You were also copying posts from here: I am more than picky. I have only joined a handful of them. Those that I think are really trustworthy and the pre-ICO is a very easy Buy. And i believe Everyone of us should be picky when it comes to investing in ICOs.
Are you picky with ICOs?
I am more than picky. I have only joined a handful of them. Those that I think are really trustworthy and the pre-ICO is a very easy sell. Everyone of us should be picky when it comes to investing in ICOs. After all, many of them are scams. We will always end up picky if we do our part in doing due diligence. Hello good day; to the administrators in house;
PS: was posted on temmy007 behalf.
You sure about that? You and your "friend" sure do love overusing semi-colons; It depends on your plan and where you want to specilize In the crypto Space; if you want to be a trader, I would advice you get much knowledge through babypips
Most of ico reviews of new ico popping up everyday are paid reviews;
I don't know why this ico's are not tired yet;
That is close to impossible; crypto is a threat to the traditional financial institutions; they wouldn't allow that to come to a reality
This is very unprofessional; that why you see a group of 50k members; but when the want to vote for there coin only 500 people would vote.
I know of a few ladies in crypto; but I don't advice any female to go into day trading; cause woman and emotions doesn't work well; except long term hold and bounties
That's not a coincidence. |
|
|
|
The usual. Copy and pasting: In my opinion. Bitcoin and Gold both have differences features mostly on the value and uses. There are many ways to earn bitcoin like trading, invest, gambling and to join signature or bounty. Most people nowadays are negotiating on the cryptocurrency because you can use the bitcoin buying stuff or use it payment on online or even offline Otherwise, Gold is also better investment but too hard to have it, and if you already have the gold, you should keep it safe.
Yes that right, I'm also think like that Bitcoin and gold are two different things, Bitcoin is not a gold competitor because market share is different, if any say Bitcoin can replace gold then it will never happen, gold until whenever will be accepted and price stable. So Bitcoin will not be possible to replace gold, let alone I do not think that Bitcoin is a competitor for gold. I think bitcoin and gold are two different and separate things, bitcoin is not a gold competitor because market share is different, if any say bitcoin can replace gold then it will never happen, gold until whenever will be accepted and price stable while bitcoin not necessarily can last 100 years.
|
|
|
|
Betting on Everton on an ambitious parlay. Last night choked up on all my legs, teams just aren't as sharp after the break, goals notwithstanding.
I put my free £5 bet on a five fold including Everton. They should win but I think it'll only be by a goal or two. Will then need Fiorentina, Borussia Monchengladbach, Inter and Arsenal all to win as well though for £95. Don't normally put more than 3-folds on but I get a little bit riskier or experimental with my free bets. I’m looking forward to the midweek CL action though. I’ve got tickets for LFC vs Red Star & also the LFC vs Cardiff game next weekend.
Yeah, well I'd much rather watch the best of Europe than a load of mediocre English teams. Some big games as well like Manchester Utd v Juventus and Barcelona v Inter. |
|
|
|
|
That board needs a dedicated moderator or two (as do all the other boards) as it doesn't have any currently, but we also probably need some sort of Beginners and Help sub for the alt coin section as it is mostly full of things to do with Alt coins and their bounties or how to earn etc. Implementing a Newbie welcome message when users sign up with links to the most commonly asked questions and helpful guides etc will also reduce the same old trash begin asked over and over again and I think that's something we should do asap.
|
|
|
|
|
What is the name of the account? The ban will continue to say seven days and doesn't count down but it will expire after seven. You probably just haven't waited sufficient time as it doesn't magically expire on the morning of the seventh day but after whatever time it was issued and most people who complain about this are just being impatient. For instance, if the ban was given at 5pm you'll have to wait untill then.
|
|
|
|
Content is usually checked, but it's a tedious process and sometime you can mess up. Sometimes you think you've got a hit on google but will then find it's a site that has copied this one like in this case and there are several bitcointalk mirrors you need to be weary of. Can anything be done against Swiftcointalk administrator? I suppose not much.
