The Decent thread definitely had a lot of spam in it, however it wasn't really related to this thread in terms of bumping services. It was mostly low quality posts, for example "decent is great because it has this feature", or "This is interesting!" posts. So, while it wasn't bumping spam that we've come across in the other threads here, it still needed cleaning up a bit.

I do think there was quite a few alt accounts mixed in the thread, that did generate conversations, since they tended to either talk the same, talk about the same topic over, and over or they simply just kept a never ending conversation up, which basically had no substance behind it. So, I do have my suspicions on a few users.

Yeah, the answer would likely go down to at the discretion of the moderator. There's no hard rules about moderating older posts. Some moderators might see it as beneficial, some might see it as necessary, and others might think it effects the workflow on moderators on more recent issues, so therefore think it's unnecessary.

While, I can sort of understand the latter to an extent, I tend remove spam whenever possible. I basically never factor in the time it was posted, and when I was reporting regular I don't think I ran into this issue either unless it wasn't all that big of a problem, and I forgot about it. It could be another reason the reports were handled bad, like I suggested a few of them could have been seen as borderline, and its down to interpretation then. Although, for me I think a few of them should have definitely been removed.

For me, I wouldn't handle them any different. I'd either comb through them right then, and there or I would put it on my todo list, and comb through it later. I guess some moderators might prefer to be directed to the spam one by one. I guess this is down to the reporter, at worst as long as your report is accurate it should be left as unhandled, in the worst case scenario, however some moderator willing to delve deeper should pick up that unhandled report, and turn it into a good one, as I said as long as it's accurate. Actually, I think this is a decent example of when the unhandled status, is the best option. Since, the report might be accurate somewhat, however it's not specific enough for the moderator viewing it, so they leave it as a soft bad.

If you report the original thread, and it sits unhandled, I at the very least should be able to see it within the sections that I'm a moderator or if the thread owner is a newbie.

Yeah, although I think his wrestling skills should be able to get him out of trouble most of the time, we see it time, and time again when wrestlers get hurt, they instinctively get the takedown, and then recover shortly after. I think in the early rounds we could see something like that if he does get hurt. I'll probably be staying away from the event in betting terms, too close to call, and there's too many ifs, and buts for me.

I do want Curtis to bounce back with a win though, the knockout blow he had from Lewis was absolutely horrible for him, and he seems like a real nice guy outside the cage. 

I like him, and I had him winning against Alex, however I'm not quite sure I want to see him going against the guys you mentioned quite yet. I just feel for entertainment value we'll get a little bit more for our buck once hes settled down a little. I feel while he's very good, and probably could challenge for the title, I don't think its a good idea that he's rushed to it. Obviously, I want fighters to be challenged so I wouldn't be too bothered if he did fight one of the guys mentioned, I just think for his team they need to take the foot off the gas a little.

I can only speak for myself. If I cant act on a report, I usually leave it in the queue. For example, if it's for plagiarism, but involves a higher ranked account that I can't nuke, but it was reported within a section I moderate, I usually leave them in anticipation that a staff with the appropriate permissions looks into it further. While, this example is a little different to what we have here, I would expect that a similar process might happen.

I can't for definite tell you the best way, personally I think indvidual reports can be good at times, especially when a thread isn't covered from top to bottom in spam, however when most of the thread is spam, or it's overwhelmingly congested with spam, I think reporting the original thread could be best, indicating that there's several posts that need to be removed or maybe not the original thread itself, but a spam comment in that thread. Users do this for bumps, instead of reporting every bump individually, they report the most recent one that needs to be removed, and indicate that several others have been made. I think a workflow similar to that might be beneficial, otherwise the moderator reviewing the report might think your expecting action to be taken on the original thread itself, which wouldn't be the case.  

Personally, for me I don't see too many problems with the suggestion, although I'd willing to listen to anyone who has any ideas on the best workflow. I think the amount of reports we've recieved the last few months is rather unprecedented, and isn't something that usually happens, and since this thread has mostly been exhausted, I don't think we'll be seeing it too often in the future either. So, the issues really only start to seep in when we have exceptional cases like this, otherwise reporting as you normally would is probably fine.

Not sure if that makes sense to you guys at all. However, I think when there's a thread covered in spam, and I mean top to bottom, and it would result in hundreds of reports, I think potentially reporting just a few, and indicating there's more could be the best idea to prevent spamming other moderators report queues, that might want to be dealing with more urgent matters.

This is kind of the reason I'd like to see the report page with the ability to filter, so that things like this would not affect those that don't want to see it. Also, would be useful for local sections.

Most users include some sort of comment, however if you report is pretty much self explanatory, or is pretty obvious to identify then you probably don't need to go into much complexity. Most users use a copy, and paste approach, and just use the same comments.

