Because someone was wrong before they will be wrong again? Doesn't seem like the sort of wisdom I would advise someone to risk their life savings on.

Bill Gates has been wrong before and I think he's wrong on this but we really do not know, he also didn't actually say that no one should buy bitcoin, he just spoke about it being used to fund criminal activities.

These merits will ultimately run out, each time they do this they only get half back, eventually it will be at 0 and there will be nothing for them to trade.

This. Furthermore, these merit sellers need to have a source of merit, once all of the initial distributed sMerit is used up then they will really struggle to have much merit to sell. Even if it continues it will be a drop in the ocean in terms of accounts that can buy ranks, given how scarce sMerit is.

What about when people have posted graphs with technical analysis and people are quoting them to reference them? This is about the only time I can think there's a real usefulness behind quoting them. I guess that they could just refer to the OP.

It would certainly reduce the length of some threads and make them far easier to read.

Good suggestion overall I would say. Unless someone can really come up with a compelling argument otherwise.

It's important to take some time to verify that you're not sending your personal information to just anyone but ultimately if you want to participate in ICOs you're going to have to complete KYC.

The majority of ICOs now require KYC and in a few more months I think it will be 100%. It is good from a legal point of view to stop money laundering etc but at the same time some controls need to be put in place to control how easily it is for persons to create scam ICOs. I suspect this will high up on the list of priorities for many regulators across the world.

Those people are mistaken, the length of a post is irrelevant. Quality > Quantity



Posts should require some effort to talk about, they should engage the community. This is not a negative.

I have to say I'm in agreement, if it turns out that people decide bitcoin cannot be used successfully there will be many replacements waiting in the wings that can solve people's concerns.

The main issue with such an argument is that right now the general public are quite uneducated when it comes to cryptocurrencies and for many Bitcoin and cryptocurrency are synonymous. It is why we see such a strong relationship in terms of other cryptos falling when bitcoin falls.

I think there's definitely some relationship but it also happened to be somewhat of a coincidence at the same time. I think the expectation of higher interest rates would have contributed to the fall in crypto prices but the main reason for the turnaround was the news coming out of the US that a 'do no harm' approach will be taken.


I wouldn't necessarily say that is an advantage, the way the stock market work allows people to escape and have a life outside of that. As many of us in crypto can attest to it can be really hard to escape from your computer screen for too long as you don't want to miss anything.

Why do you see it as being an advantage for crypto that the market never sleeps?

For anyone not following the news the last day the Dow Jones index fell by record numbers in one of the biggest falls in years, other index's were also hit hard. The reason may not be one that you'd think. In fact it is largely attributable to unexpected uptrend's across the global economy. Let's take the US for example:

On the 2nd of February the US labor department released figures showing jobs and wages increases that exceeded expectations. Higher wages and more employment leads to more spending, more spending leads to higher inflation and in turn the FED will need to combat this by increasing interest rates (if interest rates are higher people borrow less and save more, hence spending goes down).

So higher interest rates, what does that mean for investments, well it's quite simple. Investors will get a better comparable pay-off in safe investments like stocks and bonds if the interest rates increase. Therefore it becomes a more attractive alternative to stocks.

It's always fascinating to see how the economy works in circles and how things are not always as they first seem. It wouldn't surprise me if some of the hurt the crypto markets are experiencing could also be attributed to this. If you look at other economies globally you can see the same thing happening.

Adoption starts from the bottom, cryptos need to be accepted at smaller retailers and such and then the demand for their adoption will grow and eventually larger corporations will accept them.

Right now the general public does not really understand cryptos and most of them view bitcoin as being the only one and so it's really the only one with much of a shot at being accepted right now. Bitcoin though has two major hurdles to overcome before it's a viable payment method:
1. Transactions are too slow and too costly (should hopefully be resolved with lightning network later this year)
2. Price is too volatile - this is the difficult one to solve, the only real hope is that further adoption leads to a better understanding of bitcoin and where its price should be and then stability arises. It's kind of a chicken or the egg thing with this one.

