Out of curiosity, have you received repayment? (debitme)

That is nonsense. Multiple people can have the same idea, as great minds often think alike. Further, nowhere have I claimed to be the first to publish this idea, but rather, it was, and remains to be my assertion that Vod made the change in his formula as a direct result of reading my post, and agreeing with my statement.

You are wrong. It is in fact very common for people to make the same statement multiple times.


Talking about ourselves in third person now are we?
[/quote]No, I was talking about Vod reading a post from my QS account.

Since no one has bothered to address this issue, I will explain it:

There are 8 hours in a typical work day, and Vod works really hard to discredit me, even though he knows deep down I am almost always right. For the minutes, 2 less than 9 is 7, and there are 7 natural wonders in the world, and Vod is wondering when I will post next and about what. Also, 2 plus 9 is 11, and there are 11 characters in "Quickseller". Also, 4 plus 5 is 9, it takes 9 months to have a baby, and Vod often acts like a baby when dealing with me. 

Alex Jones was recently banned from major media platforms such as Facebook, YouTube, the Apple Store, and others. These were instituted at nearly the same time. The bans handed down by Facebook and YouTube are in relation to alleged violations of "ban evasion" rules on their respective platforms.

Many in the core of the left wing MSM have championed this corporate censorship as they do not like what Alex Jones has to say, and do not like his ideology.

I do not subscribe to the conspiracy theories pushed by Alex Jones, and strongly condemn him both personally and his extremist views. However many people actively choose to listen to what he has to say, and he should have the ability to speak and publish his message.

It should be noted that it has been alleged that a certain member of the left wing media has put in particular effort into getting Alex Jones banned by various platforms, in part by giving particular scrutiny to each of his posts, and reporting each one accordingly.

It is indisputable these platforms have the right to to ban anyone they choose they do not want to participate in their platforms, however the question remains if doing so is the right thing to do. I think the answer to this question is "no".....

This sounds more like anarchy than Laissez-faire to me.

People making shit posts is a major problem around here, and there is no doubt in my mind that repeat offenders (those that are repeatedly permabanned) play a significant role in this.  It should be trivial to have automated reports that flag suspected alts of those who are banned, and an admin should then investigate and ban if appropriate.

I wouldn’t worry too much about merit “abuse”.

There is a limited amount of merit someone can merit themselves unless they have a source in their pocket. Unless of course they make a habit of making good enough posts to otherwise receive merit, in which case the “abuse” won’t have any meaningful affect.

This depends on your definition of “working”.

There are many channels currently open and new/additional channels being opened at a fairly decent pace.

There have been reports that many LN transactions fail, and according to some, the fail rate is well above 50%. This is likely due to some channel participants not having timely access to their private keys.

Due to the nature of LN, it is not possible to determine how many transactions take place over LN. Nor is ur possible to tell the value of transactions.

There was a situation a few months ago when someone’s hard drive crashed, they recovered their LN wallet from a backup, however they didn’t have the most recent LN transaction in their backup so they closed the channel with not the most recent transaction and they lost their entire balance.

In the past, altcoins would generally underperform bitcoin over medium time periods. In terms of USD, it would often both rise and fall when bitcoin did the same.

In the later half of 2017, many major alts were significantly outperforming bitcoin, by a fairly large margin. I suspect this was due to financial speculation in the crypto markets. This year, alts have generally underperformed bitcoin, especially when the price was falling. I suspect this is a result of speculative money leaving the crypto markets.

I have noticed as if lately that there have been periods of days in which alts would dump, while bitcoin would hold steady that was followed by both bitcoin and alts declining. I suspect this is people selling alts for USD and BTC and subsequently selling the BTC they received.

You appear to be operating on the assumption that they are different than me. Have you sufficiently ruled that out?

Regardless, Vod has a habit of following my posts fairly closely, so he probably did make the decision to upgrade the formula after reading the suggestion from QS. I don’t see any other reason why he would announce the change exactly 8 hours, 29 minuets, 45 seconds after I brought up the point.

(2 posts later)
http://archive.is/oRIC6

Hey, thanks for taking my advice regarding your project into consideration.

I would appreciate it if you gave me credit for my inspiration. Maybe you could add something along the lines of to each page on your website:
Some ideas on this project were inspired by Quickseller

Thanks.  

edit: you can also write how much you look up to me in your website. (obviously this is a lot)

edit2: I am 172nd in most recognized.

