This suggestion from o_e_l_e_o A suggestion I did see in another thread, which I would prefer over this one but has a similar outcome, is charging users 1 earned merit per activity period (2 weeks) to display a signature. If they run out of earned merit, they lose their signature until they earn more.
and DdmrDdmr data <...>
I’ve drawn-up a quick merit per post ratio for forum members that: - Had been merited on the 25/05/2018 (oldest merit snapshot I have without getting into backups, but it serves or purpose with over 7 months of data). - Have created at least 200 posts since then. I’ve created a merit per post ration for each of the above set of forum members (see https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1nyaHbaz31aVf6dnnTjiPOuCflZv1UOxNSWTQVMMUt68/edit?usp=sharing). In summary we get: - There is an unknown (by me) number of users that have posted at least 200 posts since 25/05/2018 (unmerited ones I mean). - 21.808 forum members had been merited on the 25/05/2018. - 3.679 of those have posted at least 200 posts since the 25/05/2018. - 1.219 of them have an average >= 0,005 merits/post. So really, only 1.219 forum members meet the criteria of having 0,005 merits per post on over 200 posts since 25/05/2018 (*). That is a pretty reduced set … (*) Well, really there is an additional set made up from those that had not been merited yet on the 25/05/2018, and have since then + created >= 200 posts, but I needed an initial snapshot to retrieve the post and merit count from.Edit: One can also manipulate the merit per post ratio by deleting posts. Clearly points out a better solution than the one I was proposing first. Should I lock the thread? Or allow the discussion to continue on this new base ground? I quite like the idea of diminishing sig spamming by restricting signatures to people managing to acquire merit. Do anyone see a problem with that? It would at least reduce spam while allowing anyone who just wants to talk do it. |
|
|
|
Try with "hilary"
That sound the same, isn't it? I did not notice that but I hope I was able to prove the point? I was inspired by D and S_th.. was inspired by me (I guess)...
You know we're on a forum right? Everything we communicate is written... Orthograph and grammar are important and show a good part of one's personnality and background. |
|
|
|
I’d rather have my private keys engraved on a 12 inch metal dildo & implanted in my rectum for 23 hours a day, only taking it out to shit before putting it back in than have my bitcoin’s on any exchange.
Mind you that if you une half inch high words you can store 2 wallets on your dildo. It's even more efficient than an exchange. |
|
|
|
Dumbest thing I've seen today. Storing coins means storing your keys. If you do that, your computer can break, USB lost, 6 times if you want. You'll still have your coins. |
|
|
|
|
Just popping up to say that if you do a general research on the forum with "hilari" as key word, it's very strange but the ONLY posts showing up are indeed from S_Therapist mdayonliner.
Note that contrary to most of you guys I'm not code-fluent. You maybe have done already far better research.
But it's strange how only those two show up with such simple research.
|
|
|
|
To start with, 25.809 people have received any merits at all.
That would mean that, all the rest of currently active posters have earned 0 merits per day (and per post), leaving the vast majority out from being able to post. There are also plenty of people who post sporadically and/or in boards that are not showered with merits, and who may well be decent content generators when they post.
But do those 26k people have reached the 200 posts limit? Seems normal to me that a newbie with 5 posts might not have received any merit? Vast majority of users are probably not even active. But if you make the same calculation with a merit/post ratio I doubt you'll find 90% of user under a 0.005 limit. |
|
|
|
I would be against this suggestion in its current form.
While I agree that most of the users affected by a 1-merit-in-200-posts restriction would be spamming newbies, there are bound to be false positives in there. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the denizens of Politics & Society and Off Topic such as notbatman or BADecker hit that ratio. While these users' views are (in my opinion) insane, we shouldn't be seeking to silence people we disagree with. I could also foresee a situation where people stop being helpful and responding to newbie's/simple questions, as they are unlikely to get merit for these posts, which is not something we wish to encourage.
A suggestion I did see in another thread, which I would prefer over this one but has a similar outcome, is charging users 1 earned merit per activity period (2 weeks) to display a signature. If they run out of earned merit, they lose their signature until they earn more.
Wrong here, they do reach this ratio and quite easily ^^ Simply because even if I agree considering their views are... Batshit crazy... They still display from times to times enough quality to get a few merits. But I quite like the other suggestion that seems to be a good fight against sig spamming. Check the last one too...
This is exactly what a ratio would avoid. Don't put it high so it doesn't harm users that just like to talk a lot, but a very small one will avoid this.
Fuck that, peteswhoobviouslyisnttheman actually needs a tag - he shouldn't be allowed to do business on this forum for that post alone I would really like my account deleted for personal reasons. As if I never even posted. Not a permanent ban but a deleted account.
Something is fishy here. Just... How do you do that? Oo How do you find a 2014 message so fast? |
|
|
|
No, and theymos would never do this as he is against restricting people from posting too much. There are so many users and posts and so few merit sources that it won't be uncommon for average posters to go unmerited but that doesn't mean they should be prohibited from posting. You can certainly use their posts to merit ratio as a barometer if you want but that shouldn't restrict them from contributing. What happens if you just make posts in the marketplace trying to sell things but don't really contribute anything elsewhere? That's fine but in your system without merit they would be prohibited from selling here. If someone is truly a terrible poster or even worse being disruptive then they should be dealt in other ways but automatically restricting people isn't a good idea for reasons I've just stated.
Again I might be wrong here but I don't see how anyone with an average level of posting could get less than 1 merit for 200 posts. If someone only post in the marketplace then if he respects the daily bumping rule he will most likely never get to the 200 posts anyway. And if he does and is a good seller or buyer he will most likely get a few merits by then. Look at the number of merits dropped in the collectibles or goods section for people selling genuine art, collectibles or legit items. I haven't seen anyone making anything decent reaching below the 0.005 merit per post ration. |
|
|
|
Fuck that, peteswhoobviouslyisnttheman actually needs a tag - he shouldn't be allowed to do business on this forum for that post alone
Yeah well after the DT changes he even has a fucking 42 green trust score xD FFS check the 1st page of that cunts posts - you are a manager and you think that level of posting is ok?
