Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 121 results by lotto-fan
I found the new ranking requirement is not logic. It requires way too many merit points in order to gain higher rankings. For example, I am a Member now, and from Member to Full Member:
Requirements:
Member 60 10
Full Member 120 100
I need 60 posts and 90 Merit points. How many posts I can get 90 merit points? Well, some posts I just reply to other people's posts, with my comments, for those, I probably get no merit points. I need to post long and original info or thoughts in order to get merit points. Say every 3 posts I get 1 merit point, I'd do 270 activities to get 90 merit points, and this is probably the best scenario, and admin will need to notice every of my good posts
Therefore, I think this system is not rational. To the least, the requirement of the activities and merit need to be consistent. The purpose of the merit is to make people write quality posts. So with 3:1 ration this could be reasonable, which means if we keep that Full Member requires 120 activities, then the merit point requirement should be 10+60/3 = 30, instead 100, for the Full Members. This will encourage people to make quality posts and don't find other ways to cheat.
Requirements:
Member 60 10
Full Member 120 100
I need 60 posts and 90 Merit points. How many posts I can get 90 merit points? Well, some posts I just reply to other people's posts, with my comments, for those, I probably get no merit points. I need to post long and original info or thoughts in order to get merit points. Say every 3 posts I get 1 merit point, I'd do 270 activities to get 90 merit points, and this is probably the best scenario, and admin will need to notice every of my good posts
Therefore, I think this system is not rational. To the least, the requirement of the activities and merit need to be consistent. The purpose of the merit is to make people write quality posts. So with 3:1 ration this could be reasonable, which means if we keep that Full Member requires 120 activities, then the merit point requirement should be 10+60/3 = 30, instead 100, for the Full Members. This will encourage people to make quality posts and don't find other ways to cheat.
Hey.. you made a pretty decent post, here, but the content seems to be whining about stupid shit (meaning already beaten to death points, if you bothered looking through this thread, for example).
I would think that if you had made some decent points about something relatively important and significant, then the way that you back up your points, such as here, and describe the situation would likely be more attracting of smerits (at least one, and you might get one here, too.. because sometimes even whiners find common cause with other whiners who happen to have some smerits that they are willing to spend on a common cause whiner).
Anyhow, you can also attempt to study into the matter and see that higher earning merit post members could provide some examples about how you could earn merits, to the extent that merits are important, anyhow for someone who merely wants to read posts.. .. and throw in a few responsive posts from time to time... assuming that there is even any real need to rank up for folks who mostly just read, rather than posting in interactive kinds of ways (which there are a variety of ways that your posts could end up earning merits, if you looked into the matter a bit (rather than just whining some seeming bullshit and seeming non-studied points)).
I went through the posts, just want to raise the issue. I am not whining here, I just hope the system be more reasonable. Afterall, the merit point is not there for fun, it's to encourage people to post better. But with this kind of unreasonable system, it does not achieve its goal. I, as many here, are enthusiast of Bitcoin and blockchain technology. I come here to get information and ideas. Of course I'd like to be as high ranking as possible. But the system as is, I doubt it will help any, at least for myself, I don't care and it does not encourage me to make any better posts.
⭐ Merited by PoolMinor (1)
I found the new ranking requirement is not logic. It requires way too many merit points in order to gain higher rankings. For example, I am a Member now, and from Member to Full Member:
Requirements:
Member 60 10
Full Member 120 100
I need 60 posts and 90 Merit points. How many posts I can get 90 merit points? Well, some posts I just reply to other people's posts, with my comments, for those, I probably get no merit points. I need to post long and original info or thoughts in order to get merit points. Say every 3 posts I get 1 merit point, I'd do 270 activities to get 90 merit points, and this is probably the best scenario, and admin will need to notice every of my good posts
Therefore, I think this system is not rational. To the least, the requirement of the activities and merit need to be consistent. The purpose of the merit is to make people write quality posts. So with 3:1 ration this could be reasonable, which means if we keep that Full Member requires 120 activities, then the merit point requirement should be 10+60/3 = 30, instead 100, for the Full Members. This will encourage people to make quality posts and don't find other ways to cheat.
Requirements:
Member 60 10
Full Member 120 100
I need 60 posts and 90 Merit points. How many posts I can get 90 merit points? Well, some posts I just reply to other people's posts, with my comments, for those, I probably get no merit points. I need to post long and original info or thoughts in order to get merit points. Say every 3 posts I get 1 merit point, I'd do 270 activities to get 90 merit points, and this is probably the best scenario, and admin will need to notice every of my good posts
Therefore, I think this system is not rational. To the least, the requirement of the activities and merit need to be consistent. The purpose of the merit is to make people write quality posts. So with 3:1 ration this could be reasonable, which means if we keep that Full Member requires 120 activities, then the merit point requirement should be 10+60/3 = 30, instead 100, for the Full Members. This will encourage people to make quality posts and don't find other ways to cheat.
Please quote and verify.
-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
This is lotto-fan from bitcointalk.org and today is May 25, 2018.
-----BEGIN SIGNATURE-----
Address: 1KUMwyFJj4M44VY8pbbpWwiw1tDFf8nZYj
H1QMlI3GRv+4Z6hYutKDPAGQcpXOAqpt8tiabgGSXS3pGrJr1Qyly7VM0N5nNT2eQuoBiEEpZFTwS3TP0G4ifFU=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
This is lotto-fan from bitcointalk.org and today is May 25, 2018.
-----BEGIN SIGNATURE-----
Address: 1KUMwyFJj4M44VY8pbbpWwiw1tDFf8nZYj
H1QMlI3GRv+4Z6hYutKDPAGQcpXOAqpt8tiabgGSXS3pGrJr1Qyly7VM0N5nNT2eQuoBiEEpZFTwS3TP0G4ifFU=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Re: [2018-01-22] Robinhood’s Zero-Fee Bitcoin, ETH Trading Is Live In Five US States
The only thing Robinhood allows you to do, is buy and sell server tokens that are tied to Bitcoin's and Ethereum's price. In other words, you can't deposit crypto because you don't need it, and can't withdraw anything because you don't own any crypto.
I just had a look at their FAQ page, and it seems that you are right. This basically means that you pay full price for Ether and Bitcoin, while it's nothing more than hot air, lol. On the other hand, most of the average people having found their way to crypto recently, just want to trade crypto, and don't necessarily want the hassle of sending funds back and forth between exchange and wallet. In that regard, it's quite a smart move from Robinhood, which reflects the insane number of registrants their gained due to crypto.From Robinhood site;
Quote
Digital currency held as a capital asset will be taxed as property, and subject to capital gains and losses. Please consult your tax advisor for more information on filing taxes.
Quote
Robinhood Crypto will initially be available to customers in California, Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, and New Hampshire.
Property tax rates;California; 0.8%
Massachusetts; 1.57%
Missouri; 1.41%
Montana; 0.72%
New Hampshire; 2.21%
I wish every government charged only these level of tax rates. Even if it was 5%, people would declare their holdings and profits out of free will.
property tax does not mean much, the sales tax, state tax, property price etc are much more important than the superficial property tax.
But there is a big difference. Miners deserve that fee. But governments wants taxes for nothing.
Yes I agree, tax and fee are two complete different things. Fee you pay when you transact, tax you pay only when you have a gain.