'Good' newbies could still report any phishing websites, talk, discuss and share information without posting external links, because some other newbies can click on that same phishing links without reading a warning and became a victims. I am not talking theory, but things that are actually happening. That is why whenever I report phishing or scam website I report it as CODE or without HTTPS/WWW It does not make sense, people whom are curious, careless, and dumb will do copying and pasting links provided in code blocks. I know now I understand your ideas with the fourth point. You proposed that point not only to prevent bad newbies to post external (phishing) links to scam users, but also for good newbies to do this with their posts (due to their carefulness). It leads to another points, there are higher ranked users whom still post external harzadous links (with their posts or reports), intentionally or unintentionally. Do you really think of it? |
|
|
|
Please allow me to disagree,
as I never saw any newbie reporting phishing websites...
even if some exceptions can be found.
Who knows they (newbies) report bad posts, phishing sites or not? They don't have to create a thread and publicly report phishing sites that way. They can do it by using report button. It seems I misunderstood your idea, but I guess I understood it right, because you proposed to restrict newbies to add external links in their posts. Posts can be used to discuss, to provide information or to report. Restrict external links will stop good newbies doing all those things. 4. Disable Newbies to add any external links in posts
|
|
|
|
They can always post website without HTTP or WWW
that can't be clicked
I don't think there should be such restriction because it will force users to search for mentioned sites, and they in turn will be under risks of phishing sites. I only think of negative effects of newbies are not allow to post external links. Additionally, forum has report button, and anyone can use it to report suspicious links You can see that suspicious links will be removed like that I don't know which link you gave in OP, but forum corrected as "why is bit[Suspicious link removed]d")
|
|
|
|
1. Disable Creating and opening New Topics for Brand New and Newbie members
I will do harm good newbies. There are already some boards restrict them, ie. , but they do have rights (as forum allows) and should do have such rights to create posts and ask for help from users. Two new no-signature boardsRules for Serious Discussion and Ivory Tower2. Newbies can make Posts, BUT they need to solve math and enter captcha before that
It already discussed in the past, and admin decided not to do this because people will compile answer keys very fast. What do the people who operate these bounties think of the newbie invasion? Also, people should not be required to post in order to get paid; that's already against the rules.
An idea I had in this vein was that upon registration you'd have to pick one of two paths:
- "I want to discuss things"
= Banned from all money-making/spam-hotbed sections until Jr Member
- "I want to make money"
= Banned from the more serious sections until Jr Member
= You have to pass a quiz before posting which tries to inform you about basic forum rules, how not to get banned, maybe some basic English knowledge, etc. (Quizzes are pointless to stop dedicated spammers, since an answer key will quickly be compiled, but it may help in cases where clueless people are ending up here.)
Forum already asked for captcha to log in. 3. Prolong time limit when Newbies can create new Posts
Spammers mostly spam with bot supports, so what they do to adapt with prolonged-time limit is reset their bots. 4. Disable Newbies to add any external links in posts
It will do seriously harm good newbies. If they doubt a site is a phishing one, and they don't have rights to post external link to that site, to ask for users ideas, how the forum can help them? |
|
|
|
Newbie jail won't be brought back (impossible), but Whitelisting procedure might be considered and applied, with new staffs hired and allocated only Whitelist jobs to do. I quoted a post from a global moderator, hilariousandco, whom discussed about user first post's whitelisting, that likely is a best alternative for Newbie jail. Due to huge size of bitcointalk.org forum, Whitelisting first post or posts is a very complicated task. If whitelisting goes active, there are some questions need to think of: - Will we whitelist only first post or expanding it to few first posts, such as first 14 posts? - Will we whitelist users' posts till they earn at least 1 merit? - How many new staffs need to whitelist user's first post(s)? I've suggested it before. It's one way for sure to stop all the messy bot spam. This wouldn't be bringing back newbie jail. They can post. They just need to be whitelisted before it goes 'live' and most will be none the wiser to it. Nice idea. Impossible to implement in reality. There's too many to handle. It's not impossible to implement. Many forums have this sort of thing. I signed up to one yesterday which had it. I don't know how long it took to verify me as I got no notification just an alert that my account needed to be verified, but the irony is my account was instantly permabanned automatically when I made my first post as being suspected of being a bot. Had someone actually verified my post that probably wouldn't have happened. Newbie jail was a reality when I joined. I think it should absolutely definitely make a comeback. It's automated, easy to understand and erases most problems. Lots of other forums have a similar system, but if it's not the owner's will then it won't happen.
