Oh, and @Pharmacist
You might be right that Merit hasn't been in place long enough to do what it's capable of. I'm just reacting to the fact that there's far too many 0-10 Merit accounts (seemingly more than ever) who seem oblivious to the idea that ranking up is in their interest (some come across like bots). Spambots cannot think rationally about ranking, but the owners of the spambots can watch the whole strategy disappear, spraying the walls of the boards with 100's of annoying bots would suddenly become very expensive under this proposal.
I would consider to pay a really small fee (like dust) per post if it would help the forum on the long run, but I think this won't help a lot in the current situation. According to my understanding, spammers are here to earn money with sig.campaigns. Sig.campaigns and bounty campaigns are usually for advertising ICOs, services or something similar, so someone, who is interested in being visible on the forum pays the members (bots) to post and to wear the signature. What if we implement the payment system for posts? If I try to oversimplify it, these guys, who runs the signature and bounty campaigns will pay the fee per post instead of the members and they will deduct if from the members (bots) campaing payment at the end of the week. This pay per post would only prevent trolls (who are not in any signature/bounty campaings) to spam the forum. I was shocked when a few weeks ago I thought that I found the solution against copy-pasters, but someone enlightened me that if we give merit for reporting a bunch of copy pasters, the merit abusers would create even more copy-paster accounts for themselves and will report them with their original account, to earn merit. That time I have realized that spammers are not only a few undereducated poor folks from worldwide but groups hunting for the profit they can earn here. ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3275350.msg34148476#msg34148476) Also, a few hours ago, I have wrote a small post about trashing spam megathreads, which makes the spammers lose post count and this can be really bad for them, even worse if they don't rank up because the lack of merits. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3335348.msg35031143#msg35031143So I agree that something has to be done, but we need think about a really effective solution, and this is not easy at the moment... I can imagine that the merit system, combining with trashing low quality post and topics will help, but there's also a need to somehow force bounty campaign managers to stop the one liner spammers, and I don't have an idea how we can force them... I know TLDR  |
|
|
|
... Edit : Direct person to person payments will obviously be difficult to track, but in the end you still have to declare the income on your year end tax return, so you will then pay tax on that.  It's also difficult to track the direct person to person payments if it's done in cash. In that case it's up to you if you declare it in your tax report or not... Maybe cryptos (bitcoin) can be more easy to track if you compare it to the cash payments, so it can be better to the government if they can make people change the cash to cryptos (they won't prefer bitcoin, of course, but every crypto is more or less trackable, except Monero and a few other privacy coins, and of course governments won't promote the privacy coins...) |
|
|
|
|
As I was reading this topic, something has popped into my head...
I can be absolutely wrong, of course, but it seems that most of the jr. members, members are not complaining about the merit system but about the post count. It seems that it's a bigger problem for a newbie, jr., or for a member that some of the posts are deleted (trashing spam megathreads, deleting reported spam posts, etc...) because they have a minimum post requirement in the signature campaign. They don't really care for the merits to be able to rank up, because they are struggling with the post count, in order to stay in their sig. campaign. If they can create the necessary post count easily (which don't vanish in a week) they will care about the merits too, I guess, but until then, they will just fight for their life in the meaning of the weekly post count... It seems that they are more or less happy if they can maintain their position in their campaign (even if they don't rank up ever) because it worths for them at that specific rank.
Maybe this can be one reason why they don't care/know about merit (I guess a lot of them don't know/care about merits, because they are always on the edge at the weekend when the campaigns counts posts.).
So, to sum up, my idea is:
Let's continue to nuke the spam megathreads, because it seems that spammers are more interested in the post count and they will care more about their deleted posts (and don't care about the lack of the merits...)
It's not enough to lock the spam megathreads, because it doesn't affect the post count. I don't care if some of my posts are also deleted if it helps to clear the forum somehow...
|
|
|
|
|
Nice idea, but I don't really catch the point...
