I think this has been far more well received than anyone expected . I think there's going to be a lot of disappointed users that this isn't permanent.

If you've found a way to exploit the very system questioning your IQ, aren't you therefore more intelligent than the system? I say its fair game.

I mean their combined IQ is well over 200 so you might be right.

I'll join, but I can't promise anything o_e_l_e_o . After all, I want my recount.

I saw someone mention it might decay, although I haven't really noticed that. I was offline for several hours, and it didn't. However, getting one question wrong when your above 160, and especially above 170 sends you tumbling down. I think I dropped over 10 points from one question, and of course I hit a rut then, and started answering more questions wrong .

Sure, it would helped them out. However, I'm not aware of any games that offer that, and I doubt the type of games that offer it would be that much interest to kids. The thing is, I'm not a fan of using your kids to earn more money, it just sounds like exploitation to me. Kids should be able to pick what they want to do, within reason of course. You shouldn't be telling them to play a game, because it'll earn you Bitcoin.

Kids aren't kids for very long, they should be enjoying their time with zero responsibilities, rather than looking to earn money as soon as possible. They've got to earn money for the rest of their lives, and we're all adults trying to escape that, so let them be a kid.

You don't have to answer them by the way. If you don't want to partake in the April Fools day joke, then you can just ignore it, and post like you normally would.

Yeah, forums rules is something I glanced over, but I previously thought that Bitcoin questions could be beneficial. There would be no real downside to implementing it, as it could be optional. However, as soon as you introduce a way of comparing yourself to other users, that's when the motivation factor kicks in. Its why gamification is used everywhere, and why old arcade games which were pretty meaningless had high score leaderboards, which people are still playing today to get higher scores.

The only issue I see if generating the questions, and coming up with the answers. Although, I think this could be a ongoing community effort. Then, before they're published they're reviewed by others. So, theymos would just need to implement something that allows us to work together as a community to add new questions over time.

What is everyone's predictions on the Manchester City game? I think that could be the upset of the weekend, coming off international break, they wasn't playing great before that, the pressure is building up. Think they could easily drop points against a well drilled Burnely side.

I never thought I'd find some one I enjoyed more than John Arne Riise in a wide defensive position, but both Robertson, and Trent have proven me wrong. Might be a little bias, but I genuinely believe they're the best in the world in their positions, and by quite some margin. Their assist numbers alone are crazy, and without both of them we wouldn't be competing with Manchester City at the top of the table.

I didn't realise how stacked the card was outside the main fights. Mackenzie Dern fight should be a close one, and I kind of fancy her to take it, despite Torres probably being the favourite. Aleksei Oleinik vs Jared Vanderaa should be a decent  fight, not expecting the fight to go the distance. Got Ian Garry, and Jairzinho Rozenstruik on the card. Should be a good night. I might have to order in some food, quite a big night. Obviously, the main card is absolutely crazy with two belts on offer, and then Burns vs Khamzat Chimaev. I'm honestly considering putting some money on Burns, I think he will surprise us all.

I'll get my predictions out later.

Yeah, we've mostly caught up with the problematic threads, now its just old, and mostly redundant threads. Reporting in actively posted in threads is always more beneifical, but the bumping changes that theymos made has pretty much prevented these types of threads being viewed by the majority of the forum, since a lot will only check the first few most recent pages.

I'm actually going through the entire sections of announcements, and just removing spam as I go along, as well as cleaning up threads which don't fit. I'm also sorting out a userscript to see if I can sort of spot things a little easier than before. Although, still haven't worked out the best way of implementing it.

Some of these questions are ridiculous . I was asked "why are most alligators are abnormally aggressive?" How isn't this the right answer!?:



Source .
Why stop at banning? I say we just completely erase low IQ users entire existence on the forum. Just in case their previously posted ideas leak into the new elite. What do you think?

Today, I have been humbled .

Yeah, I'm also conflicted while I do appreciate websites which have gone into the effort to look nice, I'm kind of a sucker for plain HTML sometimes. For example, resumes. Also, I prefer functionality over beauty, if they're providing a good service I could care less about how it looks. Its a bit like how fancy restaurants dress up your food, but all I want to do is have nice food.

I think the rest of your points are decent. The thing is Bitcoin is a little more riskier to use than fiat, not because there's more scammers, but because you are responsible for your Bitcoin, and there's no way of getting that back once its been broadcast, and confirmed via the network. Unlike Paypal, and other fiat payment processors, which do allow chargebacks. Although, this doesn't mean that not allowing that is a bad thing, that's one of the better features of Bitcoin in my opinion.

