Not "Maybe" and not a "handful". It is definitely a very significant amount of users that are using self-mods for a good purpose. I've already explained why the word "need" is unfitting for our purposes, yet you continue to use it without an explanation. 98% of scammers do not come from and operate within Goods & Currency Exchange exclusively so the plan is flawed even after a "compromise".


Hilarious; encouraging me to let scammers do whatever they want. I can't believe you honestly see this as a joke, while trying to make a forum altering suggestion. You are a joke at this point, and please do not explain your situation again, because it makes you look pathetic. Hiding from someone that has scammed you and not even giving them a trust rating only allows them to scam someone else, so good job.

The difference between me thinking you are wrong and you thinking I am wrong is that I am actually trying to give some evidence and logic to justify my claim, while you are using smiley's, insults, feelings and lies. You are acting pedantic beyond what is tolerable.


Very cute, the prevalence of your emoticon usage is telling me enough, you do not take this forum seriously, you don't care about anybody else's experience and you are not interested in having a serious conversation about what you have suggested. Feel free to have a downward spiral of a conversation with somebody else at this point, because you're just trying to devolve this into nonsense and ad-hominems.


Careful you don't fall off that pedestal, you might get a taste of reality. You do not see more scamming than me. You are, again, talking out of your ass. You have no idea what I see and pretending like you do just shows another arrogant personality flaw of yours that shouldn't be involved in the conversation. These are not facts, these are your feelings, which are irreverent and incorrect.

It's very strange that you see more scams, yet have not started a scam accusation thread in the past year and have not given a negative trust rating ever. The one scam accusation you created a year ago, wasn't even about anyone being scammed, it was saying that someone avoided your question and then gave you a negative feedback. This tells me you are either lying about seeing more scams, or you are simply doing nothing about it, which is worse in my opinion. From where I'm standing, you are claiming to be a great scam-buster and at the same time talking about giving into them, pick one.


Discussions != arguments. If you weren't open to suggestions, comments or compromises then I have no clue why you opened a thread. You're just declaring changes that must be made without amendment, but that isn't how things work around here. Normally people talk about the flaws in their opinions/ideas and work to make them better. If you are unwilling to do this, which you clearly are, then you shouldn't have even bothered making a suggestion. We aren't all going to think your bad idea is good.

You've edited OP to remove Services from your proposal and include my suggestion about Sr.+ exclusion from this revocation of self-moderation. I don't understand why you have to also add your subjective emotion as if it is relevant or persuasive. We are discussing what is beneficial or detrimental to the health of the forum and can do so even if you do not like me. I am indifferent to you, but I do not like your idea for the aforementioned reasons.


Still waiting for an edit on this; because we've clearly discussed the downsides and reasons not to remove it. We have also discussed the value when trying to legitimately buy/sell or offer something. These two statements have been debunked already, as have half of your other listed premises. In case you're wondering which half, I meant these:

3) Threads posted in the scam accusation section go unseen
4) New users are unaware of the trust system

Both wrong, or at the least flawed as we've concluded in this very thread.


OP will most likely disagree with you, because of their trust-settings. I'm going to assume you mean a trust score below 0, as determined by DT1/2 members, or do you think newbies/scammers should be able to affect your trust score like OP? I would agree, if a DT1/2 member negatively rates you, then that may be a good criteria for whether or not you can use self-moderation.

I'm sorry that offering your assistance has led to the spamming of links to your inbox as it has mine. Thanks for being there, you may be on-call very shortly as I am down to my final remnants of merit. I would apply to be a source, but I am honestly unsure how to go about it; I know theymos said submit 10-posts in the meta section, but that seems a little vague and I don't want to screw it up. Anyways, I appreciate it and I'll be in touch; will also make a list of "Need-to-Merit" threads in OP for when this happens.


I have given this post Merit, because obviously this idea is similar to mine and I believe that it is run in good faith. It seems like you have your intentions well aligned and the merit is going to the right places; that being said I didn't review the posts you've already reviewed, I'm just basing this off of the criteria in your OP (which  I did review). If I had more merit to spare, in order to keep your service running as well, I would spare more, but I am also down to my last 6 after meriting you.


One of these posts is the 400th+ reply in a mega-thread, not something I'm particularly impressed about. Pretty generic, conversational response that wouldn't serve as extraordinarily helpful, informative, creative or doubtfully even read much, if at all (besides the one guy that already did merit you for it); I'd consider that merit a win and move on. The other is again, 400th+ reply in a mega-thread and I won't even explain the many other things that are wrong with the post. Mega-threads are not going to earn merit.


