Ok LoyceV I think it is the most appropriate. The only thing I want to say about it is that I'm probably not going to get into lenghty discussions about it.

Since we are talking about the correct use of the trust system, whoever thinks that I have made an incorrect use can distrust me, or if they think that somehow I have done a trust abuse or something can leave a negative feedback on my profile. I am not the least bit concerned about these two possible consequences for doing something that the voice of my conscience tells me is the right thing to do.

Leaving this aside, I wanted to ask you about sockpuppet voting for DT1 because I don't think I understand it well. If I were to create an alt and build up the account, I guess I would end up creating a trust list. If the trust list is the same as the other, I guess it would not make sense to have it because it would be like voting twice for the same people, that I understand. Suppose that for some reason such as with one I write controversial posts on the P&S board and with the other I don't, I don't want to reveal that they are two alts of mine. And let's also suppose that one is in the Best Change signature campaign and the other in a campaign with high posting requirements in the gambling section. So they interact in different parts of the forum with different people and as a result end up having a trust list with some common members but different ones (both for trust and distrust). Would that be considered sockpuppet voting?

Hi Hhampuz, I was going to send you a PM but since I'm not the only one in the same situation I'll ask you here. In my case I am in a campaign that ends tomorrow. Is it OK if I wait to change signatures until tomorrow, as usual when people change campaigns? In that case I will write here the moment I change the signatures.

It fits in the overall picture, it's not just an isolated fact.

Let's recap and I'll explain why I'm going to leave him a negative tag after careful consideration.

Royse777 was a person with a great reputation on the forum, unimpeachable until a few months ago. He started promoting Bitlucy casino, which at the beginning was advertised as Bitlucy777 in which he announced that he was going to be a partner.

There began to be problems with withdrawals with what I smelled that it was going to be a scam. When we saw the problem, DireWolfM and I were the first to give Royse777 a red tag and igehh and I were the first to support Solosanz's flag in this regard.

In the end, the worst suspicions were confirmed, Bitlucy was an exit scam. This in normal conditions would have meant a total destruction of Royse777's reputation if it were not for the fact that he was a person who has distributed a lot of money in signature campaigns and for wearing his avatars. In this, another DT and I have agreed talking about it by PM.

When Royse777 gave explanations, many people who had red tagged or supported the flag started to withdraw the support, forgiving him because we understood that somehow he had been involved in the problem without bad intentions.

But, and here comes the important part, what evidence do we have that Royse777 did not play a major role in Bitlucy(777)? Only two: his word and that of AnotherAlt, that is, that of naim027, Dic3L0v3r and Crypt0S0ul. Someone who has shown that he would sell his son to the devil in order to get money, who has cheated in every possible way.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5403679.msg60500779#msg60500779


And then it turns out that not only does Royse777 keep it a secret that this guy is ban evading but he includes him in his project to raise 7 Bitcoin on the forum?

Sorry, if you cover up for someone we can't trust and hire him for a big project with money involved, you can't be trusted.

I do not trust Royse777 for deals or $0.01, let alone for projects where he wants to raise 7 Bitcoin.

Well, in view of recent events, I, who did not promise to keep the secret (I was simply asked for) am going to confirm that Royse777 is Casino Critique, which I could prove with the PM, but I don't think it will be necessary.

Yes Royse777 not only helped to keep secret that AnotherAlt was Naim027, a known cheater and plagiarist while evading the ban, but also included him in his Casino Critique project.

Right now I'm hesitating because at the very least I'm going to leave him a neutral negative spirit tag, if not a negative tag directly and I don't care if those of you who are his friends fill me with retaliatory negative feedbacks.

I will think about it in the next few hours.

Hello,

I'm not sure if I post this here but I just noticed the issue about Naim027 and I can't comment on any of his locked threads. I am putting it here because of what I commented in a previous post, and it is somewhat related to the trust system.

It turns out that today when I go to check my trust list, I see that AnotherAlt had removed me from his trust list, when I didn't realize that he had included me.

When I saw in his ban appeal thread in meta that he said that a casino had scammed him by not paying him for being a moderator, I remember thinking: "this guy is in trouble for everything he is involved in".

Now I see his confession, after having been caught, and I am stunned.

