Right, and they would have some justification of forfeiting winnings had OP used a bonus on this deposit cycle, but OP claims that they did not and Bitstarz did not refute this. Rather, they chose to victimize themselves.

They are trying to argue about abusing the bonuses - which are -ev by the way, even without the completely ridiculous maximum bet T&C - when it has nothing to do with what OP experienced.

I would argue the contrary. 5 posts per week spread over 5 weeks will garner far more clicks than 25 posts spread over one week, especially if those posts are within a (relatively) short duration of one another.

If the posts are useful then it should not matter how long you wait before posting. See: On Post Bursting and Other Facets of the Term

If you want a better example, take a look at the amount of time between this post and my next post.

Accumulate activity.
Buy or circle merit.

---

The merit restriction is more of an inconvenience for the smart account farmers and for the low-functioning ones, they will buy it off of the former.

From what I see, that was an eBay sale. If necessary, we could walk you through how to use the Ledger Nano to sign the Litecoin address.

Alternatively you can also send out a very small amount so we know that you do in fact have the Litecoins, which might be easier for you. If you're willing to sell the LTC by way of escrow then I'm sure many buyers would be happy to jump on the deal. However, buying the LTC through sale of the Ledger is definitely not something that any one of us here are willing to do.

Cheers.

That's why iasenko suggested this:

In this scenario, OP was not trying to get as many bonuses as possible, were they?
In this scenario, their deposit had no bonus terms associated thereof and they were betting like any other regular player.
In this scenario, whether this was their first or hundredth account, the advantage given to them with their bets is the same: zero.

In this scenario, you are in the wrong. You are blatantly stealing.

If you would so kindly sign the address of which the Litecoins are situated (or at least the higher-carrying one of them) then I am sure that prospective buyers would have more faith in your sincerity. Perhaps only marginally, but that would get us started on whether or not this is a serious deal. After which, we can then buy the Litecoin and Ledger separately.

There are quite a number of signature participants that are from the Philippines. It might be a case of the interconnected culture resulting in a quicker spread of Bitcoin, not to mention the infrastructure that readies users for bitcoin adoption (like coinsph)

Given that the Off-topic section is already a cesspool, this seems like a wonderful idea to start our purge of nonsense threads.

If there's no rank-up incentive to post there, we'll have genuine discussions, not just "what's your favorite food" or "what kind music you like?"
Since Serious discussion + Ivory tower are kind of an amalgamation of genuine off-topic + bitcoin this would be a proper way shift things towards that direction in a more public sector of the forum.

Weeee! Insane how the USD mooned so quickly

The same people who bought at 15K are now panic selling at cheap corn prices.

Thank you for the discount

Simple.

If you profit, he'll ask for a share.
If you don't, he didn't risk anything.

---

It's basically equivalent to having 100% lossback on a gambling site.

This is the main problem that I have had with regard to signature campaigns.

My philosophy on post-checking has marginal overlap with the desired outcome of the client.

It is obvious that more posts = more clicks (generally) and the service operators would want to maximize their bang for their buck. The problem is in gathering participants with high enough post quality to satisfy my criteria, while keeping costs low. I mentioned my thoughts on the pay/post model and despite having the capability of producing a high number of posts, even with a significant percentage of the total post count encompassing ineligible (and thereby unpaid) posts, the fixed-post model may still seem more appealing to clients.

I had a brief discussion with a current signature manager and they noted that in some cases, the service providers don't want to deal with variable payments. They want to see, "I pay 0.1 a week" not "I pay 0.05 to 0.015 a week" even if the average payment on the latter end could be lower.

Certainly, one would be a fool to assume that the post quality will always increase apropos to the aftermath of a plagiarism ban. This may be different in the case of insubstantial post quality bans but the main point I want to address is that of the limited fields in the statistical analysis.

It's always great to see statistics and to make our own predictions thereof but we should always bear in mind that the confidence of our hypotheses is significantly dependent on the amount of information that we have.

Statistics don't lie, but they may mislead our simple monkey brains.

---

What if - hear me out on this - users posted less, yes, but as a result of the signature ban, they started posting more cautiously and in turn started posting higher-quality posts?

If we have a word + character count that might bring us some more insight into their posting habits. Limited data forces interpretation thereof which shows us correlation but not necessary causation.

I, for one, am glad that ChiBitCTy has still remained relatively the same. Though, considering he's the only one I recognize as a collector, it makes sense that he kept the same number of posts.

2 @ 0.045

Setting up a 9½ minute recurring timer on my phone now.

Good things take time. Keep up the good work Max!

1 @ 0.082
2 @ 0.043
c'mon mate

2 @ 0.041