This discussion was the reason I started the thread.

All talk of guns, knives etc. are not relevant, as it is in the UK, and the police are more likely to spend time prosecuting you, than hunting for the criminals if you carry a knife. In fact you run the risk of prosecution if you defend yourself against terrorists over here. If the police are too vigorous in arresting the thieves, or they keep them in custody for an extra couple of hours, then the criminals may be awarded many thousand of pounds in compensation if they claim against the police. This is the reality of England under the rule of the Keiser Reich.

A number of people seem to be supporting the idea that Bitcoin was created by the US Fed as an experimental project. They can learn from its strengths and weaknesses prior to creating a Fed coin to replace the debt laden dollar. If this is true, then it would explain why Bitcoin was created with restrictions that prevent if from becoming a major payment system. The obvious two restrictions are the 21 million coin cap, and the 10 minute block generation interval. The increasing size of the blockchain will eventually lead to the centralisation of record keeping as well.

The fact that members have to submit their posts to approval threads shows a fundamental flaw in the structure of Bitcoin Talk. If a good thread/post cannot be seen by members, then the board needs some attention and moderation in my opinion.

The other point to consider is the fact that those donating the points don't seem to be reading the boards. If they were, then they would have noticed the post. This makes one wonder how useful all those sig banners are. If the posts are not being seen, then there is a strong possibility that the banners aren't either.

I give merit points as a thank you to a poster for providing helpful information. This serves two purposes - it shows the poster that his post is helpful and constructive, and encourages him to support the forum with more posts. It also helps a useful poster to recognise that the forum priorities are not just about promoting crypto bounties. If a forum member feels that the forum has become a crypto bounty marketplace, and not a Bitcoin information exchange, it is possible that he will reduce the frequency of his visits.

Legal tender is defined as a payment method that must be accepted in settlement of a debt. It does not have to be accepted as part of everyday transactions. Bitcoin is a long way away from being accepted as legal tender.

Or you could look at the serious discussion boards. Very little spam, but no signatures and not many merit points. That's a barometer for the current board climate.

Threads such as " will bitcoin replace banks" are trivial kindergarten stuff, and should be either deleted or archived. They are the equivalent of asking if cars will replace houses because a couple of people are living in their cars. Constantly bumping them to keep them on the first page diminishes the image of Bitcoin Talk, and probably contributes to the emigration of some of the better posters who were here when I first joined.

Bitcoin talk has become the crypto bounty discussion and promotion forum rather than the Bitcoin Talk forum. I've more or less decided that it is better to join the herd rather than try to fight the flood. At least as a herd member you get to share the best grass.

These offers slide down the pages fast.

This offer is closing soon, so grab it while you can. Bitcoin payment accepted of course.

I believe there are a couple of threads on Bitcoin Talk that discuss the merit system. Maybe one of those might mention the requirements.

A gang of four armed raiders held up an English Bitcoin trader at gunpoint. He was forced to transfer a large sum in Bitcoin. I believe this is the first such event in England, but not the first in the world.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5322171/Pictured-barn-raiders-committed-bitcoin-robbery.html

How can we protect ourselves against this? Some thoughts occur to me.

Transfer the coins into a timelocked wallet controlled by me. But would that provoke a physical resction from the raiders.
Time lock the transfer into their requested wallet.
If the stolen coins are run through a mixer, could I sue the mixer because he was profiting from the proceeds of crime.

Has anybody got any other ideas?

The new system is adopted, but it doesn't seem to be accepted by some - mainly the ponzi spammers.

I support it, and hope that the restrictions will be tightened so that we can have our old Bitcoin Talk forum back.

Please note - the next update would have made me eligible for Legendary status, and I am now at least six months away from that. But I would rather have a proper Bitcoin Talk forun than promotion in a spam fest Babylon.

That looks like wishful thinking. The Frog Pond still looks like a frog pond.

I was sorry to read that post. Maybe the points aren't being given out because some people have given up making good posts, or perhaps it is because many members consider that the ponzi pushers should get the merit points.

