I will not work for self-moderated ANN topics. If you feel some one may do this in the future, simply quote their OP for reference.
Right! OPs should be editable. Eveyone need to edit their original posts, including OPs, for supplementary information or correct typos, mistakes, etc. Therefore, View Edit History might help and might be the only solution. I guess this is one of the main reasons why theymos added Edited information recent weeks. But, I think we need a bit more than that, to view full historical posts, especially OPs. I can't imagine how it will work if the OP can't delete his/her started thread without disabling the edit option, I think it's impossible to apply your suggestion to the forum.
|
|
|
|
SCAM alert malware in wallet
Why did you known that PRX wallet contains malware? Are there ways to check viruses/ malwares without actually downloading and installing crypto wallets? If you known the way to check wallet's security, please share it with me. Thank you. |
|
|
|
It looks like Litecoin will soon surpass Ethereum because from of the position and price of Litecoin is very supportive, Litecoin is a coins that deserve to be taken into account and in my opinion this coin will be a favorite of many people. it's very interesting to see the struggle of XRP (ripple), Ethereum and Litecoin to want to be in the second position under Bitcoin.  No, it won't, I believe. The gap between Ethereum and Litecoin is huge ($11 mil versus $2.2) It means Litecoin has to rise more than five times, even when Ethereum stays at its current price, to surpass Ethereum in marketcap and position on CMC. It don't see probability for it. I agreed Litecoin and BEAM cooperation is great, but it is not enough to help Litecoin surpass ETH. |
|
|
|
OK, so who you're going to blame for missing the deadline? Vitalik? This ETH project is one of the most decentralized projects out there, with devs wanting to work on their own will. The ethereum project has succeeded in getting the most Github commits in 2018, even if they're missing a deadline for some reason, you can't blame the devs!
Let's take a look back at bitcoin case. There have been so many debate over years to scale up the bitcoin network. What's happened? Delays from time to time, changes made very slowly over years with so many debates and delays. Please, keep calm and wait for the Ethereum upgrade with your patience. Patience will help you earn profits in crypto, whilst impatience will force you make wrong decisions and lose your money. |
|
|
|
I disagree. For an exchange like this the 1BTC fee is not that much. They are not like many shit exchanges that pop up all the time. Super fast deposit and withdrawal and very good service. Quality comes with a price my friend.
I don't want to judge all exchanges that give free listings or ask for some cents to list new coins on their platforms, but most of free-listing exchanges are scam-exit exchanges. txbit.io exchange is a good one, in my opinion, and totally different. Of course, I also agree that expensive listing fees don't always equal to high quality, reliable, and secured exchanges. However, teams will not spend expensive fees to list on those exchanges if they don't feel good. |
|
|
|
So iCEBREAKER's calling the market bottom and is back panic-trolling ? I was thinking as much myself - with rising indicators all round. In particular long range RSI has put in 2 higher bottoms since last August.   Litecoin took off today, when is the DASH's turn? DASH has fallen into hypernational phase for too long. Hence, I thought it's a good time for DASH to wake up and do something (something, you do known what I meant here). I lost my chance with DASH last two years when it surpassed 0.1 BTC per DASH. I won't miss it this year with great free chance from bearish market. |
|
|
|
|
As Pmalek stated, OPs should be editable.
There are lots of things need to be updated in OPs, over time, so it would go crazy if OPs will not allow editing.
Scanning all above ideas, I thought that the likely best solution for the issue is "View Edit history".
Nevertheless, I thought that the one is un-realistic, and might put a huge pressure on both the forum's database, and mods.
