I tried using that HTML code what do you put in accounts potential activity? I left it blank and selected Post Activity = fair Trust Rating = neutral Accounts current activity = 84 Potential Activity =  Result is = 0.0315 BTCI set:
Post Quality: Fair
Trust: Neutral
Account's Current Activity: 210
Account's Potential Activity: 607
am i wrong? i should leave account potential blank?
Edit: when i leave potential account blank the result is my account worth as 0.078 BTC.
I'll take a look at how the potential activity is calculated, it looks like it's a little buggy right now. Expect to have the html script updated in a few minutes or so.
Just had a chance to update it. I tested it out and hopefully it works as should this time. Here's the updated code: <!-- Created by ColderThanIce on Bitcointalk. UID 429511. -->
<html>
<head>
<title>Bitcointalk Account Value Calculator</title>
<script type="text/javascript">
var quality
var trust
var currentactivity = 0
var potential = 0
var qualitymultiplier = 0
var trustmultiplier = 0
var finalprice = 0
var potentialactivity
function AccountValue(form)
{
currentactivity = form.activity.value
potential = form.potentialactivity.value
trust = form.trustrating.value
quality = form.postquality.value
// Determine the quality value selected, and set the multiplier to the correct amount
switch(quality)
{
case "excellent":
qualitymultiplier = 1.10;
break;
case "good":
qualitymultiplier = 1.025;
break;
case "fair":
qualitymultiplier = 1.00;
break;
case "poor":
qualitymultiplier = 0.975;
break;
case "bad":
qualitymultiplier = 0.95;
break;
}
//Determine the trust level selected, and set the multiplier to the correct amount
switch(trust)
{
case "darkgreen":
trustmultiplier = 1.20;
break;
case "lightgreen":
trustmultiplier = 1.10;
break;
case "neutral":
trustmultiplier = 1.00;
break;
case "negative":
trustmultiplier = 0.15;
break;
}
//Determine the difference between the account's activity and the account's potential activity
if (potential > currentactivity){
potentialactivity = potential - currentactivity
check = true
}
if (potential < currentactivity){
potentialactivity = potential
check = true
}
//Calculate final value of the account and round it to a maximum of eight decimal places
finalprice = ((0.00075 * currentactivity) + (0.000375 * potentialactivity)) * qualitymultiplier * trustmultiplier
finalprice = + finalprice.toFixed(8)
//Let the user know what the final value of the account is
alert("The account you entered is worth " + finalprice + " BTC.")
}
</script>
<body>
<form name="information">
<b><u>Post Quality</b></u><br>
<input type="radio" name="postquality" value="excellent">Excellent<br>
<input type="radio" name="postquality" value="good">Good<br>
<input type="radio" name="postquality" value="fair">Fair<br>
<input type="radio" name="postquality" value="poor">Poor<br>
<input type="radio" name="postquality" value="bad">Very Poor<br>
<b><u>Trust Rating</b></u><br>
<input type="radio" name="trustrating" value="darkgreen">Dark Green Positive Trust<br>
<input type="radio" name="trustrating" value="lightgreen">Light Green Positive Trust<br>
<input type="radio" name="trustrating" value="neutral">Neutral Trust<br>
<input type="radio" name="trustrating" value="negative">Negative Trust<br>
<br>
Account's Current Activity:
<input type="text" name="activity"><br>
Account's Potential Activity:
<input type="text" name="potentialactivity"><br>
<input type="button" name="button" value="Get Account Value" onClick="AccountValue(this.form)"><br>
</form>
</form>
</body>
</html>
|
|
|
|
I don't understand much codes but I will prefer this project to be concluded by releasing it as a GUI simple software and not in codes.
It sounds like he's planning to release it in the form of a web page you go to, input some information into textboxes, and then it'll give you a value for the account. We were just discussing how we'd go about coding it.
