Providing links that are inaccurate is no more accurate than not providing a link. You have linked natural news which are known for their peer reviewed studies and credible news stories. I have never seen you link a credible study or article its always from second fiddle websites claiming to be news sites.

I am convinced that BADecker is either Alex Jones or is a wanna be. Every view point he has he takes the most ludicrous and stupid approach and argues it until he is blue in the face and worse ignores all counter arguments with even stupider beliefs. I am pretty sure they do it as a meme rather than believing the shit they spout.

Comparing a new disease with an old one is pointless. Older diseases have had more time to adapt and evolve and therefore get better at surviving. Covid is a new disease which is developing at an alarming rate. Anyway your point is moot if we allow more and more deadly diseases and viruses to stay alive the more people that die even if there are other diseases which are more transmittable and deadly. Covid is a virus and therefore it can be killed off by isolating from other infected people when there is no people to spread to the virus dies. A disease can operate a little different and sometimes be able to jump to animals covid has not seen many cases of it jumping to animals which reduces the issue and therefore it is possible that we could kill off covid. Diseases cannot be starved off and require cures.

Get your facts right and your bias out of here.

I have a question on how TapRoot improves batch validation by replacing OP_CHECKMULTISIG(VERIFY) with OP_CHECKSIGADD, to support batch validation. I have been reading through the posts and documents supplied here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5140134.0

But I have been struggling to find the documentation explaining how and why this is an improvement. Is there anyone here that can explain the technical differences between OP_CHECKMULTISIG(VERIFY) and OP_CHECKSIGADD and what that means for the future of Bitcoin?

Just look at the most popular topics on the forum and you would have answered your question. The most merited topics usually have more merit received than replies. You could have taken a look at the known merit sources which are easy to find out by looking at members monthly spend on merit and take a look at how they give their merit and if they reply in the majority of threads they have given merit too. The answer is no they do not post every time.

I see it as a joke and they are playing into the fact that Dogecoin is a meme coin and therefore promoting it is a meme. Elon Musk has been known to do this with other things before so I do not think this is too far fetched to believe. Dogecoin is a meme and while I know there are some die hard followers there is no reason why Dogecoin should be more successful than Bitcoin its transactions are cheaper but overall the project does not have many benefits over Bitcoin and has more disadvantages.

My understanding of penny auctions is that you lose the money once you have placed a bet right? If that is the case how do you prove that you are not placing bids on the back end to artificially inflate the price? Being a new company operating on trust alone is not enough in my opinion and I think a provable fair system should be put in place using the Blockchain.

Ethereum and Bitcoin instead of competing against each other I think will benefit each other for as long as both are around. The success of Ehtereum is off the back of Bitcoin and Bitcoin gets more adoption from Ethereum because Ethereum has started to appeal to more people because it has a lower entry point than Bitcoin. Then people will eventually move onto Bitcoin as their capital increases. The market share will always be skewed in the favor of Bitcoin though.

I am not going to invest in a project based on a random person on the internet telling me to do so and I advise you to reconsider investing large amounts of your capital based on previous correct advise. Your contact might have just got lucky and does not have any knowledge at all on why it did increase. I would like to know the reasons behind your contact suggesting to invest in these cryptocurrencies as at least that would allow us to research whether or not that is true and likely to pump the market.

There is not enough educational resources out there for investing in cyrptocurrency. There is a ton of information out there on getting started in other sectors of the economy but cryptocurrency is still under developed at least from a educational view point. If we could increase the education to newbies they would not take as many blind risks as they do now.

Ignoring governments there is the issue of other altcoin creators looking to challenge Satoshi with his identity out there that could become a real problem in terms of his health and his image. I could see multiple companies looking to discredit Bitcoin in hopes that they could take over from it. Just take a look at the altcoin scene and you will see that there are multiple accusations thrown at competitors and Bitcoin would be no different. To be the alpha male you have to take the current alpha male down Bitcoin is definitely the biggest target for altcoins to target and with his identify revealed there would be so many ways of doing it and would make Bitcoin more susceptible to failure because of that.

