Joe's Signatureless Challenge Archives

[flip4flop]

Thanks again for running this! I have seen some great informative post from so many different members as a result of this.  I have been trying to branch out of the Altcoin section more and more every week.  Hopefully my post distribution this week will be a little more balanced.

Great to see the forum move away from spam and more toward education.

[1714522622]

1714522622

[DarkStar_]

In the hope of spreading some old-school antispam culture here, I will select The Rules of Spam, Bitcointalk.org Edition as the post to receive my prize merits.

Awarded.

[MyLitecoin]

Anyway, that said, I'm obviously only applying with this account for this round. Btw, the main official rules still don't state anywhere that alts aren't allowed.

I'm not sure anyone really cares about alts on this thread. All we want is good constructive posts here. If a user can do that with more than one account (unless I have this wrong) then they may as well do and promote this scheme further.

@btcforjoe, you should try to get everyone to at least change their personal message to promote this campaign.

Yes. It's against the rules to have alts join. I really didn't get a chance to read through all the drama, but it sounds like someone is accusing Joe, well maybe multiple people, of being an alt of Nullius, and that Nullius is just mass-joining this campaign to transfer merits between himself and Joe and other alts, to create a legit-looking merit farm with a worthy cause. They also point out that Joe's in a sig campaign... to which Joe just says "is ironic, haha".

I'm not really up-to-date on that debacle, but it seems as though Joe got scared and is now banning alts from the campaign. Now I don't care if Joe is Nullius or if there's some kind of backroom-merit transfers.

The point is, I'm not a Jr. member yet, and I like the idea of this challenge, so I'm going to hang out here, and hopefully spread a positive vibe with his signature. The challenge is honestly worthless if you're not wearing the signature. The signature helps people see and understand why we're doing this, and they'll feel inspired.

But yeah here's Joe's direct quote about alts:

MyLitecoin: This is an obvious alt. If you would like for me to critique this account, please let me know. But be warned of two things: (1) If you'd prefer for me to critique and score this account, you will lose and forfeit your score for your alt and (2) please do not enroll more than one account at a time in future rounds. Because the discussion of allowing alts was being considered during the time you sent your applications, neither of your accounts will be disqualified from this round.

[BTCforJoe]

...
I also lost the draft of an extensive Dev & Tech post, due to a mishap with the ephemeral VM which contains a browser running scripts I distrust.  Going forward, I hope that some means can be found to fend off Internet arsonists without impact on legitimate users.

Was it an actual draft that was saved in your drafts (forum meta) section? Or was it just a draft you were working on locally that wasn't able to be saved to the meta? Either option is pretty messed up, but if it's the former, then there could be much more vulnerabilities and bugs from this cloudflare integration than we see on the surface.

And now, with a bow and my thanks to Joe for running this contest, I must sadly decline to enter Round 4—well, sort of.

I may have inadvertently entered a fictional character who has limited purview, and thus far makes few posts.  Such is life in the æthereal⁰ mists of the.nym.zone:  She approached me, offered her PGP key (0x69696969), and pleaded with tremulous eyes that she must enter Joe’s contest for the greater glory of her bitcult.faith.  What could a flesh-and-blood mortal man say to that?  I must stand down, lest she be barred by the alt-account rule.

Can she be competitive against people who actually exist?  The contest grows more exciting yet!  I am curious to see what Joe’s critique will be.

I got your note. I just wanted to let you know that I did look through the rules with careful reading and so no mention of alts, which I thought was weird because most sig campaigns have something about that. And then I realized it's becauase you wanted to encourage everyone to not join sig campaigns, so it made sense that you'd want to catch everyone and their alts too in that net.

Anyway, that said, I'm obviously only applying with this account for this round. Btw, the main official rules still don't state anywhere that alts aren't allowed.

I have added the following rule regarding alt accounts to the top post:

Alt (alternate) accounts: The only rules that pertain to alt accounts are as follows: You may not enroll in any single round with more than one account simultaneously. If enrolling with an alt account, please provide full disclosure that the account you are enrolling is an alt of another account that has previously entered the challenge. Your alt account(s) will not be eligible to win the first place prize if any other of your accounts have won that prize in the previous round. If an alt account that hasn't been fully disclosed is discovered in the challenge, all accounts related to that alt will be banned from entering in the future.