I was just able to whip the page up in Javascript (felt like doing it as a small project) and here's the result: <!-- Created by ColderThanIce on Bitcointalk. UID 429511. -->
<html>
<head>
<title>Bitcointalk Account Value Calculator</title>
<script type="text/javascript">
var quality
var trust
var currentactivity = 0
var potential = 0
var qualitymultiplier = 0
var trustmultiplier = 0
var finalprice = 0
var potentialactivity
function AccountValue(form)
{
currentactivity = form.activity.value
potential = form.potentialactivity.value
trust = form.trustrating.value
quality = form.postquality.value
// Determine the quality value selected, and set the multiplier to the correct amount
switch(quality)
{
case "excellent":
qualitymultiplier = 1.10;
break;
case "good":
qualitymultiplier = 1.025;
break;
case "fair":
qualitymultiplier = 1.00;
break;
case "poor":
qualitymultiplier = 0.975;
break;
case "bad":
qualitymultiplier = 0.95;
break;
}
//Determine the trust level selected, and set the multiplier to the correct amount
switch(trust)
{
case "darkgreen":
trustmultiplier = 1.20;
break;
case "lightgreen":
trustmultiplier = 1.10;
break;
case "neutral":
trustmultiplier = 1.00;
break;
case "negative":
trustmultiplier = 0.15;
break;
}
//Determine the difference between the account's activity and the account's potential activity
potentialactivity = (potential - currentactivity)
//Calculate final value of the account and round it to a maximum of eight decimal places
finalprice = ((0.00075 * currentactivity) + (0.000375 * potentialactivity)) * qualitymultiplier * trustmultiplier
finalprice = + finalprice.toFixed(8)
//Let the user know what the final value of the account is
alert("The account you entered is worth " + finalprice + " BTC.")
}
</script>
<body>
<form name="information">
<b><u>Post Quality</b></u><br>
<input type="radio" name="postquality" value="excellent">Excellent<br>
<input type="radio" name="postquality" value="good">Good<br>
<input type="radio" name="postquality" value="fair">Fair<br>
<input type="radio" name="postquality" value="poor">Poor<br>
<input type="radio" name="postquality" value="bad">Very Poor<br>
<b><u>Trust Rating</b></u><br>
<input type="radio" name="trustrating" value="darkgreen">Dark Green Positive Trust<br>
<input type="radio" name="trustrating" value="lightgreen">Light Green Positive Trust<br>
<input type="radio" name="trustrating" value="neutral">Neutral Trust<br>
<input type="radio" name="trustrating" value="negative">Negative Trust<br>
<br>
Account's Current Activity:
<input type="text" name="activity"><br>
Account's Potential Activity:
<input type="text" name="potentialactivity"><br>
<input type="button" name="button" value="Get Account Value" onClick="AccountValue(this.form)"><br>
</form>
</form>
</body>
</html>
Copy that code, save the file as a .html and test it out, seems to work as it should at least on my end. |
|
|
|
Really cool project, only problem I see with it is that account prices seem a little high, but that's an easy fix. A cool final presentation of this project would be to put it on a webpage as you planned, and then have it automated by a bot. You insert your UID, click a button and then it'll estimate your account's value.
Like hexafraction mentioned, your original idea could easily be programmed with Javascript as well. I'm not sure how easy or feasible it would be to implement a bot with Javascript though, you might want to look into another language - it seems like lots of the sig campaign bots here are coded with PHP.
The problem is that I don't know javascript or PHP very well. What I am actually using is GWT which will convert my java code into javascript. It seems to work decently well. Ah ok. If you decide to go the Javascript route eventually let me know and I can try and help you out if you run into any issues. Or, if you like, I can try and whip up the code in Javascript in the next day or so if you're interested. |
|
|
|
|
Really cool project, only problem I see with it is that account prices seem a little high, but that's an easy fix. A cool final presentation of this project would be to put it on a webpage as you planned, and then have it automated by a bot. You insert your UID, click a button and then it'll estimate your account's value.
Like hexafraction mentioned, your original idea could easily be programmed with Javascript as well. I'm not sure how easy or feasible it would be to implement a bot with Javascript though, you might want to look into another language - it seems like lots of the sig campaign bots here are coded with PHP.
|
|
|
|
i do not download apps on my phone. My plan is just to receive the fund on mycelium then will transfer it on my main wallet. Any recommendation? Thanks.