Probably not. It is a pretty scummy practice though and a few sites have done this in the past. Maybe theymos could fight them legally with cease and desists but not sure if that's something he has time for or even wants to do. Anyway, as mainconcept already said, he is actually a copy and paster and this is the post he was spotted and banned for: I don't think bitcoin failed as a currency because bitcoin is used for online transaction and the price of bitcoin is not stable, but if bitcoin become stable maybe it might be possible that bitcoin will become currency, but for now, there's no chance that bitcoin will be used as currency. Bitcoin is not a failed cryptocurrency, its more of a springboard.
The bitcoin price is not stable, if bitcoin become stable maybe it might be possible that bitcoin will become currency, but for now, there's no chance that bitcoin will be used as currency.
I really just wish this practice just didn't exist in the first place as it's a massive waste of time and tedious and time-consuming to detect, but as long as you can get paid to post here it's something we're going to have to continue to tackle. I'm not sure how you could ever stomp it out completely but maybe there should be some sort of auto-checker implemented to detect abuse on the go. |
|
|
|
got it tnx! made some article about coin.. but i bet its only beneficial to that coin thats why i dont get merit  Keep making those posts and the merit will surely come. It is indeed simple but that doesn't mean its functional or the most efficient way to distribute merit. Let's give the man some credit for at least presenting something out of his "ass", instead of just whining and trolling like others do.
But if this was the system theymos actually implemented then people would be crying about that and probably much more so than they do with the current system because it is incredibly more difficult to earn merit. People are so against this system they'll propose anything just so they can oppose it in some way.
I agree with all of your insightful responses hilariousetc, yet I would like to elaborate on this one correct point that you made.
Of course, KingZee seems more than capable of earning a lot of merits, so long as he put forth the efforts. He has decent language skills and decent abilities to connect facts and logic. Surely part of his problem remains his exaggeration, his whining and his negativism, so surely, this system is designed to make it more difficult for whiner-tards like that to rank up without first going through the motion of contribution and even a significant amount of contribution before they are going to be able to reach the highest of forum ranks.
Even though some of us, including yours truly, remains quite unwilling to send any merit to such a member, there are other members who are similarly contrary and similarly jaded who are ready, wiling and able to give merits to such seemingly "undeserving" members.
By the way, even though my current mindset is to block myself from giving merit(s) to KingZee, I am not necessarily stuck in my ways, because if, in the future, I see interesting and or contributory posts coming from him/her, then I am not the kind of person to hold a grudge, unless the negativism is so stuck in my head that I have to see meaningful changes in the consistency of the member to contribute to the forum.
Rightly so, each of us have differing thresholds in determining whether and how much to send merit to other members, but I do believe that even seemingly fucktard members can concentrate on their efforts and posts to the forum and transform themselves in such a way that members will change their minds about NOT giving merits to them after they begin to read "better" contributory posts from such previously blocked member.
He doesn't even need any additional merits to join the campaign he keeps trying to; all he needs is to make decent posts, but I'm not going to merit people just for complaining at the system, especially when they're suggesting something much worse, but wouldn't have an issue in meriting other posts of his. He's just needlessly whining because he's not automatically a Hero or Legendary and this prevents him earning maximum in most campaigns but is irrelevant to Chipmixer so if I was him I'd just concentrate on my posts rather than anything else. |
|
|
|
I’ve had a crap day for my predictions. I’ve somehow stayed in 2nd place but I did really badly. I got 3.5 points today, that’s pretty embarrassing. Must do better.
