The truth is that the majority of people are on this forum because you can't earn money from any of those alternatives. I absolutely welcome the idea of those people, those only here for money, fucking off and moving to another forum to spread their shit. I sincerely hope that the merit system is a step towards this.
I'm sure that's the case for most people: they're here for money. But, to be fair, this is the most popular bitcoin forum by far. Going to another forum (or worst, creating a new one as suggested by others) is impractical because there would be to few people there. We could say BTT has the monopoly. (Do not take this as I'm supporting the spammers, I'm just saying what I just posted) |
|
|
|
Does this mean I won't get legendary until I get 1000 merit?
I was going over 1030 activity next week (still hero at 1022 before the merit system).
I've said before it's harsh for Hero members with over 775 activity to get only 500 merits, and your case is the worst I think! Yes, you'll need 500 more merit points to be Legendary. I'll go through your posts and grant some merits if deserved. |
|
|
|
For example, in the entire thread discussing Merit right now, it's 50+ pages. It's hard to go through the whole thing. I'd like to see the Merited posts, because it is a filtering mechanism. This should help the forum moderators filter through suggestions as well.
Indeed! It's impossible to have a proper discussion or to learn much more than what OP says there. I've posted 2 suggestions there but it seems to be in the oblivion now (one of those does have merits). And to take it one step further, the new or existing posts on that thread that are being ignored are less likely to get merit, no matter how great they are.
And that would be the bad side of OP's suggestion. If a lot of people uses this proposed feature, it would be extremely difficult to see good new posts. But I'd guess not everyone would use it and a single merit+ would be enough to increase the post's visibility. Another think I'd like to see is following someone's merits. I mean, if you think someone has a good criteria to grant merits (good or at least similar as yours), then you can follow them and then having a link showing the posts merited by those users. |
|
|
|
Una pregunta... por que no usais monederos en papel generados offline y despues enviais los btc a ellos? Es una solucion económica, segura y sin centralización y no es como las monedas que ya viene la clave privada impresa que la puede tener cualquiera. Un billete opaco, doblado y sellado con la clave privada en su interior y la clave pública en su exterior.
El gran problema es que este monedero de papel sólo sería aceptado por ti mismo y por quienes confían en ti. Imagínate vender tu móvil y recibir a cambio un monedero de papel: - Cómo sabes que ahí está la cantidad que debe estar? Tendrías que copiar la dirección y verla en un explorador.
- Cómo sabes que ahí está realmente la clave privada de esa dirección? Tendrías que verificarla importándola en algún monedero online.
- Cómo sabes que quien te está dando el monedero de papel no se quedó con una copia de la clave privada? Pues tendrías que enviar los BTC a otra dirección sólo tuya.
Finalmente, regresamos a enviar los BTC digitalmente. Realmente bitcoin no se hizo para usar billetes físicos, sino para reemplazarlos. La única forma de tener billetes o algo parecido es con una institución centralizada que los emita. Por ejemplo, un estado o una empresa muy confiable podría guardar bitcoins de una forma segura y emitir billetes con ese respaldo. Pero ya no sería centralizado, habría que confiar plenamente en esa institución. Y tendríamos los problemas actuales del fiat, como la falsificación y la emisión inorgánica (emitir billetes por BTC10 con sólo BTC1 de respaldo). |
|
|
|
Another request: Besides the +Merit button, I'd like to see some common, immediate actions like "+1", "+2" and "+5". Ideally with jQuery so that no other window is opened, or at least a JS alert (like when we click "Watch"), or a jQuery UI Dialog which could have those 3 buttons, besides "Cancel". I think this would increase the usage of this feature, as it would be much faster and easier. Request: I'd like to see a link to download raw data regarding the latest merit activity. Basically this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=merit;stats=recent but as txt, json, csv or similar format including name/id of sender, name/id of receiver and post ID. When the DT was provided as text some interesting processing was possible. With merit raw data we could easily write scripts to find suspicious activity, to show it graphically, advanced stats, among other things.
|
|
|
|
There are many users who are trading the sMerit at the moment, particularly in the local section. How to stop this as they are abusing the main motive behind this newly introduced ranking and merit system ? If this continues then the actual idea for launching this system will be failed and it will continue to encourage the illegal sales of sMerit.
