Can I join?
Have you repaid your loan? |
|
|
|
I have no idea if this is going on or not, but it is possible to send merit from a --> b --> c --> d --> a
I believe this is what the post you quoted is referring to, or something very similar to the above.
4 degrees of separation will connect a huge number of false positives if we're going to accept that kind of merit transaction. You could say this about almost any member that's sent and received a substantial amount of merit (i.e. users on the list) I haven’t done any kind of research on this, so I don’t know if there is any credence to the OPs claim. There are actually only three degrees of separation in my example. You could perhaps filter out cases in which only small amounts of merit is received from a person via three degrees of separation. The-One-Above-All sent 1 merit to mikeywith. mikeywith has sent merit to Quickseller, who has also sent merit to The-One-Above-All. The larger you make the circle and the more unique people you send merit to, the higher the chance is of being implicated in a "merit cycling circle" but of course, correlation is not causation. I don’t think small amounts of merit would constitute the type of “merit circle” that would be any kind of a problem. The sole criteria for merit that I give out is if the post in question is objectively ‘good’ and/or high effort and/or is the type of post that the forum should have more of. I don’t participate in any kind of merit circle arrangement. If there were larger amounts (either in raw amounts or percentages of merit received) of merit involved, there would be a bigger problem in a “merit circle”, especially if the amounts involved allow for those involved to rank up or more importantly have additional DT votes. I probably wouldn’t be concerned unless there were hundreds of merit involved amongst the “circle”. I haven’t looked into if there are any real merit circles anywhere. I wouldn’t be especially surprised to see one or two that would reasonably be considered abuse when reviewed by a neutral person. I don’t know if anyone the OP is complaining about would be part of any merit circle. |
|
|
|
Perhaps the press board could be configured so that it does not count for activity, and that signatures are not displayed in the board. Or at the very minimum, make this true for OPs of each thread.
I believe the above should remove most if not all of the incentive to do what is being described in the OP.
The posters that are spamming their articles as described by op probably care neither about signatures or post count, they just want to drive traffic to their sites by spamming links to them. The only people that care about their sigs and post counts in there will be signature campaigners, but this is a secondary issue of the type of spam op is describing. Perhaps a solution would be to have search engines not index threads in the press board. A warning message could also be displayed to those not logged in and those with little activity/login time that links posted and often very spammy/low quality. |
|
|
|
|
Perhaps the press board could be configured so that it does not count for activity, and that signatures are not displayed in the board. Or at the very minimum, make this true for OPs of each thread.
I believe the above should remove most if not all of the incentive to do what is being described in the OP.
|
|
|
|
I have no idea if this is going on or not, but it is possible to send merit from a --> b --> c --> d --> a
I believe this is what the post you quoted is referring to, or something very similar to the above.
4 degrees of separation will connect a huge number of false positives if we're going to accept that kind of merit transaction. You could say this about almost any member that's sent and received a substantial amount of merit (i.e. users on the list) I haven’t done any kind of research on this, so I don’t know if there is any credence to the OPs claim. There are actually only three degrees of separation in my example. You could perhaps filter out cases in which only small amounts of merit is received from a person via three degrees of separation. |
|
|
|
C******unter says that about everyone. That proves nothing.
She ( cryptohunter, the-one-above-all) posted "Im female btw" so I will have to take that as enough proof.
Lets check opinions and exclude accounts from poll who don't fit into following criteria: 1. They all cycle merit to each other
2. They all vote to include each other on DT (via their foolishly given right to be the ones to decide on WHOM is eligible for DT)