The post talking about ponzi-schemes is basically just repeating the same thing everyone else has already said fifty times prior to your post. One of these posts is in a language I cannot understand, which violates my Local-Rule and should disqualify the rest of these anyways. Another post was just asking for help doing some with a particular wallet program, that one has me confused why you would think it is meritable; could you please explain in PM or in your next submission? I am honestly very interested, because I'm confused. I don't normally merit anything to do with bounties, campaigns, airdrops or things of this nature so I won't be meriting the post where you mention the times airdrops normally take place. This may be helpful to a few, but allow them to merit you for this. The last post I can read in your submissions talks about working around social media rules in order to still force bounties, tweets, etc. onto a platform that clearly does not want you or this type of material and sees this as abusive. No way am I meriting a post that encourages breaking the rules of another site in order to exploit it for monetary gain.


You created a mega-thread which is not fostering high-quality or meaningful conversation. I would highly suggest you lock this thread in order to do your part in not contributing towards the spam problem we see around here daily. In fact, all of these threads are basically just repeats of the same mega-threads we see time and time again... You are a very big part of the problem and will not be receiving merit from me. Stop creating these threads, please.

I'm making the point that when you're asking "Why can't we have that? The other forum has it." you are making a silly argument, because that is no reason to assume it is a good idea. It is an argument that holds no weight, it's the cliche "If your friends jumped off a bridge, would you?"

Nobody said they are perfect, so I don't know why you are putting words in my mouth and having a fit. You obviously must learn from mistakes; self-moderation is not a mistake and serves a very necessary purpose you seem to be flippant about.


Exactly, there is no reason to make this problem worse and give regular users no tools to fight against this in their own threads. Everyone has a right to defend themselves in their own home.


I am claiming you are wrong about a few things; removing self-moderation, how to deal with scammers, spammers, extortionists and what most user's see as reasonable trust settings.


This is an example of one of the things I am claiming you are wrong about; you bend the knee to someone threatening you with red-trust, simply because you are afraid of red-trust from someone that you should have settings on to ignore.


The only thing this helps me understand is that you have set your trust settings to a point where you do not see it the same way as anybody else. You have your settings exactly calibrated for abuse in the most blatant way possible (that I described earlier). If you are giving everyone's rating equal weight and you are terrified of a red-mark then you are trapping yourself in a corner with anybody that has malicious intent. You are creating a scenario where you can only be the victim of the trust system. Change your settings, stop being so squeamish about red-marks from irrelevant scammers, or understand that you are asking for this kind of scenario to repeat itself.

Everyone does not have different settings, most people, almost all people leave it to the default (for good reason).


You say that I think I am perfect and then get on your pedestal about your long-standing tradition in the goods section as if it matters. This does not make your argument anymore valid and this does not refute anything I have said. I have not heard a good argument for why self-moderation should be removed. Nor have you contended with you idea that maybe we restrict self-moderation to higher ranking members, which I thought to be a fair compromise with your idea.

I hate that I have to do this to you, but I am going to make an example out of this, because you are violating a Local-Rule that really grinds my gears. Don't add all of the tags and nonsense around the link, because makes it so annoying to use for my purposes.

Local-Rule : Do not format your links with tags, hyperlinks, lists or line-breaks. I will delete/reject your submissions instantly.

P.S. I probably wouldn't have merited anyways, so feel free to resubmit, but I would suggest different posts.


Thank you, for coming back and abiding by the rules this time around. First post is 3000th+ reply in mega-thread. One post is telling people to blindly invest without knowing anything about bitcoin; I can't say that this is good advice moving forward. Maybe something more practical, such as "educate yourself about bitcoin and decide for yourself". One is just conversation about trading, nothing particularly helpful or informative. The post about taxes I have no clue how that relates to the post you quotes, and I unfortunately cannot see the point you are trying to make. The last is just giving some half-assed advice about sometimes selling bitcoin for fiat under vague circumstances. None of these are going to be getting merit from me.


You broke a Local-Rule about languages, but I would've let that slide since there is still some I can read. However, it reads like these are some generic school project that someone was either forced to write for a school-project or paid a very small amount of money to write. Almost like a copy-past article of something, I don't know; there is just something odd about an account that started posting yesterday and is doing these strange type of posts that don't seem to be unique, creative thoughts; more like summaries and odd-essays.


