I have noticed that a lot of merit is given to people with legendary accounts or people are just willing to give merit to higher rank accounts than others. But why do people give merit for Legendaries ? The main purpose for merit should not be just to reward users for quality post but also to let them rank-up, but if you give it to legendary account it became just a waste. Why you can't just reply them and thank for some quality post ? A lot of people are even giving merit for moderators because of their good work. But why ? They don't need it. Isn't it better just to say them that you have appreciated their work/post or something like that. Of course Legendaries can give it to some other ranks but still half of merit will be wasted. Maybe forum should restrict the ability to give merit for legendary accounts. What do you think?
I hate to admit that the legendaries, heroes, and some of the senior members got their merit because their post quality is above anyone else. The low-rank members' posts are just bad both content and writing technique. I don't have a problem with this thing, but something is bothering me. Some merit points were given freely in such a stupid reason, such as sucking up, when low-rank members seemingly agree with high-rank members idea and praise them. (Don't ask me for the prove, use your common sense and search engine). This is so bad for the community because the "devil's advocates" are needed to avoid "group-think." As mentioned before, giving merit points to fellow high-rank members still beneficial to the community. Some of them maybe run out of points and unable to merit good quality posts. They don't need it anyway, so no benefit of hodling. Yes, half might be wasted, but it's better than fully wasted because of none deserve it. Am I the only one who tired of merit-related topics? |
|
|
|
I support your thinking and have nothing against it. I just wanted to advice the OP that if he joined bounty social media campaigns, then still he should continue to make constructive posts and the merits would come eventually.
Yeah, that's true I never meant it to be mutually exclusive anyway. I meant balance between posting on just bounty threads and other constructive threads. Sorry, if my statement was not clear originally.
This is also not mutually exclusive, you still can do both at the same time. Still doing constructive post in every post count. No need to apologize, bro. All is well. |
|
|
|
|
Congratulations, I'm wondering how come you can create 800 posts in such a short time? I registered two weeks after you, and here I am only trolling on this forum. Your post count is just a hardcore tryhard, damn! But, your effort speaks for itself though. I guess I'd be more motivated. My goal is only 10 atm.
|
|
|
|
You are partly correct with the fact that one can join social bounty campaigns if he's not eligible for signature campaigns yet but remember that only posting on bounty threads would not lead in increase of your post quality in any way and you might lose any potential merit points that you would have got if you posted constructively.-1
You must balance both of them-2, because signature campaigns provide opportunities to earn in bitcoins eliminating the risk of getting payed in new tokens.
I'm replying to this simply because you're quoting my statement and falsely interpret it. 1. None of my statement stated that he/she should only post on bounty threads and not create constructive posts. What I tried to say is that just to take a break and chill. 2. Balance what? shitposting and serious posting? |
|
|
|
Guys I couldn't give merit for I am also one of those who struggle earning it, what I can give is a sort of moral support, for I know many here lose hope of ranking up because they failed to get merit after doing their best in constructing "quality post".
Just imagine this guys, when we rank up and become a "member" at least, opportunity to earn from signature campaigns can surely help us on our finances, try reading and continue learning, the higher rank we get in, the more chances of earnings.
Continue working hard and don't give up, rewards are coming for those who never stop trying.
I think your mindset is wrong in this case. You can participate in other types of campaigns, such as social media and creative media. The signature campaign is just not worth the reputation compared to payout (and risk) for a peasant like us. And also without a linked account, it's impossible to rank up without doing something meaningful to the community. Just learn and create your best quality thread once a while when you have spare time. Just relax  |
|
|
|
There are some technical reasons, such as newbies signature space is limited, etc. The more important reason is that generally, newbies come here without much prior knowledge about Bitcoin, altcoins, or anything else related to the cryptocurrency industry. For that reason, you wouldn't be able to contribute meaningfully to any discussions here. Since it's meaningful comments that actually cause people to notice the signature in the first place, naturally, that's what people running those campaigns want.
So, the best way to become qualified to participate in a signature campaign is the same best way to generally become more knowledgeable in this industry. Treat your time on this forum as an opportunity to learn all you can, to meet and network with other crypto-enthusiasts, and you will find that knowledge and the connections you make to be far more valuable than anything you can earn in a random signature campaign.
