Topic: Merit system vs KYC registration? - page 2. (Read 638 times)

With all these smartasses around no wonder why crypto is turning into shit. This is crypto forum not a bank, if you don't like system you can always go to other crypto forum. I can give you a list if you want.
*KYC for crypto forum, some guys are very funny.

Thanks.  Feel free to point to me already.  For my part, I’ve been flaunting my merit score to whiners of all kinds.  Some might take that as tooting my own horn; but I don’t care, because—well, zeroth of all, I just don’t care about that.  First of all, I needn’t boast when the number is printed right below my name.  But it sure feels good to rub it in the faces of all the self-entitled nincompoops who loudly demand that they should be able to rise in rank, when they can’t or won’t make good posts.

---

Cheers!

---

That.


As a Tor user, I would strongly object to that.  It is likely that many accounts have been created from whatever exit IP I happened to use when I created mine.  I paid the requisite fee to absolve myself of that IP’s “evil”.  But had there been any restriction on accounts created per IP, then I would not be here at all.

Whitelising Tor for multiple accounts created per IP would not be a solution.  Tor is not the only anonymity solution; and moreover, a whitelist of Tor exits would simply mean that all users who wanted to create many accounts would use Tor for that.  It’s likely that many of them already do, anyway.

Of course, as an anonymity network user, I focus on that aspect.  What about ISP proxies and carrier-grade NAT?  Due to IPv4 exhaustion, carrier-grade NAT is increasingly common nowadays.  A single IP address can map to many people, each of whom has no choice in the matter other than to swich ISPs.  In a market with an ISP monopoly, or where all local ISPs use carrier-grade NAT, they may have no choice at all.

The notion of some quasi-bijective mapping between people and IP addresses is a common fallacy; as such, IP addresses are far too much abused and mistaken as some sort of identity token or identity limiter.  The worst part is, professional spammers, blackhats, and other net abusers have access to huge collections of IPs.  They suffer the least from such restrictions.  I recall theymos saying that part of the reason why his homebrew anti-DDoS system failed was that attackers had “thousands of IPs”.  So do many other abusers.


The whole point is to discriminate—to be highly discriminating between high-quality and low-quality posts.  As a discriminating conoisseur of fine words, I urge discrimination and intolerance against worthless drivel.

What Naitik evidently desires is that merit be awarded indiscriminately, to forum poetry and one-liner garbage posts alike.  I think that speaks much as to his motives.

Still  unable to understand what is meaning of  title of this thread?   We will need governance not KYC.  Members on this thread love their privacy.   

Maybe they should stop complaining. People will get the merit eventually but it's not going to happen with every post. Keep making quality contributions and you will increase your odds.


I wouldn't be against certain restrictions like one account can only be created per ip, but banning alt accounts isn't as easy as just saying the practice is now banned. How do we police this? It's going to be something only admins can enforce and they pretty much never look into the things that need looking into as it is, nevermind giving them the mammoth task of now policing the no alts rule.


How can any panel of experts be free of 'discrimination'? People will still disagree or complain about points they do or don't give out.

Arguendo, yes! I like that word, thank you for introducing it to me.

Jet Cash liked the original post. The original post mentions nothing of KYC. What the original post does mention is a direct criticism of the merit system for not doing enough to accomplish the intended benefit. Therefore, my contention remains that Jet Cash merited the post because he doesn't like the merit system.

And...on your anonymity, I look forward to never knowing who you are.

Cheers, HabbyB

@nullius. I do like the cut of your gib.

You are what is making the merit system awesome. A non pajeet Inteligent and eloquent poster and guess what.. you have received a fuck ton of merits for your rank..

