|
I’ve been stuck here for over 10 minutes, glued to the screen, trying to make my mind up on this one. I’m not really much in favour of another rank level (I personally liked Sr. Member, but those name above seem a notch pompous for my taste) , but I certainly do see that it fits, and gives a certain additional lateral objective to many here to ponder.
|
|
|
|
|
Sería interesante tener un feedback de @franckuestein al respecto. Yo le remití en su día un PM para ver si se pasaba por este hilo y nos podía aportar algo de insights acerca de lo que sucedía, pero no obtuve respuesta.
@theymos me indicó que los moderadores no son realmente empleados, y bajo esta consideración, entendí que tienen plena libertad para actuar bajo su propio criterio, y probablemente sin necesidad de comunicar decisiones o situaciones personales al Foro.
|
|
|
|
Se me había ocurrido que sería interesante crear un hilo aquí, donde firmásemos con un mensaje de BTC para felicitar las fiestas de navidad y año nuevo. A tales efectos, lo lógico sería usar la dirección que usé en su momento en el foro, a modo de evidencia para recuperar mi cuenta de ser necesario (ver más abajo). En su defecto, si alguien aún no ha firmado un mensaje BTC (y éste ha sido verificado), este hilo podría servir para tal menester. Pues ahí iba yo tan contento con la idea cuando, al intentarlo desde mi Ledger Nano S, no logro localizar la opción para hacerlo … Qué raro ¿no? .. al fin y al cabo, ya lo hice hace un año desde el dispositivo: -----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I am DdmrDdmr, and this is my legacy bitcoin signature for my account on Bitcointalk. Date is 09 May 2018.
-----BEGIN SIGNATURE-----
13upczNkBd7t3yP9Mp5Lg7bgX7ewKFYkjA
H9MKL53iBqwR4gf5DaUlQTr/jauevnFrkPi1aHr9LGi1ayCONcCfFkakCk5ex0qKnBNqn0Y2OW49EelwDFjTiBA=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Please verify and quote. Thanks. … y fue validado … ¿WTF? ¿Dónde está la opción ahora? … resulta que, al cambiarse el software de Ledger Nano S de Apps de Chrome a Ledger Live, parece que han omitido la opción de firma desde Ledger Live … ¿de veras que no se podría haber incluido ya de base? ¿y aún no está en el software? … pues parece que no. Hay peticiones múltiples para incluirlo, pero parece que aún no está. Además, la gracia está en que quería usar la misma dirección BTC, una dirección que sólo he usado para la firma. Ya he visto que hay opciones desde Electrum (con el Ledger Nano S conectado) y demás, pero abre la necesidad de utilizar un mecanismo que no tenía previsto ni explorado. Como es navidad, tiempo encontraré para ello, pero esto sirve de recordatorio de que no todo es tan sencillo como debiera en este ámbito, y que además va a requerir ir con pies de plomo. Uso un Ledger para no usar otro tipo de Wallet, y esperaría que la firma de mensajes no precisase utilizar una wallet u opción tercera a estas alturas … Ya lo lograré (supongo), pero por ahora me reclaman los preparativos de la cena de Navidad; mal momento para correr y buscar soluciones a toda prisa, que es cuando se comenten errores. Por ahora esta es mi firma (temporal, hasta no lograr lo que quería hacer): Edit: Modificado para incluir firma real: -----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Felices Navidades y buena entrada de año a todos, o como he dicho en el foro en inglés:
Merit Xmas and a halving new year!
-----BEGIN SIGNATURE-----
13upczNkBd7t3yP9Mp5Lg7bgX7ewKFYkjA
INEc8/k/5MS/zSs0PBQrM6G17+Uw5FEwBqQCQLZPwOP2BX799xcucW2ktWvehgAuGQJI46xyMrqxfP6LgCJ9QU8=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
|
|
|
|
Do Spendable Merits expire? Or they never expire.
