The no ad-sigs posters allowed topic - come and not be annoyed by rubbish posts

[inBitweTrust]

Good video with Peter Wuille discussing some recent changes in .10.0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asC_kVJ6sig

[Kakmakr]

So you just suggested to exclude poor people from joining forums on the internet? ^Frown^
That is NOT the way to solve this problem.

What an odd way of thinking. There is no prerequisite which forces poor people to promote gambling, cloud mining ponzis, and other paid sig campaigns. Economically disadvantaged people are humans that should be respected and thus it is degrading for you to ignore their free agency and responsibility that follows.

You are speaking to the wrong person here, I am against excluding poor people from public forums.
There seems to be a respect problem around here, towards disadvantaged people, and it's not coming from me.

lol
That said, there is no reason that a sig campaign poster can't find something at least remotely interesting, helpful, or constructive to say. They should do everyone a service and hang out in the n00b section and just look for questions that they can answer. Only problem is-most sig-retards are total n00bs themselves. Prolly gold-farm slaves who make 3 cents a day posting across multiple accounts and work out of some slum in india.

Everyone has a right to their own opinion, and I do respect that but where do you draw the line?

[CIYAM]

The fact that I have to keep deleting posts from people with ad-sigs when the topic clearly tells them "they are not welcome here" just shows how bad this forum has become.

The *vast majority* of people using this forum now are ad sig posters with zero respect for any rules or anyone. They just post to earn some tiny amount of money to place "shit in the road".

Imagine if people were being paid to literally shit in the streets (forming the ad as a "shit sig") - somehow I don't think the majority would say "oh well - they have to earn a living somehow so just try and ignore all the shit".

[DannyHamilton]

I thought that we:

have 'moved on' from discussing about 'ad sigs'

And that we should not:

bother bringing that up again or the post will also be deleted

It seems there are several posts from the past 29 hours that need to be deleted.

[CIYAM]

I thought we had too - but *sigh* it seems most people want to discuss that (which is I guess perhaps a sign of the frustration people now have with this forum).

So I decided to let people "vent" a bit more but you would be most welcome to bring up something more interesting though (if it gets too boring I'll just lock it as I do now for most of my topics that end up going in circles).

BTW although I do appreciate your ignore list I find ignores are not so great as I still end up seeing the poster's avatar and I think the topics still get bumped don't they?

[Kakmakr]

   I read an article about cutting down sock-puppet account's and was wondering if this idea would work for this forum CIYAM?
     It seems a good idea to me but i'm a computer illiterate.

 Another non-transactional application of Bitcoin is being developed by Joe Cascio, a semi-retired software engineer living in Connecticut. Cascio calls his innovation "collateralized identity," which he initially developed to address the problem of sockpuppetry on online forums. Because creating new accounts on online services is often free and easy, one individual can conjure up many different identities and use them to harass, spam, or otherwise annoy other users. Suspending sockpuppet accounts does little to address the problem because a malicious user will simply create new ones in their place.

Online forums have tried to defeat sockpuppetry by requiring account holders to use their real identities or by allowing pseudonymous usernames but charging a membership fee to deter one person from creating more than one account. But Cascio has developed a system allowing users to log into websites pseudonymously using Bitcoin addresses. What this means is that a website owner can restrict who can create an account based on the user's current Bitcoin balance, or even her balance history.

For example, a site might require that new users must have at least 30 days of a continuous balance of the Bitcoin equivalent of $100 associated with the address he is using for his ID. That $100 is not a membership fee you have to pay, only an average balance one has to carry for each account. That makes multiple accounts a very expensive proposition for malicious users, while remaining inexpensive for average users. Only because Bitcoin's ledger is public can the site verify that a user does indeed meet its collateral requirements.

"The fact that you can observe the history of a Bitcoin address is important because it means that you can't play Three Card Monte with IDs," says Cascio. Otherwise, a malicious user might simply move money around to different Bitcoin addresses before creating new accounts.

While Cascio only intended to address the sockpuppet issue, he has since discovered that his invention essentially leverages Bitcoin to create pseudonymous identities tied to something akin to publicly verifiable "credit histories"--something that has potential implications far beyond blocking Internet jerks.

