https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=ibminer99th most merited... nooo  As the desire for merit intensifies, and my merit rank naturally dwindles due to lack of activity, I don't expect to be in the top 100 for long. So at this time, before I fall off the top 100 list, I'd like to thank all my merit fans who supported me through my time of meritorious posts. And, to theymos for creating the merit system. Without you all, this obviously wouldn't have been possible!  I'd of course like to thank my family for putting up with the hours of time spent here, and I'd like to thank Vod for creating the BPIP ranking system in the first place.  I will now take a bow, and move about my day graciously.  
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not familiar with offering loans and accepting accounts as collateral, but would it be normal practice to take control of the staked address of the account they are getting as collateral for a loan? I thought it was normally just the account login information provided?
|
|
|
|
Intellectual Romanticist asked me to create a signature for abe token back in August and said that they will pay me before Sept. 20. Up until now I received no payment from them and he said that the dev have not yet sent him the funds to pay me with. I understand thst as a bounty manager, there'll be cases where he will not have access to the campaigns fund but as a bounty manager, he also have to ensure that he pays the people he asks services from. He then said that even if I made the deal with him, he don't have the miney to pay me because it not his project so I can't accuse him of scamming. Is this correct? IMO, if he made the deal with you, he (and his account) should be held responsible for that deal. If he has proof to show the developers not paying him for an agreement they had, he'd have to show that proof against the devs account in order to substantiate that claim. Do you have proof of the agreement and any terms or conditions that may have been set? |
|
|
|
Are there any threads where Lauda explains the purpose of these recent changes to their forum account? Link please.
This is the best explanation I've seen so far: Didn't you say you changed the email?
I did change it. What about it? Them's fightin' words!  |
|
|
|
One thing I have observed per the given out of this precious merit
 Couldn't resist. |
|
|
|
I shook my magic 8 ball and it said "All signs point to spliced articles" Let the housekeeping continue...  |
|
|
|
Just out of interest though, what was wrong with the sequence in a political discussion.
I realize you quoted me, but I'm not sure if this question was directed towards me or not, I didn't report the post... but if you want my general opinion, it would be that any back-to-back post by a single entity (especially in a short timeframe) could be deemed (#32. Posting multiple posts in a row), so it should be avoided if you don't want to get a warning (or mod wrist slappings ). It was probably more of an issue to the reporter that it was coming from an alt, but that's me speculating. While I would have preferred an edit on your prior post, I wouldn't have felt the need to report it. I do personally dislike it when people post from alts to try an create false perceptions for whatever the topic may be, or to sort of induce herd mentality to create fake support for a cause, project, or even an opinion.. but that's just because it's dishonest behavior IMO. (I don't believe that's what was happening here though.) The feedback is consistent with what I've done with other alts I've come across that do not appear shady, but I believe it's still potentially relevant information to have there for others. |
|
|
|
So what does this and this qualify as? (and no, I wasn't the person reporting the posts.) |
|
|
|
...if you are too lazy to answer it pass by!
I'm lazy? All the information you need to answer your own question is in the link you posted. Or are you too lazy to read it for yourself? Funny you aren't denying my allegation that you are not the originator of your account. I wonder why I have to prove something at all.my account is honest work here from 2014, but your accounts luring you write nonsense here.This forum was originally meant community! and if someone that it is not clear asked questions and received answers.Speculation and unfounded accusations such as you turn into a forum obscene . I looked at your posts, it is accusing and rudeness. Honest work? roflmao. Might be time to research that word in a dictionary... ah fuck it, just open a new thread asking what the word means, why bother doing any research?  |
|
|
|
This was only an issue in Chrome. Firefox seemed to be working fine.
Hmm, interesting... there shouldn't be anything hiding that element even with having it at -1, what version of Chrome are you on? For me the current z-index ordering is working fine on Chrome 69.0.3497 (latest) & also tested on 66.0.3359 (just because I had this version on another machine near me  ). Your changes seem to push the elements up 2 levels, which shouldn't really hurt anything to make these changes, but I'm just curious why it's happening and whether it's browser-based or I'm overlooking an issue with the ordering. Most other elements I've had to modify the z-index on are above 3 or well below -2, and the rest would be interpreted based on inheritances. BTW, if you need any help w/ something modular (something you can split off and re-implement w/o too much difficulty), feel free to shoot anything my way.
