Yesterday, I reported 12 posts made by this user. The user is advertising his/her website in other threads from one year ago and has not banned yet. All of the 524 posts made by this user should be deleted. So, the user should be nuked ( Archived.) Here is the comment I wrote in all of my reports. Advertising using external links. Please check the post history of this user.
But only reported posts were deleted. Should I report all 524 posts? Edit: Reporting all post is annoying to moderators (and very time-consuming for me as well). That's why I didn't do this and I wrote a comment in my report. |
|
|
|
Also, suppose the transaction is not urgent (say changing BTC between own wallets or sending to a relative), can it be sent with very low fee? What's the worse that can happen - will the transcation get cancelled/not go through on the blockchain?
Not directly related, but you mention not urgent transaction. I noticed that usually mempool gets fuller towards end of the week and empty over weekends. So cheapest day to send a transaction is Sunday. Or the fastest day to send cheap transaction. You made me curious about transaction fee in different days of week. I calculated the average transaction fee for different days of the week in the past three months. (Raw data from https://bitinfocharts.com/) Monday: 0.70 $ Tuesday: 0.70 $ Wednesday: 0.71 $ Thursday: 0.71 $ Friday: 0.74 $ Saturday: 0.63 $ Sunday: 0.57 $ You were right. I hadn't ever noticed this. |
|
|
|
|
If you buy X10, actually you don't buy a cryptocurrency. A cryptocurrency needs a blockchain. X10 doesn't have any blockchain.
You spend your money and instead of that yobit show a number as your balance. That fake number is the only thing you have. You don't have a cryptocurrency.
Yobit offers you 10% profit via their investbox. But as I said, they don't give you anything. They only increase that fake number 10% per day. They don't give you a real cryptocurrency.
Never buy such a thing. Every token or coin needs a blockchain. If there is no blockchain, that's no longer a cryptocurrency.
|
|
|
|
I wrote code to scrap the profiles. But it takes a very long time. As accounts registered in 2009 and 2010 were much lower than 2011, I decided to run it for 2009 and 2010. It might be helpful. There might be some stolen or sold accounts among them too. There were totally 3127 accounts registered before January 01, 2011. There were only 85 profiles that have been online at least one time since October 01, 2019. The list is available in the following sheet. |
|
|
|
According to domaintools, bitcointalk.com has been created on December 31, 2010 while bitcointalk.org has been created on June 23, 2011. So I don't think bitcointalk.com has been created for phishing purpose. That's older than the real bitcointalk. By the way, was bitcointalk using another domain before June 23, 2011? Satoshi created his account on November 19, 2009. Edit: I just found the following post from theymos. It's probably already settled that forum.bitcoin.org will move to bitcointalk.org, but I'll post my argument against the move anyway. Bitcoin.org has no claim to being "official" other than it being the only Bitcoin domain that Satoshi ever owned. The client doesn't link to bitcoin.org anywhere, and no resources are actually stored at bitcoin.org. It's not even the first Bitcoin forum: the sourceforge.net forum used to be used by Satoshi. Therefore, I see no reason why the developers should take bitcoin.org from the community that has been located here for over a year. The main bitcoin.org page can be treated like a "fan site", or it can have its forum links removed, or it can disappear entirely for all I care.
I didn't know this. |
|
|
|
This user is advertising an exchange everywhere in the forum. Almost all of the posts made by this user should be deleted. ( Archived) I reported one of the posts made by this user and in the comment, I asked the moderator to check the post history of the user as well. My report was marked as good and the post was deleted. I expected all the posts made by this user to be deleted. But only the reported post was deleted. Reporting all the posts made by this user is really time-consuming. Because we have to open each of the threads that the user has posted in. My suggestion is to add "report" button at bottom of the posts shown in the posts history. (Something like the following image) I am sorry if it has already been discussed. I couldn't find any thread about this.
