does this mean they also have custom trust lists as well? Yes. If so, the number of eligible accounts is now up to 160  . Ought to make things pretty interesting this go around. Usually theymos' final list has less users than mine: not all of them fit the other criteria, like being online or making a post not too long ago. |
|
|
|
link= initialcoin.exchange I'm having a hard time believing you're willing to spend 1 BTC on testers, just 3 days after trying to sell everything for that amount: Im selling my ongoing project.
Initialcoin.exchange
Website domain + exchange platform + support
Buy now 1BTC
Start bid: 0.25BTC
End auction: 28/01/2020 alright will contact them
all who want to participatie can register already when escrow is funded he will confirm it here in this chat Did you contact an escrow? I'd expect them to act quickly. |
|
|
|
Apologies if this has been asked before, is there any chance those users who have been black-baned from voting be shown in a different colour such as grey please? My Trust list viewer isn't meant to see DT1-votes, so I'm not going to add a blacklist for DT1-voting. It is included though on my DT1-election: Rank up pipeline: All known blacklisted users don't count for voting (see that topic for the list). Some of the H8 conglomerate of shill/sockpuppets are on the list as trusting me, but given their votes are meaningless, can they be greyed out if possible? (Even if their profile is clicked on so it doesn't turn purple). They're excluded from your DT1-election: Rank up pipeline.
Update:Let's see how long it takes for the navigation bar to update  |
|
|
|
How is that possible that someone,
~snip~
can be trusted and judge people? Very simple: Balthazar is included and excluded by 2 DT1 members, which puts him at DT2 (0). One more exclusion (which could be because of changes in DT1, which is expected in a few days) and he's out: (the links to "Trust list" in my quote above don't work yet, this is a sneak preview of today's Trust list viewer update. The links will work in an hour) Done  |
|
|
|
I was hoping you'd send to my Zap wallet and I'd send from my Blue Wallet to you (thus bumping your thread) looks like you've quoted my payment request, so not to worry, I'll fix it up myself. I don't know which wallet I sent to, but I did send it. *Edit* (may have misread your post... am away for the weekend, so if you did pay, then just send a request) I'll post it when the kids are asleep (so I can use the tablet). |
|
|
|
Thanks, you guys make it so easy to quote myself: I like it! Assuming LN keeps growing, it'll need it's own board at some point in the future anyway. Bitcointalk currently is far from the best source for information about LN, I'd like to (help) change that. It should have a moderator though, a few users seem to dislike LN and want to post that in many different threads. If this could be centralized in one thread on the LN board that would keep threads like the FAQ clean. Or perhaps a Layer 2 board, for threads about Lightning, Liquid sidechain, Statechains and whatever else is coming. Multiple child boards could work. Despite repeating another topic, I want to voice my opinion: yes please I like LN, and I have high hopes for the future and I expect it to need a separate board at some point anyway, so we can just as well get it now. Or, as suggested in the other thread on the same subject: a dedicated board for all layer 2 solutions. |
|
|
|
theymos agrees proactive scam-hunting is good, but if you take personalities and ideas out of the equation, what is left which could be looked at in a proactive way to determine if someone is a potential trade risk and be able to warn others about it? Check some of my sent negative feedback for examples (such as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9). These are quite obvious, but apparently people still fall for them (otherwise the spammers would have given up by now). It's more tricky when someone offers something that's very likely a scam, but could also be a very innocent Newbie trying to sell something. |
|
|
|
Nevermind. I shouldn't have said that. Was that a joke meant for me? Well played! |
|
|
|
No, It's not kind of software.
His trying to sell a script to set autobet(Costum script) I've seen several accounts recently that all try to sell a "working Bustabit script", for instance pretending to be a high roller with 19 BTC profit, while asking for pocket change to sell their script. Anyone claiming to have a winning script shouldn't be trusted. It's a circle of a few accounts that spam the sales-boards, and leave each other fake feedback. OP for instance created several topics that are exactly the same. That's just plain spam. It's kinda ironic when a spammer complains in Meta. Let me report some posts now |
|
|
|
Am just trying to clear out my Blue Wallet I really don't get how getting 10000 sat from me is helping with that  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 Funded from Wallet of Satoshi. I paid 2 sat fee. BlueWallet has a minimum LN fee of 0.3%, so this is cheaper. For funding from on-chain to LN it's the other way around: BlueWallet doesn't charge a fee, but Wallet of Satoshi charges 0.3% for the conversion. |
|
|
|
For example, in the YoBit mass-ratings example above, ratings should be immediately removed after the person removes the signature, even if they maintain and continue to argue that they didn't do anything wrong. If someone agrees to "follow 'the law' without agreeing to it", that should be enough. Which means that promoting scams is now an action that has a get-out-free card for negatives? The way I read it, theymos' comment is for mass-ratings. Instead of a get-out-of-jail-for-free card, I like to think of it as giving them a reason to change their actions. For individual ratings, such as the ones on this scammer, I see no reason to remove my tag if he ever decides to stop scamming. |
|
|
|
In another topic, theymos shared his view of the Trust system: LoyceV's guide seems reasonable.
The system is for handling trade risk, not for flagging people for good/bad posts/personalities/ideas.
In part, the idea of the system is to organically build up & enforce a community consensus on appropriate trading behavior. However, those parts of the consensus which have less agreement should be more difficult to apply than those parts which have widespread agreement, and also subject to change. Everyone agrees that if Alice promises Bob 1 BTC for $8000 and doesn't pay it, that warrants flags & ratings, and it should be very easy to create these flags and ratings. If Alice promotes something without disclosing that she was paid to do so, and the thing later turns out to be a scam, then 65% of the community will call this highly shady behavior, and 35% will call it not a contractual violation and therefore more-or-less fine; it may be possible to make flags and/or ratings stick, but the people doing so should feel as though they are on less solid ground, and maybe the community consensus on this will shift against them (depending on the exact facts of the case, politicking by interested parties, etc.). I refuse to set down a single "correct" philosophy on ethical behavior, since this would permanently divide & diminish the community, and I am not such a wise philosopher that I feel the moral authority to do so.
For ratings and type-1 flags, proactive scam-hunting is good! But as explained above, if you're acting near the edge of community consensus, it should be more difficult. If the community is not overwhelmingly behind you on your scam hunting, then it's probably going to end up creating more drama, division, paranoia, and tribalism than the possible scam-avoidance benefit is worth.
Ratings
- Leave positive ratings if you actively think that trading with this person is safer than with a random person.
- Leave negative ratings if you actively think that trading with the person is less safe than with a random person.
- Unstable behavior could very occasionally be an acceptable reason for leaving negative trust, but if it looks like you're leaving negative trust due to personal disagreements, then that's inappropriate. Ratings are not for popularity contests, virtue signalling, punishing people for your idea of wrongthink, etc.
- Post-flags, ratings have less impact. It's only an orange number. Some amount of "leave ratings first, ask questions later" may be OK. For example, if you thought that YoBit was a serious ongoing scam, the promotion of which was extremely problematic, then it'd be a sane use of the system to immediately leave negative trust for everyone wearing a YoBit signature. (I don't necessarily endorse this viewpoint or this action: various parts of the issue are highly subjective. But while I wouldn't blame people for excluding someone who did this, I wouldn't call it an abuse of the system.)
- Exercise a lot of forgiveness. People shouldn't be "permanently branded" as a result of small mistakes from which we've all moved past. Oftentimes, people get a rating due to unknowingly acting a bit outside of the community's consensus on appropriate behavior, and such ratings may indeed be appropriate. But if they correct the problem and don't seem likely to do it again, remove the rating or replace it with a neutral. Even if someone refuses to agree with the community consensus (ie. they refuse to back down philosophically), if they're willing to refrain from the behavior, their philosophical difference should not be used to justify a rating. For example, in the YoBit mass-ratings example above, ratings should be immediately removed after the person removes the signature, even if they maintain and continue to argue that they didn't do anything wrong. If someone agrees to "follow 'the law' without agreeing to it", that should be enough.
Flags
- Use flags only for very serious and clear-cut things. They're an expression of ostracizing someone from the community due to serious, provable misconduct or really obvious red flags.
- Use type-1 flags when the message which will be shown to newbies/guests is appropriate: "the creator of this topic displays some red flags which make them high-risk. [...] you should proceed with extreme caution."
- Use type-2 and type-3 flags only if the person is absolutely guilty of contractual violations. Imagine a legal system in which there is no law but contract law, and consider if this person would owe damages.
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.)
|
|
|
|
Do you (or anyone) have a screenshot of the stats page or some other source as to what used to be on that page? I remember the number of posts (and percentage) per board, number of poll-votes and a graph showing the distribution of activity per hour of the day BTW I fixed another DT2 bug courtesy of OmegaStarScream :wink: Do you have any method to get a userID with a username through an automated process? |
|
|
|
Dont want to say much, title says all, contact and we can discuss further etc.
60% off the value, only 0.3 BTC available. Bitcoin with 60% off is most likely a scam. But if you really want to do this, I can get you an addy to deposit 0.3 BTC and I'll get you 0.12 BTC in return  |
|
|
|
I would like to add that the username and the displayed name are not the same. So it's actually still possible to change it if you're a VIP/Donor member (or Staff): That's what messes up my Trust list viewer updates: I can only manually apply name changes  If you want a list of emojis to add wherever to your posts/profile, though I'm not sure if I would recommend it, check here and just copy paste them like how you copy paste text: https://getemoji.com/I'm surprised this isn't used a lot more in signatures: increase the size (for Sr. Members and up) of the emojis and you get full size "images"! I guess not many people know it's possible. |
|
|
|
https://www.walletofsatoshi.com/disclosure.html4. Customer Credit a) Limit of $1000 or equivalent Topping up a Wallet of Satoshi is restricted to a maximum total of $1000 AUD. Bitcoin and Lightning balances are also included in this total. If you attempt to credit your wallet with more than $1000 AUD equivalent, you will need to contact support@walletofsatoshi.com to get a refund. I'm not sure if that means $1000 as a total balance, or the total amount deposited. If it's the latter, you'll reach it eventually even if you only use the wallet for small amounts at a time. Yesterday, Wallet of Satoshi didn't allow me to send larger amounts: 3000 sat worked, but 4000 sat didn't work. Today it works again. Those things are annoying, but all the more reason to spread custodial funds over different wallets. Hmmmm yeah they don't look like a good choice. Honestly custodial wallets for the lightning network seem a bad idea unless you won't be online for 2 weeks. I just don't want the hassle of opening and balancing channels. Custodial wallets are much easier. Lightning network keys must stay online permenantly so it's much less secure than a regular custodian like coinbase. I wonder how BlueWallet for instance secures their funds against theft (because of a bug or hack). |
|
|
|
I'm endorsing this topic, even though theymos shouldn't have to "police" the forum for feedback, it really seems like it needs more guidance. Just recently I've considered posting a topic in Reputation with the title: "Use neutral feedback whenever possible", but I haven't done it yet. The Trust system can handle people with only wrong ratings: they quickly get excluded. People with only good ratings aren't a problem either. But there seem to be more and more veteran users with overall very good trust ratings, who recently created some bad ratings based on opinions or retaliation. If only those ratings would be neutral, there'd be much less drama on Bitcointalk! I'd appreciate seeing theymos' opinion on LoyceV's Beginners guide to correct use of the Trust system, and if he largely agrees: I've seen suggestions to sticky that topic on the Beginners board. |
|
|
|
it's also escrows themselves giving positives simply for having received then passing on funds. On any other board, that would be considered buying and selling trust. I agree there seems to be a lot of it going on with the folks in the collectables section. I don't know if it's a conscious effort to pad their own trust score, or if it's a matter of them sticking together and looking out for one another. I believe their intentions are good. As I read a while ago: "There's so much trust on the Collectibles board". The second (a Brand New user) looks like a future project made by DireWolfM14. Indeed, that's mine. I totally forgot about that, and it was a project I meant to get back to. I've removed the profile from inclusions (for now,) and tagged it to eliminate any future confusion. That explains why I've had this problem for so long: users with 0 posts don't show up in theymos' trust data dump, which means they also don't show up on my Trust list viewer. That in turn means I didn't scrape the userID. But since the usernames show up for this topic, the problem occurred weekly. Doesn't matter any more, it's fixed now that I use my complete list of all usernames for it. Sorry if it caused you any loss of sleep. Don't worry about it, the loss of sleep is on the kids |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
