Isn't it sort of the opposite though? Blockchain games are a subset of NFTs, not the other way around. Because as we all know, there are NFTs that are literally just art and do nothing besides looking good, or hold some value(subjective). So if anything, it would make far better sense to have an NFT subcategory than a "blockchain games" subcategory. Only if you look at NFT-based implementations as the parent board. Blockchain games as a topic can have a scope that exceeds NFTs: previous implementations using regular old tokens are fine too, or alternatively with a new altcoin. |
|
|
|
while on the forum posts are more meaningful and notable. You want the child board to be under Altcoin Discussion? That giant septic tank running from the communal outhouse? If you can pick out a sufficient number of half-decent (not asking for much) topics related to the general NFT space, then you'll have both the quantity and the quality. However, given the boards we are talking about, I doubt the presence of either. Why create boards in preparation of new topics, anticipating a demand that may not even exist? Then you'll get something like the dying Serious discussion board and the barren wasteland of the Ivory Tower. |
|
|
|
there is no official Iist on terms and conditions. terms and conditions at the bottom of the site. There is no list of restricted countries. But you are prompted with two "general" warnings upon launching the site: 
I know of a few sites that restrict UK players, most likely due to regulation: if this is the case here, then it's the omission of any direct restriction is unfortunate. Did you create an account directly via VPN, or did you initially access the site via your residential IP? |
|
|
|
I remember the day just like it was yesterday: A sweltering day filled with thumps and yells, I had entered the bazaar. Hooded, shadowy figures strewn across the market displayed their wares with signs. Approaching the closest, they told tales of great objects and splendorous treasures. Asking to have a look, they instantly seized and screeched: "thine eyes are poison to my prize!" How peculiar, that they demanded my coin for items I could not view! Thus, I did the logical thing, and paid immediately for the great treasure! And then I woke up. the moral of the story is that the ideal customer for OP is absolutely blind |
|
|
|
The difference is that if it's contained and not deleted, there's a good chance it won't be re-created, giving a reporter and a mod some more work to do. Again and again. I never liked this principle. Too much work for the mods, so let's just sweep it under the carpet or move it elsewhere and hope no one gets hurt. How well is the Serious discussion board going, I wonder? That's the reverse of investor-based games: try to redirect quality posts there... One aspect is that the underlying assumption expects the ponzi promoter to repeatedly post until publish their thread (and then cease), but why would anyone ever stop there? Follow-up advertisement posts/threads from alt accounts (most likely how the thread was initially created) will simply grant the investor-based thread more opportunity to spread, and the board hosts their platform. The incentive is much greater when you have a lasting thread - subsequent advertisements carry more impact. I don't see any reason why someone wouldn't automate ponzi scams on the forum if they took a look at the scenario. Low volume board, so they can establish their personal ponzi threads; minimal/slow moderation forum-wide, so your advertisements will always be posted; no new user requirements, so you can set up the massive account farm you want. |
|
|
|
a lot of Ponzis were advertised literally everywhere on the forum. All had to be reported and moved.. somewhere Unfortunately, if we look at the board activity, I see threads towards the bottom with last posts from 8 months ago. I'm not so sure that there's this huge ponzi thread problem, but by all means: move your problems elsewhere. I'm just waiting for the "Highly Likely Scams and Frauds" board. Y'know, cause then we can move even more threads in there, and stick the investor-based games board in as a child.
If you fight with armies over armies of 1-post newbies, it's just wasted energy, especially as they have started advertising themselves as investor games, instead of businesses offering high return (which would be illegal, reported and removed <-- maybe this is the bit you need?). If one-post newbies are getting reported anyway (required to move the thread), what is the difference between that and post deletion? Do ponzi threads lie just under the threshold of absolute thread deletion apropos to moderation? If one-post newbies thread-spammed other forms of scams, what would it take for those threads to be deleted, if at all? And what differentiates them from the undeleted ponzi threads?
You're taking the same number of actions (or more, by moving threads) as before and yet the difference is that you're keeping the ponzi alive. Of course, it would be great if we had a welcome message directing new users to the "official" rule thread. |
|
|
|
That board is imho just a container/containment for the spam with scams. Anybody paying attention to that.. deserves his fate. This is a common explanation and yet I wonder why we don't have other scam sections since we're not moderating those either. It's a pitiful excuse, really. As if it prevents any scams from developing in the regular Gambling boards, and as if it actually redirects spam/scams to that board. It's as if you had a board of 99.9% autobuy scam links and you said, "look at all the spam we're containing!"
IBG has warnings and it's a confined little corner of Bitcointalk... probably the least of our problems. Imagine that your body is so cancerous that when you discover older tumors, they are of little importance due to how absolutely devastated the rest of your body is.
If it is so important to protect threads from those moderating scoundrels, who have so little competence to distinguish between scams and legitimate projects, that we need a board dedicated for (almost certain) ponzi projects, then where are these threads that deserve protecting? Where are these threads that hold projects of such magnitude and complexity that we are unable to determine whether they are legitimate or frauds? How many non-scams exist in Investor-based games? |
|
|
|
Board.
If moderators can distinguish between regular gambling threads and investor-based game threads, then we should be able to report away those threads... right? Unless there are these highly active investor-based games that need to be protected from moderator discretion, which also don't belong in Securities, Services, etc. It is such a pity that we do not have the administrative capabilities to close the board: the spillover of active threads in that section into Gambling will be too much for staff. I think the success and efficiency of this board means that we can roll out the "Scams and Fraud" section too, so that we can redirect all scammer activity there.
