2. Maximum 2 merits per post per merit sender in local boards. I think that people usually trade merits in small threads in local boards, because the moderation there is not as strict as in the English sections of this forum. If one can send 5 merits for a post written in English, I think it is fair that only 2 merits can be sent for a non-English post.
A bit discriminatory, from my perspective. Local boards are already struggling, I know most of the abuses are happening in there, but, the collateral damage is too big, as @DdmrDdmr pointed.
1,3,5,6,
Totally agree. 7. As previously suggested, but in the aim of summarize: at least 1 merit to become JR.
On my local board (I just posted an OP on the matter a few minutes ago in the Spanish Section), the average sMerit per TX is 1,7 and per post 1,95. 88,17% of all merited posts in the Spanish local boards have either receives 1 or 2 sMerits, and only 28 posts above 5 sMerits. This local board is rather much scarce with merit. Nevertheless, no local board should be discriminated based on the fact that it is a local board, moderated or not. Besides, any Merit Abuse can just as easily outwit your proposal by posting double to triple the amount and getting merited 2 per post instead of 4 of 5.
Thanks, sounds interesting and enlightening. As said, locals are already struggling enough. No more collateral needed. The other points I can kind of see, specially those that are ICO scam related, but as usual we create threads full of wishful thinking, brainstorm for a few days, and then they eventually getting nowhere really. There could be some sort of forum delegates that scoop-up and summarize forum enhancement proposals that are then taken to theymos for consideration. This probably is something else that won’t see the light.
Same sentiment in here. Maybe is time to make a thread with the resume of all the last month proposals and see where it goes, but I'm afraid it is going to be forgotten quite fast, as usual. |
|
|
|
There will be 2 scenario if we apply this (or maybe more),
1. Lets say "User A" create a topic and want to earn merit, so he create a lot of account and reply on his own thread to earn merit.
2. He can try to start bounty and pay user to reply his thread. So, he can earn merit.
I maybe wrong, but from what i see from thread that have a lot pages, some of them are reply the same answer again and again (well, not all thread) and some of user probably doing copy-paste or plagiarism. So, this is not good idea, sorry.
Totally agree. I am curious about the title of the thread: "Improve the quality of new topics" OP, do you think that the quality of a thread can even be measurable by the number of answers received? Because one of the biggest problems in the forum is precisely the quantity > quality. |
|
|
|
Nope that account is still active and not yet ban. Mods should really look at that account and the merit abuse going on.
You mean that account https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=176128/??Yes.. it was active yesterday!!! How can it be possible? And also, due to the merit abuse, the guy is proudly earning with a signature... wtf I prefer to avoid red-tagging people, but, in this case I can't help myself. I've already red-tagged him, and I recommend for you to do the same. I've also reported to the mod in the chinesse board the post with your merits. Maybe this is also useful to write him a PM explaining the whole situation. He's the chinesse mod: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=779106I've already PM him: "Hey, please to meet you.
Well, recently we have had a situation of a hacked account being use to merit abuse. This is the thread explaining all https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4642710.0
The user has managed to obtain the necessary merits to become a Full Member (exactly 100) by merit trading (?) Farming (?). The most concerning situation is about the hacked account and the use of his merits in this thread of the Chinesse board:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3037610.msg35847978#msg35847978
Do you think it can get a permaban? Hacking accounts to transfer merits seems pretty serious to me..."Whatever the Chinesse mod decides, this is a serious situation. Implies a hacked account and cannot be tolerated. Also, you can change the title of the thread to something like "My hacked account was used for merit abuse", in order for more people to read this. |
|
|
|
Ouch Plagiarism.
It is common knowledge that plagiarism gets capital punishment for an account.
Looks like a very fair perma ban.
Yep. Can the user get banned again, please? My eyes are bleeding with too much red and he/she is already evading the ban by writing in some other boards. @Barcode_ good job, man. |
|
|
|
I think the people from the post you posted should be penalized in different way. I have yet to get a merit, and as far as I can tell other legit JR. members also. It's not fair that we should be penalized because of obvious spammers.