Yes, they are unworthy posts in a views of a bounty manager or a poster like you here but, the point is that does not mean he should be banned from posting as he has earned no merits. If they are banned it would just make a decent crypto collector unable to post on best crypto forum in the world. You're wrong. The user is actually just farming and abusing lotteries on the forum. He's most certainly someone having alts and trying to post multiple times on lotteries hold by good guys. |
|
|
|
So first all ICO crap dies followed by ETH. How is that impossible?
ICO are far too good as a concept to die. That most of them are pure shit is irrelevant. In theory they're so good as a concept that everytime one falls down, 2 others will rise. |
|
|
|
FFS check the 1st page of that cunts posts - you are a manager and you think that level of posting is ok? Check the last one too... This is exactly what a ratio would avoid. Don't put it high so it doesn't harm users that just like to talk a lot, but a very small one will avoid this. |
|
|
|
Thanks for proving my point xD First user: Complete shitposter. His posts are ONLY participations in free lotteries in the forum or airdrops. Never written anything but his name or a btc address. How is that a useful member for the community? Second user: made less than 30 posts in the last 2 years. |
|
|
|
See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5051725.0 for examples. I'll add OP when I'm back at my desk. 0.05 Merit per post is far too steep as a requirement. Spammers won't even reach a fraction of that, and spammers are the only ones who should be stopped by merit requirements. Well put it at 0.005 then. ANYONE can reach that ratio if there is just a slight beginning of correct English. That's 1 merit every 200 posts. Can anyone point at someone making decent posts not getting that? |
|
|
|
I'm a little bit ashamed at myself at how horrible I am at prognosticating anything crypto-related, but the current issues with ETH, overall, has led me the seriously ponder; "Is ETH truly and honestly dead, and it just doesn't know it yet ?"
I can't see how it survives 2019 without plunging to at least half it's current valuation.
It almost feels like all the individual elements that have plagued ETH over the last couple years, have recently come together, and left it teetering on the edge of being declared a failed project.
The fact that it's nigh-impossible for the average joe to run a full, modern ETH node is a catastrophic oversight in retrospect.
Nah. I'd say ETH is BTC-like right now. BTC can't die because that's the entry gate to any crypto related project. For BTC to die it means all altcoins must die first. ETH can't die because it's the baseground of all the shitcoin ICO projects. And there is too much potential (appart from all the stormshit) for it to die. You have few coins that have any use, BTC and ETH are some of them. |
|
|
|
We know of how much?
Significant doesn't mean anything :/
3,5 mil usd for sure in BTC and ETH Ok thanks. A few millions isn't too bad. Won't have any big market consequences. |
|
|
|
|
We know of how much?
Significant doesn't mean anything :/
|
|
|
|
Previous idea is no longer center of discussion on the thread. This suggestion from o_e_l_e_o A suggestion I did see in another thread, which I would prefer over this one but has a similar outcome, is charging users 1 earned merit per activity period (2 weeks) to display a signature. If they run out of earned merit, they lose their signature until they earn more.
and DdmrDdmr data <...>
I’ve drawn-up a quick merit per post ratio for forum members that: - Had been merited on the 25/05/2018 (oldest merit snapshot I have without getting into backups, but it serves or purpose with over 7 months of data). - Have created at least 200 posts since then. I’ve created a merit per post ration for each of the above set of forum members (see https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1nyaHbaz31aVf6dnnTjiPOuCflZv1UOxNSWTQVMMUt68/edit?usp=sharing). In summary we get: - There is an unknown (by me) number of users that have posted at least 200 posts since 25/05/2018 (unmerited ones I mean). - 21.808 forum members had been merited on the 25/05/2018. - 3.679 of those have posted at least 200 posts since the 25/05/2018. - 1.219 of them have an average >= 0,005 merits/post. So really, only 1.219 forum members meet the criteria of having 0,005 merits per post on over 200 posts since 25/05/2018 (*). That is a pretty reduced set … (*) Well, really there is an additional set made up from those that had not been merited yet on the 25/05/2018, and have since then + created >= 200 posts, but I needed an initial snapshot to retrieve the post and merit count from.Edit: One can also manipulate the merit per post ratio by deleting posts. Clearly points out a better solution than the one I was proposing first. I quite like the idea of diminishing sig spamming by restricting signatures to people managing to acquire merit. Do anyone see a problem with that? It would at least reduce spam while allowing anyone who just wants to talk do it. |
|
|
|
<...>
It's a normal thing to happen. In your case, you refreshed outside of the 60 second window that @theymos recently implemented to avoid accidental cases that had happened in the past (nor very frequently though): Alright, you now can't merit the same post with the same amount within 60 seconds.
Ok thanks for the tips! Locking the subject. |
|
|
|
Hey! So I wanted to congratulate trankil for getting his account back and sent him 10 merit here: unlocked, thanks you to all friends for your support !
After sending 10 merits I just wanted to check my last sent/received merits so I click on the f5 button and... Boum, I send 10 more merits. So it's not a real bother as I wanted to make a gift to trankil but still, is it normal that recharging the send merit page actually re-send the merit? I understand the double spending if you click on send twice, but why if you just recharge? |
|
|
|
yes is it ! the only negative thing it's i have 0 merit on my account so i can't congrats friends  Here is a few so you can throw a party  I'm just glad you got your account back and especially glad the procedure is working. Obviously getting a hacked account locked for months is a bit worrying when you love your years old account like me :p |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
