This is a great portion of the answer I was looking for; I'll be including a variation of your answer in the top post. Just a side note: I found it extremely ironic that the user that answered the question of "Is Bitcoin safe?" is named cryptothief

---

I'm including a variation of your answer, as well. Thanks for taking the time to answer this.

---

This is getting much closer to the type of answer I'm looking for. I have a very specific way of answering this question that really helps to open up newbies' eyes and I have yet to still hear that type of answer. I'll use parts of yours to add to the top post. Thanks for taking the time!

---

I have never been asked this question when speaking to a newbie or stranger of Bitcoin.

---

I love this question! I'll add it, along with a variation of your answer. Kudos for adding such a relevant question to the thread!


Honestly, I rarely get asked this question. I would say that out of the thousands of people I have had fresh conversations about Bitcoin with, this subject was only brought up by the other person twice. Additionally, Bitcoin mining includes more than just confirming transactions. This is where it starts to get technical, so I never really take my friends down this road until they understand what Bitcoin is first.

---

Hang tight, the top post will be revised tomorrow when I have access to my computer. For now, enjoy your merits! I'm enjoying how this thread is playing out. Keep it up, all!

I fucking love that you get it. I wish we had more Newbies like you.

---

Wow. I don't understand why you're taking this so personally. It's just "locker room" talk. Just in the same way that sports teams always pep each other up before a game, I've done the same here. My personal observations have led me to believe that this campaign hosts many great members of the forum. And I've voiced that this is the best campaign that I've been a part of and better than so many other campaigns. @bill gator agreed with me. You took it personal. Why? That's the part I'm trying to understand. Unless you have something personal against (a) this campaign, (b) DarkStar_, or (c) bill gator, I don't understand why you are, in fact, getting so butthurt about a little statement about the spirit of community here.

---

There. That's a better statement than your last one, even if the main focus of it was to highlight the reward aspect of the campaign.

When I first joined the campaign, BTC was worth around $2,000-2,500/ea. That meant that getting paid for a maximum of 50 posts was under $100. While other campaigns at the time were paying higher, the reason I chose this one is because I used ChipMixer for a few weeks after reading the announcement thread. I personally endorsed the product; I have never worn a signature for a company that I didn't personally endorse in my bitcointalk history.

Even then, for being a new campaign, the posts by ChipMixer participants were pretty good. Over time, they got better and better. One of the reasons I loved this campaign was because there was no minimum post requirement for the week. In previous campaigns, I was so tired of all the shitposting done by participants just to meet the minimum/maximum. It's great that you recognize the rewards for posting great content, but the reason I love this campaign is because none of us talk about the rewards we receive. Go back and check this thread history. While I'm sure we all care about the earnings, I think I speak for most in this campaign when I say that the earnings is not what motivates us. It's just a byproduct for the carefully manicured posts that are created by the members.

Thanks for going SegWit! And yes, you are able to win the consolation prize repeatedly and consecutively. Only the first place prize has the stipulation that it cannot be awarded consecutively from round to round.

---

Great, I have updated the top post. Thanks, Geraldo!

---

Yeah, lol. Apologies; I was in a rush. I'm hoping that I won't make the same mistake again in the future

---

Yup, the first place winner will receive $45 or $50! I have also decided that as long as the round begins with 25 valid participants, the cash prize for 3rd place will be available, even if users are disqualified during the round. The escrow should be fine for this week; I'm adding some more to it shortly. Thanks!

---

I will include a link to each round of applications in the top post. I will make an exception for you (and any other user that displays similar privacy and personal concerns) whereas you can PM me your application directly.

---

Perfect! I have added you to the list of sponsors. Thank you for doing this.

---

Of course! So this week, we will have 2 Consolation Prizes. OP and Sponsor list updated.

First of all, the nature of this challenge makes it difficult for users to create quality posts from multiple accounts. While I have let alts join the challenge, @nullius hasn't enrolled in the challenge with his alt (@Meretrix). Because this issue was raised (sorry for just seeing this post; I must have missed it during the time it took me to create the next post after yours), I will create a rule that any participant that gets caught for joining with an alt account (simultaneously with their main account in the same round) will be disqualified and banned for the entirety of this challenge and all future rounds.

