Sure there are instances where people will sell their accounts plus their private keys however trying to scam with a trusted account is a gamble at best and a gamble with small potential rewards and high risk and a generally small success rate. I would call the EV of buying a trusted and/or a default trust account to be negative by a long stretch.
It's impossible to calculate without real, actual, values. The value of the default trust account to someone who's going to be walking away from the forums forever (for any imaginable reason) independently of whether they find a buyer is whatever they can get for it. Ie, if you know you'll never use it again, then you've got every incentive to sell for whatever you find someone willing to offer. It's impossible to say what the value of something is/isn't without knowing actual details of a given situation. Anyone who says otherwise is engaging in mere speculation---this can be fun, but it's not solid argumentation. I know what people are generally willing to pay for default trust accounts, how much default trust accounts have sold for in the past, I know how much people are generally able to hold for a third party before suspicions start getting tripped. It is pretty rare that someone attempts to use a purchased account to scam many people for as much as possible however in almost every case that I have seen the amount scammed was significantly less then the value of the account and in cases when the amount scammed was greater then the value of the account, it was because one person who doesn't know how to take proper precautions got scammed for a large amount. Your argumentation basically boils down to Argument from authority, which is a logical fallacy. The starting point is the assumption that you know the value of the account to the seller, this is obviously highly dependent on the person and their circumstance. [inb4 ad hominem attacks: next, QS either calls me an idiot or doesn't reply at all...] It could be worth 1 btc for example but the owner only values it at .75 btc, they obviously won't sell it for the lower amount, conversely if someone wrote to value their account for 1 btc but the market would only support a value of .5 btc then the account would either not sell or would sell for less then what the owner values it at. You say it does not matter but then you go on to show exactly how it does matter. Both buyer and seller have to agree if there is a sale to be made. If I value my account at X, then I won't sell lower than X. That is exactly what you go on to say. So, again, it's impossible to see how much a person would sell a (default trust) account for until someone actually puts a price on their (default trust) account. You can't really say what the "value" of an account is independently of actual data. This fact impunes your reasoning when you say "the value of a default trust account is always negative"---this clearly depends on the price, which you don't know until someone makes an offer.
My point is that the value of an account of ultimately determined by the market. People can give a value to their account if they want however any rational decision will be based off of market prices.
This matter is independent of theories of (ir)rationality. You don't know the "market prices" until a sale goes down. BTW, good job holding back on the insults! You're making progress, it seems. |
|
|
|
|
There are a lot of threads on this topic if you look around in the gambling section. In the end, the deal is that the more you play, the more likely you are to approach the long-term expected value for the game you're playing. Because of house-edge, this is almost always negative. Gambling is fun but you shouldn't hope to defeat the dice-house by rolling thousands of times.
|
|
|
|
-snip-
1 Activity point * day , so it is basically 1 point per day max 14 points each 2 weeks (if you post at least one post every day). This is how the activity works (in the easiest way).
Its still 14 time points in 14 days, not in 7 days. Besides the simplification of 1 activity per day is wrong in certain cases. E.g. an account created today would get possibly 28 points for the next 15 days. I think most confusions about how activity works is that people do not see the difference between time points and activity. Long run average is still 1 point per day. Ie, someone who maxes out points each time period will have activity which asymptotically approaches 1/day. But you're absolutely correct the actual figure can vary by +/- 14 based on which day of the time period the account was created on. |
|
|
|
Sure there are instances where people will sell their accounts plus their private keys however trying to scam with a trusted account is a gamble at best and a gamble with small potential rewards and high risk and a generally small success rate. I would call the EV of buying a trusted and/or a default trust account to be negative by a long stretch.
