Get him to confirm he has been repaid in full and I’ll remove my rating. From what I can tell there about.02 outstanding |
|
|
|
|
can Bitcoins101 confirm repayment?
|
|
|
|
It is absolutely ridiculous to explicitly say (as Maxwell has said) that it is acceptable to ban people because you do not like them, or because many people do not like them.
Nice strawman. Please give the actual quote word for word where he said that, instead of just saying that he said it. [...] AnonyMint was banned [...]
AnonyMint [...] is responsible for a significant fraction of the technically competent people becoming largely inactive.
People who are really savvy with the technology have valuable time (as is the case for anyone with valuable skills). It's a waste of that time to spend it in a place where there are decent odds of their efforts being buried under a mountain of abusive nonsense. Even those few who don't find his dishonest practices extremely annoying are forced to admit that it's just a waste of time to be in the same venue as someone like that.
[...] AnonyMint's consistent conduct year after year is especially demoralizing. [...]
If a community can't choose [...] participants [...].
You can read the rest of his quote and see he clearly does not like Anunymint. Further, it is difficult to take his post seriously when Greg's actions/behavior at Wikipedia have been described as "vandalism" by his peers at Wikipedia. Some have claimed that Greg continues to have a positive professional relationship with the admins at Wikipedia, however I have not seen evidence of this, nor have I seen anyone to claim to have affirmative direct knowledge of this.
Okay... So what did he change on wikipedia that was "vandalism"? See this and read for yourself.
As previously mentioned, Anunymint seems to have agreed to abide by the forum rules, which appears to have met the condition of unbanning him imposed by theymos. |
|
|
|
I think it would be better to remove the incentives of the copy/paste spammers and/or provide incentives not to spam (this way).
One suggestion I can remember came from a member was to disable topic bumping for the comments from users who are not at least a member. That is one option, although I don't think it would address the copy/paste spammers (it might address the "bump spammers"). Again, it is the incentives that need to be removed, not abilities/permissions. |
|
|
|
Some of the copy/paste spammers have already beaten this method in that they replace certain words, replace letters with symbols, among other things.
This fight in between good and bad will always be there. We are trying to do our best to beat them and I understand that it's not an easy job. By the way, good guide @OP. I think it would be better to remove the incentives of the copy/paste spammers and/or provide incentives not to spam (this way). At the end of the day, these spammers can use automation to make their copy/past posts, and can use technology to hide their activity, while the decision to ban someone is a manual process. |
|
|
|
|
Some of the copy/paste spammers have already beaten this method in that they replace certain words, replace letters with symbols, among other things.
Some of these spammers also will copy content from sources not on bitcointalk.
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I think Satoshi was smart enough to foresee this and he could've implemented the Core with 2MB or 4MB of blocksize himself but I think we knew back then that this would cause more harm than good so he stayed at 1MB and I think this is great as we dont need a cryptocurrency that is handled like fiat money where some big players controll the wealth of many many people. Bitcoin was created to give the people their wealth back because they work for it every day 9-5....
Some say satoshi expected consensus to be eventually reached in order to raise the blocksize, which seems pretty naive in retrospect, since it is clear now that it's almost impossible to reach said consensus, and most likely we are stuck with 1MB. Other's say that this was completely expected by satoshi, and he knew perfectly well that the 1MB limit was set in stone, and this is just part of the Bitcoin game theory, so it can be immutable, while remaining open source and so on. We will never know what his true intentions were, what do we know now is, no increases of the block size are going to happen anytime soon. Satoshi was clear that the 1 MB max block size was meant to be a temporary anti-spam measure, and that the max block size should be increased in the future when the number of transactions warranted.
~ What exactly does a non-mining node do for a "regular" user of Bitcoin who is not running a node, and is in the process of spending some of his bitcoin in a store? Since every node is free to choose their own settings, what would happen if this particular node has different settings than the mining nodes as a whole? |
|
|
|
jamalaezaz bought my signature and avatar space. the BitcoinAir.org is his project.
and I sent him snakey address to send the eth.
I am going to go out on a limb and say this is a lie. |
|
|
|
|
The connection checks out. The only thing I haven't ruled out is the possibility that jamalaezaz was sold before he got involved in shady business. It should be easy enough to check the security log for PW and email changes, and I am not sure when he first got in the campaign management business.
I would be skeptical of any explanation as to "why" they are not the same person, including that aTriz did work for jamalaezaz
|
|
|
|
For selfish purposes, I think it would be nice to have an icon for those with 3,000 good reports.
It also might be beneficial to have a special sub for those with 1000 or more good reports that can be used similarly to how the staff sub is used, to report spammers, identifying trends, ban requests etc.
