<…>
Lo había visto tipificado de las dos maneras, pero no me había puesto a verlo en demasiado detalle. En el caso de las criptomonedas, es un aspecto que tiene su arduo debate en EEUU, y que a la postre, determina si es la SEC o la CTFC la que marca las reglas al respecto. No lo veo un debate trivial, y quizás un ejercicio de encaje de bolillos para categorizarlo como alguna de las opciones conocidas, cuando quizás la mejor solución sería crear una categorización específica. Las divisas se categorizan como commodities, y bajo este prima, bitcoin encaja con la categorización, pero son pocas las criptomonedas que actúan o aspiran a actuar como una moneda con propiedades del dinero. Las securities normalmente tienen por objeto buscar una rentabilidad a partir de la actividad de producción o servicios de una compañía. Muchos inversores en criptomonedas tienen este fin, pero no las criptomonedas en sí, que pretenden dar una solución a un problema (real o ficticio) de mercado. Me cuesta ver el encaje correcto a las criptomonedas en su globalidad, aunque bitcoin tiene esa connotación monetaria que le aproxima a la commodity. En lo relativo a la traducción, las commodities, además de las materias primas, creo que también abarcan a las fuentes de energía, aunque éstas podrían supongo tildarse de una suerte de materia prima pre-procesada. |
|
|
|
<…>
Buen resumen cuantitativo de los posts en nuestra sección local, donde agregaría si acaso una visión de número de posteadores por tramo de posts a fin de tener una visión global del número de posteadores distintos y su peso posteador (si no lo haces tú, ya lo haré yo). Comentar que MbyzIco es local, no muy activo estos últimos años, pero con más peso en los años precedentes en nuestro foro local. A destacar la más que interesante narración de su experiencia ICO desde dentro, algo que no habíamos visto explicado en demasía por aquí. |
|
|
|
I’d go along with an oldie (2019): Search engine optimization for local boards. That, or something along that line, to drive more traffic over to Bitcointalk’s local boards that have a substantial gap between their potential and their factual participation (i.e. the Spanish Local board is extremely lightweight in terms of participation, in relation to the amount of people that speak the language). Note: It’s rather a complex matter, with younger generations being prone to be less prosaic and more stuck to fast-paced social networks (that normally treat matters thinly), but the gap I referenced before seems something to at least try to tackle at some level. |
|
|
|
<…>
No está mal insuflar algo de optimismo tras el año que llevamos. Aun así, el artículo habla del potencial de bitcoin (que lo tiene) en base a comparativas con el oro de la década de los años 70. Me parece un referente un tanto lejano y arbitrariamente tomado como contraste extremadamente favorable, para llegar a una suerte de cuento de la lechera si el bitcoin adelanta al oro y se produce una explosión al estilo de lo sucedido hace medio siglo. En todo caso, yo debería echarle un vistazo al artículo original, que a veces la información derivada (la de Cointelegraph) puede no transmitir la esencia completa. |
|
|
|
Data as of 30/12/2022Updated the lists in the OP (and subsequent post) to reflect the forum members that still qualify in each of those lists. Currently, on those lists there are, lacking <= 20% merits to rank-up (activity may not be met though): - 56 Heroes (on their way to Legendries) - 868 Sr. Members (on their way to Heroes) - 75 Full Members (on their way to Sr. Members) - 61 Members (on their way to Full Members) - 227 Jr. Members (on their way to Members) Added this week (11): user_id name Status posts activity activity_Met merit rank ProbableInitialRank trust url
754818 holydarkness Active 2639 2030 Y* 814 Hero Member Hero Member =+0 / =0 / -0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=754818
2546135 mandown Active 7229 1428 Y* 802 Hero Member New Era Newbie =+0 / =1 / -0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2546135
3416506 Pandu Geddon Active 992 406 N 401 Sr. Member New Era Newbie =+1 / =0 / -0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3416506
