Nice one. Not that it wasn't obvious.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and call that a Friendian slip: assuming that you are not the one who is actually banned, go tell your friend to post directly on their own behalf. They should be the one that is arguing for their unbanning, not you. They know their account activity better than their friend, and they know exactly how well they were posting (or how not-so-well they were posting). It's a little disappointing seeing people still resort to the "my brother, my mother, my friend" excuse even when it's not necessary. Just shows the scheming nature of their personality.

Then there would be four correct options!

That question kind of gave me trouble because of the fact that "unsubstantial posts" and "Spam" both fit (though the latter is less gramatically correct). Over the long-term, it is true that your account will be banned for insubstantial posts

---

I'm not so sure it's a bad thing for people to disengage from ingrained concepts in the signature campaign sphere. I hope the majority of the deductions came from that culture rather than the forum rules.

Considering that unless you get warned multiple times and end up with a ban, and where the only absolute permanent ban (without warning) is plagiarism... either you are blatantly copying and pasting content (which most people know not to do) or you are repeatedly breaking rules, meaning you've already had multiple chances to correct your error.

And considering the fact that all forum rules are public, you don't really have an excuse. You seem to understand English fairly well. Is that an issue for your "friend" as well?

"My friend" meaning you?
Question: How come your friend needs someone else to post on their behalf instead of them doing it themselves?
Answer: Because your friend is posting on their behalf and pretending that it's someone else, for some misguided reason.

You know you're allowed to appeal bans with a new account, right?

And that's where it is: we can choose to be pedantic however we want but the idea of "free" is a very fluid definition. WLOG this can also be applied to nearly every single word in existence, and beyond that, every single thought in existence - who's to say that I can't define X as Y? Convention? Status quo? From a meta standpoint those cannot be infallible means and processes for which we determine validity.

---

Let's be honest: most of the time, you look upon the word "free" as "no monetary cost" and to that extent, unless you're being extremely anal about external costs (i.e. electricity, physical energy, etc) faucets should be considered "free money".

I like trolls that use either a lot of effort, or a minimum amount of effort. To compromise and post normally with a troll-like attitude is to spit in the face of any true shitposting.

That being said, I think HardFacts is absolutely right about BITCOIN.ORG being turned into a Bitcoin pumping site! Isn't it great that the official Bitcoin page leads to an upward price movement for the coin? Absolutely amazing: it's like nobody could predict that at all.

Hang on, what's this website? Oh, bitcointalk.org? Yeah, that's one shitty-ass place!

The fee most certainly does matter. Be aware of transaction A and B, but you should consider the following:

In a double-spend scenario, the dropped transaction would have stopped broadcasting from a while ago and thus you would not be able to find the evidence of the other transaction that uses the same txinputs. What I can assume happened (in the case of a double-spend) is the following: there is another transaction B₀ where the 1EA address sent a large amount to the deposit address with a small fee. Later, the same txin is spent in the confirmed transaction B when the deposit fails to make money, and the user tries again at the casino for a successful gamble. This time, we quickly change it so that the large movement from 1Ea to 128pfp is confirmed as soon as possible by creating a CPFP transaction with a massive fee.

It would be useful to check the mempool at this time, and make sure that the 2+ sat bucket exceeds 1MB (including SegWit size compression).

That's the thing: when considering the implementation of new regulation or wide-scale changes, we should consider whether it's worth affecting every single person in order to stop a few. It makes it even more difficult to introduce some policy if there is an easy way of bypassing it, which makes our anti-abuse process turn into a game of cat & mouse.

What is the real intent of this?
What are the gains, and will they be temporary or permanent?
Are they worth making it more difficult for new users to register?

Questions to consider.

Here's the crutch:

Assume we do implement the system of "wait and calculate" where we use numbers. Actually, let's make this a steel man and say there's a bit more involvement. If there is any route for this to become automated (I have seen data entry for captchas et al from years ago) then it absolutely will be - your bottleneck is not the wait time. One would need to determine the identity of the user that is registering the accounts, otherwise you could just open the registration in a different session (i.e. switching IP/fingerprint/etc).

