-snip-
I shared my experience, which really helped me, two months have passed and everything is fine
Please stop sharing your experience. It is based on false knowledge. Excluding some absurd edge-cases, directly synching from the wallet is always faster and safer. LOL I meant nodes synchronization/downloading blocks
Tsk tsk. |
|
|
|
-snip- everything is very simple , most likely you have a weak internet faced such a problem , her decision was quite simple 1 go to the site and download the blockchain database https://getbitcoinblockchain.com 2 then transfer the blocks folder to disk C:\Users\user name\AppData\Roaming\Bitcoin if you changed the default path then throw in your way 3 run bitcoin core and wait a while I hope I was useful to you Successes and prosperity in the crypto space !!! Do not do this. This is horrible advice and has not been recommended since 0.10/11. |
|
|
|
-snip-
You need to understand that you are downloading a file which is over 200GB.
I'm boldly gonna state that the download speed is not the bottleneck here (well, I'm hoping OP has at least 1MB/s). ...downloading a file ...
 |
|
|
|
|
1) Wrong section.
2) Nothing unusual if your system is slow/network is slow.
3) The "three years" is the amount of blockchain age you still have to catch up with; it's not the estimated wait time until sync.
|
|
|
|
Feigning ignorance works capriciously.
Listing platforms should have at least the smallest form of QA. This had none.
99.99% of these ICO/bounty platforms are scams. This one is no exception. |
|
|
|
I don't think its allow to manipulate trust system in publicly.
It is apparently, but it isn't trustworthy. Quoting Foxy here: Attempting to conspire to manipulate DT for a personal vendetta at the risk of leaving other users vulnerable to known scammers.
This is the main issue with such vendettas. |
|
|
|
This might only work if trust ratings were moderated
if you were the moderator and had the power over it right? No; I'm too strict on bullshit which clashes directly with the views of the leftists. |
|
|
|
This might only work if trust ratings were moderated. The majority have no idea that one is allowed to write anything they want on someone's trust wall (with the exception of DOXX). -snip-
Untrusted feedback generally has too small of a signal-to-noise ratio to make a worthwhile score.
If it were default, newbies would get a great picture of the likes of The Pharmacist, me, et al. |
|
|
|
-snip-
What are the minimum, maximum and optimal sizes of 1 input?
I don't believe there is any data yet for this: The general consensus is, however, that e.g. 10x1k is better than 1x10k. What is the "stake split threshold"? Does this mean that when an input reaches a size of 2,000 or more coins - it is automatically split into 2 or more smaller ones?
Yes, the default is 2000 but you can change it yourself. What is the annual ROI of POSmining?
For every block of 5 Vivid, 4 goes towards MN's and 1 goes towards people staking. There's one block every minute; the rest you will be able to figure out on your own depending on the timeframes that you had in pine. What is the term of coinmature?
Are you asking what coinmature is or are you asking what the value of that is? 11 blocks I believe. -snip-
I see that some of the MNs do not work well in the VIVID network and use old versions of the wallet. How can I ban them?
There's no need to ban them. If you really wanted to, you could manually do so using the setban command or using the console (GUI). |
|
|
|
Things like that happened exactly because people like you listened to quicksy's nonsense. Your input is mostly a waste of time anways: On one hand you want no intervention by e.g. me, on the other hand you are complaining that we're heading towards scam land. Which is it again?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemmaFalse Dilemma is a type of logical fallacy, which is a belief or claim based on mistaken reasoning. False Dilemma is a fallacy based on an "either-or" type of argument. Two choices are presented, when more might exist, and the claim is made that one is false and one is true Which is not a fallacy in my statement - I made none; it's the sum of your past few replies. Stop using things that you don't fully understand. Stop trying to smartass me Lauda. Every reply you've ever given me so far was some sort of attempt at dramatizing the situation or taunting me. I speak and express genuine concerns I have, through my own experiences, and if I ever mention you, I only refer to you based on your actions (a.k.a if anyone did what you did, I'd express my disagreement against that specific thing, exactly the same way.) Since I really couldn't care who you are behind that keyboard in this virtual world, I was tempted to ignore you, but I realised I should let you know why.
Is this supposed to be an argument? If you keep writing these jokes of arguments, and kind of attacks that only mean to get some sort of response out of me, from now on I'm going to ignore you. I never meant to dislike you, I always have disagreements with some people, and it's normal. But for you, outside of your judgements on "scammers", you're actually a very childish person. And I know myself, I just couldn't give two fucks about drama. So, peace.
Yes, now go for the personality; that will show them just how legitimate your "concerns" really are. I guess when you're in a pay-per-post campaign anything goes as long as it has any substance (who needs consistency :shrug:). 
What I'm saying is that Lauda and any other user judging each user's list, and forcing their completely biased opinions is just wrong.. Like, if he wants to include someone that didn't leave a lot of feedback, and another that left local feedback, and you think that's wrong, it's YOUR BIASED opinion. Those people aren't scammers or objectively bad people, so telling another user to change his list based on your personal views is just going to centralize the system, and all lists are going to become copies of Lauda's utopia.
