The only issue I see with the community decided design would be the issue with multiple accounts voting for certain poll results which could skew the results (Just like this poll is also subject too). Whether, we allow community submitted results, and have a cut off where no more submissions can be submitted then vote on it. Ultimately, I feel like with the abuse of polls it could end up with theymos making a decision on it. Although, I feel the community submitted designs is definitely the way to go about this. PS: I did not read any of the contents you put in the OP (just in case you wanted to brainwash :-P ). So my picks were biased free :-D
I've actively tried to stay unbiased at least towards the beginning, but I think I've ultimately failed in that as it proved to be difficult. Unfortunately, as a result there are a few personal opinions mixed in there so I would encourage users to vote before reading unless they don't understand a certain option! I'll likely edit some of the things which could add bias into it. This isn't an official vote obviously, and polls can be abused, but hopefully will get the ball rolling if it hasn't already, and prove somewhat useful to theymos. |
|
|
|
Regarding the up and coming 10th anniversary of the forum, and a lot of speculation whether anything special has been planned, and if anything has come to fruition with the production of the collectible coins idea, and assuming they haven't I thought we could take on the philosophy of OgNasty's quote here: I have long wanted to put out a community coin designed by the community, for the community. And allow everyone to pitch in with ideas, and voting in hopes to move the Bitcointalk collectible coin proposal into a reality. Hopefully, with the end result being a community driven effort to show our appreciation to those that are rewarded the coins by theymos. Here are some of my thoughts, however feel free to pitch in with your own ideas, and poll suggestions
Candidates to manufacture the coins Assuming they would be willing to manufacture the coins Casascius casascius the man himself who started it all, and is probably the most renowned, and respected due to being the first person to have manufactured a collectible Bitcoin coin called casascius. A user at the forum since 2010, and has contributed to the forum separate from his collectible coins manufacturing. Plus, in my opinion it would be fitting to have one of the more prolific coin manufactures create the Bitcointalk 10th anniversary coin. However, casascius doesn't seem to be that active in the last few years he definitely still remains one of the most recognized within the Bitcoin collectible world. According to BPIP stats Casascius is the 182nd most trusted user on the forum. smoothie smoothie known for their LEALANA coins. Has most recently worked with Monero coins, and has shown a decent production value. Being part of the forum since 2011, and arguably one of the most trusted users within the forums collectible scene, and has proven to be a productive user of the forum over the years. We probably wouldn't go far wrong with getting smoothie to manufacture the coins. smoothie being still somewhat active in the community is a plus. According to BPIP stats smoothie is the 26th most trusted user on the forum. Kialara Kialara being one of the newer users considering they registered on the forum in 2014. However, I think its fair to say that their production, and design of coins is nothing to scoff at. Probably providing the most elegant designs on this list, as well as still being part of the community for a number of years. Kialara looks to be still active, and participating in the forum. According to BPIP stats Kialara is the 75th most trusted user on the forum. External manufacturer who is not part of the forumWe could potentially search for other manufacturers which haven't been part of the forum, however this could end up taking away from the magic of the coin. I liked the quote by OgNasty of making this a community coin, and honouring that I believe it would be better to get manufacturers who are directly part of the forum. *I think its worth giving one of these coins to the manufacturer of the coin as a thanks, and being part of the creation process. The design process Deciding on a design should in my opinion be done via the community if we would like to keep to the theme of a community created coin. Therefore, I would suggest holding a competition for anyone on the forum to enter on a dedicated thread. They would submit their designs for the coin, and their reward would be getting one of the coins themselves for designing it. This should prove to be incentive enough. The result could be determined by either theymos, a whole community vote, or only those that are to receive the coins. How many coins should be made and should they be funded? As proposed by theymos he suggested creating between 50, and 300 collectible coins. My suggestion would be to create separate groups, and rewarding them for different reasons if the budget allows. As well, as including both unfunded, and funded coins. For example, the first 10 coins could go to those which were absolutely vital to the development, and survival of the forum who have contributed so much that they deserve to be remembered. These first 10 coins could be funded with small/large amounts. The rest of the coins can be distributed unfunded, and to those that have had a remarkable impact on the forum, contributed greatly or been somewhat of a icon to the forum. The issue with funding coins is a license may need to be required depending on the legislation of the country the person funding them resides in. I believe Casascius ran into problems with FINCEN because they believed it to be transmitting money. Certificate and presentation? I believe a certificate presented with the physical Bitcointalk coin would add a personal touch. The certificate could state who it has been rewarded too, as well as thanking them for their efforts. These certificates could be customized, instead of customizing the actual coin for each user, and could save on costs without cutting back on the personal thank you, and meaning of receiving a Bitcointalk collectible coin. Presenting this in a box with the Bitcointalk identification on it or perhaps a logo of the collectible coin on the box could be a nice final touch.