|
|
|
|
I have seen some other users in the forum that copies a paragraph from an article and say " read the full article at...". Most of these posts deserve to be deleted. Because even if they don't break rule number 24, they break rule number 1 which says " No zero or low value, pointless or uninteresting posts or threads." These users have at least one of following purposes. 1. increasing the post count without being accused of plagiarism. 2. advertising a website and getting paid from them. A few days ago I reported some of posts made by diorthotis after Coolcryptovator posted about him. The user was advertising an exchange in every post. All of the reported posts were deleted. (Visit the link below.) Re: Advertising exchange link on the post area.There is a big difference between that user and the user mentioned in the OP. The difference is in quality of posts. cheezcarls adds his own comment about the news or article. Posts made by this user aren't really that annoying. But I think they are still against the rules. Rule number 24 says: 24. Advertisements (including signatures within the post area) in posts aren't allowed unless the post is in a thread you started and is really substantial and useful. According to this rule, if a post is quality enough, there is no problem. In my opinion, that's true only when a post is checked individually. When all posts made by a user contain a certain link, that's against the rules. theymos: Ads are typically not allowed in posts (outside of the signature area) because they are annoying and off-topic. It is especially disallowed to put ads or signatures at the bottom of all of your posts. Except for traditional valedictions, which are tolerated but discouraged, signatures are for the signature area only.
|
|
|
|
Imagine how bad it will be? BTC @$50k all the professional bounty hunters spinning up YouTube vids again, we will have a forum full of spam, shitposters, shitposters and one liners.. yay
I am imagining a worse problem when BTC $50k. With new ranking system, shitposter doesn't have a chance to come up with campaigns. But instead, the merit trade will take place more than at any time  Not sure if we find out who merit dealers are, but it will disrupt surely this forum again. After all, the new ranking system is still the best solution for this forum right now  There are many signature campaigns in bounties board that you can join them without any need to earned merit. The only thing someone needs to join them is an account with some airdropped merits. Even junior members are allowed to join many of these campaigns. After BTC bull run, I don't know whether ICOs/IEOs will be of interest to community or not. But if they will be, many old accounts that haven't earned any merit will probably wake up and join these campaigns. In these bounty campaigns, quality of posts usually is not checked by managers and everyone is allowed to join them. |
|
|
|
If Bitcoin goes "to the moon" after the next halving, I expect this forum to be flooded with new accounts again.
Yes. The diagram below shows number of new registered accounts per month from January 2015 to December 2019. What happened in 2017, will likely happen again and we will have many new accounts. |
|
|
|
Assume that your suggestion was implemented on 24 January, 2018 (the date of implementing the merit system) Let's calculate how many times users of the forum should have been allowed to change their username till now. According to DdmrDdmr's merit dashboard: (theymos and satoshi were excluded) | ____________ | _______________ | | merit | number of users | | ____________ | _______________ | | 4500-5000 | 1 | | 4000-4499 | 0 | | 3500-3999 | 0 | | 3000-3499 | 4 | | 2500-2999 | 0 | | 2000-2499 | 4 | | 1500-1999 | 9 | | 1000-1499 | 48 | | 500-999 | 122 | | ____________ | _______________ |
188 users should have been allowed to change their usernames at least one time. If only half of these users had changed their usernames, 1 user had changed his/her username per week on average. As all of these users are well-known users of the forum, their usernames changes will lead to confusion for other users. The solution can be showing the previous username under the current username for a while. But I think the best thing can be done is what theymos is now doing. theymos changes only usernames of those who have strong reason for username change. A better suggestion can be requiring users to have 500 merit + paying a fee (which is much lower than 50 BTC) for username change. but again the previous username should be shown under the current one for a while, so it doesn't make other users confused. |
|
|
|
I too receive free tickets every free roll, but since the price is only 1 Satoshi, sometimes I'm tempted to buy more myself, especially when I see that people frequently win good prizes with around 1k tickets(an amount you can't accumulate from free rolls in one week.) As for 1 ticket for every 0.00000500 BTC wagered, I decided that I'd rather buy 1 ticket for 1 satoshi, but if you play Multiply BTC game anyway, then it's a good bonus for you.