Post the links here, or PM me or other DT users like Lauda, actmyname or The Pharmacist, so the sellers and buyers are given negative trust They are already being given negative trust. You can help moderators by reporting this if you notice.
Moderators don't moderate this. |
|
|
|
Buying accounts is scummy, people should build up the rep on one account and if they cant do it why cheat?
Yes. I do think it's very wrong. trust is given to accounts, if that account is then sold - how will everyone know it isnt the original owner?
some of us trade on here loads, one of the last large deals I did here was for over $100K.. no escrow was used.. think about the ramifications of that and a sold account..
Absolutely, trust shoudn't be 'transferred' to the new owner. Selling accounts with trust deserves negative trust to warn everyone they're not dealing with the person that earned that trust, I agree. The only case I don't think it deserves negative trust (and a neutral is enough) is selling non-DT accounts without positive trust; with nothing to abuse. |
|
|
|
Account sales is allowed / Not Forbidden
That means you won't get banned if you're found selling or buying accounts. It doesn't mean you won't get negative trust. Negative trust should be used when we think someone is untrustworthy. Personally, I think it is if the sold account had positive trust or is trusted in some way, because the new owner can take advantage of that trust an scam easily. I wouldn't leave negative trust when selling other kind of accounts, maybe a neutral but that's all. However, there's no guidelines about this AFAIK, so everyone can have their own opinion about whether or not that's untrustworthy. |
|
|
|
Those ratings (or type of ratings) were approved by theymos.
Fair enough, if that's true then those ratings are valid. Leaving negative trust to spammers is not approved by theymos. That's partially why I sped up work on merit. I don't agree with using the trust system for pure spam; that's not what it was designed for.
Another way would be to reach an agreement with signature managers.
Re latter part: How do you do that? What happens in 2 our of 30 reject the agreement? How to prevent new managers popping up that don't accept the agreement? How do you enforce this agreement? While the suggestion may seem simple, it is most certainly not. Agreed. That's a big problem. That's why I think making " another complex system" is a better solution. But my point is that we need to think of new ideas. I had 2, maybe they're not the solution, but we do need to do something. I wouldn't put 'can't' there. We most certainly can, but apparently we shouldn't (better put, unfortunately we shouldn't).
Agreed again. We can but we should not. |
|
|
|
Disagreed. Just while it might not be the best solution to label both scammers and spammers under the same color, that's what the description of the rating is for. Given the situation, it was decent. Sure, the description is important, and so is the reference. It's to explain why you think the user is a scammer or very untrustworthy. Negative means: You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer. We shouldn't use it for whatever else just because we explain so on the description. Edit: The same way we shouldn't leave negative trust because someone edited a post of ours with a "FTFY", even if we explain so in the description of the rating (Lauda will get this  ) That's partially why I sped up work on merit. I don't agree with using the trust system for pure spam; that's not what it was designed for.
Considering this, I really think you should ask them to stop giving negative trust to people with poor quality posts (and remove the current trust), or to remove them otherwise. Here we go, another bad idea. Instead of tackling the problem at its roots, let's develop another complex system. Strongly disagreed. We do need a solution, developing another system is an option. Another way would be to reach an agreement with signature managers. We can't just give up, can we? And because we can't/shouldn't leave negative trust to spammers then we need new ideas.
Sorry I don't usual to rate my own post, beside that a post could be useful for newbie but shit for legendary
It doesn't matter whom it's useful to, as long as it's well thought, well written, with valid arguments: constructive. Even if you disagree or you already knew the posted information. It does say something about the quality of your posts when the very best one is: I think this is cool, we can collect a few R token in 5 days. The token already in the market with a good price. I will participate.
How long did it take to research and write it? You, I mean for Blazed because I think he is one of the most powerfull people here.
