Interesting point, that never really crossed my mind, but is probably worth giving some thought. My first thoughts are there's probably ways to mitigate this issue, however it would likely still give the impression that Bitcoin giveaways are more legitimate or at least have the potential to be. However, I'm not sure there's plenty of legitimate Bitcoin giveaways. However, on screen pop ups could potentially mitigate it as I said.

There has probably been attempts of scamming with MrBeast styled giveaways no doubt. Although, I wouldn't hold MrBeast responsible for that. However, I must admit that is something we should probably be thinking about, and how to mitigate it.

Another counter to that would be, and I'll admit this is a bit of a weak argument against it; If we have guests on in a interview format, and they spread misinformation, which could potentially lead to loss of funds, and other damages. However, this would apply to everything that anyone does. People should know that because x said Bitcoin would rise 10k by tomorrow, that it isn't guaranteed that they are right. Same as a giveaway being done by a recognised brand i.e Bitcointalk , and other giveaways which don't come along with that reputation would be a risk. Of course, this is assuming that theymos would be onboard with labeling it official, and if cyrus would even want to do that too, as I know they've alluded that they would like to keep it unofficial, but you get my point. Cyrus behind the channel has a reputation or whoever is involved, and that would be built up further the longer the channel operates, so its just like anything else to some extent.

Would weekly best posts be decided at your discretion, or would you use the merit data to decide? Worst posts I feel you'll have a lot of competition.

Shorts now seem to be gaining traction on the platform with Youtube trying to push that type of content I believe; Does anyone have any ideas regarding content that would fit the "shorts"?

Also, it would be nice to hear off some more new users to the forum as currently its been mostly from established users. Let us know what you would find useful!

That's if they're dedicating themselves full time to this, which I doubt many people would have the time for, and I'm unsure with cyrus' other responsibilities they would have time for this alone. It depends on the format that you use I guess, but I would stay its quite the commitment regardless.

Content like documentaries would take a lot more time than a podcast/interview format. Although, I'm not neglecting how much time it would take to setup the space, liaise with the guest, and then setup the questions for each individual guest.

I like the idea about guides, however I think it would be worth considering if its suppose to be educational, it would be better although I guess not completely necessary to have it as unbiased as possible, and be careful about promoting one service over another.

Luckily we do live in a world with OBS, which I believe has vastly streamlined the process compared to a few years ago when Fraps, and other programs were the only ones available. Also, editing software like Davinci are now a available as a alternative to expensive Adobe software.

Yeah, what I was alluding to by saying it was ruined by bad judges it was more the fights before the main event, i.e the Barber decision. I had her losing the first two rounds, pretty convincingly to be honest, and then winning convincingly on the third round. I thought it was ludicrous that she got that win. The Sandhagen VS TJ fight was pretty close, and depending on how you look at it TJ was pressuring the whole fight, had a lot of control time albeit it was up against the cage, and attempting a lot of takedowns, although I believe it was something like a 13% success rate sometime late on in the fight. So, I would probably give Sandhagen the credit there for his defense.

I personally didn't like the control time on the fence, since TJ wasn't advancing position or doing any damage there. Instead, he held Sandhagen there until Sandhagen eventually was able to break the hands every time. Then, it would be largely back to Sandhagen scoring more clean hits than TJ.

TJ did better than I expected though, didn't show any signs of rustiness.

Worth noting; if this ever did take off, then it would probably be a good idea to repurpose the Twitter account @Bitcointalk for marketing. I know previously its been used for announcing any major issues with the forum i.e outages.

Another idea to throw out there which is kind of related to the podcast/interview ideas is debates. Get a few established forum users on the show, and then have them debate over current events. So, you'd probably need to figure out opposing views before the show, and it would have to be moderated pretty well i.e keeping it civilized while retaining freedom of speech, but some good clean ol' debate. Imagine if  theoretically we did have an upcoming hard fork, which was particularly dividing the community, having two voices go at it together, with the host setting the pace by asking specific questions to keep it on topic. I'm sure that would be very interesting even with less dramatic theoretical events.

I've always wanted to make a debating site related to this side of things i.e Bitcoin, but never got around to it. I'm sure that Youtube is probably an even better platform than a standalone website.