It would be deserted. Just like the donators, and staff forum. Probably don't need another section. Its a good idea in principle, but some users are already doing it themselves in the Meta section now anyway, and its not like its disruptive or anything. The meta section is clogged with lots of junk threads and these types of reports can easily get overlooked. Also a dedicated section would help filter these reports to those who have a history of making good reports. |
|
|
|
his most recent posts differ from the PMs I got from him a while back. It doesn't sound like a lazy style but rather a different grasp of language. I could be wrong, but it's weird.
so I Talked to a guy who agreed to make 15 posts a week
He hired someone to make posts from his account for him. |
|
|
|
Maybe he did listen to Vod after all  Almost 200 in 5 mins   They are almost all in the same thread....and the OP made this thread weeks ago... |
|
|
|
Following hilarious' comment that your posts are not absolute garbage, you are right, merits are generally given out based on the underlying content, not the effort put into one's post. The unfortunate reality is that people generally will give out merit (with many exceptions) to posts they are in agreement with, and will withhold merit on posts they disagree with. I also think that this is the trend. The Merit system becomes the "like" of Facebook in which one will easily give a merit to a certain post that he agrees with. On the other hand, he will rarely give a merit to a post that has a different opinion compare to him. I am seeing many newbies posting quality posts in Beginners and Help Section recently but they do not receive any single merit. Is it just me or the Merit circulation slows down at some point (and continuously slowing/dying down)? I fear that the merit system will lead to the echo chambers that make up Facebook and Reddit. Something absolutely needs to be done to prevent farmers from creating massive numbers of accounts with shit posts, however I don’t think the merit system as implemented is the solution. There was an “airdrop” of merit when the merit system was first implemented and much of the merit that will be spent from that has been spent. |
|
|
|
|
To me, the specific icons don’t matter, it is more about the recognition.
For selfish purposes, I think it would be nice to have an icon for those with 3,000 good reports.
It also might be beneficial to have a special sub for those with 1000 or more good reports that can be used similarly to how the staff sub is used, to report spammers, identifying trends, ban requests etc.
|
|
|
|
I am not sure if you are aware, but water will expand roughly 8% when frozen. This is another way of saying that the area water takes up will decrease by roughly 8% when it melts (when it is no longer frozen). It's actually closer to 9%. Regardless, sea levels will rise because the majority of the ice is not currently in the sea, but above it. When it all melts, sea levels will rise by around 70 meters. I am not sure what that picture is of, perhaps of an ice cap on land. The density of ice results in approximately 92% of it being under water. The assertion that all of the world's ice will melt seems like fear mongering to me. |
|
|
|
There are not any *actual* victims of people selling forum accounts.
Yes, there are. The existence of a market for accounts makes "hacking" accounts profitable. Therefore, a certain percentage of the people whose accounts have been "hacked" are victims of people selling forum accounts. I don’t think selling accounts makes hacking accounts profitable. If you were to hack my account, and it was not possible to sell my account, you could scam someone with my account, which IMO is worse than you selling my account because if you sold my account, I could argue to the buyer their lack of a signed message is an indication they did not do proper due diligence and they were scammed by someone else, however if you were scamming from my account directly that argument would not work. Further the reason accounts have value is because they can generate income. Using the above scenario, if you cannot sell my account after hacking it, you could use it to generate income, likes |
|
|
|
|
If you are asking to personally hold the 10 ETH, you are out of your mind. If you are wanting for someone to hold 10 ETH on your behalf, perhaps so you can claim an airdrop or for a similar reason, you will likely find many willing lenders to help you.
If you want to hold the 10 ETH, you will need to offer valuable collateral worth much more than the loan amount.
|
|
|
|
Following hilarious' comment that your posts are not absolute garbage, you are right, merits are generally given out based on the underlying content, not the effort put into one's post. The unfortunate reality is that people generally will give out merit (with many exceptions) to posts they are in agreement with, and will withhold merit on posts they disagree with. It is my belief that there should be incentives to make posts, and disincentives to make shit/spam posts, and to remove the current incentives that currently exist to make shit/spam posts. edit: I reviewed your posts, and I gave you sufficient merit to rank up to "member" status. |
|
|
|
But why did they pay her (or McDougal) off, and why all the pseudonyms and NDAs and LLCs and lying about having no knowledge of this or that? It seems they (Cohen/Trump) thought it's a bigger deal than what you're saying.
Trump is married and has a young child (he also has a brand whose value is closely associated with his reputation). The payment to Stormy was to protect the Marriage (and others mentioned above), and according to Trump/Cohen would have been paid regardless of if Trump was running for President. The NDA is the point of the payment, and the pseudonyms create distance between the agreement and Trump. According to Trump, these types of agreements are common among the very wealthy, and are used to prevent a wealthy person's family from hearing about bogus allegations. There was a short time between when the affair/payment was disclosed/leaked by Avenatti (the creepy porn lawyer), and when the details of the affair and NDA become credible. I suspect that no credible claim would have ever reached Trump's family if it were not for the fact that Trump is president and Avenatti had not clearly acted in a way that is clearly not in his client's best interest. |
|
|
|
|
Greg Maxwell's comments about Anunymint should be condemned in the strongest way possible. It is absolutely ridiculous to explicitly say (as Maxwell has said) that it is acceptable to ban people because you do not like them, or because many people do not like them.
The comments made by Maxwell only give credibility to those claiming censorship on bitcointalk and r/bitcoin (Greg Maxwell is a moderator of both). The same is true for the absence of a strong condemnation of Maxwell's statement.
Further, it is difficult to take his post seriously when Greg's actions/behavior at Wikipedia have been described as "vandalism" by his peers at Wikipedia. Some have claimed that Greg continues to have a positive professional relationship with the admins at Wikipedia, however I have not seen evidence of this, nor have I seen anyone to claim to have affirmative direct knowledge of this.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