Hence, I don't think that theymos will do it - "View Edit History".
|
|
|
|
OP is a 2010 registered account, wow. I’m interested  The OP has register day sooner than theymos' register day. I am very impressed. OP's register day February 01, 2010, 04:59:51 PM theymos' register day February 09, 2010, 12:49:38 AM |
|
|
|
Intra-week merits update:From 24/1/2018 to 28/1/2019 Time series plot:Basic statistics:Mean +/- sd: 5870 +/- 4533 Median (interquartile range): 4513 (3800 - 5630) Min - max: 3065 - 30949 . tabstat merit, s(n mean sd p50 p25 p75 min max)
variable | N mean sd p50 p25 p75 min max
-------------+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
merit | 53 5869.717 4532.529 4513 3800 5630 3065 30949
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IQR = Q3 - Q1 = 5630 - 3800 = 1830 1.5*IQR = 1.5*1830 = 2745 Q3 + 1.5*IQR = 5630 + 2745 = 8375 Q1 - 1.5*IQR = 4513 - 2745 = 1768 Let's see how many weeks have total intra-week merits beyond 1768 or 8375? . count if (merit >=8375 | merit < 1768) & merit != .
6
There are six potential outliers, and none of them occured in the year 2019, so far . list merit week if merit >=8375 | merit <=1768
+----------------+
| merit week |
|----------------|
1. | 30949 2018w4 |
2. | 19958 2018w5 |
3. | 13304 2018w6 |
4. | 11722 2018w7 |
5. | 8758 2018w8 |
|----------------|
6. | 8806 2018w9 |
+----------------+
|
|
|
|
< ... >
In fact, both intraday and intraweek merits decreased weeks later the Default Trust Change on 09/1/2019. Intraday merits (before, and two-, three-weeks later the Default Trust change) presented via medians, and means. . tabstat before090119 wkslater_2 wkslater_3, s(n mean sd p50 p25 p75 min max) format(%9.1f) c(s)
variable | N mean sd p50 p25 p75 min max
-------------+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
before090119 | 324.0 677.0 263.0 616.5 510.5 766.5 312.0 2463.0
wkslater_2 | 14.0 840.4 191.4 845.5 658.0 987.0 611.0 1161.0
wkslater_3 | 21.0 781.9 179.5 715.0 643.0 880.0 587.0 1161.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Decreasing over time, right? Someone said that the effects come from new added merit sources and re-allocation and re-distributional mechanism of airdropped sMerits to active merit sources, but I don't think that the assumption is right. It's likely instant effects of both Default Trust change, new merit sources, and re-built mechanism on airdropped sMerits to merit sources. 3 weeks later update:Basic statistics:Percent of changes:< ... >
The instant effects look good because it has not come from abusements like we saw in September of 2018 with demotion of Junior Members who did not earn any merit. |
|
|
|
I sorry for my blinded eyesight. I actually mis-saw it as 2018, not 2019. Thank you for correcting me. Nevertheless, the topic you gave is an inspirational story that crypto enthusiast can get massive rewards from their hard works, patience, and smart approach. After all, they can use rewards as funds for their trips. Unfortunately, it seems that you mis-understood the purpose of the topic, in which I wanted to show the inpirational stories from users who ranked up from lower ranks (Junior Members and below) to much higher positions with tough challenges from merit system and new rank requirements. To sum up, your given topic is an inspirational one, but is not relevant for my topic. Sorry, I don't add it into my list. |
|
|
|
everyone waits for it it's just not time to pump, but does the price of ethereum rise because of the pump I don't think so, it's because of the value and the many adoptions for ethereum itself, thanks for your information about the fork
Constantinople, and Fidelity, together will help Ethereum take off in the late of first quarter 2019. I believe that they will show their huge impacts on Ethereum price. It's my belief, and maybe wrong, so you all should take care of yourself and your trading orders or investment decisions. |
|
|
|
< ... >
I don't think that you can earn merits by your post like this. You should compose it better, in sentence structure, at least. I don't discuss about your ideas here. Furthermore, your post history shown the reasons why you almost has not earned merits via your posts, by now. |
|
|
|
3 weeks later update:Basic statistics:Percent of changes:Sorry for the inconvenience here, because I just found that in the analysis for two weeks later, I made mistakes. I forgot to drop un-used days, that are outside the time range of two weeks later of the Default Trust Change. Updated both two tables with correct statistics already, but it is just small change. * For Mean percent change two weeks later
. di (841-677)*100/677
24.22452
* For median percent change two weeks later
. di (846-617)*100/617
37.115073
|
|
|
|
I think that Gincoin team have chosen right approach. The upgrade should be implemented as carefully as possible. Quick update about the new wallets and the status of the algorithm change to x16rt.
