You understand incorrectly. There are a number of tracking tools available internally, and externally from the forum. Here are just some them internally:

Variety of site wide metrics: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=merit
Your personal merit page: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=merit;u=1550857

Your personal merit page will show you merit you have received, and sent recently. If you would like to check another users recent merit history you can check via the "Merit" link in their profile view. You can also amend that link I gave you, and replace your username ID with theirs. What this thread is discussing is the fact that the merit page isn't visible to those that aren't registered on the forum.

Its annoying as I'm not a huge fan of Googles way of handling things a lot of the time. The privacy concerns which come with using Google services sticks out in my mind, but despite this fact their services are hugely the better of the bunch, and sometimes there has to be a compromise. I'd say there's much better alternatives to their mailing system, and their DuckDuckgo's search engine is much more consistent these days, but I'm not tried any other service which is clearly better than their captcha system.

The amount of reports within the altcoin section, has fallen massively ever since the new bump changes were implemented. I'd love to clean the section up as much as the next guy, but we over at the altcoin section are two dedicated sets of eyes which aren't going to stumble across everything (Of course patrollers, and global moderators also lend in a hand). I've been wanting to step up the moderation in the Altcoin section for a while, but have lacked time recently with everything going on. However, I don't want to be so aggressive that it stops users wanting to partipate. There is good discussion within the altcoin sections, and some of it is actually quite enjoyable to read. However, there is a lot of noise within the section, as we all know. Although, I think its quite possible with our current resources to tackle the issue, it would be nice if we could get some help from fellow reporters. A few months ago, I was waking up to 1000s of reports in my report queue, now I'm waking up to on average 50, and I am a patroller so some of those are not even within the altcoin sections.

I disagree that the site is "bitcointalk", and that's all it should contain as its evolved over the years to much more than that. This is the forum that everyone knows of to come, and discuss about Bitcoin as well as cryptocurrencies in general. I'm not sure about you guys, but I find the concepts of cryptocurrencies interesting, and not just Bitcoin. Although, a little disclaimer I'm not invested or involved in any other cryptocurrency other than Bitcoin, but I still enjoy reading about various projects. Having said that, there are a lot of scams within the section, and a lot of those scams are getting increasily good at hiding themselves or appearing legit through unverifiable means. I think the solution to the scam issue is informing those within the sections of the downfalls of altcoins, and the possible indications of scams. I think a very indepth guide could probably be written within the section, and stickied.

Also, if you guys get rid of the altcoin section you put ol' Welshy out of a "job" . In all seriousness, you could see this reply of mine as a biased point of view due to my role within that section, but I genuniely believe the things I've said, and I believe before even coming a moderator of the section I stated multiple times that it can be a home to constructive conversation. However, that hasn't always been true. In my early to mid days I avoided that section like the plague, and shared similar opinions to those within this thread, I do believe I even had it on ignore. However, our opinions, interests, and roles change in life, and I know there's a large portion of substantial users within the community that partipate in the altcoin sections, and if that were removed there would be no current "good" alternative source.


The altcoin section has, and always has been a problem I don't dispute that fact, and there probably needs to be a little more actions being taken within the section, but just because you remove that section doesn't mean that those same users that were spamming wouldn't leak into other sections. We've seen this with the low quality replies leaking into Project Development, and Service announcements on the main Bitcoin sections.

Always nice to have a nice clean interface as I believe these statistics are hidden here on the forums. I'm not sure of the overall accuracy of those statistcs,  but like TryNinja said they seem to be somewhat up to date on the statistics included on the site.

Its nice to see a new user with a passion for the forums. Trust me, it will get worse, and you will have withdrawal symptoms from any extended breaks that you take.

There we go, I think it may have just been me mixing up Raoul Duke, and Stefan Thomas. I've just done a quick search to back up that fact, and I can't see any mentions of Raoul as an admin so my memory may have been flawed. I knew there was at least one other admin which wasn't around anymore, and that seems to be Stefan rather than Raoul.

There's been a few other admins which were not "head" admins such as:  Raoul Duke who was last active in 2019. My memory fails when they were no longer a staff member, but I believe there does exist a thread when they were made an admin.