Distribution Costs Theymos hinted to the possibility of giving away these coins or the possibility of requiring users to pay for their coin to receive it. Manufacturing these coins as well as adding the possibility of further customization could rack up, and become very expensive quickly. The idea of allowing users to pay for their coins is a good ideal, and although I believe the vast majority of users would be more than willing to pay for such an item what happens to the coins which have been appointed to someone, and they don't want to pay? Distribution of the coins could then become problematic. Delivery and logisticsExpanding on the point made in the costs section of this thread; The fact that users may not want to give their delivery address, might not have access to a PO box or might not even respond could become problematic. Therefore, the best option in my opinion would be messaging those that are to receive coins, and if they don't respond after a certain amount of time then the coin is distributed to someone else. If we were to create a public announcement of the users who are to receive coins, and possibly adding personalized certificates with each coin all users would have had to confirm they would like to receive a coin before this happens. Who gets the coins? We know the coins will have a limited supply which begs the question who should receive the coin, and what criteria must they fill? It is assumed the criteria will be determined by theymos However, Here's some example criteria: - Active user (to avoid coins not being claimed) - Iconic users of the forum (Users with a lot of history, and are known by the majority of the community) - Those who have contributed substantially to the forum (major development, major security bounties, and long serving staff members) - Using a formula such as BPIP's MAT (Most merited, activity, and most trusted) - Using a custom formula similar to BPIP's |
|
|
|
I'm kinda expecting theymos to quietly just make it, just like all other recent forum changes were only revealed when they were ready.
I'm really hoping that this is one of the announcements which gets input from the community. Despite has having that thread where he announced the possibility of these coins being made I'd also like to involve the community as much as possible. If this is a coin which is meant for certain users within the community it would be better to be designed by the community. Of course, if this has been a surprise then the design process would have already been done. Assuming it hasn't any effort to make the coins before the 10th anniversary will likely be impossible, but I might come up with a thread which will hopefully get this project started if it hasn't already. Even if that means receiving the coins after the 10th anniversary. |
|
|
|
Is there a bot that reports copy-and-paste posts, and then do those posts get banned en masse with little to no human review? For example, if someone uses the same quote in 2 threads, or the same paragraph of an on-topic important update about a coin, then that person could get banned. Right? I just saw another thread about that. AFAIK, every plagiarism report we get is reviewed by a member of staff. However, users are automating reports these days, and that's likely will the confusion comes from. There will always be a human (staff) verifying whether a report is correct or not. There is no automatic banning on the forum when it comes to plagiarism or anything for that matter. That way, if you said that the forum doesn't allow any 2 posts to contain any matching string of words, then your insult about "stop doing the behavior that got you banned" would mean something. Because then people would actually be able to know what gets them banned, so that they could avoid it. The above user already came to the conclusion that advertisement spam was what got them banned, and considering it was temporary then I would agree that was likely the case. Sometimes staff members will message a user if they are repeatedly breaking the rules instead of banning them. This depends on the staff member who is handling the report, though. But you didn't say that. You said no moderator would ban someone unless that person deserved it. That contradicts your later assertion that staff can make mistakes. You've repeatedly implied that the mods here cannot make mistakes, and that therefore there is no need for a ban appeal process because all bans are deserved. Sure, if we want to nitpick. Although, generally bans are highly accurate, moderators are human after all, there will always be mistakes, although a staff member wouldn't knowingly ban someone who didn't deserve it. Only a few bans get appealed successfully. These are usually when a piece of information wasn't apparent first of all, and after the user explaining their situation it justified a unban. This doesn't necessarily mean the staff member who issued the ban made a mistake. Here's a recent case of a user being unbanned: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5184328.msg52655319#msg52655319In fact a banned account is unable to contact moderators, because the account isn't allowed to send messages or even reports. The only apparent option for a mistakenly banned account is to use another account to create a topic here in Meta. Banned accounts can contact the admins via the appeal email that is left when a user is banned. Sometimes a community takeover dev moves a coin to a new blockchain, becoming the coin's new dev, but doesn't have the alert keys for the old wallet or the password to the ANN OP account (because the original devs were scammers and can't be contacted). Sometimes the new dev has a non-advertisement, on-topic update, and a message necessary to announce to thousands of holders of a coin. Sometimes it's the logical procedure to post the same information in 2 different topics, since an altcoin can have more than one active topic over the course of several years, and these topics are the primary way to reach the coin-holding community. Link to it on their website? I'm assuming that would be the best place for them to update their users, because important information like that can easily get buried on a forum post. Also, updating their OP with important information like that might be a good shout. |
|
|
|
I hope the Bitcointalk coins do get made eventually even if its not for the 10th anniversary although that would be incredibly fitting. Rewarding users who have been a vital part of Bitcointalk, and perhaps customizing them slightly for each user if that wouldn't make prices per unit skyrocket. I'm thinking 50-100 coins would allow for some sort of customization in batches. I don't believe that Satoshi will ever come back to this forum.
