What do you mean by this? Spreadsheet should be able to handle a lot of data if that's what your talking about. Plus, you don't necessarily need to use spreadsheet software, and could spit the information out in Json, and import the data you want into a spreadsheet for better reading, and only limiting it to the bits you need.

I'm not even quite sure what you're trying to achieve with collecting most of this data? The typical user doesn't necessarily need to record most of this data either. Some could be useful I suppose, but is probably overkill for the average user.

I'm just gutted you guys don't have special guests on occasion, unless I'm just not up to the standard of those guests, which would be totally understandable.  

Basically true for every walk of life. No one's replaceable, and life continues to go on despite what happens. That might be a morbid way of looking at things, but it's the reality. Would I miss key users of this forum is they discontinued contributing? Absolutely, but it's not like we're going to shut up shop because of it.

Some users have carved their way into history though, and their legacy will live on as long as those that remember it live on. That's something at the very least.

Haha, like I said I don't have any more influence than anyone else. In fact, theymos is far more likely to listen to a community in support of something, rather than listen to a singular user, I would've thought, unless they already agree with that user. I might be wrong there, but I guess it's much more likely that the community would get the attention of theymos, especially from a urgency point of view. 

I do think we'll see adjustments given time though. I'm not suggesting that we don't do anything because we'll never get the perfect system, I'm just saying that these things need to be considered carefully. Although, I'm probably in support of the most popular suggestion being made. I don't see too many drawbacks to it, and think it'll make a little difference.

Usman beats Leon any day of the week for me. I'd say easy money, but then the odds are so short that there's probably no point on betting on a straight line, and probably better to go for the knock out or submission win. Although, I could see that going to a decision. Depends on how Usman approaches the fight for me.

Yeah, the thing is with a fight I wouldn't want to stop it mid round to review anything, due to allowing the fighters to regain some of their composure or fitness. So, instead reviewing it at the end of the fight would probably be best. However, I know a lot of fans would complain about pacing issues, but if they implement it correctly, and have the judges discuss the replays over mic, and allow the fans to listen in, I think it could actually help, and maybe bridge the gap between fans, and judges.

Hearing the rationale for someone making a decision, albeit still being in disagreement, to not knowing why they came to the conclusion they did. Funnily enough I have the same problems with football, and how there's no transparency.

I'm not trying to call them bad, but they aren't Fergie. He's the type of manager which you can't replace, and I genuinely believe Klopp could be in the same sort of line. Gerrard sounds great, but in reality its probably not going to bridge the gap for too long. Klopp, Fergie they're literally the best managers to ever grace the game, and I guess some could say Pep. I don't think Pep has the same sort of pull that these two have though, and especially hasn't been tested as much as these two. Fergie probably has the best track record out of all the managers in history.

It's the pressure of taking over such a legacy that I think causes subpar performances, and players looking to continue the same success. Basically, anyone is a downgrade on Fergie. I won't call Klopp a downgrade since I absolutely adore the man, definitely my favourite manager to ever manage Liverpool, but I suspect many would think that.

Here's to hoping many more energy providers follow suit. Honestly, when Bitcoin can be easily used for essentials like groceries, and mortgage/rent, I believe there's not much stopping adoption for Bitcoin then. People will with time come to terms with it, learn about it, and it'll come somewhat nature, especially if we can simplify it for the layman a little more.

We'll probably see bank services move to cryptocurrencies which does defeat some of the point, but I'm not entirely against that, since I understand some people prefer to have people looking after their money, than trusting themselves. Definitely not for me, but I can see the use case. If the government, banks, and crypto can somewhat integrate it'll be good for adoption. Obviously, I'm hoping most users will go the route of managing their own money though, but its hard to see it catch on at this point. Paying for rent, and energy bills would be a huge step though. 

In that case, absolutely. No fiat currency can compete with Bitcoin, in terms of the potential money that can be made, but also the features that Bitcoin offer. Unless, fiat changes with this digital money era we're going to go through, and I mean change significantly it'll likely be left behind, at least for the more technical, and privacy conscious people, which hopefully is the majority of the population in the future.