You have accused me of "farming" merits. I think that is a very irresponsible statement, and it shows that you have no regard for my intentions of making this forum a better place by spending HOURS (yes, hours upon hours) maintaining this challenge on a weekly basis. I have never asked anyone for merits, and I never will. I have no control over who decides to award me merits personally (here or in any other post of mine), but I'm willing to bet that none of them have questioned my ability to make great detailed posts, including within this challenge, which shows my overall commitment to the forums, its members, and the overall crypto community. The fact that you would make an accusation like this towards me makes me question your ability to properly identify and award merits as a source.

I am "selling merits"? I would ask you to explain this in further detail, but I don't think you have the ability to do so. You will just use and portray your personal opinion, which has no factual basis to prove that I am taking any form of payment for providing this challenge. It started with me donating $25 and merits personally. I never asked anyone to donate any cash or merits to this challenge; they volunteered to do so. I have never asked for payments (cash, BTC, or merits) of any kind from any participants or sponsors, and I never will. So stating that I am selling merits is a blatant form of disrespect to me and the community members that have CHOSEN to be a part of this. They are not promised anything in return, and they never will be.

You seem to have a bone to pick with @nullius. That's fine, but don't criticize and make false accusations towards others because of your dislike for him. You're souring a great opportunity for members here to make some bitcoin and merits for avidly wanting to improve their posts. Yes, while a lot may simply see the $$$ behind this challenge, most of them are dedicated to wanting to improve their post quality. The ones that are in it just for the money obviously have not re-enrolled or met the requirements, as is openly evident in the public spreadsheet from week-to-week.


Again, how am I getting paid? I have never once asked for anything for my actions, and I am personally putting up my own merits and money to fuel this challenge. The winners of the first two rounds have had meritorious posts, and finding suitable posts to merit is a non-issue. If anything, this challenge is helping to create and identify more meritorious posts on the forums, and I don't anticipate that changing in the (hopefully) many future rounds to come.


I have never applied to become a merit source, and don't plan on doing so. I am not acting like a merit source. I am giving away my PERSONAL sMerit for this challenge. Again, I have never asked for sponsors; each and every one of them have volunteered. Why, you ask? Because they have each identified with the true positive nature of this challenge and its efforts to clean up the forums. I ask you to please get off your high horse and stop talking down towards me and the donors of a good cause. There is no ulterior motive here. None of the sponsors, myself included, are expecting anything in return, so for them to get shit on by an almighty merit source who happened to get lucky enough to identify 10 good posts for their application is not a fair assessment and action towards them.


Your spite is unreal in this very statement alone. I was considering not even addressing it, but I will. But just the part about you taking your job as a merit source very seriously. Don't let that misconstrue your abuse of power by thinking that it actually gives you some sort of power to be demeaning towards others. Yes, you are taking your "job" (which implies that YOU are getting paid, not me, like you've previously stated ) very seriously. Too seriously. It's not a fucking job. You don't get compensated for it, but the fact that you have called it a job implies that you feel you deserve some sort of compensation. In this case, it seems as if your ego needs stroking or your back needs patting because you became a merit source. You won't get that from me, or anyone else you've insulted in this thread. You are a little shit, and you can shove your almighty merits up your ass.


And are you saying that you merited a user because of your spite towards another user? Is that a responsible method of awarding merit, especially as a merit source? I truly do not understand what you're trying to say here. Again, you must have let becoming a merit source get to your head. Because I have never considered treating you differently because you're a merit source. I personally don't give a shit that you are a source.


Now you're stating that you will not award merit solely for the purpose of one user's actions, just because he is a campaign manager of a signature campaign that has 58 members in it? You're blatantly admitting that 58 users of the forums, regardless of their substantial post quality, will never receive a merit from a merit source because of your disdain for one person. @DarkStar_ has absolutely no control over what or how I post, and if he were to tell me to change the way I post, I would tell him to fuck off. This just shows how irresponsible you are as a merit source, and I personally think that it is enough grounds to make theymos aware of your irresponsible behavior. It's obvious that time has shown that you are not worthy of being a responsible and fair source of merit. At least to me, it is. I don't speak for anyone else, but I will be making a personal complaint about your behavior to the staff of the forums. You're letting your personal emotions get in the way of your "job". For personal reference, if you were my employee and expressed this same type of behavior, I would terminate your employment immediately.


