|
OP is indeed a baboon. I might act however against PN7 at a later point in time, as there are more than adequate warning signs. Literally almost everyone that I've talked to or read their posts knows that it is true, there just isn't any evidence.
|
|
|
|
You call my arguments "bullshit" but want me to do this research for you... No thanks
Any claims about Decred superiority exist due to ignorance and/or to defraud users, that's about it. It's the same as with most altcoins and tokens, this fanclub isn't any much different. Irrelevant as that may be though, if you don't want to supply information then that is your choice and not my problem. |
|
|
|
|
All of the dark theme "hacky" solutions that I've seen so far are visually terrible or damaging. We should just pool money and get someone to do it properly.
|
|
|
|
Ouch, this didn't unfold nicely.  |
|
|
|
Every country in the modern world is like that. I'd say most are even worse.
Definitely disagreed. Most of the countries in the west are better than the US, pretty much in every conceivable way. How do you have a password you can't remember sober? What happens if you forget it?  There are many ways to do this.  |
|
|
|
I've downloaded the Bitcoin source code and compiled it successfully. I've now got Bitcoin-QT running and synchronising transactions. In the meantime, I thought I'd have a play with the cli but when I run bitcoin-cli on the command line (I'm running Windows 10 by the way), I get the following error: error: Could not connect to the server 127.0.0.1:8332 (error code 1 - "EOF reached")
Make sure the bitcoind server is running and that you are connecting to the correct RPC port. I'm not sure if I need to specify a port (if so, how?) or whether its because the bitcoin-qt is running and not bitcoind.exe? Or is there likely to be some other issue? Thanks Run the daemon. If you're running QT, you can just open the console and try out the commands. They are the same set of available commands. |
|
|
|
I am very saddened by your misunderstanding of what is appropriate use of this system even in light of theymoses quotes.  I'm pretty sure I'm using it appropriately to oppose a flag that is not meeting the minimum requirements. Unless you can ELI5 the high risk of losing money in this particular situation. No, that's not what I meant. You are using it appropriately to oppose it, but we are also using it appropriately to create and support it. That's the crux of theymoses quote, but it doesn't seem that it go through to you.  |
|
|
|
I think your focus on "losing money" and the exact "high" (risk) wording has made you miss out on how this system is supposed to be used. Is there a high risk of losing money with every purchased account? Even theymos argued against it ("Individual cases can be debated on their merits, though"), and said it was still appropriate use of the system.
When you support this flag you're saying that there is a high risk of losing money dealing with this particular user (not in some hypothetical account sale scenario) and that the referenced thread contains evidence. I will oppose the flag for now because I "believe that it is at least partially false". I am very saddened by your misunderstanding of what is appropriate use of this system even in light of theymoses quotes. |
|
|
|
Any kind of highly deceptive behaviour is flag-worthy, there is no going around this. Precedent has been set. Why are you guys trying to defend people who are trying to defraud others (regardless in what way, even if it something as simple as merits)?
It's not about defending a merit farmer. The wording about "high risk of losing money" is important in this context. I don't see the high risk of losing money here. I think your focus on "losing money" and the exact "high" (risk) wording has made you miss out on how this system is supposed to be used. Is there a high risk of losing money with every purchased account? Even theymos argued against it ("Individual cases can be debated on their merits, though"), and said it was still appropriate use of the system. |
|
|
|
Deceptive behaviour is flag-worthy, see theymoses quote on account sales.
Do you have a link to that quote, please? Just updated the post, see above. My apologies. It's from a PM response from an inquiry with permission to post. Since he didn't dispute it since October, you can safely assume it being the original despite a lack of formal confirmation. |
|
|
|
Deceptive behaviour is flag-worthy, see theymoses quote on account sales.
OP didn't asked TMAN to give merits to him or put on some highly intelligent trap to gain those merits hence not deceptive. Any kind of highly deceptive behaviour is flag-worthy, there is no going around this. Precedent has been set. Why are you guys trying to defend people who are trying to defraud others (regardless in what way, even if it something as simple as merits)? Not defending him, just not supporting wrong use of something which is setup to be used abided by some rules for the betterment. I can't act like you making my own rules here, it would look bad on me. Are you stupid? Deceptive behaviour is flag-worthy, see theymoses quote on account sales.
Here, I'm even going to do your job for you: Agreed, creating a type-1 flag for sold accounts is an appropriate usage of the system. Individual cases can be debated on their merits, though; for example, these points of view could all be defended:
- Some people think that trading an account is an inherently untrustworthy act in 100% of cases.
- Some people think that trading an account is usually untrustworthy, but is OK if it's made extremely clear that the account traded hands.
- Some people think that trading an account is OK unless active deception is used (eg. lying in order to say, "this is not a sold account").
- Some people think that a little lying is not enough for even a type-1 flag, and a flag is only merited if there's also some additional underlying shady behavior; in other words, account trading can only further degrade an existing untrustworthy act, but cannot be considered flag material in itself.
I specifically do not want to decide which of the above is correct. The flag is an appropriate usage of the system in any case, though.
Look where active deception i.e. what OP did is. The points go from the strictest to the most lenient one. In case you all missed it, the quote also directly implies that flag type-1 for lying is appropriate use of the system even in passive deception let alone active deception. Some people may disagree with it and thus not support it, but it is appropriate use nevertheless.