As stated above, currently it does not expire, although things are not immutable, and since it was hinted that they may decade at some point, that could happen at some point down the road. In any case, they would not affect recently generated sMerits (as yours are), and would have more chances of starting in any case by affecting unspent airdrop sMerits - those generated when the Merit System kicked-off, and that were assigned in accordance to the following formula (totalling 600k sMerits forum wide at the time): <…> The exact formula was: yearActivity = activity in the last ~year, max 378
freeMerit = the merit (not sMerit) you started with
modifier =
0.1 if member
0.2 if full member
0.25 if sr member
0.35 if hero
0.4 if legendary
return (yearActivity/378) * modifier * freeMerit So the most you could get is if you were a Legendary who maxed out your activity points in the last year, in which case you would get 1 * 0.4 * 1000 = 400 sMerit. Note that I later made an adjustment giving 500 extra merit to some hero members, but no extra sMerit was given here. |
|
|
|
|
I’m pretty sure both accounts are controlled by the same user. Their thread on the local Spanish board took some time to be placed in its proper section, and now it is less irritating to the view at least.
There was this occasion on which the @sam408130 account posted a couple of beginners questions about Match 365. Funny enough, the exact same translated questions were posted simultaneously on the Spanish, German and Italian boards. When I pointed it out, the content was swiftly replaced for images of some sort.
The thread on my local board is way smaller, and both accounts seem to alternate in posting on consecutive days, although they have coincided in posting on the same day on a couple of occasion.
|
|
|
|
|
I’ve grown to not see signatures at all, with a few exceptions. Not because there is any active feature on my profile that blocks them, but rather more, my reading habits skip them without giving them a second thought.
I may occasionally click on a link in a signature inadvertently and wonder for a split second how I ended-up there, but other than that, I become aware of signatures only when the same campaign extends one post(er) after another, turning the heterogeneous signature layout on screen into an homogeneous layout.
What’s really more of a pondered visual element, after a while, is the poster’s name, which can easily, in an almost automated reaction, cause me to slow down my reading and focus on the content of his post, or switch to fast diagonal reading.
|
|
|
|
|
I was wondering who was going to bring the Xmas thread to the table this year, and was pleasantly surprised to see that this year we’ve recycled last year’s thread, in an eco-thread-friendly gesture with the forum environment.
Anyway, Merit Xmas and a halving new year!
Note: Just seen another new Xmas thread.There goes my eco-thread-friendly comment down the drain
|
|
|
|
I thought that the face and case rang a bell ... @ Coolcryptovator created a similar thread a couple of weeks ago: How Effective Telegram SCAM report ?Not sure how long this feature has existed for, but certainly a long functionally delayed one. At least I don’t recall seeing that feature during the ICO hype where telegram was a main exponent to many scams. |
|
|
|
<...>
A mí me salen entre 597 y 600 días: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1binU5q-FQlIP-IDAqMGb1dtawkbetjC6PsFvTEfPRNs/edit?usp=sharingHay que ver qué se hace con los redondeos, y si se permiten sumas de fracciones de días. Si has de ser 100% exacto, habría que conocer este factor, aunque casi que me da la misma cifra realmente. En el Excel adjunto he hecho lo siguiente (columnas ABC): - La inversión inicial es 0,1 BTC, con un 0,75% de beneficio por día (0,00075 BTC/día) hasta llegar a acumular 0,1 BTC de beneficio adicional en total. Esto se logra al cabo de 133,33 días. - Ahora tenemos 0,2 BTCs de beneficio, con 0,75% de beneficio por día (0,0015 BTC/día), hasta llegar a acumular otro 0,1 BTC de beneficio adicional. Esto se logra a los 66,66 días adicionales. - Y así hasta llegar a acumular 5 BTC al cabo de 597,2273784 días. Claro que si no se permiten fracciones de días, tenemos algo del estilo de lo reflejado en las columnas E,F,G,H. Aquí es similar, pero con los días como enteros, y el beneficio como resultante de días enteros (aquí, los beneficios tienen ahora decimales). Depende por tanto cómo se traten los decimales en los días y en los BTCs de beneficio, pero, salvo que sepas esto, el resultado me da entre los 597 y los 600 días según la hipótesis de decimales que use. <...>