With the interviews idea, you don't technically need the person controlling the Youtube channel to reveal their identity, which might create a little intrigue to the show. I'm thinking about those Youtube channels where the hosts give them a video to watch, and pop up questions on screen rather than communicating directly. Obviously, they communicate to the guests, but that's edited out. So, if the host wanted to keep some sort of anonymous identity this format could be done.

Also, @cyrus fantastic logo.

Personally, I believe to appeal to the general public we are probably going to have the most success with interviews, and podcasts. What I mean by podcasts is Joe Rogan style where he basically interviews people on the podcast, rather than having the same hosts talk about random stuff related to the forum, and Bitcoin every week.

The budget; I know that theymos has previously stated that he might be willing to allocate some forum funds to the cause. I'm assuming this would depend on the quality of production, and success. Sponsorships are a thing, and if theymos wanted too he could offer forum advertisements, and Youtube advertisements as a package.

The other ideas aside from OgNasty's idea would probably be more audience specific, and appealing to the existing users on the forum more than the general public.

I think there would be enough interesting characters here willing to get interviewed that you could fill up a few years of content just through that. Then, once there's an audience you could potentially expand the purpose of the channel.

What is clear though; the audience from the forum will give the channel a better chance of success early on, due to the traffic. So, you effectively already have an audience due to them being intrigued that Bitcointalk has moved to Youtube, you just need to hook them on that first video.
Yeah, I'm not trying to speak on the behalf of anyone here, including the donators I just can't see forum funds being used for something that big. Although, like you reiterated it could potentially be toned down to a more realistic level.

If anyone has the pulling power, I'd like to think that Bitcointalk would. Although, there's a lot of production involved with podcasts, and finding someone comfortable to speak, and interview someone would be difficult, and then sorting out the recording difficulties since you'd want decent audio from everyone involved. I don't think a Youtube production representing Bitcointalk is a one man team so to speak. Its probably best to have various people involved, including people that are on screen, and off screen. At least, to assure we get regular content out there.

Bitcointalk the Joe Rogan of cryptocurrencies?

Creating something that someone would watch related to the forum would probably be difficult. Going along the route of OgNasty's suggestion would probably yield the most return. It could be a toned down version of MrBeast, where there are weekly/monthly events which take place, which a winner can win x amount of Bitcoin. This would probably encourage new users to the forum, albeit they might be a little low quality.

I'm not sure highlighting posts, even good posts is something that people not on the forum would watch, and I'm not even sure if the users here would watch it after the novelty of it dissipates. The best route would be following the status quo to some extent, that has proven to be successful, but applying that to the forum, is something I'm finding difficulty in doing.  

I know there's been users voicing their concerns recently about the decline of active users on the forum, and Youtube could be a behemoth of a marketing campaign if its done right.

If we take a look at Youtube, and the most popular formats:

- MrBeast style over the top videos, throwing ludicrous money around.

- Podcasts; Potentially having different guests on from various different backgrounds on the forum could potentially be successful if the right candidates are selected. However, I believe anonymous nature of the forum would probably be a barrier to this idea.

- A show like DramaAlert on Youtube, but focused on the Bitcoin industry. Probably, wouldn't work out as well due to the nature of Youtube infulencers compared to the people involved in Bitcoin.

- Debates; as long as they are kept civilized, and moderated to some degree i.e not censoring the guests, but guiding them to specific topics I think it could work out pretty well, and could be combined with the podcast/interview ideas.

- Documentaries; This doesn't even particularly need to be shot physically, but could be a voiceover with a lot of editing, which is a pretty popular format on Youtube for things that aren't related to Bitcoin.

- Conspiracies related to Bitcoin; if you want to go down that rabbit hole that is, and have the mind for it.

Other ideas not particularly popular on Youtube:

- Bitcoin courses; if it could be tied in some way to the idea of Bitcoin courses mentioned here by theymos. That would be interesting, and might just kill two birds with one stone.

- Liaising with Bitcoin developers, and getting them to do a developer diary could be of interest.  

- Highlighting substantial posts here on the forum, however I'm not convinced in the long run the appeal will be there to retain an audience for this type of content.  

Although, it would be pretty neat to have a Bitcoin MrBeast type channel, I feel the kind of investment that would be needed at first, wouldn't be easily covered, and I doubt forum funds would be used for it. Pretty cool idea though, and would definitely be an interesting approach.