This is more impossible as theymos said he won't be bringing it back. There are much better ways than newbie jail to curb spam and I think this suggestion is one of them. That's the reason why such a feature won't ever be implemented. I've seen forums that do exactly what OP is suggesting, but they have far fewer members to deal with. I forget the figure, but bitcointalk has multiple millions of registered users with thousands of new ones registering every month. There's no way in hell mods would be able to approve posts.
In the past four months staff have been handling between 18-20k reports a month. White-listing a users first post probably wouldn't be a big deal. You could even do a trial run. Ie, the system is put in place but nothing actually changes on the user front and we see how long and how much time it would take to handle them and if a backlog quickly built up. As I already said, more staff could be added to meet demand as well. You could even have one or two staff who's sole job was to handle them. I'm not saying it's perfect and there are pros and cons to any spam measure, but at least this pretty much stops the bots nearly 100% from being an eyesore and infecting the forum. Your idea completely destroys what a forum should be. Can you just imagine how could you practice free speech in a forum when all of your posts will be subject for approval? You simply can't! all your replies will be subject to the moderators reviewing it and it would really depend on whether or not its “relevant” for them. We don't really need to adjust to spammers and plagiarizers and affect everyone in the forum, they are the ones who need to adjust for us that's why we have a report button and bans in placed for them.
This isn't what is being suggested. A users first post only needs to be approved just to ensure they're not a spambot. Accounts wouldn't be banned or effected just for posting something a mod didn't like and staff could already remove it if they wanted but if they did they wouldn't be a mod for long. |
|
|
|
I wouldn't do it for posts you "agree with", but for posts that are worth reading. I've done this to posts that stated what I wanted to add to the thread already, so posting it again would be spammy. So I try to highlight the post by Meriting it.
I guess it's caused by actually reading the thread, instead of just responding to the title or OP. I'd say that's a good thing.
I agreed with Loyce. Merit is for high quality posts. Generally, such posts deserve merits, and should be highlighted by merits. Agree or disagree with posts, it should not be a determinant factor which decides readers send their smerits (if you have them) to posts or not. If posts are worth-reading, send smerits to them is good, and matched with what theymos envisioned how merits should be used. Using smerit this way will give posters more motivation to keep making good posts. They will be inspired by merits they received, even from users whom do disagree with what they wrote. I'm hoping that this system will increase post quality by:
- Forcing people to post high-quality stuff in order to rank up. If you just post garbage, you will never get even 1 merit point, and you will therefore never be able to put links in your signature, etc.
- Highlighting good posts with the "Merited by" line.
Let's take WO thread as an example. We all know that most of guys in that thread are bullish bitcoin investors, so it is normal to see how they have likely 'unfriendly' feelings with people whom post bitcoin will fall or fail to break that resistance. However, I think we need such guys to keep our minds as neutrally as possible. So their bearish posts if made with enough convincing proofs, deserve merits, IMO. |
|
|
|
Besides what I gave in previous post, I would like to give your an article from Coinbase, The 2019 Leaders in Crypto EducationYou should visit that blogpage and read full article, I only quoted some important points here. In general, it shows the increasing trend in blockchain education from top universities as well as fastly increases in demands of learning from students, whom even have their self-run blockchain clubs. The United States accounts for more than half of 20 schools on Coinbase's leaders of crypto education (see image below) Key Findings- 56 percent of the world’s top 50 universities now offer at least one course on crypto or blockchain — up from 42 percent in 2018
- Twice as many students report having taken a crypto or blockchain course than they did in 2018
- Nearly 70 percent of crypto and blockchain classes are in departments outside of computer science, including law, the humanities, and economics
- Original Coinbase research includes a Qriously survey of 735 U.S. students age 16 and older, a comprehensive review of courses at 50 international universities, analysis of research citations and non-coursework offerings, and interviews with professors and students.