Dollar cost averaging is definitely wise, entering at the current price does seem smart but I would definitely wait at least one more day to see what the SEC have to say and witness how that influences the market. If they have bad news to share then we could see another 20-30% decrease in the price tomorrow.

I disagree with everyone saying that the financial markets and the crypto markets will move in opposite directions. If the Financial markets (stocks, forex etc) crash then this will be in concurrence with a global recession. In this times saving increases and investment decreases as disposable income decreases and people look to weather the storm, that's simple economics. If the Financial markets fall, Crypto will suffer also, as at the end of the day it is investment just the same.

I suspect a lot of support around 5500 if we ever reach such a level. It was the low of the previous 'crash' in November.

It's still very worthwhile considering that most coins are still up compared to where they were just a few months ago, in fact I think you'll be hard pressed to find any coins that aren't up over the last 3 months.

How could this be negative? Telling users that if they write good quality posts that receive merit they may in future receive more merit if it is decided that not enough merit has been spread around?

If announcing in advance that such a thing may happen encourages more users to improve their post quality then it's only a good thing. It's just a way to perhaps incentivise some who are currently not posting great quality posts, because they do not feel that the merit that's being received is worthwhile for them to do so.

Improving post quality is exactly what the merit system was introduced for.

Put simply it's a way of raising funds for a start up. People who have an idea but do not have the funds to develop or pursue it will go an pitch this idea to venture capitalists. If they believe the idea is of merit they will stake their own money in return for something (normally a share in the business). They may often also offer their guidance and counsel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venture_capital

Read wikipedia if you want to know more in detail.

There are two ways to do this, one is to have nothing really to offer but to lie and tell people it is revolutionary and will make them rich overnight, otherwise taking advantage of people's greed or want for a better life.

The second way is the one you should pursue, first begin to consider what information you can offer to others and be honest with yourself as to the worth of that. If you have a particular area of expertise then you can share this with the community and charge a fee for it but be fair and honest in what you are promising. If you offer good information at a good price then your reputation in the community will grow and in time you'll receive more and more business and make more profits.

If you do not have any specific skills or knowledge that are worthwhile to share with others then the first step would be to work on that until you are in a position to advise others.

I'm not a bounty manager but I always thought there should be a better way to report facebook and twitter posts/shares etc. Right now they're mostly just linked to in masses of posts on bounty threads. I would've thought that some google sheet could be created where they could post their links and then all of the information could be collated in to a spreadsheet. Both cleaning up the threads and making it easier for bounty managers. I guess there has to be a reason that none of them have done this as of yet? It would be interesting to get the perspective of a bounty manager on this.

From Theymos's earlier post.


Now I understand the intention of removing links from Jr Members signatures was to encourage bounty campaigns to only accept Members plus (or at least that's my assumption) but if that doesn't work out to be the case. Would a logical first step before removing all signatures not be to just remove them for Jr's and Newbies. This way the only people who could wear them and participate in campaigns would have to have at least earned some merit.

I'm sure that would instantly stop many spammers who are quite simply incapable of writing any quality posts and so would never receive merit and never be able to participate in campaigns.

I understand this wouldn't stop people from writing quality posts to rank to member and then going back to less quality posts but it would at least be a reasonable barrier to entry and stop some before they get started.

What does that have to do with copper membership? Copper membership is received by making a donation, it is to allow newbies to post images for a fee. It's got nothing to do with ranking up or merit.

I can't help but notice a big similarity in most of the suggestions from other forums is that they are designed to target bots. I could be wrong on this and if someone with more insight sees this and wants to chip in then please do, but I do not get the feeling that there are many bots designed to spam the forum. More that it is individuals who create multiple accounts either to later sell them or to participate in bounty campaigns. Thus the majority of those suggestions are pretty much redundant.