It's impossible to calculate without real, actual, values. The value of the default trust account to someone who's going to be walking away from the forums forever (for any imaginable reason) independently of whether they find a buyer is whatever they can get for it. Ie, if you know you'll never use it again, then you've got every incentive to sell for whatever you find someone willing to offer. It's impossible to say what the value of something is/isn't without knowing actual details of a given situation. Anyone who says otherwise is engaging in mere speculation---this can be fun, but it's not solid argumentation. I know what people are generally willing to pay for default trust accounts, how much default trust accounts have sold for in the past, I know how much people are generally able to hold for a third party before suspicions start getting tripped. It is pretty rare that someone attempts to use a purchased account to scam many people for as much as possible however in almost every case that I have seen the amount scammed was significantly less then the value of the account and in cases when the amount scammed was greater then the value of the account, it was because one person who doesn't know how to take proper precautions got scammed for a large amount. Your argumentation basically boils down to Argument from authority, which is a logical fallacy. The starting point is the assumption that you know the value of the account to the seller, this is obviously highly dependent on the person and their circumstance. [inb4 ad hominem attacks: next, QS either calls me an idiot or doesn't reply at all...] |
|
|
|
-snip-
I guess this is right, but it's also in his/her interest to neg-rep as many accounts as possible, in order to increase demand for farmed accounts. In my opinion, account-farming and default trust are in a clear conflict of interest.
That is a point. I dont think that the amount of time QS invests in haunting (not a typo) scammers is worth the coins earned through sales to said scammers. I would like to think that the majority of their customers are looking for a spot in a signature campaign. Arguably this would make their actions against spammers a conflict of interest as well. Every spammer banned is a possible future customer. The new account will probably get banned as well, because the do not learn the lesson or dont care because they still ROI. I'm not sure this is correct. Every neg-repped account just makes future customers for farmed accounts with the same rank. Since buying-selling accounts is not considered against the rules, presumably everyone QS gets kicked out of a signature-ad campaign just comes back to him trying to buy in again. I personally think its part of beeing human to contradict itself.
Okay, your last point is philosophical but there's a real difference between contradictions inherent in human nature (whatever those are) and clear conflicts of interest in which, say, a government regulator has clear ties to the industry he/she regulates, etc. These clear conflicts of interest are system problems that can be identified and avoided, the philosophical stuff you refer to seems much less actionable. |
|
|
|
Sure there are instances where people will sell their accounts plus their private keys however trying to scam with a trusted account is a gamble at best and a gamble with small potential rewards and high risk and a generally small success rate. I would call the EV of buying a trusted and/or a default trust account to be negative by a long stretch.
It's impossible to calculate without real, actual, values. The value of the default trust account to someone who's going to be walking away from the forums forever (for any imaginable reason) independently of whether they find a buyer is whatever they can get for it. Ie, if you know you'll never use it again, then you've got every incentive to sell for whatever you find someone willing to offer. It's impossible to say what the value of something is/isn't without knowing actual details of a given situation. Anyone who says otherwise is engaging in mere speculation---this can be fun, but it's not solid argumentation. |
|
|
|
-snip-
Indeed, and this is basically what Shorena argues above. That because we can buy-and-sell accounts then of course we can buy-and-sell trusted accounts. But I hope it's become quite clear that this makes the trust system effectively a system in which we can buy and sell trust.
Just to make this clear. It does - at least to me - but I dont have a solution. I think that's what the OP was driving at, and I think it's a well-reasoned point. I'm not sure how/why buying and selling trust isn't just as "okay" as buying and selling accounts. As far as I can tell, it's effectively the same thing.
As it was argued by SaltySpitoon, the difference is that one (selling account) is commonly accepted by the community while the other is not (selling trust directly). Yes, and this is more of an observation about the state of affairs with respect to the community more than an actual difference in principle between the two topics. As I had replied above, this is just as likely to change-as not-depending on how widely the facts of the OPs satire here get noticed. @Shorena in re whether or not default trust accounts are bought and sold. You may be right that it doesn't happen often, but how would we really know? I don't understand what you mean about "there'd be no incentive", it seems to me that if you have a default trust account and you have a buyer willing to pay a lot for it, the incentive is there, whether or not the two people reach a deal is some sort of empirical matter.