This is what happens when the account spammers decide to attack your method: they take the 5 minute hit, and then start pumping out accounts past that point since concurrent registration is possible.

Any arithmetic or word re-entry question would be an easy workaround for account spammers. Specific image recognition is harder considering one would have to have input material to gauge the data. I certainly wouldn't mind a "this IP is evil" marker ere to account registration, though: you might say that it would be a tool better used by those that are mass-creating accounts, but given that the difference for them is changing usernames and exit node connections for their network, I think the benefits are more in the Newbies' favor.

What would your reaction be, if your first experience signing up to the forum was to be slammed in the face with a paywall? There goes that username, by the way... unless you want to pay up!

Untrusted feedback is sometimes more important than you might think. It's worth checking it out in case DefaultTrust members have not flagged or tagged the account with negative trust to indicate evidence of a scam. It is, however, important to distinguish between genuine feedback and "rage" feedback wherein it's usually a retaliatory negative tag, so checking the source of the feedback is also important.

---

If you want an example of scam, take a look at the Investor-based games section.

Understood: political and cultural environments differ between countries, so now the situation is more clear.

It would be good to create a thread in the Project Development board (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=12.0) where you can explain this idea in more detail. I think it's an interesting initiative and could definite attract some intrigue on the global scale if you were to draw it out and elaborate on the specific design.

Why not market this first in fiat, where you can probably contact people directly and secure more funding? Even though it is easier in mechanics to send Bitcoin across the world, not all investors hold BTC and for those that don't, you can get a hold of capital that way. I don't see why you wouldn't first establish a foundation for more reliability and trust, and then shift towards a crypto-operated system. I'm sure there would be some Argentinian investors available, right?

If there is a hidden gem out there, odds are you won't find it until it has already skyrocketed upwards. That's just simply a testament to the sheer number of shitcoins that clog the pipes of crypto ticker sites. If I were to make a choice, I wouldn't even step outside of BTC investments - if you're uncomfortable with the volatility associated with Bitcoin, then try to imagine playing the altcoin market like playing a one-handed blackjack and hot-dog eating tournament on a unicycle, trying to get 5 aces in a row, where if you bust you lose. That's probably the same likelihood as you getting into a "good" shitcoin.

Unless there's some revolutionary confirmation method that is susceptible to neither low-cost attacks nor centralization... then you'd be more apt playing slots at your local casino.

Hello, Chris44521! What happened to the other 44520 Chrises?

---

---

Ask more questions than you're comfortable with. It will help to clarify everything to absolute certainty, and that's certainly no small incentive considering that you're dealing with currencies and finances. You should look at Bitcoin as spendable money.

Check the privacy page: https://bitcointalk.org/privacy.php

---

Glad to know that if ever my account was compromised, you would be on the case.

---

With eyes like these on the forum, I doubt anyone would even bother trying to switch accounts without some ridiculously convoluted and time-exhaustive method. Even a change of prose will tick off some red flags danger pennants.

You will have the arbitrary number of "lots of accounts being made" in your implementation. The use of mass email creation has been around for years and that will not change any time soon: you essentially make it slightly trickier for account spammers.

What does it prove? What is the intent of the email verification, and how does it resolve the problem? Or does it just merely shift the issue to a different problem?

Any solution which impacts everyone in order to stop a few people probably needs some more work. Need to stop trying to implement regulations and rules, assuming that the target cannot adapt to them. It's not something that only happens once and is then something mass account creators can't learn to circumvent.

Surface-level patches don't fix the root problem.

It's the nature of unintended consequences. Adding a faucet means that you are producing infinite inflation and essentially making the whole point of merit sources nil, if anyone can simply draw merit from an empty cavity whenever they want some.

Imagine hosts of accounts all suddenly sending merit to other accounts.