Yeah, domains change hands constantly. I've never really understand why domain age contributes to measuring trust on certain domain valuing sites. Anything that hasn't just been created should be alright, you don't need a twenty year domain. Besides, new websites aren't automatically a scam.

There will absolutely be interest for it. Post some pictures up, ideally proving you own it i.e note with your username, and the current date. You'll absolutely need to be willing to deal with a escrow if you're serious about selling it. Although, that might have some fees associated with it, your going to get more interest if you go down that route. Could potentially even get the buyer to pay escrow fees.

Also, you haven't specified how much is loaded on it, and how much you actually want for it?

Considering multiple fighters have fought with broken bones, and former champion Michael Bisping basically fought with one eye, I'm going to go with no they don't have rigorous health checks. Although, they're definitely checked over by a doctor, but they likely don't get scans etc. So, it would be easy to hide injuries which aren't visible via a physical check. Which to be honest, is most injuries in the sport.

You aren't going to prove muscle injuries, or weakness of a certain part of the body because they haven't quite recovered yet. Obviously, there are scans for muscle tears, and what not. Although, the only access they'd have of that would be immediately after the surgery not months down the line.

I doubt the neck injury will have an effect, what might be is the fear of hurting it again. You know when you see a fighter get visibly hurt from a kick, so they instinctively drop their guard lower to protect. It could have a similar effect where they''re subconsciously trying to protect that area. It's a bit hard with the neck though, I'll admit .

I think something like this could be a good optional learning tool for learning a bit more about Bitcoin. I know the intention isn't at all serious, obviously. However, I know that theymos' was interested in doing some sort of Bitcoin course, and tying it into the forum. Although, doing something like this which caters to Bitcoin questions, and having a way for users to compete or compare scores, could promote some users to gain some knowledge, even if they were googling the answers, they'd likely learn something.

We could basically offer some learning to users, when they would be posting anyway, and providing a leaderboard of some kind would likely motivate certain users. Obviously, making it optional, and doesn't impact the forum in any real way. Think it could be fun, without other too many downsides.

I actually think Trent is fine defensively, so while I may have alluded to the criticism that he has received, I'm definitely not agreeing with it. I actually think the reason he appears to be bad at defending for anyone, but those watching the full game, is for him to be the creative outlay that he is, he has to be further forward than any other right back would ever dream.

Therefore, when his defensive criticism comes into play, its usually from him recovering from a position high up in the field. Of course, he's going to be a little bit rushed, and not have the best decision making. I know hes been pinged a few times for losing his man on the back post, and I think that criticism is probably the only valid one I've come across, the rest are comparing him to traditional right backs that have a load of time to position themselves, something that Trent due to his attacking style, doesn't have.

If you're determined to sweat buckets, might as well put us down for a 1-0 win, in the second half. Potentially the biggest game of the season left, and you might as well enter heart attack city, if your going to watch it .

I've seen him land a few nice shots on fighters, while not actually knocking them out it usually puts them in a bad enough position to submit them, or at least threaten. So, while I wouldn't go as far as saying he  doesn't have knock out power, he most certainly isn't a knockout artist.

I'd like to be hyped about it, I'm just feeling deflated. I just feel its a mismatch. We know exactly what Aljo is going to do, hes going to try, and hit the mat as soon as possible. Although, his opponent has some serious take down defense. I wouldn't mind being surprised here though, if Aljo can get the job done, that might spice up the division quite some bit. I think other fighters would fancy themselves against Aljo instead of Yan.

163! That's it. I'm demanding a recount (a recount!!!!) of the Bitcoin Geek award, o_e_l_e_o with a IQ of 100 is quite clearly an imposter.

Yeah. I did play the quiz just so I could make that joke.

---

I never knew I wanted a pub quiz on Bitcointalk until this day. I'm here for it.

Yeah, although less about how money works, and more about their decision making processes. The thing is, it sometimes annoys me to see that children are now being corrupted for a lack of a better word, and instead of playing, and doing what kids usually do, they're now looking to earn money at very young ages. Now, you could say that's a good thing, but I see it differently. I think they're somewhat pressured into it, if not directly from the parents themselves, then the pressure that they might have seen their parents under.