If you don't download apps on your phone it's going to be tricky installing Mycelium. You could try downloading it on a different phone and transferring the installation file over, but I'm not sure how to go about that. I have at times kept thousands of Bitcoins in Mycelium and never had it lose any of them. Having said that, I don't think the private keys are encrypted in the phone's storage, so if anyone steals your phone they will be able to steal your Bitcoin balance unless you are able to move it first. Are there any plans to offer secure encryption of private keys, such that a passphrase has to be entered before private keys can be decrypted? Something similar to what Bitcoin Core offers, where I can unlock my wallet for a specified time period. As I understand it the current 6 digit PIN code isn't an encryption key, and even if it was it is easily brute-force-able. It doesn't sound like the private keys are encrypted on the phone, but they're stored in app-private storage, meaning Mycellium *should* be the only application allowed to access that data, unless your device is rooted. Here's what I was able to find: The private keys are stored in the app-private storage that the operating system secures, so that only the app may access it. if you have a rooted device you may access it via adb. some users did that to recover from broken screens when they had no backups. also, other apps that actively request root access would be able to read from there.
Original SourceI'm a little surprised that Mycellium doesn't offer encryption of private keys, that seems like something that should be a standard feature. Although as it stands now, your keys should be safe from malicious applications, but there's no protection if your phone was stolen, or otherwise. |
|
|
|
Exactly, although it's #1 on Alexa.com it's definitely not the best block explorer. Your example is just one of the many issues they've had with their site in the past year. You could talk about a whole bunch more as well - reusing r values, transactions not showing up, fake transactions showing up, etc. |
|
|
|
how do u get a legendary status? i've had my account for quite some time since 2011. just only recently started posting.
You become Legendary somewhere between 775 and 1030 activity. It happens at a random number in that range, and every user's random number is different. This thread may be of use to you as well. |
|
|
|
I just realized that the Master Public Keys of the three wallets I just created with Electrum 2.3.2 all start with "xpub661MyMwAqRbc...".
"xpub" certainly is a marker for identifying the String as a Master Public Key. However, do the other coinciding letters have to be always the same or do they result from a lack of entropy in the generation process?
Check the private keys to be sure. Where do I find the private master key? In any case: Either every master public key has to begin with "xpub661MyMwAqRbc..." or there is some lack of entropy when generating the seed. In the latter case this would be an issue with Electrum. Other programs require the user to move the mouse or hit keys on the keyboard in order to supply entropy; Electrum on the other hand generates the seed without user interaction. So, I wonder how Electrum ensures a truly random seed. Wallet - Master Public keys gives you the MPK (mac that is)
It does as well on Windows, but HPt was asking how to get the master private key. At first I thought he was asking about the pub key and thought the same as you.  I asked for the private master key, because mustyoshi suggested to check it. But, as I wrote, my concern is about the fact that the master public keys that I generated start all the same. I would be happy if someone could clarify which part of the master master public key string ought to be random and which part contains some other information (such as the "xpub" part). If the part that starts the same actually should be random then electrum has an entropy issue. Another (unlikely) possibility would be that my electrum version is compromised. (I use the Windows version 2.3.2 which I downloaded from the official website as version 2.4; as OmegaStarScream pointed out this is a bit strange.) I generated a couple of new wallets and here are their master public keys: xpub661MyMwAqRbcGEUSdYvF2MDjcfdm79asccSYHq3jMAPWwkJiLbRtv4rWAS4St6cjupyh72iH85GggEPuRuA5ifA7UE1 KJz9r6sobkqzNZBa xpub661MyMwAqRbcFKQySfiyDSpZ72zjry4WEbSDpXek7ADXFcS5oSExMku4z4FhX7sQEyJgaUeN48xMCpuTtRvBHH2cr8N TaL6fBHkrFeNryEV Both begin with xpub661MyMwAqRbc but after that they're completely randomized. So the first 16 characters are always the same, but the last 95 characters should be random. As for your Electrum install being potentially compromised: The reason that you downloaded 2.3.2 when the site says that the latest release was version 2.4 is because there currently isn't a compiled 2.4 version of Electrum for Windows, or OSX. Only Linux offers an easy install of 2.4. If you want to be extra sure that your Electrum install isn't compromised, then you can verify the checksum of the installer with what ThomasV has signed with his PGP as what the checksum should be. If ThomasV's PGP signed message of the checksum is valid, and the checksum matches that of the file you downloaded, then you can be sure you aren't using a compromised version of Electrum. |
|
|
|
Could you please move me to a full member slot when you get a moment? My rank just changed from Member to Full Member.