3412191 Ahli38 Active 1040 322 N 401 Sr. Member New Era Newbie =+0 / =0 / -0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3412191
3474400 Lida93 Active 352 252 Y 212 Full Member New Era Newbie =+0 / =0 / -0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3474400
3385814 RockBell Active 460 266 Y 202 Full Member New Era Newbie =+0 / =0 / -0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3385814
2872248 ZAINmalik75 Active 985 742 Y 201 Full Member New Era Newbie =+0 / =0 / -0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2872248
1329401 texgeek Active 507 507 Y 200 Full Member Old Era Newbie =+0 / =0 / -0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1329401
3425260 Iadegbola34 Active 214 214 Y 8 Jr. Member New Era Newbie =+0 / =0 / -0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3425260
3482494 Cryptodebjoe Active 57 57 N 8 Jr. Member New Era Newbie =+0 / =0 / -0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3482494
2901396 RikandMorty1 Active 33 33 N 8 Jr. Member New Era Newbie =+0 / =0 / -0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2901396
(*) this week (11): user_id name Status posts activity activity_Met merit rank
807453 Coin_trader Active 7316 2296 - 1005 Legendary Hero Member =+5 / =3 / -0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=807453
2597241 Unbunplease Active 2529 1302 - 1001 Legendary New Era Newbie =+1 / =3 / -0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2597241
2812492 darxiaomi Active 1965 826 Y* 545 Hero Member New Era Newbie =+0 / =0 / -0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2812492
156723 hZti Active 1132 532 N 505 Hero Member Sr. Member =+0 / =0 / -0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=156723
886094 Captain Corporate Active 2453 1470 Y* 500 Hero Member Sr. Member =+0 / =0 / -0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=886094
3434908 Oluwa-btc Active 1062 336 N 500 Sr. Member New Era Newbie =+0 / =0 / -0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3434908
981302 MarjorieZimmermanGinger Active 635 635 Y 255 Sr. Member Full Member =+0 / =0 / -0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=981302
3441086 GxSTxV Active 483 294 N 253 Sr. Member New Era Newbie =+0 / =0 / -0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3441086
2532772 betnomi Active 693 602 Y 250 Sr. Member New Era Newbie =+11 / =8 / -2 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2532772
1251526 acrobat19 Active 760 760 Y 100 Full Member Old Era Newbie =+0 / =0 / -0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1251526
3504269 Obari Active 292 112 N 100 Member New Era Newbie =+0 / =0 / -0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3504269
(*) Due to enough merits for the next rank, or being banned.
|
|
|
|
Update 30/12/2022:The dashboard gives you access to anyone’s complete merit history in the TX tab, surpassing the 120 day limit. Link: BitcoinTalk Merit Dashboard. Updated the Merit Dashboard to reflect the most recent sMerit available data: Total sMerit: 1.384.077 Total TXs: 742.257 From Users: 24.756 To Users: 44.998 minDate: 2018-01-24 22:12:21 maxDate: 2022-12-30 02:29:36 Aggregate awarded sMerit for the last complete week (19/12/2022 .. 25/12/2022) is 6.275, which is up 6,81% from the previous week. There are 3 new Legendary and 7 new Hero Members this week. BitcoinBunny -> Legendary from Full Member during Merit System kick-off. Coin_trader -> Legendary from Hero Member during Merit System kick-off. Unbunplease -> Legendary from New Era Newbie during Merit System kick-off. Captain Corporate -> Hero Member from Sr. Member during Merit System kick-off. darxiaomi -> Hero Member from New Era Newbie during Merit System kick-off. Davidvictorson -> Hero Member from New Era Newbie during Merit System kick-off. hZti -> Hero Member from Sr. Member during Merit System kick-off. Mr.right85 -> Hero Member from New Era Newbie during Merit System kick-off. nullama -> Hero Member from New Era Newbie during Merit System kick-off. SatoPrincess -> Hero Member from New Era Newbie during Merit System kick-off. Note:
-Copper Members and non-native ranks (staff, etc) are displayed as real (regular) ranks.