Maybe you haven't taken the time to read the original post. Or taken the time to review the spreadsheet. Or the hours of commentary I have provided for each participant after reading EVERY SINGLE post that they have made. Or the critique that I give them in helping them to try to improve their post quality. Or the willing participants who have taken the time to read the comments and proceed to THANK ME for this service, and for the opportunity to improve their English and posting quality. Even if the "garbage posters" weren't a part of this challenge, they would still be across the forums posting "garbage" to get their post counts up anyways. At least here, they get constructive criticism and feedback. Whether they choose to heed my advice or not is up to them, not me. I don't force them to be a participant, and I don't make any personal guarantees that they will win. But thank you for at least prefacing your statement with your self-aware confession to your opinion being arrogant. If anything, however, you're the one producing spam in this thread.

I was thinking about addressing you privately regarding this matter, but because you have chosen to call me and a few members out publicly in this thread, I have shown you the same courtesy in reciprocating your own actions.


This is not worthy of a detailed response. But I'm just quoting it in order to reference it. Have fun deleting your posts; I've archived each individual page, as well.

Page 8 • Page 11 • Page 12

---

EDIT: Did I just get trolled? I think I've just come to realize that @digaran is not actually a merit source. Well, shit.

Hello, @zangleerb and @DREWSKIE. Welcome to the challenge! Because you have missed the cutoff for Round 3, I have reserved you two spots for the next round (Round 4, beginning Sunday, March 25 6:00PM [GMT -6].

All other applicants have been accepted and added to the spreadsheet.

Unless I missed anyone (which could be the case, but I'll review the thread again), we are at 24 participants for Round 3. This means that there will not be a 3rd place cash prize.

Because of the emotional roller-coaster for the last round, I've decided that if we have 25 valid participants at the beginning of the round, the cash prize for 3rd prize will be available, even if a participant is disqualified throughout the round. I will re-visit this if this is abused, but I don't expect that will happen.

I apparently missed some posts here, as given the slight drama in the forums, so I'm going to go back and address all the posts that I have not already. Sit tight.

The spreadsheet has been updated with all participants who have applied for Round 3. We are just 6 applicants away from unlocking the cash prize for 3rd place. Let's hope we get the remaining required applicants by the cutoff tomorrow!

---

Yes, this is acceptable.

---

Yes, only the first place prize is prohibited from being won consecutively. And thanks for using SegWit!

Awesome! We can never have too many sponsors! I will be revisiting the reward system during this next round. I want to ensure that this challenge is sustainable, which includes adjusting the merit awards to ensure the longevity of this challenge. I'll provide more details this week, but for now, your merit reward will be applied to 2nd place for this week, as you have requested. nullius[/b[ is this week's second place winner (even though he scored the highest; participants are not eligible to win first place in consecutive weeks). You can view his post history and award the posts that you feel deserve the most merit, or you can message him directly to establish which of his posts he feels are the most meritorious.

---

My god, why didn't I think of this beforehand. You, sir, are awesome.

I'll be setting up a google form for future rounds (starting with Round 4 applications). Thanks for this!

---

I am currently processing applications for Round 3 and updating the top post for this week's challenge. Thanks for another successful week, all!

Here are my notes for all of the participants. Please remember that this is my personal opinion, and in no way reflect the views of the moderators, staff, or any other members of this forum. If you don't like it, start your own challenge. lol

These comments can also be seen on the spreadsheet.

GC2263: While it is apparent that this user took a bit of time to write posts, all of them are in generic topics that don't contribute much to crypto as a whole; they are blanket-statement topics that are based heavily on speculation. All of your posts have been in "mega" threads.

xWolfx: Disqualified. This user has not posted a single post throughout Round 2.

bitperson: Overall good posts. Some are short, but they are direct and contributive to the topic at hand. A lot of posts in Merit threads, but probably because Merit is still a widely-discussed issue.

Badingding: Disqualified. Only 1 post during Round 2.