Also, it looks like the Full Member signature might be broken. Here's what the OP has and I updated my signature to:
Hi, congrats on your ranking up. You will be updated to full member for the next pay period after counting. All this period you spent as a member except 1day and that is what you will be paid for dude. EDIT. The 2 posts that was posted as full member will count as full member  Thanks for the payment! I noticed that I haven't been moved to a Full Member slot though, should that have happened when payments were sent out, or will that happen next week when payments are sent? Also, I've done a little more investigating on the signature issue I was having.. It turns out that the signature displays correctly on most browsers except for Google Chrome on Windows. I'm not sure what causes this (I tried Chrome on Windows with no extensions, but that didn't change anything), but it looks as should on a few other browsers that I tried (Chrome on Android, IE, Firefox). |
|
|
|
Those are the lowest rates on the whole Bitcointalk and your rule such as "100+ characters per post" is the highest too. So we have the lowest paying campaign with the highest requirements, wow.
yeah ur right, its really low in here.. and not that only, but why cant post in Games and Rounds and Investor Based Games section. but if ur rates higher maybe this section is not allowed is accepted just saying.. no offence Most campaigns don't count posts made in G&R or IBG sections because they often aren't considered constructive. Most posts in those sections are often just short posts predicting who will win a game, or similar to that - it would be easy to abuse the payment system by counting those posts. |
|
|
|
Why any one will be buy with red feedback accounts? any use of those accounts?
I don't think he can join any signature programs also.
There are a couple campaigns that allow negative trusted users in. The cloudmining.website accepts them at a reduced rate, and I've heard that Bitmixer.io allows them as well (although their campaign rules state that they don't allow negative trusted users I've seen a few running their sig). |
|
|
|
Could you please move me to a full member slot when you get a moment? My rank just changed from Member to Full Member. Also, it looks like the Full Member signature might be broken. Here's what the OP has and I updated my signature to: |
|
|
|
This seems to be a problem if real. I'd like to read SebastianJu's version.
A single positive default trust feedback makes an account green so it should be given only when one really thinks someone is trustworthy. And as described in the profile page the risked amount should always be set to zero if the other person sends first. It doesn't make sense that an escrow includes a non-zero risked amount unless there's something we don't know, in that case that extra information should be included in the feedback.
I really think escrows shouldn't leave feedback at all unless something particularly positive or negative happened in the deal.
