|
You should paint the people that are red tagged appropriately in that table using [color=red ].
|
|
|
|
1) The faucet answer is bullshit. He should be sure that they are a waste of time. 2) He's replying to his own issue. 3) The fee advice is just bullshit. It has nothing to do with the amount of USD that one is sending. 4) Just no. 5) Yes. 6) Yes. 7) No. 8') Okay. 9) No. Regulation can not remove decentralization. 10) Yes. As far as I am aware we don't have any merit sources as our active local thread users.
I've taken a look at the last few pages of that thread, and there is almost nothing that warrants a single merit point.
In summary: No. |
|
|
|
recently someone reset my password and change my account email richardivan----BITCOIN ADDRESS ----
1JMB55XPWnwLHkhssWM669VPvvhFCtchZ7
-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
This is Xeldz from bitcointalk.org and today is 2018/01/27
my account (richardivan) has been hacked by gastor478@protonmail.com
-----BEGIN SIGNATURE-----
ICwaf4GMxcbB1HNscnvzPKnkTDXpRSH+WXN7MNMKTpWmRCQwwGm1PD+ycmFlEgpD55ahHvSlJYgdfy48z3uvQng= can admin unlock my account and change the email to the previous one? Verified and archived the address on your profile. |
|
|
|
Because they are the power here and we are just under them no one can say they are wrong. They are always correct we cannot protest that's the reality. We noobs just have to deal with it.
I'd like to know what this power is and how it can be used? Thanks. |
|
|
|
Q Can I make a transaction with 2049 KB?
Depends. If its a block weight of less than 4,000,000 units, then it is possible. I don't think that is even possible (at least not in normal usage patterns), but I could be wrong. The only thing is that the practical max for Segwit blocks is about 2MB, IIRC.
I wouldn't word it like that as it might confuse some people. If the utilization of Segwit was nearing 100%, given the current usage patterns, the blocks would be around 2 MB. However, the maximum size that they can reach is 4 MB. |
|
|
|
The people who opposes this system are basically those
....
That's a needless fallacy right there. All the reasons you've listed are not all the reasons for which some might be dissatisfied with this solution. E.g., I know at least one user who shared their concerns with me via PM. The introduction of a complex system is a joke given that what we really needed were simple solutions to the disease that spread within this forum.
I guess just withholding sMerit until it decays would be a sign of protest. So you are against this Merit thing introduction and need a more easy solution to eliminate the problems ? Partially. When you are tackling a problem, you should look for the simplest solutions for it. There are just so many simple ways that this could have been dealt with, and much more quickly. The only reason for which Merit was introduced right now is because certain users got into DT2 and continued tagging shitposters with negative ratings. In other words, because the community pushed in the direction that theymos has been unable to find for many years.
* Lauda misses the Bear. |
|
|
|
The people who opposes this system are basically those
....
That's a needless fallacy right there. All the reasons you've listed are not all the reasons for which some might be dissatisfied with this solution. E.g., I know at least one user who shared their concerns with me via PM. The introduction of a complex system is a joke given that what we really needed were simple solutions to the disease that spread within this forum.
I guess just withholding sMerit until it decays would be a sign of protest. |
|
|
|
Q Can I make a transaction with 2049 KB?
Current rules prevent you from doing that. I think the current limit is *100kb-ish* for a standard transaction. Q Will it ever get a confirmation?
No. Q If it will then it will be violation of rule, that a block can't be greater than 2 MB?
There is no such rule. Q If I'm able to make a transaction with 2049 KB then will it able to clog the bitcoin network or able to make the fees higher to any extend?
No. Even if we assume that you can create that transaction and that the network would accept it (validate and relay), why would a miner put only it in a block with X amount of fees when he can put in other transactions amounting to 10 times that in fees? He wouldn't. ...( It is against network rule !! )..
Either it is against a policy or a consensus rule. I haven't seen anyone use the term *network rule* in this context. |
|
|
|
There is always the possibility that Theymos may introduce a new rank requiring more Merit than 1,000.