I said there was a few, but that might not be the case as my memory is coming up blank right now. I could have sworn there was a thread which documented all staff member changes throughout the years though.

There's been several admins which have been appointed since Satoshi left, and several which are no longer active or staff members. Theymos has been the longest serving admin. There was a thread around here which I think documented the changes over the years, and has all staff movements.

There hasn't been any appointments of new users as an admin.

I heard there's some real good candiates running this year.

It did expose me to a few posts that I otherwise wouldn't have seen, and I believe they are pretty substantially put together, and provide some insight into a world which I'm not all that familar with anymore. I've pretty much stopped almost all forms of gambling since a couple of years ago, and don't really frequent the section often.

Plus, my merit output has been somewhat low due to decreased activity recently so hopefully this is a sign of change

I think it marks a time for celebration, because you know historically in roughly 12-36 months your Bitcoin holdings will start benefiting from the price impact that the Bitcoin halving has supposedely had previously. Of course, nothing is ever certain in life, and the halving may have had little to no effect on the price previously, and it might be other contributing factors, but I can see why in theory you would be looking forward to a Bitcoin halving event. It doesn't happen often, and every time that it does happen the amount of halving events in the future decrease.

There's definitely a misconception with the price, and Bitcoin halving though. It definitely doesn't have an immediate impact like users here are hoping for. Theoretically, it should increase the value of your Bitcoin, but that as always is a contribution of other factors too.

I used to have different views, mainly because I was never really part of a internet forum before this, but I think its clear that most accounts changing hands are for illegitimate reasons, and most go on to use that reputation to scam. Of course, there's also legitimate reasons such as buying businesses, and wanting all the socials with that, but that is very rarely extended to Bitcointalk, and is more related when concering Twitter, and Instagram. However, I will defend the "inherited" depending on what you mean by inherited, if a family member of a deceased user wants to take a look at their history, and specifically their personal messages (and was given permission prior to the death) then I think that's fine. Of course, verifying whether permission was given would be a difficult one. However, I do agree that they shouldn't post on that account, and take over the identity of their loved one. Although, its highly unlikely that someone would do that, as they would much rather perserve the account, and identity.

- If the account is logged into, but doesn't post it doesn't mean that this was through illegitmate means.
- If the account posts an announcement of the death this  doesn't necessarily mean the account has been compromised.
- If the account continues to post as if nothing happened, or announces that they hadn't really died then this would be cause for investigation
- If the account comes on, and requests a loan, or other highly risky sceanrio. Then immediate action would likely need to be made to reduce damaging the image of Bruno.

I believe the best scenario is if any of the above happened is to bring it up with the admins, and let them investigate. If they suspect foul behaviour then they can ban the account, while retaining the reputation of Bruno. If its a highly risky situation, then temporary feedback could be left until the final verdict. Its a case by case scenario, but just because x happens does not mean there needs to be a bandwagon trust spilling episode.

I don't think it would just be tagged just like that. I think we have enough brain cells (combined) within this community to determine whether an account has likely been handed down to family members or if it has been compromised or sold. Generally, if a family member was to gain access to the account they wouldn't likely actively use it, or sell it and instead would want to read personal messages, and maybe address the community if Bruno requested that. I wouldn't expect them to go on, and apply for a signature campaign as an example. When you lose a loved one, or friend all you want to do is reminise, and rememebr them for who they are. So, I don't think we'll be seeing anyone take over the account, and post under Brunos name. Instead, we may see login activity on the account, but I don't think that would be for particular alarm. Theymos as stated that any activity will likely have to be looked into due to the custom title etc, but I imagine there will be many community users, as well as staff members keeping an eye on the account, and looking for anything suspicious. Although, merely being actively logged into wouldn't be an issue per say. Although, theymos has more details than the public if that were to happen, so would be able to determine the likely scenario.