Just curious. 
|
|
|
|
If properly used, accounts meriting posts shouldn't care about agreeableness. However, there is a natural bias towards threads you enjoy. Especially polarizing content might cause you to agree with an opposing opinion, but it's far more likely that you'll read five posts that you agree with before you read one post that changes your mind. It's a matter of where you draw the line at "quality". And sure, users can claim to be objective when they grant merit, but that's under their subjective model of what it means to be objective. But if you spend your time in sections and threads that you frequent or that interest you, what are the odds that you'll find disagreeable information? Or rather, good information at all? Even jokes, shitposts, thank yous and self-congratulations get merit. Who's to say that my picture of a clip art fart isn't deserving of 50 merit when analyzed in the correct context, framing, and cultural perspective? 
I wonder whether how much the odds change from before and after the 'disagreeable' posts are given merit. |
|
|
|
If you're not going to disable signature campaigns, can you make the default signature link to the forum rule thread?  |
|
|
|
Wallet is analogous to an account's username and password. * People send funds to your username. You know the password and can use the account to send funds. Bitcoin network is the platform that hosts all account transaction activity. *heavily simplified |
|
|
|
The final amount would be depending on the number of players left until the last day of the contest. I found some reference posts for the 1st contest. This might help you make up your decision on wether or not it will be profitable for you Since your expected losses aren't in a lump sum, you can do some data analysis off a range of a few days and estimate the number of people that are dropping out: you can have a maximum of 333 participants and still break even, provided you're playing on blackjack with a 0.5% edge. Halve the amount (and then some) if you're going baccarat, and even more for roulette: 120 days x 5 mBTC x 1/37 edge is a whopping 16.21mBTC total cost of participation, worth over $800 at current prices. Bear this in mind. It's the doubling down to chase losses that killed my balance once or twice, so tempting when you think "I've lost 6 hands in a row, surely a win's coming?". Incidentally, in blackjack games, you could argue that martingale is slightly more effective than flat-betting, since you are more likely to lose with excess low-cards, which would raise your odds in subsequent rounds. |
|
|
|
Disappointing yet unsurprising. 271| Cappex
231| samcrypto
159| Alucard1
158| plr
158| ibuddy122505
147| makishart
145| Google+
140| mdzahed134
135| zaim7413
134| ololajulo
133| royalfestus
129| gaston castano
120| naikturun
119| nebuch
118| rahmatullah9305
117| GreenStox
113| martina14
111| cvasy
103| Surrapatt
100| Nhor1011
99 | riso2015
99 | ringgo96
98 | daenarys_stormborn
96 | meldrio1
94 | tarable
90 | jacafbiz
87 | tazmantasik
86 | Tellek Garing
86 | marcous
85 | Cadaver20
83 | Bay_Harbour_Butcher
80 | ZaraCB
80 | Ten98
80 | raji1995naya
80 | pelumi20
80 | iamsange
80 | abralzain17
79 | Rana590
77 | Farma
75 | kanayaTabitha
72 | Xxmodded
71 | celot
70 | pieppiep
69 | X-ray
64 | takngantuk
62 | Zedpastin
62 | Twinscoin2017
60 | Smitt
60 | pandanaran
60 | MonaLeeTracy
60 | Kezacky
60 | cafee_orange
59 | awakpane
58 | watergold
58 | MUG1WARA
58 | fia_naila
58 | carrie_white
57 | Bagaji
54 | Wildwest
53 | wack slacker
51 | XCANA
Total reports: 6903 Total users: 105 Average reports/user: 65.74 Worst offender: Cappex Users with less than 50 are cut off from the list. |
|
|
|
it seems unlikely to change the conclusion given the magnitude of the difference in cost (4x). One consideration: how much input is lost after the end of the attack if you decide to buy a large swathe of PoS coin A, as opposed to time, electricity, manufacturing and transportation costs of ASIC development? How much of a network do you need to damage before it enters a death spiral? If you were prepared to dump N% of the PoS network after your attack, what is the maximum N where you're still able to disrupt the network? Does the same apply to miner attacks? I checked out your article, by the way. One puzzling aspect is this: look at how much it costs to attack a network per $1 per day in block rewards.Are we worried about attackers because our block rewards are too cheap, or are we worried about attackers because our security is too weak? Should ETH raise its rate of return to 30%, since then the total cost of attack would increase? Actually, why stop there? Just make it masternode levels of 30000% rate of return. |
|
|
|
On might theorize the opposite, if one thinks that they are the most likely to leave, having tired out on repetitive topics, simply getting older, or moving onto other things. The metrics that lead one to the rank of Legendary include activity and merit. Users would have to have posted actively in at least 56 separate activity periods - a range spanning 2 years' worth of time. If you're someone who receives merit, you are more likely to be someone who is active than not, and you are more likely to be someone who gains merit: conditions required for ranking up. There is an implicit bias for the posts of high-ranking members to have higher rates of merit, since it's the high amount of merit that causes them to be high-ranking. |
|
|
|
Ooh, are we gonna play the "you're not a bagholder so you can't say bad things about it" game? I love that one. Well, suchmoron, it's simple. If you didn't claim your free hex, then you're clearly an idiot. If you did claim your free hex but sold "early" when the price was low, then you're clearly an idiot. If you didn't sell early but instead held the hex, then you are actually a supporter! Gotcha, sucker! |
|
|
|
Scammy 100% welcome bonuses:
- The maximum be amount while playing with bonus funds is $2. Players betting over this amount will have their bonus funds and winnings forfeit.
- If you try to withdraw before the bonus funds have met the wager requirement then the bonus funds and any winnings will be forfeit. Ironically, these are only marginally more scammy than other bonus terms I've seen: lowest I remember was a maximum bet of $6 or so. Crazy to include that, though. Why not just rugpull if they complete the bonus instead of doing the opposite of attracting players? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
