|
Well, one thing that I can say about the Beginners and Help section. It seems a lot more palatable to read than it was the last time I checked it. The last time I checked it is when people were demoted to newbie because they didn't have even 1 merit. It was filled with people basically begging for merit. I'm not certain if the reason it is actually worth reading now is because the mod(s) for that job have done a good job keeping it clean or if I just picked a wrong time to start reading it in the past.
|
|
|
|
Well, that sucks. One mod moves it from beginners and help to mining and then the next dev deletes the topic. Is that anyway to treat a newbie asking a legitimate question and getting legitimate answers?  |
|
|
|
There will be a dotted line if the post was edited. You can hover over it to see the date thereof.
Note: a post will not be shown to be edited if it was edited within 10(?) minutes of posting
Where is this dotted line? I just edited a very old post of my own and don't see it. Could it be forum specific? Below is an example. It is under the post creation date. If you hover over the date, you should see the date of the last edit. |
|
|
|
If the forum doesn't add it, I can add it to the daily updates of my Flag viewer (linking the usernames on http://loyce.club/trust/flags/16.html to a new page showing an overview for that user instead of the profile on Bitcointalk), or I can add it to my Trust list viewer (updated weekly, keeping historic records) so it will be at the bottom of for example bones261's Trust list. Pick one  I think adding to the flag viewer makes more sense. That definitely would be great if you can do it. However, I hope this functionality is eventually added to bitcointalk. |
|
|
|
|
Please go this user's trust page and open a flag. Since you are a victim, you can open a red flag. All anyone else can do is open a yellow flag. If you open up a red flag, I will support it.
I am very curious, in the thread you referenced, someone accused Equicex of running a scam. Equicex responded by giving a short answer; admonished the accuser that they should not expect customer support on the open forum and then locked the thread. Was this thread how you found out about the Equicex? Or did you find out about them outside the forum?
|
|
|
|
I realize the new flag system is just right out of the gate. However, I am hoping a feature will be added to the trust page that allows me to view what flags I have supported and opposed. I know that LoyceV was nice enough to provide a trust list viewer. However, it would be nice to just be able to see a list of all the flags that only I supported or opposed, for periodic review. It would also be nice to be able to go to someone else's trust page and see what they support and oppose. |
|
|
|
I'm don't think satoshi planned for the 1mb size to be immutable. When Garzik suggested a patch to increase block size, satoshi stated this can be phased in later. I'm not certain the segwit work around was quite what satoshi had in mind. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.0What satoshi said doesn't mean what satoshi knew. He may or not have known that 1 MB blocksize would eventually become yet another value which becomes immutable due protocol maturation, what matters is the results, and the situation is clear: Reaching wide consensus to raise the blocksize at this point is basically as controversial as raising the max cap. You can find arguments on both sides, which as a result, the status quo prevails. I thought segwit was a blocksize increase though. From my understanding, the witness data is still part of the blockchain and legacy nodes are provided a stripped version without the witness data. I don't see that as 1 MB being immutable. I'm sure if the developers can implement this work around to increase block size, there will be other work arounds in the future that increase blocksize. |
|
|
|
will be the smallest unit that could be recorded on Bitcoin blockchain It isn't the smallest unit that could be recorded. It is the smallest unit recorded presently, but it is possible to further subdivide bitcoin if needed, although it would require a hardfork to do so. It is probably also worth mentioning that Lightning Network already subdivides satoshi in to a thousand units called millisatoshi. You can make payments on Lightning in millisatoshi, but upon closing a channel you can't broadcast millisatoshi to the blockchain, and so the value will be floored (rounded down) to the nearest satoshi. I am a little confused by this aspect. I read that the leftover millisatoshis are added to the coinbase transaction. I was under the impression that if more than one channel closes with leftover millisat transactions, the combined total is rounded down to the nearest satoshi, so the miner could get some extra fee. |
|
|
|
Not strictly true. You WILL GET A HUGE BANNER AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE saying more or less that you ARE PRESUMED A SCAMMER to persons up to member level and if you are not logged in.
So yes he just got branded a scammer pretty much.
No, the huge red banner is only triggered by old feedback. New feedback does not do anything to trigger the banner. I made an archive of the thread in question. http://archive.vn/tjkB9 (When I use the archive website, it always displays what a user will see if they are not online.)The user has no banner. |
|
|
|
That was pretty harsh, and though I certainly respect LFC_Bitcoin I'm not going to support it--but I'm not going to oppose it, either.