Gmaxwell probably gives the best metric that we have, although probably isn't a brilliant indicator. However, you wouldn't want to code Bitcoin of today as a sole effort, you would get a basic viable product out there, and then rely on the community to help. Just as Satoshi did. This is generally the case for a lot of open source projects, and with company funded assets, they usually have more than one person working on it.

Well, that was a really good card, which was ruined by bad judges. At least, in some of the earlier fights. Maverick fight in particular I thought was a little odd. However, I can't complain too much about the Dillashaw VS Sandhagen fight. I thought Sandhagen did enough damage to maybe get him the win, although he really needs to work on not giving the back so easily. Dillashaw gained a lot of respect tonight, although I didn't think much of his takedowns, I know Cory popped his knee in the leg lock in round one, however he needs to be securing more takedowns not just pressing up against the cage. Especially, when hes not doing any damage on the side of the cage.

Ruined my accumulator as I had Sandhagen for the decision at 5.00, and that's probably why I'm a little bias towards sandhagen winning, however it was a very close fight, and I don't think its a robbery at all.

I might update this prediction closer to the night:

Elise Reed (TKO)
Jordan Williams
Imavov
Brandon Allen
Randy Costa (TKO)
Cory Sandhagen (Points)

I'm going with Cory to win by points. I know that Dill is coming out of a lengthy lay off period, but I'm sure he won't have too much rust, and will be able to shake that off in the first few rounds. Cory could potentially take advantage of that rust in the first few rounds though, and might be able to score a knock out. Ultimately, I think it'll be a win for Cory with him dominating in the first few rounds, and then in the later rounds it'll be a little closer.

Its a vicious cycle. When you sign up on this forum, your probably pretty new to Bitcoin, and with that excitement you can't wait to post, and because you lack the experience at that point in time, with the old forum system, and Bitcoin your probably going to say a lot of things which shows that you are inexperienced, but not only that Bitcointalk is probably one of the best forums in terms of the posting standards set by the community, and the guidelines so new users might not understand why asking a question that's been asked a million times or why their reply was reported, and deleted.

Then the older users after time become more experienced, and they've seen the same types of questions, and start to find it tedious. So, what might be an innocent question, becomes spam to those that are experienced, yet a couple of years ago they would have seen that as normal. There's a sort of elitism that comes with higher ranks, and its just a unfortunate part of life in almost every department, you'll see that elitism creep in. However, we've got to understand that newbies are generally quite eager to get involved in Bitcoin, and I do think we are a little hostile at times, and sometimes its probably warranted. Finding the in between is probably pretty hard for most users. I understand from both perspectives.

We know that users who want to earn merit, try to create threads because its more exposure, and that might lead to more merits. Like I said though previously, while it probably does still apply, I believe the merit coverage these days means that replies get just as much attention.

This is probably the case for most users. I remember how long it took me to get the "Reporting Effectively" thread up, and how long that took. Although, I think partly that was because of the way it was set out, and it being a guide rather than personal opinion so there was a lot of research that went into that. Replies, most people do off the cuff, rather than cite research etc. There are definitely exceptions to that though.

Proof of work (POW) is currently the best solution, there's been tonnes of discussion on varying models Proof of stake (POS), and I there's even been some very flawed ones put forth. While, Proof of stake works to some extent, its most certainly more flawed than Proof of work. Bitcoin uses the current implementation of proof of work, because its simply the best solution to a complex problem. Its probably not perfect, since the richer are going to benefit more, but other than the flawed design of proof of stake, I haven't personally seen another concept that would be fair.

As for your proposal, those that can afford more miners, would simply be able to diversify, and it would be relatively easy to do the least work out of the top 10. Especially if you split up your contribution into smaller miners. Its not an improvement on the existing implementation.

Anything by Andreas is generally quite good, and that's not exclusive to his books, but his talks, and videos that hes done. He's probably contributed to Bitcoin adoption more than hes given credit for. I'm also sure he's encouraged, and influenced several new developers about using the Blockchain.
If you can get any of these books as a audio book I'd recommend. I don't tend to read too many books these days because of time, and audio books have been a life saver in some aspects. 

I'm excited to see Sandhagen back in action, his last match up ending up in a surprising knock out by flying knee I believe if my memory serves me correctly. I'm not sure if I'm expecting a knockout yet, depends on type of  TJ Dillashaw comes out on the night. I'm still finalizing some of my predictions, and watching some footage.

