5. Repeatitive post/threads. Irony at its finest.
We don't need more 'advice' threads. We don't need more merit threads. You don't have to congest the Meta board with more threads, virtue signaling all this crap. If you want to make a difference, get to reporting. And hey, if you want to show that you care about discussion, then go ahead and remove your signature 
Lock/move this thread, please. |
|
|
|
hmmm , still now working here even I tried clearing caches and resarted my router
is there any country restriction thing with the odds provider ?? I'm able to access the site perfectly but only sports betting isn't loading at all Works for me. Must be something on your end (network or location). |
|
|
|
but okay, let's see what the dictionary says. scams involve fraud or deceit. both fraud and deceit require the existence of another person---the victim who is "defrauded" or "deceived." if fraud or deception doesn't occur, then all a potential scammer did was think some thoughts. this is why legally fraud torts can't exist without a victim. the juxtaposition in that article between "fraud" and "hoax" points out the requisite factors: A hoax is a distinct concept that involves deliberate deception without the intention of gain or of materially damaging or depriving a victim. I think it is ridiculous that you have to wait until after a scam has occurred to do something about it. The idea of that is simply ridiculous: prophylactic action should be made to prevent the possibility of having any victims. From a utilitarian perspective, wouldn't you rather have 0 victims as opposed to 1? |
|
|
|
|
We don't need another merit thread. This is part of the problem.
We don't need more virtue signaling. This is pointless.
|
|
|
|
No, because each number in the streak costs another unit. This is where I disagree. If you develop the distribution based on two outcomes: either hitting the streak of n lucky numbers or not, then you can follow a negative binomial distribution where the 'success' is not hitting the jackpot and the 'failure' is reaching the streak. It doesn't matter how many numbers you hit if they don't reach the consecutive n-in-a-row. That's why the cost is the same and the probability is based accordingly, as the complement of p n. For the 6 10 sided dice example: If you roll 2 of the specific numbers in a row and lose, you lose 2000 satoshis. If your roll 5 of the specific numbers in a row and lose, you lose 5000 satoshis. The failed attempts have different costs, and the various probabilities for hitting each one must be factored in to determine the average cost per attempt. I don't disagree with this but to calculate E(X) you can simplify it with basing f(x) on "successfully entered n-in-a-row streak" or "did not enter n-in-a-row streak" and calculating X 1f(x 1) + X 2f(x 2) Does anybody else want to weigh in on this? (I'm not too great at statistics so there's possibly some miscalculations in there) |
|
|
|
So, I guess the way of figuring this out is by calculating the average "cost per attempt" How's this? Let J = jackpot, p = chance of getting required number, n = amount of numbers required for jackpot E(X) = (J-n(1000)) * p n + (1-p n)(-1000) My math could be completely wrong but this seems right to me. Any time you don't run into the n-in-a-row lucky numbers, you lose 1000. Once you do, you win the jackpot and lose n*1000. I believe(?) this calculation is similar to a negative binomial distribution Thus we have to find 0 = (J - 12(1000)) * 0.3439^12 + (1-0.03439^12)(-1000) And J = 3.6545 x 10^8 meaning the jackpot must exceed 3.6545 BTC. This is only very slightly higher than ndnh's prediction. |
|
|
|
1 1 million sided dice - you paid 1000 satoshis to win 10 BTC
6 10 sided dice - you paid 6000 satoshis to win 10 BTC I see what's happening here. I'm not sure if this follows a more complicated binomial distribution (since you have non-independent probabilities) but shouldn't you then expect to pay N * jackpot house edge to win the amount, where N is the number of dice? Given E(X) = 1/10^6 * 6(-1000) + (1-1/10^6) * 0 So then we would have (in your example) a breakeven point of 60 BTC. |
|
|
|
sure, the real root problem is whoever added you to DT and i'd like to remove them from my trust network too. but i don't think that information is public. please correct me if i'm wrong. It absolutely is public. If you temporarily change your trust list to exclusively DefaultTrust then you can enter the hierarchal view of the depth and investigate who excluded/included whom. In fact, all trust inclusions/exclusions are public and in a document: https://bitcointalk.org/trust.txt.xzI made it so that'll update every Saturday at 02:52 UTC. -> is "trusts", and -/> is "excludes". Only people with at least 1 post are included. If someone has never touched their trust list, then their trust in DefaultTrust is not shown. |
|
|
|
|
Go into the search tab and then write your name as a keyword. Put it in quotes for more relevancy and sort it by most recent (or whatever you would like). Then set the age appropriately.
Addendum: remember that it will only fetch the most recent reply if you sort it this way. If you are looking for all quotes within a certain thread, you will have to look manually. All this does is tells you whenever there is a recent post containing your name but not how many recent posts there are.
|
|
|
|
Which new DT2 members?
Can you point us to DT2 members who are leaving useless feedbacks, point us to these useless feedbacks and explain why they are useless? I thought it was a bit confusing in several of your replies but it seems that you don't know you were included into DT2. Given that you most likely don't care and manage your own custom trust settings, it may have been that you thought the attention was just a coincidental period of activity.