His mission is already completed, any way.
Regarding old members, I guess they are now dedicated to other projects and have probably lost interest in the events of this forum.
I don't think admins on the forum have any plan to encourage old members to return to the forum. Well, considering theymos posted about a sort of collectible coin for users who meet some sort of criteria I would say that it's likely that these will be older users rather than new. I imagine the criteria for most of them would be still active users though. Even if Satoshi is pretty much guaranteed to not return it seems weird to me not to create a coin for the founder of the forum. |
|
|
|
So several mods can ban newbies and low level users but in the event higher ranked accounts are being used (or have been purchased with a view to creating mischief), only 5 users have that functionality.
Local moderators, and patrollers can still report it to those with the permissions to ban though. They usually get dealt with within a few hours this way. I'm not sure the total number of staff who can nuke numbers as I don't think that has been disclosed. |
|
|
|
|
It would be nice to know the exact reason why they've moved away from the forum. Whether that be because they've found an alternative like Reddit to discuss Bitcoin or if they genuinely got tired of Bitcoin. I imagine they still keep an eye on the forum, but not actively participating in discussion. Either way, a notification probably wouldn't pique many users interest, especially if the recent rise in Bitcoin hasn't.
|
|
|
|
Just because I had this happen.
When restoring from very old core wallets (wallet.dat) keep in mind that you might have to use the same OS (Linux / Win / Mac) as the original file.
Not sure why, but I could not import a 0.7.1 wallet.dat from a Linux box into a Windows one. Gave a corrupt error and shutdown.
Popped the file into a CentOs like it was originally on and no issues.
Moved the updated wallet.dat back to the Windows machine and all was good. So it was something with the older version of the wallet.dat from a foreign OS
I can't think why there would be a reason for this to be happening, because as far as I know the current Bitcoin Core versions should be fully backward compatible with older versions, and the wallet.dat doesn't hold any information on what OS was used during creation. However, alternatively you could have imported the private key instead of running the original OS that the wallet was created on, unless you haven't backed up your private key. There's the other option of importing your seed which was generated at the creation of the wallet too. AFAIK, there should not be any problems with importing older wallet.dat files into newer operating systems even if they're different. Personally, I don't rely on the wallet.dat file, and have backups of my private keys which I took care in making sure they never touched a electronic device, and aren't stored in plain text. Although, I still have hot wallets like anyone else, but the majority of my Bitcoin is stored via these offline generated private keys. I believe a certain version of Electrum abandoned backwards compatibility a few years ago, but I'm not sure if I'm recalling that correctly, and even then I don't think Bitcoin Core in its history has rejected backward compatibility. Of course, even if older software isn't backward compt |
|
|
|
You're perfectly within your right to question any staff member. Staff are normal users too, and mistakes can definitely happen. This is the reason why there's a ban appeal process, and there have been multiple times that a ban has been lifted because of a mistake. Looking at it from the point of view that staff have "power" is the wrong way to look about it in my opinion. We just moderate based on the forum guidelines, and we aren't looking to assert our 'dominance' or show how powerful you're. You could open a thread, and call me all the names under the sun, and I wouldn't moderate it in the slightest as long as it was posted in the appropriate section. Your ban was only temporary, and I would just advise you to take that as a warning, and not continue the behaviour which got you banned in the first place, and you should be alright! Reading the forum guidelines from time to time is a great time sink in my opinion  |
|
|
|
My personal way of going about this which honestly I don't always abide by; Formulate your reply to the original threads contents first to assure you are remaining on topic. After that quote any user you wish to reply too with the quote tags. Directly beneath that include your reply to that quote removing as much white space as possible. There are a few users that reply their reply, and then quote, but all that does for me personally is destroy the fluidity of the thread. Although, every user has their preferences, and that's alright by me. Also I sometimes go reply-first in PMs - seems to be more convenient to read the reply immediately rather than scroll down, since usually the other person already knows what we're talking about, and it's similar to how e-mails are quoted.
A lot of users do this mainly for the fact that you mentioned. Usually, the user already has a good idea what their last reply was, but including a quote near the bottom of your email/PM will refresh their memory a little bit. I usually treat it the same in PM's that I do as if it was a reply on a thread, though. |
|
|
|
|
The system does work to some extent, and in theory its a very well designed system. However, like any system its the people who are involved that don't use the system correctly, and end up turning a useful, well designed system into what we have today. Unfortunately, no matter what changes we were to make there would always be bias, and manipulation within the system as well as the illusion of "power" of being on DefaultTrust gives users. That will go to peoples heads (not saying it is in this specific case), but that signals to the rest of us that this user probably isn't suited to being on DefaultTrust in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
Like I said I'm not the one that dealt with the reports against you, however I'm assuming you were banned for the advertisement of your pools in other users threads, and not because you are posting about a scam project, but without seeing the deleted messages myself this is based on speculation of what has been said in this thread. It may have been deleted for other reasons such as multiple posts in a row (not combing your posts into one) or something else unrelated. If it was a on topic post it would not have been deleted unless it broke another rule. Your ban however it likely to due to the fact that you were advertising mining pools in other users thread (probably in multiple users threads, and not just a one off).
|
|
|
|
Are you actually saying that you would ban people on the word of the original Bitconnect devs? Please confirm.