;;8ball Result: _I_ don't know. Doesn't look favorable. Now the problem is when unsignificant people trade merits they tag them red trust but why not atriz and lauda?
Because we did nothing wrong, idiot. They are hunting for alts which are sending each other merit. We are not alts nor does sending me merit matter. Therefore, it can never be farming. I was happy that this merit system was introduced and that there are few people giving chances to the newbies by making thread for them so that they can at least prove their worth, but when I see this post it makes me sad.
I am not giving random shitposters merit points. You can forget about that. |
|
|
|
My surprise is that when the mempool gets down the first tx is executed too. I asked the owner of the wallet 3FcJ5qSBExencX5eowGJwrPBnfKX41FrXK if he received another payment and he told me checked on his ledger wallet GUI and he received it but it was tagged as double spending and then the print screen he sent me only show one TX.
It can't be a double spend; read these two words again. Double spend. To double spend something, you have to spend the same thing twice. The two transactions are literally spending from different sources: 1st one from 3P83sWGjujgjKN2AN73Q6n52UUg9ecQyvd; 2nd one from 19mbyFd8ehSs5AyGQF1hZnS4fj6i1kRgDc. What is happening how can he confirm the other tx ?
Both transactions have been confirmed and he has *received* the funds. You can see his balance here: https://blockchain.info/address/3FcJ5qSBExencX5eowGJwrPBnfKX41FrXK. Could I receive BTC from a wallet and check +6 confirmations and then lose those BTC because the same BTC were sent to another wallet with a high fee but "abandoned"
Abandon transaction is a local function. It does not, and can not, remove the transaction from the network. |
|
|
|
I have tried Ubuntu 16.04, 17.10.1 and Mint 18 Mate (32 and 64 bit). Everything works fine on wifi. Maybe it's a kernel issue?
Try using an older version of the Kernel then. All those that you've tried are Debian based now, can you try a RPM based one such as Fedora? |
|
|
|
Friends/Collegues may give each other points for undefined reason.
Campaign announcements may gain merits by the campaign team itself.
It is ok for me, if the merit system may also be used this way. But it would be great, if the merits guidlines would be adjusted to clear that out. Maybe others also want to give their friends merits as present or just for fun.
The way this, needless mistake instead of an actual solution, works is as follows: Non merit sources are like non DT members. While not preferred, you can leave *almost any* kind of rating to anyone. The same goes for sending sMerit[1]. Merit sources are like DT members. They should pay attention to how they are distributing their points. E.g., obviously someone would be a bad merit source if he/she split his/her supply on the (same) few people each month. Therefore, as a non source, I'm allowed to send the sMerit to whomever I want, whenever I want, in whatever amount I want.
[1] Just like in the trust system, sending sMerit to your alts will land you into trouble. The only difference here is that selling is not explicitly allowed (selling trust was not explicitly disallowed AFAIK, it was a community *rule*). |
|
|
|
|
It's a system of trust. I do not trust you. End of story.
Instead of whining and bragging[1] about your Railblocks (which is another scam coin) 500k, you could do something productive. The faster way, other than annoying me ad naseum, is to find a DT member who strongly disagrees with the rating. They can counter it with theirs.
[1] Both of these make you look really pathetic.
|
|
|
|
If there is mafia here, maybe you should call SWAT  I'm not surprised see The Pharmacist, Lauda & actmyname are accused again since their method is a bit ruthless, but Vod usually don't give negative trust to spammer.
Neither do I. |
|
|
|
In other words: A busted troll still can't accept reality. Calling someone butthurt is not reason to give 50 merits.
What you think is a reason for giving merit is completely irrelevant and actually worthless given your background. If I want to maximize the amount of merit I give on a insulting post, I will. It is my choice, and any reason I see fit for my sMerit is a valid reason to give it. This is not the Default Trust system where you have to pay attention to what you're doing. You're allowed to do anything (when you're not a Source) with sMerit other than sell/farm it with your alts. |
|
|
|
I'm sure they don't feel 'random' about themselves and you may look pretty random from where I am.
What they feel is irrelevant for the taggers, those users are random. What now? Should we do official random/special forum members classification?
