|
Topic split off from Trust System reply.
Edit:
Forgot to remove the sticky when I split it.
|
|
|
|
This is exactly what the forum needed thank you theymos finally the forum gets a feedback score!!!
Hopefully you can only rate members you agree to trade with? if not i will donate to get the feature added.
You can rate anyone, read through the thread and all will be explained. |
|
|
|
how do you get "trust"?
People need to trust you and add you to their trust lists, plus feedback. Read through the linked post. |
|
|
|
|
Sounds like it's an issue with your internet connection. Are you at an office or somewhere else where it may be limited?
|
|
|
|
Maybe a consistency score would be better. Like # of weeks in which you have at least one post.
This is a better idea than date registered, I definitely have a while inactive (many months) in my history. |
|
|
|
|
@sublime5447
After reading your two posts in this thread, I've come to the conclusion that you're batshit insane.
@OP
I'd suggest coinbase, done plenty of transactions there and it's super easy. Probably the easiest legit way to buy/sell bitcoins that I've seen.
|
|
|
|
|
So it's just a clone of litecoin? Why make a new one?
|
|
|
|
|
Eh, time spent here =\= good indicator of anything. I think having it in the profile is enough, don't need it on all of the posts.
|
|
|
|
The conflict of interest here is disgusting. I am calling on the forum to pay back defrauded customers out of Bitcointalk advertising funds, up to and including the total amount paid by BFL. Considering they are profits from illicit activities (fraud), that their primary customer base was forum users here, the fact that Bitcointalk refuses to act to mitigate this damage makes me conclude that is is an equitable response given the additional fact that they are currently ACTIVELY COMPLICIT IN FRAUD. Have you ever considered that the forum might share legal liability in this? Chew on that for a couple of minutes.
Let's backtrack a little bit: we all use this forum FOR FREE Are you sure? How is it not free? Sorry theymos. I don't agree on being forced to see something, I think the users should have a decision.
But you're happy to use the service for free? Ads are how you "pay" for using the forums. Not my statement. But tvsats. Not sure who this tvsat guy is, but he sounds cool. |
|
|
|
|
Changed the title of the thread because there's no point to cause panic for no reason (with no hard evidence).
|
|
|
|
They haven't, they have been losing, and for a while now.
Anything to back this up? The claims of a newbie with no evidence don't say much. |
|
|
|
|
I doubt they cut and run, will have to check into it more later.
|
|
|
|
Yeah, on this site they're okay, but either way they shouldn't just restrict people or get angry over them at blocking them, but the point is if you have adblock on and click onto other sites from here they can be easily blocked too. The problem is there are people out there ( mainly people who rely entirely on ad income because they're useless ) that absolutely hate adblock and even rig their sites to complain whenever you have it turned on, of course I don't visit those sites at all.
I think the problem stems from these pay per click/ pay per impression payment systems, ad people get far too obsessed over silly statistics like that, this is why I like the idea of anonymous ads and sites like it, since the publishers have to pay you first before they can put up the ads.
Let's see 'em block this. There's now a random number of invisible "posts" before and after the ad, and they're all (I think) indistinguishable from real posts if you're limited to just CSS selectors. Hopefully the filter maintainers aren't careless or they'll end up blocking random posts.
why are you so dedicated to preserving ads? I am pretty much done here until they are blocked again. I refuse to use bitcointalk any longer. Good job theymos. Looks like you will no longer be free to send me shit cause I will no longer request your pages that send scammer ads. Bye  Ads being unblocked shouldn't be such a big deal. |
|
|
|
Any plans to adjust the donor levels ... 50 btc for VIP is now upwards of $5k?
Nope. There may be new donators levels eventually, but the current ones will not change price. Must be a rich boys only club by now then? What does theymos think about this ? Also anywhere we can see how much the forum has pulled in total donations? Might expect some upgrades to go with the price upgrades perhaps? Or less shitty moderation? New thread, we can continue the discussion here. I believe when the ranks were created it was specified the donation amount wouldn't change (can anyone confirm/link?) |
|
|
|
I think the trust system is a brilliant idea. I'm a relative Newbie and made my first transaction via a Bitcointalk member today and the trust system increased my confidence to trade. It was also nice to receive positive feedback for my part of the transaction.  Looks like one of you used the feedback system incorrectly. The risked BTC should really only be used by the person who risked something. The person who sent first would be the one who risked BTC, the second sender didn't risk anything because they had already received something, and they were just finishing the transaction. I sent first, £10 GBP. I then received what I'd asked for which was 5 Litecoin. I used BTC-E for the conversion of 5 LTC to BTC which came out at a risk of 0.12 BTC, so I entered this figure in the risked BTC box. Is any of that procedure incorrect? I believed you did it correctly, because you risked money. So your feedback with him would include what you risked. He's the one that took no risk with you and was incorrect. He already had cash in hand before he sent anything. |
|
|
|
I think the trust system is a brilliant idea. I'm a relative Newbie and made my first transaction via a Bitcointalk member today and the trust system increased my confidence to trade. It was also nice to receive positive feedback for my part of the transaction. Looks like one of you used the feedback system incorrectly. The risked BTC should really only be used by the person who risked something. The person who sent first would be the one who risked BTC, the second sender didn't risk anything because they had already received something, and they were just finishing the transaction. |
|
|
|
It doesn't become meaningless, it just turns from a blank slate to trusting the groupthink basically. At that point, it's just about pruning inappropriate feedback. You could trust *others* to prune it for you I guess and that would make much more sense for a "trust list" if you ask me. It'd basically be saying "I trust Theymos to prune this list of bullshit claims by scammer sockpuppets".
To me, being able to hear every single claim of scam or whatnot is better than potentially missing out on it just because I didn't know whose name to enter into my trust list to get access to that warning.
I think there will end up being some people who maintain good trust lists, and all you'll have to do is trust them to have a solid trust network. As of right now I like the blank slate idea, it's better to start off not trusting anyone than trusting everyone, that's usually how it works around here (you earn the trust). |
|
|
|
|
I think we really just need to give it some time to see how it plays out. Per what theymos has said part of it is based off of age of feedback, so we won't really know for a few months. Plus if it is bad it can always be changed/removed.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
