I think in this case it should simply be a case of an admin deleting that single, no longer accurate feedback. Agreed. Short-term, it would be good if Admin can remove the feedback. Long-term, and I'm thinking years here, I expect the number of inclusions to drop. Until then, keeping him in their Trust list seems like the least users can do to honour his memory. If Admin can intervene by removing the unwarranted feedback, users can keep him in their Trust lists longer. |
|
|
|
I would assume it's the same as choosing a passphrase for your encryption vault. It's not. To brute force your own local encryption, an attacker needs access to your encrypted file, and dedicate all his computing power to just your case. With Brainwallets, one attacker can brute force all existing users on the planet at the same time, and thus has a much larger chance of finding a match. |
|
|
|
Update: I'm adding full (forward) History navigation to all pages (except for the redundant ones): History (weeks): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [ 12 ] This should greatly improve navigation. It's still uploading. Done. Refresh the page if your browser shows a cached version. If a number in the history is grayed out, that means the user didn't have a trust list, and wasn't on anyone's list in that week either. Example: DarkStar (this user has been confused with DarkStar_ twice now). The next update (Saturday) will include direct links to each user's Full merit history.
TODO: highlight banned accounts. Done! |
|
|
|
It would be much better if you could make the thread as self moderator. You can't have a serious reputation thread if you can delete negative posts by yourself. Just report all off-topic posts. |
|
|
|
To me it seems like a neater solution to have gradually increasing requirements rather than just have an arbitrarily chosen sudden jump in requirements. The problem with a continuous increase is that it makes it harder for new users. Counting Merit earned in for instance the past year levels the playing field. |
|
|
|
Obviously, it's possible to list all inputs with the same size as chips. I'm still not convinced this is a bad thing, it's designed to be like this: But 1.024 BTC is so uncommon that everyone will know I've used this mixer!
After a while it will get more common, because you won't even need to use mixer to anonymize your coins. Just split them into tokens and they look exactly like chips. |
|
|
|
Can you post it here? I don't want to install a Tor browser. I'm curious to see if you got a list based on output size (which is as intended!) or have you been able to link funds coming out of ChipMixer to funds going into ChipMixer? |
|
|
|
Merit abuse, anyone? 125 Merit to 3 people in 3 transactions? Probably: But it's not against the rules, and there's this: If you have 150 source merit and you only see 3 merit-worthy posts in a month, then I'd rather you over-give each of them 50 merit than let the merit expire. That way there are more people capable of sending merit, and the "merit economy" is less top-down. |
|
|
|
unfortunately there is no easy way to opt out from DT1 If desired, a user can request theymos to blacklist him from DT1. Example: Blacklisted on request 
I think people still confuse Feedback and Trust list: I encourage anyone to create their own Trust list. Don't confuse your Trust list with Feedback though: - Feedback: people you trust (or don't trust: red)
- Trust list: people who's judgement on others you trust (or don't trust: ~)
And I think I'm not helping with this header: ~willi9974 is Distrusted by: Should I change this to " willi9974's judgement on others is Distrusted by:"? |
|
|
|
New feature: I now highlight banned accounts. Sample:
|
|
|
|
I checked loyce.club/trust to see if I could find instances in which OgNasty either lost an inclusion, or gained an exclusion, and the in/exclusions of that person before/after the change, however I was unable to find anything (I am operating under the presumption that "removed" and "new" will show up in all the weeks). Your presumption is incorrect, I started highlighting changes in week 4: especially with some of the latest and greatest of trust list jockeying that seems to be going on. This got me thinking of another improvement: I now highlights weekly changes: NEWRemoved |
|
|
|
This has been suggested before, but unfortunately hasn't been implemented. A one-time ban-data-dump would be the second best thing (the best would be a Rank "Banned"), so I support this request once again. Moreover, it also happens that the data about bans doesn't appear in Moderators Log, and consequently on BPIP site. Modlog only shows new bans, and they do appear on there. In the past 24 hours, 36 accounts have been banned. By the way, would you mind helping me with steps to download data from the Moderator Log (Mod Log) page, please.
