<…>
It does, but what you are really seeing under the column "Date posted" is the date when the thread was created, not the date when the listed item (concrete post under column "Subject") was actually created (/edited?). If you click on the inner most link within the "Subject" column, you’ll see that the list is actually ordered by post date (looking at the post itself), although the list is actually displaying the thread’s date (which is misleading). Additionally, since only 5 pages are displayed, and these seem to show from the end of the date frame range regardless of the sort order, it’s important to delimit the message age to see entries around the dates you wish to observer (if applicable). i.e. If you search for the term "forum" + order by most recent topic first, you’re still going to see a bunch of entries from 2011. Nevertheless, if you delimit the message age to 0..30 days, you’ll see the most recent entries. |
|
|
|
En su cuenta de Telegram, han colgado un anuncio oficial (se puede visualizar sin cuenta): https://t.me/s/bilaxy_announcementsSegún indican, precisarán para el servicio durante cuanto menos dos semanas para investigar lo sucedido y aplicar las medidas de seguridad que sean (ahora) precisas. Las pérdidas las tildan de importantes, circunstancias que normalmente son un mal augurio. |
|
|
|
<…>
No sé si se había dado el caso antes, pero en esta ocasión, uno de los elegidos para la campaña de CM ya estuvo en la misma con anterioridad. Es por tanto factible retornar a la campaña, aunque no conozco los detalles exactos por la cual causó la baja en su iteración anterior. Por otro lado, intuyo que nuestro foro local no merita como activo principal de los postulantes, al estar actualmente cubierto bajo un punto de vista táctico. Me gustaría equivocarme … |
|
|
|
To shed some numerical context here, it seems that absolutely every rank favours the content created by Legendries, being Legendary the rank that receives a higher percentage of the sMerits awarded by every single rank. The following is the layout of the number and percentage of Merits sent (horizontal rows) and received (vertical columns) for the current month (up to last Friday): Now numbers are often poor storytellers, as they frequently do not depict the why’s. Numbers do not speak-up for content, promptness, focus, knowledge, favourisms, subjacent skills, trust, and so forth. They are though excellent indicators to things to look into to better understand, thus the need for threads such as this one. Note: Changes in rank within the period of time considered in the data, drag all data to the new rank. |
|
|
|
<…> it isn't just a forum, it is the best place to learn about Forex Trading.
How is that so (Forex) ? I figure you mean Crypto trading, and although they have a common background in terms of tools and concepts, the elements being traded in Forex is really about trading fiat currency pairs. As to Bitcointalk being more than a forum, people will likely attribute it significances that surpass that of a public place for discussion. The more presence or influence it has on people’s time and life, the more derivate attributions that people can associate to it. |
|
|
|
|
En mi caso, no soy propenso a estas muestras de declaraciones visuales ni audibles. De hecho, no creo haber subido a las RRSS nunca nada en estos dos formatos, y conforme pasa el tiempo, menos aún.
Bitcointalk no creo que vaya ser una excepción a mi línea de pensamiento, aunque sí puedo indicar que mi acento en inglés oscila a voluntad entre una suerte de cockney suave, y una versión refinada académica (según lo cansado que esté).