3. They all seem to be creaming off the best paying (in btc) sig spots via their pals who are campaign managers.
4. The central cluster of Dirty Turds also seem to exclude the same people from dt.
5. They will use the "TRUST" system to punish whistle blowing of their prior observable wrong doing.
[...] Owlcatz - not in signature campaign (3) , no merit transaction between owlcatz and nutildah (1) I have no idea if this is going on or not, but it is possible to send merit from a --> b --> c --> d --> a I believe this is what the post you quoted is referring to, or something very similar to the above. |
|
|
|
The query is: What are the chances that at least one person who was not included in DT1 in July are also not included in DT1 in August. There were 4 people not included in July, there were 106 candidates for DT1 in August with only 100 spots. It is assumed that all 4 people will continue to be eligible in August. The query can be rewritten/simplified as: What are the chances of at least 1 of 4 specific people not being included in DT1 in a month in which there are 106 candidates and 100 spots? You can start by calculating the chances of any one person not being included on DT1 with 100 spots, and 106 candidates with the following formula: 6/106The 6 represents the number who will not get a DT1 spot, and the 106 represents the total number of candidates. The formula is calculated to 5.66%. In other words, there is a 5.66% chance that any one person will not be included in DT1 given 106 candidates and 100 spots. Since there are 4 opportunities for the above outcome to happen, we would multiple the above result by 4. Every candidate has the same chances of being not included, and there may be some months in which more than one in the list of 4 is also not included in the following month I saw LoyceV and other heavyweight meriting previous solution Unless there is a solution in another thread, LoyceV did not merit any previous solution other than mine (he did merit mine). bones261 is the only one who merited the previous solution, but he also gave more merit to my solution. |
|
|
|
I don't have to use your service to see what you are doing. It is clear you are merely extorting businesses and providing nothing of actual value except the promise to not smear the business.
You claim it is clear but you joined a believe flag. Do you know what the difference between clear and believe is? In the real world clear is the total opposite of believe!  No problem. I will continue to support the flag. Feel free to rebut my points and anyone considering doing business with you is free to come to their own conclusions. |
|
|
|
None of the below listed bitcointalk accounts ever used Game Protect and therefore can not give a feedback based on facts! [...] - Quickseller[...] I don't have to use your service to see what you are doing. It is clear you are merely extorting businesses and providing nothing of actual value except the promise to not smear the business. |
|
|
|
~0.2% chance of that happening two months in a row. Eventually once we get to 250 candidates (or whatever theymos' expectation was) it will be much more frequent.
If you're looking at a particular person, their chance of being excluded in both a month with 104 eligible and the next month with 106 eligible is ~0.2%. But the chance that any one or more people already excluded in the first month are also excluded in the second month is, I believe, 1 - [(102 choose 100) / (106 choose 100)] = 99.9997% The chances of any one or more people already excluded in the first month also being excluded in the second month (when there are 104 eligible in the 1st month and 106 eligible in the next month) is: 4 * [1-(100/106)], or ~22.4% In other words, it is the chances of a single individual person being excluded in the second month, times the number of people excluded in the 1st month. edit: I might be hugely wrong here:
Probability of a single user being excluded from the two DT1 round as defined is 4/104*6/106~0,02% Your formula: 4/104*6/106 is correct, however you converted into a percentage incorrectly, the chances of a person being excluded two months in a row, one with 104 eligible people and the other with 106 eligible is 0.217% Probability of any user excluded from first selection to be excluded also from second one:1-(100/106)^4~20.79%
Your exponent should be a multiplication, and there should be an additional bracket because of the order of operations. |
|
|
|
It's funny to see who steps in to try and help deflect from Vod's disgusting behavior and abuse of the system. Absolutely shameful. There is no behavior you won't defend so long as it fits your pathetic agendas.
Ibminer is actually employed by Vod to help with BPIP. I don’t doubt that his defense is related to this relationship. |
|
|
|
He still acts like me donating all of my miners’ hashrate to a 3rd party is me running a business.
BUt you've said many times you pay your taxes - sometimes in the six digits. Why the story change now? lol  I don’t see anything that would prevent both statements from being true... |
|
|
|
How come I never see chipmixer signatures on the gambling section? I've run mixing gigs in the past, most of the traffic came from gambling related activity. I wonder what sort of asset you see on super niche local boards above that. Waste of money IMO.