I think theymos is not in favor of it, but I think the alts should be controlled in some way. It is good to have a couple of alts as many of you have, or even create another to say controversial things that someone wants to say without being recognized, but this to be able to create infinite alts that go building trust despite being a recognized cheaters or also create alts everywhere to question the reputation of forum members I think it should be put some limit.

By the way, I have not even read what he says in his confession. He has no credibility whatsoever.

Edit: After rereading the threads well, I think there is a second derivative of this, which yahoo62278 has brought to my attention.

Royse777 knew that the person behind AnotherAlt was Naim027, who was ban evading.

That at the very least is going to get him a neutral tag of negative spirit from me. And I think it's more likely to be a negative tag, and I don't care about those of you who hold Royse777 in high esteem.
  

I had not realized that the OP has been accepted into yahoo62278's campaign.  


It will be interesting to see what repercussions the new rules have. Maybe they will have good repercussions and other campaign managers will start implementing them. Or maybe they could, in some cases, have negative consequences such as possible merit abuse or creating pointless threads to try to win the weekly merit.

In any case, we will see.



May I suggest that you make explicit a more concrete definition of what postbursting means to you? In the thread I opened we did not seem to agree. Like saying on your campaing threads: "Posts published within an interval of less than 20 minutes will not be paid." Also, it does not seem that today you have the same idea of postbursting as in that quote of yours that I commented on by PM.

(I had to unignore this section as the thread was moved here btw).

I voted for 15000 above, as I believe the bottom of this cycle has already been seen at $17.5. This is if no catastrophic event happens for Bitcoin such as a news similar to the mining ban in China last year. Taking things like this out of the way, I think we will still be sideways a bit to go up with ups and downs to the $30-40k area, and that we will stay below $70k for sure until after the next halving.

I have agreed to leave the campaign I am in, managed by him, for two reasons. I don't share his conception of burstposting and I don't like the 1 merit a week rule. On average, I earn much more than 1 merit a week, but I earn merits in a variable way, so there are weeks when I earn no merit at all and others when I earn 30 merits. For me it would be easier to comply with a rule of 20 or 30 merits a month than 1 merit a week. And I wouldn't want to have to ask for a review of my posts because I didn't get any merits that week.

We will have to see over time if this has given way to merit abuse in some cases, but I don't think it is generalized.

Yes, in this case I am much more prepared than I was for the 2007 crisis. I was younger then too.

In fact, we have been in an inflation crisis for some time now and I have hardly noticed it personally, because even though prices have gone up, I have been able to save and invest more


I have already taken the steps. I have a good emergency fund between cash, money in my bank account, some gold and Bitcoin. Apart from that also investments.

I wouldn't see it as funny if they don't have a regulation on cryptocurrencies but one on gambling in general and/or online gambling.

Upcoming regulations on the subject are sure to affect the sector. If they are European style, what they will do is screw the business in exchange for the states being able to collect far less taxes than they could collect without screwing it up. With the regulation of fiat gambling it already happened, as in many European countries barriers were put in place only allowing national sites, where only people from the same country could gamble, thus compartmentalizing the market and screwing up the business.

Bitcointalk Profile Link: Poker Player
Current amount of posts: 4171
bech32 BTC address for payouts: bc1qumasf7an5gal6k3xwrlf355u3qrwe0wjvllrl5
EARNED merit in the last 120 days: 233

Will change signature and avatar if accepted.

None, to be honest.

I don't want anyone to know that I have Bitcoin, and only the people close to me who I would trust with my life know. Everyone else, when the subject comes up, I get interested in it and ask questions as if I don't know much. It's funny because there are more than one who goes as an expert because he has read two things and has no idea.

I think you are right. And for the next presidential elections, if he runs again and things don't change much, the same thing will happen but the other way around.


I see that argument repeatedly, and also referred to Putin: that if they wanted to drop atomic bombs, the people in the middle would not allow it.

I'm not so clear. I don't know exactly how it works but I'm sure that disobeying an order at such a high level could land you in jail for a long time. Apart from the fact that if the enemies have dropped an atomic bomb on your country, the pressure to obey the chain of command is much greater.

I bet you didn't bet much. If that were the experience of the vast majority of gamblers, casinos would not exist long ago. There is no thrill in a downward downward line. After a while, you just know from experience that you're going to lose.

