I'm not sure I'd bother if I were you: OP apparently hasn't escrowed the btc, or even interacted with this contest for close to a month now - his last post here was on August 8:

Pois, treinar soldados ainda sai caro: tens de ter 5 trabalhadores disponíveis, e depois pagas 150 meat + 150 wood + 500 iron + 150 stone (isto para infantaria ou arqueiros). Tenta ou pedir ajuda a outra cidade, ou juntares-te a uma ilha e pedires ao líder para te libertar (depois só podes voltar a sair da ilha para o teu país passados 3 dias - se o quiseres fazer).

Alternativamente podes esperar que os tipos morram (os soldados têm um tempo de vida como qualquer outro trabalhador) e que ele não mande mais ninguém até teres defesas.

Someone already tried that, though it seems not to have been such a great success so far, unfortunately: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=668391.0). Gravitate apparently decided to take a step back and start offering fiat currency to get more players first, and leave bitcoin rewards for later.

Actually yes, someone here already thought of that (and probably others before): Gravitate created "The Ponz" (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=668391.0).

---

I played GoldenTowns for some months, but only managed to get 0.01 btc out of it - play it if you like the game, but don't expect to get a lot more out of it.

Another game of this kind is MarketGlory - you can also withdraw your in-game earnings (though I'm not sure btc withdrawal is available), but unless you invest your own money in the game, expect several months worth of repetitive daily tasks without any return.

EDIT: Remembered another one: GoldenBattles.

While $450 a day might seem like a great way to invest those $10.000, keep in mind this is a hyip (high yield investment program) - and as most/all hyip, don't expect them to be around for very long. You can keep track of how the site is doing so far here: http://www.allhyipmonitors.com/details/cryptcominer.com.

As usual, don't invest more than what you can afford to lose.

Se recebeste o ouro quando subiste de nível, e não por teres vendido recursos ou assim, então é uma lei que está em efeito no teu país. A partir de nível 3 podes votar nas leis que os outros jogadores do teu país propuserem, e a partir de nível 10 podes começar a fazer propostas tu - podes ir a Politics para veres as leis que foram sugeridas recentemente (independentemente se foram ou não aceites).

Actually, isn't there already such a thread, in the form of e1ghtSpace's "The statement Game!" (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=638190.0)?

I'm sure the site great and you have the best of intentions - but what I'm trying to say is that the great majority of people here won't go along with an affiliate program if they have another choice; PrimeDice is a recent example, months ago Ritz was another, and so on. Almost no one is willing to risk not getting anything at all for their work, in the hopes of getting a whale.

Most people avoid affiliate programs, as there is no guarantee of any return for your efforts. Instead, pay per post campaigns are far more popular - even sites like PrimeDice were unable to transition a significant portion of its members to the affiliate program, when they changed the campaign recently. If the main issue was people abusing the sig campaign, wouldn't it be better to switch to paying at the end of the term, while holding funds in escrow?

There is an open source game, very similar to Age of Empires, that is constantly being updated by its creators: http://play0ad.com/. For anyone who likes AoE, you might want to give it a try.

I would like to join this campaign.

Username: u9y42
Rank: Senior Member
Number of posts: 1240 (including this one)
BTC address: 1DRWFrSDgqbzkchWzC7GW99xK7HAFokZJy

Payment received - thank you. I'll be leaving you positive feedback now.

---

There is no next week; the campaign is now closed, and according to letprice, will reopen in about 15 days.

I don't think you understand what relocating hundreds of thousands of persons means; it's not just the housing that needs to be addressed - and this is already one of the most densely populated areas on the planet, so that's already a big problem - but also all the essentials that need to be made available for people to be able to live there: mostly clean water and food, but also access to healthcare and electricity. You can't just shove them on to another area and expect them to survive unaided.



I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this.



Perhaps I am, but it's not like mindlessly killing each other is working either - well, not for the respective populations at least.

---

I made no such argument; I think you might have either misunderstood what I said or got the chronology there wrong - some of the events I mentioned occurred after the disengagement, or were never addressed altogether. So, for example, the Fatah-Hamas conflict Israel/US pushed along occurred after the disengagement, as did the acceleration of the illegal settlements on the West Bank, and ultimately the goal of separating Gaza and the West Bank. On the other hand, human rights abuses were never addressed, and the occupation of the territories never really ended - Gaza simply didn't have the Israeli army already inside its borders, but the government there did not otherwise have control of its borders, imports-exports, airspace, coastline, or a lot of the infrastructure.

You may reach that conclusion if you ignore that the occupation as a whole never ended, and neither did Israeli human rights abuses, or interference in the region - the Fatah-Hamas conflict, for example, was largely pushed by the US and Israel (among others). Further, the disengagement served a few other Israeli goals that you omitted there: it increased the separation between Gaza and the West Bank (not only physically in contravention of previous agreements, but also politically as stated above), and allowed Israel to focus on advancing its settlements of the West Bank (which sharply increased at that time).