During an algorithm change the network is very vulnerable because the hash power drops at a single block, that is why we do not consider going live with the new algorithm without having the dPoW notarization started, to protect the Gincoin blockchain from a potential 51% attack.
The wallet implementation of the Komodo dPoW takes a bit longer than anticipated, that is why we are delaying the algorithm change date a bit.
Around one week left till the launch day of new wallet update. The new set date is Tue, 12 Feb. We will announce wallet updates as soon as they are ready.
|
|
|
|
Box plots:Notes:- merit_full: Full dataset, from 24/1/2018 to 24/1/2019. - merit2daysdrop: the first two days dropped (24-25/1/2018, id = 1, 2) - merit: the first 26 days dropped due to outliers (24/1/2018 to 18/2/2018, id = 1-26) - mean: mean - sd: standard deviation - p50: median - p25: Q1 - p75: Q3 Raw statistics:. tabstat merit_full merit_2daysdrop merit, s(n mean sd p50 p25 p75 min max) c(s)
variable | N mean sd p50 p25 p75 min max
-------------+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
merit_full | 366 842.9071 888.2252 640 521 843 312 13018
merit_2day~p | 364 793.2005 534.7651 639 521 839 312 4493
merit | 340 684.0324 261.525 621.5 515 773.5 312 2463
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Due to effects of outliers, the means fall from 843 (full dataset) to 794 (first two days dropped), then to 685 (first 26 days dropped). Moreover, the medians present almost the same pattern, when medians for full dataset, first two days dropped, and first 26 days dropped are 640, 639, and 622, respectively. Statistics should be used are from truncated dataset by dropping the first 26 days. - Mean +/- sd: 685 +/- 262 - Median (interquartile range): 622 (515 - 774) The median of the truncated dataset present nearly the true median of one year intraday-merits. It means that: - 50% of observed days have intraday merits above 622, whislt 50% of rest observed days have intraday merits below 622. - 50% of observed days have intraday merits in the range from 515 to 774 (the interquartile range).
|
|
|
|
|
Moreover, even when Default Trust Change has not affected the merit circulations within recent weeks, it might play its role as potential bias factor.
No one knows, but I think we should trace both the two for several weeks to see the correlation or bias impacts from Default Trust change on merit circulations.
|
|
|
|
Merit circulations before and after the Default Trust Change (09/01/2019) I compared statistics (median, and mean) of after period (two weeks later 09/01/2019, three weeks later 09/01/2019) to the before period. It is probably that the change of Default Trust forced new topics published, more informative, constructive dicussions, and - of course - more good posts occured days before the change. As we always known that, sMerits are not scarce, good posts are. Consequently, it is probably that the change of Default Trust somehow increased the amount of good posts which led to higher merit circulations days after the change. It is clear with statistics for 2 weeks later, but the effects likely blurred for 3 weeks later. Detail statistics are there: Two weeks later
- Median: +31.8%
- Mean: +23.2%
Three weeks later
- Median: + 15.9%
- Mean: + 15.5%
Notes:- Few days before Default Trust change, 3 more merit sources added, and airdropped merits to merit sources re-allocated. They are potential bias on the merit circulations in after period (2, 3 weeks later). |
|
|
|
It's obvious. Imo this merit change isn't caused at all by trust system changes, those two events are completely unrelated. I don't know why OP is searching for this illusory correlation, but whatever.
Effects have two types: - Instant effects; - Delayed effects. Default Trust change is one of the most breaking changes in the forum over its long history. I don't say that Trust and Merit system correlated each other. I just observe the circulation of merits in the forum for following objectives: - To see whether the Default Trust change affected the way forum users used their sMerits in both short term and long term. - To see (if there are effects) how long the effects of Default Trust change's side effects on merit circulations last. Additionally, any judgement need to have real data. You can simply say "Ah, Default Trust change has not correlated with Merit system and merit circulations. Let's end the discussion. I believe they are not correlated each other [without data]". If you don't see the topic interesting, just put it into your Ignore list.  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