Thank you, I'll certainly keep this in mind! |
|
|
|
Just a thought, I'd probably drop the background from being "fixed" to just covering the entire page. It looks a bit cooler IMO, and will stop the glitchy scroll on less powerful browsers (laptops, etc) making scrolling a lot more smooth. https://i.imgur.com/yItB5bz.jpgChange css #main: background: url(../images/background-bitcoin-blur.jpg) no-repeat center center fixed; to background: url(../images/background-bitcoin-blur.jpg) no-repeat center center; Either that, or you can follow this in order to convert the BG to a pseudo element. https://www.fourkitchens.com/blog/article/fix-scrolling-performance-css-will-change-property/Thanks for the thought, I'd send some sMerit if I had any left. I had my own back and forth on this when doing the design but went with the fixed background because I kinda liked the effect of the transparent tables overtop the fixed BG, and liked being able to see the BTC in the background the entire time - of course. I haven't had time to test it yet but I've been intending go the will-change route to improve performance with the background effect. EDIT: Site has been adjusted to use a pseudo element for the fixed background effect. |
|
|
|
|
I'd help if I had time, and more importantly, if I thought it would actually help accomplish something. But I don't think me doing some sort of audit here would accomplish anything in this situation as it would rely on someone trusting me to accept the information and I doubt all of the astute ICO investors here care much about my opinion. And really, I'd rather not be the sole person enveloping myself in any financial matters that Lauda is involved with, or others for that matter.
Generally speaking, I always prefer escrows using methods which allow for public transparency and being able to show and track the amounts, and movements, of all invested funds.
|
|
|
|
Why is the forum admins....you know what, never mind. Take the Guaranteed Profit and all the bullshit about expected returns off of there though, that doesnt sit well with the SEC. Oh wait, it has nothing to do with the SEC, other than being listed on an exchange that does KYC. Why, why I ask. whyyyyy do you peddle guaranteed rates of return to people. Its like taking your shotgun, and shooting yourself in the foot. Anyways thats my 2satoshis.
You might want to keep away from the beer bong for a little while, Frank the Tank.  |
|
|
|
I'd rather not. If they are going to go through and delete posts, they can just as easily hit the 'report' button. Self-moderated threads all over the forum would just be annoying and I generally avoid self-moderated threads because they have typically been used to shut out the opinions of others and/or cover up shady activities. I don't want useless spam posts, but I'd rather have the mod deciding as opposed to the OP, let them report and the mods will decide. To take away a big load from the Mods, so they can concentrate on more important matters that deleting walls of spam
What are the more important matters they should be dealing with? Seems like spam and handling reported posts is 99% of the job they've been assigned? And good job with the SpamBuster club, it sounds like it is having some positive effect and should be continued. |
|
|
|
You appear to be operating on the assumption that they are different than me. Have you sufficiently ruled that out?
Yes, I've sufficiently ruled out that "they" are not you. Clearly you didn't even look at my archive links. You are welcome to prove me wrong though. Until then, it wasn't your idea. Regardless, Vod has a habit of following my posts fairly closely, so he probably did make the decision to upgrade the formula after reading the suggestion from QS. I don’t see any other reason why he would announce the change exactly 8 hours, 29 minuets, 45 seconds after I brought up the point.
Regardless of why Vod did it, this thread clearly shows you trying to claim credit for another members idea, which is plagiarism. Again, you are always welcome to prove this otherwise.
EDIT: (above for clarity, below for suchmoon - and to try and not derail this thread too much with additional posts) I like where this is going. What's the over-under for Quicksy's permaban?
Well, if we are going to go by the logic that Quickseller's himself is using: Regardless, Vod has a habit of following my posts fairly closely, so he probably did make the decision to upgrade the formula after reading the suggestion from QS. I don’t see any other reason why he would announce the change exactly 8 hours, 29 minuets, 45 seconds after I brought up the point.
I don’t see any other reason why Quickseller would come up with his idea exactly 1 hour, 2 minutes and 53 seconds after LoyceV last brought up the point... I think the airdropped Merit shouldn't count, that would put nullius a lot higher. Now many Legendary accounts fill the top 1000 because of the initial Merit, just like old accounts fill the Activity already.
Legendary members, or those who were legendary as of this past January have a significant advantage in this ranking as they started with 1000 merit so in general they will have a better merit ranking
It seems no matter whether I use my own logic or Quicksellers, odds are pretty good it's plagiarism, by definition. Just calling it like I see it.  |
|
|
|
Then perhaps there should be an additional merit requirement for the reporter board. Something low like 20 merits so as to not inconvenience legitimate users but it would be a significant hurdle for bot farmers.
Another option (if SMF allows) would be to make it invite-only and manually approve participants.
This would certainly make it a lot harder for bot-like increases to get into something like this, as they hopefully will not be getting any merit. Although, why not just go by rank, needs to be a Jr. Member + X number of reports (I don't really want to guess on a number because I'd prefer to see everyones current counts first ). There have been 5 posts on the Donators board so far in 2018. I made 3 of them...
This may be something temporary at this point in time, similar to donator, which I'm *assuming* may have had more activity in the past when it was created? or no?  Regardless, it doesn't mean this type of reporters board wouldn't be more active now, and wouldn't cost someone 10BTC to get into . It seems like it would be a positive step towards cleaning the forum up, assuming it creates enough additional people reporting to close the gap on the bot/spam activity.