No problem, that is my mistake for passing you; this is actually more work than most people might think. I feel bad that I have passed you the first time around, and then this time around I have to deliver the unfortunate news that I won't be granting you merit for this post. Although, this is helpful in the manner that I normally would merit, I don't feel like meriting posts that encourage low ranking and uninformed users towards signature campaigns is helpful to the health of our forum in it's current state. The OP should be meriting you for answering their question; you can't expect much more in this type of situation, but feel free to submit again.


Local-Rule : Do not post more than 5-links in one post ; therefore rejected. I'll say this, adding local rules has really helped me sort through the people that don't care enough about my time for me to care about their time. Feel free to resubmit and follow the rules; I hope I don't have to enforce a blacklist in the future.

You haven't experienced any issues, besides the one issue that self-moderation would help you eliminate. That sounds like you should start using the self-moderation to your benefit, instead of complaining about it. Spam is to be expected, which is why we have self-moderation to deal with it. I don't want/need "Free Bumps", I want a clean thread that stays on topic and is free of nonsense.


You do not look to flawed examples when seeking to improve yourself. You do not look to options with less to lose, with less need for security, with less members or with different technologies that are not feasible. Self-moderation should be eliminated so that we can turn this into a terrible spam-ridden forum like the other forums you hangout on, good plan.

Also, when you seek to improve something you look at that something yesterday and try to make it better today. You compare it to itself and seek to better it in that regard, not in comparison to something else that has too many variables to be fairly compared.

You're just wrong and I don't know why you are digging your heels in. It just looks naive, when you can easily go use the search function and figure out how wrong you really are. It's not about seeing eye to eye, it's about right and wrong. Feel free to stick to your incorrect thinking and your pathetic approach of bowing down to scammers and extortionists, to me this kind of thinking is a significant problem. You understand the trust system incorrectly, and I don't feel like explaining myself a second time. Having negatives on your account from known scammers should be a badge of honor, and it has no negative effects whatsoever on your trust rating, unless they are DT members; the people you dealt with were not DT members, and if they were you could get them removed for the situation you are describing.

If you are unwilling to see eye to eye on this, it is because you are being stubborn, logically flawed and operating with cognitive dissonance.

Your trust is: 20: -0 / +2

Michail1 and TheButterZone are the only DT members that have given you trust and are the only people affecting the trust rating people see publicly (unless they have changed their trust settings, most don't).

Everyone else's ratings do not affect whether you are green, red or yellow; I hope this helps you understand.

I would not say releasing personal information is great, but to each their own I suppose, you're entitled to your opinion. It should be the case that negative trusts, with reference links providing evidence is enough to deter anyone from dealing with someone. The less knowledgeable do not deserve to be scammed, I agree, but you must impose a tyranny in order to avoid it. The best way to avoid them being scammed is through education.

I would be open to the idea of only allowing members of a certain rank or merit having the ability to self-moderate. Although it would seem the have the same detriments I have already pointed out, the lower ranking members are those that are primarily abusing the self-moderation in the manner you point out. I would say that we may be in the minority of self-moderators that do not operate in a sketchy manner overall, but I would say that of higher ranking members this is pretty regular behavior; most high ranking members that utilize self-moderation are not the troublemakers. I'm talking general demographics here, not hard and fast rules, but my point remains.

The report button will not get the job done as well as self-moderation, and mods may not agree that it should be removed, so that leaves me to feel that the best place to distribute that power is to the thread-creator.

I really don't care what other forums do, at all, because that is not a justification for anything.

It doesn't sound like you understand the trust system and I would highly encourage you to read more thoroughly about the small details and mechanics of it. Your account cannot become "red/yellow" from any regular user on the forum, they can leave ratings, but they are not shown by default and therefore the rest of the forum sees you as neutral. You can only become "red/yellow" from those on your trust list, which by default are DT1/2 members. Unless you are describing a high-ranking DT member extortion ring, then I believe you are badly mistaken. If this were not the case, anybody could make mass amounts of accounts and abuse the system to oblivion. Never give into these kinds of "demands", because again I would count this as a personality flaw, not a flaw of the system. It makes you seem uninformed and weak. Document the evidence, report it and these members will receive their due; when you give in like this it only enables them to do more harm as you seem to have acknowledged.

