I'm a huge fan of SegWit adoption, and if the challenge gains more attraction, I will definitely include a clause that requires all participants to use a SegWit address.
Unfortunately, there is no way to tell whether or not a P2SH “3” address is Segwit-nested. Perhaps you may push specifically for what I call
“Bravo Charlie addresses”. Although that could be a bit inconvenient for some of us who are using nested addresses for the transition period, I think it is important to raise user awareness about the Bitcoin address format of the future. Many people do not yet understand Bech32; see also the advertisement at the top of
my recent post on the topic. (Far from my first post on the topic.)
Unfortunately, I think the technical specs of bech32 addresses are way beyond what we'll receive as the average participant to this challenge. As much as I want to promote SegWit adoption, I don't want to deter users from partaking in this challenge due to their neglect for wanting to learn more about proper SegWit implementation. Perhaps in the future when Bravo Charlie One addresses become more of a widespread and known format, we can add more relevant instructions on how to follow the format, but until then, I'm trusting that applicants will take the time to properly create and use SW-enabled wallets for this challenge.
I am adding an escrow address that will hold the funds for this challenge:
37ZhBrGgw6BSghMQnPi4ixdmRBLxBTAXCf (
blockchain)
You can view the balance at any given time. If you'd like to make a donation to this challenge, you can do so at that address. It will only ever be used to reward winners of this challenge, and every transaction initiated from that address will be recorded in this thread.
It seems it is well funded already, but I'm wondering if I should save on transaction fees and send it directly or fund the escrow address; your call Joe.
It's entirely up to you. Transaction fees are the lowest they've been in months, so that shouldn't be an issue, but it's completely up to you how you want to handle payments for second place. I have no trust issues with you, and I'm sure that nobody else does, either, so I personally don't see any problems with you sending the prize directly to the second place winner.
very good idea
please let me know if I can donate some merits to a winner
Thank you, JPR! I'll add you to the Backup Merit Sponsor list and send you a message if there is ever a need for sMerits to be distributed. Perhaps you can view some of the participants' latest posts and randomly award them a merit here and there as you see posts that you deem meritorious? This could potentially become another reason for forum members to join this campaign; to randomly receive merits from supporters of this challenge. It's up to you, but thank you so much for becoming a merit sponsor!
@BTCforJoe, I suggest adding an explicit written rule disqualifying people who make a patent demonstration of having failed to read the rules. The length of disqualification should be proportional to how outrageously the rules were ignored. In any case where it’s obvious that a bounty-grubber is blindly groping for a place to drop a username and Bitcoin address, disqualification may as well be permanent.
The delightful irony is that those who fail to read the rules will miss this rule, too.
The entire point of the campaign is to promote quality posting, not providing spammers with additional funds (and merits) for low quality posts and the ability to read is pretty much a necessity. I second the idea for a disqualification for the future.
I agree with you two. That will make merits and funds to be given only to people wanting to improve.
See my previous post for my feedback on the matter regarding applicants who clearly have not read the rules.
Regarding bounty-grubbers, I don't want to become a sig-nazi; I can actually foresee some participants switching between this challenge and paid signature campaigns, which is fine. I'm just glad that they'll be mindful for at least the duration that they're a part of this challenge, and I'm hoping that their persistence in creating quality posts will carry over to their posts if they so choose to join a paid sig camp. However, I think that if they drop this challenge throughout a round that they are registered, by way of applying a paid signature midway through the round, then they should be permanently disqualified from joining, as that shows a blatant disregard/disrespect towards the efforts that so many are putting forth to support this challenge. Fair?
Joe, I'm not promising when and how much I'll send but I'll surely do so at least once. Am sort of busy right now and in a month's time, after I get free and if this campaign is still running, I'd further provide help. I might send you some funds over tomorrow if possible, I still haven't decided how much.
this account 'PUGMAN' is a hacked account that has been bought from TOR. im the original Pugman since 2014
Please follow the
advice and instructions as
@bill gator has recommended.
However, I will say that your accusations are concerning a bit, as
@pugman has made a monetary donation towards the funds for this challenge. If your allegations are true, then it's creating a personal moral dilemma for me, as I do not condone the hacking/buying of BCT accounts; I would be obliged to refund pugman's contribution.
That's all I have to say about this matter at this time, but if you would like to provide proof of your allegations, please PM me with the details. Until this is done, I will carry on with business as usual, as blind allegations without documentation carry no substance. Please PM me if you'd like to discuss this matter in further detail.