Keep in mind, I'll probably never make it into any reporters board. I'm not what one would consider an "active reporter"... at least I don't think I am?... I report posts, but not as often as I probably should. I need to balance my time/life, and unfortunately reporting posts is not at the top of my priority list when reading through various threads. For me, (because I probably overanalyze everything) the thought process that goes along with reporting posts eats up too much of my time (and distracts me from the reason I'm reading the thread in the first place). IMO, it is the mods/staff job... they are the paid experts. But, when you hear that others are essentially incentivizing bots to post crap, it doesn't seem like a fair fight. Probably not a fair fight even without the bots... but, if there are those with time willing to dig their heels in to help the mods/staff do their job, more power to them. |
|
|
|
I don't like the voting options. Too much involved in your idea for a Yes/No, and the No doesn't necessarily imply merit ruins lives. Well I think it simply boils down to: Do you agree with hidden boards as a reward for high merited users and those that make a lot of reports? I'd agree with a public sub board restricted to posting only from users with a certain level of merit. I'd agree with a hidden sub-board of meta for active reporters, although, I do still feel like there are reasons large account farmers would want to make it in that meta sub board and would just use bots to do it. Given how much spam they seem capable of generating, it doesn't seem like much effort to create a 2nd fleet of bots that report the same posts and they could rank up with reports pretty quickly, while creating additional overhead to mods. In general, I like the ideas. So I'll vote Yes. And, I'll devote my last available sMerit (for now!). |
|
|
|
I don't like the voting options. Too much involved in your idea for a Yes/No, and the No doesn't necessarily imply merit ruins lives. Reporting-based board: If the information is useful to the ones that are being fought against, what stops them from ranking themselves up by reporting their own alts/posts to make it into these boards? Merit-based board: I could agree with a board like this, although I feel like something under Serious/IT would be better to adjust as opposed to creating another board? I sadly feel like people are sort of giving up on the main sections of this forum to opt for special sub-boards. It sounds like everyone is acknowledging the problem but doesn't want to address it on the main sections. Doesn't this essentially take the experts/quality posters and put them into a special sub board that the main stream of legitimate traffic to the forum may not ever see? Seems great for members that have been here for a while, but bad for legitimate new people trying to get on board with Bitcoin, the forum, and seeking information. |
|
|
|
Maybe they are just angry and this is an attempt to annoy the mods since they realize they are not going to be ranking up? If so, they'll likely lose momentum quickly. Or, maybe the primary reason for those continuing is just to clutter the forum and make it useless as a Bitcoin resource. Sort of like an account-based DoS attack ... but then why do it all in off-topic? Ok I'm done trying to analyze the mind of demented people. Off topic but I have 1000 merit now. Wonder if I'll become Legendary now?
#meritruinslives
You've got the merit, but activity could be between 775 - 1030 #activityruinslives |
|
|
|
I am in the midst of the patent process for said formula but judging by the majority of commenters I'm sure its completely safe here. You're not going to be impressed. But the formula is this:
(Merit + 1) / Posts x Activity = Worthiness Score
I've found it doesn't work for certain categories of posters, but the average is about 100. I think I'll do a Meta thread about it eventually.
A patent on the worthiness score? I initially couldn't figure out wtf you were doing a +1 for but I'm realizing now it's probably to stop those with 0 merit from screwing up the formula?? Please take a look at our WP before judging us.
Too late, I've judged you as a plagiarist trying to avoid detection!  The potential for bitcoin and the blockchain to empower social and solidarity-based finance has yet to be truly tested. While the community around crypto technology is enthusiastic and experimental, it remains prone to an elitist, tech-centric outlook. An important role for social and solidarity finance practitioners is to consider how blockchain technology can evolve within today’s diverse political and cultural contexts.
Crypto can facilitate low-cost remittances for those seeking to transfer small amounts of money internationally. Or as a means for an otherwise excluded individual to have a decentralized global bank account, accessible by downloading an open source wallet from the Internet, versus having to set up an account with a financial institution. Also it can provide the basis for a richer set of financial services. However currently it is a playfield of the rich and the middle-class where poeple with stable income just make more money by crypto... it doesnt really reach those countries in real financial and social crysis. It meant to however.
https://archive.is/qFRwv#selection-5293.0-5304.1copy/paste from: https://www.ccn.com/will-bitcoin-blockchain-build-finance-developing-economies/and: https://medium.com/@ReiGrattan/the-future-of-community-currency-2d119deaaa50The best way to look at this is in fact going back to predictions from before the bullrun in last Q4.
If you look at predictions from early 2017 and before you will find a much more realistic prediction. BTC price is for sure to go up sharply at some point. Remittance transfers are one reason. Bitcoin transfers to foreign countries have nearly doubled in the past 15 years. Political uncertainty in the U.S., the U.K. and developing nations is another factor. The growth of mobile transactions is another factor. Non-cash transactions will probably jump to 30% over the next decade. The total number of smartphone users is expected to reach 1 billion by 2020.
Based on all of these time factors experts predicted a 500K by 2030.
I think that is a much more realistic scenario. I would predict a 100K BTC in two years instead.
https://archive.is/0e4eC#selection-5495.0-5512.1copy/paste from: https://www.ccn.com/bitcoin-price-hit-500000-2030-says-snapchats-first-investor/ |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
