I didn't mean to start this topic as a competition about the metric. My concern is that I'm being shown that sometimes I'm innaccurate, but I can't really tell which of my reports were the innaccurate ones. That seems a little broken. Why tell me at all if I can't use the information to improve?
Well, the accuracy system is feedback, although it may not be as in-depth as you were hoping for it's not useless it does give you a general idea of how you are performing, overall. The thing is with providing a in-depth feedback system which would allow you to see what was rejected and what reason it was rejected for, could potentially be subjective. Therefore, if you see that x post got rejected by one moderator, you might refrain from reporting it again which in the eyes of another moderator could be a correct report. At least that's my interpretation of one of the issues. I guess this makes sense. Perhaps reading too into it would be a mistake. Well, I guess I've made my request. If it was easy, it'd be nice to see the list of your reports and what happened with them. If it's not easy I guess it's probably not worth it. Thanks for the discussion guys. I'll leave the thread open in case theymos or some other admin or something has further comments, but I think I'm done here. Cheers |
|
|
|
Now that this guy is off default trust and the damage he can do to people's reputations with his nonsense is limited, I'm starting to love him for the lolz. DaDice is not a ponzi. However the comparison between your site and a ponzi are accurate. People understand the ponzi analogy because there have been so many Bitcoin ponzis. This is fun. "Okay, you're not a ponzi, but the comparison is accurate". Hey, quickseller, take a quick logic lesson: P &!P is the definition of absurdity.
IMO it is pretty clear that your site is a scam at this point. IMO your O isn't worth very much these days and the more you go on, the less people are paying attention. In recent months you've shown yourself to be a highly-volatile self-promoting egomaniac with a penchant for quick-moves and little forethought. You get so thrilled to call someone out, especially someone you're mad at, that you post nonsense scam accusations and then have to embarrasingly backpedal all the while claiming "ahem, well, it's most likely that, I think that probably, in my opinion, the OP may not have scammed but would have scammed if it had been a Tuesday and we were just lucky that it was a Wednesday but I will catch him next time..." or those kinds of things. Now that you can't hurt people with this shit, it's actually kind of entertaining. You claim to have this massive bankroll, offer huge max bets, yet all the evidence points to you having significantly less then that, maybe 5 BTC or so.
After all of your expenses, all it would take is one or two high rollers to be on your site at the same time for you to be able to profit after scamming.
after running a dice site FTFY. All dice sites take profit if a high-roller shows up and loses. All take losses if a high-roller shows up and wins. Running a dice site != Scamming. |
|
|
|
So far we have honored each and every withdrawal request.
That is what every scammer says while they're in the "building trust" phase of the scam. Try going to any Ponzi scam thread and warning that it is a scam. Their first defence is always "but we are paying"... To fair, it's also exactly what every honest person says who pays and plans to continue to pay. It's not logical to act like pointing to a solid reputation is an indicator of guilt. To be honest, I think that the fair, well-meaning advice for everyone to caveat emptor when dealing with dadice was quite fair. But I think turning that into a continual harping, and now trolling is pretty shameful. |
|
|
|
Quickseller is off default trust again?
When/why did this happen?
It happened a few days ago. I was never given a reason however I have a feeling it had to do with this mistake :/ It was quite humorous actually. Tomatocage messaged me after I talked with him why he added you to his default trust and he told me to show examples of Quickseller's bad ratings. Well the ndnc or whatever that dude's name was happening and I quickly showed Tomatocage how Quickseller jumped too quickly to conclusions with that "scam hunt" and called out someone who was innocent and red marked him for multiple days. Ironically, within hours Quickseller's default trust was gone. Well it sounds like you were more likely to be the person behind question2. It probably also means that TC was the one who made that qcexpose account (or something similar to that), not that it matters who it was. That was previously my theory however this somewhat strengthens that hypothesis. Sweet! Popcorn time. Do your thing QS, mark qcexpose as a "probably alt of scammer TC", mark tomatocage with negative trust as "probably trying to weaken the trust system by attacking the reputation of trust member me". Let's do this. It's jump-to-conclusions time! It really is too bad that the rating on ndnhc was up for days and no one was able to provide any specific evidence that refuted my conclusion. The people who were defending ndnhc were simply saying that he was "too nice" or "made too much money" for him to try to extort someone, neither of those arguments would have standing to show his innocence.