If you are a normal poster, meaning that you spend some time outside the Altcoin board and join debates, it shouldn't be difficult to get one merit. In fact, that should be quite easy and in no time. The problem we have in the forum is a situation like this one, for instance: https://www.seoclerk.com/Traffic/611690/Create-Bitcointalk-Account Low-life guys spamming the forum as a work.
You don't have to be a bot or an obvious spammer. There are many users who just write 30 one liners over the required time and then they become a Junior Member with no effort whatsoever. People are farming accounts in their hundreds if not thousands this way. Requiring one merit is not outrageous, but it certainly makes farming Junior accounts much more harder and doesn't really effect those others who are here to contribute something as they will likely get the merit pretty fast. I've just looked over your few pages of posts and whilst I wouldn't call you a spammer you haven't really contributed anything substantial either, but I doubt you'd have much issue in getting one merit if you put some more effort in. Requiring one merit to move up a rank really shouldn't be an issue, and if people can't even achieve one merit I would say the problem lies with them.
Precisely. It is not only about bots, but about spamming. As you can see in the example I posted, the guy is offering to create Jr accounts for $50, and it is allowed to ask if you want an account with more activity. I bet that the posting activity of any of these accounts is nothing but shit. By implementing the 1 merit requirement for juniors, we will get rid of those, and his "business" will become somehow difficult to achieve. But I truly believe it will be needed more than a single merit, maybe 5, for the merit market is actually happening, and it can be easy to buy one or to transfer one merit from an account to another. |
|
|
|
Why is digaran allowed to troll members of this forum? Forum rules clearly says: 3. No trolling.Same feelings here. I don't understand how this user: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=771606is allowed to write so many nonsense threads in the Ivory Tower and the Serious discussion board, with answers like: farting  be aware... if you say spanish - catalan... a mod is getting a little check  use this money well btw, I don't care... I know it is a centralized place... at your mercy... the problem you face dear idiot is the catchers... asap as soon as post it's cached and two everything that his removed his marked so it's gg wp next. don't forget bitmessage, freenet, diaspora and all the others free open source uncensorable networks... lot of others bitcoin forum I can't even understand a single word of what this guy writes... But, anyway, that's why the "ignore button" exists. But I take your point. They should erase this rule or apply it. What is trolling? Of course, being completely unpolite, uneducated, pointless, to insult others, to go into a thread and break the discussion by posting nonsenses, menaces or insults to the posters... et al. It is not so difficult to detect a troll, for it is an attitude towards others and the forum itself, it doesn't happen in just one thread (everyone can troll once or twice in his life), but this is a daily issue, a daily attitude. So, if the rules are not going to be implemented, then erase them. |
|
|
|
The advantage of this procedure is that, if there is any real intent to add more Merit Sources to the system with a bit of haste, these would be already vouched for by existing Merit Sources, and could be quicker to appoint.
That's the point. I feel that there are enough merit sources already, that's why I don't think necessary to become one. This idea came under the actual situation some merit sources are living: they find difficult to find meritable posts. So, why to generate more merits if they are enough but the problem is that the deserved users are difficult to reach? Anyway, I think this is kind of messy, for it would imply some good changes to the code.
Or alternatively and on a much more direct approach the "D" source can apply to be a merit source. Even could be recommended by some other merit source that feels is not able to distribute all the smerit given to it to take some of the workload.
Yep, I beginning to think that this is the easiest way. Maybe the actual merit sources can propose someone become one. It would be really less messy, but the point was to create a sort of "team", with the idea to get all the merits created distributed among some more boards, local included. You are the merit source on the Spanish board. What is the situation in there, from your point of view? Because I see people earning merits, but one by one (there are some exceptions-deserved), and it is going to be difficult for them to rank-up just earning one merit for each incredible post. Now, of course, they can come in here, but it will imply centralization of a language, and it is far more difficult to express an idea in a foreign language rather than in your own (I struggle with that every single day, jeje). So, if the only way to become a Full Member, for instance, is by writing in English, is not a centralized point of view? Anyway, after reading all the thread, yes, it is kind of messy. A good idea from JC, but messy to implement. |
|
|
|
June 2 and June 13 are the dates of the first posts of these accounts, and from that date have been reported.
