|
Congrats to geophphreigh and also to the other mentioned users!
Don't be sad because you didn't win, only being mentioned in this select list is a prize itself! You are the future of the forum as of now and you should continue contributing as you did until today.
The list was a very short one, which means you all are people who brought precious information here.
Congrats to you all! You are all winners!
|
|
|
|
Could you create a private giveaway for me, anybody above full member without negative trust from DT1 can enter.
PS: this is the first time i ever try to dropship something... Fingers crossed
I'd like to try that as well and see how it works. Just to make sure I understand you completely: you allow >= Full Member, or strictly > Full Member? |
|
|
|
In addition to The Crypto Anarchist Manifesto and The Cypherpunk Manifesto, presented in the past by me and, respective, bitmover, I think that another must read story is the one behind PGP, as Phil Zimmermann himself narrated it: Why I Wrote PGP. The essay was written in June 1991 and updated 8 years later, in 1999. It expresses Phil's concerns about privacy, including any type of privacy - from private discussions to private emails to post cards and so on. " The right to privacy is spread implicitly throughout the Bill of Rights. But when the United States Constitution was framed, the Founding Fathers saw no need to explicitly spell out the right to a private conversation", states Phil, from the very beginning. He shows with wisdom that everyone has the right to privacy! Unfortunately, not all take care about this important aspect of their lives. But this essay may inspire those who read it. It explains why people should shut the door in the face of those invading their privacy. It show why people, although they have nothing to hide, should have the right to say " no!". It tries to open your eyes to take care of your privacy, which is as precious as your own body. " If you really are a law-abiding citizen with nothing to hide, then why don't you always send your paper mail on postcards? Why not submit to drug testing on demand? Why require a warrant for police searches of your house? Are you trying to hide something? If you hide your mail inside envelopes, does that mean you must be a subversive or a drug dealer, or maybe a paranoid nut? Do law-abiding citizens have any need to encrypt their email?" All of the above are rhetorical questions. Still, they needed to be written, in order for people to understand their situation - which is a situation where governs and law enforcement agencies (which are the longer arms of the elites) are hungry for personal information, for financial information of their citizen, hungry for data, big data, and for feeding this hunger they instated a surveillance which evolved more and more, as the technology itself evolved. From eavesdroppers to bugging phone lines and to intercepting emails. There is no difference: the methodology was changed, but the objective remained the same - governs need to know all about citizen, either good or bad ones." PGP empowers people to take their privacy into their own hands. There has been a growing social need for it. That's why I wrote it", explains Phil in the end. We should all listen to his words!"If privacy is outlawed, only outlaws will have privacy" -- Phil Zimmermann.
P.S.: For more materials regarding PGP, nullius wrote recently two exhaustive and outstanding posts ( here and here). Mulțumesc, nullius, for your writings! You inspired me to write this one!
Translations (in chronological order): - Română: Gândurile lui Phil Zimmermann despre PGP – Cu toții ar trebui să le citim, translation by GazetaBitcoin
- Filipino: Phil Zimmermann's pananaw para sa PGP - Mainam na basahin, translation by Peanutswar
- German: Phil Zimmermanns Gedanken zu PGP - Wir alle sollten sie lesen, translation by CoinEraser
- Polish: Myśli Phila Zimmermanna na temat PGP - Wszyscy powinniśmy je przeczytać, translation by cygan
- Pidgin: Wetin Phil Zimmermann's Dey Reason about PGP - Make all of us read am, translation by Davidvictorson
- French: Les pensées de Phil Zimmermann au sujet de PGP - Nous devrions tous les lire, translation by iwantmyhomepaidwithbtc2
- Bengali: PGP নিয়ে ফিল জিমারম্যানের চিন্তা - পড়া উচিত, translation by DYING_S0UL
- Russian: Mыcли Филa Циммepмaнa o PGP – Haм cлeдyeт иx пp&#, translation by FP91G
- Indonesian: Pemikiran Phil Zimmermann tentang PGP - Kita semua harus membacanya, translation by dansus021
- Urdu: پی جی پی کے بارے میں فل زیمر مین کے خیالات - ہم, translation by ThemePen
|
|
|
|
Tell me, please, do I have the right to participate ?
The contest is already over... Don't you know that Oscars were already awarded? If you ask "if you could have been eligible", the answer is "no", as you did not have 10 merits earned in the past 120 days prior the contest. |
|
|
|
OP, good idea except for the “Telegram, Discord, Skype and Instagram” part. The research into actual ongoing usage (or the impossibility of such usage) of the various old popular IM networks is most useful. Unfortunately, I doubt that the forum will add, remove, or change the existing profile fields anytime soon. Too bad.
