This could be Technique#3 'Topic Dilution', in the comments we see attempts at Technique#2 'Consensus Cracking' all part of a larger effort of Technique#1 'Forum Sliding'
it is also unnatural for people to make posts seeking to validate their own lists of attributes they assign to the community. They will defend their list, even though it was posed as a question.
A normal person asks questions about their topic, very few interested people will ask questions about THE COMMUNITY, and not address THE TOPIC OF THE COMMUNITY. The former is trying to divide.
Many posts on reddit say something like "This is what everyone here thinks right?" then lists some points and observes the discussion. This is not natural, would you enter a forum that way?
Here are some candidates for COINTELPRO technique
#4 'Information Collection':
What a mess... ABC wants CTOR without proving how it improves perfomance. SV wants 128 MB without solving first bottlenecks. Yes, BU/XT is the way to go.
You don't need to solve bottlenecks to increase the cap. Miners will use the software as they see fit, and the released client doesn't need to be optimized to match the cap.
Cult of Craig is a misnomer. It's the cult of the full graph they want to distract you from.
Stratification will occur within the collection of active miners. A miner wants to be in the largest group of miners that is directly connected to every other miner in the group.
Unique easily shareable URLs for each memo. Maybe this exists and I missed it?
Wow, the childlike behavior of middle rate academics never ceases to surprise me. Top rate academics never speak like this because they value their reputation.
If WHC can offer a pegged fiat asset like tether, it's value is not coupled to BCH. You can claim it at a fixed rate by throwing money into a specific fire specified by their developers.
The recentBCH blocksize limit increase to 32 MB is already pushing the limits of what the software can handle. nChain is trying to increase the blocksize up to 128 MB: https://bit.ly/2MSS97Y
There is no "the software". Software development is a competitive part of the POW mining process. The original Satoshi client architecture was not designed to be competitive.
With so many potential PoB solutions hitting the market, it makes sense for each team to disclose why they chose the burn address they did, so that they can become standardized.
Does the long term Proof-of-Burn minting of WHC at a fixed exchange rate with BCH change price dynamics?
If the Burn address were to be spendable, then that private key's discovery will be prioritized.
The checksum is only for the users wallet. If Proof of Burn (PoB) works as promised (unrecoverable coins), you must create an invalid address and provide a custom wallet to send to it.
@e🌱xx🌱tra, Nice reddit example. It is rule (not technique)
#5 in the COINTELPRO image linked above. The fact that they both show up simultaneously is unlikely given the other comments.
Post any examples of
#2 Consensus Cracking. Didn't know about it before, but I often see it being used.
You should be able to filter a topic by the sum of tips given, to weed out the trolls forum sliding in the topics section.
How could someone prove that they are not a troll? If you can, then you can make a market for outing trolls instead of, you know, assassinating people.
"Trustless" is not a good selling point, it's not an intuitive concept. What user experience does being trustless create? use that label to promote systems that use BCH instead of saying trustless.