Eh, it's extra lines of code for nothing substantial. While we're at it, we might as well add an option that allows us to toggle viewing our own signature, avatar and personal text. It would seem unnecessary, and only serve to remove utility at the cost of, as Vod said, processing power. I don't even see, notice or look at the merit button unless I have been genuinely impressed, amused or informed by a user's post. I have never been reading my own posts and then thought to myself "That darn +Merit button, gets me every-time.", nor do my own posts catch me off guard.

I just don't see who this would be helping, and given the limited resources of the staff I wouldn't see this as a priority by any means. Sometimes it is helpful, but it never gets in the way, I don't see the problem.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2259744.0
TheButterZone Self-moderates every single thread I can find of theirs that they have started. They have a lot of people that spam nonsense in their thread, make false-claims, etc. It is simply their freedom that should be allotted to them; just as you should give a shopkeeper control over their domain. If you do not like how they do business, you do not bother every customer that walks in (unless you are looking for confrontation, unfortunate responses and are trying to ruin other people's day), you go an mark-up a formal complaint or get the community to agree they should be removed.

I gave an example of my Service thread being self-moderated, but for the sake of supporting your argument I went and grabbed TBZ post as an example. I hope they don't mind me using them as an example, but they fit the bill of "trusted" and I see no problem with them self-moderating their thread, do you?


Yes, but look at the reason we are never going to stop all of it. It will become self-evident that this is also why we should keep self-moderation the way it currently is. We cannot take away the freedoms and privileges of others, because there are those that abuse the freedoms and there are those uninformed by the dangers of those freedoms. Self-moderation is a net-positive for anybody using it for reasonable purposes and anybody who is abusing it already has means of being dealt with.

No, they don't. Even when they aren't posted in the proper format they are read carefully and encouraged to write them in a more proper format to be more easily understood. If there is evidence there will be action.


New users are encouraged to read every sticky, guideline, unofficial rule and word of caution before engaging in a single post or transaction. We cannot force people to do anything, if they choose to act in an uninformed manner this cannot be our problem. There is no reason for you to be trading here without an understanding of the trust system.


I see plenty of downsides. I delete multiple spam-posts every single day from my self-moderated thread in the marketplace. There are plenty of signature spammers, activity farmers and people with personal vendettas that would happily ruin your marketplace thread if they could. Do you not see spam and resentful people running amok with no recourse as a downside or a reason?


I might suggest that being afraid to leave negative feedback to a scammer, because of their retaliation feedback is a personality flaw and not a flaw of the system. The first two lines of this quote contradict one another; you cannot be afraid to leave negative ranking and also genuinely believe that we should do everything possible to decrease scamming. Those two statements do not make sense together and I would ask you to reevaluate your position.

I have a Self-Moderated thread in Services : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2819141.0 , I'd love for you to explain why I don't need self-moderation, even though I think "need" is a bad word for our purposes. We definitely would be better served to say something similarly to "benefit from", because you don't need to use the forum at all, so it's a silly word to use here.


I disagree with "A post within a scammers thread stating it is a scam is the first thing people are going to see.", I have posted damning evidence of scammers within their own threads many times (written in bold and red) and they go unnoticed. In my experience Trust ratings stick out much more to users than posts buried within their thread. Even if you are the 1st reply to the thread, you will not get read by as many people as the OP it is just that simple.

I disagree that there is no reason for members to use self-moderation, because there are many people that create threads with local-rules or that would easily fill up with endless pages of spam. Would my thread be better off if I allowed the 20+ replies that were only signature spam?

I've seen a handful of threads pop up today asking about why X or Y have not been implemented here on the forum, and in the interest of trying to save a long-winded explanation I'll try to keep it simple and concise.

Take a look at another user being responded to by Vod for asking about a similar implementation


So the answer is security, efficiency, resource management, etc. There are only so many things that can be done before moving to the new forum software (which have been being worked on for years). It probably would take a long time or a lot of effort to program into the forum, then once it is properly implemented it might come with security flaws/holes, which lead to further problems or even simple compatibility issues with what has already been programmed into the forum.

It is a lot of effort and risk for probably minimal reward; there is not normally a time where copy + paste can be used and still make sense in response to the thread/conversation. So most of them will be thread-starters, and a lot of people around here already search little parts of your posts to see if it can be found elsewhere. There are already people watching, this gets called out fairly regularly and punished severely.

I misread that then, and I apologize for being a knucklehead. I thought you were saying that in reference to my argument, after thinking that you thought I had agreed with your argument; it was a big logistical mess on my behalf and I'll just consider it a brain-fart. I agree with everything you just said.