When you do reach a member rank that would allow you to participate in a signature campaign, be very careful. Do your due diligence about the project and make sure it's one that you want to associate your forum ID and reputation with. As your participation here grows, your account value also grows, and your biggest asset will be your forum ID, so treat it like the valuable asset it is. Don't ruin your reputation by spamming this forum before you even realize what you are doing.
In addition to this statement, if you are really a newbie without prior knowledge of cryptocurrencies, it's best to avoid any campaign whatsoever. You need to be able to differentiate which one is a legit, soft scam, and hard scam campaign in order to protect yourself. I've been studying cryptocurrency for about a year, but still, this is the wildest area of study in my lifetime. And also if your sole motivation of being here is just for bounty campaign, you won't be able to level-up your account (except a linked account of course). |
|
|
|
C'mon guys, arguing about definition is pointless.  I can say bitcoin is the internet of money and still correct; I can say blockchain is a continuously growing list of records and still correct; Let's not deviate from the main topic. This video sums up all https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MlkASchodc |
|
|
|
No. Bitcoin is a protocol. The miner inside the bitcoin network use PoW to create blocks and ensure security. ....  I should get some popcorn before Mr. Professor arrives and do more damage |
|
|
|
One of the reasons that I agreed to add a Spanish language section to the Fit to Talk project, was to enable me to read some of the posts from the Spanish language board here. I gather that there are some really good threads and posts there, but I don't speak Spanish, so they are lost to me.
Obviously there is no problem if the original poster is bilingual, but what happens if a member translates and posts another member's posting. There is an obvious issue of plagiarism. What is the best way to avoid this accusation? My feeling is that the translator should state that it is a translation, and give credit to the creator of the post. He should also provide a link to the natural language post. Would this be an acceptable practice, or can somebody suggest a better option. Also, I believe that the translator should obtain the permission of the OP before using his work.
I appreciate that this suggestion could lead to a flood of low value translation posts, and I hope that anyone considering posting translations will be responsible, and only use exceptional posts for translation. Obviously if this concept is abused, it will be banned, and I think that will be a loss to all of us.
Based on my experience, if article wasn't stated as CC0 or public domain it has copyright nature so anyone must ask permission before modify, copy, or translate. The problem is that sometimes "smart" translator will be able to rephrase the original article so that it become a brand new local article or may I say require peer review to really examine that article. To overcome this issue some forum stated CC0 for all its contents, so anyone can use it freely. Others stated CC-BY to indicate he/she must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. So, it depends on forum's license. Anyway, this is a difficult issue and requires willingness of both party to cooperate, especially the translator one. The most viable one is to do peer review, in this case moderator can punish plagiarists. Another consideration that I thought of after I had started this thread, is who should get the merit if the original post is really good. I believe that the originl ntive language poster should get the reward, but should the trnsltor get something for finding the post and translating it?
Usually both got reward (in publishing case) in term of royalty split. In some case, the translated one give better result, many books got famous overseas (meanwhile not so lucky in its home country). Maybe it can be somewhat tuned into merit system. |
|
|
|
when a group of devs needs early funding to kickstart the ICO campaign, what do they need to show for angel investors?
Github, site, whitepaper, registered company? or anything else or this is not necessary? Thank you!
Almost the same as any startups, you need to do pitching presentation. You must prepare business plan and prototype or minimum viable product (MVP). Well, that's the old fashion way, nowadays investors are somewhat stupid. You might be able to get funding with a mere whitepaper.. |
|
|
|
Are you getting less sleep since your involvement in cryptos started? Has it pushed you into insomnia? Has it changed your sleeping patterns? What do you do to stay afloat?
I am certainly getting less sleep since my involvement in cryptos started. It is affecting my sleeping patterns in the sense that I no longer have fixed hours I go to bed every night (or in the mornings I should say). I do try to catch up on sleep - even during odd hours, but it is easier said than done with unscheduled emergencies and what not. That being said, it is certainly not a healthy situation - and will impact my health negatively if left unchecked. I can't help to wonder how many of you are experiencing the same challenge and what you're doing to address it - if anything at all. Tips and suggestions will be appreciated. Thank you.
Are you trading or what dude? I have same experience when I was trading forex some years ago.. Well, trading is just not for everyone. Just check your portfolio once a day and just forget it. And the most important thing, only invest with your spare (leftover) money. Also do some cardio exercise at least twice a week. It really help in my case. |
|
|
|
Technically speaking, a blockchain is really just that
...