Keep it up fella, can't wait to see you with 1k merits so I can point the moaning pajeets at your profile and tell them to fuck off as you are proof theymos was correct with the implementation

I think the most fitting answer, ironic but serious, would be:  “None of your business.”  Of course, I have “bought” Bitcoin (viz., exchanged fiat funny money for real money).  Indeed, most of my life savings wound up in Bitcoin (then most of that, in a privacy-oriented altcoin where I took a very painful loss—but that’s another story).  Whereas I have never bought Bitcoin on an exchange which does KYC.

Nobody anywhere has any record that I’ve ever owned even a single satoshi.  Most people who know me in real life don’t even know that I know what Bitcoin is.  And I would not brag about that, except under a nym made for the purpose of privacy and security work and activism.

There are plenty of other ways.  If the question were rephrased, “How might someone buy Bitcoin without a KYC-requiring exchange?”, then there are many forum threads, several websites, and at least one peer-to-peer network devoted to this exact question.  I note this without endorsing anything in particular.


I think that Jet Cash would need to speak for Jet Cash.  Anyway, arguendo, dislike for the merit system would not adequately explain giving merit to anything “KYC”.

An inspiration for us all...so how do you buy Bitcoin?

---

Because Jet Cash doesn't like the system. S/he feels they got screwed out of reaching Legendary status because they were close to hitting the range as the merit system was deployed. You'll notice that Jet Cash has a lot of schemes to try to get people to spend their merits on his/her posts, which are usually thinly veiled to appear as though he's a promoter of the system.

Tor user here.  Cypherpunk who remembers that it took an excruciatingly long time to generate 4096-bit RSA PGP keys on 90s hardware.  I am strictly pseudonymous.  I am so dedicated to encrypting everything, everywhere, all the time, that I even encrypt all my forum posts with the military-grade ROT26 cipher.  I am not fodder for your dragnet.

I’ve never submitted to any “KYC” identity-rape doxing for anything whatsoever even remotely related to Bitcoin.  On principle, I never will.  Why the hell would I?  In principle, my finances are private—mine, and mine alone.  As a practical matter, I don’t need to worry so much about history repeating in some fashion the time that gold was banned for four decades in the country which ignorant twerps call “the land of the free”.  I also don’t need to worry about the kinds of kidnappers and armed robbers who run from laws instead of making laws.  My literal and metaphorical gold is immune to all criminals, whereas nobody knows who I am, where I am, or what I have.

I know that theymos would never even consider doxing people.  I also know that if he did, this forum would be promptly reduced to a small circle-jerk in the alt speculation subforum, hyping how Govecoin With Anti Four Horsemen KYC/AML Cavity Search Technology is going to the MOON.

So, you want my dox?  “...from my cold, dead fingers.”

---

For my part, it doesn’t matter where I happen to be located at any particular moment.  Nobody “grants” me the right to speak freely:  I grant that to myself.  If you wanted to shut me up, you’d need to find me first.

---

Me, too.

...you were saying?

If you really think that a crypto anarchist / cyberpunk / anyone reasonable/rational/knowledgeable (i.e. any desirable user) is going to submit KYC to become a merit source or even to register here, then you are a nutjob.

---

I wonder why Jet Cash merited this shitpost.

One of the good things about the forum is anonymity, so a KYC appart from being expensive would scare many people that want to speak freely. Perhaps you come from a country where that is granted.

Regarding the panel, and as the previous post says, you have the merit sources that, at least in theory, should be acting for the better of the forum.

However, I do find some "merit" in your post as per having a bit of a clear criteria on what is quality and how much merit could you expect for a brilliant post, etc... But I guess that the system has yet to mature.

That panel of experts is called as "merit sources" as per the new system.

Since the merit system is introduced in the forum, everyone is complaining about someone getting merit points for none deserving posts & someone not getting merit points for deserving posts.
If the main motive of this forum is to introduce quality in the forum then they have to ban multiple accounts rather than giving a merit system from one peer to another peer.
If these things can't happen, then they have to introduce a panel of experts who will give merit points to quality posts without any discrimination.
This will introduce stability and people will actually work for the quality with proper power.
What do you think??