Bitcoin Forum
December 14, 2019, 02:23:05 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.0.1 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1]
1  Other / Meta / Merit System Solution on: January 31, 2018, 01:57:43 PM
There is a simple solution which would stop all the complains about the Merit system.

Remove the signature feature or at least ban all signature campaigns.

This would stop all account farming and spamming since the rank would no longer be that relevant.
Only serious users would still try to rank up to support their reputation.

This would even benefit the forum since normal ads would be more lucrative and could be sold for more I guess.


I know everyone disagrees with this idea but I think that everyone knows as well that this would be the easiest solution.
2  Other / Meta / Evaluating Merit on: January 30, 2018, 08:09:24 AM
I collected some of my thoughts of the merit system and would like to ask you about your opinion.

Is the initial merit distribution fair?

RankRequired activityRequired merit
Brand new00
Newbie10
Jr Member300
Member6010
Full Member120100
Sr. Member240250
Hero Member480500
LegendaryRandom in the range 775-10301000

Every user got the amount of merit which would be required to obtain his current rank.
The only exception is hero members which could already have been legendary.
I decided that the previous allocation was too unfair in this area, so everyone with activity >= 775 got 500 more merit if they didn't already have 1000 merit (and also Lutpin). No extra sMerit, though.

Since the required merit is pretty close to the needed activity for a rank we can assume that an average user with good post quality should obtain 1 merit per day (if the average user gets that many merit for good posts is a different question). By this assumption there would be many users which would get "deranked".

As example there is a Full Member with 200 activity. This user would only get 100 merit which would result in a deficit of 100 days activity for his/her account in merits.
But lets take a look at the lucky users of this distribution. A Hero Member with an activity of 775 would get 1000 merit since his/her account could potentially be a Legendary one. Therefore this user would get 225 more merit then his current rank which would be equal to more then 7 months of activity which would he/she would have been awarded for free.

I already posted an idea which wouldnt benefit anyone and shouldnt be hard to distribute:
Maybe it would have been best not to create a new value for the merit but simply use the activity the same as it is used for time and activity right now.

So instead of this
The activity number is determined in this way:
time = number of two-week periods in which you've posted since your registration
activity = min(time * 14, posts)
We would have used:
activity = min(time * 14, posts, merit)

and everyone would have gotten the same initial merit as his activity at the time of the change.
This way nobody would have been affected in his current rank by a positiv or negative direction and we would still only use activity instead of an additional counter on all accounts.

But all these considerations are based on the thought that the current rank is as valueable as the same amount of merit.

Is activity worth as much as merit?

I'm hoping that this system will increase post quality by:
 - Forcing people to post high-quality stuff in order to rank up. If you just post garbage, you will never get even 1 merit point, and you will therefore never be able to put links in your signature, etc.
 - Highlighting good posts with the "Merited by" line.

Until this point anyone could have become legendary simply by having an old enough account and posting one post per day on average.
So there is no guarantee that users with their current rank would have deserved any merit whatsoever.

So maybe the correct aproach would have been to give no one merit but only sMerit.
This way nobody can claim merit without doing any quality posts in his accounts lifetime.
Of course this would deficit the current users ranking. To prevent this I would suggest to reward accounts differently depending on their current activity status.

Rankmerit reward per +Merit
Brand new1
Newbie1
Jr Member1
Member2
Full Member3
Sr. Member4
Hero Member5
Legendary5

So when a user spends 1 sMerit to reward a post from eg. a Full Member, this Full Member would actually get 3 merits.
Important is that he/she would still only get 0.5 sMerit so merits are not inflated and generated out of thin air.
These numbers are obviously debateble and just an example for the different factors by rank.

But the most important question:

Does merit serve its purpose?

Account farming should no longer be viable which would be a great succes.
But the merit might as well force unorganic posts which are only made for the purpose of calculating merit. And since good posts are not guarenteed to be rewarded by merit, users might make more posts then usual hoping for more merit to obtain the next rank.
And all this upranking is highly dependent on all the other users. Some might never use their sMerit to reward other posts and some others might not even know about this feature for a long time.


Those are just my thoughts on this system and some suggestions on different approachs.
Obviously no normal user can force this system to change but at least we can show our ideas to improve it.
3  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Can I send BCH to the same public address as I would BTC? on: August 05, 2017, 09:31:51 PM
If thats not the case, is there a way to calculate the BCH public key from my private key without importing the key into an external online software?
4  Economy / Games and rounds / FastBitcoinZ - Get 120% return on: September 08, 2014, 10:49:49 AM

FastBitcoinZ

The only Ponzi which gives you a return on your investment in each case!

You will get 120% return if there are enough deposits after you.

And even if there aren't enough deposits and the Timer runs out,
you will get a share of the remaining BTC from the payout balance.
(larger waiting deposits get a larger share)

Additionally there is a Jackpot which goes to the biggest investor!

Every round will start with a deadline timer of 5 days (120 h),
but if the timer is below 72h and a new deposit is made, the timer will be resetted to 72h.
So there is no fixed time for a single round.

For more information visit the FAQ

Do not risk more than you can afford to lose!

5  Economy / Services / Java programming for BTC (closed) on: July 17, 2014, 05:41:24 PM
Because different programs have a different expenditure, I wont name any prices.

But it mainly depends on the hours of work and lines of code
and wont be that expensive because I like programming  Grin

If you are interested, you can private message me or reply to this thread.


For example: I can write you a DiceBot with your own preferences if there is an API
6  Economy / Games and rounds / FastBitcoinZ - Get 140% return on: April 29, 2014, 05:01:24 PM

New opened chain game

What is this?
You can send BTC from your wallet, and when next people send enough BTCitcoin for your payout you get back 140% of your deposit.

How long will this game take?
The game is endless. If there is no deposit within 48 hours a new round starts.
In that case the remaining BTC in the wallet will be shared to everybody who waits for a payout!
(larger shares for larger deposits)

How much can I send?
You can send between 0.005 (min) and 0.3 (max) BTC.
(Deposits below 0.005 are considered to be a donation, higher than 0.3 will be splitted into mutiple deposits)

Example of your profit:
First one sends 0.03 and second one sends 0.02.
The first will get 0.042 (0.012 profit), we will get 1.68 mBTC processing profit (4% of the payout) and the second one has to wait for the next deposits.

Can I have multiple deposits?
Yes.


This is no scam! It's only a chain game. I fall for scammers before and hate those guys...
Pages: [1]
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!