However PoW is a weird solution to a hard problem. It's not an easy sell. And companies in general don't care about trustlessness or permissionlessness -- quite the opposite actually, as it's a liability both legally and economically. There's more money in building walled gardens, rather than open ecosystems. Hence the focus on blockchain, rather than the consensus algorithm. Hence the focus on DLT, whatever that may be.
Yeah I know, I won't argue about blockchain technical definition (per se). About PoW, it is still the best consensus algorithm to date, and I don't see it can be replaced in such a huge network, like Bitcoin. I guess we can only wait how this "closed block chain" or "distributed ledger" can play a role in businesses. But I'm skeptical about it. There’s nothing like a novice question 👍🏽
A distributed ledger (aka DLT, the abbreviation for distributed ledger technology, also known as shared ledger) is a ledger replicated across a peer-to-peer network that runs a consensus protocol to synchronize digital data.
...
What are you doing here? Keep your shit spam posting on megathread! |
|
|
|
For me, I'm always looking for their Youtube channel at first to see if there is any speech/Q&A/roadshow report from founder and the team. This is signalling two important factors: 1. They are real people. 2. They are optimistic and have confidence in their project. Then I'll dig into whitepaper. FYI, a lot of scam ICOs copied parts from various legit whitepaper. And scammers can even create a good quality one. Be careful, here is the example: https://icorating.com/upload/whitepaper/4VPsfxSUp2a9xN5dD8hPNxcPwP8rfyPZwWQUvKSF.pdf |
|
|
|
First and foremost, I am not a blockchain/bitcoin expert here, I'm just learning about it just like you. Recently, i have been reading that blockchain is the subset of distributed ledger technology (DLT). As we all know that the principles behind bitcoin is based on blockchain technology, nowadays some of the enterprise and startup are making an assumption that DLT is the more superset term.
Personally, I disagree with this statement. I think this is just banks and corporates agenda to undermine blockchain technology. As far as I know, blockchain technology is not only the "chained block" itself, but also encapsulate consensus algorithm so that the network as a whole become open, borderless, trustless, decentralized, immutable, censorship resistant, etc., as you might already hear. Read more: https://medium.com/@WayneVaughan/open-vs-closed-blockchains-let-s-end-this-madness-8313e4095ead1) If the technology behind bitcoin such as blockchain is suited to build decentralized infrastructure and apps, why some of them are moving to DLT. For example, I was looking into some of the startup such as Radix. They claim that they are an alternative to blockchain, however use DLT for maintaining decentralization. Until this, I thought only blockchain was available so far for building decentralized apps. Does that mean there will competitor to blockchain in the future within the scope of decentralization infrastructure and applications?
We are still in early period of dApps, so I cannot say that blockchain dApps platform like Ethereum will be become "the one," but opcodes was present on Bitcoin and now being experimented on BCash. The problem with blockchain is that PoW is so expensive, and scalability in terms of tx speed still on going improvement. However, PoW is the best consensus algorithm to date, since the only battle tested consensus mechanism that can reach hundreds billion of dollar is PoW, other consensus mechanism is still in infancy. When they moving to DLT, you should be asking question: is that a closed blockchain or really just a replicated relational database? Watch more: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ODDCx6VL2Y&t=496s2) Let us assume that DLT becomes popular by time, does that give any threat to suitability of blockchain technology. Could it be considered that they have different value proposition to serve?
I am sorry if I mention any novice questions. I just wanted to know more and understand the fundamental difference from both technical and economical perspectives.
Nope, they are not a threat for PoW blockchain because of open, borderless, etc., that are the nature of open blockchain. You should ask questions: who can get copies of transactions (database)? Who will be able to validate transaction? Is there an incentive to validate transactions? Is it immutable? Maybe they better off using replicated relational database instead. In my opinion open blockchain maybe will only suitable for cryptocurrencies or token-economy concept, where validator get some coins for doing the work. Well, I'm just a fan of PoW. I'm skeptical about other consensus mechanism. |
|
|
|
We are all analysts and equally good or bad at the end of the ride with our predictions. If people believe that we're up for much lower levels, then they should open short positions to back up their words, otherwise what's it worth to "confidently" say that you think something is going to happen? If I strongly believe that the price will be going up or down, it's not just words but I actually go long or short. Yes, you can't always be right, but at least I put my funds to work. There is no point in predicting something to happen where afterwards it happens, but you didn't take advantage of that opportunity.... It's a waste of time and feels like you lost money while in reality you haven't lost anything.