A lot of the posts getting 30-50 points should be removed from the forum in my opinion, but then I am against the scammy coins that just seem to be aimed at stealing money from those who are new to the crypto world.

Fiat money has no "backbone". In fact it is a wobbly jelly based on a massive mountain of debt. To accept that crypto-currencies have value, you have to start to understand the concept of virtual assets. The US dollar is a virtual asset, and it purports to be guaranteed by the US government, or the Fed - I'm not sure who guarantees it these days. However, a guarantee by a bankrupt doesn't really have a great deal of value. The value of Bitcoin is guaranteed by its community, and although that may contain a few bankrupts, the vast majority of its supporters are far from bankrupt. Similar consideration apply to other virtual assets like domain names. The "value" is determined by the community of users, and not by an over-spending failing regime.

If you are discussing gold, you need to differentiate between paper gold and physical gold, In the same way you need to differentiate between Bitcoin and Bitcoin derivatives.

Gaddafi, Sadam, Assad and Kim Jong-un all wanted/want the mineral assets of their country to be controlled and developed by their own government, and not by the Deep State. They also wanted to break free of the US dollar hegemony.

China has been dumping dollar bonds for years, and they are making a bit to replace the US dollar with the Petro-Yuan. Also they created the AIIB to replace the western banking system. Russia is a significant trading partner of China, and the strengthening of Russia was a result of the unwise sanction attempts by the US, which only served to damage the US, and strengthen bonds between Asian countries.

I suggested a sub-category of Legendary - LAMP - That is for Legendaries who have brought light to Bitcoin Talk by gaining rank via merit points, and not just from spamming ponzi schemes.

Of course this means that merit points need to come from peer recognition of quality contributions, and not from mates' rates.

I've got over 2,000 posts made in a little over two years. Most of those were made at the start of my membership, and from a desire to further my interest in Bitcoin. I made some controverial posts, and some stupid ones as a result of my lack of knowledge. Did I contribute to the forum? I like to think so because some of the "big names" here replied to my questions, and were extremely helpful and informative. I was lucky because in those days it was possible to have a sensible discussion in the Frog Forum, and beginner's questions were moved to the beginners board. As a result of being active, I've racked up a reasonable post count, and until the merit system arrived, I only needed to make one post of indifferent quality per activity period to gain promotion. Why would 2 posts per month of indifferent quality mean that I should be Legendary rather than just a simple Hero? Of course the answer is that it doesn't.

I'm happy to contribute to the forum and enter into informed discussions, but please give me somewhere to do it. You can help by frequenting the serious discussion boards until the herons get to the Frog Pond, and the thread weeds are closed.

There may be thousands of posts made every day, but I'm not going to read very many of them. I did have a dip into the Frog Pond yesterday,but I probably won't bother for a while until things improve there.

I've given away a few points to posters in the serious discussion section, but not too many members even bother to read it, let alone post there.

I'm pleased that it's going to be difficult for many people to increase their ranking. Especisally the ones that don't even have a Bitcoin wallet, or exchange their coins for fiat as soon as they get paid for their worthless spamming.

It is becoming apparent that the Ponzi pushers are getting awards of up to 50 merits for rubbish posts. This will lead to an increase in sig spamming, and not a reduction. It would also be a good idea if a signature campaign manager was not a Merit Faucet. This would avoid them being led into temptation.

You've prompted me to add a link to blockchain on my mobile. I should have done that ages ago.

The main reason for my running a full node is to explore the variety of payment conditions that can be associated with a payment. One that interested me was a form of escrow where one could use a trusted party as a third signature for a 2 out of 3 release. Another is a time lock with possible reclaim to prove the availability of funds.

Unfortunately I haven't had the chance to research these, but hopefully I will be able to do so  in the near future.

I think that members should only be allowed to award one point per post. It is already apparent that the sig spammers and account farmers are picking up 30-50 points a time for rubbish posts.