I do have an android phone now, and I can use Mycelium on it, which is a bitcoin wallet. It can be used as a hot wallet (storing a small amount of bitcoin in that wallet) and as a cold wallet as well, because I can attach a Trezor or a Ledger Nano S to the android phone and Mycelium can handle both hardware (cold) wallets.
So it's already possible to do all these things which is written in the article. My only idea is that they don't really want to use bitcoin as the currency on the blockchain, but they want to set up their own currency and 'force' people to use it instead of bitcoin, which is a really smart move from them.
I'm interested in the outcome of this...
|
|
|
|
|
Have you edited the recording in such a way that the 'spaces' (the quiet parts of the recording between words) has been removed by the editor? I don't think that someone can speak for such a long time without having a little stop to take a breath. This makes your voice a bit like an 'android' or like a text to speech software. Anyway, nice idea, don't let the critics stop you!
|
|
|
|
I like this little trick to check the new topics without listing the useless spam topics... I usually check for new topics on a daily basis, I post in them quite often on the day they were opened (it it worths the effort...). Also if I think that a new topic is just a kind of useless one, I usually wait a day to check if it gets deleted by mods or not... but after a day or two, I usually can't find those interesting topics easily (because of the spam topics) so this can help me a lot, thanks. |
|
|
|
Thanks for the links - super interesting!
Why does Bitcoin need to scale to VISA scale? I do believe Bitcoin has a role to play for higher value transaction at smaller frequency.
LN really seem like a monkey patch - I can see how they seem interesting, but I'd rather use an altcoin (Nano for instance) than throw my coins on lightning.
You are a newbie, and you belive that Bitcoin has nothing to do with small payments. You also know some alts, too and you know what they are useful for. But most of the newbies and the Average Joe's around the world don't have a clue about altcoins, some (most) of them don't know bitcoin at all. Maybe they have heard about bitcoin in the news last December but that's all. If they will ever start to use bitcoin, they will not start to use alts at the same time. But they will want to pay for their coffee and for the daily things with bitcoin, so there's a real demand to develop Bitcoin to be able to handle the small transactions. One solution can be the lightning network, but unfortunately there are even less people who know about lightning yet... |
|
|
|
I've found this while browsing the Bitcoin Discussion thread:  Is this just something random listing of the thread or someone had taken actions against the threads where usually newbies post useless two liners? |
|
|
|
|
Maybe the news are not real but just FUD, but it shows that the key thing now is controlling the exit points of the blockchain, where you can exchange your coins back to fiat. This is done on an exchange, but somehow you should get back your funds from the exchange, and this is the bank transfer. When banks are not allowed to accept wire transfer from crypto exchanges, people won't be able to withdraw their fiat from the exchanges. Localbitcoins can be a temporary solution for this, but not for everyone and not everywhere.
|
|
|
|
I've checked the attached 'Guide to assessments of fintech credit institution licence applications' The main point is that it's about the fintech credit institutions, (fintech banks), so this will only apply to those fintech companies, who wants to give out loans (like banks) to everyday people (clients). So as of my understanding, this means that they don't regulate all the fintech companies with the same regulations like banks has to fulfill, but only those fintech companies, where this applys: 'delivery of banking products and services are based on technology-enabled innovation' They emphasize that because the new fintech companies will start to act like banks (and the problematic part is the credit, not the money transfer part of the banking services). So as far as I understood, this is only apply for those fintech companies, who wants to deal with credits, not for all fintechs. |
|
|
|
Maybe he has already bought in the beginning of 2017 and sold the coins in 2017 december, so in Jan 2018 he wanted to buy again, which means there was a need for a discount price, so he started to spread negative news, like the bubble one. The price went down and maybe he has already bought back the coins e.g. in March 2018, so now there's a need for the price to skyrocket again. Now he started to spread positive news, like he's getting into cryptos. This is only one possible scenario, of course, so we can't be sure what happens behind the scenes... |
|
|
|
This is a very good news that investors like Rockfeller and Soros are investing on Bitcoin. Those who were panicking at present pricefall should have got some relief now.