It doesn't matter how much a ticket costs. It doesn't make any difference even if each ticket costs 1 mBTC. Because you are not the only person who buys tickets at 1 satoshi. Also, your chance will not increase if you buy tickets at 0.1 satoshi. Assume that 200 million tickets have bee distributed among participants and each ticket costs 1 satoshi. You spend 1 mBTC and buy 100,000 tickets. In this case your chance to win the first place of the lottery would be 100,000/200,000,000=0.05%. If the price of each ticket is 1 mBTC, your chance of winning doesn't change. In this case you will buy 1 ticket with your 1 mBTC and total number of tickets will be 2000. Your chance will be 1/2000=0.05%. So, if you think buying lottery tickets is a good opportunity because they are cheap, you are completely wrong. It's like that someone says I prefer dogecoin to bitcoin, because a dogecoin costs only 0.002 dollar. Instead of buying one bitcoin I can buy 4 million dogecoin. Total supply should be also considered. And in a lottery you should pay attention to total number of tickets and also the percentage of the total pool which will be awarded to winners. |
|
|
|
Here is final list of participants with links to posts they have made.
Winning price range is range of price which makes a user winner. (This range can be bigger than 50 dollar.) For creating the table, I used 1miau's template.
|
|
|
|
According to these data, I don't think there is a big issue. I mean there aren't many abusers.
What do you mean by that sentence? Please explain a bit in detail. I saw "theymos" on the list above, I doubt if you are trying to suspect him abusing the merit system created by himself.  It is a serious thing for me. Since he is an administrator forum, this accusation may ruin the reputation of the forum. So, please be careful to write down something that may cause bad impacts on the overall forum. >I am not siding with anyone. This opinion is purely my own. I know who Theymos is. Wish you had read the full topic before making a post. I just counted 50 merit transactions in a 100-day period. Total number of 50 merit transactions was 26. TMAN, franky1 and suchmoon made 6, 3 and 2 of transactions respectively. All of us know they are trusted members of the forum and I said: There is no doubt that there is no problem with these merit transactions.
There were 15 other users who had sent 50 merit in a single transaction. I checked these transactions one by one. (Some of transactions like the one theymos made didn't need to be checked.) There were a few users that had abused the merit system. These users had sent 50 merit to other users without any reason and I mentioned their usernames as follows. Do you see theymos among these usernames? Edit: I edited the OP. I added the " suspicious" in front of transactions made by abusers. |
|
|
|
Min 3000
Max 34000
Mean 10732
Std Dev 4607
Median 10000
Thanks for the data. But I don't think it's an accurate estimate of participants predictions. Due to limitations, many of the users had to choose a range of price different from what they thought. |
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the warning.
I was using Firefox 71.0. I couldn't find any information whether the vulnerability affects older versions or not.
Anyway, I think it's better to update older versions too, as soon as possible. I just updated it and it was automatically updated to 72.0.1. Hope it is safe now.
|
|
|
|
I was very active playing in sportsbet in the past although for small amount only and they never asked me KYC. So if you are big player then you should be ready for KYC.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
You are right. According to the terms and conditions in the official website, they may ask users to pass KYC. Here is rule 3.10 " We have the right to carry out "KYC" (Know Your Customer) verification procedures and access to your Member Account may be blocked or closed if we determine that you have supplied false or misleading information." |
|
|
|
Imagine a newbie who has spent months and months trying to acquire even just 10 merits and then boom. Someone receives 50 Merit for a useless post, quite discouraging, isn't it?
Users reputation in the forum isn't built only with merits. Those who have sent and received 50 merit for a useless post without any reason and are abusing the system, not only haven't earned anything, but also have destroyed their reputation. Merits don't make users reputable and high-quality posters. Fortunately, everything goes in the forum is public and abusing the system is not that easy. A newbie shouldn't be discouraged by such things. Because abusers earn nothing. As I said, there are probably some abuses, but we are not facing a big problem. |
|
|
|
It is curious how people make different analysis in the same data.
I thought 50 merit transactions were almost insignificant. However 3% of all merit transactions is way a lot more than I expected
That's not 3% of all merit transactions. I guess tranthidung meant 3% of all merits. According to tranthidung's data there have been totally 146290 merit transactions. The number of 50 merit transactions is 166 which is only 0.11% of all transactions. Also note that many of these transactions were done in the art contest. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