There's also some people that could be replaced by some of the new applicants which are better posters.
The gambling sub has a lot of spam (as others have mentioned). Even if you are a good poster, your posts will not necessarily be seen as much as if you were posting elsewhere because the spam posts will drown out your posts. I do agree that the certain people should be removed from this campaign. Bob123 for example has admitted to intentionally deceiving someone in order to cause harm to the person by exposing what he knew was secret information. Chipmixer has a business model that relies upon their customers trusting them with confidential information (the link between the inputs and outputs), and I don’t see why anyone would trust Chipmixer to do this if they are paying someone like bob to advertise for them — this is not unlike a daycare center paying Jeff Epstein to advertise for them. I have seen others post in a dev and tech thread saying, among other things that he doesn’t have a clue how the subject of the thread works, presumably to increase his post count and/to to show he posts in the sub. |
|
|
|
Vod, you claimed I offered you “NastyMining shares” which was a flat out lie.
No it wasn't. You asked me how much for advertising, and when I replied then you told me "Most people take Nastymining shares. That's why we have no expenses and we can only be successful!" If OgNs response does in fact match what you claim, this would not be offering shares/seats in nastyfans. The response you are citing as evidence that OgN offered seats in exchange for advertising does not offer seats in exchange for being listed as a sponsor on your website. It is clear I never made Vod an offer of any kind. He’s delusional and trying to enact revenge against a community organization because it has a similar name to mine. In other words, Vod is a fucking idiot. He still acts like me donating all of my miners’ hashrate to a 3rd party is me running a business. If he isn’t playing dumb in an attempt to salvage his reputation and defend his moronic behavior, then I think he might actually be mentally challenged which makes this situation even worse. Wish the guy would admit his mistake and ask forgiveness instead of being a dipshit, but this is Vod we’re talking about. Most people here knew he was a dipshit already long ago. I don’t recall an instance in which Vod has admitted to being wrong so I wouldn’t hold my breath that he will do so today. |
|
|
|
I gave you merit because I only was able to give one last time, and you are a strong poster, however please wait at least 30 days until you apply on my thread again. Thanks.
Thank you for giving me two more merits. Finally, I have become a Hero Member, a total self-made Hero Member, starting from zero with merit system. I have some good posts/ threads to reapply next one month, but for now I simply would like to share my journey: I am on the way to Hero Member rank. Within less than 2 years from register dayI did not imagine that I can go far like this at the birthday of merit system. Full Member was my dream in 2018. Now, I moved on the top of ranks. Congratulations buddy. Keep up the good work and continue making posts that are useful and helpful to others! |
|
|
|
Add my buddy Quickseller, he seems to be nominating himself: I'm going to nominate Quickseller just because no one else has yet.
I have more merit than you... Thats a negative ghost rider |
|
|
|
I think lauda has been the only staff member to be 'let go',
I believe there was a mod in the india local sub that was removed from being a moderator after the exchange he worked for was hacked due to possible conflicts of interest. I believe MNW was a staff member around the time he was making offers to insure deposits of pirate40's ponzi. Also, xDeathwing was fired over a scam accusation. |
|
|
|
I'm going to nominate Quickseller just because no one else has yet.
I have more merit than you...
I am not sure why anyone is taking the OP seriously. I cannot see anything positive possibly coming out of this thread. In general, it is best to ignore trolls....unless there is some benefit to engaging with these trolls |
|
|
|
Vod, you claimed I offered you “NastyMining shares” which was a flat out lie.
No it wasn't. You asked me how much for advertising, and when I replied then you told me "Most people take Nastymining shares. That's why we have no expenses and we can only be successful!" If OgNs response does in fact match what you claim, this would not be offering shares/seats in nastyfans. The response you are citing as evidence that OgN offered seats in exchange for advertising does not offer seats in exchange for being listed as a sponsor on your website. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