If you don't see it, or refuse to see it I shalt post it at maximum font size on every other post. |
|
|
|
Deceptive behaviour is flag-worthy, see theymoses quote on account sales[1].
OP didn't asked TMAN to give merits to him or put on some highly intelligent trap to gain those merits hence not deceptive. Any kind of highly deceptive behaviour is flag-worthy, there is no going around this. Precedent has been set. Why are you guys trying to defend people who are trying to defraud others (regardless in what way, even if it something as simple as merits)? |
|
|
|
Obvious merit farming. Using deception to obtain merit under fraudulent pretenses.
I don't get the purpose of the flag. Is it for sockpuppeting? Or for plagiarism? Doesn't sound like a proper use of the flag system.
Deceptive behaviour is flag-worthy, see theymoses quote on account sales[1]. Thanks for pointing, I was bit dump while supporting it but I too think that it is not an proper use of flag system. Deleted my opinion on the flag.
Thankfully you are wrong about this.
[1] Quickie and Laudie agreeing may be the beginning of the end of this place. |
|
|
|
That's why you have passwords that you can't remember even when you're sober, let alone on some toxic chemicals. If they really needed it they could use it, but doubt it would be used on a border.
If they needed the information that much they'd just pick you up somewhere.
I think the same goes for torture. Regular border cops wouldn't try so hard.
Although in general, you make a great point here. This is why I recommend staying away from the US and any country that applies US-like practices. It's a police state, a joke of a "democracy" at best. |
|
|
|
[—needs paraphrase—] Bitcoin SV trusts The-Devil!This is actually serious inquiry. Some here have terrific abilities at investigating such things. The trust and merit systems both provide intel on BSV shilling—and BSV shilling may provide leads on abuse of the trust and merit systems. That account owner is just bonkers. A lot of recent events make no sense. Quickie question, Laura, do I get a cute name? What am I, a nullity?
Why, of course. Null y.  |
|
|
|
Not just has a new method of farming merits been uncovered, a ring of spammers and plagiarists exposed, you've bought quickie and Lauda together but also if you feel any regret for the merit spent, don't...cause this marvelous topic has awarded more than 60 merits to the ones tearing this scheme apart.
I think this is a first, but please call me Laudie or Laura or Laurie if you're already being so cute to quickie. That is only fair.  |
|
|
|
...
Putting this aside, are the people that are "bitcoin devs" still involved in the project or not? That's the only thing that I am yet uncertain of, i.e. need clarifying. Even though I strongly disagree with the used distinction, I still thank you for putting in effort and giving me the information in the post.
I don't think any of the lead devs work on anything bitcoin related anymore. There are some contractors that may work for both projects. The whole reason the core Decred team left btcsuite development was because they would write what they thought was useful code that was rejected by the BTC gatekeepers to often. Basically they didn't like the BTC governance process, yet loved the idea of Bitcoin. So Decred was born; similar to BTC in it's scarcity but with POW/POS, a development fund, governance ... I was asking whether they were working on Decred still, these "Bitcoin developers". Your argumentation and all claims about governance are utter and complete bullshit out of which is evident that the Decred team itself is semi-competent at best, but that is something else entirely which I don't want to waste my time on. If the answer to my question is still yes, could you maybe point me out to their Github profiles/proof-of-current-involvement? I'd be very thankful and can finish this inquiry! |
|
|
|
I still find merits very hard to earn. Many times I make good posts, which I spend lots of minutes writing/formatting etc and receive 0, or 3, etc.
Fully agreed, especially if your statement is either very controversial or on the opposite political spectrum of the people who have merits. The merit system seems to be going in a direction, but only for certain users/cases/use-cases, of support rather than assessing contribution. |
|
|
|
I'm going to be short on this excellent write-up. That is why there is only one Bitcoin.
And that is why people who hate Bitcoin itself try to break it apart. If there are many Bitcoins, then people don’t agree on Bitcoin anymore: There is my Bitcoin, and there is your Bitcoin, and there is someone else’s Bitcoin. That agreement I just described is broken up. In the long term, if one Bitcoin splits into many Bitcoins, its value will not be divided up: Its value will be zero, worthless. Bitcoin has value because everybody agrees on Bitcoin. If there are many Bitcoins, then none of them has value, because none of them has everybody’s agreement.
There are people that truly understand Bitcoin, not necessarily how it works, but why the world needs it and from where it derives value. This is in stark contrast to people like Roger Ver, who have no idea what they're talking about, at least when it comes to their statements regarding Bitcoin. There is only one Bitcoin, and there can never be another. Not a forked Bitcoin, not a Bitcoin 2.0, just Bitcoin. The one and only. If Bitcoin fails, all the copycat "Bitcoins" fail too. If you are invested in Bitcoin, it pays for you to protect Bitcoin.
I urge people to do this quite often, but the lack of action is also quite noticeable. Maybe thread How you can help Bitcoin if you aren't a developer would be helpful?  With that said, you should create a Medium account lol.
Too many trackers and attempts at data gathering, thus I'd not suggest this to OP even though I know that your intent is genuine. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