This has been the case with pretty much every society/community, and has been the case here for years. Have you been living under a rock? I dunno, sounds pretty threatening. If you think that someone "deserves" red-trust, why would you stop yourself from doing that? You're essentially saying that you already have justification for red-tagging them and you're willing to use it.
It's mockery. Your language skills weren't sufficient to pick it up. Usually I use a mockery meme, but then social justice warriors like Quickscammer complain about that too. The guy you replied to already have red-trust from you, so it won't work here, but your post can act as a nice little deterrent to anyone who would want to ever criticise you.
Bullshit =/= Criticism. I'm leaning in favour of tagging unusual sMerit donations, but what your special, totally-non-random intellect refuses to comprehend is that you're making it much harder for the taggers.
That's exactly the point when you introduce a complex system instead of using simple tools to combat spam. Now they either have to admit the lack of integrity in their actions and having personal preferences in what is 'taggable' and what isn't. Or go through the mental gymnastics in explaining why it's OK for Lauda to send sMerits to whoever the fuck he wants, while some Russian guy will be tagged for doing exactly the same.
I can send sMerit to whoever I want[1], whenever I want, for whatever reason as long as it is not selling of the points or some sort of weird *trading*. Welcome to liberalism which I believe theymos supports (a ideology which I hate FYI).
[1] Alt rings and similar farming are excluded, by since I used the wording "I" this does not apply here. [2] Replace "I" with "You" and you get the same thing. [3] The Russian guy will be tagged because he is a random shitposter, and has not proven that he can be trusted with 20k satoshie let alone 20 merit points. |
|
|
|
They're not the police, nor is the trust system the judicial system.
*applaud* If you send Merit to a post that doesn't deserve it, you probably risk your account.
Disagreed. That would be stupid. Either you have the freedom of sending merit to whomever you want, whenever you want, or you have a very restricted system that is somewhat pointless. Users should not be scared to leave merit or the system will collapse. |
|
|
|
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. That's just a leftover software artifact from the failing design of the system. It's a system of trust. Take a look at the negative ratings I gave the bcash folk spewing "Bitcoin Cash is the real Bitcoin". Are they scammers? Well Those ratings (or type of ratings) were approved by theymos. 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  ) Oh, yes.  Strongly disagreed. We do need a solution, developing another system is an option. 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. And because we can't/shouldn't leave negative trust to spammers then we need new ideas.
I wouldn't put 'can't' there. We most certainly can, but apparently we shouldn't (better put, unfortunately we shouldn't). |
|
|
|
Why did those posts deserve thousands of merit?
Reasons your intellect can't comprehend. Bullying is shitposting.
Nope. And you two couldn't at least pick a "deserving" posts to up-merit?
The post I made, attack the whining and making a sarcastic comment about that genius, is great. I would have merited myself if I could. If you want to appreciate someone for his general contribution to the community, I'm sure you can find at least one posts that proves that positive contribution.
Which I did, with the post that aTriz received 20 merit for. Now every Russian tagged for merit-abuse can use you as an example and defend themselves with: "I know his post was shitty, but I rewarded him for his overall contribution".
Doesn't work with random people. And ere you seriously threatening a guy with red-trust for "defamation" when all he did was to apply the same rules to you/aTriz as are being applied to other members?
No? Read the user's exactly wording, then read my wording ('deserve'). Fuck integrity I guess.
You are standing on the wrong side, easily being played by alts of people that I busted. |
|
|
|
...
What was so meritorious about this post that aTriz gave 5 + 45 merit to Lauda (the maximum that aTriz could award anyone)? Either they are alt of each other(they also run a service together), or if they are not alts of each other then they are trying to conserve merit withing themselves and create extra 50% merit points? Who does that except for alts?
Read the thread before shitposting, that was already posted above and is just a failed smear attempt. Merit looks high.
I found the reason for this bug.
I reported theymos issue.
How is that, whatever you are saying, relevant to this thread? Are you trying to *defend* your actions? Why are you posting if you have banned accounts? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