I'm personally more comfortable with having my money in Bitcoin than trusting a bank, but I do believe I'm an outlier in those terms. Most people look for the safety net that banks can provide, and that's alright too.

When are we actually going to break into this realm, without requiring KYC? Never? Too many government imposed regulations, meaning that KYC will always be needed? I see the benefit for many people of a system like this, not something I'd be that interested in myself, but I see how this would increase the convenience of Bitcoin, as well as attract new people to Bitcoin.

I just have a hard time supporting anything which relies on a third party, especially when that third party isn't exactly transparent about how they go about things.

Fair enough, that went over my head.

From what I can gather, KSI hasn't been massively in shape the past few months, and only recently started to get toned up. I know that doesn't always mean a lot, since you have fight camps for a reason, but you'd expect him to look a bit better than he did if he was training constantly. Also, fights are different to sparring as I think anyone involved in the fighting business would agree too. He hasn't had proper fights, and rules, and regulations means he can't be going full on in the gym in sparring, unless the gym is absolutely terrible, and don't care for their fighters. However, I believe he has been training with Vidals dad, right?

I have no doubt in my mind Jake would take this fight. KSI said Jake was avoiding him at the start of KSI's career, which might have been true, but I think the shoe is most certainly on the other foot now. Jake wins by KO, and I'm more of a fan than KSI than Jake.

What's more annoying you always hear Dana promoting the UFC with "damage matters", but quite simply isn't the case. I know Dana shouldn't have any influence over the judges, but the judges should probably be told the criteria by the UFC.

They do have a hard job no doubt. Watching it from the angle we have back at home, I don't know when some of these shots are actually landing, and when they aren't. They go by so quick. There's been multiple times where someone has been knocked out, and no one, including the commentators know how, and we have to refer back to the replay. So, I do get it. They'll be seeing different things to us since they're at a different angle, and they don't have replays.

However, there's been some fights which have been absolutely mind boggling how they came to the decision. I just want to see the rightful winner get the decision, whether or not I betted on them doesn't matter.

I do think judges should review replays though, it might delay things at the end of the fight, but it might be a more fair way of going about it. I don't know, I'd just like to see some improvements on the judging.

Not just possible, but probable. Almost a guarantee I would say, without checking the data. I don't think it's a bad thing. We have merit sources for a reason, the non merit sources of the forum have no obligation whatsoever to send merit, and I wouldn't expect them too either.

That's why we have merit sources which can generate merit out of thin air. They keep the merit circulation continuing to go around, and while non merit sources sending merit definitely helps the community, I don't think it should be expected. Especially, when someone is just using the platform for personal questions, and what not.

Right, I'd probably agree with that. If a merit source isn't spending the majority of their spending allocation, it's probably a good time to reconsider them as a merit source, but only really if you think someone else would be able to replace the amount they're sending, and in a somewhat useful way.

I think if we look at it at implementation, users didn't really understand the importance of merit, and there was a lot of experimenting so large amounts were thrown around initially. However, as the standards set by the community sort of came into play, so did the stinginess you talk about. Basically, merit is like bloody gold these days, and you'll find even some very good posts only receiving one merit at a time. theymos did counteract that by increasing merit source allocation though. So, the answer doesn't always have to be new merit sources, but increasing the allocation of the current merit sources. Although, currently I think we're at the sweet spot, since most merit sources are probably only just about spending their allocation every month, and any more would likely be wasted.


There's also the issue of attrition over time a certain duty might become a little less exciting to certain users, or they might feel they aren't making as big of an impact as they once were. Some will get bored of only sending merit to the same users, time over time, and get frustrated that newer users aren't popping up as often as before. I guess what I'm trying to say is natural variation will take course, and therefore habits will change over time. That either means we need to do something about getting more eyes on the forum, getting new merit sources or increasing the allocations of the current merit sources.

I have respect for quite a few users outside of DefaultTrust, and I don't use DefaultTrust as a way of gauging someone integrity or trustworthiness I don't think many others will agree, but I see the DefaultTrust as a way of flagging up issues you might have not been aware of. For example, it's almost impossible to be in every section, and know what's going on for the average user, so they might miss out on some of the scams going around or what x user did. So, the DefaultTrust is a way of flagging up issues. However, I wouldn't be against the flag system replacing the trust system with some adjustments. Maybe, reducing the amount of influence that users have individually would be a nice thing to see.

