|
New change to rules: Twitter and Facebook participants must post/tweet about the flip and speculation dApps as part of their three of the week.
This is not strictly followed for this week but would be suggested. Starting next week, however, it is a concrete rule.
|
|
|
|
Okay next time some one commits crime against you don't go to the police, but ask that person to make it right to you. Let's see will that work? There are no Bitcointalk "police". Besides, did you go to any police-like users? No. You made a thread. A public thread, at that. |
|
|
|
I believe the counter ratings actually hurt the system. I know theymos has stated they are acceptable in some cases but I think they do more harm than good. What would be the right course of action if there was a rating that you disagreed with, then? If a user was particularly unflinching in regards to changing it, then there don't seem to be many options. |
|
|
|
They buy them, because it's not possible to become Hero or Legendary member anymore. [...] This is because old users do not give Merit to new users. Bud. Who the fuck cares if you're a Hero Member or a Jr. Member? I don't see why this is something to complain about. You talk about equality and transparency. The only differences between the ranks are post time intervals (to prevent spam, which makes sense) and signature elements. If you're not complaining about making pretty signatures or posting more often, then you're just mad that it's too difficult to enter signature campaigns, which have brought forth a cesspool of money-driven users.
I though Bitcointalk was supposed to be decentralized like the Bitcoin, but here some jerks run the show. Bitcointalk is the opposite of Bitcoin. Have you ever mined a block?  |
|
|
|
I think a big part of the problem is educating on how the system works. Let me try and simplify.
If you trust someone, you can leave a rating reflecting that.
If you don't trust someone, you can decline to leave them a rating.
If someone has engaged in untrustworthy behavior, you can leave them a rating reflecting that.
*Here's where it gets tricky.
If you don't agree with someone else's ratings, you can exclude them from your trust network.
If you agree with someone's trust ratings, you can include them in your trust network.
What you shouldn't do is...
Leave someone negative ratings because you don't like their trust ratings.
Leave someone a positive rating to counter someone else's rating. Here are my thoughts: A negative rating means that you don't trust the person and by extension, their feedback. It doesn't make sense when you trust what the person says (but also don't really). In reverse, someone can be trustworthy but you may choose to disregard what they say, resulting in an exclusion. For me, leaving negatives to another individual requires any of the following (though not only restricted to): a) Extremely shady behavior b) Outright scams c) Behavior that induces harm to other persons, the forum or objects of possession d) Any action that casts a reasonable amount of doubt upon its moral standards or legitimacy (i.e. account sales)
In the case of Vod, I countered their rating because I disagreed with it. However, that doesn't mean that I don't trust Vod. It also doesn't mean that I don't trust their ratings. Rather, it was a single piece of feedback that I wanted object against. The act of exclusion will affect all the user's feedback, not just the one that someone disagrees with. I don't think this is the way to go. The act of giving the user a negative will not change the feedback and thus that also is not the way to change ratings that one disagrees with. Counter-ratings make sense in this regard. Don't you think so? |
|
|
|
as does yours If you weren't such a shriveled scrote you might have been able to rectify this situation but unfortunately like the pruned skin flap you are, you decide to exacerbate and masturbate with your feedback. Go on a trip and think about what kind of an idiot you are. |
|
|
|
E.g. OgNasty is DT1, and has posted in this thread. But of the 5 DT members that have tagged digaran, OgNasty has none of them on his trust list. OgNasty has the ability to exclude me from the network outright. Any DT1 member does, in fact. Whether they want to or not is up to them. |
|
|
|
User in question: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=32003You got this huge post gap between October of 2016 and September of 2017 and the first post after the gap is an address stake. what i cant understand is this code taken from https://github.com/zcoinofficial/zcoin/blob/master/src/main.h#L1356: You see that "if TestNet" hashing is LYRA2, else it is scrypt_N_1_1_256 so are we mining scrypt_N ?  uint256 GetPoWHash(int height) const
{
uint256 thash;
if( !fTestNet && height >= 500){
LYRA2(BEGIN(thash), 32, BEGIN(nVersion), 80, BEGIN(nVersion), 80, 2, height, 256);
}else if(fTestNet && height >= 138){
LYRA2(BEGIN(thash), 32, BEGIN(nVersion), 80, BEGIN(nVersion), 80, 2, height, 256);
}else{
scrypt_N_1_1_256(BEGIN(nVersion), BEGIN(thash), GetNfactor(nTime));
}
return thash;
} From block 500 lyra2 So your saying, that ontop of a 10% on-going premine, The first 500blocks had been Scrypt-N to benefit GPU miners?