But for full disclosure, please note that @nullius will not be partaking in Round 4, but his alt @Meretrix will be. @Meretrix is not eligible to win the first place prize in Round 4.

@BTCforJoe: very good job, again! I was thinking this thread should find an official sponsor instead of users paying from their own pockets. "Joe's Signatureless Challenge (Round 4) - Sponsored by xxxxxxxx".

Thank you, very much! Although I would love the idea of an ongoing sponsor for this, I really don't mind putting up some cash money for this. I don't want to obligate any individual or business into having to commit to this on a weekly basis. If anyone wants to donate towards the cause, they are more than welcome to at any time, but I will be making a conscious effort not to put much focus on the sponsorship aspect of this challenge, as this should be a great opportunity for members to want to make a better forum experience, not a thread to showcase sponsors Does that make sense?

@BTCforJoe I truly appreciate your kind words. I really enjoyed participating in the contest, and I wasn't expecting a second place!!
Thank you very for all your efforts, analyzing each participants posts.

You're quite welcome, and like I said in your critique, you really caught me by surprise this week. @nullius literally only beat you by 0.06 points. When @nullius first joined this challenge, I (semi)joked that nobody would ever be able to beat him. Little did I know that just a few short weeks later, the race would have been so close. Great job, again! I have merited this post (HODL) and this post (2FA).

I'm participating again this round:

BitcoinTalk Username: MyLitecoin
Starting Post Count (including this one): 39
Current Rank: Newbie
BTC Address:

Please follow the updated instructions for submitting your application

I'm not sure anyone really cares about alts on this thread. All we want is good constructive posts here. If a user can do that with more than one account (unless I have this wrong) then they may as well do and promote this scheme further.

Unfortunately, because we now have at least one hater on this challenge, I don't want to give them any reason to believe that this challenge is anything else than what it is intended for. Having alts simultaneously enter the challenge would not be fair to other participants (I was specifically thinking of @nullius and his alt when this rule was first being considered).

@btcforjoe, you should try to get everyone to at least change their personal message to promote this campaign.

Nah, I think that if a participant wants to promote it, they can, but it shouldn't be a requirement.

Also, can I sponsor the next two weeks of payments? (with 0.01BTC, do I send this to your escrow address in the op or another address - just in case you don't want there to be too much in that address or can't recieve from bech32 addresses). This is a good campaign and hopefully it'll continue.

Wow, this would be great! You can send it to the escrow address in the top post. Thank you so much for your donation!


Finally, good news, everyone:

We officially have 25 registered participants for Round 4, which means that there will be a cash prize of $5 for 3rd place!

Good luck, everyone! Registrations close at 9:00PM (GMT -6), so make sure to submit your application! The link to the application form: https://goo.gl/forms/5ZFbI8HmeDkeoqU53

[jackg]

@BTCforJoe: very good job, again! I was thinking this thread should find an official sponsor instead of users paying from their own pockets. "Joe's Signatureless Challenge (Round 4) - Sponsored by xxxxxxxx".

Thank you, very much! Although I would love the idea of an ongoing sponsor for this, I really don't mind putting up some cash money for this. I don't want to obligate any individual or business into having to commit to this on a weekly basis. If anyone wants to donate towards the cause, they are more than welcome to at any time, but I will be making a conscious effort not to put much focus on the sponsorship aspect of this challenge, as this should be a great opportunity for members to want to make a better forum experience, not a thread to showcase sponsors Does that make sense?

I've given a shot to sponsoring this momenterily. If it turns out that this goes well, I may consider doing this on a permanent basis. Or at least doing the full cash prize permanently. $20 really isn't that much to spend on a good cleanup of the forum (though hopefully we can get a few extra newbies joining this campaign and improving their post quality - with the promise of getting a reward for good constructive posts every week).

Also, can I sponsor the next two weeks of payments? (with 0.01BTC, do I send this to your escrow address in the op or another address - just in case you don't want there to be too much in that address or can't recieve from bech32 addresses). This is a good campaign and hopefully it'll continue.

Wow, this would be great! You can send it to the escrow address in the top post. Thank you so much for your donation!

Funds sent!

I know it's a bech32 transaction but the amount that it cost me seems rediculously low in tx fees for one input/two outputs so if it stays unconfirmed (I used the within 25 blocks feature as I want to not clog the network with a transaction that isn't needed for another few days) then contact me and I'll bump the fee up a bit.