|
|
|
|
Este es un gráfico actualizado de dónde está actualmente el precio de bitcoin en relación a las proyecciones del modelo de PlanB: A ver, tiempo hay para que se cumpla el escalón de los 100K $, si bien acorde al modelo, ya hay un retraso significativo y un déficit de más de la mitad del valor. El tramo siguiente es el que se me antoja más complicado para creérmelo, y va a depender de muchos factores externos que no pondera el modelo. |
|
|
|
<…>
That was quick. Well done … (I see you’ve received a Bitcointalk-Crush booster). "Only" 249 Merits to go, and "just" 149 to be back on one of these lists. |
|
|
|
<…>
Ciao @babo. No tengo, por ahora, la intención de activar un seguimiento de los importes para los cajeros en España. De hecho, en España no se está mostrando los valores disponibles de manera intencionada, y la compañía prefiere ocultarlo. Mi duda no obstante es que, en tu listado del otro día, si figuraban importes de saldo de los cajeros. Cuando miré la página italiana, esta información (la del saldo) estaba almacenada en la estructura " td_money" (no sé si está en más variables). La versión en español de la página no aparentaba tener dicha estructura, por lo que no vi los valores de saldo que mostraste. ¿Sabes el nombre concreto de la estructura o variable que utilizaste para los datos de España? Estoy pensando que, si bien la página no muestra estos datos, podría llegar a verlos de manera alternativa, dado que según veo en tu listado, el saldo esté probablemente en el html en una estructura que no llegué a localizar (y que no se publica visualmente en la página española). Grazie. |
|
|
|
|
Seré que soy un tanto conservador, pero en términos mediáticos, estoy convencido de que los aspectos negativos del roll-out de la Ley del Bitcoin alcanzarían una resonancia mucho mayor que los aspectos positivos que se deriven. En este sentido diría que, puestos en una balanza, el riesgo reputacional para bitcoin es netamente mayor que la posibilidad de su fortalecimiento.
Con lo anterior no digo que soy de la opinión de que la cosa no vaya a ir bien. Sencillamente que me da que las probabilidades (que no certezas) puede que no devenguen en el resultado favorable que deseemos, aunque sólo sea porque cada fallo de la implementación va a ser exageradamente explotada por parte de los detractores (y contratados a tales efectos).
|
|
|
|
|
Esto es una de las paradojas de Bitcointalk: es un referente de información tanto en términos históricos como vigentes, pero a fecha de hoy, sigue careciendo de información lineal que la convierta en el sitio de referencia para la formación.
Información y formación no son términos equivalentes, y aunque obviamente la información conduce a formarse, la estructuración y el contenido bien pensado y elaborado, presentado a modo de cursos, es algo que Bitcointalk podría tener de modus propio para auspiciar su referencia a la vanguardia.
Veremos si el canal de YouTube que se abrirá en breve puede derivar en una ramificación con esta finalidad...
|
|
|
|
<…> I understand what you mean.<…>
<…> Should we describe a known historical event as evidence of plagiarism?
I’ll start with the second part of the quote. Let’s start by understanding briefly what plagiarism on this forum means: It’s the intent to pass somebody else’s content as one’s own. Now this can be done for a wide variety of reasons, as my time here on the forum has shown me. Reasons such as the following would come to mind (non-exhaustive): - To pretend to know more than one really knows. - To go merit fishing. - To create a content with minimal effort. - To build-up Activity (again with no effort). - To make-up for one’s limitations on posting skills and/or language. Note that I am not implying that any one of those applies to you here, as I’m simply trying to set a basis for a common understanding on what plagiarism here is. Now plagiarism can be total (all the content is plagiarized), partial (a small or not so small part), or word-spun based (instead of a copy/paste, it’s a copy/spin/paste). In order to avoid being accused of plagiarism, it is sufficient to add a reference to the correct sources at the time of creating the post. Some may disagree if that should exonerate all content from falling under the said categorization, but it seems to be the consensus and tradition here. Some people additionally add them simply as a means to reference further reading. Of course, you may encounter situations whereby the referenced source is really not the source to the content, or that the source is added in the aftermaths to being accused of plagiarism. It falls upon the moderators to determine if a text is plagiarized to some extent, and if the source is present (and possibly, if it was in a timely manner and if it even points to where it should). I figure a report of such accusations to the moderators is a prerequisite, which does not mean it may be debated here and there amongst forum members. In general terms, most of what we post on the forum is rehashed from somewhere, be it some recent article, video, book, essay or whatever we’ve used as a cognitive source. When one expresses that content in his own words, it is logically not going to fall under the plagiarism categorization. Historical facts are obviously cognitively obtained from multiple sources at different points in time. Hell, I know people who could depict factual correct historical from the top of their mind, with no need to consult any reference. The bottom line is not what is reflected per se, but whether it is totally or partially attributable to the exercise of the prior depicted meaning and implications of the forum’s understanding on plagiarism. Now as to what I meant in my prior post, which you indicate you understood. The question stands on why the extract of text depicted by @nutildah show an apparent exercise of text spinning. You must admit that this does seem like a (small) exercise of text spinning. To make it easier to follow my narrative, I’ll replicate the said post here: <…> OK this is really weird: Triffin Dilemma warns us that a monetary system that depends on the currency of a single sovereign country as its only tool in international liquidity will undoubtedly be trapped into Triffin Dilemma.
