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.
Topic: The no ad-sigs posters allowed topic - come and not be annoyed by rubbish posts - page 3. (Read 5020 times)
February 18, 2015, 08:43:53 AM
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.
February 18, 2015, 08:39:29 AM
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.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
Looks like newer users opinions do not count, even if they have no sig campaign. ^frown^
February 18, 2015, 08:35:46 AM
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?
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?
February 18, 2015, 08:29:31 AM
I thought that we:
And that we should not:
It seems there are several posts from the past 29 hours that need to be deleted.
Quote
have 'moved on' from discussing about 'ad sigs'
And that we should not:
Quote
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.
February 18, 2015, 08:24:23 AM
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".
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".
February 18, 2015, 08:14:34 AM
So you just suggested to exclude poor people from joining forums on the internet? ^Frown^
That is NOT the way to solve this problem.
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.
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?
February 18, 2015, 07:44:38 AM
Good video with Peter Wuille discussing some recent changes in .10.0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asC_kVJ6sig
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asC_kVJ6sig
February 18, 2015, 01:05:31 AM
So you just suggested to exclude poor people from joining forums on the internet? ^Frown^
That is NOT the way to solve this problem.
Set down strict rules for spamming on signature campaigns and be done with it. The biggest problem now is, people who host these signature campaigns, set high minimum post limits and members post rubbish to adhere to it.
Or if you really feel strongly about this, make a donation to this attempt to stop spam :
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/help-the-forum-and-earn-bitcoins-increased-the-reward-to-01-918799
That is NOT the way to solve this problem.
Set down strict rules for spamming on signature campaigns and be done with it. The biggest problem now is, people who host these signature campaigns, set high minimum post limits and members post rubbish to adhere to it.
Or if you really feel strongly about this, make a donation to this attempt to stop spam :
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/help-the-forum-and-earn-bitcoins-increased-the-reward-to-01-918799
February 17, 2015, 08:00:56 PM
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
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
February 17, 2015, 04:07:19 PM
lol
I had participated in a few sig campaigns for a few months now. The first one ran out and didnt bother informing me. The second one kicked me because I got a 5 day ban for drunkenly posting gibberish... To tell you the truth, I'm happier. The tiny amount of BTC I earned was not worth the relentless searching for something to post. Half the threads in here are obviously started by sig-puppets, maybe 75% (at least) of all posts everywhere are bullshit post-count padding. Frankly, I don't think anyone can read and participate in this level of idiotic posting without sort-of losing his mind a little.
Now that I'm not in any sig campaign I actually post about 4 or 5 times a week. If there is action in areas I am actually involved in (I am invested in a few securities) I might post as many as 10 times a week. It doesn't go near the 50+ post weekly required for some of the better paying sig campaigns. I go outside, breath fresh air, feel the sun on my face. Its magnificent to be free!
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.
I had participated in a few sig campaigns for a few months now. The first one ran out and didnt bother informing me. The second one kicked me because I got a 5 day ban for drunkenly posting gibberish... To tell you the truth, I'm happier. The tiny amount of BTC I earned was not worth the relentless searching for something to post. Half the threads in here are obviously started by sig-puppets, maybe 75% (at least) of all posts everywhere are bullshit post-count padding. Frankly, I don't think anyone can read and participate in this level of idiotic posting without sort-of losing his mind a little.
Now that I'm not in any sig campaign I actually post about 4 or 5 times a week. If there is action in areas I am actually involved in (I am invested in a few securities) I might post as many as 10 times a week. It doesn't go near the 50+ post weekly required for some of the better paying sig campaigns. I go outside, breath fresh air, feel the sun on my face. Its magnificent to be free!
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.
February 17, 2015, 12:54:16 PM
I think Vitalik is wise to consider other approaches and (once we publish the paper) I think he might be interested to study what CIYAM has come up with.
We'd love to publish it now but unfortunately CIYAM doesn't have the 15M budget of that project so we have to wait until they have committed before we can "show our cards" (but it will be published prior to the publicly announced release of our blockchain software).
We'd love to publish it now but unfortunately CIYAM doesn't have the 15M budget of that project so we have to wait until they have committed before we can "show our cards" (but it will be published prior to the publicly announced release of our blockchain software).
February 17, 2015, 12:50:35 PM
(it's still not clear what method Ethereum plan to launch with).
They settled upon a Dagger-Hashimoto hybrid PoW optimised for GPU's and ASIC resistant for ver 1, but Vitalik will probably want to switch the algo to some TaPoS variant as soon as possible(perhaps even late 2015). Gavin Wood appears to prefer PoW and Vitalik loves spending a lot of time considering everything besides PoW.
February 17, 2015, 12:25:15 PM
The key thing that Bitcoin has brought to us is "decentralised consensus" (sometimes called the "Byzantine Generals problem" or perhaps more commonly the "double spending problem").
Prior to Bitcoin there was basically no solution to the dilemma of trust when each node you are connected to could be dishonest. This was the "genius" that Satoshi brought us (he didn't invent anything else really).
The very idea of a blockchain is something that no accountant would ever come up with (as no traditional accounting system has ever worked this way).
Other ways of being able to provide such consensus are now being built and tested and although nothing can ever take away from Satoshi's invention I think that other approaches (that don't need so much energy consumption) will likely end up being the future (although I would not be surprised to see Bitcoin remain as "digital gold" for a very long time).