This is the link to the article.
  http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Bitcoin%3A+more+than+money%3A+the+digital+protocol+promises+to+change...-a0374098870

I was refering to this suggestion. No worries Danny these post will be deleted, like my other where I raised my concerns.
Looks like newer users opinions do not count, even if they have no sig campaign. ^frown^

[CIYAM]

I was refering to this suggestion.

Sorry - I had meant to respond to that earlier but got distracted and then forgot all about it.

Actually I think it has some merit although perhaps it would be best to only apply to certain forum boards.

[DannyHamilton]

- snip -
BTW although I do appreciate your ignore list I find ignores are not so great as I still end up seeing the poster's avatar and I think the topics still get bumped don't they?

You are correct that posts from ignored individuals do still bump threads (unfortunately), but I don't see any of the avatars and I only see the content of their posts if someone else quotes them.

This makes it very fast and easy to scan the tail end of a bumped thread and move on if all of the recent posters are ignored. Otherwise I'd need to scan through the content of each post just to realize that I'm spending a lot of time attempting to make sense of nonsense.

It really has made a huge difference in the usability and value that I get from the forum.

[CIYAM]

It really has made a huge difference in the usability and value that I get from the forum.

I am certainly going to consider it (up until now I only have only ever put a few people on ignore due to personal attacks that just got a bit too annoying and I think those people were either expelled from the forum or left under a cloud anyway now).

Also don't you still see "this person is currently being ignored" or the like?

In my own forum implementation you don't see their post at all (not sure about the bumping though - would have to check my code but I think I did also handle that from memory). Thus people you ignore in CIYAM Open really just disappear (apart from quotes of course).

[DannyHamilton]

I'm trying to move on to other topics, but since you've asked . . .

- snip -
Also don't you still see "this person is currently being ignored" or the like?

Here's what I see:


After about 3 days of seeing that pattern my brain was trained to tune it out and I barely even notice it.

However, if a response that someone else posts gives the impression that I've just missed something worth reading, it's just a quick click of the "show/hide" link on the right to see what was said. And if I feel that the post demonstrates that the user is a valuable contributor to the discussion after all, a quick click of the "Unignore" link on the left brings them back.  This allows me to blanket ignore everyone with a sig ad, and then unignore without a lot of effort once they've proven themselves.

When I only had 2 or 3 sig ad users unignored, it was pretty easy to recognize the userID and avoid re-ignoring them accidentally.  More recently I'm probably closer to a dozen sig ad users that I've un-ignored.  I've occasionally re-ignored some of them because I saw the sig ad and reflexively clicked the ignore without recognizing that they were intentionally unignored.  That's why I've decided to create my own list offline of sig ad users I've chosen to unignore.  I can then occasionally compare that list to my ignore list to make sure that I haven't accidentally re-ignored someone that I didn't intend to.


You are right though, this does add some additional effort on my part to use the forum.  I find that the minimal effort that I'm making is worth the vast improvement in my experience using the site.  If the forum would create some tools that would make this process simper or unnecessary, I'd be very happy.

[CIYAM]

I'm trying to move on to other topics, but since you've asked . . .

Thanks for your patience (as ever).

It is now approaching Chinese New Year and the fireworks are steadily building up outside. I'll see if I can post a photo here when it "goes off" at midnight.

[inBitweTrust]

You are correct that posts from ignored individuals do still bump threads (unfortunately), but I don't see any of the avatars and I only see the content of their posts if someone else quotes them.

This is why a moderated thread like this one offers a few advantages above simply having a large ignore list.
Quotes will expose the garbage coming from those being ignored and there are always new accounts being created that need to be added to the ignore list.

From reviewing your list I see it is good but is a bit overzealous because -
1) I don't want to ignore users with sig campaigns that may remove them in the future(sometimes politely telling them that their sig campaign promotes a ponzi actually is effective in motivating them to drop it or they simply reform on their own)

2)   Their are a few trolls on here who do occasionally write some good posts

3) I don't care if someone is mean, aggressive, or a general asshole as long as the content of their post has value. Sometimes it is good to hear aggressive criticism from a jerk. Cruelty and offensive language can be annoying but won't add someone to my list in itself.

