I think I've brought it up when I Merited a post that warned in a scam thread. That post was worth reading, until the entire topic got deleted. Those Merits shouldn't be deleted.

Removing Merit would also mean removing 0.5 sMerit, which could mean the sMerit that someone already spent suddenly disappears. That adds more complications than it's worth.

What if there is no problem? You're basically a third-party creating a custom score. You can create anything you want, given the restraints of the current forum.

What if a spammer decides to clean up his past spam? I know it's rare, but I've seen it happen. I'd say it's only fair if he gets a higher score afterwards.

^ Why would I take wrong way? Or more like in any way? Anyway, to be fair, there should be more to score than mere merits; it should be one of criteria but not everything.

@*Ace*, I looked at how it looks for my profile and in the badges section I see one that shows that I am a merit source - that is not 100% true. I guess your algorithms went wrong somewhere, but nothing that can't be fixed, right?

I don’t know whether you’re right or not; I’m not familiar with the official list of Merit sources. The tool used to perform a mathematical calculation to determine who was or wasn’t a Merit source.
If the ratio of Merits received to Merits sent was higher than 0.5, then the user was a Merit source, as a normal user cannot send more Merits than they receive.
But this only worked whilst the data was coming from Bitlist; now, unfortunately, I’m no longer getting data from Bitlist and something has gone wrong somewhere, but I’m currently on holiday and can’t get round to working on the code.
I’ll try to sort out the problem after 16 July, when I get back home.

So I stumbled on this could someone do my score on this.

I am interested in it.

As I need to know my score for it. To make any comments on how good it is.

Thank you.

I suspected the issue I was worried about , did what I thought it happened.

It is underscoring all og mining members that stayed active

Why do I say that.

I posted from Aug 2012 to 2018 and got the gifted 1000 merits.

Not that my ranking is terrible, but it does not reflect the 2012 to 2018 time I was here properly.

If those posts were subject to true merits when mining actually was available to almost everyone  I likely would have 20,000 merits rather than 12,000.



Aug 2012 to Feb 2018 1300 pages of posts ie 26,000 posts 1,000 gifted merits

Feb 2018 to July 2026 1400 pages  of post ie 28,000 posts 11,000 earned merits

Round numbers.

Since 2012 to 2018 mining was far far far far far more active then now.

I actually think that I could have earned more like 15,000 merits then rather than the 1,000 gifted.


Most people don’t realized that ck solo pool found by ck was in part created because I begged him to do it.

So I indirectly created pool solo mining.
Most people don’t realize that I did create 10 man pooled solo mining on ck pool more than 10 years ago.

Including a double block hit for 25+25 coins way back in the day.

Most people don’t realize how many 40,000 dollar group buys of cannan gear it did with zero issues shipping gear all over the USA and Europe.

But that is long past and forgotten.

In particular from cannan once the vp I dealt with left them.


Back to this rating system it’s a good idea I like it and my numbers are still pretty good

There is definitely a flaw in his formula, and he most likely failed to take certain aspects of the past into account. I would suggest he remove the badge and not make things complicated for himself; knowing whether or not a user is a source of merit isn't really that important. Some people might like knowing it, but others couldn't care less.

I'm sure that wasn't the intention of *Ace* when he added the MS badge. I think it was more to give recognition for the role that they have in the community.

Yes. But to be fair, the data is available publicly, and anyone can figure it out at some point if they want to. To quote theymos:

I'm curious how many of the 86 Merit sources OP has identified.