So did I but seems most people did quite poorly. A lot of unexpected results. I didn't expect there to be many goals in the Cardiff game and went with 1-1 and Cardiff ended up getting their first win in the league with a 4-2 victory. I got screwed out of a perfect score on the City game with the late goal from Mahrez to make it 5-0 (as did three other players). Bournemouth screwed me out of my weekly three-fold accumulator win with a 0-0 draw. Not gonna bother watching any of the games today. |
|
|
|
^ Yup. Da Faaak.  Edit: Seriously. 6 minute extra time? Rigged. My thoughts exactly Chelse homeground, Ibramioch rules with his money i guess, they stole the victory from Manchester United. Do you guys actually believe that? Because you're fools if you do. Sometimes there's a lot of injury time and sometimes there's goals in them and sometimes there isn't. This is the Premier League not a Sunday league and the ref wasn't going to play until Chelsea equalised. If you watched the game there was a lot of stoppages and Man United were wasting time towards the end which should and usually is accounted for. I actually think a lot of the time there's not enough extra time played if you count all the actual stoppages in the game. Anyways, does anyone think it was a fair result? Looking at the statistics, it seems like Chelsea had the ball possession but both teams had almost the same amount of shots on target.
Yes. It was pretty even in my opinion. United did well and better than expected though. |
|
|
|
hello can i beg for only 1 merit ? ive been looking for 1 and i have 40 plus activity Begging for merits is a good way to get negative feedback. Please don't do this. i see  so what should i do to get merit then? no clue Make posts that are deemed meritable by the community. Alternatively, you can purchase a copper membership to get the benefits of a Member-level account. |
|
|
|
If someone participates in a bounty from more than 1 account, it's counted as abusing. But what if someone uses 2 accounts and participate in 2 different bounty? Will it be counted as abusing?
This isn't a Meta issue but a reputation issue, and there are no forum rules on this, but something is probably only seen as abuse by the community if it's against the stated terms of the campaign. Not sure why this would count as abuse though. I'm on two different signature campaigns on two different accounts (if you count them as 'bounties'). |
|
|
|
As has been proposed and discussed numerous times before this isn't ever going to happen and nor should it.
No kidding--and I don't know of any other discussion forum in existence where you need to prove who you are in order to be a member. And to have that absurd requirement on a forum about a form of currency based on anonymity and populated with individuals who value privacy is just stupid, stupid, stupid. Bitcointalk has a lot of problems, yes, but all of them could be handled without resorting to KYC measures. I wouldn't trust the admin with any of my data anyway, given how many times the forum has been hacked. Bitcointalk has a unique problem with getting paid to post and obviously we've still got a long way to go to try tackle that. I get why people are suggesting such things as KYC and their heart is probably in the right place as it would undoubtedly curb a lot of abuse, but it's just simply not practical and isn't ever going to happen. We need to find alternate ways of tackling the issue and I think punishing those who continually pay people to spam is the next logical step and would help a lot. |
|
|
|
In addition, outside this website, these merits don't mean anything and can not be used at all. To be honest, I do not quite understand as well. I am grateful for the merits that were given to me, but I genuinely do not understand why so many people are hung up on getting them. They said it was for the signature campaigns, but I guess if you do not have services to offer and are just here to learn cryptocurrency and communicate with other crypto users then it should not matter much? After all, it is not like we can trade them for bitcoins, right? They don't mean anything in the real world? Merits get you laid. Scientific fact. There's a reason people call them pussy points. Next time you're trying to impress a lady whip out your phone and show her your merit page. Instant aphrodisiac. Though maybe it depends on how many you have. One or two probably isn't impressive but when you're one of the merit big boys like me I have to beat women off me. It's a gift and a curse. After all, it is not like we can trade them for bitcoins, right?
You can. People sell merits and it'll probably become big business. Most people will probably just cough up for Copper Membership rather than buy the one merit to become Junior though, but to become higher ranks merit will become increasingly harder to get and more valuable/costly. |
|
|
|
does anyone really care about Newcastle United - Brighton & Hove Albion, Bournemouth - Southampton and Cardiff City - Fulham?
