Is this post constructive? Is it helpful? Want your suggestion please !!!

[smith coins]

Hi all bitcoiners,

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=996318.msg12492110#msg12492110

I want to know your opinion about this post if it is constructive, is it helpful?
Should it be considered as an ignored post or not? from signature campaigns.
Personally i see that i tried my best to help (and warn) the user that addresses that begins with the prefix "3" are mostly from bit-x and xapo and you can't prove your ownership, you basically can't sign a message.

And i successfully helped this user and a few hours later he was able to sign from another address and included this address with prefix "3"

I added a poll let me know what do you think.

[shorena]

Hi all bitcoiners,

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=996318.msg12492110#msg12492110

I want to know your opinion about this post if it is constructive, is it helpful?
Should it be considered as an ignored post or not? from signature campaigns.
Personally i see that i tried my best to help (and warn) the user that addresses that begins with the prefix "3" are mostly from bit-x and xapo and you can't prove your ownership, you basically can't sign a message.

And i successfully helped this user and a few hours later he was able to sign from another address and included this address with prefix "3"

I added a poll let me know what do you think.

If it would be my campaign I would not count any post in that thread. Your answer is also wrong from a technical perspective.

I still didnt answer your question, eh?

Yes, its helpful, yes as its helpful it should be considered constructive as you helped to avoid a possible issue in the future for someone else.

[smith coins]

If it would be my campaign I would not count any post in that thread. Your answer is also wrong from a technical perspective.

I still didnt answer your question, eh?

Yes, its helpful, yes as its helpful it should be considered constructive as you helped to avoid a possible issue in the future for someone else.

I rechecked the signature campaigns rules and only this is mentioned:

"We prefer English posts, no spam, single word posts, single image posts, bumps, +1s will be counted."

Nowhere is mentioned that being helpful is not counted as a constructive post, if there will be mentioned that the post in this thread in this board are not counted then this is another thing. shorena thanks for your post.

[onemorexmr]

Hi all bitcoiners,

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=996318.msg12492110#msg12492110

I want to know your opinion about this post if it is constructive, is it helpful?
Should it be considered as an ignored post or not? from signature campaigns.
Personally i see that i tried my best to help (and warn) the user that addresses that begins with the prefix "3" are mostly from bit-x and xapo and you can't prove your ownership, you basically can't sign a message.

And i successfully helped this user and a few hours later he was able to sign from another address and included this address with prefix "3"

I added a poll let me know what do you think.

If it would be my campaign I would not count any post in that thread. Your answer is also wrong from a technical perspective.

I still didnt answer your question, eh?

Yes, its helpful, yes as its helpful it should be considered constructive as you helped to avoid a possible issue in the future for someone else.

i voted no because it is technically false. otherwise i'd think t is helpful.
but as-is it just leads to confusion (addresses that start with a 3 have nothing to with specific wallets)

[redsn0w]

I think that post doesn't have nothing to constructive, so I voted: No. However you should ask the manager of the sig. campaign, because he is counting and paying your post.

[smith coins]

Hi all bitcoiners,

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=996318.msg12492110#msg12492110

I want to know your opinion about this post if it is constructive, is it helpful?
Should it be considered as an ignored post or not? from signature campaigns.
Personally i see that i tried my best to help (and warn) the user that addresses that begins with the prefix "3" are mostly from bit-x and xapo and you can't prove your ownership, you basically can't sign a message.

And i successfully helped this user and a few hours later he was able to sign from another address and included this address with prefix "3"

I added a poll let me know what do you think.

If it would be my campaign I would not count any post in that thread. Your answer is also wrong from a technical perspective.

I still didnt answer your question, eh?

Yes, its helpful, yes as its helpful it should be considered constructive as you helped to avoid a possible issue in the future for someone else.

i voted no because it is technically false. otherwise i'd think t is helpful.
but as-is it just leads to confusion (addresses that start with a 3 have nothing to with specific wallets)

You are free to vote, i will no change anything to show false results lol.

I said mostly the addresses that has the prefix the number "3" are from bit-x and xapo (at least that i have seen)

In general they are from multi sign wallets where you are not able to sign a message, that's all.

[redsn0w]

Hi all bitcoiners,

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=996318.msg12492110#msg12492110

I want to know your opinion about this post if it is constructive, is it helpful?
Should it be considered as an ignored post or not? from signature campaigns.
Personally i see that i tried my best to help (and warn) the user that addresses that begins with the prefix "3" are mostly from bit-x and xapo and you can't prove your ownership, you basically can't sign a message.

And i successfully helped this user and a few hours later he was able to sign from another address and included this address with prefix "3"

I added a poll let me know what do you think.

If it would be my campaign I would not count any post in that thread. Your answer is also wrong from a technical perspective.

I still didnt answer your question, eh?