The PoS approach is not one that I particularly like but there are other approaches (such as Ripple and such as the new proof that CIYAM plans to unveil soon) that hold promise (it's still not clear what method Ethereum plan to launch with).
Prior to Bitcoin there was basically no solution to the dilemma of trust when each node you are connected to could be dishonest. This was the "genius" that Satoshi brought us (he didn't invent anything else really).
The very idea of a blockchain is something that no accountant would ever come up with (as no traditional accounting system has ever worked this way).
Other ways of being able to provide such consensus are now being built and tested and although nothing can ever take away from Satoshi's invention I think that other approaches (that don't need so much energy consumption) will likely end up being the future (although I would not be surprised to see Bitcoin remain as "digital gold" for a very long time).
The PoS approach is not one that I particularly like but there are other approaches (such as Ripple and such as the new proof that CIYAM plans to unveil soon) that hold promise (it's still not clear what method Ethereum plan to launch with).
February 17, 2015, 12:24:28 PM
What do you think is the most valuable element of the bitcoin technology, infrastructure or idea? If (free society forbid) the altcurrency ends up going down, what's the one thing to keep alive?
Decentralized Sovereignty. This is why bitcoin will always be valuable even if a large government attempts to replicate and compete directly with their own cryptocurrency.
Okay, I'm newer to the forum and still new to bitcoin. What do you find to be the most current developments with bitcoin?
At my first glance it seemed like once the infrastructure exists there's not much enhancement needed, but I'm also not a fool to technology...there's always innovation around the corner. What's being innovated upon in the community today?
At my first glance it seemed like once the infrastructure exists there's not much enhancement needed, but I'm also not a fool to technology...there's always innovation around the corner. What's being innovated upon in the community today?
0.10.0 was just released with these improvements - https://bitcoin.org/en/release/v0.10.0
0.11 will likely include block pruning allowing people to run a full node with only 1 GB of storage space
Other BIPs-
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips
Very interesting projects being developed/released as well that interact and depend upon bitcoin. Here is a small sample of the most interesting ones to me-
https://www.vinumeris.com/lighthouse
https://openbazaar.org/
http://impulse.is/
http://www.blockstream.com/
https://www.darkwallet.is/
https://github.com/petertodd/bips/blob/checklocktimeverify/bip-checklocktimeverify.mediawiki
February 17, 2015, 12:08:39 PM
I think all of that went over my head, guess I have some searching and reading to do around this forum.
What do you think is the most valuable element of the bitcoin technology, infrastructure or idea? If (free society forbid) the altcurrency ends up going down, what's the one thing to keep alive?
What do you think is the most valuable element of the bitcoin technology, infrastructure or idea? If (free society forbid) the altcurrency ends up going down, what's the one thing to keep alive?
February 17, 2015, 03:34:59 AM
One of the next big steps is the idea of extending consensus to handle much more sophisticated "smart contracts" (which technologies such as Ethereum and AT are addressing by providing "Turing complete transactions") as although Bitcoin has quite a few neat features (such as M of N sig txs) its Script language was purposely designed not to support that.
(others note we have "moved on" from discussing about "ad sigs" so please don't bother bringing that up again or the post will also be deleted)
(others note we have "moved on" from discussing about "ad sigs" so please don't bother bringing that up again or the post will also be deleted)
February 17, 2015, 03:12:54 AM
Okay, I'm newer to the forum and still new to bitcoin. What do you find to be the most current developments with bitcoin?
At my first glance it seemed like once the infrastructure exists there's not much enhancement needed, but I'm also not a fool to technology...there's always innovation around the corner. What's being innovated upon in the community today?
At my first glance it seemed like once the infrastructure exists there's not much enhancement needed, but I'm also not a fool to technology...there's always innovation around the corner. What's being innovated upon in the community today?
February 17, 2015, 03:08:42 AM
It's ironic that you set up this thread to allow discussion from people that don't have ad-sigs yet you've spent majority of the conversation talking about people that have ad sigs.
Indeed (welcome to bring something more interesting to this quiet corner for discussion).
February 17, 2015, 03:01:13 AM
It's ironic that you set up this thread to allow discussion from people that don't have ad-sigs yet you've spent majority of the conversation talking about people that have ad sigs.
February 17, 2015, 01:08:50 AM
Reading through this thread feels like being on a different forum. it's really hard to get much value from most threads because it just takes too much time to wade past all the nonsense posts, and some signatures are very distracting.
It seems that people who pay for signature space and posts would get better value if they paid per word instead of per post, or maybe required a minimum number of words per post. I'm starting to see "daily" threads where people are posting stuff like "last drink you had" or "last movie you watched" on a daily basis, and these entire threads are mostly useless, but in reality the people who pay for posts in these threads, and ignored posts, are wasting their money.
TT
It seems that people who pay for signature space and posts would get better value if they paid per word instead of per post, or maybe required a minimum number of words per post. I'm starting to see "daily" threads where people are posting stuff like "last drink you had" or "last movie you watched" on a daily basis, and these entire threads are mostly useless, but in reality the people who pay for posts in these threads, and ignored posts, are wasting their money.
TT
Jump to: