That's ok. Everybody's merits are worth more now.  You'd be surprised the number of merits that have been sent to deleted posts: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=merit;u=1762404 (check the received section)
When it's financially worthwhile to do so, someone will get together the required processing power and buy off the proper authorities and make an honest attempt to steal segwit coins. Whether it succeeds or fails, it will be a big blow to the faith people have in the system (bitcoin in all its forms, authorities, moneyed people (us, even if simply by association)). But in what scenario would this be viable? Perhaps, if we're at a situation where Bitcoin is seconded by another coin with the same mining algorithm, it would be a way to 'surpass' it (provided the ones doing the takeover had a large enough investment in the second) but this seems like an unlikely event. When there is enough value in segwit addresses to be worth it. What are you confused about? 1) Steal coins with hash power 2) Everybody finds out and bitcoin is dead 3) Now you have useless coins? |
|
|
|
|
I actually noticed this earlier; that being the reason for my tag. It's really a shame because I quite liked the guy. Though, even despite their mistakes I do know that they returned the tokens in the moonlite campaign back to the owners. Which is pretty upstanding.
|
|
|
|
That's ok. Everybody's merits are worth more now. You'd be surprised the number of merits that have been sent to deleted posts: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=merit;u=1762404 (check the received section)
When it's financially worthwhile to do so, someone will get together the required processing power and buy off the proper authorities and make an honest attempt to steal segwit coins. Whether it succeeds or fails, it will be a big blow to the faith people have in the system (bitcoin in all its forms, authorities, moneyed people (us, even if simply by association)). But in what scenario would this be viable? Perhaps, if we're at a situation where Bitcoin is seconded by another coin with the same mining algorithm, it would be a way to 'surpass' it (provided the ones doing the takeover had a large enough investment in the second) but this seems like an unlikely event. |
|
|
|
Let me cite the exact rule and why the account was banned, because I think this should be made very clear to avoid any complaints.
Incentivizing posting via low effort tasks (likes, follows, etc.) is NOT allowedIncentivizing posting within one or several threads via low effort tasks (e.g. signups or proof of participation for liking, following, subscribing, retweeting, tweeting a single tweet, joining a channel or group, etc.) is not allowed Thus, something like #joined is not allowed. When you ask for more than that (i.e. tasks that require more effort than copying & pasting one's username/address/etc) then it is allowed: Accepting signups or requiring proof of participation for tasks requiring substantial effort (e.g. signature campaign signups, weekly social media campaign reports, media (videos, images, articles, etc.) bounty signups, etc.) via a thread posted in Bounties (Altcoins) is allowed though.
Reports are allowed, though I believe every manager should go with either a form and/or making participants edit reports as opposed to quoting them. I understand the reason one might want quoted reports (i.e. bounty thread being bumped) but that means having the board be even more overloaded. |
|
|
|
Considering how the volume averages barely 500 to 1000 USD over the past 3 months and that you're the head developer, I don't think this is going to be a necessarily favorable exchange. After offloading a large amount of your coin, what more motivation is there to continue development?  |
|
|
|
When you buy an account, you quite literally have invested in your ability to constructively participate here. Further, the forum is not affected if someone is using a purchased account to post crap verses someone using an account that posts crap. I will disagree with this statement. You buy an account, presumably, to increase your pay. Let's consider two scenarios, shall we? 1) The buyer has a Newbie account or no Bitcointalk account and aims to participate in signature campaigns. You can conclude that their post quality will not be great considering their experience. Moreover, their crap output is amplified due to less wait time between posts. Newbie and Jr. Member accounts require merit to rank up. Buying an account does not. This means that they won't have to write quality content, since they're already at (presumably) a rank that can participate in campaigns. If you want proof, jump into any thread outside of Reputation and Scam Accusations. 2) The buyer already has a Bitcointalk account and simply wants to buy another account to increase income, regardless of its rank. This means an increase in required output of posts. I know you vehemently denied the fact that more posts = lower quality, but let's face it. The majority of account traders are probably going to put in the same amount of time (at least for two accounts) and compensate by dropping the quality. You can often see the effects when you stumble into threads that have general titles that can be responded to within a minute. |
|
|
|
Please refrain from tying yourself to theymos and Satoshi, you are just a random dude on the internet with no actual job other than using your position to join signature campaigns and run them as well to earn your living. Please refrain from tying me to Blazed, you are just a random dude on the internet with no actual job other than attempting to rile others in an ill attempt to coerce them into your redemption. we just don't know what else you have done in secret, only God knows that and yourself, someday you'll have to answer for all the sins. I don't believe in any contemporary orthodox gods. |
|
|
|
You have a new sucker who merited you with 4 merits probably to earn your trust in hopes of getting a counter feedback someday. good job on also tagging these shitposters with red. Another hyperbolic extrapolation. I don't see myself sending a counter-rating to this user, ever. They also don't really need it. The negative feedback has not stopped them from acting constructively on the forum, unlike you.
I also won't be tagging these users with negative feedback. I'm not sure where that comes from. |
|
|
|
|
Good catch but even though I do give out negative feedback to people who are abusing merit, I only do so with the most explicit cases of merit abuse.
This... is not one of them.
To say that the red flag is when a user receives lots of merit would be wrong. If these users are tagged for being sent a large amount of merit then that gives scammers a weapon against unrelated users. Since I don't want to set such a strong precedent, I'm a bit more careful with merit tags.
|
|
|
|
Where's theymos's tag for including Blazed onto DT1?  If you're going to keep digging deeper holes why not tag satoshi as well, for facilitating this abuse? |
|
|
|
Exact copy/paste is easy to spot, google search would do the trick, but some plagiarists do change a couple of words, 90% match and without having all the posts on a single page, it's a bit difficult to get these sloppy text spinners. Even with word changes, a Google search can easily catch the plagiarism. As long as you're paying attention, of course. This is because the keywords of the quote match together with that of the original site and will return to you some heavily-bolded segments. I actually made a report recently about a user slightly changing some parts of a description from a Wikipedia article. I copied his post, popped it into Google, and boom: one of the top results showed the page. |
|
|
|
You did say you bought them from the woman, correct? Oh. Huh. This must be a lie, then, since both of the accounts sent tokens to an address rather than have tokens sent to them. Story doesn't add up, not that I expected it to anyway. Case closed. Page archived again. https://archive.is/lFX5d |
|
|
|
Print used to work but for some reason doesn't anymore*. AFAIK "All" and print were the only [legacy] ways to view all posts.
It's not too difficult finding copy-pasters because you can usually tell via their vocabulary and/or sudden change in writing style. A simple google search with a chunk of the post (not all of it, since they can sometimes add some of their own asinine comments and/or other copy-pasted content) will usually do the trick. *on lengthy threads |
|
|
|
- You're trying to make me believe an easily made-up story that can apply to any person, anywhere. "I don't have evidence because it was an in-person meeting" is not really what I'm looking for, especially since letting this be an excuse would mean that a precedent would be set. One which would greatly benefit alts and account farmers. |
|
|
|
I think you are totally retarded, there is no blanket statements or rhetoric questions, these are all facts. Facts that are backed with no evidence. Blanket statements. You also don't understand what I mean by 'rhetoric' and hence I conclude that you aren't even attempting to substantiate any kind of claim. You keep thinking that counter-ratings make someone look trustworthy. I don't think that -1: -1 / +1 looks trustworthy and neither does 0: -1 / +3.
Your questions are just that: questions. Wild accusations with no substance behind them. theymos really should take care of that because we don't want to tie this forum to some very shady ICOs Have you seen the Altcoin announcement boards? You have got to be kidding me. |
|
|
|
|
.001
This is actually really cool! Love interactive stuff like this.
|
|
|
|
Was this an attempt to buy legitimacy for Gleb so that he could collect money in his ICO in order to pay suchmoon back? is this the sort of person she is? she has also countered other feedbacks to clear the way for suspected extortionists before. am I the only one who could actually see this? Your constant false equivalences and extrapolations lead to such theories. With rhetoric and blanket statements you offer no substance behind them meaning that they're much less theories and moreso hypothetical ramblings.
Who are you trying to appeal to when you know that the cartel controls all of DefaultTrust? |
|
|
|
Hm... I figured it would be better to use the ones available on SMF as a default:
The defaults look completely ok but problem seems the Telegram one. So, I had that thought.
 This one's less straining. Comparison: (Old/New) 
Plus, it actually looks like the Telegram logo I have. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