Obviously, this depends on how old we're talking. Teenagers, fine. They do need to learn how to handle money, and what its all about. However, anyone younger, and that's just a little excessive in my opinion. For example, I've seen users here claiming to have gifted their 8/9 year old or whatever, Bitcoin. However, I'm dubious if that's what the kid actually wanted, as opposed to what the parent wants to push their kid towards, if you get me.

Bitcoin is great, and I do believe showing your kids that it exists, is a good thing. However, telling them Bitcoin is better, and will cure all their problems or if they invest they'll be millionaires isn't right. I wouldn't tell an adult that, let alone a impressionable kid. Bitcoin is, and will probably remain so for the foreseeable future, a niche. Only certain people care about privacy or having the freedom to control their own money. In fact, you'll find a lot of people that are scared of that responsibility.

There are no safety nets, and I think whether someone wants that responsibility or to use a traditional bank with fiat should be their choice, and only their choice. Not some ideal that has been pushed upon them. That's just my view anyway.

The thing is this has been speculated about since Bitcoin became highlighted in mainstream media, so a whole bunch of people, businesses, and so called experts have been throwing numbers around, pretty meaninglessly. I know that speculation can be fun, however putting a number, and a time limit on things is just silly. I prefer the method of; Bitcoin will continue to increase in the long term, price volatility as time goes on will decrease, and the adoption rate due to the price volatility problem being largely mitigated.

That's something you can almost be sure of, if things carry on going the way they are. However, Bitcoin reaching a million by 2030? Its impossible to say, even if you throw as much figures, and data at it as possible, its also very likely that it doesn't follow the same path is has for ten years, for the next ten years. There will always be variance, and the attitude towards Bitcoin still on a government level is probably rather hostile, which could potentially effect the growth of Bitcoin in the years leading up to this prediction deadline. In other words, there's too many factors that you couldn't possibly predict, and therefore putting a deadline, and a exact figure on it is pointless, and very much meaningless.

It depends what you mean by decentralising it more? The thing is I think a lot of Bitcoin users tend to think because Bitcoin is decentralised, then everything would benefit from being decentralised, but I tend to disagree. Not everything needs to be decentralised to work effectively. When it involves trust, then that's usually a decent way of going about things, but at the moment while we do have merit sources, and DefaultTrust, basically everything else goes through theymos to an extent, which I think has worked fine, and doesn't need to be changed. How are you proposing we decentralise it more? I think the merit sources, and the number of them is somewhat decentralised enough.

Yeah, I don't think its as easy as saying "ah this user has been here a long time, posts good, and is on here all the time", since being a good poster, and being here for a long time doesn't necessarily mean they'll be a good merit source. I don't think the problem we have is with the number of merit sources, but rather that number of merit sources aren't depleting their merit source allocation.

I don't think so, being a merit source is actually quite time consuming, and a lot of users find it hard to deplete their merit allocation. I wouldn't say its stressful, but it definitely isn't for everyone.

Not sure how you can say hes bad. Khabib was out striking Mcgregor for much of the fight before ultimately taking him down, and choking him out. Khabib also has done well against Justin on the feet. He definitely isn't the one trick pony that a lot of people think he is. Although, I still don't think Paul is on the level of Khabib even on the feet, so Mcgregor probably finds it easy.

The only issue I have is Conor likes to go 100mph in the first round, and that doesn't really work with bigger gloves since opponents can  take more shots without going down. Then you usually find Conor struggles due to him emptying his gas tank way too early.

I have no doubt that if this fight did happen, Jake would evade for the first few rounds, and wait for Conor to tire, which then would likely be a boring fight, with a Jake decision.

I kind of get your point, but at the end of the day we aren't savages. I don't want to see fighters get unnecessarily hurt, I like a knockout as much as the next person, although I don't like to see cheating or blows which were completely unnecessary, that's why we have referees in there. So, I don't agree with your entirely, and I do think vacating the belt instead of rewarding the person who basically was losing all fight up until the disqualification  is the better way to go about things in the future.

It was definitely a nasty illegal blow, although I do get the impression that he played on it a bit, despite it being a heavy blow. At that point in the fight, the only way he was winning was through disqualification or via a shocking knockout/submission. Plus, we've seen it before where fighters are asking what will happen with the result, as some times they reward it based on the rounds passed or they deem it a no contest. So, it's no longer allowed to ask the ref that, and they can only answer the doctors questions.