The logical path would seems to be that of manually screening the candidates that meet the requirements, by cherry picking those that seem free of suspicion (looking over post history and merited posts). That is certainly time consuming, but since merits (and quality) is subjective, there is no other way to assert that the candidate’s merits are "legit". By setting a minimum Merit requirement, you already get rid of most of the spammers, which makes a campaign manager's life much easier. For the remaining accounts you still can't rely on Merit only, but all it takes is a quick check to see if they really qualify. I've seen the last-minute Merit sales before from campaign participants. You can't absolutely prove it, so I wouldn't do anything more than reject and blacklist them. |
|
|
|
I am surprised by this list because I used to think only newbies account are in bumping business. This list contain large number of user who are full member and above. Note that they're not necessarily all bump bots, I've edited my post a bit to make that more obvious. These are just all accounts that posted in that topic. |
|
|
|
Our AI algorithm prediction is enough to make the difference. No. AI can't beat math. Casino always wins otherwise it would be bankrupt in a jiffy. Let's put it to the test  18 9 41 66 66
100 35 91 70 91
8 58 39 17 71
9 40 50 42 31
9 17 38 95 34
33 67 93 7 95
72 88 28 54 74
42 48 45 69 94
3 59 65 22 48
14 89 91 56 3 1foreverDArUNEX2gVD26vautcx3b8zTZ G+c5EF9KpFoPbuyUUpA7jXzUmf0PKpYLMwsy466t/yZwYlp1tdblD1RGwYEqTNdVT+hGiApdoMrA5XY+VZwCekM= I got 100 random numbers from random.org. I've posted 50 of them here. Please prove that your AI can predict the other 50 numbers. Once you're done, you can use the signature to verify the data. If you can pull this off, I'll totally vouch for your system and leave you green trust. If you can't, well, please stop making things up. |
|
|
|
you can double your money in 5h, which is the time a normal person can dedicate playing. this is why in our plans we say 50-100% profit / daily. You know you can double your money in just 1 bet, right? It takes about a second on any online casino. The catch is: no matter what you do, the chance of losing everything is larger than the chance of doubling your money. If you think it’s a scam why don’t you try it so you can say it very louder and with proof? There's nothing to prove here. We are giving free away membership; take this opportunity that we change your life  You're not giving away anything with any value. Just register with us and post your username here Do you really think advertising your scam in a reputation thread is going to work? Our AI algorithm prediction is enough to make the difference. AI here. I don't believe you. |
|
|
|
This un-trusted reputation is unfair because you have no base to review what you have not test.. We've seen it all many times already. If you think a quick win makes it a quaranteed win, you're either a scammer or dumb. Whatever you do, the expected value is negative. It doesn't matter whether you win or lose. I'll let you in on a little secret: fighting legit red trust usually leads to more red trust. |
|
|
|
Have recaptchas for EVERYTHING.
Pressing Reply - recaptcha.
Opening a topic - recaptcha.
Go to your profile - recaptcha.
Even open up the bitcointalk tab in your browser and get hit with a recaptcha.
You get the point, the possibilities are endless!
Calm down satan!
How about an old classic Freudian slip: replace a word with another word. Say: replace "Bitcoin" for "Sex". sexcointalk.org Sex Forum! Shutting Down sextalk.org and Run Epochtalk and let us ecperience the whole thing for a Day. - Creating a social media campaign in the Altcoin section with the objective of getting Sextalk to become trending topic (wait, that could be a real one). sheenshane's signature: Anonymous Sex Mixer Rename the forum "SexSVtalk", and declare CSW the one true Satoshi.
I have heard it will be new sex but it is still in development.
Announce that Sex cash can only be discussed in the main sub and sex must be discussed in the altcoin sub. (Or some other coin). Foxpup's signature (my absolute favourite ): Will pretend to do unspeakable things (while actually eating a taco) for sex LFC_Sex, ETFsex and Sex_Arena get new usernames  tbct_mt2's signature: The MOST EXCITING Sex Casino! He might say "Since today, I lose my faith in Sex, I sell all my Sex and will join, and fully work with Sex Cash team to develop it as one of core team members." Please note, payment will need to be done using the coin "Sex World" (BTWC). Last of the V8s' signature: ~14 easy tricks to save your sex "I have good news for you all sextalkers.
Today, I decided to give away all my donated sex that need ages to hit current amount.
I will start my new life, without sextalk.org, without sex, without crypto, when all these mentioned give-aways finished" Ummm, people are very happy that sextalk will be made great again! Maybe Satoshi comes back on April 1st and bans theymos for writing 'Nice project, this sex project has big future, good luck' back in 2010  Announce that he is switching the forum to only discuss sex and ban all altcoin discussions |
|
|
|
Out of pure curiosity, can I have my stats, pretty please, LoyceV?