BTC_Anon: Every English post is in Off-Topic and short meaningless answers. Please try to be more contributive to relevant topics. Your posts are generic, and I consider this to be direcly in line with shitposting. Please put some more thought into your posts moving forward, and don't be afraid to browse other boards.

Sudhik: Only 6 posts (out of 22 valid posts) are outside of the Altcoin Bounties board. English is apparently not this user's native language. 5 of the 6 posts are poorly written and do not contribute to the overall thread. They are generic statements posted in generic threads that (in my opinion) are just designed to fluff their post count. The 6th post is for a speculatively potentially dangerous service for a pre-ICO product that hasn't proven itself in the industry as of yet. 18 posts in Bounties section. It's obvious that this user's primary purpose of using these forums is to make money, which is fine with me, but please try harder to contribute to more than just megathreads in the future.

Blue Tyrant: Good posts continue to come out of Blue Tyrant! However, this week, it seems as if there were a lot more [informative] posts without references or citations where there easily could have been, given a little time to do research. Making statements like these are great, but having a source would solidify your statement even more. This is just nitpicky, I know, but try not to make definitive statements without backing them up.

monchi: 8 out 9 qualified posts are in general Bitcoin Discussion topics that were designed to raise posts counts. These threads lack true contribution to the crypto industry, and are based speculatively on opinion-based answers. Your answers are generic and speculative. While it's good to engage in conversations about Bitcoin and crypto, try not to do so in posts that don't require much thought to answer.

thelma987: Nearly the entirety of your posts in Round 2 are in megathreads. In ALL of your posts, nearly the same variation of your posts have already been provided before you. This is what is considered to be "shitposting"; when you post in a thread that has DOZENS of pages without reading any of the context outside of the original post. Please do not do this; this is the very type of behavior that this challenge was designed to combat. A couple of your posts are decent, but again, they've been posted in megathreads

nullius: Another solid week for nullius. While there was some repetition in given topics (mainly the Danos thread), and nullius heavily favors the Meta board, his ability to construct contributive post is [still] amazing. They were extremely well thought out, even in posts that were filled with banter and humor. There has been a lack of technical posts that we're used to, but if anyone would like to keep themselves entertained for a few hours, read through nullius's post history on a weekly basis.

Toughit: I'm particularly loving this user's interaction with nullius (does not affect score). Great technical knowledge about mining, and contributions to the forums regarding Bitcoin/Altcoin mining are great! This user is a good example to show that the Merit system needs more outliers on the Altcoin boards. While board distribution is weak comared to other participants, the post quality is great! Keep it up!

detector: First of all, please refrain from posting in Serious Discussion. Your posts there are not contributive, and if they were removed, would have no effect whatsoever on the topics that you've posted in. Otherwise, your posts are decent, but not great. They're either heavily based on opinionated speculation, or based on redundant obvious facts that provide no contribution to the thread. In the future, try to think about your post before posting your replies. Ask yourself "How can I stand out and be different with my post?".

OninLoki: DISQUALIFIED: Applied and joined ContractNet campaign merely 4 HOURS before Round 2 ended.

s2break: EVERY SINGLE POST (with the exception of 1 sMerit review post and a reply in my thread) is about bounties. Please note that the purpose of my challenge was to help eliminate users joining the forums for the SOLE purpose of earning money.

KP Oli: Does not qualify. Only 1 post during Round 2.

vlad230: When positioning yourself as an expert on any subject (given your narrative posting style in several of your posts), please cite sources or references when making such definitive statements. If a post sounds like it's positioned on facts, users will want to see the source of those facts. Other than those few posts, your posting ability is good, and your knowledge on mining seems to be high. Good job on referencing some of your past post history! Your ability to research things is obviously on a sleuth level, as is depicted in your posts about connecting known alt accounts.

buyandsale: Your posts are redundant. They are one-liners. They are what is generally known as shitposts. Absolutely no thought went into any of your posts. This is obvious by seeing that the post that required the most thought was your application to this challenge. Are you serious about this challenge? Try to understand why some members are putting up our own money to keep this challenge ongoing. And then ask yourself if you really belong here. Please try to commit yourself in trying to make this forum a better place!

vlom: Does not qualify. Only 5 posts during Round 2.