Not if Meta was one of the disabled sections, which was the entire point of the OP. You are right though, whichever boards remain standing with signatures will be negatively affected by the shift of spammers and desperation.


It's a shame that the thread isn't much more than a page and you failed to read it.
I would simply refer you to an exchange earlier in the thread:


This has yet to be refuted, at least in this context, because it is pretty sound logic if you ask me. Especially in a section as important as this.


Would be nice if they followed and abide by the rules laid out in the only sticky of the Service section : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1684035.0 , do these guidelines get enforced, does anybody know? I haven't seen these shady/lazy or inconsiderate managers being tagged for this kind of thing. I also haven't spent much (or any) of my time looking for these instances.

I only mentioned PHP, because I'm illiterate, but I meant the ability to use graphics, designs (outside of text) things like that; I also would probably suggest that this shop shouldn't take merit, but maybe it could take sMerit. This way people would not have to decide between de-ranking, signature features or keeping their progress. This way people would be encouraged to earn sMerit, instead of spending the merit they were given from the start. If people could simply spend their merit, too many people would be able to purchase from the shop undeservedly simply because they started out with 500 Merit. If we restrict it to sMerit, they would only be able to purchase from the shop with what they've earned (aside from the small amount of sMerit we got to start). We would probably need to set something special up for the Merit sources if we were to do something like this, for example they cannot use their Source merit to purchase from the shop, only the sMerit they have earned the same as everyone else.

I believe Merit is supposed to be a permanent mark of your past achievements, so it would be unfortunate to trade that away.

Would campaign managers also be able to put up their "button" in the shop, and any accepted participants would have to purchase this from the shop in order to participate? It is a neat idea, and I like the thought of being able to use Merit or sMerit is interesting and new ways that also benefit the health of the forum.

Ignored Local-Rule, I'm not even looking; all rejected.


I have given both of these posts Merit, and I have to say that I am quite impressed. It's always a pleasant surprise when I click a link and actually feel like there was work, creativity and thought put into the post. Your "Thoughts about the merit system" post is ridiculously awesome. It isn't going to get anyone rich, or solve world-hunger, but it gives a very interesting look at how people have been feeling about the system. The poll, the graph, the discussion criteria, all of it is very unique; I have not seen another member doing something similar and with as much effort/creativity. Keep it up, because your info-graphic is pretty cool too. I think there may be some flaws with the idea, or rather the flow of your algorithm, because of cliques, bias, etc. Regardless, I can tell you put care into this. You are bringing information and opinions to the table that others are only whining about.


I almost didn't, but I re-read the post a second time and I decided that I would give this one a Merit. It speaks honestly of the state we find our beautiful forum-home in, while criticizing your own demographic. It is simple to the point, mentions that some old members got lucky by being grand-fathered in and that newbies will simply have to earn their place.


I have not given merit to these posts, unfortunately, because they read mostly like a regular conversation; this is not a problem, but if I am not in the conversation then I would have to suggest that the merit comes from those in the conversation. Simply sharing your thoughts and opinion are not going to be something I regularly merit if I can help it. I want to encourage objectivity, or opinion with a firm objective stance and helpful information that may benefit somebody.

Literally the next line that you cut out of my quote, was me disagreeing with you. I don't know why you would take it out of context to pretend like I was agreeing with you, and using that as logic to justify my claim...

Limiting signatures to only certain sections of the forum would not make Meta-Spam worse, so I disagree and I hope you don't somehow think this is me agreeing with you (again). Are you suggesting that these sections aren't already terrible? Disabling the signatures for your own eyes does not help the problem; there is still endless incentive for these people to spam these boards, so they will continue to post nonsense whether you can see their signatures personally, or not.

I'm in no way suggesting that signature campaigns should not be a thing, but I think directing the nonsense away from the Meta board would be nothing except positive for Meta (unless we can stop it, entirely). Not sure how you can disagree with that.


You're acting like you have a right to advertise wherever you want. Who cares? The section is in English and gets a lot of exposure, that is no argument for why it should be there, unless you are arguing from a campaign manager's perspective, which is irrelevant to the other 99.99% of forum users that would benefit from the spam being disincentived.

The argument isn't, "Campaign managers have a tough time in Meta", I fail to see your point.


This thread is hitting me in a bad place. Maybe I am misunderstanding certain people, but this reads to me as "Signature campaigns don't pay for this section, so this section should have signatures disabled.", that makes no sense to me. Maybe they should be disabled in meta, but it certainly isn't because most campaigns don't reward for it...