However, for more complex cases then adding a bit of an explanation will increase the chances of the report being handled correctly.
If users are interested in having buttons which correspond with every guideline on the unofficial guidelines with mprep, then let me know as I've whipped something very rough up. However, it's rather messy, and probably more likely to give you annoyance, and information overload than be useful.

Although, will likely for a long time only be used against high profile targets. So, in other words a target which they know has a lot of Bitcoin stored with that seed. Obviously, this has very limited use cases, since it would require someone storing their seed in a randomised way at least compared to how they generated the seed, and the attack would have to know they've got enough Bitcoin in it to justify the attack. So, while it will definitely get more probable in time, the use case of it is limited to say the least.

Even if you were somehow confident you couldn't forget it in the traditional ways of forgetting. There could be potential issues with your health, which means you could be the victim of memory loss, rather than just simply forgetting. That isn't something you can plan for, however if someone in your family knows you were into Bitcoin, and you discovered the seed in a safe location, but didn't know what it was initially, likely you could or your family could piece two, and two together if the seed was stored in the correct sequence. That possibility is largely lost if the seed is stored any different to how it was originally generated.

Hmmm, very loosely you could probably argue that. I don't tend to think of the merit system as a ways of liking someones post though. Rather, using it as a way of rewarding effort, and good quality content. Though, usually that does mean you have to sort of like the post to an extent, I don't think that should be the primary focus.

Although, I'm probably against the idea of a liking system, think our modern world has more than enough of it with social media these days.

I'm not entirely sure when the good ol' days started, and ended or if they ever existed at all. One thing for sure is, we've lost a lot of good users throughout the years. However, I don't necessarily believe that's because the forum got worse, but like I suggested before older users are more prone to getting annoyed at issues which have been constant, and because we don't tend to dwell on the past (I mean these years, especially political issues people seem to have memories like goldfish, but that's another matter ) we do tend to forget about the bad, and only remember the good. That's what nostalgia does, ever go watch a movie or play a game you loved as a child? Then, when you come to play it you realise how bloody bad it is. This is usually because of passion, which creates the rose tinted glasses outlook you mentioned. I don't doubt there's a lot of passion around this forum, it's quite obvious with the amount of time users have dedicated over the years, whether that's posting, reporting, or handling trust issues, we've got a lot of users that are dedicated here.

I haven't always liked certain rules as an example, however with time I think I've come to the realisation they're implemented the way they are, because if you didn't it would open up a can of worms. For example, not moderating scams, in my early years I just couldn't get my head around it, now I can understand why. Also, I think over the years I've become a little more aware of censorship issues, and how Bitcointalk is largely a safe haven from it compared to other forums.

I think the biggest offender recently of low quality signature campaign posters was recently halted, and there was a whole debacle over in Reputation over users not getting paid. That by far had the most spammers out of the Bitcoin paying campaigns. Since then, I generally think we're in a good place, if we aren't maybe us moderators need to be made aware of that by reporting them, as long as they're breaking forum rules of course, but generally signature spammers are.

There's always probably going to be examples, however that's why I used the word rarely. I don't think the Bitcoin paying signature campaigns, currently have widespread issues. However, if we start talking about bounties, and altcoin paying signature campaigns, that's when the problems really start to fire up. I do think something needs to be done for the latter, I just don't know what would be the best thing to implement for that, so as we stand I don't really have any suggestions.

Paddy showed us a bit more of his skill set this event, I'll be honest I haven't bought into the hype yet, but I'll give props where it's due. I think a lot of people expected him to be the knock out artist, a bit like Conor. However, he quite possibly showed that he has something different to his game, somewhere that Conor struggled in.

The only one to let me down was Cory Mckenna, and unfortunately she was one of the bigger favourites of the night, except for Ilia Topuria. Disappointed for her, but it was probably the correct decision, she got some decent control time which I was hoping would count to something, but she took too much damage in the stand up I think.

Not sure what's next for her, but one thing for clear is she needs to bounce back after being such a large favourite, and losing.

Yeah, it wasn't me that handled those reports. Going forward, you can always report a thread as being artificially bumped or something along those lines. We're all pretty well aware of Decent, and pretty much all of these threads now, so combing through them, and reporting each post probably isn't necessary. I'll be periodically checking most of these, and cleaning them up as time goes on. As you can imagine, older content might be seen as lower prioriity than current spam, and hence why some moderators might disagree with reporting old content.

That's probably a better workflow going forward, since that doesn't spam the rest of the moderators report queues, and when reporting just the thread, whoever sees that report can go through the thread, delete what they think is necessary, and then mark the report as handled.

I prefer to handle spam if it's spam, especially if the thread is still active. I do think questions need to be potentially asked what's the best way of handling a  thread which has effectively been deleted e.g decent, however I don't feel comfortable just trash canning it since there's a lot of history in that thread which could be of use to someone. I'm thinking potentially archival, and maybe that'll prevent the constant conversations going on currently.