No one forcing here, you know very well there is exclusion (~) option. We can simply exclude them, no need to ask anyone. But I think it's better to solve by discussion here. I don't like just kick out someone suddenly. If you trust any person you can leave positive feedback's. But you should add on your custom list those user's feedback's you trust. This is the main fact. Why you need make big your exclusion list since you can solve it by discuss here ? If DT1 exclude someone then he will removed automatically, is it not centralized? Then what is the problem discuss here ? This is criteria from theymos, user must be an active member. If someone left positive feedback's a years ago and he inactive from long time then why you should add on DT list ? His positive feedback's will reflect green and there is chance happen something wrong. Nevermind if someone not leaving feedback's but he should an active member, so he will know the current situation. Alright, the KingFool thinks that it is more appropriate/less power hungry or whatever he's talking about to not ask someone to revise feedback/fix their list but just instantly exclude them. How many accusations of bullshit do you think we'll see once more than half of DT2 is kicked out? Quoting this again as things got side-tracked. Build your own using mine as base and stay safe.  Shorena's ratings are fully covered. Mexxer-2 halfway. Will be done soon. Mexxer-2 has also been covered. |
|
|
|
|
Is this your plan on getting yet another one of your alt accounts painted red? That's the only direct outcome of this.
|
|
|
|
This is a good example of people being added to DT1 who do not have a proven track record of acting in a trustworthy way, and in many cases, do not have any meaningful (if any at all) trading experience. I am not sure this is a good thing.
-snip- But it's really hard to go against the current when so many people wont believe this. In the end we all just have to use our personal judgement in trades. (And I sincerely hope another Master-P scandal doesn't happen again, because by the looks of it that's exactly where we're headed, I just hope I'm not part of it this time around.) Things like that happened exactly because people like you listened to quicksy's nonsense. Your input is mostly a waste of time anways: On one hand you want no intervention by e.g. me, on the other hand you are complaining that we're heading towards scam land. Which is it again? |
|
|
|
I don’t think you can give negative trust to yourself.
Shorena's rating on me is fake and a result of him working with you for many years prior to any of this. Going through all his ratings (many of which are effectively useless) has given me more information about the history.  I can set the "Trust depth" to 1
Am I correct?
Yes. Also, I saw someone with "Satoshi" in his trust list, what's the use to include some who will never come back and has never left any feedback o.0
Many people in DT still have no idea what they are doing. |
|
|
|
You were talking to a fake condoras, and some other fake people were contacting the real condoras is what I could decipher from this. What you can see here is a lack of proffesionalism at all from the escrow.
You do not want to see how I respond then (sometimes). |
|
|
|
-snip-
Because may be we can solve the issue by discussing each other.
It has been resolved: Tag the account, tag notaek. Then maybe(!): Give it some time, warn all participants and eventually tag those that continue to advertise it. Actually, that's point a number of people shown their great enthusiasm over the campaign, nowadays newbie campaign management growing up rapidly and has ended up scam most of cases. People used to to feel safe in case a newbie campaign under reputable escrow service.
Newbie campaign management = fraudulent campaign management. |
|
|
|
-snip-
Bye bye.
Go away already. Thermos is my master. Shorena's ratings are fully covered. Mexxer-2 halfway. Will be done soon. |
|
|
|
I did not know that; i.e. I forgot about this case. Interesting..
Seems they have explained details about accusation and as far as I know accuser got paid partially. Then it's partially settled, the scam accusation is still open until fully paid. It was completely settled given that the accuser took a compensation and left. Eventually there is no any response from accuser and he is offline from long time.
You cannot expect a reply from a person whose already offline for a long time, the explanation of sportsbet is more relevant than any other under the situatioin, and if the problem was really resolved, DT members would have remove the tag. FYI, of the 5 DT who painted Duckdice, 4 of them are still very active, so why is it no one of them remove their rating? In the part of the post that you're quoting he is talking about Sportsbet, not DuckDice IMO. There is zero reason to remove any ratings on DuckDice. Those accusation are lately open they are responding as well. If there is proven scam, never mind I will leave campaign and will be happy to tag them. If you have free time you can review that case.
We need Lauda's opinion on this. I've deleted my rating on Sportsbet and added a neutral one. As a general thumb rule, one should not even attempt to join a campaign which is advertising a site and the site has open scam accusations against them by trustworthy members here. Its understandable that majority of the users here were not here when it happened but at least you should be doing a due diligence and check out which company you are going to advertise before jumping into wearing their signature.
People here are so much more interested in getting a share of the free cash that they forget to do research and a basic checkup. I would not say this if a scam accusation comes up after the campaign has started since that is beyond the scope of diligence prior to joining. But in this case its pretty much known to many older members and within the click of a few buttons for new members who are willing to join.
This. |
|
|
|
May I know if participants will be tagged also?
If it ends up following the Betcoin case, then yes. I did not know that; i.e. I forgot about this case. Interesting.. |
|
|
|
yes i have, first go to their trust open your eyes and if not enough i can show screenshots Given that I had gone through dozens of their ratings and that I didn't find any false references, the chances seem quite small for you to conclude that >50% of the ratings are fake or without reference. If you can show me even 10 ratings with fake references, I might take your proposition more seriously. To prove his claim about me, he'd have to find almost 1900 fake references. Good luck. -snip-
Some of the trades that TMAN does are off-forum. What reference do you have for that?
For many on-forum trades one is not able to leave a reference link, unless you want to reveal the bitcoin addresses of both parties. |
|
|
|
most of them without reference and proofs ( send\received) may be even they use for it ton of alts
and most of reference links is fake I hope you have some proof of your claims. Of course he does not; the leftists have made it acceptable to consistently lie about others around here. After I've read this claim, I've gone through all my ratings and found that about ~1-2% of ratings had no references. Most of those were trivial errors (e.g. sometimes a reference was not added due to mass tagging). This has now been corrected. Thanks mr. liar peloso. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