We bet that if I place an identical ad after 2 minutes I'm removed?
Why do not you add another administrator to the announcement channel? It is not justifiable to keep these announcements for 50 days, when, on the other hand, I hold a few minutes. Let me tell you that there is something very suspicious about this.
Chill out, man. This is not the only bot-shitposter the mods have to deal with. They turn will come with time, but there are thousands like this one, and it takes time. He's not paying, he's not allowed to do so, there is no any conspiracy in here, neither aliens, nor iluminatis. This is just a hard work to be a mod in a forum with thousands of newcomers willing to spam all over. Now, it is your turn. Answer the question they made you above: have you ever been banned? |
|
|
|
There are even some websites where you can purchase an account...   And they have 24/7 support!!! Watch this: http://www.btctalk.trade/And, also, they are "build by hard work"!!!  Anyway, stay as far as you can from this specimens, ignore him since he has already been red-tagged (and should be banned), and that's all. The accounts/merits market is huge on the underground, and it will still be this way, since the people is too lazy to come in here and build a reputation. |
|
|
|
There are days I have a hard time talking to people about anything of substance. It goes beyond the general differing opinions or being proven wrong; I'm entirely fine with that. I actually enjoy discussions with a differing opinion, don't mind being wrong but enjoy the chance to learn.
What gets me these days is the fact that anyone and everyone's information is given the same weight. This has been going on so long that people are losing the ability to think for themselves and be objective. I know there have always been sheeple that can't and won't think for themselves. Unfortunately there is a growing number of our population locking themselves into an echo type environment that doesn't introduce contradictory ideas.
Well, taking a look at the history, it has happened since "forever" (?). Maybe the mean issue is the mere concept of "The Truth" (notice I'm using capital letters), for, what is "The Truth"? Even it exists? We live in a huge world with too many humans there. Since the very beginning, there have been speeches regarding almost everything. I don't think the number of people with the ability to think for themselves is dropping, on the contrary, the amount of information you have at hand is creating some people with the capacity of building their very own ideas. Perhaps the problem we have now is that the charlatans have their own space. When before, they were kind of "local", meaning that they can spread their bullshit in a confined space, maybe a town or a city or some books, now they can be seen and listening by some many people, due to the internet. But the people willing to believe in them, as well as the activity itself, has existed since "forever". This is particularly dangerous when said people begin to promote "gut feelings" or opinions as facts or proof. In turn they are more vocal in there arguments and if confronted with a debate tend to get whipped up into a frenzy. Once again to the point where they are only surrounded by the ideas that comfort them.
I've always been very much in agreement with free speech and that everyone is entitled to their opinion. I just can't stand the fact that people have the opportunity to present their opinions as fact based; and are continuously given a megaphone and a soapbox directly to the world with little or no consequence. To me this leads society down a dangerous/deadly path depending on the information, and unfortunately stifles real science in the wake of more profitable opinions.
I'm not saying that these peoples voices need to be muted but that there needs to be consequences to promoting misinformation.
I think this is impossible to create a consequence just to an opinion. If the people want to believe in the chem-trails, for instance, we can't do anything. But I do agree on one thing: when it has consequences. For instance, all those "medical gurus" speaking about how the doctors are confabulated with the pharmacy industries and encourage the people to avoid vaccines, and such kind of stuff; or all those who are selling to the people with cancer miraculous products at a high price and making the people feel worst. Well, I think that they need to suffer some consequence for that, but, again, this is just another opinion. The matter, from my perspective, is that misinformation has always existed. People are willing to believe in miracles, and now, in order for something to become a miracle, it needs to be supported by the phrase "The scientist said...". Now, if you invent a situation, or make false accusations online and destroy somebody's life, well, it needs to have some consequences. But, for charlatans... well, they have always existed, and it is on the people the responsibility of informing themselves and to build their own identity. This is difficult to many, thought. We live in a society with access to the internet and to a lot of information (false or not), but many live in a closed world, with the word of a priest as the only window to the "reality". Or even those living in a society with all the information at hand, prefer to spend their time on Facebook and to believe every fake in the platform, but it is their choice, too. So, in short, I think this is the responsibility of each person to build a personal insight based on the data at hand, and that the freedom of speech should be allowed 'till the last consequences, as far as it doesn't directly damage someone. If the people choose to believe in aliens, conspiracies, chem-trails, flat earth, illuminatis or miracle products... well, this is on them. The industry of the lie is one of the most profitable, as always has been. |
|
|
|
My idea wasn't taken seriously a couple pf posts back so let me try again.