I too am surprised when escrow providers leave positive feedback to the people involved in the transaction, especially when these people are on DefaultTrust. It definitely gives people a false sense of trust and degrades from those people's rating. I really don't mind when escrow providers give out neutral feedback or none after the transaction, since there is no trust involved on the escrow provider's end. Edit: I just took a look through SJ's rating and it appears that he puts amounts in for all transactions he escrows. Probably just a pattern he follows but he should probably change that, considering he isn't the one risking the bitcoins. So how would you handle it? I set amounts when the trading parties set amounts. Since then i know that they dont care if the amounts are stated. And how can a good trust rating be wrong when a trade went correctly? I'd handle it a little differently. I don't think I'd leave users trust just because a trade goes well, since the escrow provider doesn't need to put trust into any of the other parties. However if someone asks for a trust rating after the trade, I'd leave them a neutral trust rating, unless I truly do trust the user. I escrow a transaction here and there on my main account, and although plenty of the transactions are over $50, I wouldn't necessarily trust all the people I deal with, so I don't leave them trust unless they ask. If they do ask, I usually leave them neutral trust so that others know they've successfully completed a deal or two, but that I wouldn't completely trust them, especially if the user is a newbie, or this was their first trade. One possible problem I see with the neutral ratings for escrows below $50 is that users could just create two accounts, ask you to escrow a "trade" between them, and receive positive trust on both accounts for fairly cheap without any trade having actually taken place. I don't know if you charge a fee, but if so it would only cost them about $0.50 + 0.0001 BTC (1% fee + tx fee) to potentially have two green accounts to sell (or do whatever else with) later on. I'm not saying that this does happen, I'm just mentioning that this could be a potential problem with leaving positive feedback after a trade. As for the risked amount, it's really not a big deal at all, but it's supposed to be the bitcoin that you risked during the transaction. Since you didn't risk any bitcoin, it technically should be 0 BTC. But since you leave a comment saying that you provided escrow for the users I really don't think that's a big deal, people should be able to figure things out. |
|
|
|
Wallet - Master Public keys gives you the MPK (mac that is)
It does as well on Windows, but HPt was asking how to get the master private key. At first I thought he was asking about the pub key and thought the same as you. |
|
|
|
I just realized that the Master Public Keys of the three wallets I just created with Electrum 2.3.2 all start with "xpub661MyMwAqRbc...".
"xpub" certainly is a marker for identifying the String as a Master Public Key. However, do the other coinciding letters have to be always the same or do they result from a lack of entropy in the generation process?
Check the private keys to be sure. Where do I find the private master key? In any case: Either every master public key has to begin with "xpub661MyMwAqRbc..." or there is some lack of entropy when generating the seed. In the latter case this would be an issue with Electrum. Other programs require the user to move the mouse or hit keys on the keyboard in order to supply entropy; Electrum on the other hand generates the seed without user interaction. So, I wonder how Electrum ensures a truly random seed. To my knowledge, you can't export the master private key from Electrum. You can always recover from the seed generated when you created the wallet though. Also, about the master public key bit, mine doesn't start with "xpub661MyMwAqRbc", but it was created in an older Electrum version so that could be why. |
|
|
|
This seems to be a problem if real. I'd like to read SebastianJu's version.
A single positive default trust feedback makes an account green so it should be given only when one really thinks someone is trustworthy. And as described in the profile page the risked amount should always be set to zero if the other person sends first. It doesn't make sense that an escrow includes a non-zero risked amount unless there's something we don't know, in that case that extra information should be included in the feedback.
I really think escrows shouldn't leave feedback at all unless something particularly positive or negative happened in the deal.
I too am surprised when escrow providers leave positive feedback to the people involved in the transaction, especially when these people are on DefaultTrust. It definitely gives people a false sense of trust and degrades from those people's rating. I really don't mind when escrow providers give out neutral feedback or none after the transaction, since there is no trust involved on the escrow provider's end. Edit: I just took a look through SJ's rating and it appears that he puts amounts in for all transactions he escrows. Probably just a pattern he follows but he should probably change that, considering he isn't the one risking the bitcoins. |
|
|
|
its preety much useless who gave nagative trust to the account ? it have peding loan for how much BTC ? if the loan amount is less then 0.2 BTC then why dont pay the loan and then sale the account for 0.4 once its hero its still 0.20 BTC profit rite now the account is good for nothing
Did you read the thread at all? He answered most of those questions right above your post.. |
|
|
|
I don't think BiPolarBob is a scammer. He even tells us not to trust him in multiple posts. What kind of scammer tells you to watch out for him? Then again, anything is possible, but I think that BiPolarBob is a nice guy.
Double bluff? I don't think he's a scammer either but it's not uncommon for scammers to try give people a false sense of security or make out like they're doing a good thing or are a good person when their motives are the opposite. Seen a few scammers on here make out like they're scam busters themselves which they do to try get feedback or appear trustowrthy. Yes, but remember that BiPolarBob is verified by 2 trusted forum members: -snip- Not only that, he often seems to send codes before asking for payments, or just gives codes away to people. So with a setup like that, it's impossible to get scammed. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
