Requesting to join ChipMixer is probably exactly what someone who doesn't post purely for money does. There's no minimum number of posts which exercises freedom.

If you were in the position where you may have been considered a viable applicant for the campaign, wouldn't you do so? (IIRC this was after the moderator promotion)

---

And where the fuck is the conflict of interest?

Payment has been made to all qualified participants:

2eef6924bd60723d287387430250629f6417886d6e72e5d0fe3e5c24f44ee5e9

As always, please let me know if there are any issues. Good luck with the third week of the campaign.

I'll take the rest. Payment coming shortly.

EDIT: 1d8f8e51ad2f13ad564e4a604f94d5c470adcaec1225f76957861087a682b006

IIRC there was some system that he was testing to randomly add users into one's DT network. If someone has a link they can bring it up but it basically made users pick and choose from a selection of users.

Decentralization. If you have the DT members agree with one another all the time or have some organized community staying in power, that leads to some heavy corruption. Some people may say that the current system still creates corruption, but there are plenty of objective DT members in the system.

The problem is that without a generalized consensus, most people would be afraid to sent ratings. After all, if someone cared about trust, they would strive to keep it as-is and avoid these kinds of confrontations.

I'm not sure why anybody would do that. If you have a lot of merit, it would make sense to keep posting quality content. You wouldn't want to risk a ban with all the 'progress', would you?

Think of it from an account farmer's perspective: that's an incredibly valuable account. Why chance it by instigating the same shitty practices as the other generic spam accounts?

Astargath is talking about DefaultTrust settings, which means that this is applicable in a grand scheme.

Retaliatory feedback is inevitable. However. the part that works is when others jump in to give their opinion about certain sent feedback. If other DT members disagreed with BAC's rating, they could easily send mprep positive feedback to counter the rating.

In the second case about Lauda, there must be a clear distinction made between trust feedback and trust lists. Lauda receiving negative trust from DT members does not mean that they will be excluded from DT.

Rather, for an exclusion to happen, the number of DT1 members that have ~Lauda (an exclusion) in their trust list must exceed the number that have Lauda (an inclusion) in their trust list.

In the third case, if it is justified there is often need to leave multiple feedback. To delete earlier feedback and "edit it in" to a later feedback seems unconstructive.

So you would have (since there are only 128 tickets for the 16x16 table of options):
One of 1-16 win if the second-last digit is 0, 1
One of 17-32 win if the second-last digit is 2, 3
etc?

How does the ending digit determine the winner when you have 128 different tickets? There are only 16 different characters in a block hash.

You can simply archive the post and then it won't matter if the hacker deletes the post or not. archive.is is a useful tool for archiving. Alternatively, there is archive.org.

Once you do that, it would be wise to post the link to the archive here and then sign a message declaring your ownership.

Is this a bad thing? I think it should be this way. If you don't know what you're talking about, do you really need to be considered a "Senior Member" of Bitcointalk? If all the knowledge you have is the fact that bitcoin is volatile and that the price may increase/decrease because of "supply and demand" then that's not something which deserves a high rank.

So you can quote properly, but you choose to do it on the biggest post in this entire thread. Are you leveling here?

---

I see you're wearing a 777Coin signature, therefore all of the accounts that have those signatures must be controlled by the same person.

Looks like Flying Hellfish is doing their job.

There's no incentive for people to send trust. There's no incentive to enter serious discussion topics.

---

Getting a "decent account"? Is the purpose of BCT to facilitate signature-based payments? I don't think so.

However, if we want to take that stance, then we can argue this: only the best posters should be given the privilege of getting payments for their posts. I do understand that there exist many "high-rank" accounts that are spammers. They'll eventually be funneled out, either through moderation of the forum directly or of the campaigns. Though, in the case of bounties, the latter is unlikely to happen.

It's not easy to create something where you are rewarded for sending sMerit. That brings an undesirable advantage to people with alts and account farmers.

Your bitcoin address is actually invalid. Please send me a new address via a private message and I will credit the missing payment with this week's transaction.

Assuming that your definition of "green trust member" is simply a user that has a green-colored trust rating (in most users' trust perspectives), you have already satisfied those conditions. You received a positive feedback rating from Hhampuz who is in DT and now have a corresponding rating.

Essentially, all it takes is one positive trust from a DT member. When there are negatives, it gets a little more complicated but at that point seeking 'green trust' is pointless, for any number of reasons.

That may have been because of either of the following two reasons:
1) Hhampuz was not in the DefaultTrust localized network
2) You did not have DefaultTrust in your trust network

---

You don't become a "green trust member" by adding users (which have granted you positive trust) to your trust list. It may seem that way to you but for most users that have default trust settings, it'll be different.

There's also no wait period. Rather, the number on the left increments by 1 each time a month passes from when the feedback was sent. The 5-month thing is arbitrary and purely coincidental.

Flawed? Yes.
Should it be removed? No.

There is no benefit to ranking up apart from reducing post times if you intend to use the forum for useful discussion. Unfortunately, most users are seeking rank-ups to earn more in signature campaigns.

So why don't we rephrase these questions about the merit system?

"Can we make signature campaigns easier to enter?"
"Can I get paid more in signature campaigns with shitty posts?"

Which account got hacked?

Why is it so hard to lay out all the information immediately rather than having people search and request for it?

Thanks for repeating what OP says and condensing it down into one tiny asinine post.

"it's so hard to get merit!"

Why do you need merit? To rank up? Why do you need to rank up? To join signature campaigns? Then do you really care about contributing to the forum?