Yes, exactly. Lets just assume that I want to cash out big time here. I would probably start with spamming up to the max number of posts I can get payment for, Bit-X is currently not limiting the number of post I think. I might even be possible to convince marco to offer me a special deal and get paid in advance. I do write constructive posts, that is somewhat established. The next step would be to take a loan without collateral and just offer my credibility, which would probably not be worth much, but a least a bit. Finally selling the account at the same time or shortly afterwards secretly on another board (hackerboard maybe?). The sale would ofc include the private keys to addresses I posted in the past to make sure the new owner can perfectly argue (with signed message) that they are still the same person and that the loan was done by a hacker. Considering that the loaned amount would not be much, they would probably curse a bit and just repay it to stay on DefaultTrust. I should probably add my PGP key to convince Quickseller and others as well as every message I every received encrypted by them. A complete all around shorena sell out, mail, (empty) wallet, PGP key, german lessons, everything included. I have next to no incentive to tell BadBear that I am about to sell the account and it should be removed from DefaultTrust. In fact I have an incentive to do the opposite. I find this very troubling, same as our trolling friend. I do not think that banning the sale of accounts in general is a valid option though. In the above scenario it would not make a difference whether selling the account would be allowed or not. To make this perfectly clear: I have no plans to do what I described above. Its just a thought experiment. I agree with you here. The incentive is there. And what's more, you wouldn't even have to be going "all in" in this way. It'd be easy enough to do a soft version of this where you don't burn all the bridges or take out loans or any other sort of disreputable action before you go. You'd just make bank off selling your default trust. |
|
|
|
I was about to use your service until I saw scammer Twipple wearing your signature that he is getting paid to wear. I would not be comfortable using your services until if/when you do a better job at disassociating yourself with scammers. I am about to send you a PM about this as well. OP, make sure you realize that QS's accusations of Twipple have been disputed. QS has become quite well known for making accusations and not backing down whether or not there's evidence of any actual wrongdoing. What's more, he's been associated in the past with smear-campaigns attempting to get people he doesn't like kicked out of signature ad campaigns. If you haven't already done so, it's a good idea to add: to your trust list to make sure that you aren't discriminating against people caught up in QS's unwarranted smear attacks. Actual scammers are consistently caught by Tomatocage, Vod and others who have a long and well trusted reputation of considering evidence and actually admitting that now and again they can be wrong. Quickseller has never backed down in the face of evidence and most likely he won't be on default trust for much longer due to his overbearing hotheadedness. |
|
|
|
Steveds mod? That's a joke! Who chose the 12 year old beggar? Ah lemme guess, the best admin in the world, Stunna!
For real, he's been doing so many things wrong. He spams, he begs, and everything a mod shouldn't do. Worst of all, he mutes without hestitation and doesn't even know what to do. Ruins the chat.
Everybody's going to leave PD again just like the pokerjet incident. Just get rid of him now.
you come back on multiple accounts to scam U:pal U:hannah U:Poopie U:candy U:bumblebeeTc U:stevesukdik and multiple more LMFAO! Half those accounts aren't even mind! You're jumping to assumptions, something a mod should never do. I don't scam, and if I were to scam even 1000 BTC, you're not allowed muting my new accounts. Candy Stripes's accounts should not be muted, and one thing you have to keep to your word is you can't steal money from Candy's account. If there is solid proof he took 1 btc, you can't take it from his account and give it back to the owner. It is returning money to the owner, but then you are stealing from him, and that will ruin the reputation of PD, even with the case of candy Any account of Candy should be muted, and any txid of any deposit he makes should be made public so his other addresses (and alts) can be found. Candy is one of the biggest trolls and scammers on this forum and I can say right now that anything that candy says will almost certainly be damaging and probably be an attempt to scam. Ah, I forgot to ask you. How is it in Charlotte, North Carolina? BTW AT&T isn't the best ISP, why do you use them? LOL. You assume that I am using AT&T based on the fact that it is one of the larger ISP's in my area. I am willing to bet that you are not able to get my full dox, like I was able to get on James Volpe, and like I likely am able to get on you. Sweet, I found the daily Quickseller masterbation post! It's basically once per day that this dude makes an obnoxious proclamation of his own coolness and godliness. Have fun folks, mark the QS masterbations when you find them! |
|
|
|
-snip-
Meanwhile, lots of crazy bluster and mudslinging between ebzec and blazr seem to have totally derailed this thread. I guess there's been some intersting reading about browser security, though.