My sig: 1HKCukVJbQJjeymYxFPBZvtjf9JDAtoCG1 This is svojoe, today is 21.09.17 ILiESin/7O5q02LpQFY+jQsNY5I4Gi/oqcXaqI19KarHWxpYQs+5ToaO9jJbBdeG7hVO6SNWcnRuzxsKLC8fDRo= Thx!
The posting style changes dramatically, from this (in the early days): Yeah all this chatter about hooking up pc power supplies is a pursuit of the damned, for additional pain and misery. Just get real power supplies and be done with it.
I do not know how these units were designed, but let's assume for a sec they have a thermal cutoff. Then some of the sections may shut down if they get too hot. Inconsistent fan on your three blades could cause that. Laying them flat on a surface with no airflow to one of the sides could do that. Too close together, etc.
To determine if it is a hardware problem, swap the little board with the RJ45 connector between known good and suspect. Then swap the power board. Then swap the RJ45 cables, which can definitely go bad.
If you move a part around and the problem follows the part, you have a bad part. The only exception would be special handling of that part's IP address by the router. Obviously each of the blades needs a discrete IP and it must be in the addressing range of the router. They all came as 192.168.1.254, iirc.
I set mine to 192.168.1.200/201/202...
Note there is a reset switch between two pins, it reset back to default IP.
This is good advice, Though all three of my blades are exhibiting the exact same behavior so I don't know how to play them off against each other. I did however try to move the strongest PSU around them and it made no difference. I'm convinced the blades themselves have a reset timer built in. As if a condition exists that is causing them to re-start in an attempt to mine. I am fairly certain it is not a heat issue, I have the three blades mounted about 2" apart vertically and I have a extremely strong blower blowing between/around and through all three. It is thousands of CFM. It is the style you would see at a store to dry off the floor after a long rain. I have to run it on the lowest setting otherwise I risk blowing the blades across the room!  When I reach into the gale force winds, the blades are warm only. on all surfaces. My 'gut' is telling me there is a connection issue causing my blades not to recieve proof of work/submission etc from the pool and they are auto-restarting. I am going to try to get into my router and make sure I open all ports (if they are not) and see what gives. I have a feeling these blades think they need to restart because they think they are hashing without reward? Are they smart enough to check for that and restart?! to this: There are no cryptos about privacy at your portfolio. I'd like to advice ZEC, DASH, XMR, ZEN, Verge or PivX. I guess some of them should grow in middle term.
Moreover, one day before the gapped post, the password to the account was changed: https://archive.is/sPr0x#selection-343.0-347.19Haven't found any email/other password changes via archive but I think this is enough evidence of a change. |
|
|
|
DUDE he is an accused PEDOPHILE on some random site, he is doxed and the people who have done it are left unpunished and I am continuing my butthurt vendetta because I have nothing better to do! FTFY |
|
|
|
|
Week 1 is over. Week 2 lasts until June 27th, 23:59 UTC.
Twitter and Facebook forms have been updated for this week.
|
|
|
|
That's a semi-fair point, but obviously you have a bit of bias. I don't state that I do not trust you though, just that I think your trust rating specifically on Anduck is poor.