For myself personally, I'd much rather concern myself with other logistics of me dying, and making sure my family has access to things they can benefit from rather than perserving my passion of Bitcointalk, so its very low down on the priority list. Future disclaimer to any of my family members, my personal messages are rather boring. In all seriousness, its very sad whats happened to Bruno, or any others deceased users of the forum, and I'd hope that this community can understand that sometimes account access may be given to family members, and its not nesscarily a cause for alarm, and specifically painting the account red probably isn't the best idea without verifying it first.

gmaxwell has a point. I believe a custom title would be better than risking trivializing it with a lighthearted icon. I do agree that this is a heartwarming way of saying farewell to our friends, but what would be considered proof for this to be applied? I'm not suggesting Bruno, or any previously deceased members have done this, but would there be an incentive to future users to fake this in order to make their account stand out, and then returning after a while, trying to sell the account or even possibly trying to get out of trade deals. I guess, permanently banning the account when giving the custom title would prevent this.  

I'm terribly sorry to hear the news of Bruno, and wish his family, and friends the best in this difficult time.

I'm not even sure if they've been drastically reduced or just hidden from the majority of users due to the exposure not being there anymore. There's many services still offering to create a fake buzz for a company, and this will always exist. The new bumping system definitely doesn't effect that side of things. Of course, there's been a visible change in the amount of posts that are getting reported, but every once, and a while someone stumbles upon several pages of this sort of behaviour, and its been suggested in both posts, and reports that these sort of services are actively advertising themselves on Discord, Telegram, and other platforms.

Also, I'll take a look at the ones you've linked in a short while.

Its probably a good idea, but its up the the local moderator to enforce that, and if I've learned anything about local sections there seems to be a much more "togetherness" within the sections, and its probably better if each local section decides this among their community rather than a moderator acting on their own behalf. Technically, as long as the threads are substantial, and don't break any other rules I'd agree with a few others who posted here that its good to have difference perspectives, and different types of conversations about the current pandemic.

This can vary a lot depending on the moderator that is handling it. Some moderators don't want to have their queues filled up with reports that could have been done in one post. However, whether or not the moderator handling that report goes through all of them which they might have to actively search depends on how much time they have. I usually leave posts to others if I haven't got enough time, but sometimes we are half way through deleting them, and something comes up.

If you notice that this has happened you can always report one of the posts again, and ask for the rest to be cleared up. So, instead of reporting 100, you could report 1-2 in a span of a few weeks if they haven't been handled.

Well, I can say that its reduced the amount of headaches the moderators have with handling reports from that section, and I imagine for those that frequent the section. The spam still exists, but is not exposed to the vast majority of users. Less scam projects are being bumped to the top, and although it may have its flaws, and may seem unfair its a vast improvement for the altcoin section. I wouldn't agree with adding it to the rest of the sections, but for the altcoin section specifically its almost perfect.

This topic has been moved to Trashcan.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5236616.0

Giveaway via low quality requirements

I've been wanting to rewrite the guide ever since I became a moderator with some more information that I've learned from experience. This was written when I wasn't a moderator, and only had one side of the view point. Unfortunately, this year has been kicking my butt, and haven't had as much time as expected. You'll see my activity be somewhat sporadic over the last few months due to various worldwide events as well as personal.

I'm hoping by the end of the year (I know) to have rewritten this guide, and figure out how to make it very useful, but still condensed enough that users don't just ignore it. I'm not happy with the content currently, but I know that I have a tendency to not be concise enough. So that's going to be a challenge for myself. Though, I think the final product will be more worthy to sticky than its current version. Although, I'm not sure how beneficial it would be to most users on Bitcointalk so not sure it even justifies a sticky. 

Despite my recent criticisms of a well known bank within the United Kingdom I still think most banks don't have a problem with Bitcoin itself, but the high potential of scams, and shady business practices that operate within the cryptocurrency space. For example, every day we get a new altcoin/ICO scam. So, I can understand banks being rather reluctant to sort of trust their customers to make good judgement calls, because if they don't follow the protocols then they'll probably find themselves in deep water if too many people complain. Its a double whammy, but cryptocurrencies are a highly risky business depending on where you're sourcing them from.

This is why I would prefer to put my trust into an individual which obviously didn't create their account on the forum specifically for offering escrow services, and have built up a long positive reputation because of their actions within the community. Of course, there's always a risk when involving a third party, but there are more riskier options out there than putting your trust into one of the well known escrows here. Many escrows on this site have dealt with hundreds of Bitcoins, sometimes in a single transaction. So, depending on your trade 15,000 is probably not worth risking their reputation for.