Topic: 21 Million Proposal (Read 408 times)

Thank you for your links are reference for me.

I think that the important thing about a forum is to have the opportunity to express yourself, a forum should be a generator of ideas, proposals and projects, all that you have raised in those posts is really useful and meaningful.

I believe that bitcointalk must be an entity that should be at the forefront of all this entropy of the blockchain to be the link between technology and people, companies and governments.

_____

Defining a certain limit for posts, logins, members and others is a method of fighting inflation, which has no benefit.
I think you mean a certain threshold for ranks which is a good thing but we must choose whether 21,000 or 21 M is a good number. For example, 1000 Merit are not enough for the legendary rank or we need more ranks to reward members who make high-quality posts.

In general, it is a good idea to focus more on badges than ranks, with many restrictions.

About some changes / general rules / suggestions regarding campaigns, I opened this topic in February, but it changed nothing.

Regarding new ranks, as I said before, there were several topics on this matter, this one being the most recent. I suggested there the following:


Besides, there are many other suggestions on this subject, but nothing has changed. And I doubt anything will change...

Okay! I understand what you say.
But 10 years have passed and everything that exists in bitcointalk is great, I don't criticize anything, but in the next 10 years we could be socially more influential.

I doubt there will be other ranks. That discussion was taken over and over for years, in various topics.

Most likely, when the transition to the new forum will take course, the ranks and the current rules will remain the same. The new software will bring new features, technological improvements, but I don't think there will be changes regarding ranks, merits & trust systems or a limitation of the users number.

Definitely as it happens a lot in the forums some only limit themselves to reading the OP and of course they give literal answers, there is an additional option and they ignore it.




It is not really the point, it is to draw attention to what this forum is, its objective, its importance, some care about the issue of accounts (it is correct, ok) but it is really important (?) To get the maximum rank to be able to enter a campaign (?)

The legendary must be a user who must have influence in your country, be a spokesperson, a qualified person to face a political, economic, social debate in any part of your country or community, etc.

__________
_______________
_________________

Open your mind!

Marketing:
21 million subs limited

New rank
Bit - Ambassadors - Coin

Objective:
minimum: 200 Bit-Ambassadors-Coin
At least two "new rank: BAC" per country

Income:
Access to special campaigns
Donations


Responsibilities:
Report activities you do.
Be a true bitcoin ambassador.

The objective is too spread the word of Bitcoin to as many people as possible and not to limit the message to only 21, 21.000 or 21 million. We are a long way from reaching those numbers. I don't see a single sentence in your posts that highlights a valid reason why such limitations should be placed.

The fixation on the number 21 is unnecessary.

Limiting the number of users is unnecessary as people do also constantly doubt and have eagerness to learn in each and every way possible. We cannot just simply limit users to 21million due to the fact that this is a forum not a campaign nor a social media that offers money in campaign you can join. But instead limit the posts to 21million but that would require a lot of work and deletion as there are so many offtopic and short posts.

Overall, limiting the capacity is also limiting the capability.

I don't get it, why would you want to stifle growth?

Restricting growth would only encourage account sales which has been a toxic cancer inhibiting the promotion and growth of BitCoinTalk.

You'd be best to turn this into a poll and see just how despised a notion this really is.

Thanks for your replies!

The Topic really has two "initial" reasons could be many more, but in my proposal, they are the ones I decided to raise.

The majority opted for the 21 million subs and it was obvious, then they opted for reason 2.

But really the main thing about this proposal is the influence of Bitcoin:



We are in the second decade of Bitcoin, it is not about transforming the forum, making it more beautiful or having 21 million as a target for subs, it is about focusing the forum on being transformer and influential "official" of the Blockchain, which in this case We can reduce only to Bitcoin.

The brightness of Bitcoin is not to be a payment currency, it is to be a social, economic transformer, that is its true value.

The power of bitcoin is to own our assets without relying on third parties, but being a society that for hundreds of years we have relied on third parties to organize, we do not learn how to do it.

Unfortunately for the primary objective of bitcoin as a transformative entity of societies in the economic sphere, today a few individuals launch a white paper and manage to gather millions of followers to make a few rich.

Let's make an effort to turn this forum into a true technical influence not only in the bitcoin Core and its derivatives in the Blockchain, but also in a social influence.

21 million is simply a symbolic number to start.

It's cool and symbolic, but what are real benefits or advantage of the proposal.

Damn what a proposal if this implemented I'm pretty sure members here will see this as a good opportunity and will just create thousands of accounts so they can sell it in the future, so you have ten thousands accounts and you sell it for $5 each, we old timers is going to be rich if this is implemented.  

At least share some benefits too if this will be implemented here

I'm not against here but I don't see any benefits or advantage of the proposal. I'm sorry but your proposal has been rejected .

It's taken 10 years to get 2.7 million members. Assuming the same average rate of sign ups, if EpochTalk isn't ready by 2098, then it doesn't matter what we think because we'll all be dead.

Placing any limit on signups will simply encourage account sales at ludicrous prices when that limit is reached.

No, this is a terrible idea. What would be the benefit of this? We don't have to limit things just to try fit in with a number associated with bitcoin. This is a forum to discuss bitcoin and we shouldn't be limiting or capping users from being able to post just based on some arbitrary number. It's the same thing when people complain about that this forum should be decentralised just because bitcoin is. There should be as few limitations to posting as possible and we certainly shouldn't be capping users. All that would do would be shooting the forum in the foot as people will just flock to another forum that doesn't have such a ludicrous restriction.

In my opinion, there is no good reason to link the transition to a new forum with the number of registered users. Satoshi calculated the required number of bitcoins for ease of use. It is not prohibited to have multiple accounts on the forum and as we know there are still farms. So I think that 21 million registrations is not an indicator for transition. To switch to a new forum, it must first of all be ready from the technical point of view.

Perhaps also the number of topics should be capped at 21 millions? : )))))

Although a proposal is structured in its approach, I will summarize and arrive directly at the proposal.


The reason or reasons for being specific in the proposal, I am in the right place, Bitcointalk.org, that is, if you have doubts e.g why is  21 million?  you are in the right place to find out, as well as any other questions that may arise, The forum provides wisdom.


Reasons:
- Although many see BiTCoinTalk.org as one more forum, it really isn't, although many still don't know what Bitcoin is and even less know about Satoshi Nakamoto, that is Temporary.

- There are currently several interesting proposals or discussions, in terms of forum renewal, among other things, but one to highlight is that there is something called epcottalk or a kind of beta forum.

But it seems that the forum in the short term does not have a change scheduled, or add new features, which would not necessarily have to be a makeover this forum could  only add certain features.

Vintage, nostalgic  or change,  has users divided into 50/50, let's make consensus and in the subscription 21 million, close new signup

The user 21,000.001 goes to the new version that by those years must already be finished.

What do you think?

_________________
Original source