...
... The Triffin Dilemma warns us: The system that relies on the currency of a sovereign country as an international currency will inevitably fall into the Triffin Dilemma and collapse. ... The dude just plagiarized himself. Here is the original BTW:  <…> The discussion is not over the historical facts, but rather, specifically, if in order to expose them here, some intended word spinning was used. Bear in mind that, additionally, at the time of publication on the forum, the article bore no reference links. The second part of the question was simple: Why add references to 5 threads today, are they the real sources used? Rather that infer a reason, I believe it’s reasonable to ask you openly in a thread such as this, since the above quoted case cropped-up here. |
|
|
|
Going over the reports made on the Bitcoin Abuse Database, the email proforma being used has a couple of text versions, and they now seem to omit the part about displaying an old password of yours, whilst some claim to have more data on you than simple jerk off videos. A little over a year ago, the scammers were demanding 1K $ equivalent in bitcoin. Now the required amount has upped 50% to 1,5K $ ... Besides not downloading stuff from random links (which can indeed get you into trouble in multiple ways, RAT being one of them), one might as well preserve his intimacy just in case. |
|
|
|
<...>
Next week it is then. I think you're still on a streak that will better show next week, and updating now would likely truncate it (in terms of stats). |
|
|
|
<…>
You mean month … Since it takes quite a while to update all the tables, and to be coherent, I should update all the tables simultaneously. Would it be better to update them when I’ve got the complete month’s data (next week-end) ? It may not make a difference, since the timeframes are not calendar based on my stats, but It seems you’re still on a momentum streak ... Note: Nevertheless, if the urge is uncontainable (  ), I could update it this week-end. |
|
|
|
<…>
I presume the challenge you are on about is therefore finding information that is not misleading or partially/totally wrong. Bear in mind that this can happen here on Bitcointalk too, as we post with different degrees of knowledge, and this evolves over time (it could de-evolve too as a matter of fact). This means that, even within Bitcointalk, if something is important to you at a given moment in time, it’s best to contrast it through reading answers on multiple threads and/or asking anew (preferably, having gained some prior background on the matter at hand). |
|
|
|
Operadores de bitcoin ATMs en USA han creado una alianza para intentar prevenir las operaciones fraudulentas tipo lavado de dinero a través de los cajeros, y así lavar la cara de la imagen de este tipo de servicios. Pretenden estandarizar las prácticas, a mi entender con el fin de prevenir antes que curar. A tales efectos, citan que los cajeros que allí piden un simple número de teléfono para operar son ya de por sí demasiado relajados, y abogan por aumentar los parámetros KYC. Como indicaba, Bitbase aquí requiere, según vi en su página web, que proporciones un número de teléfono para TXs de menos de 1K$ (sin que tenga claro cómo lo corroboran, o si es parte de la operativa/mecánica), mientras que Shitcoins Club aún no (está por confirmar por parte de alguien). Lo curioso es que el artículo, que va sobre los cajeros en USA, utiliza una imagen de un cajero de Shitcoins Club rotulado en español … De hecho, veo que es habitual usar la imagen, dado que está en Getty Images. ver: https://www.businessinsider.com/bitcoin-atm-operators-coalition-prevent-cryptocurrency-crimes-kyc-aml-crypto-2021-8 |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
