Bad signs all around. The bad signs were there for years, but massively ignored. Read Freebitco.in provably cheating: You should probably move (bottom-left) this to Scam Accusations. I've often wondered if they're legit, based on the average cost per faucet claim: 1 number pays $200 2 numbers pay $20 4 numbers pay $2 8 numbers pay $0.20 100 numbers pay $0.02 9886 numbers pay $0.002 I've always wanted to know if they really pay $271.37 on average for 10000 rolls. And if so, why don't they just pay $0.027 for each roll? They'd have the highest paying faucet, while it would cost them the same amount in total. Because they choose not to pay the average amount for each roll, but made it a jackpot system, cheating would be possible and largely go unnoticed. Especially if they only cheat once every few thousand rolls. Based on the odds, I would expect one $200 winner for every 2 $20 winners. I did a (manual) count on pages 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, and 50 on Big wins at FreeBitco.in: I just won $20 at FreeBitco.in! 116 times I just won $200 at FreeBitco.in! 2 times I probably miscounted a bit, but let's round it down: winning $200 is 50 times less likely than winning $20, and that makes the difference 25 12.5 times larger than it should be. When theQuin was active, he was quick to respond to every accusation. Most of the time the accusers were cheaters and he was posting proof to show everyone the scammers’ real intentions. To me, it always seemed like he just wanted to silence the accusations, and that worked quite well. Except for the case in which he knew he couldn't bully me, so he didn't respond at all: Interesting. It would be interesting to hear statement from wetsuit or TheQuin. I find it interesting that for years they haven't responded here. I still believe the accusations are plausible. |
|
|
|
Can someone tell my such a user shouldn't be tagged (negatively) for spamming. See: Some people were talking about neg-trusting spammers for spamming. This is not appropriate; report the posts, and if that doesn't seem to be working well, come to Meta with specific examples and suggestions. They actually have 4 persons who monitor the participants since 2 years ago, guess what? they give good ratings to QueenVera, Adrian aka one of the reviewer said this week QueenVera is a good poster.  Stake "campaign managers" have a very weird way of determining post "quality". It's certainly not in the interest of the forum. This topic is over 5 years old: Stake.com (SteveStake) is encouraging spam. |
|
|
|
I don't know why you say wrong topic. This topic usually doesn't get users banned. |
|
|
|
Fun fact: The bigger is your sandbox, the easier it is to hide another bag of sand. I like your analogy. But, if you have a sandbox, would you really risk it all for one more bag of sand? In this case, I assume the woman didn't have any sand and stole a desert  |
|
|
|
the decline in the popularity of forums and the rise in popularity of instant messengers. Don't you mean social media instead of instant messengers? Indeed, messengers are convenient in many ways: you exchange instant messages, you have very few restrictions on publications, you can actively use memes and pictures, as well as videos. I don't want people to have instant access to my attention, I don't want memes, and I don't want videos. Bitcointalk is fine the way it is. what do you think needs to happen for our forum to become popular again? I'm confused: your title wants to make the forum "great", your post wants to make it "popular". Considering the level of social media, I don't think those two words go together. |
|
|
|
If there is an overwhelming number of spamming in stake campaigns, will theymos still give them a pass? They've gotten away with spamming for years, and it has been a lot worse than it is now. So I don't expect any action to be taken against them. |
|
|
|
This may be controversial but the average Joe may not need to use Bitcoin LN. Cash is the best fit for small scale daily transactions, incurs zero fees and is accepted everywhere. Here, cash is used less and less. People use more and more electronic payments, nowadays including contactless payments. The fact that you can be charged on multiple cards just for having your wallet close to a check-in machine doesn't seem to bother people. I'd prefer cash for privacy, or anything else that doesn't create eternal records of who-pays-what in several databases. |
|
|
|
you dont have a right to privacy in public. because ITS PUBLIC When I'm outside, you're allowed to take a picture of me, but you're not allowed to publish it. Of course there's privacy. well most people in this forum are american Citation needed so ill talk about them(and because this topic is about US congress thus people in US affected by it)
you are allowed to publish it.. and to quote many peoples favourite "american rights", the first amendment: freedom of speech and press, so anyone can publish anything thats in public
you dont even need permission from those you capture on camera. It looks like your Congress has bigger things to worry about than Bitcoin, like privacy! Here, you can film but you can't publish. Of course, if you publish it anyway, chances are the person in the video will never find out, and if they do, they'll need to sue you for breaking privacy laws. So it's not as if the law prevents violations, and almost anyone breaks it by posting anything they see on social media. But at least on paper we have privacy you are not correct. If I go to a public beach and film I can not show the video