This is a nice idea, but I'm not entirely sure on the implementation of it. Would you have to buy a particular "button", or would you be spending Merit to enable PHP code in your signature? I would like to hear more about the specifics of that.

I don't know enough about these ICOs to give you a merit for organizing them in this manner. A lot of ICOs have proven themselves to be worthless scams that're desperate to grab money. I'm not saying this is the case with your list, but I would hate to give merit and be supporting the potential that is there. As for the second post, I do not understand whatever language that is so I unfortunately cannot read it. Since I cannot read it, I also cannot merit it; feel free to submit more of your posts though, because it looks like you put effort into your posts, more than 95% of the people I see.


With all due respect, you do not need merits. You need water. The first post is the 1000th+ reply in a mega-thread, the second post is the 200th reply in a mega-thread, the fourth post is the 1300th reply in a mega-thread, and the other two posts are very generic, boring and don't seem like there was any effort or thought put into them. None of these will receive merit from me, and I hope that you start to actually care about what and where you post.


I won't be meriting this post, because I'm not informed enough about all of the news, whether it's positive or negative I don't have the time to pay too much attention, unfortunately. I wish I could give this post a merit, but I will keep my eye on it; If I get the time to verify the current events and it seems like you are maintaining this thread then I will certainly merit it.


I have given these posts Merit, they are very high-quality and one of them seems to be very similar to what I am doing here. It doesn't look like you have been as busy as I have, but the idea is there and I can appreciate that. Thanks for sharing the wealth and paying it forward. I also enjoy your thoughts about the merit system, instead of crying about not being able to become a hero, you simply acknowledge and move on to the new system and how to properly adjust yourself into the new forum.


I give merits daily, sometimes I don't get to catch up for a few days; definitely more than once a month. None of these posts will be receiving merit from me. I did not even consider politics to be something I would merit, and I will probably add a rule not to submit political posts. I have a feeling that merit will be confused with agreeing or supporting your political opinion and I choose to stay away from that section of the forum to avoid the endless arguments and clashes of subjectivity and perceived identity. The other post was simply a post that could have been replaced by your meriting the person you are praising. The final post was just a link to an article that you said "I think will help". I'm just not able to see the benefit from any of these posts.


I have given you a Merit for this post. People are going to start thinking I'm biased, because I give you a merit for almost every submission; though, I will say that you are very good at writing up posts that are worth a merit. Every time I read one of your posts, I either learn something new, have a question or feel the need to jump into the conversation and have my opinion/stance heard. Feel free to continue submitting, because you are someone that deserves all of the merit that has been sent to you.


The one thread is way too simple and not enough information being shared to be worthy of a merit. This other thread "New to Bitcointalk" I almost want to merit you for, but it just doesn't feel like it is giving OP enough information; they are asking about signature limitations and you mention how to rank up, without actually letting them know how their limitations will increase, how long activity takes or even mentioning the new merit system which is just as important.


I wish I could understand these threads, because I think this a really cool idea. I won't be deleting your post, just in case someone else stumbles upon it in my thread and would like to utilize your thread. If I had a reliable translation software, or if I could speak the language I am sure you would receive a merit. This is a very interesting idea, and will help grow this idea of mine into a huge High-Quality posting fiesta.


I know this thread is a bit daunting to read through, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one. I will probably add a Local Rule in the OP so that people don't have to guess which languages I do and do not speak. I unfortunately do not speak German, but I have a few friends that do so I will leave your post here for them to take a peak at when they have the time. Feel free to submit English posts, though!

Everyone up to this point has been responded to, reviewed and either merited or rejected. Thread has been cleaned up (for the most part), if I have missed anybody, please let me know.

Not only do I believe you're right, it probably is too difficult or too risky to integrate into the forum in it's current state, but there is already an endless sea of "Account lost" threads, where people reset their passwords and lose their accounts, simply forget their passwords or goof their recovery questions. I think that until we have a decent solution for these people, adding 2-FA will only serve to exacerbate this problem. Then, you have to consider that even allowing user stats, images, new-tab and other features have proven to be security flaws to be exploited; I'm assuming that 2-FA would be no different.

This forum is not short of malicious users, and anything that can be used to lock, access or block your access will be pushed to the limits.

In the context you describe, being tricked into logging into a fake site, this would not help either. You would simply use your 2-FA to log into their proxy, they would forward this input to the real forum and then be logged into your account just as easily.