Just be sure they are not starting with a short position and want to move the price as low as possible to earn as much as possible from the price drop.... If they are buying because they think that this is the lowest possible price they can buy, and the way is upwards from now on, I'll be happy with this move of their... We'll see... |
|
|
|
when we have a look in the world we barely see people paying with cash and the majority are using the cards or things for payments already so btc will make this process of change faster in my opinion.
There are countries in the EU still, where people prefer cash instead of debit cards and bank transfer, and not because that cash is easier to handle, but there are several type of jobs where you get some (a little) part of your salary legally and the major part is given in cash (because of the tax 'optimization'). These people will prefer to use that cash in shops and in other places, where they can spend it easily (and somehow anonymously). As soon as these people will realize that cryptos are easy to track they won't want to change the cash for crypto (until the government will force them to use digital money (crypto or not) instead of the banknotes and coins). |
|
|
|
There are many good altcoins.
Why would anyone chose shitcoin forks of Bitcoin like BCH?
The big companies are mainly choose Bitcoin instead of others (forks, alts) because of it's history and the trust, which is party based on the long history and partly the reliability (the technology itself, which is unhackable still) If it's in connection with fees, the lightning network will come sometime and will solve the fee problem partly, so there's no need to search for something else yet. Also, if big companies wants to sell to people directly, they will need to use a coin that's known and accepted by the average people too. Forks, alts are unknown to the Average Joes, so there's no use trying to accept them, there will be little interest using those coins instead of bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Do not store in exchanges, if some hacker stolen their funds, you can lose your $.
Safe way to store bitcoin is generating a paper wallet from a offline live linux and backup.
You can use hardware wallet too, it is secure if you PC isnt infected.
Hardware wallet can be a safe option even if the PC is infected, but this is just from the bitcoin's point of view. When you use a hardware wallet, all you have to do is to open a browser and connect to the hardware wallet's website (or to run the chrome app for ledger, if it's a ledger nano S). If you make sure that the website is legit, you can connect your hardware wallet and do transactions on it, because your private key is stored on your hardware wallet and it doesn't leave the hardware wallet when you start a transaction with the hardware wallet. This is because the data that goes from the PC contains only the details of the transaction, and the hardware wallet signs the transaction itself (the signature is generated with the private key on the device itself, because it's like a micro computer) and the hardware wallet sends back the signed message to the device to broadcast it into the network. It's not possible to decrypt the private key from the signed message itself or from the transaction details, so your private key is safe. But don't use the infected PC for anything else (like connecting to a web wallet), because a keylogger can collect all your usernames and passwords. Also, if you use the hardware wallet, alway double check the bitcoin addresses on the screen of the hardware wallet, because viruses or trojans can modify the bitcoin addresses on the screen of the PC while using their hacked address in the transaction itself, but the hardware wallet's screen alway shows the real address included in the transaction and it has to match the address you wanted to send your bitcoins to. |
|
|
|
At the moment, you can easily exchange PayPal to Bitcoin, despite the different operating principles of the two systems. Each of these networks exist in parallel modes, touching only if currency exchange is necessary. But the current situation is just a truce in a long battle. Bitcoins outperform many competitors in the Internet space, leading in many respects. Crypto currency, which exists for about 7 years, was able to bypass competitors working for centuries.
Despite the fact that it's easy to exchange PayPal for Bitcoin today, you need to choose a good exchanger that has an excellent reputation. By using the PayPal service, you can purchase a crypto currency, but for this you will have to use the services of intermediary websites. And this will lead to certain losses on commissions.