Anyone else (not digaran) want to give an opinion on this? Sup. You must have missed it. I bet we'll have another DT2 member suddenly seeing this topic and he/she would jump in to tag Anduck for something from the past and other DT members would also jump in to tag each other right, left and center and they would praise each other to say wow, what a trustworthy person you are, here some fake green trust for you. Just on this: it's a very presumptuous accusation when you assume that people are doing this for positive trust. In fact, DarkStar_ has not received positive trust for their actions. And in my opinion, that's actually feedback which I disagree with. The trust I gave cancelled out Vod's trust, end of story. Any further positive trust should be held with the same value as if there were no negative in the first place, thus invalidating its quality as a "counter-rating". |
|
|
|
Both denied. hi! When update spreadsheet?
Twitter, Facebook are automatically updated and will be reviewed at the end of the week. Telegram, Media will be updated at the end of the week and the signature campaign sheet will be changed when new members are added. |
|
|
|
|
Payment sent: ab4c25e47bbfa18a61b36d04f6952be1c66f685b581e6434a3225d6e62770a30
Thread will be locked in 24h from the last post and reopened once the campaign does.
|
|
|
|
|
The campaign is on pause until further notice. Thanks for participating!
(Payment coming shortly)
|
|
|
|
I'm here to let you know that actmyname as it appears has a habit of giving a free pass to allegedly scammers Please note that actmyname is also tagging other campaign managers for something from the past, red tagging the competition by a DT2 member
So which one is it? I'm tagging someone who is trading accounts. But then you say that I'm giving a pass to people. What you want from me has always been extremely contradictory.
according to some other DT2 members. Do you have evidence backing this up or is this another blanket statement? |
|
|
|
What I want from you is that you need to forgive Anduck if he is not bidding on his own auctions since 2 years ago, instead actmyname and DarkStar_ undermined you and Anduck got 2 undeserved green trust. if only you could give a second chance to Anduck, none of this would've happened. you see my point?
Trust: 70: -0 / +7 looks much better than Trust: 1: - 1 / +9. Just saying. inb4 +9 > +7 therefore trust abuse |
|
|
|
Now do I need to go and farm some trust from other DT members just to get a counter tag? because I have seen this happening a lot here, somebody is getting a tag and even for a valid and good reason, next day or week he/she has a green trust score like nothing has happened. You have seen this happening a lot? Name the users.
What I want from you is that you need to forgive Anduck if he is not bidding on his own auctions since 2 years ago, instead actmyname and DarkStar_ undermined you and Anduck got 2 undeserved green trust. My rating cancelled out Vod's. This made Anduck neutral. Capische? NEUTRAL. |
|
|
|
take my case for example, I started to question DT members and their tagging habits [after I was tagged for shady things], they found whatever they wanted to find and they tagged me as untrustworthy and a scammer. what is painful is the fact that they know they are bullying me with their red tags but nobody is asking them why Because apart from the loose red-trust scammers that agree with you out of spite, nobody else has a problem with the tags. I wonder if the issue is not with the system but rather with you. Why? because I'm not using alt accounts to say what I say and to do what I do And neither am I, though you constantly believe that I have alt accounts. Why can't the reverse be true? I bet we'll have another DT2 member suddenly seeing this topic and he/she would jump in to tag Anduck for something from the past and other DT members would also jump in to tag each other right, left and center and they would praise each other to say wow, what a trustworthy person you are, here some fake green trust for you. Just on this: it's a very presumptuous accusation when you assume that people are doing this for positive trust. In fact, DarkStar_ has not received positive trust for their actions. And in my opinion, that's actually feedback which I disagree with. The trust I gave cancelled out Vod's trust, end of story. Any further positive trust should be held with the same value as if there were no negative in the first place, thus invalidating its quality as a "counter-rating".
If you're basing things on solely one case (i.e. Vod giving me positive trust) then that's an extrapolation with a lot of variance. Might as well do this:  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