If gamblers get hooked on gambling, it is precisely because they occasionally win. So, I think it would be more accurate to represent it with a line with ups and downs, although with a downward trend in the long term. It would be that line but with small peaks upwards.

This is what I was referring to before:


If we add to this the fact that the European Union is going to be a big loser from the Ukrainian conflict (apart from Ukraine itself, which is suffering the most in terms of human losses and destruction of its territory), I don't see a very bright future for the EU.

Strict regulations can serve to redistrubute when a market is already developed and has created a good amount of wealth, but imposing strict regulations on a developing market will impede or at least slow down development and wealth creation.

No, we don't. From now on we can continue discussions about burstposting as fellow forum members instead of as a kind of employee and employer.

I suppose that my decision to leave the campaign is influenced by my financial situation. If I am going to be participating in the forum, I would rather get paid for doing so than not getting paid, but the income I receive from signature campaings is a small amount compared to my total income, so leaving the campaign is not a big deal.

Although my intention with the thread was to talk about burstposting in general, after the responses and a little healthy debate, I am going to lock it, as the thread is very focused on my case. If anyone wants to, they can open another thread about burstposting and maybe refer to this one. Or if anyone thinks it is necessary, you can PM me so that I unlock it.

Well, first of all I have been hesitating whether to move this thread to the reputation section, but recently I put it on ignore and I guess it's better here, because when I opened the thread I didn't intend to focus so much on my specific situation but that this situation would serve to discuss what is an acceptable burst posting or not.


Probably earning $70 a week from signature campaigns is way more important for you than it is for me.

As a result of this, I have proposed to yahoo62278 to finish this week in the campaign and leave my place for someone else. It has been via PM but it is no secret. I think that the difference in vision was going to end with me leaving the campaign anyway, either me leaving or him kicking me out.


I have to say that I wasn't feeling very well yesterday, and the response was probably a bit more rude than it would have been if I had been fine. But yes, basically I have that way of writing, if you consider that it is negative for the campaign, the best thing is that we part ways.


This is not accurate. I do not have posting intervals of less than 5 minutes. And even less posting intervals of 1 minute between posts, except in very exceptional cases. 8-10 minutes when I'm active and I've just had a coffee are more normal.


I don't even know why you explain this because it doesn't apply to me. I am going to analyze the first week I was in the campaign.

I wrote the 7 days of the week, in those 7 days I wrote 29 posts. In some of them the time interval between posts was 5-10 minutes, like 7 or 8 posts. In the rest there were time intervals of 15, 20 minutes or hours. Not only in that week, but on a regular basis, I rarely write beyond page 5. The vast majority of my posts are written on the first or second page of threads, among other things because I think I know how advertising works.


I also don't want to make it too long or focus on a personal discussion. I think yahoo62278 is a great asset to the forum, and that if we simply can't come to an agreement, the best thing to do is to stop working together.


That's exactly what I think and why I created this thread.


Because I don't want to focus the discussion on my particular case, but in general on burstposting and how tolerable it is or not in the forum in general. My case ends with me leaving the campaing in one way or another.


That's a ****ing shitposter, I've just put him on ignore.


That's exactly what I think. Sorry that I am out of merits, otherwise I would have given you a bunch.


I had the same idea.

It does not leave me very calm to think that the leader who can exchange a few atomic bombs with Putin confuses what his son died of.

It could be that he was lying on purpose, which is not uncommon in a politician, but I doubt he would do so on this issue.  Biden has shown on several occasions that his cognitive abilities are far from 100%, but... this?

Biden says son Beau 'lost his life in Iraq' during Colorado speech

"President Biden erroneously said that his son, Beau, "lost his life in Iraq" during a speech in Colorado on Wednesday.

"I say this as a father of a man and won the Bronze Star, the conspicuous service medal, and lost his life in Iraq," Biden said.

Beau died of brain cancer in 2015."

At the moment we do not have any clear indication that the bull run has started, on the contrary, everything seems to indicate that in the near future we will continue to follow kind of sideways at the level we are at now. The hashrate is good news because it gives security to the network, but I don't expect a real bull run until after the next halving, unless the OP wants to consider a bull run going up to $30k.

The normal will be that at some point we will start to move up and leave the level of above $20k, but beating $69k and then $100k, which I think will take several tries, will only happen after the next halving.