Who's nullius' alt also?

[r1s2g3]

Round 3: Notes & Critique

r1s2g3: While most of your content is original, and several of your posts took a good amount of time and thought to produce, I think you can do much better. No offense, but the way in which you choose topics to answer is carefully thought out, but overall, your posts lack major contribution. Maybe it's because of your limited English, as it's apparent that English is not your first language, but there are so many posts that I wish you would have detailed more than just making blanket statements and posting your reference/source links. While none of your posts are bad, they could be embellished a bit more in order for you to score higher according to my [mysterious] criteria. Keep it up!

Thanks Joe for an honest opinion.  My basic motive to join this contest is to get the feedback only. I never thought of winning any position amidst nullius, Toughit (though he did not posted), Blue  Tyrant and flipflop.

Looks like you got little surprised by bitmover, but I am following him from the start of the round 3 and knew at once , that one more good contestant is in the competition.

@bitmover
I read your some of your post by using Google Translate and I found one scammer copy-pasting you also.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3164920.msg32734677#msg32734677

Congratulations to all the winners and @all : Cheers and Keep the spirits up.

[bitmover]

Thanks Joe for an honest opinion.  My basic motive to join this contest is to get the feedback only. I never thought of winning any position amidst nullius, Toughit (though he did not posted), Blue  Tyrant and flipflop.

Looks like you got little surprised by bitmover, but I am following him from the start of the round 3 and knew at once , that one more good contestant is in the competition.

@bitmover
I read your some of your post by using Google Translate and I found one scammer copy-pasting you also.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3164920.msg32734677#msg32734677

Congratulations to all the winners and @all : Cheers and Keep the spirits up.

Thank you @r1s2g3. I did my best this last week as I had some good free time.

This post was a very interesting experiment.
I made an English version of this post some weeks ago.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3064698

The reception was not very good. People didn't like it, few comments, few views, I received some critics... Maybe I posted in the wrong board? Beginners & help was maybe not the best option.

Anyway, I knew this post was useful, as I really missed something like this when I was recovering my BCH on last August, and was in my first blockchain interactions. So I translated my own post to Portuguese and posted on my local board. The reception was great.

I learned that in local boards this kind of post is more useful. On the local board people were really helped by the guide.

Local board works as a completely different forum (at least in Portuguese local board). People have different interests and a different technical level.

I will try to make more articles translations to contribute with more technical information to my local board. I think it will be useful there. I translated one article about lightning network that people really liked.

[bill gator]

I'm excited to hear that we have enough participants to qualify for a 3rd place prize. It is amusing to me that nullius has entered with a fictional character persona, and I believe nullius to be creating an entire fictional universe out of alt accounts. If they are not, then they should be, as the forum would be more entertaining if that were the case. That being said, it is also very interesting to me the new rules pertaining to alternate accounts. I think it is interesting that nullius is guaranteed to not win 1st place (unless there are undisclosed alts), and that someone else has a good shot at the increased prize pool this week.

Have you experienced any problems with the google forms or automating enrollment entirely? You mentioned that someone barely beat another user by .06 points or something like that, and I'm wondering if I missed something in terms of how posts are being graded and scored.

[Michael CF]

I also hope to have more participants when they see our signature
BitcoinTalk Username: Michael CF
Starting Post Count : 93
Current Rank: Jr.member
BTC Address: 17kpBS8V6gEifrNEmrxQiYBe5CZxLmaiXe

[Geraldo]

—————


Third Place: Blue Tyrant

3 Merits

(sponsored by bill gator [1 Merit] and Geraldo [2 Merits])


—————

Yay..I'm late again.
Merited: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3133667.msg33122304#msg33122304

Congrats, Blue Tyrant

Hey Joe, I'll provide again Merits, two merits for 3rd place on round -4 

[BTCforJoe]

I'm excited to hear that we have enough participants to qualify for a 3rd place prize. It is amusing to me that nullius has entered with a fictional character persona, and I believe nullius to be creating an entire fictional universe out of alt accounts. If they are not, then they should be, as the forum would be more entertaining if that were the case. That being said, it is also very interesting to me the new rules pertaining to alternate accounts. I think it is interesting that nullius is guaranteed to not win 1st place (unless there are undisclosed alts), and that someone else has a good shot at the increased prize pool this week.