Like another user stated any abuse would be discovered easily. Let the local communities have a vote about which users they can trust to do this task.
If you spend a lot of time in a certain subforum you learn which users distribute merits for quality posts and how they do it.
All the merits allocated for this task would have to be presented to the local communities and it would be transparent for everyone to check.
I dont think you need new moderators or whistle blowers because anyone who discovers an unfair distribution in his local community will find a way to inform the staff and go public about it.
Well, in the case this kind if merit sources are created, it is clear that it is going to be really difficult for them to farm or to abuse, since the merits they will receive are few in comparison with a merit source, and will be under watch from the giver, of course. I think is far more difficult to cheat by a member of the "team merit" than to a normal merit source. By building a team also it is going to become more transparent the work of the merit source. Anyway, I don't think any of us is willing to betray or cheat, but to improve the forum. |
|
|
|
Thanks, I guess  Easy to understand rules addressing spam Lol. I've already deleted about 10-15 posts from people who don't read anything  Earned merit requires to be accepted. This actually makes my task a lot easier. Without it, in an earlier campaign, I've had dozens of Member-spammers apply, and checking their posts takes a lot of time. With the Merit requirement, I can reject them and delete their application in seconds. So there's a lot of talk about how removing SIG campaigns would save the forum. There's also a lot of talk about bounty managers who don't do their job, and since they don't get punished, they get away with it. Tsss!!! Good work!! I've seen how some merit farmers are just begging and your elegance while rejecting them!! jajaja... Nice work, a great example on how signatures actually can mean a significant change to the forum if well-runned. Best of lucks. |
|
|
|
Ok, this could be unpopular opinion but i'm speaking my mind here and i'm not out to cause trouble or start mud slinging here...but this NEEDS to be said! As stated in the title Newbies are NOT the only problem here! I posted last night here, as i usually do its quite long and detailed as thats how i write- i like to be thorough! Not to everyones taste, though other peoples writing style is not to mine either. I hadn't been on here for well over a week and i can honestly hold my hand up and say that i had no idea a similar post to mine had been posted a few days before. The response i got was and i quote: "These have been suggested before, and there was just a thread like two days ago with hilariousandco suggesting that there needs to be a merit requirement for the noob-->Jr. Member transition. Therefore, this thread is redundant and, in addition, it's way too wordy. Seems more like a merit-grab attempt than some actual concern from a member with 56 activity." Now who said this is irrelevant, and i don't have a problem with them either, i'm merely using this as an example. To me there are 4 totally unnecessary putdowns in this paragraph. Let me address them: -Firstly it wasnt a "redundant" post, as there was additional info on there that wasn't covered (though i chose to lock the thread shortly after). -It was classed as too wordy- well as i stated above i write the way i write and i can't please everyone- would you rather 'When Bitcoin moon' posts or someone who actually puts a little EFFORT into their posting behaviour? - It was no "Merit grab" attempt, for what its worth i don't fish for Merit, if someone chooses to give it to me then thats their call, i'm really not bothered but can you honestly tell me why i would even need it when i don't even use the bounty section? Please don't assume you know me- you don't. -Lastly the "actual concern from a member with 56 activity" REALLY? You bought Bitcoin before me so my opinion is irrelevant? The last statement to me implies utter contempt to 'newer' members and that anyone new here is of no importance. I'm sorry but i have as much right as anyone else to be here. Yes there are people who've been here longer than i and built this place to what it is, i just don't think it gives someone the right to be judge, jury and executioner just because you rank higher.