Bitcoin is probably benefiting from the amount of hard forks there has been and the amount of other altcoins that have been created because they usually fail which begs the question to the people investing why has this coin failed and not Bitcoin which would hopefully encourage them to check out the technical differences and see why Bitcoin is superior.

Good work we definitely need to see more of this around the world and not just cryptocurrency related. One thing though is that a target bag with a piece of paper stuck to it? If you are looking to get your name out there and get this movement going it might be worth investing in a more brandable way of giving it to the homeless people.

Why would we want Microsoft involved with Bitcoin? And crypto wallets inside a browser is not beneficial either since it is encouraging people to use online wallets which is a insecure way of holding any cryptocurrency. I can see Microsoft adopting a similar approach which would mean a lot more people being targeted for attacks.

This is not good for Bitcoin this is only good for Microsoft and microsoft will attempt to have a monopoly in another area and then they will exploit its customers like they always have done.

I think they are both the same thing. It requires a skillful chef as you say to combine the different ingredients and it is not any different for combing different things of cryptography. Satoshi had to have the knowledge of it and understand it and he had to have a wide skill set. He may have not been the master of all of it but he was a jack of all trades. He took from multiple different sources, combined them and the first version of Bitcoin was pretty good. There was only one ever truly bad bug that meant you could generate unlimited amounts of Bitcoin but that was quickly fixed but my point is this was a large project and yet there was not too many issues with the first versions of it. That is something impressive alone and while there may have been small bugs there was not much that was truly bad.

Happy birthday Bitcointalk! The best forum on the internet!

This thread has convinced me to do some research and customize my trust list after relying on the default trust list for as long as I have been here. This will probably take a long time to sort of think up though as a I think there is a lot to consider when designing your trust list. I'm in disagreement with a lot of the options in the poll and I would like to explain why. I have selected the "something else" option.


This option makes sense at a face value right? because you trust them due to the successful trade that you guys have had. But that is not what the custom trust list is for. You should not be including members that you have trading with instead your trust list should be including people who leave trust ratings that you agree on and are valid.

This option actually annoys me because if you are including campaign managers on your list for excluding spammers then thats ridiculous. This should not be something that someone is praised for but expected to do. Campaign managers should be one of the highest reporters on the forum in my opinion because there's so many spammers in their campaigns and they are required to review every post. Why not report the post too?

Again this is ridiculous. Just because someone is releasing money that they are being PAID FOR does not benefit the forum by including them in your trust list and probably is not going to benefit you. Unless you think that including them in your trust list will get you into their campaign. You can leave a rating if you would like because you see them being trustworthy and actually paying but not include them in your trust list.

If this means judgement of other members on the forum then I would agree with including them in your trust list if they are actively leaving trust ratings and not just voicing their concerns. We need people with good judgement of character who are actively leaving ratings on the forum.


Kind of agree although I think a positive rating would be better here. If they are again leaving ratings which are accurate then I would agree that this option is a valid reason.


Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. This is THE person you want to include because they are not only actively making accurate ratings they are actively scam busting which means they are probably looking into each case in incredible depth.

Just no.


Merit has no relation with trust what so ever.


This option makes sense only if they are actively leaving trust ratings which are accurate in the local board.



Overall it all boils down to whether they are leaving good accurate trust ratings that you trust to be accurate. If they are not then its probably a better idea to show your appreciation or thoughts via a neutral or positive rating rather than including them on your trust list.

Will be taking the new recommendations and implementing them in the final version. I might include multiple versions of it with different font as thats easy to change.

Original thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4519248.0

Some small editing issues have appeared but I will be amending them in the next couple of days after I have finished the rest of my current infographic projects....

After getting Welsh's permission to make a infographic of his impressive guide to effectively report I managed to cook up a much simpler version of the thread. The idea of the infographic is to make the information provided by Welsh in a more concise and summarized version. Hopefully while reporting members will find it useful to download and keep it handy to help them. That is the goal at least.

I've simplified most of the explanations and examples and decided against including some of the information present on the original thread but I have made sure to include the thread link on the infographic for anyone seeking more detailed information.