Yeah, this makes me wonder whether there is an actual interest in finding a possible solution or if this is just an ego game. I did not read this thread for a while because I thought I would need at least 30 minutes to read the posts here. Now that I have the time I skipped most of the posts and find another dead thread. Whether or not Quickseller is farming accounts whether they are high or low quality is IMHO their own "problem". Its in their best interest to farm accounts with quality posts, since a ban would also impact their main account. I guess this is right, but it's also in his/her interest to neg-rep as many accounts as possible, in order to increase demand for farmed accounts. In my opinion, account-farming and default trust are in a clear conflict of interest. |
|
|
|
Where/when is the android client?!?!?!?
This is the latest word: SwC 5/10/15 UPDATE:Krill Leaderboard comes to a conclusion in about 11 hours https://swcpoker.eu/krill-leaderboard/ and it appears that no one can catch "KuntyKunter," but positions 2nd through 5th are still up for grabs. SwC is proud to announce that "Krill Leaderboard" will continue next week and award the same prizes! For our tournament players, the "Little BTC" & "Medium BTC" will run today. Client Update: Mac & Android clients are at the early stages of development. A few pages ago (a few days ago), Micon had said that they were about 2-3 months out. I suppose that's still basically the case. Full disclosure: I'm also waiting for this desperately! |
|
|
|
<snip>
So in conclusion, what is ok and not ok is dictated by the community.
Yeah, it should work that way, although I can think of some instances where it doesn't. We have a hardware vendor on this forum that abuses the self moderation privileges to the point where they are running a bot to cover up the the truth about their ongoing scams by using this bot to censor users. The community effected by this company has raised holy hell about it and gotten nowhere. They continue to run this bot after scamming millions out of people on false promises and are now using this bot on a new self-moderated thread to try to sell a new product. I like the fact that the forum doesn't restrict activity very much and in principle agree with this laissez faire approach, although I do wonder how things are resolved at times and whether it's a whim, a rule, or the opinion of the community that ultimately decides. I don't see why a non-self-moderated thread can't be created so that the discussion can take place there. Do a search for 'uncensored thread site:bitcointalk.org' on Google and you'll see many examples of this happening when people got fed up with having their posts deleted from the official self-moderated thread and decided to start their own. I'm pretty sure that "official" threads are not really a thing. There are self-moderated thread and there are non-self-moderated threads. I don't think one type is any more official than another however non-self-moderated threads are certainly less suspicious (to me, and I think to others) if you want to actually see debate take place. In this sense, I agree with you that while self-moderation can be abused, there's a natural solution (one I've used myself), ie, start your own thread. Nevertheless, I think going down the rabbit-hole of ridiculing Steamingoff for his blockheaded use of language distracts from the serious point this thread makes: ie, it's okay to purchase a trusted account, and it's okay for trusted members to farm/sell/buy accounts, but somehow it's not okay to purchase trust directly. I really have a hard time seeing how the latter is any more problematic for the trust system than the former.
If someone sold an account which another person had left positive trust on, that sale is beyond the control of the person who gave the trust so it doesn't impact the value of that person's trust ratings. If it is accepted that accounts can be bought or sold, then whether or not an account happens to have existing trust is secondary. Any justification for restrictions that try to prevent the sale of trusted accounts can also be carried over to the argument that all account trading should be banned. Indeed, and this is basically what Shorena argues above. That because we can buy-and-sell accounts then of course we can buy-and-sell trusted accounts. But I hope it's become quite clear that this makes the trust system effectively a system in which we can buy and sell trust. I think that's what the OP was driving at, and I think it's a well-reasoned point. I'm not sure how/why buying and selling trust isn't just as "okay" as buying and selling accounts. As far as I can tell, it's effectively the same thing. @Shorena in re whether or not default trust accounts are bought and sold. You may be right that it doesn't happen often, but how would we really know? I don't understand what you mean about "there'd be no incentive", it seems to me that if you have a default trust account and you have a buyer willing to pay a lot for it, the incentive is there, whether or not the two people reach a deal is some sort of empirical matter. |
|
|
|
Well if a cute raccoon is crossing the road right in front of you, what do you do? Be honest. I know what I would do. Poor thing.
