I don't know what system would be better but I agree with that the current system is not working well and it should be changed.
There are flaws to the current system, true. The question is what changes should be made to improve it. If OPs suggestion is "everyone gets a vote" Im against that change. Its just too easy to get new accounts and leave meaningless ratings which lead to inflated positive ratings. Making the system more complex to use is hardly an improvement. |
|
|
|
How about a decentralised trust system -snip- such as the one found over on thebot.net and hackforums.net
-snip-
How do these systems work in comparisson to here? Everyone's feedback counts, the system on thebot.net works perfectly but the one on hackforums has some hiccups Is it moderated? What prevents people from creating 1000 shills to change their appearance? |
|
|
|
How did anyone force anyone to stop trading gift cards Tagging and trolling their thread and business unless they reveal you the method is not forcing ? Did it stop the trades? paid with stolen credit cards? Evidence ? Opinion is commonly used when evidence is absent. I think it was already established in this thread that its difficult to find the line between someone selling legit cards at a discount and someone not. Is it 50% discount or 48.7548%? Still a rating from DT is not a sentence to jail, its just a warning nothing more. It hardly stops anyone from selling what they sold before. See Vods crusade against MS keys. If anything it makes those wondering whether they should buy think. Which is the whole reason the ratings are left, to make the possible buyers think "can this be legit?". How is this relevant here? I dont see anything related to (potentially) stolen gift cards. |
|
|
|
You also only have your opinion. If its opinions what are we even talking about? OK, So to force someone is opinion ? nice knowledge then.I am learning a lot. How did anyone force anyone to stop trading gift cards paid with stolen credit cards? DT does not have that power, its just a warning nothing more. I bring up mexxer-2 and lutpin here, because this discussion directly lead to the "save the trust system" thread where its asked to remove them from the system. I don't know what these kids are up to and in simple words THEY NEED TIME. I dont know how old they are, but they will adapt. If someone does shady shit on the internet and later fails to get a job I have no problem with that.
No, their doxes were posted while they were trying to "force" the so called untrustworthy and not publicly available info but paid doxes.Like suchmos's. link? |
|
|
|
-snip-
Shorena,I am not attacking or targeting anyone and there is no one who can or will forcefully remove your opinions from your own mind ,you are the master of your life but because the specialty of human's is communication and i thought we could actually discuss something but if this ends on IMO's then i am not interested,you win ,I lose.Thank You.
-snip-
You also only have your opinion. If its opinions what are we even talking about? I bring up mexxer-2 and lutpin here, because this discussion directly lead to the "save the trust system" thread where its asked to remove them from the system. If someone does shady shit on the internet and later fails to get a job I have no problem with that. Personally I find the arguments and faux-outrage of those of less-than-honest nature, when it comes to being marked as having a less-than-honest nature, utterly fallacious.
Just as much as nobody is here to stop them doing whatever they wish to do in their libertarian utopia, we are equally as entitled to objectively mark them as evidently having demonstrated a less-than-honest nature.
We're not stopping them, we're simply communicating to others the facts of their past behaviour.
It's called consequence, people.
|
|
|
|
How about a decentralised trust system -snip- such as the one found over on thebot.net and hackforums.net
-snip-
How do these systems work in comparisson to here? |
|
|
|
I just like to point out to OP that there has never been a successful double-spend.
Wrong. It is possible to double spend 0-conf transactions and there have been cases of this. In addition to a double spend during a hard fork in 2013. There are probably more cases. A double-spend in when both are successful and if that happened successfully would mean Bitcoin is very broken.