Here is my current ignore list for anyone interested:

Code:

kwukduck
billyjoeallen
bzzard
Xiaoxiao
myself
yuyu123
solitude
HELP.org
sublime5447
hayabusa911
mmitech
digitalindustry
awas
ShroomsKit
Ivanhoe
hamiltino
bluemeanie1
Eamorr
JohnyBigs
awesome31312
TKeenan
Interized
tanil
Chicago
exocytosis
TheDreadPirateDickstein
mayax
RawDog
amaclin
unusualfacts30
cosmofly
youngmike
ipoomyself
Redawn
Errror
ratcheterians
dagelf
redhawk979
gustav
Polycoin
~Coinseeker~
FatherBob
NotLambchop
AlexWattrelos9
DaveWave
Blazin604
pd62512005
Bitcoin Magazine
Moon Follow Me
fonsie
danielpbarron
AMVM
nutildah
blumenwiese
timmy1979222
wesk1212
Satan666
traincarswreck
blueminerneedsfoodbadly
cyberpinoy
Diatoms
NEM minnow
prayoga
ignitiondefect
tirex
Impros88
markBG
smalltimer
altcoinlady
newastrum
247bitcoinnewscom
21M Bitcoin
aithre
elix
complexity0
lzr300
Ume
1anonymous
DeadCoin
Bobtimus
baphomet33
bitcoinwilldie
ice bucket
fuckbtc3322
Solidsmart
ccpfuckbtc
PapaEmeritus
ivanovasmd
blitzbad
Rat_Poison
dragonlord123
247casino
Yoshi24517
smoothal
Tumoko Sakate
navneetkaur34
coingi.com
rshedbale7
geoh
FastForwarded
kazuki49
dewie
geegaw
el_tigre_chino
sonata789
alainbraux
adardos
vendor.seller
jinnaa
J3VVL
moneytakenbybtce
Sarah_Btc
bitcoinsforya
elinehaarbollen
fat buddah
dancing altcoin shiva
waaat?
altcoin hitler
homo homini lupus
Pecunia non olet
Muuurrrrica!
a fool and his money ...
insidertradingeverywhere
Mr. Burns
dave01
trumpclump
ikeboy
Shouganai
HarryPotHead
SockPuppetAccount
I_IZ_DEKAY5
DecentralizeEconomics
penny_coins
PlayaPlayaPlaya
heybanana
ashinners1980
popejubs
And.L
troll_alert
TruthBear
Warren Buffert
oyasumi
NotHatinJustTrollin
Nordark
Btcshithole
FUDpolicia
XPY_BALLA$
Peace_to_Paycoin
Stop_fudding_nerds
DigitalCynic
mobmob
sh!tcoin101
bitcoinface
dildofag
microbial
thebityoda
junagwaps
Eastfist
JBits
Gav1nFucksGoats
btcdad19
Bitcoin Rasta
Uncle Axetime
DrSeuss
btcwisdom1900
lamaorcoins
Jhontion

[CIYAM]

Here is a shot I just took from my apartment window (was a little scary actually).

[onemorebtc]

Here is a shot I just took from my apartment window (was a little scary actually).

nice wish you a good time
(too bad other houses are reflected in the window - but please keep it closed and stay safe - we need you ;p)

[CIYAM]

Actually those aren't reflections (I opened the window).

It was so loud and close that I couldn't hold the camera without shaking a bit.

(the building you see is part of the same complex and only around 50 metres away the fireworks are being set off between the buildings by residents of the complex)

[Harry Hood]

You are speaking to the wrong person here, I am against excluding poor people from public forums.
There seems to be a respect problem around here, towards disadvantaged people, and it's not coming from me.

Why do you assume that "poor people" will be excluded from this thread or are forced to promote sig campaigns (Most of which promote either ponzi's or gambling sites)? Being wealthy or poor does not remove your agency or responsibility and thus your comment is a non sequitur.

