I'll keep it short  The recent spam wave made me realize I can quite easily track the first post of every user. See loyce.club/patrol/Please Report (or Merit) the posts when needed  It's updated every 5 20 minutes. It currently treats every user as a new user (but only once), so the next post from any user will show up. After a few days it should show only first posts from (mostly) new users. Sample:  |
|
|
|
the recipient declares that he did not receive them. It depends: maybe you sent it to the wrong address, or maybe they're lying. Is the recipient a person or an exchange or other large company? Either way, the funds moved out of the destination address, so someone has access to your funds. Txid: sent to : bitcoincash:prnsxaalhxeayq78cf85c4c49zcckq4595t69j88hp. So this is your transaction, sending 0.63657283 BCH. |
|
|
|
To be honestly, you always need to know what you are doing. True. The pitfall with "change" is how counter intuitive it is: if you give someone $100 to pay $50, you expect to get $50 back. With Bitcoin, you don't know you're giving more than you should, and if you've ever used a bank you don't expect to get any change. So of course, if you know what you're doing you're fine, but as a general advice sweeping all funds at once is safest. That being said: I've sent change back to the same paper wallet in the past. |
|
|
|
no it is not the list can be played with , Loyce even admitted to that in this thread. I'd say it's inevitable. It comes with root access to a server. Just like theymos can edit any post I make here and do anything he wants to my account. He can even make it look like I edited it myself. I trust him not to do it though, and that's enough for me. In LoyceV's case just recently there was the weekly trust list which was a duplicate of the previous week owing to the weekly run being done *before* theymos had run the list. LoyceV then deleted the entire week's results and re-ran the sweep hours later (thus giving different results) I thought of that, that's why the new version had a later time stamp. Just in case anyone links to the old version: it's completely gone instead of changing it. Those entries are then removed manually, or at least they were done manually at one point... I don't think fixing technical glitches is a problem for trusting the creator of the tool. It's actually a good thing. |
|
|
|
Is this a malware attack? I don't know 100% what those links are, I won't download that on my current laptop but virus total says the pdfs are clean, is it a SEO attacks indeed? Who else other than the bounty manager clicks those links in the first place? My assumption is it's only about having links that someone will eventually click. Or SEO indeed: backlinks from Bitcointalk might help, although I'd expect Google to be smarter than this by now. But: it's unlikely 100% of them gets removed, and if only a small portion of those posts remains, they've accomplished their goal. Theymos isn't going to do anything that is this restrictive. One thing I suggested in the past is that all new users first post needs to be accepted by a mod first before it goes public and they're essentially shadow-banned until they are approved (or not). That's like Newbie jail. How about an alternative, and I can make it myself: collect all first posts and publish them on a separate page for manual review. If it's spam, they can be reported and Nuked. It won't restrict Newbies, but (with some effort) will catch the spammers. Update: Done! See [Newbie scrutiny instead of jail] Every new user's first post: loyce.club/patrol. |
|
|
|
|
The only thing I can think of that won't limit real new users would be to limit the number of links they can post (per post or per day). A Newbie who posts 500 URLs on his first day is clearly a spammer, but they'll probably just use more accounts to spam with.
|
|
|
|
I using electrum for signed a message. Can someone check if I did it right? My Electrum says: "Wrong signature". |
|
|
|
Anyway how is this the cause of the bug? I don't think it's a bug, it's the result of some forum caching. The bug emerges when many users remove their post, or when Mods remove many posts because of spamming. You won't encounter the bug if you don't edit posts in such topics. Let's call it a workaround. Except for the Wall Observer, I rarely notice it on other topics. |
|
|
|
Hey, can't help it. I'm a bounty hunter so it's not my fault that I had to post like that. You don't have to post empty forms. You could simply leave a browser tab open, use "Preview", and wait until you're done entering all spam links. Then post it without needing to edit a post that was basically empty. |
|
|
|
it is possible that multiple posts were deleted before your post and you post was moved to page 21 from page 22 when the posts were deleted. This is probably the reason, it takes a while for the forum to do a page recount. Especially on long threads this can take a long time. Whenever I try to edit a message in the bounty section Simple solution: stop posting useless templates like this. |
|
|
|
There's an easy way to find those: 10 Brand new users on top of Active users and top posters in the past 24 hours stand out:  However, the bot does not nuke the accounts, just in case it was an innocent newbie. Most of the time the spam accounts are used between 1 and 3 times, so it's not too bad. I'd still prefer to see the spammers Nuked, so at least they can't do it again later. Creating new accounts is for sure more of a hassle than using existing ones. |
|
|
|
It is Chrome related bug not a forum one and it's annoying. I don't think the forum can change it if the browser causes it. It sounds like the browser downloads the links before you click them. I found Back/forward cache, but I'm not sure if that's what causes it. |
|
|
|
the purpose is to hide a private email address from the public and to make sure only the right person receives it. Why would you trust TMM more than a PM on Bitcointalk? |
|
|
|
and you have admitted to my only problem with the attack on og you can doctor the evidence. This thread isn't even based on my data: It's based on BPIP, which (I think) is currently owned by suchmoon and ibminer. edit: to be clear this attack on this thread done against Og is done with evidence that may or may not have been doctored. If that would be the case, don't you think OgNasty would have pointed it out already? Only theymos can refute or say the info is true. For current data, I gave a few possibilities to verify it. If you want to verify what happened for instance a year ago, I don't know if theymos still has snapshots of the weekly Trust data dumps. I know the forum doesn't store any records on editing posts within the first 10 minutes, so clearly not everything is preserved forever.btw the only person that verifies loyce list is theymos. I'd be honored if theymos takes the time to verify my Trust list viewer, but I don't think he does. loyce could be suspect over the self scratch list