Except that they have standing for a reasonable person who considers motive (what was the motive here?) and they ended up being right. Hmmm. |
|
|
|
Is dadice paying signature campaign funds out of their own pockets or out of their cut of site profits?
marcotheminer, you should know better than to troll in this thread. didn't we go through this a few months ago and you promised to behave? |
|
|
|
FWIW I can mine testnet coin very easily. In a few hours I mined about 18,000, more than enough to fund this experiment for a month. In fact, I've been giving it a go - https://www.blocktrail.com/tBTC/address/n2GcwNsdybZrr6mbLakrwgQoWSurABHU3a I've broadcast about 30,000 transactions on testnet in the past 12 hours. It currently leaves about 4000 tx's in the mempool with and none of the blocks exceeding 750kb. Some numbers: I moved 30testnet coins in 30,000 transactions, for a fee of 0.51 (dynamically calculated by the client). I have 18,000 testnet coins. So we can deploy this on testnet today, and see exactly what will happen. Did you deploy? And are the issues these guys are eperiencing related to you? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1079182.0;topicseenJust curious. |
|
|
|
Well first thing I want to address, is that the indicator isn't used for people to get competitive over. If you have 50 reports with 50% accuracy, that is still highly appreciated. Getting your score as high as possible isn't a huge concern.
I didn't mean to start this topic as a competition about the metric. My concern is that I'm being shown that sometimes I'm innaccurate, but I can't really tell which of my reports were the innaccurate ones. That seems a little broken. Why tell me at all if I can't use the information to improve? |
|
|
|
Vale, que no lo haga.
Esto es oferta y demanda. ¿Que no te interesa? Pues no lo hagas.
Pero esto no es blanco o negro. De su pregunta se desprende, obviamente, que le interesa pero solo si pagan en BTC. Lo cual en un subforo de monedas alternativas es casi casi como venir trolear. No vení para trolear. Como dije arrival, si no me quiere, no pasa nada. Oferta y demanda tiene dos lados, cada uno tiene la libertad decidir lo que ofrezca. Para mi, es trabajar para ganar BTC, no tango ganas de joder con casas de cambio y tal. No pasa nada, chicos, tranquilos. |
|
|
|
Here's mine! 12euutj3uhjX7FgGFZwh9GQandBnhujMLE -----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
Version: Keybase OpenPGP v2.0.8
Comment: https://keybase.io/crypto
wcBMA4HG02GwFzCoAQgAjcTSCiYD3cj8NDqs7Ool6oU4WMhTGUVC8fxIctOLVulA
iQUftEYRAzGwUgmu3NfXEdzmc6V2NAufp6fwrlW6h1YbdF5O5CSy4QeWNYpCw8cX
e1MMXxyoDhmKz2iG9wnij3qYZT1SJ/Gh2gxYtexhHDa33QhlD9LXoMdMIwf96zuw
bagxZEHxkxSaOjonabF9bjuxxoVzg/aRNfHKupXP4nh/5AgotgdlG+f11euqj0kP
ZbStizQA/VCkALweSAvIpiUyMk/ktbNNFgrv6f2xLLcIqxjg7pkEvxCmCHczGMmP
7vG6EBQ/SYZAjRDNsLHlEqwjjxHyQrM9u0OWcN3z29JeAWBzGF/d2VTtYpKyLstB
oOi43DHhd9ECgaIoL1TjMt5v5tazzlmdeGzMChTcB2IBwKrEU0eZE9qc0rjlUk7D
R8gsnlIQgGMCcL+wUkEK6v0cTyEbeqkeISNVt22xLw==
=wzUa
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----
Is this a PGP message that you want us to decrypt?! We don't have the key for it... I think you meant to either sign your bitcoin address with your PGP key (maybe?) but in that case there should be a PGP-SIGNATURE section that we can check against your Public key. However, what most people are doing here is signing a message with their bitcoin private key so that we can verify it with their bitcoin address. In either case, I'm confused about what we're supposed to do with that encrypted text you published. |
|
|
|
If you use android wallet, set your personal full node ip address as trusted peer. (settings menu). wallet will connect only to that peer. That's very cool. Looks like OP basically can do this without any work! FWIW, I prefer to use the android bitcoin wallet from the fdroid repo: https://f-droid.org/repository/browse/?fdid=de.schildbach.wallet. Same app, but it's nice to support free software (imo) and the free software repo. |
|
|
|
I would generally agree with your suggestions/points. However I don't think they will be implemented because I believe that theymos has said in the past that anything above 40% is considered 'good' and I don't think you will get banned or have any other negative consequences for making 'bad' reports. Sure, I don't think I'm making "bad" reports, and I guess I wasn't worried about negative consequences. However, I find the feedback a little useless unless there's some way to learn from it. As things stand, the accuracy rating is enticing---it makes you want to know more---but not super-helpful.