Unfortunately no; if anything, I'm putting it mildly: according to Unicef's Pernille Ironside (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/21/world/middleeast/gaza-cost-far-exceeds-estimate-official-says.html?_r=0), they are currently dealing with some 350.000 refugees there. And it's a little hard for them to return home when Israel destroyed them: at least some 17.000 were totally destroyed, and 37.000 damaged. However, these figures are likely to increase, especially as the conflict continues. And this to say nothing of what Israeli attacks on vital infrastructure have done to access to healthcare, food and water. In fact, in the article I linked, Pernille Ironside goes on to say that, if the blockade isn't at least eased, some estimates put the time to reconstruct Gaza after the latest attack at 18 years!



I offered it as my own personal opinion, so take it as you will; but from all I've seen so far, that seems to me the most likely outcome, unless things start changing very soon.



I'm not Palestinian, so again, take it as you will; but I'd say the average Palestinian cares less about what the land is called, and far more about their human rights being respected, than what you think - see this interview with Shir Hever for more details: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWYeWeoQ-uQ (at about the 7 minute mark, though I definitely recommend the full interview).

And you know, there is one way to deal with the illegal settlements without kicking anyone out again: give them the chance to stay and integrate them into a future Palestinian state, or monetary incentives to return to Israel and resettle, for example (they are currently being given governmental monetary incentives to illegally occupy Palestinian land, so it wouldn't be much of a shift there).



Human rights must be respected, whether or not you're the losing side. And yes, there is no assurance that the removal of the blockade will end the conflict, especially if the occupation and human rights abuses continue; but you can be sure that continuing the blockade will make the situation far worse over time - as I said before, it is only further radicalizing the population there, in the West Bank, and in Israel.

As to the lack of clean water, they were already dealing with water shortages before the recent conflict; after Israel hit water wells and sewage treatment plants (which contaminated several regions), it has been one of the main jobs of Unicef to ensure that the population has access to water as much as possible, job which continues to this day - the article I linked above mentions this, though you can easily find it elsewhere if you bother looking.

I get the feeling you really have no idea of the situation in Gaza, and the level of devastation there. Why do you think there are currently, literally, hundreds of thousands of refugees there at the moment? Do you have any idea of what that is? And again, rockets or no rockets, civilians aren't automatically valid targets - that's a violation of the rules of war, if anyone cares.



Yes, and other countries could also nuke that whole region to oblivion and end the stupid conflict once and for all - would you like that solution, or should we perhaps move to kill less people, and not more?



You're right, when you have US diplomatic support, you can get away with a lot of crimes - but make no mistake, that support won't last forever, as more and more opposition to Israel's actions is felt at all levels of society; I honestly don't give it 10 years before Israel is completely isolated at this rate.



I'm referring to the one or two states solutions; that is, Israel either taking over the whole territory and population, or Israel and Palestine coexisting side by side, with negotiations having as a starting point the 1967 borders - both of which Israel refuses, either in word or in action.



Is it? Again, you have little to no idea of the situation in Gaza - do us both a favor, and please, look into it: Israeli officials weren't kidding when they said it was meant to keep the Palestinian population at a level just slightly over that of a humanitarian crisis. And you know what would help solve the situation? Ending the illegal blockade and the occupation.



Here I'm referring to the recent unity government that Hamas and Fatah created; Hamas accepted all the preconditions of the Quartet, and despite the Quartet's willingness to work with them (even with US agreement), Israel immediately threatened sanctions against the Palestinian Authority, holding back tax revenues, and suspended peace negotiations - source, the Israeli Prime Minister.

I've just answered someone on this exact point, a few posts back:

"At one point Israel declared about 45% of Gaza as a no-go zone; in a small, densely populated area such as Gaza, and with both Israel and Egypt mostly denying passage to civilians, where exactly is the population supposed to go, even when warnings are actually given? Often times these people have nowhere else to go, and even taking refuge in the few shelters there are doesn't guarantee their safety, as Israel has, intentionally or not, repeatedly hit them."

And again - this doesn't seem to have registered with you yet:

"Also, even if there are enemies nearby firing rockets or whatnot, Israel doesn't automatically have the right to attack them if it puts civilians at risk - Israel's actions have been completely disproportionate, and lead me to question if they aren't just following the Dahiya doctrine again."

That is to say, you can't just attack an area when you know civilians will most likely be harmed - even if you warned them to get out (and as I said above, they can't always really do so). Doing this is a violation of the rules of war, and violates not only discrimination between civilian and military targets, but also proportionality in response to the threat.



Yes, because Israel refuses to accept a peace deal, either in the form of the one or two state solution.



Know that what you're advocating there is collective punishment - another violation of the Geneva Conventions. Further, it's so bad an argument, that it even serves to legitimate Hamas' attacks on civilians: "some 80% or 90% of Israelis support the attack on Gaza, so they are valid targets", or some nonsense like that - it's wrong when Hamas does it, and it's wrong when Israel does it. But treating the Palestinians like caged animals isn't going to solve anything; only worsen the situation.



