This guy continually spams the same long winded post.

Asks for merit from suchmoon and myself (see his posts below). His posts add little to topics and make no sense. The top of the posts he actually numbers the amount of times its removed.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1443633.msg53439418#msg53439418

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1443633.msg53439262#msg53439262

Many have asked him to stop spamming and hes had many 7 day bans but repeatedly returns and continues the behaviour. The bottom of his post he admits he runs a scrapper (or says he does) so on deletion he can repost his word salad.

Anything mods can do to prevent this pests behavior post wise? im all for him posting his opinion but when his post is repeated and huge it gets crazy. he lurks and waits for any reply so he can just move it to the front.

how about if topic creators could tock a box to not display peoples signatures? would invalidate sig campaign miners posts due to no displayed sigs.

would attract more non spam posts and be opt in so as a topic creator you click it. only negatively impacts sig spammers as they’ll have to posts actual questions in those topics as no reward to them.

thoughts?

is there a tooic for current signature campaigns or people running them. looking for spectre one to report a word for word plageriser.

Simple thought for accountability and integrity.

If an ico/project doesnt deliver then should the campaign manager and members getting paid for their sigs and profile pic be neg rating for spreading the word?

icos are rampant many scams and account farming for this. is it time to neg them if the ico or proj is a scam later? it makes people accountable for their account and posts.

skincoin for example
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1944508.0

the whole topic is mainly sig members promoting it as they arent going to say anything not positive as they get paid. this falsely drags people in to invest. the sig member likely doesnt even have the coin.

by neging their account if it doesnt deliver or scam results that sig wearer cant use account for another sig campaign and ensures they vet what they are being paid to promote.

should campaign managers be responsible in the same way so they run reputable campaigns? or should campaign managers be responsible to neg members if the campaign results in lies or not delivering?

thoughts?

seems to be a way to police the rampant icos and campaigns.

I want to create a service around using bitcoin/altcoins so have started researching into it. I've seen a lot of mentioning of the wallet notify action in the conf file directing it to a fast processing php / python whatever script. Other topics i've seen around the internet and in reddit mention that after generating large amounts of addresses the daemon can take quite some time to start up (think i saw references of 2 hours start up time).

So i started thinking and wondering a few things and thought i'd post here to get opinions from people well versed in this. Lets assume a service increases from 100 users -> 10,000 users -> 1 million users

1. How do the likes of shapeshift, bittrex, poloniex and other high amount clients handle such large amounts of receiving addresses? Do they have a modified client or do they just use wallet notify with processing scripts?

2. Do they spread their wallets across multiple server instances and say instead of having 1 wallet with 1 million receive addresses have 2 with 500k each as a sort of load balancer?

3. Could it work better if you had a limited pool of receive addresses say 100 and spread them over multiple people and determine the depositer by the address it comes from? I thought that would be a good solution so people have to send from an address but i suppose with 1 time use addresses etc this might not be a good idea? It seemed it would work well for proof of withdrawal with signing something from the sending address private key.

http://blog.cryptsy.com/

Assuming its bigvern making the statement and the blog hasn't been compromised as well... which I think its him personally.

happened supposedly through a dodgy wallet... Don't they review all code?

Whilst out shopping for weekly groceries i was thinking over the fact we've hit 13,500,000 mined coins now and what this holds for the future. I started thinking but not in a negative way how important adoption was by date "x".

Lets propose for a minute that the miners with farms are using this purely as a money venture and that there is no care for bitcoin outside what they can mine and dump i.e. as long as cost of miners and power < profit from coin = win. At the same time the miners are important for our transactions to keep the network strong.

So i got thinking... is there a day x where adoption/market saturation should reach a certain point to ensure the future strong growth? This day x i'm assuming would be a point where minimal coins enter the market because of costs and reward per block. If mining becomes more unfeasible and people leave the game if we don't have the adoption and use in the market would it be in danger?

Would it be harder to foster a growing bitcoin market if less coins were entering the market for new adopters to acquire? I'm assuming coins at $2000 would be less attractive to the market as new people would compare it to fiat and feel more comfortable with that due to costings?

Just some ramblings related to coins left to required market adoption. Thoughts?

I mean i'm loving that the fiat conversion represents action for bitcoin but its making me nervous as since getting into BTC 40 days ago its never been this fast... usually hovers up and down slowly clawing up but i just about fell out of my bed this morning when i stopped the iphone alarm checked the winkdex said is that right ... checked btcmarkets.net (aussie exchange) and went ok $70 change. And its still going up.

I don't want it to stop but i'm wondering whats causing the sudden boost? I'm not that knowledgable in all things world wide on bitcoin so anyone have any sources that indicate the sudden change reasons?