- Cornell University tops the Coinbase 2019 Leaders in Crypto Education list
I believe that my thread, Available courses on Bitcoin and Blockchain Technology from colleges and Universities, is enough for a beginner in blockchain, but as you see in above article, blockchain education has grown fastly so my thread my be outdate (due to my lack of time to check those new-born courses). I appreciated @boyptc for that post, because it helps people whom have still not known how to search for blockchain courses to do it themselves. Visit those two sites, and use keyword: Blockchain, then enter Search button. It's easy to find online courses. I will edit my thread with that step. |
|
|
|
Thanks. I saw that one one or three days ago, but forgot to add it here. In the article, there is some statistics on growth of student attention and participation in blockchain courses and related stuffs in last one year. |
|
|
|
BitcoinTalk was created around 2011 by Satoshi Nikamoto,A Japanese
Totally wrong! Satoshi Nakamoto is actually a Japanese name, but no one knows that it is real name of the founder of bitcoin. I guess base on what bitcoin founder's core attention to stay anonymous, Satoshi Nakamoto is just a nickname, and we can not base on that and come to conclusion that bitcoin founder is a Japanese. By now, there is no one knows who is real Satoshi Nakamoto. All people appeared and self-claimed that they are real Satoshi Nakamoto have been verified as fake ones. |
|
|
|
It is personal option, you can choose to do left click, and use Ctr C & Ctr V; or right click and Click on "Copy link address".There are a few ways, and people choose to use their prefered one. I have never used the second one.  You made a point.  |
|
|
|
To get the URL for our post we can actually get it from right clicking the title above our post or the number shown on the right side,no need to go to the address bar.  I made it there, after that above post. Simple steps to get URL links of your posts |
|
|
|
I commented in a thread, Proof of authentication, in which OP asked for steps to get link of post to fill it in Proof of Authentication post when campaign required. I made a comment there to answer. Personally, I get url link of my post by these steps: - Making post, like this one. After click on post button, and post made, you will see url link with xxxxxx.new#new at the end.  To get url link of post, you have to do second step. - Clicking on post title, then web browser will be directed to exact url link of this post. Post title is here:  Link I get for this post after clicking on post title is: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5179810.msg52308293#msg52308293For old posts, not newly published ones, doing only the second step to get url link. To avoid the post burried by shit posts and forgotten over time, I decided to make this thread. Which types of links you want to get here, in forum? Three types, in my opinion: - Newly published posts' links
- Old posts' links
- Topics' links
Method #1: Newly published posts' linksPersonally, I get url link of my post by these steps: - Making post, like this one. After click on post button, and post made, you will see url link with xxxxxx.new#new at the end. To get url link of post, you have to do second step. - Clicking on post title, then web browser will be directed to exact url link of this post. Post title is here: Link I get for this post after clicking on post title is: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5179810.msg52308293#msg52308293For old posts, not newly published ones, doing only the second step to get url link. There are two ways to do it: - My second step above: Clicking on post title, then web browser will be directed to exact url link of this post. - Right click on posts's ordinal number inside threads > Copy link address (guide given by @stomachgrowls) For some visuals  You can also click that link and copy from the url bar. Same steps above, but there is one note for you. If you want to make your threads' link shortly. You should do the following step. For this thread, after publishing, I will see an URL link like that:  If you click on first post in your thread, you will get that link:  Unfortunately, it is link to OP of your thread, not your thread's link, and it is a long one. You will get exact thread's link if you get link as described in the attached image  Then you will get exactly what you want.  It will help you if you want to put so many threads in your signature space, then you will have to deal with character limitations. I also think you should differentiate between thread's link, OP link of your thread, and post link.