User stompix ( full history) - Received a total of 423 Merit up to last Friday.
- Received 6 Merit (1.41%) for 5 (0.11%) of 4238 posts created before the introduction of Merit (0.0014 Merit per old post).
- Received 394 Merit (93.14%) for 180 (9.33%) of 1928 posts created after the introduction of Merit (0.2043 Merit per new post).
- Received 23 Merit (5.43%) for posts that are now deleted.
01000011 01100001 01101110 00100000 01001001 00100000 01101000 01100001 01110110 01100101 00100000 01101101 01111001 00100000 01110011 01110100 01100001 01110100 01110011 00101100 00100000 01100001 01101100 01101101 01101001 01100111 01101000 01110100 01111001 00100000 01100001 01110010 01110100 01101001 01100110 01101001 01100011 01101001 01100001 01101100 00100000 01101001 01101110 01110100 01100101 01101100 01101100 01101001 01100111 01100101 01101110 01100011 01100101 00111111
Sorry, I'm too lazy to convert it all to binary |
|
|
|
You can get the full thread easily from a script? Because whenever I load full thread in browser, I have to wait 5-10 sec for CloudFlare verfification. Downloading all pages takes longer (it's rate limited at no more than 1 page per second). But: the CloudFlare delay doesn't happen that often, if you click "All" on one thread, you won't get it for a while on other threads. |
|
|
|
Do you think Distrust depth will be working on the same way as trust depth? I'm not sure what you're asking. Distrust ends at the user you distrust, his Trust list doesn't influence yours any deeper after that. Because I see couple of DT1 in your distrust depth 1 and I do not think their feedback will be displayed as untrusted feedback to you. OgNasty, vizique, BitcoinPenny and TheFuzzStone are the only DT1s on my Depth 1 distrust list. When I look at my Trust list including DefaultTrust, OgNasty is at (-1) (which means he's excluded), while vizique, BitcoinPenny and TheFuzzStone are all at (0) (which means they're included). I still haven't decided what to do with this information [Edit: I am confused, Fuzzstone is DT1 but still his feedback are untrusted? It is due to my custom trust list? Your personal Trust Depth excludes TheFuzzStone on Depth 1. If you also trust DefaultTrust, your Depth 1 competes directly with DT1, and if there are more exclusions than inclusions, TheFuzzStone is untrusted to you.
The Default Trust list is essentially meaningless to you if you have your own custom trust list. Even adding a single person to your custom trust list will remove Default Trust for you, and so their feedback becomes untrusted unless you manually add them to your own list. See below from theymos: If your trust list is totally empty, you trust "DefaultTrust", which includes some trustworthy people that I'll select. But if you add anyone to your trust list, even if they don't trust anyone, DefaultTrust will no longer be considered part of your trust list. I don't think this is still correct, and I've just tested it: as long as you add "DefaultTrust" to your Trust list, it's included on your Depth 0, which means all DT1-members are included on your Depth 1, and all DT2-members are included on your Depth 2. If you don't want this, you can just remove "DefaultTrust". |
|
|
|
Lightning Network
Disadvantages:
Requires 2 time locked Onchain Transaction per Party , meaning a single LN offchain transaction requires 4 onchain transactions With some adjustments this can be called an Advantage: "a thousand LN offchain transactions still only require 4 onchain transactions". Lightning Network
Disadvantages:
Fractional Reserve & Counterfeiting possible until Withdrawal ONCHAIN confirms ownership
Can you explain how this is a possibility in Lightning? Because I have seen this being lobbed around as an attack on Lightning without any explanations, or examples of how technically it could happen. I was going to ask the same thing. As far as I know, it's not possible, as each LN transaction requires signatures. However, without knowing the details of how LN works, I'm now wondering if it would be possible for a LN-hub to use the same funds to sign different transactions with different users, more commonly known as double spending. Kinda like how I can sign different transactions from a legacy address, and as long as I don't broadcast them for on-chain confirmation, they can all be valid. I sure hope this isn't possible. |
|
|
|
Thermos, what does it mean? I think it's a mistake some Newbie made when referring to theymos a while ago, which turned into a running gag on the forum.  Those references are what made the joke stick |
|
|
|
|
Although I agree it looks suspicious, I'd say this is one of those things theymos said not to lose any sleep over. There is obviously going to be some Merit abuse, but in the long run it's a small amount. Most spammers can't rank up anymore.
