Newbie restrictions

[TheRonPaulKid]

same here...

[MoeJoe]

i´m hearing the jeopardy melody all the time 

[Drimacus]

I've spent way more than 4 hours in this forum, but never had an account. ...

[ccplz]

I just registered so I could post a trade offer.

[bulletproofd]

First post! PM's unlocked!

[sido]

isn't it contraproductive? that's weird restrictions

[ccplz]

Well,anything to keep the spammers out I suppose.

[deadweasel]

isn't it contraproductive? that's weird restrictions

It's a poor solution for a problem with nearly no solution.  It slows the onslaught of new accounts created by confirmed scammers.

If you're active, you'll be out of newcomer prison shortly. 

[dmj]

Long time lurker, but posting noob... so I was hoping to be able to post the following reply to https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=77206.msg1152188#msg1152188 (I know it's old, but it has been referenced to in a number of newer posts).
-----

If we call SHA256 a pseudorandom generator G, we can test the bias of its outputs using any efficient algorithm A such that A(G(k <--R-- ??)) (the algorithm run on pseudorandom numbers) returns 0 with sufficiently higher probability (called the 'advantage') than A(r <--R-- {0, 1}n) (the algorithm run on truly random numbers).

http://www.fourmilab.ch/random/ looks promising. I'll be back.

There are a bunch of non-intuitive issues with randomness/entropy testing, which is a well-studied field, and there is no one (practical) single test that you can run that should satisfy you. The gold standard for many years was the Die Hard battery of tests by George Marsaglia (who discovered, among many other things in the field, that Linear Congruential Generators are of poor quality "randomness", which is basically why fast-but-decent PRNGs use Mersenne Twisters these days). The Die Hard battery was recently rewritten, added to and GPLed by Robert Brown, see here: http://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/General/dieharder.php

That said, John Walker (Fourmilab that you linked to) is great, and I used his HotBits about 15 years ago when it first came out, and I wanted "true" randomness (and afaik, nothing else online existed - or for a long time afterwards).

[sido]

It's a poor solution for a problem with nearly no solution.  It slows the onslaught of new accounts created by confirmed scammers.

If you're active, you'll be out of newcomer prison shortly. 

yep, i got it

[crookedkr]

wait the restrictions are 4 hours online and 5 posts? i thought it was 4 hours since the membership was created + 5 posts...ug

[anpk]

wow didn't realize there was a 50 post limit once

[byergo]

Sane rule!

[spanner76]

I haven't said more than 5 things in my whole life, better get started

[frejo]

Good rule, lets keep the trolls at bay 

[willhash4food]

Why do we have to be Chatty McChattersons just to post?

[greenguy]

I think it would be better just to block posters that are trolling than make these rules.

[steveioio]

Wow this is a long thread

[preytec]

humm, after having a post deleted i'm starting to see another side of these restrictions. i think maybe the trolls are inside rather than out.
they put up these rules for newbies, forcing newbies to make a few posts. then delete their posts.
you know its a troll coz they don't even have their name on the deletion so you can't pm them. it's not enough that we have to wait 4 hrs reading posts that we cant reply to, but they have to go into the newbie section and go around deleting post and not putting their names to it. must have been a slow day.

[ymfeeling]

thats life