|
|
|
|
<…>
That was the first time I recall encountering the situation on my end, likely because I tend to perform single widely spaced TXs in practice. <…>
Whilst the casuistry is not necessarily common knowledge, it is a potential common situation that one may encounter, even though it took me quite a while to come across it myself in practical terms. Both TXs were confirmed within the same block, so there’s no option for both TXs to have been deal with by different miners. <…> In other clients, like Electrum: it's possible to replace the parent but by doing so, it will invalidate the children txns. <…>
I was actually using Electrum (mobile), but since I bumped TX2 (the child TX) I didn’t get a chance to see what would have happened to it (child TX2), had I bumped TX1 instead. |
|
|
|
<…>
Pues sí, eso dicta la lógica de lo sucedido, y que veo refrendado por tu afirmación y las que he recibido en el hilo correspondiente en inglés (desafortunadamente, movido de sección en pocas horas). No era del todo consciente en el momento, primero extrañado por no poder subir los fees de la TX1, y luego al ver que esta se confirmaba en el mismo bloque que TX2 cuando no debería por el rango de fees. Fue entretenido, con cierta inquietud por la tardanza que no quería se produjese, pero para ocasiones con intenciones similares, intentaré remitirme a la cláusula moraleja de mi post anterior. |
|
|
|
<…>
Signing a message, though it is a neat thing to do, and potentially essential towards account recovery et al, is not something to lose sleep over just yet, especially on an account that has just been created (I took for months between creating my account and signing a message here on the forum). When you eventually do though, for privacy reasons, you may want to consider signing from an address you are not going to use to send/receive bitcoins on. I’ve seen lots of addresses in the stake thread that have a balance and history of TXs, and I’m pretty sure that it’s better to avoid that. Your initial priorities should likely reside in reading on bitcoin itself, determining how to obtain it, how to perform self-custody, deciding on the wallet to use, determining the entailed safety measures and so forth. |
|
|
|
|
It’s never late to place a decent question on Beginners & Help (where I'd prefer it to have stayed):
Here’s a case I encountered the other day. I sent two consecutive TXs minutes apart, let’s call them TX1 and TX2, both from the same wallet, and sent to different recipients with seemingly (at the time) adequate fees to be processed within a block or two.
Since things were taking their time to be confirmed, and encountering a sudden spike in Bitcoin’s network activity, I bumped TX2 using RBF. I then (subsequently) tried doing likewise with TX1, but the wallet software would not let me. I therefore had TX2 in the mempool at a rate of let’s say 3x the fee of TX1.
Now when TX2 got confirmed, I also saw that TX1 also got confirmed within the same block. The weird thing was that TX2 was obviously within the block’s effectively processed min/max fee range, but TX1 was not (my fee on TX1 was way lower than that processed in the mined block).
Now In the aftermaths, I looked at the inputs and outputs, and saw that TX2 was using as an input TX1’s output change address. TX2 therefore depended on TX1.
Now here are the questions:
Q1) Would it be correct to infer that TX1 was mined alongside TX2 because what I pulled off was a CPFP (without using the wallet’s CPFP function, but by performing the steps I described above)?
Q2) Could the said dependency be the cause for the wallet not being able to apply RBF on TX1 (after successfully being able to do in on TX2)?
|
|
|
|
<…>
Realmente fue resultante casual de un uso operativo con varias TXs consecutivas, y con un incremento de los fees mínimos en los bloques siguientes que te dejan con el mal sabor de boca de haber apurado un tanto (tampoco tanto, pero bueno) los fees de las TXs, cuya consecuencia es la espera durante horas como espectador sin mejora en la red. A eso añadamos tener que explicarle a unos u otros que las TXs podrían tardar y que no podía dar una estimación exacta de cuándo lo tendría resuelto. Moraleja: en ocasiones en las cuales no quiere acabar con diligencia, más vale sobrepagar más de entrada, que el tiempo de espera y de gestión posterior que se puede derivar. Vale más el tiempo que unas decenas de céntimos. Lo subiré a B&H, dado que creo que es un caso interesante de funcionamiento, y para el cual intuyo la respuesta sin tener la certeza. Edit: Me anticipo a la respuesta -> Me marqué un CPFP sin ser consciente de ello: https://academy.bit2me.com/que-es-child-pays-for-parent-cpfp/ |
|
|
|
<...>
Honestly, the thread previously provided is pretty thorough, although not all wallet procedures depicted there apply today (i.e. Ledger procedure no longer applies). Just read through it slowly and patiently various times. It's not trivial, but doable with a bit of patience. What wallet are you using? It needs to be one where you are in control of the private keys, and that allows you to sign a message from. |
|
|
|
|
My scraping processes are now working properly again, at a lively pace, so at least something seems to have been changed/fixed somewhere. Let’s see whether it runs smoothly from now on without further issues, or whether it is a fortunate window of time in the midst of a longer time necessary before shouting out eureka …
|
|
|
|
Pues si miramos la serie histórica, una caída por encima del 80% se ha producido en tres ocasiones: Abril 10 2013 –Abril 12 2013: -82,6% Noviembre 30 2013 –Enero 14 2016: -86,9% Diciembre 17 2017 –Diciembre 15 2018: -83,6% Por ahora, respecto del ATH de Noviembre 2021, vamos -75,8% abajo. Digamos que si llegásemos a creernos que los ciclos precedentes más bajistas son referentes, no debería bajar de los 10K$ como indicas, de iterar en la caida paulatina, quedándose la caída en dicho caso en un -85,5%. |
|
|
|
|
I was going nuts over the 503 error I was now getting when trying to log into the forum from one of my scraper processes. It was working fine until a while ago over clearnet with my process. Getting 503 error also on a third-party scraper accesing Bitcointalk.
(Not that) glad to see it’s a common issue of some sort.
Edit: Still no progress (no scraping).
|
|
|
|
<…>
I thought it wasn’t being used, and declined updating it further … I’ve just updated it in accordance to the data as of 24/12/2024. Notes: - Data for December 2022 is logically partial. My initial idea was to update it after obtaining data to cover each full month (i.e. we wouldn’t have data for the full month of December until the 07/01/2022). - Data is limited to Merits awarded on local boards (I can’t recall why I placed that restriction). Therefore, user’s data does not add-up to that shown on the Merit Trees on this thread (lacking info for the non-local boards on my Google Sheet). I can include the data for non-local boards easily, but the number of cells surpasses Google Sheet's capacity. The solution would be to delimit the timeframe to a month or year at the most. Q1) Do you need the data for all boards (local and non-local)? Q2) What timeframe are you going to work with? Edit: Ok, I'll stick to Local Board records and see how far I can stretch keeping all historical data for them. Edit 20230106: Data updated on Google Sheet with closing data for December 2022. |
|
|
|
Open AI is seemingly working on a solution to digitally watermark their outputs, through a kind of " unnoticeable secret signal in its choices of words, which you can use to prove later that, yes, this came from GPT" (see this blog): <…> So then to watermark, instead of selecting the next token randomly, the idea will be to select it pseudorandomly, using a cryptographic pseudorandom function, whose key is known only to OpenAI. That won’t make any detectable difference to the end user, assuming the end user can’t distinguish the pseudorandom numbers from truly random ones. But now you can choose a pseudorandom function that secretly biases a certain score—a sum over a certain function g evaluated at each n-gram (sequence of n consecutive tokens), for some small n—which score you can also compute if you know the key for this pseudorandom function. <…>
Nevertheless, it won’t be ready for months, perhaps until GPT-4, and it’s pretty likely that pipelining the output with a good word spinner may break the watermark’s value. We’d also need a tool around to detect these watermarks, which will be OpenAI propriety, and may come with an associated price tag. The above may or may not help to detect the use of AI posts at some point, but I don’t see it streaming into the mod’s pipeline when checking post compliance with forum rules, at least not yet. On the matter of the rules affecting AI generated content (specifically text): <…> Conceptually, any post using GPT to create content on Bitcointalk is plagiarizing, as the poster is not creating the content himself, and is in fact trying to pass on someone else’s content as his (albeit that someone else being an AI). According to OpenAI’s Sharing and Publication Policy, using the API, and I have to assume that that extends to the results of their chatbot, requires one to explicitly indicate that the content was AI-generated. Though this latter point is not technically of our concern, it seems like a reasonable request to place, in a similar fashion to links on posts that are largely/verbose based on other sources. Detection of GPT usage is not going to be easy for the most, and likely, over time, people can pick-up on patterns such as the usage of near perfect English, consistency in its usage throughout all posting history, and/or alternating with changes in style (human/AI), lack of real interaction from a less than academic point of view, certain types of formal constructions, and so forth. This is obviously is not exclusive to GPT, nor sufficient to deem someone a GTP-plagiarizer with certainty, and maybe likenesses is the closer one can get shorter of a confession. Now all this is, if it becomes an extended practice, is going to be a drag, whereby people will be able to create bag loads of posts with cero effort and thought, and although likely matching quality-wise a large base of posts that we encounter per se, it may easily become a new spam-fest source of neutral content. I’ve read, though I couldn’t find the original source (i.e. team declarations), that Chat-GPT can’t plagiarize per se (the language model generates the text using a probability for the next best word to use, based on the prior words it has already used), although there could be a fortuity chance of it happening. Many of the posts we read seem to me, from a reader’s point of view, a compendium of text-spinning ideas. Though that is not what it’s really doing, the probability of the next word to use is derived from the model created through the training data, and that is inevitable a subjacent reference to all the text it provides. On the other hand, even if the text is comprehensive and aligned somewhat with what the average Joe may be able to come up with, the poster conceptually (in my book) plagiarized the output from Chat GPT, without giving credits to the source of the text’s generation, trying to pass the text on as his own. |
