Topic: [self-moderated] Report unmerited good posts to Merit Source - page 10. (Read 53186 times)

~~~

~~~

~~~

Hi buddy.

I don't quite understand what you want with this. The thread is about reporting good unmerited posts, and yours have been merited, all of them. Some with a lot of merits, plus you don't need merits to rank up, so I don't know what you want.

@LoyceV, I never know if you like getting more posts on local board

I don't know if the logic of your reasoning is that if some of those posts instead of having 10 merits received have 20, people in your local board will pay more attention to them.

Hi buddy.

I don't quite understand what you want with this. The thread is about reporting good unmerited posts, and yours have been merited, all of them. Some with a lot of merits, plus you don't need merits to rank up, so I don't know what you want.

I don't know if the logic of your reasoning is that if some of those posts instead of having 10 merits received have 20, people in your local board will pay more attention to them.

Anyway, good luck.

I know that adding some merit source or replacing inactive ones can improve distribution across multiple board. As one of the users who have submitted merit source applications, I have never forced the admin to accept me because I think some people are still willing to help on the local board or maybe merited some of my posts which I then distribute to the local board. But of course my contribution won't be much improvement, but at least it will continue as long as I have sMerit. Unfortunately while now it has to stop because of 0 sMerit.

@LoyceV, I never know if you like getting more posts on local board, but I can only tell you that I need a little support for that in some of my local post. This may not mean much to many of my local users so they're likely ignoring it, but so far @DdmrDdmr and a few other users have helped a lot. Thank you to those who have helped so far.

This was a nice surprise, as I don't frequent the forum as much as I used to. The response here is heartwarming.

To clarify, the 'Revised Edition' came out less than a year after the first, and only had a few extra pages- it is a hardcover 'coffee table book', and is an improvement upon the original softcover in terms of design, presentability, and some updated information.

Interestingly, the book was written in the first place was because I got PM's here saying I should expand upon the Casascius eBook I published in 2014. When I began writing the Encyclopedia in late 2014, the projected length was much shorter, but the amount of coins grew exponentially over the 2-year writing process.

One of the challenges of the Encyclopedia was that it was not possible to get all the specs like size, weight, or denomination of all coins, or even quality images or information, of all coins. Further, come coins were far less interesting and remarkable than others. As such some coins needed to be left out, as adding bits and pieces of incomplete and seemingly insignificant info would have make the final result look disjointed. The scope of 'physical bitcoins' is large, and you would be surprised by just how many ICO's and crypto startups created metal coins or plastic chips. Luckily, the Encyclopedia was out before ICO's became a thing. Then there are whole other closely related areas: 'crypto bills' and 'crypto cards'. I will note here, that the book did credit BitBills in the Foreword though they were not part of the primary material.

While I love the book format, I think the best first step for the next iteration is to create an openly accessible online resource that lists as many coins as possible along with all available specs and links to primary sources. As there is so much more "physical crypto" material than before, this would need to be sourced by a team of researchers initially, and later crowd-sourced with a simple mechanism for new entries and specific pieces of data to be continually submitted and published. I have the initial framework ready for this database ready to go, as well as a basic version set up for Casascius coins at https://www.cryptonumist.com/casascius-gallery/

In this new iteration, I envision that each entry could credit the name(s) of whoever contributed data.

Let's make this happen- once the information is all in one place, I can actually put it into a book, perhaps editions such as "Physical Bitcoin: 2017-2019 - The ICO Era', etc.

Consider this a call for volunteer researchers

It's Repost. I have posted this before. Back then, I didn't have enough activity to rank up. Right now, I am nearly at my next rank. So I am posting it again.

I don't have that many quality posts. But, I believe some of my posts are worth reading (not sure if worth merit, let it decide by merit sources). So I am going to share some of my posts:

• WO post- Why you shouldn't regret even if you bought BTC at ATH
• What's happening with Bitcoin?
• WO post Explain Why newbies have the same pain as veteran members when the Market Crash?
• General Discussion About Bitcoin Forum
• How much do you care when you wear a commercial Signature?

I wish I had 6 smerits left to send you. I had only 2 and send you that. Wishing you a faster Hero Rank. Advance congratulations.

I have received a good number of merits in that post. Based on the rules of this thread, I shouldn't post it here. But still I'm seeking for the attention of the merit source as I'm too close to a new rank in the forum. Thank you!

Two years in forum and I have my life of consequence here.

Briefly note on my contributions

Bitcoin

• Transactions (complilation for newbies)
• Taproot - The biggest upgrade for Bitcoin since 2017 & documents to read.
• Bitcoin Taproot (Bech32m - bc1p) adoption
• Create Taproot address for your Bitcoin
• Bitcoin and cryptocurrency monthly return (%) from Cryptorank.io
• Websites for Dollar Cost Averaging DCA
• Websites to check withdrawal fee and transaction fee

Altcoins

• Define the (scam) DeFi
• Revoke Smart Contract Allowance with unrekt.net
• Websites to check liquidity pools