De nada ... |
|
|
|
<…>
I figure you are doing that in Germany (looking over your posting history). There seems to be a bunch of places there that do accept Bitcoin there (play around with https://coinmap.org/view/#/map/52.51732782/13.38885990/11, although I do not know how accurate the information there is), so one day you’ll likely hit a place that accepts Bitcoin, and you will be left with the dilemma of whether to really payout in BTC then and there ... |
|
|
|
<...>
The mere amount sent to and fro between accounts, on it’s owns, normally leads to misinterpretations, and although numbers may act as lead indicators, it is the actual post content that allows us in the best case to back an accusation such as that cast in the OP. The aggregate numbers between the four accounts are as follows: https://public.tableau.com/shared/S8F2Q7ZDX?:display_count=y&:origin=viz_share_linkAs I said, Merit abuse needs to be really blatant for an accusation to stand, and that is pretty difficult to see here when there is a language barrier. Besides that, I’ve seen accusations of the kind before, where the basis were the numbers that went to and fro, and the accusation was then total off, related to the fact that the accused accounts were often engaged in conversation that brought content to the section over an extended period of time, often posting together in the same sections. As things stand, I remain numerically sceptical that the number of merits and number of TXs lead to backing-up the accusation, and I declare myself incompetent to go into the content and context of any of those merited posts. As to the accusation of those listed being scammers, you fail to provide any proof nor formal grounds for the accusation in the OP, lest it be relative to the alleged Merit abuse, in which case the scam, as a term and accusation, does not stand (perhaps a language thingy). Anything else on the scam front should be likely placed on its own in Reputation or Scam Accusations, whichever suits best the set of evidences yet to be presented. |
|
|
|
|
As stated, yes Merit Sources they can merit on any board at will, although if they postulated for a specific board then they should probably give that board priority. Nevertheless, Merit Sources are not confined to read and participate on a specific board, so it is natural to perform their actions on any board they roam around.
As an example, the Merit Sources on my local board have, historically awarded 59,53% (one Merit Source) and 21,27% (another) respectively of their merits to my local board. That's quite a difference between them, but aligned to their reading and posting habits.
|
|
|
|
xMas period is often about remembrance. Giving memory a rattle for names I recall from the early days on the forum (different from those consolidated at the time), I recall specifically three out of the top of my mind: Paxmao: He was very active at the time on my local board, and my first meriter, who contributed in a selfless manner to keep my local board lively. Currently pretty inactive (reality bites I guess). Gothorum: Similar to @Paxmao, I recall him as a vivid participant on my local board. Currently banned. Theyoungmillionaire: I recall often enjoying his posts, and interacting on the forum with him, giving a dimension to what international forum means. |
|
|
|
Si realmente no sabes moverte por el mercado, lo último que debes hacer es ir a un canales privados de Telegram para estar al día, y menos aún apuntarte a señales. Hay que leer mucho y actuar poco hasta no tener cierto dominio de las aguas, y luego navegarlas uno mismo. De hecho, lo primero, ante una oferta de esta índole, es usar el sentido común y la precaución. Como paso inicial, va bien hacerse una composición del perfil anunciante: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2694495 |
|
|
|
|
Es una idea de agrupación de naciones entorno a un ideario religioso común, como elemento catalizador, en zonas habitualmente en conflicto e inestables geo-políticamente. Siendo así, las bases me parecen poco sólidas, por no decir endebles, máximo cuando su objetivo es hacer un frente común contra el USD. Su potencial tecnológico y la extensión en la población del mismo tampoco parece tremendamente alineado con esta línea de proyecto.
