... you're deliberately harming a hopeful project of idealists.
The opposite is the case: I show these idealists that they urgently should implement flags (or something with equivalent effect) again! Otherwise I simply cannot believe in (and waste time with) this project - there won't be any future!
History tells us that on blockchain what can be exploited and botted, will be exploited and botted. Even idealists should recognize that it's important to implement the necessary measures!
Think about this: I don't like @berniesanders, but with his spamming he is the reason why we are having transactions fees now (so in the end it was the best he could do).
They'll shut down these self-service places eventually.
NO, they appreciate it. Just read:
I already read the two comments yesterday, but I didn't really understood their meaning quite well. But it could be that I didn't want to understand it, because just at the moment my mouth would'nt get closed. I recommend to call your other friend on occasion. He is suffering and he can't do anything with cynicism. Bloggers are always just the fig leaf for the others
Ihr könnt die Leute auch direkt im Blurt-Discord ansprechen!
Ich habe @birdinc nun direkt und ganz deutlich gefragt und warte auf Antwort.
Du wirst keine bekommen oder nur Bla Bla lesen. Sie meinen, ohne die tolle Amortisationsshow des Missbrauchs, keine Investoren halten zu können.
I just commented to Jaki, before I had read your comment, how I understand the statements.
A note about your links:
I understand that quite differently.
The way I understand him, he considers it an effort when a user votes himself into the trending.
The fact that it is explicitly desired or that there is a request to vote for yourself, as you have said several times now, I can't read anywhere.
These two statements of @Birdinc are not clear enough to deduce that it is explicitly desired to vote yourself.
The other statement refers to ZAPATA.
Beantwortet an anderer Stelle.