|
|
|
<…>
There is a close resemblance indeed, though I couldn’t get Chat GPT to declare having written a single paragraph, nor selected line within. It could have been span and custom tailored to deviate from the original suggested output, but then again, it does come up with some similar conceptual answers when denying being the author: No, I did not write the suggestion that customers may avoid Bitcoin payments and that business owners can follow certain tips to encourage the use of Bitcoin. I am an artificial intelligence trained to provide information and answer questions to the best of my ability based on the knowledge that I have been trained on, but I do not have the ability to create or promote businesses or products.
It is possible that some customers may be hesitant to use Bitcoin as a form of payment, particularly if they are not familiar with how it works or are concerned about the security of digital currency transactions. In order to encourage the use of Bitcoin as a form of payment, business owners may want to consider a number of strategies. These could include using advertising to spread the word about Bitcoin acceptance, offering discounts to customers who pay with Bitcoin, making it easy for customers to pay with Bitcoin through the use of digital or physical wallets, and educating staff on Bitcoin and how it works. Business owners should carefully evaluate their own needs and circumstances and choose the strategies that will work best for them.
The proposed strategies are though, as expected, more or less common knowledge, and there could be different sources that agglutinate them and that were used as an inspiration. Whether the inspiration was for the poster or Chat GPT is what remains unclear. <…> Playing devil's advocate: it's still possible the ai chat learned from the recent post. I think it's unlikely, but the possibility can't be rules out. Damn ai!
Allegedly, it can't use recent data. According to "it": My training data consists of a snapshot of the internet as it existed at a specific point in time. The exact date of the snapshot that was used to train me is not publicly disclosed by OpenAI. However, I can tell you that my knowledge is based on a snapshot of the internet that was taken in 2021, and my knowledge does not include any information that has been published or released after that time. My training data does not include any updates or changes that have occurred since the snapshot was taken, and my responses are based on the information that was available at the time the snapshot was taken.
I figure though that Chat GPT is based on the GPT-3 model text-davinci-003, whose training data ran up to Jun 2021 ( as per OpenAI’s model overview). |
|
|
|
<…> ¿Creen que se trate de la misma persona? <…>
No. La persona del hilo que comentas habla de haber recibido BTCs como regalo, para lo cual tuvo que apuntarse a un site determinado. Suena más a un Faucet que a uno de los pocos primeros Exchanges, dado que cita explícitamente "gave away", algo propio de Faucets. En el caso que hemos visto en este hilo, la persona en cuestión afirma haber comprado los bitcoins, y dentro de las dudas que me suscita, destila tener mejor conocimiento de causa que lo poco que ha reflejado el autor del hilo al cual apuntas. |
|
|
|
¿Personalmente, cuan fuerte creen ustedes que es la resistencia de los 15k-16k? <…>
Me declaro escéptico acerca de la fortaleza de los niveles de resistencia, visto toda la batería de niveles que hemos visto franquearse desde los 69K $ hasta donde estamos hoy. No me creo ningún análisis técnico por el hecho de pensar que los fundamentales están netamente por encima en marcar cambios abruptos de tendencia, y aun cuando el análisis tiene su probable razón de ser (y cierto grado de acierto) durante ciertos momentos de calma, más guiados por el mercado más nativo en sí, son incapaces de prever lo imprevisible (los fundamentales). |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