~snip~
Now, observe that most of my focus here is on authentication of an identity, and not simply on providing a means of contact. A comparison of the communications security of PGP to that of ICQ, AIM, and MSN Messenger would be laughable. Placing a PGP fingerprint in one’s profile is a statement of cryptographically strong identifying information, not merely a bit of contact info. That, indeed, is why I have kludged my PGP key fingerprint into my profile and displayed it in my forum signature, ever since I started actively posting.
Thank you for sharing your wisdom here, nullius! Your ideas are great and I just hope theymos will read your post here. Maybe he will make a change based on your suggestion, though. Besides that, I didn't know that in English exist also the saying "to not see the forrest for the trees". I was sure it is a Romanian saying. Apparently, it is not. We have this saying as well, translated ad literam. Also, what AC2 copy did you lose? What do you mean by AC2? Assassins' Creed 2?  |
|
|
|
|
Thx for the tip. I just did it.
|
|
|
|
Still the final decision will be in the manager even you [...]
~snip~
That's one of the reasons I started this topic: maybe if more users agree with some of the proposals, theymos would instate a rule (or more), thus taking the decision out of managers' hands into his hands. Let's remember a part of the OP (the part with bold): So why would we need common sense rules for signature campaigns? For reducing the spam, for improving the posting quality and also for having a common sense and a consensus (similar to other common sense / consensus rules applied here - for example, the rules for ads, the rules for DT election, the rules for becoming a merit source etc.).
Besides, has anyone seen also the two edits (questions / suggestions 9-11)? |
|
|
|
Critically the use of the word (de)centralised in tho context of the network graph. Do you still not understand what decentralised means?
Just for the record and let's keep all the drama to the side and focus on the facts: Are you stating BSV network is MORE decentralised than Bitcoin's LN?
Well now, let's see what "decentralised" means. I'll quote the words if a smart man (o_e_l_e_o), who quoted CSW in nullius' fabulous topic Project Anastasia: What is he even talking about though? This year I take charge and control of my system[5]. Those on the copied systems that are passing themselves off as bitcoin, BTC or CoreCoin and BCH or BCash are hereby put on notice. "Take control"? If it's under an individual's control, then it's not decentralized, it's not bitcoin, and it's worthless. I think it's clear what CSW understands from decentralization. |
|
|
|
I'm thinking the same, LoyceV. However, if protrader will attempt other contests (deals) in the future, people are now aware that he may go offline (exit scam? ) again. At least those reading this topic. |
|
|
|
|
When I wrote the topic Bazlu appeared as last being online on Feb 3rd. I see now he was online again today...
About protrader, I don't know when he locked the topic, as I didn't visit it daily. I just remember that about the end of Jan I was thinking what is up with that contest, where I also participated, and I looked for it. And then I saw it's closed.
I waited for an update from OP but, apparently, nothing happened yet, although the contest ended 15 days ago.
|
|
|
|
Hehe, thank you for your support, cryptoaddictchie! Good luck in the way to Legendary rank and congrats for your recent promotion to Hero |
|
|
|
|
Yes. I was suggested to "change the lose-lose situation with a win-win situation", the solution being to "shake hands and go separate ways".
I chose the lose-lose situation though and here I am - demoted.
|
|
|
|
Thank you for mentioning me, Coin-1! I am glad that I reached that far in such a short time (109d 4h 59' 34"). I think I'll receive the "official" rank at the activity period update from April 8th. Looking foward to the next rank (Hero), which should occur at the end of December. Of course, I hope I'll reach by then the necessary merit amount |
|
|
|
4 years.
Hey OG, what shift was that? 4 years shift?! Was it in a Russian gulag? I hope they give you stock in the company based on these hours!
Hehe, it would be nice! I was also thinking that they could build me a statue. But all I got was a demotion. Fair enough, right? |
|
|
|
It is a saying... "once she (he) goes black, she (he) never comes back"! However, I don't understand why sgbett, an idol of identity theft, took part in this BTC contest, an unreliable cryptocurrency in his opinion. Nor I understand how he turned black how he turned from being bullish on BTC to this ridiculous position he has now. Let's remember some of his words from the beginning of this contest: Not to mention I'm probably one of the most bullish on bitcoin that there ever has been, in earnest. I've been ridiculed for those outlandish future forecasts, just as much as I have for supposedly impossible dips at the risk of sounding like that guy, I've seen a few price moves in my time so I think I'm just able to comprehend its volatility more than some. FWIW, I still think the 560k target is good, but things have gotten complicated with forks and stuff so it's probably gonna be another 5-10 years. Oh well, I've waited this long... on the bright side that means we are already over half way there! |
|
|
|
Yeah I'm still pretty confident. The forecast I made looks broken, however there is some big news coming GLHF! What big news are coming? However if you are interested in what Bitcoin is then you owe it to yourself to find it. Don't just buy BSV, but you should probably not just write it off, given that it is the *only* coin pursuing the "BIG BLOCKS BAD" strategy. When you do grok it, you will shit. (Then see if you still want to HODL that BTC, hahaha)
Well, that escalated quickly! So it seems that sgbett is a CSW and BSV fan. Or am I seeing wrong? "I warned you"
You have had every opportunity to take heed of what I am telling you, right now you have the opportunity to take advantage of some incredible information asymmetry. I am warning you that things are going to change drastically. That BTC is going to be exposed as fraudulently misrepresenting itself as Bitcoin. That the court case with Ira is going to mark a sea-change in the cryptocurrency space. If you want to know, then all it takes (as ever) is a little DYOR. Read *impartially* and you will see it clearly.