T-FA is fine _{Theymos-Factor Authorization}

I know another user mentioned that this logic taken to its conclusion would wind up at "No advertisement anywhere.", although I disagree; it might be nice if the advertisements were left to specific sections, instead of it being the default that they are allowed/enabled. Although, as I think theymos put it (I'm paraphrasing) he enjoys the idea that quality, long-term members can earn some extra coin just for doing what they already do.

That being said, maybe only allow signatures in the marketplace, service discussion. gambling and sections that would be seemingly relevant and non-intrusive. I also enjoy the idea of a "Signature Ban", this obviously would put more work on moderators that may not be feasible; the idea would be, if a moderator/admin feels you are abusing or misusing their section, they may disable your signatures there (or everywhere). This also would make a campaign managers job more difficult.. I'm thinking out loud, but I have a few under-developed ideas that might be the starting point for something half-decent.

I definitely think all of the "Merit plz" threads would still exist, with or without the signatures, so I'm wondering.. Has something recently caught your attention to make you feel it necessary to bring this issue up now?

I never click on suspicious links, not saying your link is suspicious, but I am not on a VM right now and I never take a risk that I don't have to. I have never heard of that site before, which is perfectly understandable, because it seems like this is a project you have been working on. That being said, most people already have their casino(s) that they like to play at pretty exclusively. Obviously there are new members signing up and some old members becoming frustrated or just intrigued, so they decide to transfer over. With this being the case though, I doubt many people will find their casino(s) through your site, they will simply use word-of-mouth or other reviews that are already in place. I hope your site takes off, but at this point I don't see who it would be helping and I haven't clicked the link to know whether or not the site is high-quality.


I know you mean well, but I don't generally like to feed the ICO crowd, because they seem to act like stray cats. You feed them a little, then they come back for more and they bring their friends. OP put no effort into their question, and I do believe you answered their question better than they would've guessed. I just wish these types of questions and answers were not needed, because OP could have easily used the Search function, googled it or a plethora of other options that would've led them to their answer. I unfortunately do not know anything about IOTA, so I can't give merit to something I do not understand. I'm sure it is deserving, but hopefully OP will merit you as they should.


I have given you Merit for this post, because although the information has been presented many times the Bitcoin Discussion section is going down the tubes. I would much prefer to see conversations such as this taking place as an alternative to the spam and mega-threads we are currently seeing. Yes, you are coming to similar conclusions as other members, but there is nothing wrong with this; it appears as though you are trying to do some digging, figure out what's going on and then ask questions in the pursuit of improvements and knowledge. My one suggestion, would be to STOP begging for merit in a bright red color (or at all) at the end of your posts; it is extremely pathetic and will most likely cause users to avoid meriting you altogether.


It is not my job, purpose, inclination or desire to motivate you to become a writer. I'm just trying to get my merit to those that I feel have earned it. If you are motivated by your own success and the fruits of your hard-labor, then I'm sure we can find mutually beneficial ground that we'll both be pleased with. The posts about trading have been beat to death, so I won't be giving merit to either of these. I'm not sure if the Legal section was the proper place for this thread, and in all honesty it is a tired/boring conversation to talk about why banks might dislike Bitcoin.


While I can say it takes a big person to admit their mistakes and faults, I am a little bit disappointed by the conclusion you come to from the thread about "Merit opening your eyes". You have all of the right information in front of you to make a meaningful conclusion, you notice your posts are bad and unhealthy for the forum, but then the only reason you seem to want to improve yourself if for making money in signature campaigns. This is not a good motivation, obviously there is nothing wrong with being motivated to make money, but the problem emerges when you are specifically catering your actions solely for the purpose of sucking money out of the forum. The other posts are buried in mega-threads and add no solid information to the discussion. I will not be giving you merit for any of these submissions. I hope you continue down your path of improvement, but I hope you realize a better motivation.


You must be trolling me, going to delete your post without much review. You did not post in these threads, and there is no message linked (probably deleted) and the threads are absolute garbage anyways. So whatever you could have posted in there, was most likely not going to receive any merit from me regardless.

I have given this post a Merit, because I have seen this question asked a million different times. I have not seen very many adequate answers, and most of them just say something like "The government wants all your coin" or "It's bitcoin, you don't have to pay taxes". All of the answers I have seen are not legally sanctioned, legislated or even good advice. Your answer is very thorough, it explains the situation, the caveats and contingencies. I like seeing a well-written, well-thought out response to OP when it doesn't seem like they're getting it from anywhere else.