I'm only using this as an example of MANY other negative and quite often vindictive behaviour toward other members. Man, every time one open a thread it is probably to have some bad quotes. This is a forum, so in here there are many minds, and confrontation is kind of normal. As long as you take it personal, you will suffer, and it is pointless, from my perspective. I don't think you are a merit seeker, on the contrary, your posting behavior seems pretty healthy and honest to me, but this is just my opinion, and every one has the right of having one. Regarding the answer you received, again, don't take it personal. As you said, you've been out for a while, and these kind of conversations have been the topic from the last couple of weeks, that's why it sounds redoundant. Particularly in the newbie section, i have seen many people shot down when they've posted something quite useful, cited by senior members for having been posted before, its not relevant or its a merit attempt. You have to remember there are hundreds of newbies EVERY DAY on here that probably aren't going to scroll through dozens of pages, so is it relevant- for a newbie yes, yes of course it is!
While i am all for constructive criticism, i don't think this helps in ANY WAY shape or form, it only serves to dissuade members from posting anything else in future in fear of being vilified or singled out.
I'm probably seen in the eyes of some as causing trouble here, but you couldn't be further from the truth. Its an open forum and i think we have every right to speak our minds- good or bad. It needs to be looked at and senior members should be ambassadors for the site...not executioners.
Probably you've missed some of the pathetic attempts we have had recently of receiving merits by copy/pasting other's work, something really usual both in here and the beginner's board. Anyway, again, don't take it personal, this is just a bunch of opinions, and this is pointless to give too much attention to the negative ones.
Calling out noobs and having an issue with them because they're starting later then the rest of us doesn't really sound like a healthy attitude does it?
No, is not. Sometimes I've done it by myself (not calling someone a noob, but yes, some of them are so desperate to get merits that it makes me feel uncomfortable with them). I think the forum is now in a bad shape and, also, one can have a bad day. Sometimes I got lost in between so many crappy posts that, by the moment I quote one, I'm not in the best mood. Of course this my fault only, but, well, it is a social place, so this kind of things happens. But, yes, I do feel that encouraging is far better than insulting, but you know, sometimes it is not possible.  If people want to confuse my enthusiasm for something else then thats their problem i guess.  Totally. |
|
|
|
What do you think about the startups that are claiming to make a state where people can live life by exchanging the tokens that they give. don't you think that is absolute decentralization?
As long as you have to "cash" it for buying food, no, it is not. |
|
|
|
1. The first question was about the deanonymization https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4670296.0 . I was so happy that members with legendary status helped me understand it better. 2. The second question was the one that you commented on 3. My third question or rather my perspective is that we will never achieve absolute decentralization because of the centralized structure that is hard coded into our lives. what do you think? In our lifetimes would we see absolute decentralization? 1.- Well, we've already talked about that. Yep, the way to "deanomymization" can be the KYC being implement in exchanges. Let's see it this way: information in power now. If you have your client's private data, then the market value of your business grows. Why? Because data is everything now, so, from the business perspective, as much private information you can recollect from the people, more money you will have. Besides, governments do like to have the control, so if a big exchanger is asked by the government, they will be implementing the KYC (more profitable+more trusted). About anonymity, I do have some questions too. I don't use platforms like Facebook, for instance, because I see them as something terrible. Meaning: the people are willing to share anything, from the dish they've taken for breakfast to the clothes they are wearing today, but, the most concerning part is that they are also willing to share other's lives!!! They are no longer asking for taking a pic of you and sharing it on the internet, they just don't care... So, this society we live in is no longer caring for the privacy, on the contrary, they actually enjoy to share everything, each detail. It concerns me a lot. And that's the reason why I believe that, if becoming mainstream, crypto is not going to be anonymous. 3.- As well as the USE of the crypto is centralized, the system will be centralized. For instance, picture a neighborhood market: they resolve to create a barter system and to exchange, I don't know, maybe fruits for vegetables. They grow up bananas, and they change their bananas for tomatoes. Well, imagine that the neighborhood grows up, and then suddenly one of the integrants resolve to create a system of trust: he will be the responsible for the transactions now, and he is going to earn a banana and a tomato for every single exchange. Also, he's going to have everyone's data in order to be able to ensure the transaction to be "fair". Since that very moment, this is centralized, from my perspective. Now, regarding crypto, this is happening with exchanges: they provide the people the necessary connection for the transaction to be made, but at a high cost: fees and sensible information. This is the shape the system is taking, and I don't totally like it. |
|
|
|
Probably another bot in between the thousands we have in here. I've reported it, but, actually, my recent reports are unhandled, probably the mods have been quite busy with all these kind of activities. Just report to moderator. There are many similar cases, and we can't open a thread for each one of them. |
|
|
|
Quoting for future reference, I wonder if this advice is tag worthy? I remember a few days ago KWH tagged somebody for something similar while that was a misunderstanding, I don't think this one is though. nobody should ever suggest to banned members to go and get a new account. I wouldn't expect anything less from somebody who has the habit of giving access of his account(s)? to other people.