I'm spit balling just like everyone else though. I'm not sure I know the answer to fixing it to that the majority are happy.

I'm probably going to say something a little dumb here, but holding Bitcoin in my opinion in the long term is probably going to mean you profit. I mean anything from five to ten years of holding it. However, even if it x10, if you've only got a dollar invested, that's only 10 dollars. So, generally you've got to have a significant investment in Bitcoin to be able to feel the benefit in the long term.

If you're aren't significantly invested, it's not likely to change your life, which I think is what the OP might be missing a little bit. Not everyone is going to have their life changed, simply because they're invested in Bitcoin or maybe I'm looking at it from a different perspective. Maybe, the OP meant that since they've used Bitcoin, their perspective on things like privacy etc has changed.

I mean, Bitcoin has certainly helped me form my views of today on third parties, privacy, and security, which I might have not been as passionate about if I didn't discover it when I did. So, I guess you could say without significantly changing my life style, it has changed my life for the better. I can go to bed easy, not having to worry about what third parties are doing with my money either, or getting rejected for a payment because it got flagged up, and then going through the painful process of verifying everything before making the payment again.

I always find it hard to justify using a third party, when it would be somewhat easy enough to implement your own system, even if that requires investing a little or a developer to sort it out for you. I'm generally hoping that we break away from having to rely on several third parties having access to your information, and data. When you normally purchase things with fiat plenty of companies are actually getting information on you, simply because that website relies on them. Some websites are absolutely sickening the amount of third parties they share information with.

There's no real incentive to do that with Bitcoin, except for convenience for the merchant. I'd be more willing to buy things from someone if they didn't rely on third parties though. Obviously, I do understand where you're coming from, and it has everything to do with convenience, especially when just testing the waters to see if Bitcoin would be something worth investing a bit of time into.

The truth is, at the moment we haven't reached the global usage where Bitcoin will always be useful to accept. I guess, it does take a bit of admin, and if you aren't receiving payments regularly in it, keeping up to date, and assuring you've got the systems in place might be more hassle than it's worth.

That's good that you've gone with a paper wallet, instead of something that you don't have the private key too, and is online. However, paper wallets aren't a guaranteed way of keeping your coins safe by default. It's how you handle the generation, and the storage of it. While, you definitely do keep your attack vectors less limited than a online wallet, there's still security considerations you should be giving time too. For example, are you storing it securely enough from physical threats, and that's not just thieves, but fire/water hazards.

Out of curiosity how did you generate your private key? Was it with Electrum or Bitcoin Core, or did you go with another method? The reason I ask is there's plenty of pitfalls for newcomers to fall into if they don't quite understand the security implications of using non open source software or using a online generator to generate their private key.

Not sure if that's the case, but fillippone definitely has the advantage considering the amount of merits they receive compared to DdmrDdmr, and the amount they send. Using the longest available data on the forum (120 days); fillippone has sent 4149 merits, and received 1377, while DdmrDdmr has sent 2640, and received 780. So, DdmrDdmr has their work cut out for them if they want to compete in the long term .

I think most of the top merit senders on that list are sending a massive amount, and also receiving a decent amount too, and are relatively active, so I don't think the list will change massively this side of the year. Obviously, the latest figures of 30 days is close, but I tend to favour long term data when its available, as it's generally more accurate. Obviously, not always.

suchmoon is probably the most noteworthy, being ahead by quite some bit, but not sending as much as the others in the last 120 days. Actually, receiving more merit, than sending it, which isn't common for those in the top 10.

Personally, I don't use it much. I think over time it has lost its importance. There's been a lot of internal feuds which have some what discredited the system. However, an argument to be had is its our responsibility as a community to sort of drop those users off the list if they're having such a negative influence. However, that's the problem the community is split, divided. Some of us agree with one side, and then others agree with the other side. I generally see points made from both parties, and hence why I don't get involved.