I would also like to see some kind of hall of fame type stats regarding reports. I would like to see where I stand compared to others when it comes to my accuracy and number of reports I have made. I would also like to see who has had the highest number of accurate reports, both in all time and the last 30 days (maybe the top 50 or so reporters)
Hall of fame would be fun, I agree. |
|
|
|
|
If you click the "report to moderator" button you can see an estimate of how accurate your reports are. I presume that the reason for the information being displayed is so that we can get an idea of whether or not our recent reports were the kinds of report to keep reporting.
However, the issue is that it's amost impossible to tell what was inacurate or not because you don't see the actual list of reports. To make matters more confusing, the number of "handled" vs "unhandled" reports isn't shown either.
Here's what I mean, I recently saw that my accuracy was 95% of 22 posts. Then, I reported two posts, the next day I saw accuracy of 90% of 24 posts. But what happened. Clearly one of my reports was inaccurate (but which one?). Was the other one accurate or just unhandled?
Anyway, the reason I'm interested is that I don't want to report to moderators stuff which they consider inaccurate (which is, I assume, the reason I'm shown this metric), but as things stand, the number doesn't really help a whole lot.
I don't know if it'd be hard to implement, but if you could show the list of recent reports and their handled/unhandled/accepted/rejected status, that would completely sort out the problem and it would be easy to learn which kinds of reports the moderators had appreciated, which ones they hadn't appreciated, and which ones had been ignored.
Is this doable?
|
|
|
|
So just let the scammers do whatever they want and drive even more people away from Bitcoin, forever?
Looks like you're forgetting about the people that are also scammed and never return. I know quite a few people including family members who got scammed their first or second attempt at buying and gave up on Bitcoin.
Can't win either way.
The primary factor in people getting scammed is THEIR OWN LACKADAISICAL ATTITUDE. People like Vod help foster that attitude by giving the impression that the community stops scammers. In reality a fool and his money will ALWAYS be parted, no matter if it is Bitcoin, cash, credit, or anything else. In stead of teaching awareness and skills to prevent being scammed, the community is hyper-focused on outing scammers, which in reality does little to them but delay their scams, and provide entertainment for rubberneckers. Vod by no means stops scammers, he simply delays them by forcing them to start over. The fact is the scammers WILL NEVER STOP, and believing otherwise is naive. The question is, is it worth it to tear down and drive away lots of honest users in this inquisition on suspected scammers that will never stop? This is not just a Bitcoin problem, it is a global problem, and the scammers are unfortunately winning. Lets not sap our resources even further flailing aimlessly about damaging contributing members of the community over an endless war that can never be won. I agree with this point almost wholeheartedly. Instead of teaching newbies a caveat emptor mentality, the trust rangers merely delay the inevitable lesson that everyone eventually need to learn---how to watch out for yourself. What's more, this attitude is built into the trustlessness of the bitcoin ethos---no central authorities, just validation of known shared information. The trust rangers brigade basically works against this ethos. And the part you said about infighting and innocent people getting caught in the crossfire of the trustranger inquisition is particularly salient for me (having recently gone through an episode of this). |
|
|
|
|
I think the only thing you have to do to implement this is to:
a) run a full node at home
b) modify an spv client to connect to that node and only that node.
