some members were given merit based on nothing - and you can read the rationale in the OP - that stated that it was an attempt to approximate the minimum merit of each rank.., so merit was given based on an already existing system that was change, rather than based on nothing, as you fantastically proclaim.

I did a very large transaction with around 25 inputs and one output.  The regular fee was showing 5 satoshis/byte, and I changed it to 3 satoshi's per byte.  It warned me that my fee was too low and projected 3 days to go through.  It went through in the next block, which was 1 minute later.