I miss the old days.

[error]

More prudent would be a manual vetting system where established users can bestow to newbies posting rights if they see they're making good posts.

That's what was going on here for a while, until the newbie post count was dropped from 50 to 5.

[1713557373]

1713557373

[1713557373]

1713557373

[1713557373]

1713557373

[1713557373]

1713557373

[grue]

Good point. I would support not allowing people to post new topics until they have 100 posts or so.

then topic hijacking will be rampant, or people spamming "GREAT POST!!!" to get post count up

[RodeoX]

I lament with you fellow peer. But if a boatload of children can destroy bitcoin it was never meant to be. Let them bla-bla-bla, it does not change the efficacy of bitcoin. It is still the best money around.

[wumpus]

I lament with you fellow peer. But if a boatload of children can destroy bitcoin it was never meant to be. Let them bla-bla-bla, it does not change the efficacy of bitcoin. It is still the best money around.

They can't destroy bitcoin, the stage that the bitcoin community was limited to this forum is long gone.

But they can destroy this forum, by making all the serious contributors leave.

[AllYourBase]

The carrot is stronger than the whip.  I like systems that reward positive contributors rather than those which attempt to punish abusers.  I think stack exchange does a great job with this.  I've not seen a particularly good system for forums yet.

At the end of the day, however, it comes down to who uses it.  Since bitcoin was advertised as a way to make a quick buck (I quadrupled my money in one week), a high percentage of the new members were uninterested in the culture of bitcoin or how it works.  This led to a rapid decline in the quality of posts IMHO. 

I admit to discouraging open discussion of topics which are deemed illegal under various governments when I first started posting.  This was mainly a tactical idea I had for sneaking in under the radar.  In retrospect myself and others like me probably pushed away a lot of the quality posters.  Oh well, hindsight is 20/20.   

[myrkul]

At the end of the day, however, it comes down to who uses it.  Since bitcoin was advertised as a way to make a quick buck (I quadrupled my money in one week), a high percentage of the new members were uninterested in the culture of bitcoin or how it works.  This led to a rapid decline in the quality of posts IMHO. 

I don't know where you heard about it, but I knew it as a way to transfer funds securely and relatively anonymously. Not a ponzi scheme.

[AllYourBase]

At the end of the day, however, it comes down to who uses it.  Since bitcoin was advertised as a way to make a quick buck (I quadrupled my money in one week), a high percentage of the new members were uninterested in the culture of bitcoin or how it works.  This led to a rapid decline in the quality of posts IMHO. 

I don't know where you heard about it, but I knew it as a way to transfer funds securely and relatively anonymously. Not a ponzi scheme.

I apologize if I were unclear.  I meant that the user base grew significantly as/after the price jumped to $30/btc.  These were the new members to which I was referring, which of course is a blanket statement and doesn't hold true for all of them.  I most enjoyed reading on the forums prior to bitcoin hitting $1.20.