What is that information assymetry? Also, what means to read impartially? @OP: too bad you didn't state an anti-CSW/BSV fans rule. For all the rest, I invite you to read this astonishing essay of nullius, where he explains in detail the identity theft attempt of CSW towards Satoshi: Project Anastasia: Bitcoiners Against Identity Theft [re: Craig Wright scam]. |
|
|
|
On Dec 30th, 2019, protrader786 started a merit and BTC giveaway (contest), where participants were supposed only to state a prediction about BTC value on Jan 31st, 2020, 12:00pm GMT. The prize was 1 merit and 0.001BTC for the closest prediction. Curiously, at some point, OP locked the thread. The winner should have been Bazlu (who has the latest post inside the topic), who predicted a value of 9690$ for 1BTC. But he never received his prize. I asked him if he received the BTC, as I could see myself he didn't get the merit. He didn't contact with me. Didn't give me merit or BTC.
Even more curiously, protrader786 was never online since Jan 23rd, thus it was impossible to send the merit or the BTC. Bazlu didn't even have the chance to tell him the BTC address. Besides, Bazlu himself wasn't online anymore since Feb 3rd, thus even if protrader786 would have wanted to send him the BTC, he would have been unable to. But that's another story. He could send the merit though. What stopped me from opening a flag on protrader786's profile is the fact that he was not online anymore, thus he may not be a scammer. Maybe something happened to him and he couldn't get online (illness etc.). Of course, locking his topic might be a sign of scam, but maybe he did it to avoid the spam after registration part was finished. What do you think about this curious case, where both the winner and the organizer suddenly disappeared? |
|
|
|
Some How contest was not Valid to Some, Especial Jr Members Accordingly to Updated Rank Requirements. it was supposed to be Member as Contest entry requirement and not Jr member if so those 10 merits should be removed to at least 1 Merit with 30 activity which is Jr member Rank status, it kind of confusion when you look to updated ranks Requirements.
Rank Required Activity Merit Required
Jr Member 30 1
Member 60 10
(To join you need to be at least Jr Member on the forum and have earned a minimum of 10 merits in the last 120 days) 10 Merit is Member Requirement
The requirement meant should be Member and Not Jr as wrote. it was supposed to be clear for anyone to understood
Indeed, the contest did not allow Jr. Members, nor Newbies, but it was stated in the OP. However, as a funny fact, I just realized that I didn't take any look (of curiosity) at participants' eligibility regarding merits: to have earned at least 10 in the last 120 days. According to this criterion: - GazetaBitcoin registered in the contest on Jan 29th, 18:12:02. According to loyce.club, I had earned at that moment more than 10 merits in the past 120 days, thus I was eligible - http://loyce.club/Merit/history/1285797.html- Rikafip registered on Feb 3rd, 10:40:11. According to loyce.club, at that moment, he had also more than 10 merits earned in the past 120 days, thus being eligible - http://loyce.club/Merit/history/2658890.html- Jawhead999 registered on Feb 4th, 12:24:50. According to loyce.club, at the registration he had also earned at least 10 merits in the past 120 days, thus being eligible - http://loyce.club/Merit/history/2578892.html- peter0425 was signed up against his will ( ) on Feb 6th, at 17:02:42 and, according to loyce.club he had earned only 7 merits in the past 120 days prior the registration ( http://loyce.club/Merit/history/950952.html), thus being not eligible for the contest. However in his case the criterion is irrelevant, as he was dragged in, instead of registering himself With other words, the contest and its participants were 100% legit! |
|
|
|
Thank you all for sharing your thoughts and explaining so deep your ideas. Apparently, from all I understand, it wouldn't be needed to have merit sources for low ranks. At least this is the general opinion. Indeed. It would be too subjective and would not be that effective. Giving merits can also be a person's reputation, as if one give merits to a non-sense post do somehow also means that he/she tolerate such actions.
This is not generally true. For example, Tman gave 50 merits in a single transaction to The-Devil, but afterwards things turned out that The-Devil was a cheater and a plagiarist. However, this incident didn't affect Tman's good reputation here (nor it would). |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