Whatever it is, the user already has many alts (he said it openly). Also, the one he's using to the ban appeal is active and spamming as well, maybe another one from his "corporative (shit)accounts". Anyway, I concur. This is not a good advice, and, also, this is against the rules. Whatever. Honestly, you can ban 30 accounts per day and the day after you will have 60 alts. Let's take that as a sarcasm. |
|
|
|
People often look at bitcoin and blockchain in a technical way and most of them fail to understand how powerful it is. Ever since the inception of the human race people have always relied on centralized entities and since most of us love power we tend to suppress ideas or groups of people who revolt against it.
Well, in the history of the human kind the centralization is kind of recent, but I totally get your point. Since blockchain came into mainstream all these centralized entities like governments, banks and other organizations with a reasonable amount of clout are put in danger and therefore they are taking all measures to make sure blockchain dosen't reach the common man.
This is far to be mainstream, to be honest. Mainstream is Facebook, for instance, with more than 2 billion users around the world. Anyway, I get the point. Governments are taking measures to have the control, maybe, and it is completely normal (I don't like, but it is normal). See for instance how are they introducing strong regulations to the exchanges. But, also, some governments are considering all the benefits the Blockchain technology can have, for example, you can read this: https://www.congress.gov/115/crpt/hrpt596/CRPT-115hrpt596.pdfIn Chapter 9 the US government talks about how the blockchain technology can be adapted to other many uses, and how useful it can be. They are trying so hard to spread a propaganda against cryptocurrencies and they want to make it look like it's a crime to buy cryptocurrency. Coming back to my initial point the technology is so powerful because it has the power to free everyone from hassle that people experience because of this central entities. What do you guys feel? Any instances in your life that's made you feel the power of blockchain?
Since I've been into the crypto world for the last 6 years, I can absolutely see how the technology can change the wide economical approach. This is a revolution, from my perspective, and I do agree with you, for it can be seen like the very first time when humankind has developed a system to humankind, instead to make the rich richer. But let's be honest. You are talking about two different things: 1.- Blockchain technology 2.- Bitcoin The first one is a tech that can be applied to many users (read the chapter 9 in the link), from medical records to the implementation of a new kind of "money". The second one is just an example of how it can be implemented in the economy. This is clear to me that Bitcoin is a revolution. But this is far from becoming mainstream for the moment, though. Now, regulations are trying to be both the path towards mainstream and centralization: mainstream in the sense of giving the people the necessary tools for them to join the movement; centralization because those tools are being regulated by a centralized entity, like governments and exchanges. Now, if you centralize the use of a decentralized asset by regulation, is it centralized or decentralized then? And, what about anonymity? Do you think it is going to be possible to stay annonimous once crypto become mainstream? What are your thoughts? |
|
|
|
Bounties are the least of ours concerns. At least the junk is confined to it's own board an nobody else outside if there has to see it. it's the stuff that spills out of the alt coin section like crapcoin campaigns that are the issue.
Ummm... I don't totally agree with that. Since bounties are the very first motivation of many shitposters joining the forum, they soon get tired of receiving nothing but some cents and come in here and cry about their ranks, or try to cheat the system to earn more. Also, Recently we have seen cases like this one: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4642710.0This is a really clear merit abuse and, by doing so, all the accounts implied already have joined a signature. Now, if you have some flies problem in your house, just don't leave the food on the table. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