Have you experienced any problems with the google forms or automating enrollment entirely? You mentioned that someone barely beat another user by .06 points or something like that, and I'm wondering if I missed something in terms of how posts are being graded and scored.

The automation process was flawed within referencing new data from the sheet that was created by the form to the sheet that I have created for round 4. I thought it was automated but I have to manually go in and reference the new entries. It still beats having to type out all of the usernames and user ID’s though. The scoring formula is just a weighted average based on the 4 criteria’s that I grade when reviewing users’s posts, so the difference of 0.06 points is a valid difference! THAT’S how close this round was!

[BTCforJoe]

The application period for Round 4 has ended.

All applications submitted from this point forward will be added to Round 5.

We have received 3 applications after the cutoff time of 9:00PM (GMT -6), so those applicants have been placed in Round 5. Those users are Lorin, marcelo01, and max2607.

Funds sent!

I know it's a bech32 transaction but the amount that it cost me seems rediculously low in tx fees for one input/two outputs so if it stays unconfirmed (I used the within 25 blocks feature as I want to not clog the network with a transaction that isn't needed for another few days) then contact me and I'll bump the fee up a bit.

Thank you very much for donating towards this challenge! Low fees won't be a problem; there will always be enough Bitcoin in the escrow to secure the current round. Including yours, we have had a couple donations this week, but before they were received, I funded the escrow address with another $30.

Who's nullius' alt also?

That would be @Meretrix.

Hey Joe, I'll provide again Merits, two merits for 3rd place on round -4 

You've turned out to be quite an awesome merit sponsor I hope to see you around again in this challenge between signature campaign rounds! Thanks again, Geraldo!

[Sellingaccs]

Although im not currently part of this challenge, i'd like to add one merit donation to the 4th place. Let me know if you accept this, and i'll save them.

Edit: I meant that i'd like to give the merit forvthe same requirements as LoyceV, so low ranked members have a chance too for merit

[Meretrix]

I may have inadvertently entered a fictional character who has limited purview, and thus far makes few posts.  Such is life in the æthereal⁰ mists of the.nym.zone:  She approached me, offered her PGP key (0x69696969), and pleaded with tremulous eyes that she must enter Joe’s contest for the greater glory of her bitcult.faith.  What could a flesh-and-blood mortal man say to that?  I must stand down, lest she be barred by the alt-account rule.

It is amusing to me that nullius has entered with a fictional character persona, and I believe nullius to be creating an entire fictional universe out of alt accounts. If they are not, then they should be, as the forum would be more entertaining if that were the case. That being said, it is also very interesting to me the new rules pertaining to alternate accounts. I think it is interesting that nullius is guaranteed to not win 1st place (unless there are undisclosed alts), and that someone else has a good shot at the increased prize pool this week.

Who's nullius' alt also?

That would be @Meretrix.

Although the.nym.zone’s official position is perforce that there may exist some benign uses for undisclosed alts, running multiple entries in the same contest against its explicit rules would be abusive and outright fraudulent.  Not only would such a thing be wrong in principle:  In practice, it would also destroy our reputation.  As disembodied ghosts in the.nym.zone, reputation is all we have!

Adding some teeth to the theory, nullius is friendly with folks in Reputation who could be expected to red-tag both of us to hell if we were caught abusing alt accounts.  I don’t think he is someone who could try to fly under the radar.

Thus when he created me, after he first bought me some shiny Copper jewellery, the second thing nullius did was to establish bidirectional linkage between our accounts using neutral trust feedback.  You can see the sent and received feedback on my trust summary page; n.b. that trust feedback can’t be backdated.  When in doubt, check trust pages.

I must emphasize, too, that using undisclosed alts in close proximity to each other would almost certainly lead to being caught sooner or later with some form of forensic authorship identification.

For a real-life example of forensic authorship identification on this forum, see how tspacepilot outed Quickseller’s fraudulent self-escrow scheme.  Warning:  That post is long and technical.  Yet I doubt that such a sophisticated analysis would be necessary to catch multiple contest entries by the man famous for the “nullius post”.  Our writing style is distinctive!