More about posting techniques: Forum's Posting guideNewbies - Read before posting |
|
|
|
For some visuals
< ... >
You can also click that link and copy from the url bar.
Thanks for sharing. I have not known about that, honestly. Personally, I get url link of my post by these steps: - Making post, like this one. After click on post button, and post made, you will see url link with xxxxxx.new#new at the end. To get url link of post, you have to do second step. - Clicking on post title, then web browser will be directed to exact url link of this post. Post title is here: Link I get for this post after clicking on post title is: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5179810.msg52308293#msg52308293For old posts, not newly published ones, doing only the second step to get url link. |
|
|
|
You can make your thread there: Service Announcement (Altcoins). You get more attention and have more choices to deal with coders. By the way, I would like to say that nowadays, it is very difficult to build up a success project, if you simply clone codes from some older projects, this case, PIVX. Investors have changed, and they will pay more time to investigate real use cases that new projects can build up. Without real interesting and realistic use cases, projects will mostly failed. PIVX, on the other hands, has its own drawbacks, that let them and many coins that use code-based from PIVX abused so many times. I am not sure that choosing PIVX-codebase for your coin is good idea. |
|
|
|
Lots of useful posts above, I would like to add one important thing for OP. Safety of your funds depends upon two main components: - Quality and security of wallet you use to store your coins. - Your personal method use to protect your seeds and your devices
- Quality and security of wallet you use to store your coins: It is true that you never should choose bad-quality wallets to use, because they can crash, and it will become a nightmare if you already send bitcoin to that wallet, but have not yet backup seeds. The high quality wallets means they are the most favorite aims to attack by hackers and bad guys who are always figure out ways to abuse bugs of wallets ans steal wallet users' funds. Don't worry about that because high quality wallets have strong team behind, who always upgrade their wallets and response fastly to any kind of attacks. - Your personal method use to protect your seeds and your devices As people mentioned in above posts, this is the way you backup your seeds and how you make and store seeds' backup are very important. You have to find out your best ways to do it to secure your seeds' backup, and guarentee that you can use those backups when you want to recover your wallets. Secure your devices to make sure that in the meantime when wallets' developers fix their issues, you won't be abused by attackers. Addtionally, to make sure that your won't do stupid things when upgrade your wallets by downloading fake wallets that contain malwares, ie. Secure your wallets has another important points that you should prepare what your family members have to do to get your funds in worst case when you pass away suddenly, like that: Apart from the risks from your proposal: why would you give your family access to your Bitcoins? If it's meant for the "hit by a bus scenario", there might be another option. I've been thinking about this for a while now, but haven't actually used it: 1. Print a normal paper wallet. 2. Sign a transaction to send funds from your cold storage to the normal paper wallet, but add a Locktime so it's only valid from a block far far in the future. Say 1 million block count or even more (but not so far none of your family members will still be alive). Or while you're at it: create a few versions (1 million blocks, 1.5 million, 2 million) and print them on different sheets of paper. 3. Print the transaction and store it with the paper wallet. 4. If you're still alive a couple of months before the first transaction becomes valid: burn it, the next one becomes your new fail safe. If your family ever needs it, all they have to do is wait a few years, broadcast the transaction, and the paper wallet becomes valuable. |
|
|
|
No, it's not necessary but I think it's a great idea. It would be a nice thing to be able to see what the price is when I'm posting in Speculation. I don't check preev all that often and I find that I have to before I write something speculative. Not all suggestions have to be necessary in order for them to be good, and I think this is a good one.