Those racoons had no mercy towards my even cuter chickens when they got into the hen house last year. Those guys are murderers and I know it. Anyway, it's better not to drive at all, take the bus and let a professional handle the raccoon crossings! |
|
|
|
|
Thanks Micro! Also, wow hufflepuff (again, I know but still wow). Interesting that the next one down is DeanNolan at 169. I woulda guessed someone would have broken 200.
Luck leaderboard is really fun too. I love that "fuckstunna" has a total profit of 357 satoshis and a luck percentage of over a million!
I wish I could reverse the sort and see the bottom 100 though.
Thanks for the link!
|
|
|
|
Time will tell if you are right about whether or not he will be removed. And it may be that he does some good "busting scams". I only know that I saw him shouting at people and called him out for it then he began his smear-campaign against me. As I said, I've never seen him back down or say he's sorry so I can't imagine it happening in your case (and, FWIW, I don't really know all the details of your case to begin with). I mainly just see him intransigent and exploding every time someone says he's wrong and I know that's not the kind of person who should be trusted with authority. I think the best we can hope for is that some of the other mods and people on default trust take a close look into how he interacts with people and decide whether they want him on their trust lists.
I agree thats the problem with him. Firstly one he starts a scam accusation, he is hardly seen replying back unless the person starts a thread about him. As for the mods, it won't happen as there isn't a mod for scam accusations on the thread. People are considered to be responsible enough for their decisions to be safe from scams themselves. I was referring to the fact that QS is currently trusted by BadBear, who is a mod on default trust. Therefore QS's ratings show up on anyone he decides to ding. Because he's so nonchalant about using this power against anyone and everyone he's ever had a quarrel with, and he's absolutely remorseless about this MO, the only hope for those who were falsely accused is that he fall off the default trust list. This can happen two ways: 1) Badbear removes him from his trust list 2) 2 or more people in DefaultTrust1 write "~Quickseller" in their trust lists (effectivly excluding him). The reason I think it will happen eventually is tha I was falsely accused by Tradefortress nearly 3 years ago. At the time, he tried to blackmail me to pay him back an arbitrary amount which he accused me of taking from him. I wouldn't cave to his blackmail and false accusations and for a while, I had a warning on my account because of the feedback from TradeFortress. However, history eventually vindicated me because TradeFortress revealed himself to be the kind of person he is and he now has one of the lowest trust ratings around (-500, approx). He was removed from default trust. Ironically, it's these false accusations from TradeFortress which Quickseller now considers to be his reasons for neg-repping me. I'm pretty confident that, just like before, people who side with scammers and liars will eventually make mistakes and reveal themselves for who they are and be removed from default trust. It happened with Tradefortress, why wouldn't it happen with Quickseller when he aligns himself with tradefortress so nonchalalantly? Time will tell. Maybe you can PM badbear and explain him the situation ,and make a thread and explain it in that. So if you are not at fault , then you can have it removed. It has been done. Still waiting to hear back from BadBear, I assume he has bigger fish to fry. I did make a thread about it,but it quickly degenerated into a mudslinging flame-war that wasn't helping anything productive. QS doesn't back down and I wasn't going to cop to doing something that I didn't do. Other mods have written back to me about it that essentially it's up to Badbear who he trusts. I know I wouldn't want QS's rash reactions and flamethrowing rhetoric blamed on me, but we'll see what happens in the end. |
|
|
|
 Congrats to Bferg02, finally a member of the 100 club! He's now +105 pd3.co/u/bferg02What about the one with the 2000+ btc club? You were going to publish his story. Still waiting for it. Also waiting for the signature campaign. *just don't keep on delaying things*. This makes me ask whether there's a list posted with the biggest winners ranked. I know hui does quite a lot of work publishing pd stats. I'd love to see the distribution of winnings and the tails of that distribution (ie, biggest winners and losers). |
|
|
|
Would be kinda stupid to remove the function maybe to limit or disable yourself or some options but not to totally remove the function.