I think the implementation of the trust system was a decent one, but its always going to have problems when we've got such personalities in the community. I also think that the trust system isn't being used for its intended purpose, and that's trading. Its become X doesn't like Y, and sort of lost meaning. I made the decision a while ago, that going forward I'd only use the trust system as a way of rating transactions that I've made on the forum, and throw the reputational side out the window, unless there was a particular problematic case. However, flags were introduced to kind of take over from that, at least somewhat.

I think it would be beneficial to have some sort of trust system, but I'm of the opinion that the current implementation has been lessened of importance over time. That's not a fault of anyone mind, that's just how these types of systems often work.

We are always going to have internal feuds, and I'm not saying that they aren't warranted at times either. The issue is when those internal feuds spill on over to a system used by the majority of the community, that might not be particularly interested in that feud, but ultimately get influenced by it because of the impact it has had.

However, my personal opinion doesn't have any more weight than the next user. Users are absolutely going to be in disagreement on me with the above, and that's their right. I guess what I'm getting at is to implement a system without disadvantages like above is going to be incredibly difficult, because even if you do, not everyone is going to support it anyway.

I think the problem with the UFC is they favour the champion a little bit too much. The attitude is you have to convince the judges that you truly took that belt. However, I honestly believe there's been some truly shocking decisions more recently than these fights. A few of the ladies fights were very controversial, and I'm failing to understand why. I have noticed that the louder the fighter shouts, the more leeway they are given, and while it might be annoying to watch, maybe they do it for a reason. Maybe, it masks the connection of a punch, and therefore the judges are assuming it landed, rather than getting additional confirmation or maybe it gives the impression it landed. I don't know, as I've never been to a live event, so can't comment on the view point they have, and what can or can't influence it.

What I do know it does seem like a lot of female fighters in particular have been getting favourable results with this approach. For the mens fights I believe control time with no damage or advancement of position is scored too highly. Also, things like fence grabs should be factored in regardless if the ref highlighted it or not. If I'm a judge, and I see someone use the fence illegally to their advancement, I'd be taking that into consideration with what follows.

I think most of us can agree that taking the Bitcoin is morally wrong. However, what I'm most interested in here is what would you guys do. Leaving it there, knowing that someone probably hasn't left it there by choice, means that leaving it there you're probably allowing someone else to pick it up, and steal it. Although, by taking it (and not redeeming it) you're basically not allowing the person that have lost it to retrieve it.

However, it's also a beach, and therefore I'm assuming that the tides would end up destroying the paper at some point. Handing it to police as some have hinted too, could be problematic too, you don't know they won't just disregard it as they aren't familiar with the way Bitcoin is backed up, but you also don't know if they're going to try to steal it themselves.

So, the moral stand point is if you know you are not going to redeem it, that's the only concrete information you have, everything else is chance. So, would taking the paper wallet, and then leaving a note of some kind for the original owner to contact you help? Then, the problem is you've now got the issue of identifying the true owner. Of course, you could be vague in the note that you leave, and that might be a way of going about it. However, what about a person that had already seen the paper wallet, not picked it up at the time, but upon research discovered its a paper wallet, and then returned for it, and could have enough information to convince you they were the original owner.

I don't know what's the answer to this, and it might be best to just leave it there. However, that proposes additional issues as well right? It's a bit like the moral dilemma of the train tracks, where doing nothing has consequences, but also doing something also has consequences.

While, the person that lost it, should probably have a backup, one has to think that you can't rely on that, especially since the owner has already lost a backup of their seed in a public place, which they probably shouldn't have been carrying.

To be clear, I'm not proposing this issue from a legal stand point, but rather a moral stand point, I think a few users might be struggling to differentiate the two. There's most certainly a difference to me. Interested, to know what people's thoughts of the moral side of things. I think o_e_l_e_o might be onto a similar trade of thought judging by their comments on specifically the moral side of things.

Even though the law states that's okay, I'm not sure I'd be okay with that personally. I believe the UK has a similar way of doing things, but the police or authorities shouldn't be the ones to determine when the original owner has relinquished their ownership of an asset. It should either be returned to the original owner or kept indefinitely until it is.