without permission if the people filmed are underage. Does this mean the restrictions have to do with sex-laws instead of privacy-laws? yes its emotionally disrespectful/weird/pervy/creepy if you are obviously deliberately trying to film kids or nudists or topless females and yes thats 'icky' and again disrespectful Camera phones destroyed a short time of topless women on the beach. When people finally become less prudish, it didn't take long for the internet to make them cover themselves again. |
|
|
|
Two hundred and seventy-second week paid. Thanks again for your flawless timing! I was still with my kid, he sleeps a bit later nowadays. |
|
|
|
So, are we voting for our own pizza? Can I afford not to vote for my wife's pizza? On a more serious note: I was hoping to use the voting to also Merit a lot of pizzas, but that won't work with the anonymous voting. I was hoping to exclude the disqualified pizzas by not going through the thread. |
|
|
|
User: da16888~ Now here's explanation of his SEO spam action. ~ he edit his post some time after it's posted. Here's an example, Good find (but wrong topic). This is just plan old spam. I've reported 9 of his posts: Spambot, please Nuke. This user edits his posts after a few days to add a spam link. Update: he's Nuked. |
|
|
|
that means you could have at least 1358 sMerits (excluding source). 3990Make that 3356  Pizza contest to the rescue |
|
|
|
Friends, who has encountered this? See: It only bans you for up to 4 hours. Credits to you, I had forgotten about that topic. |
|
|
|
When you look at the stats and compare that to 3 or so years ago you'll notice how much advancement LN has made. Sure there's still lots of room for more advancements and adoptions, but it has come a long way. The number of channels is dropping, while the network capacity is increasing. There's now on average about 0.1 Bitcoin per channel, and that's 3 times more than it was 3 years ago. If I'd have to guess, I'd say that's related to on-chain transaction fees. I wouldn't want to have $7k in a hot wallet, but small channels aren't worth the on-chain fees. So maybe LN is moving more and more to custodial networks, and I'm okay with that. I'd much rather send $100 to a well-connected custodial LN wallet than sending $7k in my own LN hot wallet. |
|
|
|
But I think as a merit sources, your Smerit have expiration if fail to exhaust it before the end of the month? Not really: every source sMerit I spent, returns after 30 days. I think it's after 30*24*3600 seconds exactly. If I don't spend them, they don't disappear. It just piles up and won't get replenished anymore. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is still doing better than 75% of our portfolios  Now you make me want to add the average of all altcoin portfolios. @n0nce: if I do, can you give "Average" a bold line in the graph? |
|
|
|
I have used most of the well known Wallets and NONE of them have EVER mentioned even a single time a thing about 'Taint'. Mycelium, Electrum, Bitcoin Core, Unstoppable, Bread, Coinbase even back when I first started! I visited so many Block Explorers and none of them have ever mentioned a single thing about 'Taint' either. Blockchair, Blockchain, you name it. I like it It'll be a cold day in hell before Bitcoin Core tells you your money is tainted. Taint defined by who? I'll make it easy (if you catch my drift): here's a list of all tainted Bitcoin addresses But Bitcoin, which is barely even used at all as a Currency and the illicit segment of all Transactions probably amounts to less than 1 percent of the total illegal Money of only the examples I gave above, is getting restrictions over restrictions and absurd regulations. The fact that governments try so very hard to stop Bitcoin, makes me believe I made the right choice in getting some you dont have a right to privacy in public. because ITS PUBLIC When I'm outside, you're allowed to take a picture of me, but you're not allowed to publish it. Of course there's privacy. Since we're on the topic of privacy: you know that removing part of the address still makes it very easy to find the full address once it's used, right? |
|
|
|
Some people that do not know about this might be fooled. I clicked on lightning and brought this:  That's as close to scamming as it gets. Can you add a Warning Against Wallets list in the OP, with the WalletName in Strikethrough? |
|
|
|
a drug dealer who is using BTC is a stupid drug dealer. I don't think they'll get Bitcoin from their "customers", but I can imagine they use their cash to buy Bitcon P2P. I have no idea how often it happens, but it's always on my mind when someone wants to spend a large amount of cash to buy Bitcoin. Or they could be scammers. |
|
|
|
I believe higher fees would slow down adoption which means less people would use bitcoin which means both price and fees won't go up after a certain level and bitcoin will start struggling to get adopted more. I believe we've passed that point a long time ago. When I started with Bitcoin (9 years ago), I could make cheap transactions to get a feel of how it works. Now, I can't recommend anyone to store a small amount of Bitcoin in their wallet. @OP: nobody can predict transaction fees in the far future, but you can consolidate your inputs so you don't have many small inputs in the future. Having less inputs, and thus a smaller transaction (in bytes), will sharply reduce transaction fees if fees get much higher. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