Yes, its helpful, yes as its helpful it should be considered constructive as you helped to avoid a possible issue in the future for someone else.

i voted no because it is technically false. otherwise i'd think t is helpful.
but as-is it just leads to confusion (addresses that start with a 3 have nothing to with specific wallets)

You are free to vote, i will no change anything to show false results lol.

I said mostly the addresses that has the prefix the number "3" are from bit-x and xapo (at least that i have seen)

In general they are from multi sign wallets where you are not able to sign a message, that's all.

The bitcoin addresses that start with the number '3' are only multisignature add. and you are able to sign a message from them.

[shorena]

-snip-
In general they are from multi sign wallets where you are not able to sign a message, that's all.

The bitcoin addresses that start with the number '3' are only multisignature add. and you are able to sign a message from them.

I wanted to avoid the technical aspects here as I dont think they matter for OPs question, but the prefix '3' is "just" "pay to script hash" which can be almost anything. This includes multi sig. The problem with multi sig is that there is no standard way of doing a signature. Essentially there is no concensus how to sign a message with x out of y keys, thus its impossible to verify as valid in general. It would certainly be possible for a small group to find a way to use this, but for the overal community there currently is none and I dont think anyone is working on a way either.

All that aside, the post in question still lead to someone changing the address to one that allows a signature and in fact even provided a post with a valid signature here -> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=996318.msg12493288#msg12493288

[smith coins]

Hi all bitcoiners,

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=996318.msg12492110#msg12492110

I want to know your opinion about this post if it is constructive, is it helpful?
Should it be considered as an ignored post or not? from signature campaigns.
Personally i see that i tried my best to help (and warn) the user that addresses that begins with the prefix "3" are mostly from bit-x and xapo and you can't prove your ownership, you basically can't sign a message.

And i successfully helped this user and a few hours later he was able to sign from another address and included this address with prefix "3"

I added a poll let me know what do you think.

If it would be my campaign I would not count any post in that thread. Your answer is also wrong from a technical perspective.

I still didnt answer your question, eh?

Yes, its helpful, yes as its helpful it should be considered constructive as you helped to avoid a possible issue in the future for someone else.

i voted no because it is technically false. otherwise i'd think t is helpful.
but as-is it just leads to confusion (addresses that start with a 3 have nothing to with specific wallets)

You are free to vote, i will no change anything to show false results lol.

I said mostly the addresses that has the prefix the number "3" are from bit-x and xapo (at least that i have seen)

In general they are from multi sign wallets where you are not able to sign a message, that's all.

The bitcoin addresses that start with the number '3' are only multisignature add. and you are able to sign a message from them.

I can be wrong too, we are human and we can make mistakes, but as far as i know we can't verify the signed message if any.
In the post that i mentioned in the OP, i stated that bit-x and xapo wallets that their addresses starts with "3" you can not sign a message from them and i think that the user has his address in one of these 2 that i mentioned (probably xapo) and he found this helpful. I have nothing to say more.

[onemorexmr]

I can be wrong too, we are human and we can make mistakes, but as far as i know we can't verify the signed message if any.
In the post that i mentioned in the OP, i stated that bit-x and xapo wallets that their addresses starts with "3" you can not sign a message from them and i think that the user has his address in one of these 2 that i mentioned (probably xapo) and he found this helpful. I have nothing to say more.

as i said without that line i think your post is helpful.
but your vote asks for constructive too: IMHO technical incorrectness leads to confusion.

i did not say its a bad post or sth. just explaining my vote.

[redsn0w]

-snip-
In general they are from multi sign wallets where you are not able to sign a message, that's all.

The bitcoin addresses that start with the number '3' are only multisignature add. and you are able to sign a message from them.

I wanted to avoid the technical aspects here as I dont think they matter for OPs question, but the prefix '3' is "just" "pay to script hash" which can be almost anything. This includes multi sig. The problem with multi sig is that there is no standard way of doing a signature. Essentially there is no concensus how to sign a message with x out of y keys, thus its impossible to verify as valid in general. It would certainly be possible for a small group to find a way to use this, but for the overal community there currently is none and I dont think anyone is working on a way either.

All that aside, the post in question still lead to someone changing the address to one that allows a signature and in fact even provided a post with a valid signature here -> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=996318.msg12493288#msg12493288

It will be really no sense to sign a message from a multi-sign. address, this is the meaning but it is possible.

[BitcoinEXpress]

This whole thread was created  for nothing more than post inflation with your replies to the BS question you asked in the first place.


This is the type of crap that Badbear feeds on LOL.


Don't be surprised if you are banned.


~BCX~

[bitcoin revo]

This whole thread was created  for nothing more than post inflation with your replies to the BS question you asked in the first place.

I very much doubt that his campaign manager will count the posts in this thread simply because they were created to question his decision.

It doesn't really matter if the community thinks the post was constructive or not, since we're not the people counting your posts. Your campaign manager is; you should go talk to him.