Only theymos can make changes to the forum |
|
|
|
The damage has been made and I am one of them. Am I really spammer? I don't think so, every people has different estimation about post rating.
Can you link to 3 posts of yours that deserve merit+? Seriously. I can only find posts that make no good to the forum. But I don't think you deserve negative trust, you're not a scammer. Back to the topic, why don't you give a tool for those spamming fighters to rate all the post here instead of giving red trust?
Who you? I hope those tools will be available soon to stop low-quality posters. |
|
|
|
No, they won't
It works both ways. New technology (i.e. quantum computers) can be used for both breaking and fixing cryptography.
What makes you think we, normal users, will have access to quantum computers? If an evil goverment or evil comporation creates a quantum computer (a real one, not the trash produced right now), it can destroy any network. We don't even know if they already have one. We (and by that I mean someone) don't actually need a quantum computer. We just need the basics. As described in the video I linked, we can use the basic properties of quantum to improve the encryption algorithms. While an actual quantum computer is required to hack, less than that is needed to protect cryptography against it. I guess it's possible some government is finishing developing it without anyone else knowing, but I find that very unlikely. |
|
|
|
I saw a new field under my personal information called merit, directly below my activity field. What does this mean? Any further information on this?
Thanks.
It's a system made with the intention to reduce posts made without any effort, like yours. Please read this very thread and others before posting. Now, users must make constructive posts in order to earn merit points and rank up. Full information: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2818350.0Recommended: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2820030.0 |
|
|
|
OK, I can do that but it'll take quite some time
I don't think there's a rush I know the shitposters will be throwing a victory parade.
Let's hope it's just temporary, and it worked as a warning for most of them |
|
|
|
I tried to help, as did actmyname and Blazed. At least we got a fired-up discussion going and pissed off a lot of shitposters. I'll be removing my feedbacks, but it'll take some time to do so.
You may consider leaving neutral instead. Just to keep track. There's hope there will be some changes to fight low-quality posts and we could re-use your work. We may be able to add them to SMAS and enforce it, tag them as spammers or other solution. |
|
|
|
Request: I'd like to see a link to download raw data regarding the latest merit activity. Basically this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=merit;stats=recent but as txt, json, csv or similar format including name/id of sender, name/id of receiver and post ID. When the DT was provided as text some interesting processing was possible. With merit raw data we could easily write scripts to find suspicious activity, to show it graphically, advanced stats, among other things.
|
|
|
|
Maybe I was wrong to add people to fight spam?
Honestly I think you were. That's partially why I sped up work on merit. I don't agree with using the trust system for pure spam; that's not what it was designed for.
Considering this, I really think you should ask them to stop giving negative trust to people with poor quality posts (and remove the current trust), or to remove them otherwise. Yeah, it is his forum so I will make sure the red for shit posting stops. I was not sure if it would work, but at least it got something else implemented for us. I remain doubtful that anything will fix the spam here until we hold campaign managers accountable for their users. I doubt it too, at least in short term. We must find other ways to do that. I hope theymos will write about my idea. It's clear the staff isn't enough to fight spam and a bigger group must be allowed to do that. |
|
|
|
Theymos, thank you for making the +Merit link open in a new window.Hopefully it does not introduce any security issues, and I believe it will make people use the system more.  A jSON popup or similar would be much better though  But I guess that's too much to ask? Maybe on the next forum SW to be implemented next year  |
|
|
|
Tweeting from @fugoji mentioning this thread or "The_Tribesman" would prove it as far as I'm concerned, not sure if it would be enough to get your account back though. Or you can DM me to @EcuaMobi and I'll tag the account at least. Edit: TaggedI hope you can recover your account. Let me know when you do to untag it. |
|
|
|
Maybe I was wrong to add people to fight spam?
Honestly I think you were. That's partially why I sped up work on merit. I don't agree with using the trust system for pure spam; that's not what it was designed for.
Considering this, I really think you should ask them to stop giving negative trust to people with poor quality posts (and remove the current trust), or to remove them otherwise. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