It is unnecessary, I agreed. I do believe that no one in the forum don't observe bitcoin price when they boost their computers. Of course, if they have time to do spare things, and not have to completely focus on important works at their offices. For people whom dedicate their full time for bitcoin/ crypto, sure they will do check bitcoin price after their computers turn on. In addition, real-time price of bitcoin might be annoying, sometime, when we need to focus on what we read and write. It is exactly the same like what was complained by community, and disable by admin, animated avatars. Stop animated images in FireFox / Tor browser / ChromeOK, APNGs are now detected. Old ones are grandfathered for now, in part because people have ongoing campaigns, but in the future I might (or might not) go through and remove them.
Anyway, this is userscript, so it can be used for personal favorites, I don't offend it, but I do think that people who support that script and actually use it will still sometimes feel it annoying. |
|
|
|
One thing that I use to believe is that if there was no altcoins, bitcoin would have been in a special state, but the invention of these so called altcoins are the one slowing down the growth of bitcoin because they tend to divert attention of users and investors from focus on bitcoin to those projects that are not with real use case, and they also diverted their attention for the payment purpose of bitcoin to store of value alone, which makes most people you see more keen about the store of value of it.
We still have very low proportion of people that are using bitcoin for payment, but it is a wise idea as you said that before we get to that stage where the use of bitcoin for payments will become wide, there is need that we separate our spending coin to that of the ones that we use for store of value.
I disagreed. As basic fact of natural selection, without altcoins, bitcoin would have not reached what it has as of writing. Without altcoins, without competitors, bitcoin developers would have not upgraded bitcoin fastly and significantly like we have witnessed so far. Without altcoins, there would have been less people known about crypto currencies, and less capital flow into crypto currencies like we have witnessed so far It is undeniable fact that there are some things altcoins have done, but bitcoin has not yet made, such as smart contracts with Ethereum is a good case study. I don't think it will be a healthy blockchain industry if in which we have only bitcoin, or only altcoins (without bitcoin). We need both bitcoin and altcoins grow and compete each other in mutual relationships. |
|
|
|
Really i would like to know what is expected to be found by investors in the new IEO, for myself i am looking for stable token which the prices always increase and can be used in buying goods and services, so what others looking for and what them needs?
IEO, Initial Exchange Offering, is the game for exchanges. They launch their IEO, their coins or tokens, that operate on blockchain, and looks very adaptive to crypto hot trend recent months. Unfortunately, they are centralized coins/ tokens by exchanges that run those IEOs. Investors are unable to control votality of those assests they invest (through IEOs). Another point should be noted is, most famous, attractive IEOs so far run by Chinese exchanges. Are there any coinincidence here? Moreover, you were wrong because there is no stable token that has price always rising over time. Stable and continously-grown are very opposite terms. This is why we have stable coin, Tether USD (USDT) for years, that has never over-rated or under-rated extremly significant to real USD. |
|
|
|
I don't say your suggestion is pointless, but it is not matched with current stats system of forum. Users can not use that page if they have not yet reached 300 good reports: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=reportlist;mineIt is unnecessary when not all users can use that page. Furthermore, mod log, sec log have not yet been added in main page after users log in their accounts. [Guide] Reporting effectivelyDo you often use report button? There are guides to more effectively report Report History Only users who have reported 300 good reports have access to this page This is probably one of the most useful features related to reporting. Basically, this shows you a history of your reports, and whether they have been marked good, bad or are unhandled. This page can be used for ongoing evaluation of your reporting habits. Use the information on this page to improve the quality of your posts. |
|
|
|
In May 2014 price of DASH was almost 0.03 BTC, now is less then 0.009 and keep decreasing. That is more then 3 times less in only five years. If we continue like this in 2024 price will be 0.002 BTC.
What's wrong with it? In May of 2014, BTC price is $456. DASH valued at 0.03 BTC (I don't check, simply use what you wrote), it means one DASH valued at nearly $13.7 As of writing, DASH values at 0.00848 BTC/ DASH, BTC values at $9633, it means one DASH values at $81. So, what's wrong? Increased or decreased in value? And if you invested in 2014, why did not take profit when DASH surpassed $1500?  . di 0.00848*9633
81.68784
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