You are being extremely insulting to certain economic classes insinuating they will be excluded from this thread because they all need to peddle shit for a few satoshis. Many poor people are hard workers and with good ethical principles that actively choose to avoid sig campaigns.

InBit, you're completely missing the point of Kakmakr's comment. S/he was commenting on someone else's suggestion that forum users would need to keep a $100 balance of bitcoin in a wallet to be allowed to use this forum. Keeping that balance sitting idle in a BTC wallet could prevent poor people from participating in the forum, which would be an awful discrimination.

Excluding poor people from access to information by requiring wealth minimums goes against all the spirit of bitcoin.

[CIYAM]

Excluding poor people from access to information by requiring wealth minimums goes against all the spirit of bitcoin.

I do agree - but perhaps limiting access to certain boards according to either such a deposit (or proven worth in posting) could make the experience better for those that aren't just here to make a few cents from pointless posts.

(so the newbie boards could allow all the rubbish you want)

But perhaps what you have not *got* is that "trying to be nice to poor people" doesn't mean you should let them "shit in your lounge" (and in fact most poor people have more pride than that anyway so we aren't really talking about poor people here).

Maybe unlike a lot of people here I have actually *met* poor people in remote Chinese villages and they behave in a much more respectful manner than most people in general posting in this forum do (they have a thing called "pride" which ad-sig posters seem to lack altogether).

So "allowing people to post shit" in the name of "being nice to poor people" is actually a very arrogant concept created by rich people that don't actually understand much about "poor people" at all (perhaps their only experience is *beggars* in a city).

[Harry Hood]

Excluding poor people from access to information by requiring wealth minimums goes against all the spirit of bitcoin.

I do agree - but perhaps limiting access to certain boards according to either such a deposit (or proven worth in posting) could make the experience better for those that aren't just here to make a few cents from pointless posts.

(so the newbie boards could allow all the rubbish you want)

Perhaps what you have not *got* is that "trying to be nice to poor people" doesn't mean you should let them "shit in your lounge" (and in fact most poor people have more pride than that anyway so we aren't really talking about poor people here).

CIYAM, this is a good point. The technical and project based boards don't need the naively curious posts, especially when answers one newbie seeks can be found through Google search rather than slowing down the conversation for everyone else. I'm a capitalist, I agree with your "shit in the road" analogy, however I'll argue that we're penalizing the masses for the errors, 'shitting' so to speak of a few. (I don't expect to turn you with my argument, by the way.)

The suggestion that's being rebutted, to require forum users maintain a balance is not related to the ad sig issue. The person was suggesting access to the forum only be allowed if one holds a minimum balance, I disagree with that on every level.

Finally, it's really the fault of the ad sig campaigns to police their campaign. They need to make good on the threats that they won't pay for non-constructive posts. Non payment will be as effective as payment is for the clutter.

I'll now bid you farewell because I'm feeling compelled to enter the dark side. I'm a capitalist, I'm attracted to the opportunity to earn some coin and in the process spread the bitcoin economy further. I'll likely be joining a campaign soon, which will have you deleting my post. It's been a fun conversation and I'll be carrying forward the principle to only make comments that contribute to conversation. I'd hate to lose the privilege to participate on this forum.

Happy New Year!

[CIYAM]

If the ad sigs could "pick up their game" then we'd have nothing to discuss here but I am not seeing that (the posts just get worse and worse).

I am not an anti-capitalist (perhaps I lean a bit towards libertarian but I don't have much in the way of a political bias as I think all such systems have problems) but what I do know is that if you reward people for posting crap then they will post crap.

It is hard to come up with the right way to make reward systems work - I am not against the concept but am not happy with the simplistic approach we see here that has led to the vast majority of rubbish posts I have been complaining about (and I am not the only one).

[Harry Hood]

If the ad sigs could "pick up their game" then we'd have nothing to discuss here but I am not seeing that (the posts just get worse and worse).

I am not an anti-capitalist (perhaps I lean a bit towards libertarian but I don't have much in the way of political bias as I think all such systems have problems) but what I do know is that if you reward people for posting crap then they will post crap.

Yeah, how do they say "follow the dollar"? Money is a great motivator for better and worse.