|
|
|
|
There was no reason at all for this, red-tagging, Neg feedback. since 1:selling merits doesn’t violate any rules. Sending unsollicited private messages is against the rules, and you risk a (temporary) ban doing it. You have a post that I have to dig up now, where you were selling merits. Please post a link |
|
|
|
Wonder how did I end up in your Distrusts-List. I don't recollect having any bad experiences with you. I'd like to know if you are willing to share otherwise it's alright. You're not on my distrust-list. I only distrust these users directly: However, the recursive implications make that I have you excluded on my Depth 2. That means one of the users I trust: .. Must have someone on his trust list who distrusts you: There could be more than one connection, I found at least owlcatz: he's trusted by suchmoon, The Pharmacist and DarkStar_, and distrusts you. That puts owlcatz on my Depth 1, which excludes you on my Depth 2. Only 2 users have included you: That means you don't stand a chance against the exclusions. To show how strong the recursive effect is: 2053 out of 3895 users with a custom trust list have you excluded up to Depth 4. Per Depth level: Depth 0: 14 users Depth 1: 106 users Depth 2: 546 users Depth 3: 919 users Depth 4: 468 users Update: at Depth 0 you should have 15 exclusions. I turns out I ignored the users who only distrust others without trusting anyone. I don't think this matters much for the end result. I'll fix this in the next update.
I do recall you having it out with at least one DT member not too long ago. Was it owlcatz? |
|
|
|
I looked at your list and there are a lot of distrusts, even on level one. Note that those aren't my own direct choices: I only distrust 9 users ( explained here), but on Depth 1 I distrust 175 users through the users I trust on Depth 0. I also noticed there are a lot of people with zero merit and it may be a good idea to investigate if you want these people in your trust network and why they are in your trust network and if you want the people including these people in your trust network. I looked at a few, and they're older accounts, some of them inactive, included by older accounts (now DT1) years ago. I see no reason to exclude them, but I will if a reason pops up. I am not sure how difficult this would be, however it might be useful to include trust ratings either via DT or via a custom trust list. The rating could be as of a certain point in time so that your VPS (I presume) is not consistently scraping the same information. I can't scrape trust ratings, it needs an account to be logged in. I could get it from Vod's BPIP, it's actually not that bad to scrape 10,000 accounts per week and add the rating to the "Trust feedback" link text. It will still be slightly delayed that way. I like it! I'm still not using a VPS, just old fashioned data uploads
This makes a great argument for setting your depth to no more than 1 if you have a custom trust list. Even on depth 1, there are a few names I am unfamiliar with and have had no interaction with What I would really want, is to have DefaultTrust up to Depth 2, and my own Trust list up to Depth 1. Unfortunately, that's not possible. by level 2, a quick scan and I would estimate around 75% of names are users I do not know, including many who have been inactive for months or even years and a fair few who are red trusted themselves. So the users you trust are trusting users who trust the wrong users Let me highlight the "large recursive implications" in the OP The red trust would be a good reason to add QuickSeller's suggestion to my list. I've sent Vod a PM asking if I can do weekly scraping from BPIP. |
|
|
|
I encourage anyone to create their own custom Trust list!
Custom Trust lists have large recursive implications because the users you trust directly (Depth 0) make you trust the ones they trust (Depth 1), and the users they trust (Depth 2) (edited selfquote from DireWolfM14's thread, which is the reason I created this topic). This is assuming your Trust depth is set to the default value 2. Distrust has no recursive implications: if you exclude someone, you distrust his Trust list and it doesn't further affect your own Trust list. However, if someone on your Trust list distrusts someone, you distrust that user on the next Depth level. So, who do you trust?I already made a Trust list viewer, but that only shows who has who on Depth 0. Today, I add a Trust Depth viewer. The forum's Trust settings show each user in all Depths. To keep the list readable, I show each user only once, on the highest Depth level he's in. These lists only show the custom parts, I haven't included DefaultTrust. For your own list, you can see the same on Trust settings if you remove DefaultTrust. For anyone else, you can use my list. I've produced data up to Trust Depth 4, based on last Saturday's trust data dump. DisclaimerI hope I used the right assumption on how to calculate Depth 2 and deeper. From what I've checked, it should be correct, but please let me know if I made a mistake. If it's useful, I'll do weekly updates. If nobody uses it, I'll abandon this project. I turned theymos' 150 kB file into 1.8 GB of data, and it grows exponentially when someone trusts more users. Limited Trust DepthFor most users, the number of users trusted expands as the Trust Depth goes deeper. For others, such as raj13, it ends at Depth 2. SampleSee: my own Trust Depth list, which includes many users I don't recognize.
See [overview] LoyceV's useful data on Bitcointalk for more of my forum-related topics
|
|
|
|
I noticed another peculiar user, included by 9 others: My guess is they added "trust" when they meant to add "DefaultTrust", more or less like the users who tried to add everyone by adding a "*": |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
