Social media platforms should provide more tools to help people decide for themselves what is true and what is fake news/disinformation. One way might be to use those in a persons network to help a person decide what are reliable sources.

I am strongly against social media companies censoring fake news as they are not entities that I want to be arbiters of truth. They are potentially more powerful than government in their control of information and would generally be held unaccountable if they censored true information that is damaging to their priorities.

This very well could be something other than its stated goal of lighting the sky in China. They say it will save ~$180 in annual lighting/electric costs, but what would they do when it is cloudy?

I speculate it’s true purpose is to either spy on their citizens or to interfere with other country’s spy satellites imaging China.

Maybe not...maybe ~43% is closer to accurate (even under liberal standards of tagging people)...

What if you are offa merit in exchange for posting some kind of research that would normally warrant a payment? Such a post might normally receive merit however it would probably also warrant an offer of payment from the person soliciting the information.

I also regularly receive what is basically someone begging for merit. I often review their post history and decline to respond. However one might argue that it would be fair to charge for my valuable time to review someone’s posts, especially if they post in topics uninteresting to me. It would probably be unfair to charge to review posts and end up not giving a merit.

Why were you unable to reimburse the 12th top reachable user?

That weakens the case for action a little bit. Although I would probably still want action considering he worked for a US company in the US as a reporter.

He has fairly strong ties to the US and isn’t accused of doing anything that would threaten anyone’s safety.
Trump has asked the free market to ignore those who inaccurately and unfairly report on him. He hasn’t caused any form of violence or otherwise attempted to use force to compel any reporters to say certain things.

I believe he is a US citizen, which strengthens the case for intervening. I don’t think it would be good for the US, or anyone if foreign governments are able to go around killing US citizens without consequence.

If this was sanctioned by a foreign government, action needs to be taken.

I suspect that changing the laws/reducing the red tape around deporting illegals will make the wall redundant. A southern wall may still be built, however the law will no longer give incentives to cross the border illegally.

Some political pundits have said that Biden is the only democrat who could potentially defeat Trump in 2020. He is probably moderate enough to win the general election, although post 2016, the Democratic Party has moved fairly sharply to the left and might not be able to win the nomination. The fact that he was Obama’s VP in 2016 may raise questions about his involvement in the spying on the Trump campaign in 2016, and even if he was not involved, it may bring up unflattering things about the Obama administration.

I would hope that Democrats have learned their lesson regarding essentially rigging who wins the nomination.

I would be surprised to see a republican run as a third party absent some major scandal regarding Trump that has actual substance. Flake isn’t running for reelection in part because his stance against Trump makes him unable to win an election in Arizona. I would also be surprised to see him run in a situation that would effectively guarantee someone with some kind of a socialist platform becoming president, which is virtually guaranteed based on the current Democratic Party.

If Flake, or another republican had already set up a formal campaign (or a PAC), it would be a matter of public record, and would make the news, which I haven’t seen.

If the Democrats have another what some believe to be an unfair primary process, we may see a third party democrat run. Some have also said that the Creepy porn lawyer is a republican plant, and if this is true, he will run as a third party (he may also otherwise run).

Trump could have won with some third party winning a few small states in 2016, and the same is true in both of Obama elections and Bushs 2004 election (and others). I suspect that a political party (and voters) will generally rally around a single candidate, even if not their nominee. If voters believe the president will be chosen by congress they may vote in smaller numbers if they would otherwise vote for that party, so the party that only has one nominee may win states the other party would otherwise win.

It sounds like this means that for all intents and purposes, you will only need to use a captcha once, when you create your account, provided you save the bypass link and can access it when you login.

This is probably a step forward for tor users, although CF sometimes otherwise makes using tor difficult. It would probably be helpful (and marginally profitable) to sell unique .onion addresses intended for individual users that can be used to access the forum via tor. Privacy would only be impacted marginally, although depending on how much information you think CF collects, it may help privacy.

1 - Find proof
2 - Report said thread with said proof
3 - ? ? ?
4 - Profit

CNN released a poll a few days ago that has Joe Biden favored to win the nomination at 33%, followed by Bernie Sanders at 13% and Warren at 9%.

I can see someone like Creepy Porn Lawyer doing something stupid like running as a third party and effectively removing any chance of Trump not getting reelected.

Signing a message means you have incremental loss of security. However this is nominal and realistically won’t lead to the compromise of a private key.

People can call theymos greedy. Or theymos can recycle money he receives back into the economy via donations to charities.

Just because you take money to allow posts, you are not under any obligation to filter out scams, as I believe he would still be exempted from liability under section 230 of the communications decency act.

I also believe theymos should change people to rank up, or at least to wear a signature in order to give incentives to not post garbage.

Do you care to explain why this is a problem? If one person uses two Twitter accounts in a Twitter campaign, the advertiser still gets the same amount of advertising as if the accounts were run by two people.

If there is overlap in the followers, this might need to be addressed, however having multiple accounts doesn’t affect this.

I fully understand why bounty managers push this — fighting against one person enrolling with multiple accounts will give legitimacy to the high price they charge for their services. However they are very much not acting in the best interest of their customers. One might even argue they are harming their customers.

If you are referring to forcing someone who is participating in say a Twitter campaign to prove who their bitcointalk account is via a signed message, I see little value in this. I also see little value in forcing someone to post in a thread to prove the same.

Someone having a certain rank bitcointalk account will not affect the effectiveness of the Twitter advertising.

The forum does have rules. Although they have often gone unenforced, especially when it comes to ban evasion.

I don’t think regulations of bounty managers will accomplish anything because they can just manage campaigns off site, and attempting to regulate may preemptively do that.

Even if regulations were put in place, I wouldn’t penalize BMs because they can’t speak English or because they themselves make shit post garbage.

I think a better solution would be to charge to create both an ANN thread and to create a bounty thread. Some exceptions can be made if a coin exceeds certain criteria, especially for ANN threads. The cost should not be nominal, perhaps in the thousands of dollars.

There are very few people in the bitcoin ecosystem that I am aware of that are against an ETF.

A ETF is not going to create bitcoin out of nowhere regardless of if they are backed by bitcoin or by bitcoin futures (I’m not sure what else they could be backed by).

The only way bitcoin can potentially be created out of thin air is if on chain transactions become prohibitively expensive enough so that people store bitcoin on bitcoin banks that lend out deposits and those loans are used to pay others via off chain transactions within the bank. A bitcoin bank could potentially owe 2mm BTC to deposit holders, hold 500k BTC via settled transactions, and own 1.55mm BTC in promissory notes (the net present value, including accounting for estimated credit losses).

IIRC, theymos said he didn’t want to help create regulations that would likely help the ETF get approved (and in turn would likely increase adoption). This is counterproductive because it is possible that eventual regulations will be more restrictive than what theymos May have gotten implemented.

I am confident that theymos is not going to implement regulations as requested by the OP. I would probably be against these types of regulations anyway. It would probably be better to reform the forum in other ways that improves the experience of users.

It is of my opinion that Gavin played a sufficiently large role in early bitcoin development that he deserves additional recognition. Maybe not necessarily a VIP badge although when Mark Kappalous (or however you spell it) hosted the forum he was given a free VIP badge.

He took over development after satoshi stopped working on development and even though others also contributed, the bitcoin project may very well could have been abandoned if it weren’t for Gavin.

His views on the future of development differs significantly from those in power and he won’t be given additional recognition.   

Theymos doesn’t believe in regulations. He refuses to participate in the creating of regulations that would even result in greater freedoms (ability to buy btc in etf form) for bitcoin holders.