Jack Dragon: Does not qualify. Only 2 posts during Round 2.

shahzadafzal: Be careful with your speculative posting. Just because you believe strongly about a subject does not mean that it is factual, so you should stop presenting your posts as facts. Otherwise, great job on taking the time to write out your posts. While I can tell English is not your first language, it shows that you put a lot of thought into your posts. In the future, I would love to see you stray away from posting in as many speculative threads (such as in Bitcoin Discussion).

Sellingaccs: Classic example of "short and sweet" types of posts. Goes to show that you can be contributive without having to post extensively long posts. You are obviously knowledgeable in technical aspects of cryptocurrency. I like how you focus your experience here on the services aspects of the forums. Your banter is noteworthy, and I [surprisingly] enjoyed reading through your post history

fahad.khan: Does not qualify. Only 3 posts during Round 2. (although this is partially my fault for overlooking this user's previous application)

---

---

Congratulations to the winners of Round 2! Overall, great job again this week, folks! For the most part, this week took me longer to score because the overall post quality was superior to the previous round.

Round 3 Winners, will you please post links to the posts that you would like for the merit sponsors to award your merit to?

Merit Sponsors, will you please PM me after you have awarded the merit to the winners?

---

Round 3 Merit Stats: This round, a total of 47 Merits were earned by 10 participants. Great job on earning those merits this week!

Sorry that I have overlooked your application. You do qualify, so I will be including you in Round 2 results... This also means that we have 25 qualified participants for Round 2, so there WILL be a 3rd place cash prize!

Round 2 has ended! I am going through the applications. Sorry for my absence this week; I've been busy building a pretty badass network of crypto platforms.

Sit tight, and the results will be in shortly!

Round 3 has officially begun!

Applications for Round 3 will be accepted until Monday at 9:00PM (GMT -6). Please make sure to reapply if you've participated before. This is a weekly challenge, so applications will be accepted weekly.

See you guys shortly!

Ah, the double-edged sword... I have posted in mega threads before, but usually as a legitimate response to someone where the question wasn’t previously addressed. 9 times out of 10, however, my posts in these threads have gone unnoticed, especially by the individual I was addressing.

I have since stopped posting in these useless threads. My best advice? Report the top post to a moderator and include that the topic is no longer relevant, as it is being flooded with shitposts now.

This is not always the case. Some members are currently in campaigns when reserving spots for another, especially if the new campaign is not set to start until after their current campaigns end.

This, in itself, is bad behavior, and I usually end up adding those users to my ignore list whenever I come across them. It’s obvious that their sole purpose of joining the forums is to earn money.

Just curious, but what would be the purpose of using a spoiler tag here? The feature is not installed on these boards, but as an alternative, why not highlight your black text with a black glow? This requires the user to select and highlight the text in order to see it.

this is an example.


The only downside is that you cannot view the text on mobile devices.

It does. As well as a nested SegWit address. Did you create a SegWit address as opposed to a legacy address?

It kind of happened under the radar, and afaik, no one took credit for it. Maybe ask EcuaMobi?

I will be updating this thread in a few hours. Just coming back from a long week of work.

But for now, I’d like to adhere to the rules and disallow a cash prize for 3rd place, as the conditions were not met. I think this will also provide some sort of incentive for more people to join this challenge for future rounds.

I’ll update the spreadsheet and sponsors in a few hours.

Permission granted

If you view the spreadsheet, you will see a newly added section for posts that I consider meritorious. You can easily choose one member a week amongst the participants to award the merit to. I will also try to include the top posts of the week at the end of each round, but this is dependent of how much time I have available lol

So in other words, you'd have to sacrifice your verified PayPal account and leave it negative in order for this method to work?

Here's the thing. PayPal does make a killing and a huge profit. But the profits ultimately come from users that use the site. And to screw PayPal out of $1,000 is essentially screwing its users out that $1,000. Activities like this keep forcing fees to increase, and restrictions be put in place more strictly. Shame on you for trying to exploit PayPal and its services for a quick buck.

It's not against any of the rules, but it does promote unethical behavior. You can definitely get away with doing this, but I would recommend that members here email you are contact you privately, rather than posting publicly here, as not to risk their accounts from being tagged for partaking in this.