I care. I normally wouldn't even pay attention to those games, but ever since I've joined this Pool I've been keeping an eye out for those games that I usually wouldn't care to watch, now I might even sit and watch those "boring" games because I want to know if I predicted the correct scores  Well one thing I like about the pool is that you get a lot of value for your money - an entire season of gambling for a very small fee and every game certainly matters when you've got money on the line. You can watch the results come in with interest, but I still don't really care about those games and certainly won't be making any attempt to watch them. I think they'll all be pretty boring games but sometimes you get surprises. |
|
|
|
So explain to me how does the merit system prevent heroes and legendaries from posting equally low effort posts if they start with more points, have more to distribute to each other, and vice versa, how does it encourage lower ranks to merit posts that deserve to be merited, if they don't have many sMerits nor Merits themselves?  It doesn't. It prevents new users from becoming them just by shitposting, I wouldn't be against everyone starting from zero merit either, but then you would still have all the shitposters crying about that. "y u take awai mah merit! Its nut fare!". We really can't win. Without merit the forum is a shitshow, but with it people complain that they can't get paid for shitposting.
Lol? I don't even have a sig campaign under me.
Where did I say you did, but you're actively trying to join the highest paid one repeatedly. I already know I'm never getting merited because the top people who have the points only merit the people they care about. You've already been merited. I'd say you'd actually have little problem in rising through the ranks, but this is something you seem to be unwilling to do. You seem to want it all now, and that's not how this works. So what are you even talking about? I am writing these long-ass posts out of pure disgust of the merit system. Well this would be fair enough if you don't ever join a signature campaign, but this is exactly what you're trying to do, so you have motivation for writing "long-ass posts". In fact, you have little to no chance of getting on the ChipMixer campaign without a history of great posts. If only every campaign was run like them there wouldn't be an issue with spam. And YES, I don't want to post 60 posts a week to make 20$/week. That's the whole POINT I'm arguing for. It's MERIT that denied me access to higher paying sigs. This last paragraph you wrote is just pure garbage..
This is a bitcoin forum to discuss bitcoin. If you don't want to talk about bitcoin without payment then you're probably on the wrong board and you could be better spent earning money elsewhere. You are 100% only here to earn and that is exactly why the merit system was introduced to stop people just signing up in droves to bleed the system. If you want to earn then bide your time, get the merits and try join a signature campaign. You've already got enough merits to join most campaigns so I don't really know what you're moaning for. Regardless if your observation is true or not, merit isn't even a problem for those newbie accounts. It BECOMES a problem for legit newbies who WANT to commit to the forums to make money later, because it's now HARDER for them to breach the line to become relevant.
The fact that they're newbies already fucks them over because no one is going to merit them, and that's it, stuck in a deadlock, not just as newbies, but again and again until they reach Hero level.
What exactly are "legit newbies". This is a bitcoin discussion forum and "legit newbies" can post about bitcoin here as intended. The fact that you can get paid from posting here is secondary, but I don't believe people should be able to come here and get paid for posting straight away. The fact that we require one merit to be able to do so is nothing and should be much, much more, but if you want to earn more money here then you now need to put in the time and earn the merit and ranks. With the merit system ranks actually mean something now and are something people could be proud of once they achieve. Here's a solution I proposed a few posts ago : Or maybe the merit system but in reverse, instead of people being able to +1 people, how about them being able to -1. No one might care about meriting a well-written post, but that doesn't matter because it also prohibits people from using merit as a bargain chip. On the other hand, if a user posts some extremely low quality post, make other users punish him. Really? How is this any different? This is actually a far worse system and I don't think you've actually thought it through. If we would have implemented this system you'd be here complaining about that right now as would thousands of other angry shitposters who had been neg-bombed into oblivion and have negative chance of being able to earn. How would they even get that back to positive or neutral without some sort of +1? Why are negatives so important? Because they give weight to neutral points. Just like trust. If a user has positive merit : This guy knows how to get himself sucked by other users. If a user has negative merit : This user writes shitposts and spam. This wouldn't work and isn't a solution to anything and would be far worse than the merit system. I don't get why you are ok with giving people negative points but positive merit is a no-no. How would it even work? Can anyone give negative points? What happens if someone who doesn't like you and gives you negative points for every post you make? You would never be able to join a campaign. How is that better than making decent posts and hoping someone merits you? You're so blindsided by your dislike of the merit system you'll propose something that would be infinitely worse and more abused just because. So how about another idea, decentralize it. (ha-ha) Make everyone able to give out merit, just not by large quantities, and only by peer confirmation.