No. Double-spending is the result of successfully spending some money more than once. It has nothing to do with "both being successful (confirmations)". My comment should have been read in its whole, not as separate parts. I was referring to double-spends with both txs being confirmed. I don't see double-spends prior to a single confirmation being a "successful" double-spend. There are potentially thousands of double-spend attempts a day. Peter Todd even made a program that's only purpose is to double-spend very easily. I think a "successful double-spend" comes when the blockchain accepts both tx as valid spends. Which would also be the end of the Bitcoin experiment. Satoshi designed the blockchain to prevent actual double-spending of coins. So, in that light, I still stand behind my original post. In that case there will never be one, because indeed bitcoin was designed to avoid double spends like you define them. The other kind is still a thing, hence people call them "double spend" even though they are not under a stricter definition of the term. Im not entirely sure what your intention here is, but it does not help understanding the issue if you come around the corner with a different definition other than the one that is commonly accepted. OP specifically asked about unconfirmed transactions (note the "between the blocks"). |
|
|
|
What you are saying is, when someone is "raping a bitch" you stand aside and do nothing, because you do not force anyone. That does not make you neutral, it makes you inhumane. Not true.Yes, I agree i don't go around forum's 24x7 searching who is scamming and who is losing but ,but whenever i notice something shady then I definitely make sure that i PM any of the active DT guy,with proper evidence so that no one loses their money. Well the metaphor was bad anyway. They do go around, is that in itself bad? Your critique seems to be the lack of evidence. Why is it a problem here, but not when ponzis are tagged? There is lack of evidence as well. Why are the two a problem, but I am not? If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.[1]
That makes me a Rough or not very King guy. What? This now gets complicated because the third party has to face the retaliation from the criminal or accuser.
Lutpin and mexxer-2 do get messages from scammers and they are not always nice. Why does that make things more complicated? In simple words I will be helping or taking risks for them until the problem or revenge of their's(victim and accused) is significantly bigger than what is between the third party(me) and them. so let them make their own mistakes.
Exactly.You cannot help or explain everything to everyone and every single time. No, but why attack those that are still willing to try? |
|
|
|
-snip-
What you people are saying is ,Raping a bitch is good because she is scamming, hurting many people.Sorry,I don't agree to that, Sir.
What you are saying is, when someone is "raping a bitch" you stand aside and do nothing, because you do not force anyone. That does not make you neutral, it makes you inhumane. If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.[1]Those on DT can not actually act, they can only issue a warning that is easily seen. Issuing it is not abusive and opinion is commonly used in absence of proof. This is nothing new, its just a new area that is targeted. [1] https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Desmond_TutuPS: With that being said I dont think the effort a few here put in this will be rewarded. Same with the ponzi section, people will ignore the warnings anyway, so let them make their own mistakes. |
|
|
|
@shorena the abuse is using their DT2 power to force people to do things to get the ratings removed
So its just about the gift card ratings?
I checked lutpins ratings and I see nothing wrong either. They focus more on ratings regarding hacked/stolen accounts (Netflix for 2 cent) and alts (not only of scammers) than mexxer-2. I decided not to create a long list as it seems wasted efford from the replies here. |
|
|
|
----snip----
anybody could do that,give me one day's time and i will dig 5 year old ponzi thread and tag the OP. I see, so you didnt even bother to check the ratings. The question the abuse.
"Arguments" like these are the precise reason I did the above and will do more similar work later for lutpins ratings. What abuse? Dont use empty words, make a reference to something you consider abusive. I agree they might be good,helping etc etc... but their opinions ,judgments should not be forced upon anyone and hence they should be UNTRUSTED.
If good and helpful are no reason to trust their ratings I dont know what else you want. -snip-
I agree with this and I would add that what you said is even more true in this bct culture that apparently breeds long term scammers. Ones that cultivate trust before scamming. If you can earn trust just by tagging scammers, that's the absolute easiest way of doing it. Should I trust someone just because he accurately does this? People still trust QS so I suppose it's to be expected around these parts but it's dumb practice.
No one is asking you to trust them. I dont know whether I would trust either of them with 1 BTC, the question never occured and probably never will, their ratings a useful though. The long con argument is a killer argument, this is always possible. What makes you think that I dont just build my reputation? This is a risk we always have to take or never trust anyone. |
|
|
|
He stole 0.16 BTC by defaulting on a loan with chronicsky back in September. Someone claimed a month or so ago that MZ would be back soon to pay the loan, but he hasn't been back. And he is still in default trust list .. Level 3, which no one possibly uses Level 3 DT is still DT.. Actually its not, because the majority of users will not see "DT3" ratings as trusted. Might as well be on that one list that goes to depth 7. |
|
|
|
I cant follow you, how Im trolling. Its seems however the person behind OP is more important than the topic. Which certanily was not my intention. I could question what exactly you consider fake in an alt account, but I dont think its worth anyones time.