Yeah, as I said that many analyst argued that BTC will reach $5k but I haven't take position on this. I bought BTC at $6k dip and just hodling since I'm not a trader. I'm just interested on following traders' channel and watch how they use different tools to draw lines *lol |
|
|
|
Correct me If I'm wrong, If bitcoin doesn't use PoS then what about the bitcoin's hardforks? Do they use PoS because we can earn the same or half amount of hardforks if we own an equal amount of bitcoins? Enlighten me
It has nothing to do with PoS, a Bitcoin fork is simply a copy of Bitcoin blockchain up to block x. For example Bitcoin Cash is a fork of Bitcoin chain from block 478558. That means at block 478558 if you have coins on BTC chain, you'll also have coins on BCH chain. (CMIIW) Some so called "bitcoin fork" need to generate coins from genesis block due to technicality, they'll take snapshot at block x then airdrop it. It might be 1:1 ratio or others. |
|
|
|
|
Yeah looking from TA, now bitcoin currently test $7k support level, some analyst predict if this support cannot hold then we might expect more decline to $4k or $5k (depend on who is the analyst). I'm currently 50:50 on this, prepare to buy more when dip, but if rally then fine just hodl.
|
|
|
|
Each Cryptocurrency and it's community have different opinion, such as :
1. Bitcoin choose decentralization over scalability, features (such as Turing-complete smart-contract & private transaction) & network throughput (higher TPS).
2. BCash choose features (by re-enable few OPCODES), network throughput (by increase block size) & "scalability" over decentralization (i think they sacrifice it too much).
3. Monero choose features & decentralization over scalability & network throughput.
In the end, each people have different thought over this problem. But mostly i agree with Bitcoin developer/community choice, even though i think block weight increase (where regular user run full nodes even after increase) would be better.
I kinda agree with this, but what makes a coin more decentralized than others? For example the BCash side arguing that nodes without hash power are simply "no effect" on decentralization. That's said, only nodes with hash power are counted. Any comment on this? Thanks. |
|
|
|
In Simply
POW - Half pre mined and rest of the coins will be mined by miners by validating the Transactions.
POS - all coins pre mined before add to circulations
This is simply incorrect, who taught you this cr*p? POW and POS is a blockchain consensus mechanism. In a nutshell: POW = block validator is the one who provide most of the work (which is computation power) POS = block validator is the one who provide most of the coins at stake That said in POW if you have 10x more hash power, you will be able to validate 10x more blocks. In POS if you have 10x more staked coins, you will be able to validate 10x more blocks. Here's the thing, actually POW is also a POS because you're staking electricity to generate such hash power. POW is considered superior because you stake thing (electricity) outside the system into the system, not like POS. Full explanation here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3W_3AQrQEOM |
|
|
|
Things you should know before investing in bitcoin
What everyone wants is to have a stable job and get good savings, the best option is to work the money to get more income for the future and thus have a better quality of life and what better to invest in bitcoin but before you should know certain things about This cryptocurrency.
it is not regulated: there is no entity that regulates and monitors this type of investment. So you should be aware that if you lose your money, nobody will answer
Bitcoin is a high-risk investment: people should know that the level of risk is very high, due to volatility and inability to predict its price. "
Do not get into debt to buy cryptocurrencies: this really should not be done with this or with another investment, if you are going to work your money with extra money you got.
Do not invest more than you are willing to lose: "it is recommended that you do not invest your savings in this currency; on the contrary, invest 1% of your assets, something that you are really willing to lose".
Use reliable pages: use safe sites to navigate and also only use reliable devices such as your cell phone, your computer and your home's wireless network. Never use public networks neither to make investments nor for any type of financial consultation.
There's no rule in investment, you invest based on your knowledge about those assets. Before you invest in bitcoin or other coins, you must study first about blockchain technology, consensus mechanism, etc. after that then you invest. If you really believe in digital assets then you can even go all in. But, as always, it's your own decision and your own investment. No one should be blamed except yourself if something goes wrong |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
