Topic: Miners: Time to NOT deprioritise/filter address reuse! (Read 1152 times)

That poll is a trick. A simple yes/no would have sufficed, instead of the pointless 3 other items.

Nice post , but when you start putting so much work on something so trivial , you add value to that trivial cause.
It's clear that the poll was made so with pure intention to make the results unclear.

I think the last option should be replaced with:

"If it's from someone that can't even make a proper poll, it can't be any good."

This post is a "funny" way of explaining (using metaphorical case studies) how I feel about that poll.

///  Hypothetical ways to give people a "choice" about not actually unsubscribing from your spam mailing list, or making sure they get the carrots they secretly actually want, despite any reservations they have about your vegetables.  ///

---

After clicking the unsubscribe link on an uninteresting email much like countless others you've been getting... basically you're annoyed by this type of email on a daily basis... your computer opens up the unsubscribe link in your default browser, and displays a website with the following text:


After quickly looking at the unsubscribe page in your browser, you see the word "unsubscribe" followed by two "select one" radio button options:

• Yes
• No

... upon further study, you discover a few pre-checked checkboxes, and more than one button:

In the margins of the page, there are some checkboxes with various strangely worded options, many of which include "but", or "instead", or "please", and MULTIPLE buttons labeled "submit", and a single button labeled "cancel"

In a situation like this, who can really say what the correct action even is to get them to stop sending you "fancy widget product promotion reminder notices" (spam)

Does the cancel button cancel your attempt at unsubscribing?

What is the purpose for the Nth "submit" button near the 3rd cluster of multiple-choice buttons?

---

Another hypothetical scenario:

A person has a controversial idea about farming a particular variety of carrots, and there is an opinion poll with various options:

• {1}  (...) don't plant these abominations of nature
• {2}  I don't like carrots (...)
• {3}  We should grow potatoes (...)
• {4}  Great, I like carrots
• {5}  (...) let's get these carrots planted everywhere next growing season
• {6}  (...)

The language can be used to manipulate the voter's thoughts away from carrot farming, and depending on the text which gets substituted in place of "(...)", any choices for these options could potentially be invalid due to a confusing & therefore flawed methodology.

Just as an example, let's say the word substitutions are as follows:

{1}  (you're not a very experienced carrot farmer ...)
{2}  (... but I agree we need to plant carrots)
{3}  (... but I guess the farming needs to move forward with carrots anyway.)
{4}  -- generic option to express support without bias or confusion --
{5}  (you looked pretty cool in those television commercials ...)
{6}  -- generic option to express strife, due to controversy about the carrot farmers --

Now, the "actual" (hypothetical) final text used for an option poll about carrot farming, as well as the results of our now somewhat confusing poll:

• {1}  (you're not a very experienced carrot farmer ...) don't plant these abominations of nature - 107 (43.3%)
• {2}  I don't like carrots (... but I agree we need to plant carrots) - 20 (8.1%)
• {3}  We should grow potatoes (... but I guess the farming needs to move forward with carrots anyway.) - 21 (8.5%)
• {4}  Great, I like carrots - 38 (15.4%)
• {5}  (you looked pretty cool in those television commercials ...) let's get these carrots planted everywhere next growing season - 45 (18.2%)
• {6}  this idea came from someone with the wrong skin color, a controversial world view, their political affiliation directly opposes mine, or they otherwise automatically have bad ideas, so it doesn't matter what they want to farm - 16 (6.5%)

Total Voters: 247


Different poll, using a non-hypothetical bitcoin-related topic instead of carrot farming or the opt-out forms used by promotional mailing lists:

• You're an idiot, don't do this!
• I don't like this, but I agree we need to move forward with it.
• We should have waited longer, but I guess it needs to move forward now.
• Great, it's about time!
• You're a hero, let's get this deployed everywhere ASAP!
• If it's from Luke, it can't be any good.

Shhh - too much thought went into your reply

Not to mention having a self moderated thread by a trigger happy opening poster is hardly the means to debate anything in any meaningful fashion, irrespective of the discussion.

Except his poll questions are leading people towards certain responses that are wishy-washy rather than absolute.  When you have 6 answers on a poll for a yes/no poll, and 4 of the 6 are worded to be in favor of your personal opinion, and one is worded just to be an attack on Luke to lure trolls, leaving only 1 "normal" response which would be against it, that's not a very useful poll.

'If it's from Luke it can't be any good' doesn't indicate happy...

the post shows ~60% are happy with it, ...

Luke, yet again, another attempted attack on Satoshi Dice hidden behind fud

What was the last one he did? Dust (to stop SD confirms)

What else? Blocking SD on his pool.

Gotta love it when people say BTC can't handle transactions, it's not good enough ...
So the fix is to block them not fix it! Lulz

I think this image says it pretty clearly.


Edit: note I haven't made this thread so I can delete posts that disagree with me ... unlike what is happening in the other thread.