So why asking rhetorical questions when you claim not to be trolling? And that also answers your question about trolling. The whole issue is about preventing scams and you are trolling by some made-up law-defense circus, else what you managed now with this, apart from giving more hope to scammers? I defend OPs right to privacy, that does not mean I agree with their arguments. If you had read the other thread you would know that. Why? Because they questioned someone with power?
No, because for exactly what I have said before. For taking the time to create a FAKE ACCOUNT in order to open up this thread. I hope he also scams someone with it later when its not needed anymore - or better yet, sell it straight and hopefully it will get picked up by a scammer. Perhaps everyone should start creating 100 more new accounts daily. Youre not getting the point. If you want to use a court as metaphor you probably have heard of witness protection. There is litterally a programm for people that are "too afraid to speak" otherwise. I dont see how this is a court though, its a discussion and community pressure on unpopular opinion is not unheard off.
Thats a joke, right? Perhaps you watched too many reruns of Sopranos. Now because its a "discussion" your fantasy law idea is in place? I said it once and I say again, you will get more and more scams because your idea to prevent scams is to give neg rep AFTER a scam. Btw. You should ask a lawyer about your idea for a good laugh - im not kidding. Its about preventing scams and your contribution is trolling (in my book, as you would say) - Make a poll among scammers about that. This is so ridiciouls Im just gonna ignore you. I will give you a hint -> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=181801You might even get more hints by actually reading the thread with the discussion. |
|
|
|
Test #3: Die selbe VM wie vorher, allerdings ist nun core 0.12 installiert was die CPU arbeit beschleunigen sollte. Die bitcoin.conf file ist wieder modifiziert: connect=192.168.1.115 # erzwingt 1000Mbit/s Verbindung zu einem Node der auf dem Host läuft. Somit ist Bandbreite keine Bremse mehr
dbcache=4096 # erhöht den Datenbank cache auf 4GB somit muss nicht auf der Festplatte zwischengespeichert werden.
Es wird die bootstrap.dat aus #1 verwendet, für den Download werden pauschal 6 Stunden berechnet, für das Entpacken 17 Minuten. 2015.02.25 - 19:56 - start core 2015.02.25 - 22:02 - Zwischenstand; Block 300370, 1 Jahr 41 Wochen zurück. 2015.02.26 - 04:58 - fertig 2016-02-26 03:58:10 UpdateTip: new best=0000000000000000034b35bec7815d3c6af3b60c91708675bf48e3f3d757ed9e height=397433 log2_work=84.069784 tx=108815998 date=2016-02-08 21:12:25 progress=0.987138 cache=2442.8MiB(3323008tx)
Gesamtzeit: 2015.02.25 - 19:56 bis 2015.02.26 - 04:58 (zuzügl. 6:17): 15 Std. 23 Minuten Zeit die tatsächlich mit Synchronisierung verbracht wurde: 15 Std. 23 MinutenAnmerkung: Die neue version 0.12 ist wie erwartet deutlich schneller. Auch der Trick mit dem großen Datenbank cache scheint sich ausgezahlt zu haben. Bitcoin core braucht dadurch allerdings auch mehrere Minuten um zu beenden und nutzt die vollen 4 GB, benötigt insgesamt also knapp 5 GB Arbeitsspeicher. Test #4: Wie #3, allerdings ohne bootstrap.dat 2015.02.26 - 09:41 - start core 2015.02.26 - 11:11 - Zwischenstand; Block 304278, 1 Jahr 38 Wochen zurück. 2015.02.26 - 18:12 - fertig 2016-02-26 17:12:08 UpdateTip: new best=0000000000000000034b35bec7815d3c6af3b60c91708675bf48e3f3d757ed9e height=397433 log2_work=84.069784 tx=108815998 date=2016-02-08 21:12:25 progress=0.986733 cache=2443.7MiB(3322996tx)
Gesamtzeit: 2015.02.26 - 09:41 bis 2015.02.26 - 18:12: 8 Std. 31 Minuten Zeit die tatsächlich mit Synchronisierung verbracht wurde: 8 Std. 31 Minuten |
|
|
|
Well, I do. Attacking someone that is already too afraid too speak out openly makes you look like an arseholein my book.