I guess I don't fully understand the motivation, though. Once you're running a full node, why do you need your spv client to connect to that node and only that node. That is, what do you gain by only using this personal node instead of connecting to a full set of peers?
EDIT: maybe I don't know enough about the "security and privacy" tradeoffs you mention in the OP. FWIW, Andreas Schildbach's Android Bitcoin Wallet is completely open source, so you should be able to modify/override the getPeers section of that project to connect only to your personal node.
|
|
|
|
I am fine with that workaround. But can someone get a way to get hyperlink to an image? You can use Insert -> Image to insert. Don't use that. Use =IMAGE("link here") to insert the image. 0.05 BTC bounty on getting it done.  I dunno, it seemed to work fine for me. I typed =IMAGE("https://bitcoin.org/img/icons/opengraph.png")
Into the cell A1 here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1edVe4O7IYntcrPxbJWX9bYCFT5Mo8mYulqC_n5kH_3E/edit?usp=sharingAnd I see the image in the cell. Lol, I can't imagine that's worth a 0.05 BTC bounty. There must be something more ... Maybe it's something about the particular image you're trying to include. |
|
|
|
Negative trust is meaning less-and-less these days. There's been far too many recent false accusations, personal attacks, and other shenanigans by the trust-rangers and others on default trust. It's kind of a shame.
i dont think its meaningless as newbies can register on the forum and see in red letters not to deal with untrusted guys, i think they wouldnt be attracted to play it "meaning less-and-less" != "meaningless" Cheers! |
|
|
|
We're having a temporary issue with our SSL certificate, which we hope to have resolved in a few days. In the meantime, it is safe to continue playing at SwCPoker. Thanks for your patience and support. I'm a little weary of downloading off a website without proper encryption in place. I e-mail support to see if they can verify if their security is in place.
It is completely safe to download the installer. If you post a hash of the binary here (or on your site) then people can verify the file didn't get corrupted in the download (errors happen in http downloads, you know). |
|
|
|
He is doing far more damage than he ever prevented stopping scammers. This is the kind of stuff that drives good people away from Bitcoin forever. Any scammers he "stops", however will be right back again within minutes setting up another scam. Vod is running his own little version of the drug war here on the forum, only the war is on scammers, and he doesn't care how many good people suffer in order for him to "win" this war that in reality will never end.
Sorry, TECSHARE, but that's hyperbole. I think a lot of people confuse using bitcoin with using the bitcointalk forum. I don't think many people get into bitcoin in order to enjoy an online forum about it. I think it's quite more likely that most of enjoy (or not) using this online forum because we're into bitcoin. Bitcoin is useful and beautiful and interesting no matter what state of affairs exists in this forum. This forum is not bitcoin, it's a place to chat about bitcoin. Bitcoin exists as long as there are nodes running the protocol, not as long as there's a bitcoinforum for chatting. Just my 2 satoshis. |
|
|
|
I never heard or knew about something as "whitelisted" , it's really sucha great feature and more of it should be encouraged to avoid newbie member's buying accounts to lift the limit time.
Idk if whitelisting should be promoted because it would be another system that future scammers would do. They could easily request a whitelist and after that, they could go on to scamming spree. If a user really wants to be part of this forum, he/she must go all through the processes without asking for some privileges that others didn't receive.Or, ahem, buy, since apprantly buying priviledged accounts is considered a.ok!? The point that I commented on is about the encouragement of whitelisting for newbies, not the buying of accounts. Buying accounts could probably help you get into this forum with a high rank, but also, in the unofficial list of rules in this forum, buying accounts is not encouraged. I understand. However, I also think it's worth bringing up in that context that the argument "he/she must not take a privilige that sn't earned" is weakened by the allowing of bought/sold accounts. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