|
|
|
|
Está claro que estaría mejor tener un mediador propio, no tanto por el volumen actual de trabajo, sino para cubrir de raíz el potencial venidero. Estaba mirando el PM que @theymos me remitió al respecto, y el proceder debería ser el siguiente: - Discutir el tema en nuestro foro local (este hilo). - Llegar a algún consenso sobre los candidatos más plausibles. - Comentarlo con él con lo anterior. A tener en cuenta que él valora el número de reportes realizados con éxito, y más aún en la zona a moderar. La popularidad de los candidatos no conforma una candidatura de por sí. Mis consideraciones adicionales: - Personalmente, considero que no es una tarea demasiado gratificante, y algo más complicado y requeridor de tiempo que el mero reporte al moderador. Yo llevo más de 1K reportes al moderador (globalmente), que tampoco son tantos, y creo que es mucho más fácil ver que algo es incorrecto a dar con la solución correcta. - Hay un factor de tiempo personal a ponderar. Moderar creo que requiere aprender lo suyo, y es mucho más que la parte simétrica del "report to moderator", con su consiguiente curva de aprendizaje. - Este post de @Welsh creo que es un excelso clarificador de lo que conlleva la tarea (lo dejo en inglés, y si hace falta lo traducimos): Expanding on mprep's response. I had roughly 38k good reports at the time I was appointed a moderator of the Altcoin sections, as well as being made a patroller. I turned down the possibility of moderating another section, because I wanted to see how I'd cope. Well, to be honest even though I had a lot of good reports, and thought I had a very good understanding on the forums guidelines. I've found that I've learned quite a lot since being a moderator, and I am still learning to this very day. If you're trying to become a moderator without demonstrating that you understand the forum guidelines through reporting then you'd probably have a very difficult time. As a reporter what seemed a trivial thing to report is totally different coming from a moderators perspective as you need to really look into it. Where as a reporter would simply get a bad report.
Here's a few things I've learned from being a moderator;
- You'll be exposed to external links a lot more often, and will need to consider privacy, and security more than you did before. This is something that I'm currently addressing as we speak. Despite being a staff member for over a year now. I'm not talking about changing your password or password strength, but going as far as changing operating systems. I was a die hard fan of Slackware at first, then moved onto Ubuntu. Recently, I've been looking at securing my system with Qubes to allow isolation when dealing with reports. Well, not the only reason, but certainly a contributing factor.
- You've really got to read the discussion no matter how brain dead it might seem to you or how uninterested you might be. To be able to deal with a report its likely you'll have to get the context that it was posted under.
- I've been reading in depth about inspecting malware, and isolating it as best as you can. Looking at the fairy tale signs of malware when it isn't known to any anti virus database.
Although, I truly do love being a moderator, and contributing to the forum. It certainly isn't for everyone, its a lot of learning. Theymos, offers guidance when you've handled something wrong, and that's pretty much how you learn. Its very much a learning on the job type thing even with good fundamental understanding of the rules. My reporting effectively guide was written when I wasn't a moderator, and I could probably add onto that tenfold from my experience this past year, and I'm still no where near perfect. For example, I've learned that leaving reports unhandled is the best thing to do in certain scenarios where as before I used to assume that was bad, and you needed to handle as many as possible.
I think the barrier for becoming a moderator in the first place (although definitely not the only criteria) reporting a lot of posts definitely shows if you've got what it takes, because that can become a thankless task. I do remember though, and I will always remember this. Cyrus messaged me one day after busting a few accounts. He thanked me, and said to keep it up. I try, and do this to regular reporters to as I know that can sometimes be the difference in keeping this forum clean.
All of this learning has eaten into personal time, as well as time I could have been handling reports. Ultimately, I believe at the end it'll be worth it to handle reports more accurately so there's no cleaning up after me from theymos or any other moderator, but this is the sort of sacrifices all the moderators have done, and if you truly want to contribute to the forum through becoming a moderator then you've got to be willing to put in the often thankless task of reporting, and be prepared for a lot of learning ahead of you.
<…>
|
|
|
|
I’ve updated this OP, which was elaborated in August 2018,.recalculating all the data, and additionally included the merit matrix by rank. All with data is now as of 20/12/2019. In order to allow comparison between then and now, I’ve archieved the old version of the OP here: http://archive.ph/R2owdNote: I've finally gone with updating the OP, rather than creating a new one. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