Just because the fear is not justified does not mean its not real. What would be gained by knowing who is behind the OP? It would add nothing to the discussion, but personal points that are distracting from the topic anyway. I might have missed where they claim to be on DT, I only read they are a quiet Legendary. It does not matter though, their either have valid points to convince or not.
You are basically trolling with this. "Too afraid too speak" and claiming to be some "important member" - so creating another FAKE ACCOUNT makes him look like a clown scammer in progress. I cant follow you, how Im trolling. Its seems however the person behind OP is more important than the topic. Which certanily was not my intention. I could question what exactly you consider fake in an alt account, but I dont think its worth anyones time. He should get already neg rep just by creating this thread.
Why? Because they questioned someone with power? I really dont get it - where did you pick up this logic? So next time in court, send a double of you when you are "too afraid to speak" or even better, when you are getting arrested, send a double cause you are "too afraid" - its all about the "message", right?
If you want to use a court as metaphor you probably have heard of witness protection. There is litterally a programm for people that are "too afraid to speak" otherwise. I dont see how this is a court though, its a discussion and community pressure on unpopular opinion is not unheard off. How many scams you managed to prevent with your matlock logic?
Its shit like this why this board is overran by scammers, kids and people who are a danger to themselves.
... |
|
|
|
Out of pure curiosity, what is so taboo about replying to old threads? I assume people do it at least some of the time because there's an interesting point buried in there.
Necro posting is against the rules. There are rare exceptions though, e.g. if you have something to contribute to the thread that might still be of relevance. |
|
|
|
I'll say to OP why not use your main account instead of hiding behind that Newbie account and create this kind of thread. Are you one of those negged by mexxer or luptin?
Read the other thread, they fear DT retaliation. Besides dont attack someone for using their right to protect their privacy, it makes you look like an arsehole. If you disagree with OP attack their points, their person is of less importance. I don't think it makes him look like an asshole at all, and I agree with him to an extent. Well, I do. Attacking someone that is already too afraid too speak out openly makes you look like an arsehole in my book. I'd also like to know who's talking, but if the argument is sound it's not all that important to the discussion.
As far as fearing retaliatory feedback from someone on DT, that would be unfair and might be a damn good reason to reevaluate the feedback-giver's position on the DT list. It is, after all, just an opinion that's being expressed here.
Just because the fear is not justified does not mean its not real. What would be gained by knowing who is behind the OP? It would add nothing to the discussion, but personal points that are distracting from the topic anyway. I might have missed where they claim to be on DT, I only read they are a quiet Legendary. It does not matter though, their either have valid points to convince or not. |
|
|
|
I'll say to OP why not use your main account instead of hiding behind that Newbie account and create this kind of thread. Are you one of those negged by mexxer or luptin?
Read the other thread, they fear DT retaliation. Besides dont attack someone for using their right to protect their privacy, it makes you look like an arsehole. If you disagree with OP attack their points, their person is of less importance. |
|
|
|
If I use the pruned block chain, and then I have a old wallet, how do I update the wallet.dat file?
You cant change the wallet file with a pruned node, you cant import keys into the existing file either. Well you can do both, but it would require you to start from scratch, download the entire chain, build your databases and prune the raw blockchain data as you go along. So if I have a wallet created a year ago, and had several transactions by receiving funds, but did not sync. So I have to download the whole chain again to sync, is that right? Im not entirely sure I understand your question, but if you did not sync a pruned node for too long it might have to start from scratch yes. If you have an existing non-pruned node that you last synced a year ago and want to turn into a pruned one now you can do that and only need to sync the last year. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