Have you contradicted yourself? This is not a contradiction. Exclusion =/= Negative trust. It simply means you do not trust their feedback. However, you can still trust the person. |
|
|
|
Dear Manager, this is a proof of work done for my week two(2). I don't know why it was not recorded on the spreedsheet. Please kindly see to it by verifying and resolving the said issue. Regards. is not a tweet about the site. I also went through all your tweets for the week and have not found a tweet that has listed the website. |
|
|
|
But it's more complicated than that, evidenced by the fact that you would rather pay $1 with a million sided dice to hit $1M at once, rather than pay $1 for each 10 sided dice you roll trying to get 6 1s in a row (same problem, easier to visualize). Those two have the exact same probability. For the former, it's 1 out of 1 million, obviously. For the latter, it's 1/10^6 = 1 out of 1 million. You're concerned about the price per roll however ndnh already factored in the house edge. That considers all possible roll percentages and gives you the required ev. Consider this very simple proposal. 1/10000 chance to hit the jackpot. One option is to pick a 10000-sided die. You are still betting on the outcome of this dice. Say, >=5000 for 2x. EV of rolling the dice without factoring jackpot: 0. EV of rolling the dice with factoring in the jackpot: jackpot/10000. The other option is to roll 100-sided dice. The rolls are independent but having two 100's in a row means that you will hit the jackpot. Say you bet >=50 for 2x. EV of rolling the dice without factoring jackpot: 0. EV of rolling the dice with factoring in the jackpot: jackpot/10000. Now if you factor in house edge you can see the similarities. |
|
|
|
This is new system of bitcointalk? Have any announcement about this? This has not been implemented and most definitely will not be implemented. Negative merit/demerits/anti-merit/fuckoffrit is detrimental to the already-abused system. Just as theymos said, let the merit abuse just be a rounding issue and it'll slowly die out. No need for anything more. |
|
|
|
You must sign an address that was either posted on the forum with the account or sent in a private message and send it to an admin (Cyrus or theymos). This thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=497545.0 will explain the logistics of how to do so. |
|
|
|
Do you mean with post our last post in week 3 ? Basically, to add what you just posted on to a previous post in the thread. It makes it so that I can check through all the posts more easily rather than go through all of a user's replies to find their reports. |
|
|
|
That's my bad. I looked at the Week 1 report as opposed to the Week 2 one. Can I add the difference to next week's payment? That would make it so that both of us have to pay less fees in total. Can we retweet older tweets from thefoxbot? Because there werent any new tweets since last day. That's fine but there may be tweets later on in the week. I would recommend you to do it midway through the week or get started on the ANN and site tweets first.
Also, if the participants could simply edit their previous replies and add on Week 3, it would help greatly. It makes it easier for me to review the tweets and get the payments done quickly! |
|
|
|
when a Newbie who joined a few hours ago checked my untrusted feedback it only makes sense that a lot of people care about it.
but anyway good thing you pointed me to untrusted feedback part ! would you be so kind and explain WHO can give a trusted feedback and who can't.
thanks Trusted feedback is based on a user's trust list. This is usually set to DefaultTrust. I have an in-depth explanation from a previous post of mine (this is in regards to trust depth but is relevant): This belongs in Meta.
For the purposes of explanation, trusting someone simply means that you carry their feedback in the "trusted" section.
Depth is the degree of which you recursively trust those in your trust list and those that are in the trust lists of people that you trust.
For example:
Depth 0 means that you only trust people who you add to your trust list.
Depth 1 means that you trust people who are in your trust lists, and in the trust lists of people you added to your trust list.
Depth 2 means that now additionally, the people in the depth 1 lists are trusted by you.
Depth n means that you trust the people in the depth n-1 lists.
An illustrative example:
This symbol: -> means adding someone to the trust list.
You -> A
A -> B
A -> C
B -> D
B -> E
Depth 0:
A is trusted.
Depth 1:
A is trusted, B and C are trusted.
Depth 2:
A is trusted, B and C are trusted, D and E are trusted.
If you're familiar with CS terminology, think of it as a tree with nodes, where parents add children to their trust list.
You can find your trust settings in any trust page and configure your trust list as you like. This will allow you to include and exclude others in your depth 0 trust tree. |
|
|
|
|
It's untrusted feedback. Do you want moderators to pore over feedback sent, regardless of who sent it? That would be a huge waste of time and would certainly compromise the staff's time.
A minority of users will truly care about the untrusted feedback and it's unfortunate: you'll lose business that way. But most don't even check trust ratings, never mind the untrusted feedback.
It would be in the best interests of most people if you would continue reporting scams as they come. Some scammers may leave retaliatory feedback. Just don't worry about it. It'll change about 2% of sales.
If it truly did anything significant, then a lot of active DT members would be in trouble. Just take a look at my trust page for example.
|
|
|
|
Since the creators of the forum started a chip with a Merit, then need to continue it somehow. They can not just do it and leave it, they have to modernize it. And this is one of the options Negative merit is prone to abuse. You either have to allow that abuse to occur or appoint more administrative actions towards it, which increases the already-high workload of moderators. And at that point, you're making it subjective based on the moderator's perspective which has generally not been the case with rules (i.e. ponzis, scams, trust abuse, etc)
Plus, you may get some wonkiness with users ranking up/down sporadically. |
|
|
|
|
Yes... when you refresh, you get bumped results. That's how a forum works when you sort by most recent posts on a page.
What?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