Someone posts a good post? If 5 different users give it a +, the user gets rewarded by a point. But wait, what if people make junior armies to spam +?
Let's see, let's make it weighted. For a user to get a point out of a useful post, he's need + from 3 different user ranks, and 5 total +. Everyone has the ability to give out +s, but they all have an equal amount of currency. Rank doesn't matter, each user can only + 5 posts per month. These are just numbers I'm pulling out of my ass. But I hope you see the point.
It's really not hard to try and come up with a less biased system if you spent a long enough time thinking about it. But like I said, I'm burnt out of this topic and feel like I'm wasting my time contributing. You can reply to let me know your opinion, but I'm afraid this is going to be my last post, cheers.
You're just needlessly complicating something that is actually very simple and desperately trying to come up with alternative systems which you haven't really thought through and which would in fact be much more worse. You're complaining that merit is hard to get, but now you're suggesting people can only get merit if five others agree. So now it's five times harder to get merits. |
|
|
|
|
A simple search for "kyc" in Meta would have got you your answers. As has been proposed and discussed numerous times before this isn't ever going to happen and nor should it. All it would do is put off the small percentage of actual genuine users who come here and just want to talk about bitcoin or get some help, while those who stand to profit from being here would find any way they could to bypass and abuse the restrictions. People can easily buy fake IDs and document scams and the farmers would be the ones doing this because they stand to gain from it. If I signed up to this forum and it asked me for ID and KYC verifications I'd be like fuck this shit and not even bother completing the registration.
|
|
|
|
Hi
My main account got banned about a month ago.
Ive not posted outside of "Meta" at all & i Won't do that in future. My new acc get banned too?
Why are you asking the same questions expecting to get different results?  Why would you even want an account just to post in Meta? You're only really allowed to post/appeal your ban in there once banned, it doesn't mean you can use it to essentially evade your ban if that's what you're asking. |
|
|
|
OP, who exactly are you accusing of giving merits to their "friends"? From what I've seen, it's mostly the shitposting bounty hunter families that do that, and a lot of those idiots have been tagged. Those people wouldn't dream of giving merits to people who make posts that deserve them.
How do you know who merit sources are "friends" with anyway?
He doesn't. He's just one of those 'the rich keep getting richer' idiots who wants to have a whinge because nobody is going to merit his half-assed posts. Since the introduction of this merit policy, I have been following how people with merit source award the merit. One thing I have observed per the given out of this precious merit is that most people award this merit on the basis of "whom you know or who knows you". Just a few people are going by the actual brain or principle behind the institution of this merit policy. A lot of people with the merit source just share the merit among themselves forgetting about the intended purpose. At times, you could see that a certain post deserves to be rewarded because of its importance to the forum members but the otherwise happened. Now my question is "Is the merit really rewarded based on merit or whom you know?
Please I need your observations on this merit policy and its distribution.
Yes, this is how it works and we don't like people muscling in on our patch trying to take away our precious merits. You haven't got any merits because you're a bounty hunter making average-to-shit posts. You're also plagiarising content: Blockchain is a shared public ledger on which the entire Bitcoin network relies. All confirmed transactions are included in the block chain. It allows Bitcoin wallets to calculate their spendable balance so that new transactions can be verified thereby ensuring they're actually owned by the spender.
https://bitcoin.org/en/how-it-works |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