The whole topic is about the fact that it's not easy to use Paypal to buy bitcoin or any crypto. Anyway, it's not possible to buy the other cryptos directly (maybe ethereum) but bitcoin, and you have to exchange the bitcoins in order to buy the other cryptocurrencies. If you want to buy bitcoin with Paypal, nobody will be selling you any bitcoin (or maybe only with huge discount in the exchange rate to cover the risk of the paypal dispute/claim). Paypal is known that it's automatically decides in the favour of the buyer if the disputed transaction is about cryptocurrency. When you buy bitcoin with paypal, you can start a dispute and escalate it to a claim, stating that you haven't received anything. Paypal will decide in your favour, they will charge the seller's account and will credit your account. This means you will have the bitcoins and the money in the end. This is why nobody wants to be a seller when the buyer wants to use Paypal. |
|
|
|
You can try Gemini or Kraken for buying coins and as for storing, I wouldn't recommend an exchange. If the amount is anything higher then +1000$, I would suggest getting a hardware wallet.
Regarding the bank, I think you are better off asking Coinbase about this and also confirming with your bank that they have no issues with crypto related transactions.
Another wote for a hardware wallet, if you want to handle a decent amount of cryptocoins. If you don't want to risk a meaningful amount of money to buy cryptos, you can live without a hardware wallet of course, there's no need to pay much more to secure the coins if the coins themselves don't worth at least the price of the hardware wallet. Let's say you want to buy a ledger nano s or a trezor (and let's say it costs $100), so if you want to buy cryptos, you should spend $200 at least ($100 to buy a hardware wallet, and another $100 to buy cryptos). |
|
|
|
one more question... did you modify the config.go file again after git reset? You have mentioned that this change is needed to run a neutrino version: if cfg.Bitcoin.Node == "neutrino" && cfg.Bitcoin.MainNet {
str := "%s: neutrino isn't yet supported for " +
"bitcoin's mainnet"
err := fmt.Errorf(str, funcName)
return nil, err
}Thanks for pointing me to the right direction, I haven't modified the file, and as I've checked the log I've posted in the last post, I've realized that I've forgot to run the after the successfull git pull to install the new version after downloading it. I've quickly run the install, and now the version of the lnd is really 0.4.1, but the problem remains the same. I'm looking into the DNS things maybe I can find something with google... |
|
|
|
Good news came today from Europe: The countries, including the U.K., France, Germany, Norway, Spain and the Netherlands, signed a declaration on Tuesday establishing the new group, dubbed the European Blockchain Partnership, according to a release from the European Commission, which led the effort. 22 European Nations Form New Blockchain PartnershipGood news... we'll see... I would have been much more happy if they had established the European Bitcoin Parnership  Governments can make regulations in the favour of their blockchain and to make bitcoin a hard time (taxing bitcoin more than their own blockchain), so I'm not 100% sure that this is good news... |
|
|
|
Using the blockchain technology the government could actually combat and reduced corruption.
They could. They never will, but they could.  Call me a cynic/conspiracy theorist/skeptic/whatever, but I'm simply incapable of believing that governments genuinely want to curb the worst of their excesses. I suppose I can't speak for all countries, some may be less corrupt. But in the UK, most politicians aren't in the job because they believe they're making the world a better place, they're in it for the generous wage packets, which they always pass a vote to increase whenever the opportunity arises, the taxpayer-subsidised bar, so they can get cheap booze while ordinary people go hungry, along with the ability to abuse their expenses and claim for stuff the average person would be jailed for if they tried pulling a stunt like that. Kleptocracy. Not Democracy. Ending corruption is literally the last thought on their mind. Hopefully, one day, we can do away with the archaic notion of so-called elected representatives and replace all of them with a blockchain. Then consensus can be a societal governance model, not just a network governance model. Governments will be happy to use blockchain technology to fight tax evasion, but not corruption The two things are different, tax evasion is done by the people, so the government wants to stop it, to collect more taxes. When it's about the corruption, sometimes the goverment or the politicians are involved, so they won't use blockchain to stop corruption at all.... Or, they will need a kind of blockchain that they can rule, so a centralized one, which is purely like a digitalized fiat system (which is like the model of Sweden). Tax evasion and corruption are totally different things |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