Universal basic income, along with other welfare systems, create disincentives to work and otherwise generate income. As such, it would be a very bad thing if UBI, in any form were enacted.

I would much rather see the various welfare programs be eliminated and/or reformed over time then see some kind of UBI system be enacted that would likely only grow and expand over time.


The only instance in which I would support UBI in any form would be in places like AK where government income far exceeds expenditures, and the government can pay their citizens some amount every year from the income their assets generates. 

Okay fair enough. However overthrowing governments can potentially be as nonviolent as a “routine“ arrest by law enforcement; for example if a military leader tells the political leader of a country they are no longer in change.

A case of citizens overthrowing their government will be significantly less violent than a war though.

I would ignore that person. I don’t give much credence to those who leave retaliatory negative trust. Those types of ratings are common and abbr ignored. If there is any evidence to backup his claims in his reference (he didn’t leave one, but if he did) you would want to respond to defend yourself, not leave a negative in retaliation.

In general, I would say a negative rating in response to any kind of criticism is inappropriate and would look at anyone who leaves a single such rating with skepticism. In extreme cases, this may be appropriate though.


In regards to your positive trust policy, I would suggest that you not give a positive rating for every transaction you are involved in. If you risked money in a transaction (intentionally or not), you should leave a positive rating. If you have traded with someone many times (either directly or as an escrow agent), and the person acts professional and otherwise appears trustworthy, you may want to consider leaving a positive rating— you need to use good judgment in these cases, and you should be confident this person is not trading with you to get a trust rating.

Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism. It would probably be best to remove the government nonviolently, preferably by getting their people to overthrow it.

You need to follow what the below link says

link

The first thing the US will do is try to overthrow the government without the use of force as this will result in the least amount of US deaths. However at the end of the day, if an invasion is necessary it will happen.

If we can’t overthrow the Iran government we will probably resort to airstrikes at first if we are going to engage in conflict with Iran. If our intelligence is confident they do not have nuclear weapons the air strikes will probably start “slow” at first and escalate over time. In general civilian deaths will be avoided and this is possible because of advances in technology.

If we believe Iran might have a nuke, we will probably try to take out their military and communications ability in a night, or even possibly in an hour. John Bolton argued for a pre-emptative nuclear strike against North Korea in a WSJ opt-ed earlier this year and he would presumably make the same argument for Iran. I would imagine we would use multiple aircraft carriers and submarines/boats capable of launching missles into Iran at the same time (the airstrikes against Syria involved a single boat last year).

I don’t think “recognized” is the most appropriate way to name this attribute. Maybe activity³ would be better. All of the attributes are a measure of how active a user is in various ways.

Legendary members, or those who were legendary as of this past January have a significant advantage in this ranking as they started with 1000 merit so in general they will have a better merit ranking

To better measure “recognition” I would suggest measuring the number of transactions a user has for trust (global not just DTN), merit and activity. Ideally you would also measure the number of times someone is mentioned in posts, however I don’t know that you have captured the content of posts.

If anyone is dumb enough to pay $760k for a forum account, then good for that guy.

The OP of that thread was using abbreviations that google translate could not decipher, however I am guessing he was selling at a very high price.

I would not ask him to look into alts because of merit abuse, I would ask him to look into alts because of evidence that one person with many accounts is making many low quality posts. The appearent merit abuse is simply how we know they are likely the same person.

BadBear would often look into alts in connection with banning spammers such as those described in the OP, there are a couple of instances in which he banned spammers minutes after they bought (and paid for) accounts, which certainly should have discouraged spammers from buying accounts.

I say avoid the drama associated with tagging him, and see that he is banned if his posts support that.

He has replied saying the high level accounts are his "friends" accounts, which is probably a lie. I say review the high level accounts and ban them if their posts are poor enough, or have theymos look into if they are the same person or not.

I think it is pretty clear he has created many accounts with the intention of ranking them up with low effort posts, and selling them. This kind of activity is a problem on the forum and should not be allowed. (I would not have an issue if he was putting effort into his posts, and contributes to various conversations).

edit: actually thinking about it for a bit, there is a good chance there are more not connected via this merit circle. I say have theymos look into his current alts and ban them all if they meet the criteria.

Looking through the first two pages of your posts, it looks like your posts are mostly one liners (or two liners), and as such very little effort was put into them.

The above plus any paid signature you were wearing would have caused the ban. Paid signatures are not against the rules, but those who wear them cannot be putting little effort into many posts as they have an incentive to make many posts.