LFC_Bitcoin hasn't opened a flag, at this time. Just made a negative comment. So we do not have the opportunity to support or oppose it. |
|
|
|
With the new trust system, the new negative trust comments do not have the impact that they used to have. There won't be a big red score display and there won't be a message stating to trade with caution. They only thing the negative trust comment due is cause the negative tally to go up by one. People are now encouraged to actually read the negative trust comments. The guideline for leaving a negative trust comment is now as follows: Use-case #1 is the old trust system, but I made the descriptions on the rating types a bit more general and removed the concept of a trust score. The numbers are now "distinct positive raters / distinct neutral raters / distinct negative raters". You should give these ratings for anything which you think would impact someone's willingness to trade with the person, but you should not use trust ratings to attack a person's opinions or otherwise talk about things which would not be relevant to reasonable prospective traders.
Apparently, LFC_Bitcoin thinks it is negative for this particular user to ask for a no collateral loan. However, since many people ask for no collateral loans, many potential lenders may simply ignore this. |
|
|
|
Wow I thought bones261 was a nice guy but giving merit to gembitz? WTF man?
I liked the logo that he gave for libra. Want to see more of that from him.  |
|
|
|
I thought this is the entire point, that unless you are a proven scammer you will not get a big red flag at the top of the threads saying he is a scammer?
this is the old warning? i thought that was done away with?
As quoted from suchmoon above, theymos decided to display the old warning banner for newbies and accounts not logged in if the old negative trust ratings exceed the old positive trust ratings. |
|
|
|
I just took an archive snapshot of one of Thule's thread's that he started and can verify he is getting the old red banner for logged out accounts. I assume this is what is showing up for newbie accounts as well. http://archive.vn/gauF3 |
|
|
|
Just like 21 million coin limit is also an arbitrary limit of human imposition. The idea behind it being a simulation of gold's supply is irrelevant, what matters for all intended purposes is that it became an immutable trait of Bitcoin due the game theory involved, just like 1 MB blocksize has become an immutable trait of Bitcoin due the game theory involved, this is called protocol solidification.
At it's inception, any values would have cut it, since satoshi was calling all the shoots. Once the creature was alive, he disappeared, and im sure he was smart enough to know (either planned or in retrospect) that those values would never change. It couldn't go any other way if the project is indeed decentralized. This is the fact only for Bitcoin, no altcoin meets the criteria, which is why all altcoins are overpriced and Bitcoin is undervalued, at any rate.
I'm don't think satoshi planned for the 1mb size to be immutable. When Garzik suggested a patch to increase block size, satoshi stated this can be phased in later. I'm not certain the segwit work around was quite what satoshi had in mind. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.0 |
|
|
|
Still I think if a person is a Jew and ask the r0ach to buy/sell some silver.... that he wouldn't hesitate to scam a Jew is imo very likely (not proven but I would say be aware  ) To be fair, what would probably happen is that he would pay the Jew 1 BTC for 1 OZ silver and think he outsmarted the jew. After all BTC is worth zero and silver is going to the moon as soon as the financial apocalypse is upon us. |
|
|
|
@Last of the V8s I usually do agree with you but not this time, I don't think a newbie-flag or any other flag is suited for his case, maybe a neutral feedback and that's all about it,don't get me wrong , If i had the power to ban realr0ach I would , IMO he is a piece of shit ,I do read his posts in the WO thread and I never bothered to start a conversation with him, but all that aside , I do not think the trust system is intended for this type of stuff.
Unfortunately, these tags have no way of only reaching out to a specific group of people. If someone happens to be a Jew, I definitely believe that all of the flags are there that R0ach will probably scam them, in addition to making his best effort to run them out of every nation on Earth. |
|
|
|
Clearly you did not read what i said  I just read it. No one is going to give you 50 BTC for you to use your secret and special marketing technique to promote BTC. You must be trolling. |
|
|
|
Why is this scam buster and net positive user permabanned?
Why "second chance rule" doesn't apply here?
I'm not certain why tvpuls006 hasn't been granted at least a temp ban either. Definitely a net positive for the forum. Let's hope a global mod can bestow mercy on this poor soul. Tvplus006 has earned over 400 merits. Definitely not your run of the mill shit poster. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