I mean Till, and Dill are close right I literally have no idea how I mixed their names up. I did watch Whitakers fight against Till recently so maybe that was it, but I most definitely was thinking about TJ when I made the post above. Anyway, I'm thinking Sandhagen will get the KO instead of Dillashaw, although like I said above it matters what type of Dillashaw actually comes out on the night, as I find him a little bit hit, and miss, and the fact that he hasn't fought for over two years at this point might mean hes coming into this fight off a loss, a bit rusty. If we get a fresh Dillashaw, I think Sandhagen can at least make it to the end of five rounds, I don't see him getting knocked out.

I knew as soon as I saw a summary of what was said I would need to watch it just to clarify whether what someone summarized was accurate or their personal interpretation. For example, cAPSLOCK mentions that Elon Musk suggested a few ideas about centralizing Bitcoin or at least got challenged by the moderator that his ideas would make it less decentralized, and normal users shouldn't need to run nodes. I wasn't expecting that, since I would like to think that Elon Musk is smart enough to understand that much of the appeal for Bitcoin is its decentralized nature, and how the community can contribute further to its decentralized nature.

Its probably the best approach if the workload is unmanageable. Since, I've literally not received an email, but it seems that LoyceV has which is probably due to the fact that users are reading through this thread, until they find the first email address, and not reading the rest or the replies here.

So, it'll probably result in LoyceV having the majority of the emails, and the rest of us will get a few every now, and again which leak through.

Shared or not, you would get this issue either way as it will be up to the person that is reviewing it at the time. So, peoples success might actually depend on the discretion of the person that's reviewing it whether that's through a shared email or separate ones. In fact, here on the forum we have a shared system for reviewing reports. Basically, a lot of staff can see the same reports in the queue, but how its handled is down to the discretion of that individual moderator so it can sometimes vary on the action taken.

Ignoring the extreme interest rates in this example, I imagine there's plenty of people coming into Bitcoin which are used to interest rates from their banks, which when offered on interest on their Bitcoin, they don't bat an eye lid. From my experience at least reading about it over the years, almost every single service offering an interest rate on your Bitcoin for merely depositing into their service, is a scam. It literally doesn't make any sense why someone would pay you to deposit your Bitcoin, at least for a legitimate reason. In fiat it kind of does, although I'm not a big fan of banks so I tend to ignore the interest rates, but they technically have control of your money, and while your bank account remains the same, they are using that money to further their profits, and therefore they offer an incentive to their customers as a result.

Quantum computers are pretty decent right now, but for their specifically designed tasks. Although, the media has definitely been exaggerating when it comes to the power of them, the capability, and how far away we are from having a quantum computer able to break any significant algorithms.  Its a fascinating field though, and it will be pretty awesome watching them develop it into a bigger power house than it is.

The issue with media is they don't actually report on anything accurately, well most of the time. For example, which is more likely to get clicks; "QUANTUM computers which can crack your password in 1 second!!!!" or "Quantum computers capable of solving basic math problems quickly". The media only care about one thing, and that's the amount of clicks they gain per article, as that directly influences their income. Their article writers are likely on a bonus reward system, judged based on the amount of traffic their articles gained that year, and therefore they will attempt everything possible to generate more traffic.

Obviously, I'm not trying to argue that miners should be sent to space, and mined, but the rocket ships have very sophisticated cooling systems. Granted they are absolutely huge, and is probably quite expensive if you compared if with the profitability of the miners, but they would be able to cool it, just not within profit. Obviously, on a satellite it wouldn't work, but in their ships you could potentially do it if you were that way inclined.

We'll probably see these sort of sophisticated cooling systems become somewhat affordable in the future, and data centers will begin to use them, and therefore big mining operations might too.

I'll aim to get my predictions up tomorrow evening. I'll probably be siding with the favourites in the majority of the matches, which I never feel comfortable about doing.

I'm predicting this event to have a lot of KO's. Cory Sandhagen VS Darren Till is surely going to have one, I just don't know which way it'll go.

Nah, since its not currently possible to inject any more Bitcoin into the network, and the way of introducing more Bitcoin into circulation is through mining. There isn't another way of doing it. Obviously, you could potentially argue that double spending might be considered as fake coins, since it would give the illusion at first that you've paid legitimately, but only one transaction of that double spend would be accepted by the miners, while the other one would be made invalid, and rejected by the network. So, double spend is probably the closest you can get to "fake coins" in circulation, however its not truly in circulation.