I'm not sure what you're asking: just save modlog, and look for the data you need. |
|
|
|
I'm not into Ethereum and don't really know how to value this topic, but I've added it to the Altcoin chapter (which is more or less experimental anyway). |
|
|
|
Looks fine to me using Chrome... I tested 2 browsers, so it's my screen again: if I put my head on my desk, I can see a very light gray font. Only the Email address field has black text. |
|
|
|
03 after some time period (1-2 weeks) moderators can give some rating about the project comparing all the comments. and if the project is less than minimum rating moderator will delete the announcement Mods don't moderate scams, it could lead to moderator abuse. I've read an idea from theymos to audit ICOs for not being scammers and to allow them to advertise on the forum, but as far as I know this wasn't implemented: I'm getting a bunch of ICOs wanting to advertise on the forum, but I don't have time to do more than a very cursory review of each. Somebody trustworthy needs to set up a certification service that will work like this:
An ICO will pay you to apply for a certification. You will then spend many hours thoroughly reviewing everything about them in order to determine that they're at least basically sane. Some things that you should maybe check:
- If they're planning on creating software, require that they have the software already 5% done, preferably with a working proof-of-concept that you can play around with. Check that they haven't just filled a github repo with copy-pasted garbage code from elsewhere which doesn't actually do anything relevant.
- If they're planning on operating a real-world business (solar, mining, etc.), check that they have a registered business somewhere. Do a background check on all involved individuals. Require that they have some of the necessary assets (property, etc.) already purchased, and verify this using public records, etc.
- Check that there are no reasonable open scam accusations against anyone involved.
- If smart contracts are used, verify that the English terms match the smart contract terms. If there's any way for the smart contract terms to be changed, make sure that this is specified in the English terms.
- After reading all of their public info, ensure that there is no deception or any glaring holes.
- Check their website for copy-pasted text, photoshopped images, and fake people.
If they fail your criteria, then you should not certify them. That's important. If you just give a certification to everyone who pays you, you're useless. You should keep the application fee even if they fail, though in some cases you could allow them to reapply for certification after failing with a reduced fee. Your goal should be to eventually be able to publish a statistic like, "99% of ICOs I certified did not turn out to be scams." You should not attempt to certify that ICOs will actually appreciate in value or anything -- that'd be far too difficult --, but just that the collected money will be used as advertised.
Once I notice that a good, trustworthy certification service like this exists, I will require that ICOs wanting to advertise on the forum receive such a certification. (If/when there are multiple good certification services, I will publish a list of ones I consider acceptable.) So you'll get a built-in market from this, and even if an ICO has no interest in advertising on the forum, acquiring a widely-trusted certification has significant value in itself.
|
|
|
|
Welcome Steven! Hello. You may want to verify your identity in some way I wanted to send Steven a message through the form on his website to confirm this, but the text is white on a white background, which makes it very hard to use. I've sent an email to support@, please confirm. |
|
|
|
An Error Has Occurred!
You can only send 50 merit to a given user per 30 days. You have already sent 41 merit to that user. Hey! Does that mean I'm missing out on at least 9 Merit now?  That makes me the Vulpine Order of Merit Member with the most missed Merits, which is ironic, as I'm pretty sure you've been closer to 50 before! At long last, the eleventh member of the Vulpine Order of Merit is LoyceV! Thank you! This is so unexpected, I didn't prepare a speech. But I know my prize  I've had my eyes on a 55 gallon drum of WD-40 since Juny 14 last year! It sells for $1,009.87 at amazon and it just looks great:  I accept my prize with great honour! This really is my lucky day! Earlier today, I received my first Merit every from theymos! I mean, my Mobile received a Merit from theymos' alt last year, but until today, I never received a single Merit back on my main account. The backstabbing was so severe that it didn't even show up in my Merit Backstabbers ranking at all! At least some knives got pulled out today, and as if that isn't enough to make a great Sunday with beautiful weather, I've won the most prestigious award of Bitcointalk! With 208.198 liters of WD-40 I can lubricate my gears everything for a very long time the rest of eternity! I think I'll take a bath in it first. Do the robot! My victory dance:  |
|
|
|
1 sat per byte is still possible! My transactions finally confirmed with 11 848 minutes lag. I don't even remember sending them it took so long... Mine took only 9,229 minutes, just under a week. People should really stop using the default "best" fee, it only causes fees to quickly spiral up as everybody is competing for the same scarce blockspace. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