Isn't there a feature called "self-moderated thread" if the OP doesn't want people to have any freedom in their topic?
If the OP didn't choose self-moderation, why would he have any more authority than me over what people are allowed to say in the topic?
1. We ban on according to forum policy. Plus, considering it was a temp ban you were banned by either a admin or global moderator which are far more experienced than myself. 2. There is a option for self moderation, however I wouldn't describe that as the OP not wanting users to have freedom. 3. He doesn't have any authority, and I'm not saying that the particular thread you posted in reported your post. I'm stating that this advertisement spam in other users threads is not only disallowed by the forum guidelines, but also is not appreciated by many of the altcoin announcement thread owners. |
|
|
|
So a mining pool isn't allowed to go into a coin's thread and mention that they've added that coin?
No. If you'd like to send a personal message to the OP then you can do, maybe if they deem it appropriate they may add it to their website that you can mine their coin at x mining pool, and include a link to their website pool page on their thread. Other than that its not allowed, and a lot of the owners of these announcements actually report these sorts of posts. This question has already been answered directly on the unofficial guidelines thread by mprep: 22. Advertising (this includes mining pools, gambling services, exchanges, shops, etc.) in others threads' is no longer allowed, including, but not limited to, in altcoin announcement threads. This is a more up to date version than the 2014 post that you are referring too. |
|
|
|
|
If there was a way to identify who is ignoring you it would likely cause problems within the community. From my experience people generally hate being ignored, and would likely create a new account just to confront the user who is ignoring them which would just cause unneeded drama, and harassment within the community. If a user wants to ignore another user then they should be able to do that with the upmost privacy.
|
|
|
|
Actually, I think his story is a joke. 100BTC is a big money and anyone who is capable of earning 100 BTC must be very smart and knowledgeable about crypto. Of course, he will know how to protect his BTC stay away from hackers.
That is certainly not always the case. Despite me having doubts about that thread, and how genuine it actually is. Many early investors in Bitcoin may have simply mined a lot back in the day, and are now returning after seeing the price of Bitcoin. They might not necessarily have good security or even be knowledgeable in that field. Plus, the more mainstream, and accepted Bitcoin becomes the more people who are not going to be very strong in the security field. I can almost guarantee that many users who are holding onto big amounts are poorly managing their Bitcoin, and probably getting complacent like in any walk of life. |
|
|
|
Good to see constant one liners all over Bitcointalk aren't getting banned for spam as long as they keep it to an hour a post..
Makes sense!
That's not how it works. Users who continuously spam will likely be temp banned before getting banned permanently. However, just because a post is one line long doesn't mean its spam in the eyes of the forum staff. It might be against the guidelines of the signature campaign, but not of the forum. The forum doesn't require you to write essays like some campaigns which require a minimum character count. If Yahoo is removing users from his campaign, and believe that they are violating the forums guidelines aswell as his personal signature campaign guidelines then he can report them. I've got 10 reports in my queue right now because they require a little more investigation so if you want to report these posts that you consider spam then go for it! |
|
|
|
If posts don't get deleted for OBVIOUS BLATANT SCAMMING they certainly should not be deleted for grammar. Just sayin' !  The modlog definitely shows that there's a lot of activity when it comes to deleting spam, and other posts which go against the guidelines. Seriously English-broken posts deserve delete by moderators because no one have ability to understand such terrible ones.
These types of posts would be deleted if it is absolutely comprehensible, but usually we give the benefit of the doubt. At the end of the day our guidelines are don't be worried if you're not a native speaker, and certainly don't limit yourself to your local section if you've only just started learning English, but please just make sure its understandable to native speakers. If not, and your post does get deleted its not the end of the world unless you continuously post incomprehensible replies. However, I can't recall anyone that has been so bad they've had their posts deleted regularly because of this reason. It's usually something else. |
|
|
|
It is not a new feature, but has not yet presented in the guide, so I think @Welsh should consider to add more details for the Patrol page section.
With steps to customize Patrol page.
That would be a nice little addition. I'll get around to it at some point. Hopefully, this weekend I'll have some time to add to the guide. Although, this thread has definitely been the lower priority out of all my projects. I'll probably include ways of filtering sections to help with moderating too. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