However, to be clear on your question; I think reporting just the original thread, indicating bumping services or accounts have been artificially bumping it would be better, to prevent clogging up other moderators report queues. Then, the moderator handling that report, can either decide to leave it to someone who's willing to go through the thread, and sort it out or they can go through it themselves, and then mark it as handled once completed. At least this way, we're still cleaning up some threads, and also making moderators aware that there's a problematic thread, but it also doesn't clog up other moderators queues that might want to attend to more urgent reports.

Although, I can't really comment on why the moderator might have marked those bad (I haven't always handled your reports in the past, and others have, and marked them good), I do believe some of them were borderline. Some were potentially raising up legitimate concerns, despite the use of profanity. So, a moderator could have seen them as on topic enough. I know I've marked a few of yours bad in the past for reporting content which is basically half on topic, and half sort of abusing each other, but I just lent towards it being on topic enough. Although, some of those posts you've mentioned to me are low quality, and/or off topic, and I would have likely removed at least some of them.

I understand why KYC exists to a certain extent, but I believe before they lock your account, they should be defining limits, which you can't go over. It's actually criminal that they can just lock up your funds, and demand information from you.

That's actually ridiculous. The fact that they ignored their own standards suggests their security is a bit of a joke in the first place, but asking for KYC for resetting a password? The worlds gone mad, I feel like that is something you should be opting into rather than by default. Seems like any excuse these days to get your details on record.

The only problem with that is it often gets lost with the twenty different other conversations (while still remaining on topic) going on about the Altcoin, assuming its a popular thread that is. For me, Altcoin Discussion needs more substantial threads, than is X better than Y? which I assume might have been the original purpose of that.

Although, most Altcoins copy one another these days, there's only really a couple that are truly unique.

Aside from the Electrum suggestion, if you're determined to figure out why it won't work on the browser, the only other things I see that would prevent the website working properly after disabling addons, would be the settings inside the browser itself.

For example, enabling "enhanced tracking protection", and setting it to strict can break certain websites. As well, if you are refusing cookies in the first place, that can prevent certain websites from working. I expect it might be something to do with the enhanced tracking protection though. Either by whitelisting that domain in the custom options or switching to standard protection might help.

That doesn't really explain why the mobile app isn't working for you, though. What error is the mobile app spitting out?

Also, the browsers you checked on, did you customise any of the settings or were they default settings?

Altcoin Discussion. Anything altcoin goes into that general section, because we lack anything to the equivalent of the Bitcoin's Development & Technical Discussion, post it in Altcoin Discussion.

If you're worried about the quality of replies you might get there, either make it self moderated, and delete any reply you don't deem contributing to the discussion or report it to a moderator if you believe it's breaking forum rules. I know that the Altcoin section is a little messy, but it would be nice to see more technical discussion with a bit of substance, and maybe we'll start getting that the quality to increase over time.

There's also a misconception going around that 21 million isn't enough. When, technically at the moment we don't need use most of the denominations of Bitcoin. Whenever Bitcoin comes too scarce, the price of it theoretically should go up as long as there's demand, that means in twenty years or so, we'll likely be sending satoshi's rather than 0.1, 0.5, 1 BTC. In fact, you could go as far to say that despite fiat having an unlimited amount of supply via injecting more notes into circulation, Bitcoin is actually more scalable. Sounds like a contradiction, but I do believe there'll be a time where people become sick of battling inflation, and will look for alternatives which will cause crashes upon crashes of fiat, until it effectively gets replaced by another system. Whether, that's Bitcoin or not I don't know. Maybe, more scalability is a little inaccurate, but I'm lacking a better term right now. 
Which to some degree, I kind of wish we just said a maximum supply cap, rather than 21 million. 21 million technically is correct, except the realistic cap is much lower. I know we could be accused of being vague, and non transparent if we didn't exactly point out what the cap is, but in all reality the actual number doesn't matter all that much. What matters is that there's a cap, and therefore inflation should theoretically be minimal, or completely eradicated. Hence, why Bitcoin being called deflationary by design is thrown around.

I know you want to own the private key, which is exactly the approach you should be taking, however you shouldn't be seeing your private key all that often. In fact, I'd say you only see it when backing it up the first time your generate it. You shouldn't be entering your private key each time, and you shouldn't be keeping a digital copy of it either.

Now onto the wallet, the recommendations have already been suggested, but it all depends on your intention. ColdCard is brilliant for creating a offline air gapped wallet, but it's complex to setup, and you lose a lot of functionality if you want to be accessing that Bitcoin often. For example, purchasing things, or trading. You could potentially use a ColdCard as a hot hardware wallet, but I don't think I could justify the cost, and loss of features that the ColdCard excels at, so I would probably look at a Trezor or similar device, since those are pretty much designed to be accessed frequently, and the initial cost of them is lower than a ColdCard.