Really? Because I seem to recall them wanting to move to a peaceful solution, even quite recently, and Israel boycotting the negotiations.

The estimates of civilian casualties caused by Israeli attacks I've seen so far mostly range from about 70% to 80%. And even if you only want to take the IDF estimates, they put it at some 55% - quite indefensible no matter how you look at it, if you ask me.



Again, Israel doesn't have the right to further endanger and kill civilians just because Hamas might be nearby, and then keeping it up until it causes over 2000 casualties, over 10000 wounded, hundreds of thousands of refugees, and destruction of vital infrastructure that the population depends on to live. And you can only say this is unavoidable if you don't want to move to a peaceful solution - and unfortunately, Israel has no interest in a two state solution, or even a one state solution, for that matter, as evidenced by its actions over the years.



The sources are Israeli officials, as revealed by Wikileaks (http://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08TELAVIV2447_a.html).


Now, you can try and excuse this any way you want, Hamas or not, but you can't then ignore the consequences on the population that is forced to live under this regime, or how it serves to further radicalize it.



Again, this is an official quote from the current deputy chief of General Staff Gadi Eisenkot, made during an interview, and shown in another leaked cable: http://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08TELAVIV2329_a.html. Whether or not this reflects the reality on Gaza, you can see from the outcome on the ground.

---

That seems like the right reaction to me - but don't forget the circumstances which serve to perpetuate the conflict, namely, the blockade and the occupation.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending Hamas' actions here - but you're equating two sides that aren't on equal footing. As I said before, Israel's actions are completely disproportionate. For more detail, and to address a), b) and c), see my reply to Starscream from the other thread (sorry for the copy/paste, but it gets tiring always reading and replying to the same things, especially when all this is public knowledge already):

About 80% of the Palestinian casualties are civilians - either the IDF is worryingly incompetent (so much so that it would probably be better not to allow them anywhere near a weapon, for fear they would hurt themselves), or they target/don't care about civilians and civilian infrastructure. Am I missing another possibility there? I've lost count at the amount of shelters they've hit after being repeatedly warned of the coordinates, and that there were refugees inside - at what point should people stop calling these attacks accidents and instead start calling them intentional? Because they just keep on happening, time and time again. And no, Israel doesn't automatically have the right to kill civilians because Hamas might or might not be nearby.

Are we supposed to believe this isn't just a continuation of the Dahiya doctrine? Quoting IDF Northern Command Chief Gadi Eisenkot, “What happened in the Dahiya quarter of Beirut in 2006 will happen in every village from which Israel is fired on. We will apply disproportionate force on it and cause great damage and destruction there. From our standpoint, these are not civilian villages, they are military bases. [...] This is not a recommendation. This is a plan. And it has been approved”. And quoting a Wikileaks release, "Eisenkot stated that Damascus fully understands what the Israelis did in Dahiya, and that the Israelis have the capability of doing the same to Syria. He suggested the possibility of harm to the population has been Hizballah leader Nasrallah's main constraint, and the reason for the quiet over the past two years".

Then we have the blockade imposed on Gaza, which according to official Israeli policy, is meant to keep the Palestinian population on a state just slightly above that consistent with a humanitarian crisis, and the economy there at the brink of collapse - again, we know this thanks to Wikileaks. Of course, with the recent escalation of the conflict, and the usual Israeli targeting of vital infrastructure, they are now in a humanitarian crisis.

I honestly don't think it's such a stretch to call this genocide anymore.

EDIT: Oh, and take a look also at the following part, in relation to Apartheid, which touches on b) and c) as well.

Ah, não, desculpa - o Untold Universe (http://www.untold-universe.com/) é outro jogo. Não tem nada a ver com o GoldenTowns; é mais tipo Minecraft, mas com naves e outros planetas.

Quanto a comprar ilhas no GoldenTowns, sim qualquer um pode compra-las - a troco de muito ouro. Elas funcionam basicamente como um país normal, mas com duas diferenças: primeiro, qualquer outro jogador pode escolher abandonar o seu país original e juntar-se a essa ilha (se o dono da mesma o deixar); depois, tem uma grande vantagem para o dono, pois é ele que decide todas as leis da ilha (como e onde usar os recursos do país, e que outros países atacar e como), e as mesmas têm efeito imediato. Ou seja, quem comprar uma ilha passa a ser o ditador local, enquanto que todos os outros países têm de escolher as suas leis através dos votos de cada jogador, e a votação normalmente demora 24 horas.


Já agora, os níveis seguintes do Town Hall não te dão vantagens em termos de menos recursos ou tempo necessário por cidadão criado (se bem me lembro, e se não mudou entretanto). Ou seja, se 1 cidadão demora 3 horas, e 25 meat + 10 vegetables, 2 vão precisar do dobro - 6 horas no total, e 50 meat + 20 vegetables.