The thread btchris linked to above contains some useful discussion about how/whether to modularize the catch-all which is bitcoin-core. I, personally, could see some use in dividing the project into mining-node vs. wallet vs. hd-wallet, etc. Perhaps an installer would ask you which components you wanted to build and run or something like that. |
|
|
|
Here is the Message: Hello this is josephno1 from bitcoin talk. My alt btc address is 1J9ChUaQJha2u1PXwhHQBBKsxtPBJio5bf
Sig: G+WHoWDahPWN6ytMBH4XMcjmVhE+PYMbzhIzgpjrjNNIaasgdFFhXeuFWaPKbPEyUP4UUrSaJoYLi7RBTtr7vJ8=
BTC Address: 1CUTBFFyMkWNPfb4qxUh2D3yCHTCtt3gfz
Alt BTC Address: 1J9ChUaQJha2u1PXwhHQBBKsxtPBJio5bf
Witnessed (and verified)! |
|
|
|
Time will tell if you are right about whether or not he will be removed. And it may be that he does some good "busting scams". I only know that I saw him shouting at people and called him out for it then he began his smear-campaign against me. As I said, I've never seen him back down or say he's sorry so I can't imagine it happening in your case (and, FWIW, I don't really know all the details of your case to begin with). I mainly just see him intransigent and exploding every time someone says he's wrong and I know that's not the kind of person who should be trusted with authority. I think the best we can hope for is that some of the other mods and people on default trust take a close look into how he interacts with people and decide whether they want him on their trust lists.
I agree thats the problem with him. Firstly one he starts a scam accusation, he is hardly seen replying back unless the person starts a thread about him. As for the mods, it won't happen as there isn't a mod for scam accusations on the thread. People are considered to be responsible enough for their decisions to be safe from scams themselves. I was referring to the fact that QS is currently trusted by BadBear, who is a mod on default trust. Therefore QS's ratings show up on anyone he decides to ding. Because he's so nonchalant about using this power against anyone and everyone he's ever had a quarrel with, and he's absolutely remorseless about this MO, the only hope for those who were falsely accused is that he fall off the default trust list. This can happen two ways: 1) Badbear removes him from his trust list 2) 2 or more people in DefaultTrust1 write "~Quickseller" in their trust lists (effectivly excluding him). The reason I think it will happen eventually is tha I was falsely accused by Tradefortress nearly 3 years ago. At the time, he tried to blackmail me to pay him back an arbitrary amount which he accused me of taking from him. I wouldn't cave to his blackmail and false accusations and for a while, I had a warning on my account because of the feedback from TradeFortress. However, history eventually vindicated me because TradeFortress revealed himself to be the kind of person he is and he now has one of the lowest trust ratings around (-500, approx). He was removed from default trust. Ironically, it's these false accusations from TradeFortress which Quickseller now considers to be his reasons for neg-repping me. I'm pretty confident that, just like before, people who side with scammers and liars will eventually make mistakes and reveal themselves for who they are and be removed from default trust. It happened with Tradefortress, why wouldn't it happen with Quickseller when he aligns himself with tradefortress so nonchalalantly? Time will tell. |
|
|
|
@SwC_Poker any updates on new clients ?
Client Update: Mac & Android clients are at the early stages of development.
Ah sorry missed it. What about the in browser client ? I thought that would be worked on before being priority . And is there any ETA on the clients ? Seems it has already been 3 months since the window client was released . FWIW, Micon discussed this several pages back. It seems they hadn't planned on html5/browser client being so valuable to people. When polls and discussion showed them how much people wanted it, they said the'd eventually do it but I think it's at the end of their list. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
