nutildah, you're sorta trolling a long dead thread.  Maybe you want to go over to the thread on swcpoker.eu (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=962440.0).  sealswithclubs ceased operations back in like december or january.

Thanks for the education!  So, is it fair to say that an output is always always associated with 1 or more addresses (either through a hash of a public key, or a hash of multiple private keys)?   I have to admit, I don't fully understand the case where there's "no valid address that the output script could be represented as" except under the case where this is true because of a payment to a multisignature conjunction of addresses.  Please forgive my ignorance.


Again, can you help me understand the "none at all" case?

Not only spamming but incorrectly so.  25mBTC is 2.5 bitcents .  Anyway, almost everyone in this thread appreciates what you're trying to do here.  And I think that this site is only getting better and more popular every week.

This is just a guess, but if I'm wrong then perhaps it will help spur discussion.  First, I note that I don't find any reference to "timereceived" looking quickly through bitcoin-core/src/primitives/transaction.h and transaction.cpp.  So, perhaps timereceived is a property that each client computes for itself.  Then, perhaps for for the majority of transactions, a client receives them when it downloads the blockchain so it simply uses the transaction's "time" as a standin for "timereceived".  If this hypothesis is correct, perhaps on new transaction that you didn't download in your initial sync you'd see a difference.

Here's another guess: perhaps once a transaction is included in the blockchain then timereceived is set to = time but before then they are unequal.  This would allow you to find unincluded transactions by looking for ones in which timereceived wasn't equal to time.

So, perhaps my guesses will get someone with more knowledge to appear and correct me

I admit that I'm often mistaken, but aren't those "inputs" and "outputs" public keys corresponding to private keys that can be used to sign transactions?  And there's a 1-1 mapping between keys and addresses (right?).  So, in some sense, aren't those inputs and outputs in correspondence with addresses?

So, in one sense, it sounds like you've found a working solution.  But on the other hand, you've experienced the problem more than once.  I think the next step is to see if you can figure out steps to reproduce the problem, if you can come up with those, then you've got a bona-fida bug report that will almost certainly get fixed.

I'm guessing that the variance has to do with exactly what trust settings the bot which checks trust is using.  It may be the account "bitmixer.io"'s settings or it may be another.  As you of course know, exactly who shows up as having -ve trust depends on who's in your trust list and we don't really know who's in the relevant trust list here.  Another guess: bitmixer.io exported a trust list at some point and while who's on-or-off of default trust has changed, bitmixer's exported list hasn't.

I don't know anything about it.  Where should I look to find out more?  (Note, a twitter hashtag doesn't seem like much of a resource, but then again, maybe I just don't understand how to use it).

Wish I wasn't so poor so that I could help.  I appreciate your bravery in challening status-quo and crufty, old, stale mindsets for many years now.  IMHO, you are a minor hero for freedom and I wish I could do more than just send you good vibes.  Still, I wish you the best.  Keep us posted when you can.

I agree with quickseller, unless there's on-blockchain transactions to show payment, how can escrow decide who is lying in case of a dispute?


From the above, it had sounded like payments were not to a blockchain address but to a website account.  If this isn't the case then there's been some misunderstanding above.

Hey, same here,  thanks to both basil00 for the feat and for xhomerx10 for drawing my attention to it!

What if you farm accounts and spend a lot of time neg-repping other accounts?  Is there any conflict-of-interest inherent in pairing those activities?  (To be clear, if you neg-rep many accounts, then you drive up the demand for sold accounts without any neg-reps; also you're in-the-know about which accounts are bought (by your customers) and you can avoid neg-repping them as a favor).

So, if you import the priv-key to a new wallet then the problem is sovled?  But does it happen again or something?  If it happens repeatedly, it'd be great if you could give steps to reproduce.

Good to know that someone actually has had their negative removed by him.  In my case, I'm far from a newbie and my reputation of years of talking on here with no trading and no issues *should* speak for itself about how quickseller is behaving towards me (if, for some reason, you decided to ignore his using of alts to troll me and his (failed) vengance campaign to get me kicked out of my signature ad campaign).  Ie, his reasons for neg-repping me were personal and vindictive and in no way associated with any sort of issues I was causing on the forum for anyone.  From what I can tell, the guy has a very fragile ego and you have to really suck up to him in order to have a pleasant interaction.  If you in any way cross him and he sees you as an inferior, you're basically going down.  As I've said in the past, I'm confident this really won't last for too long, it's a temporary, if unfortunate, state of affairs.


I can write some code but I certainly can't (and wouldn't want to) run an exchange.  I think that r3wt's signature looks like the one I used for a short time when I was out of my signature ad campaign because he felt something similar had been done to him and he was trying to draw attention to it.  I have to admit, I don't know the details of r3wt's case.

I like those pics with grandma using bitcoin.  I think that shows that we do have a long way to actually being mainstream.   However, we have come a long way from just a handful of folks---it's definintely a worldwide phenomenon, just not a mainstream one yet.

Exactly.  People who gamble in a healthy way aren't really expecting to get rich, we're expecting to lose money.  However, I also lose money when I got to a movie, or when I buy a sandwich or a beer.  Sometimes you trade money for fun---I consider gambling to be in that class of activities.

I don't know how to prove it to you, but I can assert to you that r3wt is not my alt.  From my experience with him, it seems he also has some issue with with quickseller or just with default trust.  Thanks for pointing this out to me, as I don't really check my own feedback unless someone draws my attention to it.

Interesting.  I can confirm that it's back up for me without using TOR.  I'm not sure why that wasn't the case an hour ago but glad it's all sorted out now!

While you're on here, did you happen to see that question just above your post.  It's just trivia, but I'm curious why you use localStorage rather than HTTP cookies to store the access_token.

Interesting.  I'm looking forward to any info the OP could offer about this.  Also, OP, would you be willing to cash out players who can't access your site without using tor?