theymos could be suspect over the self scratch list. I'm not sure what this means/implies. C) In general bitcointalk has helped a lot of people and I don’t want to attack it or its members Agreed. I've suggested a few times that OgNasty and Vod should just get a beer together, and find common ground. Or ignore each other. it does appear he did take some forked coins. OgNasty never took Forkcoins without theymos' permission: In the case of the treasury agreement: all forkcoins were always forum property from the beginning. I voluntarily gifted OgNasty the non-major forkcoins, since dealing with them would be more trouble than they're worth. The three forkcoins transferred to me were ones I specified. Airdrops are different. I don't think that OgNasty should've collected airdrops via forum BTC, but collecting and keeping airdrops was not prohibited by the agreement, and the forum has no agreement-wise claim on those coins. |
|
|
|
Consider you posted your protonmail addy on a public www channel. You would receive quite some spam. I posted it months ago, and haven't received any spam. 6. TMM address expires after ten minutes, as usual. All traceable data should be lost. But you can't verify that, so you have to trust them on it. "Trusting" isn't very "Bitcoiny". If you want to send another user a message without exposing any private info like an email address and without any risk of it being intercepted, then just have them provide you a PGP public key, encrypt the message, and send it through a private message. I'd have to manage additional keys. Not easy for a guy with memory problems PGP keys aren't ment to be remembered, just store them safely. It's annoying to setup though.
How cool would it be if the (new) forum would implement client side PM encryption by default? |
|
|
|
|
Isn't it much easier to just use a new Protonmail account for this? I made one for the sole purpose of receiving an encrypted email once, and if I need it again, I can just use it again.
|
|
|
|
and as if to proof my point this is the problem how can I verify the list. I have to trust the list keeper. You're actually the first to mention this. You're right, theoretically I could edit my Trust list viewer. But I'm pretty sure someone will find out eventually, which would destroy my image as "Switzerland". You can verify the data using https://bitcointalk.org/trust.txt.xz. This is theymos' trust data dump, which I use to create my weekly update. So loyce can make the list read anything he wants for the last 99 weeks for Og or me or anyone on the forum and you for anyone else can not defend oneself Yes I could. No I didn't. Feel free to convince yourself by randomly checking some of the profiles each week. this record is what is on the link for me it is out of date. as I added 4 people. Theymos updates "trust.txt.xz" once a week (Saturday early morning in my time zone), so unfortunately I can't provide more frequent updates. Note that theymos' weekly data dump only shows Trust relations for users who have at least one post. So Nuked users don't show up. all proof of all trust lists are in the hands of loyce and he can use it to attack some one as he sees fit. If you wipe your Trust list and remove DefaultTrust, you can include just one person to make your Trust list reflect theirs. Don't do this test if you're on DT1 though, create a new account if needed. How do I know when Og put his people on his trust list when only loyce keeps the record. For DT1, there's BPIP's DefaultTrust Change Log. I think it checks every 10 minutes. The names listed in op first thread could have been their for a long time months and months ago. Loyce could go back pull the names off and add them back for just the last week. I know people say I'm an AI, but I really don't have time for this Feel free to archive old versions though. |
|
|
|
After this flawless “paid”-“thank you” iteration Traditions are traditions! let’s start the usual derailment! I was already wondering whether or not I should add another year to this domain: Update: domain isfoxpupstilla NSFWvixen.today is mine now  At some point I wrote this: I'll probably let the domain expire after a year, I'm don't really want more domains to keep track of, just loyce.club is enough. Then again, when I created that one, I also expected to let it expire after a year. But maybe there's a bigger plan for a celebration domain that I am not aware of yet. Only 14 weeks left |
|
|
|
Thanks again for the payment and perfect timing  |
|
|
|
You and I have a major disagreement over this.
My rules for trust as in a feedback and for putting people on my trust list do not match with yours. If that's intentional, I won't stop you of course But I do think the Trust system functions best if most people use it the way it's intended. Admin said this: LoyceV's guide seems reasonable. And this: Trust lists
- If you find someone who has sent accurate trust actions and has no inaccurate/inappropriate trust actions, add them to your trust list. Inclusion in trust lists is a more a mark of useful contributions than your trust in them, though at least a little trust is necessary.
- If you think that someone is not using the trust system appropriately, or if you disagree with some of their subjective determinations, exclude them from your trust list. If bad outcomes happen in DT, this is partly the fault/responsibility of: the bad actors themselves; DT1 who include the bad-actors; DT1 who don't exclude the bad-actors; DT1 who include or don't exclude failing DT1; anyone else who includes failing DT1. While it's best to spend some time trying to fix things at the lower levels before escalating it, it's reasonable to complain to any of those people, as I did regarding Lauda that one time, for example. (Of course, the system itself is probably also imperfect, and that's on me.)
A very simple solution for most of the "self-scratching" drama would be to require at least 2 inclusions from DT1 to be on DT2. That would mean nobody has to decide on their own who gets to be DT2, and nobody can increase their own Trust ratings without at least someone else agreeing. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