These couple posts are of a similar vein, but they just don't stand up to the first post, so they fell a little short of receiving merit from me. They are not as informative, helpful or have their foundation in legislation in the same manner that the first post was. I would not mind reviewing your posts in the future, because you're an interesting read.


Neither of these posts will be getting merit from me. One is complaining about KYC from bounties, which I disagree with, but is not relevent or helpful to many members around here. KYC is primarily for financial institutions operating with clients from particular regions. The other is talking about potential vulnerabilities in the ledger, without any explanation case-study or research cited. I can't say these are quality, or helpful, so you will not get merit.


Way too many typos, which make it almost impossible to read your posts at all; let alone decipher what you are actually trying to say. Threads like "Do you believe in crypto?" "Buy or Hold?" and "Pump & Dump" are not threads that will be getting merit from me. Your posts are thoughtless, filled with mistakes and contradictions; these threads are boring, uninteresting and repeat themselves daily. Try to have an interesting conversation with somebody, instead of just responding to "Yes or No" questions and trying to expand it into an entire post.


None of these will be receiving merit from me at this point. Most of them are the 200th+ reply to a mega-thread, adding no new information, responding to nobody and helping nobody. The couple of posts that were not buried in a mega-thread were 1-2 lines of unhelpful conversation. They do not offer a nuanced or informative opinion, and they do not add any depth to the conversation. If you were not in the thread, they would have changed negligibly.


You share your opinion on what a constructive post is, without actually saying anything. You just mentioned the categories that a constructive post would fall into, which nobody refuted or said certain categories couldn't be constructively posted in. Then you proceed to talk about how you deserve more merit for your posts and are proud of yourself for tooting your own horn. The post about selling your coin, you basically just say "I agree" in a long-winded manner. In one post you talk about how decentralization is a catalyst and incentive for abuse and manipulation; I would like that point elaborated, because I think you're talking out of your ass and do not understand what being decentralized means for "abuse and manipulation". None of these deserve merit, but feel free to improve your posting quality and resubmit some better posts.

Discussions about Monero don't belong in the Bitcoin discussion section of the forum. I can't be giving merit for posts that are breaking guidelines. It is nice to have your post information about bitcoin not being anonymous, however it can be if used correctly. So I would say that your title is at the very least misleading. These limitations have already been made abundantly clear in the earlier days of development and testing; so while it's nice of you to be posting this information, it is not unique, new or creative. Your explanation of the lightning network was not satisfactory in my estimation. I have read dozens of posts about the exact same thing that did a better job at what you are trying to accomplish. You also post a random thread about "What is Onion and Ripple Coin" when these aren't your projects, have been explained numerous times and the point of the thread is to "pick the best coin for 2018", without even describing what your criteria is. I'm not going to give a description for each and every post, but none of these have earned merit and it is mostly because you are repeating information that has been said many times and is mostly likely not news to very many people. Expect merit from anyone you help, but as for me, no.


It seems like you've been getting some merit from the people that you've been helping with your information. To me this information is not particularly helpful or creative, because whenever I start to hold/trade a new coin this is the first thing I do. It just seems like common sense to me, but as I said there may be those that don't agree with me and they will be the ones to give you merit.


None of these posts deserve merit from me, but that isn't to say that they aren't helpful to someone else. Although, posting about "good" ICOs and the other simple things you've been posting about aren't something I would encourage. I would only promote ICOs that have something extraordinary to offer, and most ICOs these days are just pump and dump cash-grabs.


I will not be giving merit for any of these posts; Some are buried on deep pages, but mostly it just seems like you are having a conversation with OP or whoever else. It does not seem like you are adding depth to the conversation or analyzing different levels of resoultion. It just seems like you are doing what you can to get a post out, there are many typos, which make it hard to understand what you're saying sometimes and there isn't anything helpful, interesting or particularly high-quality about these posts.


You are not 2-weeks away from senior member with posts like this. You will not receive any merit for 1-liner posts that are primarily made up of 3-letter acronyms for new ICOs. None of these deserve merit, not only from me, but from anybody. I would be impressed if anybody actually gives you a merit for these posts; you need to step your game up a lot if you want to have an impact around here. You need to explain, elaborate, clarify and justify everything you are saying. You can't just say   and expect any merit. You are acting as if you are entitled to your rank up to senior member, which you are not; I would expect to make big changes or remain at your rank for a long while.