Otherwise, it probably has to be Electrum. Electrum is free, and depending on the way you setup your wallet, and your personal threat level could b enough for your situation.

Definitely isn't lost, its just currently with the volatility as you mention, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Holding it, makes much more sense. I basically, hold my Bitcoin, rarely ever spend it, and then do most of my spending in fiat. I think that's what most non traders are doing. In my eyes, and I know this is part of a problem here, Bitcoin at its current price is just too valuable to justify spending it. There's too much potential there if you get what I mean.

I don't think we're miles off using it as a currency though. I'm hoping within the next twenty years we'll be using it more as a currency, and not just a reserve fund. I'm just saying even if we didn't, it doesn't mean Bitcoin instantly becomes worthless.

Burns should absolutely be more of a challenge. If it ends in a similar way to the last fight I'll be really suprised, especially as quickly as that. Burns should prove to be a challenge. Especially, if he can avoid a takedown, I don't see him being threatened too much in the stand up.

I wouldn't read too much into that. A lot of fighters do it, in fact I've seen a lot of Youtubers do it too. I don't know if it adds to your "coolness" scale or what. Apparently, it's quite the trend to not see indoors.

While we've come leaps, and bounds in terms of usability, I do still believe we aren't quite there yet. We need to try, and simplfy Bitcoin, so that everyone understands it. At the moment, especially on securing your Bitcoin there's a lot to learn. Hardware wallets have pretty much launched has ten fold in terms of allowing users that don't have much knowledge on the security side of things, being able to secure it at a decent level. However, there's still the complication of them being a little too hard to understand, and use. For example, ColdCard is brilliant in terms of the technical side, however its just too hard to understand, and setup for an average person with no cryptocurrency background.

Yeah, Bitcoin isn't being used as a daily currency by the masses. Instead, they're using it for a means of potentially escaping the rat race that fiat promotes i.e they're using it as a reserve currency, as a way of escaping inflation. I don't have a problem with that, and even if pretty much everyone used it like this, it would still be valuable. I've said this many times, but I think the original purpose of Bitcoin has been lost by the many, and now they just see it as a potential way to make money, rather than acknowledging the problems with banks, and how fiat fundamentally stripes their freedom.

Since when did Mcgregor go to jail for throwing a chair at the bus? Any normal person doing that would have likely been locked up. The thing is, it was likely staged to a degree. I do believe there is some animosity there, but I think that's more competitive than anything really malicious. We have to remember that every organisation likes to do this, WWE openly does it, boxers have admitted faking beef in the past just to sell fights.

Dana talks through his arse on the best of days, so he can't really take his word for anything. The amount of lies he comes up with on a weekly basis post fights is pretty ludicrous, especially when he's talking about fighters wages, and the treatment of them.

Paddy, and Topuria are some of the best prospects in MMA. Of course, creating a beef between them hypes them up even more. This is show business, I think we have to remember that. Even Conor in his prime was selling fights, his words definitely probably did annoy his opponents, but at the end of the day they know that it was to sell fights. I mean, that's one of the arguments fighters have countered Conor with, is he's all talk, and is just trying to make money by selling the fights. More often than not in his prime he delivered on that smack talk though.

I don't think the forum's quality has gotten worse over time, I just think the more veteran users have forgotten what it was like many years ago, but because of the constant issues have grown tired of it eventually. Signature campaigns have been around forever, however the quality imposed by the managers (at least the main sections) has become a lot better than it was five years ago. I'd like to think that moderation has gotten better, with more moderators in key sections, and I think right now while there's a lot of spam on the forum, we've got a community that's dedicated to reporting it, which is largely a thankless task.

To me, it's quite clear that this community is far different to most others out there. The community generally wants to better itself, however there's a certain ceiling to that. We are never going to completely eradicate spam, there's going to be instances over the years where the moderators, campaign managers, and general forum user disagrees. I like to think that while theymos does get a lot of criticism for taking a long time to implement things, when he does its usually well thought out, and betters the forum to no end. For example, the merit system was revolutionary, and has prevented many of the farmed accounts getting to where they wanted, and the introduction of the bumping system in the altcoin section, has pretty much revolutionised the amount of spam users actually see.

We still have problems sure, and we'll continue to have those problems. I tend to believe we're in a better position than we was a few years ago, based on those changes alone. I think generally removing the newbie jail was a good idea, even if I was conflicted with the idea before.

The altcoin campaigns have always been lower quality. You'll rarely see users participating in Bitcoin signature campaigns without actually being a decent poster. The altcoins section is a different story, mainly because they're paying you next to nothing, because they pay you with their worthless tokens, which can't be sold regardless. So, naturally only lower quality posters are interested in joining.

However, if their posting quality is that bad you can report them, and they'll likely get handled.