Szabo has written that 4 is the correct number of threads. All the experts agree.

500+ posts in a month on 1 topic.

This seems like a serious waste. Is there any way that we can get him unbanned? While we're at it, I don't think wil should be banned either - I don't really keep up with twoplustwo gossip, but my impression is that his biggest crime is that he's a conservative on a forum with an extremely vocal and hardcore liberal wing that likes to suppress dissenting views.

Agree.

lol.

How many posts if you remove nooseknot's pumping and TS' rebuttals? :P

hey guys, sorry for chiming in so late here. My place got flooded and I was in a temp plac for a month without most of my stuff making it hard to keep up with 2+2.

If not for that I probably would have advocated for TS in the mod forum discussion as a poster who is occasionally flippant and curt in his posting in BFI but overall a good poster to have around.

And jalex and I have generally the same modding style of laisser faire until it goes to far, letting the community self regulate.

but the other thing guys is we mods dont always wade in all the threads, especially the mega threads like cypto, so we cant see everything that is going on. In those cases when someone has crossed the line of personal insults or attacks, just shoot one of us a PM

disagree with this one. if I mimic a top poker players strategy, that could make me orthodox but also very successful. Same for mimicking Buffett, Klarman, and Greenblatt investing style. You can literally buy joel greenblatts little book that beats the street and use his formula and do better the indices. Id define that as being othordox, youre just making sure to follow the proven leaders as opposed to most common strat.

A+

500+ was just the # for Nooseknot's pumping

ETA:
Maybe someone could write and curate a stickied 1st post in the Bitcoin thread for newbie answers about wallets, fees, exchanges, etc.?

Sure, I agree it's far more likely to find constructive collaboration in areas that aren't zero sum. But even in poker (or finance) you find a lot of people who're eager to use forums like this as a sounding board for their thoughts or a variety of other reasons that don't equate to curbstomping noobs. I think it's pretty easy to gauge how sensitive a person may be based on how they post and if you're taking the time to give advice - it's a lot less likely that they'll take it when you condescend.


Your link is dead - not that you'd need data to prove that successful people are emotionally hardened. The difference is in the restraint that they show when talking to people who may not be.

FWIW I think you're rarely a douchebag and for as low in empathy as you like to see yourself as being you're if anything being far too generous with your time to give people advice you know they won't listen to.

ahnuld/jal,

"We" is def not indicative of the overall moderation of BFI. Please see my notes. You do you tho.

de captain,

gl with that. I'd love to hear a discussion of why one should use an HD wallet over Core. Most of the discussions boil down to "How much of a derp are you?" I'm more of a derp than some, far less than others. Enjoy explaining that to the n00bs who are busy pretending a Visa transaction is BTC. Or some derp bought a burrito with BTC.

Super sorry to hear that. Hope everything works out okay.

I have to admit...I've read this a few times and I'm still not sure what this means.

If someone reasonably objective wants to do this, we can make something happen.

The Boglehead way is to prevent any political discusson on any topics and no personal attacks. At times this seems very limiting, discussing social security without mentioning the fact it is underfunded past 2025 gets problematic. The plus side is it keeps every discussion from devolving into a series of personal attacks. My suggestion would be to more closely model what the BH site is doing, at least in BFI.

Well that excludes all the regular bitcoin posters

It would be quite difficult (or misleading) to create a (static) sticky about wallets, fees, exchanges, etc. that had any specific detail because the space changes so fast. A good wallet today could be a very vulnerable project tomorrow based on some unforeseen change. Exchanges have this same issue. Fees are completely unpredictable right now.

A static sticky that is objective would look like this: "Everything changes and you have to do your own diligent research".

Nonetheless imo the most objective viewpoint would be something that multiple or many posters collaborated on.

In my experience whenever people say "if reasonably objective" , they really mean "if i agree with".

It's almost like the "I'm not racist, but... (RACIST REMARK)"

Just think it's funny although somebody has to make that decision and mods are the obvious choice, you're mod for a reason.

What is more interesting to me is why somebody who does not belong to this group would even care.
And then feel the need to tell everybody how much he doesn't care.

But that's something I'll never understand. Unless you're actively shorting BTC, in which case i can respect this and call it fair game.

please someone do this. half the posts in the main bitcoin thread are super noob questions most of which had already been asked and answered on the very same page.

I'd do it for BTC/ETH/NEO. Not even really joking.

I nominate DZ for the sticky simply because I don't remember him writing a "To the Moon!" post in the BTC thread. I can't imagine there are many people willing to take on the task who haven't chanted "To the Moon" repeatedly.

DZ,
I wish you the best of luck. You're going to need it.

ETA:

While I certainly agree we don't need additional crypto threads, I do think we need some polls. BFI never really does polls. Is it possible to integrate occasional polls into the existing crypto threads? I thinking polling BFI posters on topics such as "Do you think a SuperPower Government could shut down btc if they wanted to?" or polls regarding security, usability, or "Where do you see btc in 5 yrs?".

I think integrating polls into the btc topic would eliminate some of the scenarios where one or 2 posters basically shout down everyone which causes others to not engage. When a point of contention comes up post a poll and let all of the lurkers positions be known so that we can get a better sense of what people believe. It also creates a bit of accountability.


ETA 2:

While we're at it, I think BFI needs to cultivate the topic of online business & marketing more. At one point several years ago there was even interest in a subforum for the topic. Many BFI posters are running online businesses and it's a high value topic. We should discuss it more.

i want to reiterate my belief that all crypto discussion be contained in existing threads.


new threads concerning crypto should be closed.

yup there is an objective framework right there.

Yeah, I don't get the ban on Wil either. He is not even conservative; he's center left/classic liberal type at best. It's just that a lot of the forum has suddenly become part of the insanity left.

Cicakman is a travesty too. That guy was printing lottery tickets.

To be fair, his style of arguing was pretty irritating. If you tried arguing against him he would constantly twist your argument and create strawmen.

And I would def consider him center right wing.

I had no problem with Wil but just having him around attracted whacko politards who stalked his posts just to seek him out to argue off topic nonsense with him. If we can contain the whack jobs BFI will be a better place.

Maybe in Europe. In America, he just strikes me as one of those democrat blue dogs, squarely in the center left. He hails from Pennsylvania too, so it seems to fit to a tee.

Yeah, the insanity left. BFI is a remarkable haven in that regard in that we are relatively shielded from that.