The language patterns used for such identification are subconscious, and almost impossible to reliably modify through conscious intentions.  Though my style may sometimes be modified to take on a feminine lilt in the manner of scripting dialogue for a storybook, the underlying statistical patterns would not be significantly changed.  We’ve read academic papers on the topic.  Mr. “nym.zone” would make a joke of his street cred as a privacy expert, if he were to suppose that he could reliably fool such an analysis without botching his words in some horrid way.

Whereas in a writing contest, we must necessarily make more than short, terse posts; and we cannot use intentionally mangled language, as anonymous parties oft do to avoid identification in high-threat scenarios:⁰

TheShadowBrokers shaking heads at arrogant pretentiousness of grammar critics. [...]

The ShadowBrokers is writing TRADOC, Position Pieces, White Papers, Wiki pages, etc for USG. If theshadowbrokers be using own voices, theshadowbrokers be writing peoples from prison or dead. TheShadowBrokers is practicing obfuscation as part of operational security (OPSEC). Is being a spy thing.

Yes, we could write like that.  In dark corners of the Internet, how do you know we don’t?  You would never find that!  But of course, we would not likely win a writing contest by such means.

The greater lesson:  Authors can almost never be truly anonymous.  The smaller lesson, here apropos:  For many reasons, neither nullius nor any other sane person would try to cheat in a writing contest using multiple identities.

❤️ The Meretrix


0. We state no opinion about TSB here.  The above quote is simply an apt example of intentionally mangled writing by person(s) of indisputably high intelligence for OPSEC reasons, based on the threat model necessary when openly perpetrating the extremely illegal act of leaking classified exploits from USG intelligence agency blackhats.  They leaked the exploit which unknown person(s) then used to create WannaCry.  It is wise for them to not only change their writing style, but to mangle their words beyond recognition.

[BTCforJoe]

Although im not currently part of this challenge, i'd like to add one merit donation to the 4th place. Let me know if you accept this, and i'll save them.

Edit: I meant that i'd like to give the merit forvthe same requirements as LoyceV, so low ranked members have a chance too for merit

Awesome, this is very noble of you. I've merited you for the simple fact that even though you have a right to be frustrated for the last round of this challenge, you have still shown that you care about the intent behind it. To be clear, do the same conditions apply as @LoyceV's conditions? That your merit is only to go towards a Newbie or Jr. Member?

Cheers!

[MyLitecoin]

Although im not currently part of this challenge, i'd like to add one merit donation to the 4th place. Let me know if you accept this, and i'll save them.

Edit: I meant that i'd like to give the merit forvthe same requirements as LoyceV, so low ranked members have a chance too for merit

Awesome, this is very noble of you. I've merited you for the simple fact that even though you have a right to be frustrated for the last round of this challenge, you have still shown that you care about the intent behind it. To be clear, do the same conditions apply as @LoyceV's conditions? That your merit is only to go towards a Newbie or Jr. Member?

Cheers!

Hi Joe,

I updated my application. I didn't see that you needed the Google Spreadsheet form until now. I'm not sure if that rule changed happened before/after the deadline had passed... Am I still in this round?

[EzBreezy]

Good day! I was wondering if it is available to change the bitcoin address.  Can I change my bitcoin address because my current bitcoin address that on the spreadsheet have hacked. Kindly change to

Code:

3D6sJLYARonxcb8i1Zs7eoxrKNGPvdrjpA

[Sellingaccs]

Awesome, this is very noble of you. I've merited you for the simple fact that even though you have a right to be frustrated for the last round of this challenge, you have still shown that you care about the intent behind it. To be clear, do the same conditions apply as @LoyceV's conditions? That your merit is only to go towards a Newbie or Jr. Member?

Cheers!

Thanks for the kind words! And yes, the same conditions apply to mine as well as LoyceV's donation.

[btctrad0r]

this is a great challenge joe, very useful for noobs, just joined today.

[bill gator]

The scoring formula is just a weighted average based on the 4 criteria’s that I grade when reviewing users’s posts

I don't mean to put you on the spot by any means, but are the criteria something you are willing to make public, or at the very least share with me in confidence? I'm very interested in hearing what these are. I'm not sure if you are open to negotiation on these criteria in the hopes to improve them; not that there is anything wrong with them, but there is always room for improvement. I was unaware that you had official criteria, and I feel like they may assist me in meriting posts, or figuring out which deserve it.