Do you follow that argument? Which of the five lines do you disagree with?
You quoted my questions but didn't answer either of them.
|
|
|
You have failed to describe how this would be any different then if this was a direct trade.
It isn't, and that is the point. * The buyer is paying because he wants it to be different than a direct trade. * He is paying for an impartial escrow agent. * He is getting an escrow agent who is secretly also the seller. * So he isn't getting what he paid for. * That is why it isn't fair. Do you follow that argument? Which of the five lines do you disagree with?
|
|
|
Ok thanks But What date should I have ltc on my address or is it imoprtant or not ?
On the 12th of May 2014 a snapshot was taken of the BTC, LTC, and DOGE blockchains. All addresses bearing a non-dust amount at that point in time were given 4.60545574 CLAMs for free. This was the initial distribution of CLAMs, and it how all the CLAMs were created. The intent was to make the distribution as fair as possible, since everyone involved in any of those three coins automatically got free CLAMs. The specific blocks at which the snapshots were taken: BTC block 300377 (2014-05-12 12:48:17) LTC block 565693 (2014-05-12 13:06:31) DOGE block 218556 (2014-05-12 13:09:17)
|
|
|
Hi all, I've been thinking about a couple of different scenarios wondering what I would do if I was escrow. I keep coming up with 2 different answers. Would love to hear what all you guys would do. SCENARIOEscrow = John K2 (100% honest) Seller = BlazedFarout (100% honest) Buyer = BadDaddybear (100% honest) - BadDaddybear has a love for a certain type of honey that BlazedFarout happens to sell. - They negotiate a deal for 5 BTC and ask John K2 to escrow. - Escrow is funded appropriately. - honey is posted well packaged, insured, and with full tracking with signature etc etc. - Naughtywolf works as a postman delivering to BadDaddybear. - Naughtywolf has noticed a number of packages in recent times being delivered to BadDaddybear, so he opens this one package (with the special honey) and is delighted. - Naughtywolf helps himself to the honey but still proceeds to deliver an empty package. - BadDaddybear takes package inside and eagerly opens it only to find it empty. Poor BadDaddybear ![Sad](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/sad.gif) - BadDaddybear informs the others of this and an insurance claim is made immediately. - insurance refuses to pay because of tracking and signed acceptance of delivery. ?? What should escrow do ![Huh](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/huh.gif) 1. Refund BadDaddybear because he is known as honest and wouldn't lie about not getting the honey. 2. Pay BlazedFarout because he is known as honest and wouldn't lie about sending honey. And he has tracking and signed acceptance etc. 3. Split the BTC 50/50 - knowing that sometimes things go wrong through no fault of either party. Naughtywolfs exist unfortunately. Thanks all ![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif) And to modify your scenario a little, what if: Escrow = QuickCellar (100% honest) Seller = SpeedyBasement (100% honest except that he sometimes likes to escrow his own deals using a pseudonym) Keep everything else the same. Now will the Escrow side with the Buyer or the Seller? It seems very unlikely in this situation that BadDaddybear is getting any refund, since the escrow knows for a fact that the seller sent the honey. BadDaddybear would be lucky not to end up with red trust from the escrow's 4 alt accounts.
|
|
|
What is easest way to check Do I have clams on my LTC address.? Some blockexplorer or something?
The easiest way is probably to visit Just-Dice.com, go to the 'chat' tab, type: /dig Ljfik3gh938f82g132789gf where that's your LTC address, and hit return. It will tell you whether you have CLAMs waiting for you or not. If you're prepared to tell it the private key as well, it will claim the CLAMs for it, and credit them to your account. Then you can withdraw them to an address of your choosing.
|
|
|
Unfortunately I cannot quote your sig, which says "anyone who owns BTC has CLAMs". I own BTC and, as a result of your distribution, owned at one time some CLAMs. I quickly sold them. Consider correcting your sig. Unfortunately I cannot quote your username, which says "TooDumbForBitcoin". Consider correcting it to "TooDumbForCryptocurrenciesInGeneral". ![Wink](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
|
|
|
You are missing the point. If I trust someone with some amount of money then I will send first to them when trading with them, no escrow necessary. Any dispute would get resolved the exact same way if scenario 2 were to happen.
It is not necessary to use escrow in every trade you participate in assuming that one party is sufficiently trusted.
What if that one party used to be sufficiently trusted, but later on it came to light that he was tricking people into letting him escrow deals he himself was involved in? That might be enough to make you not want to deal with him in the future, no? Fuck Daniel. I always knew he was up to no good.
|
|
|
Well, yeah. Someone who uses clam-qt should build the latest version from github (master branch) and check that my fix is reasonable before I make a release with it in.
|
|
|
The more coins you have in a wallet the more coins you can stake, so putting your coins into a bigger pot to stake will generate you a bigger return than keeping them yourself, so 1 wallet with 100 coins in it will stake more coins overall than 10 wallets with 10 coins each combined.
That is apparently true of Netcoin, up to a point(*). They actively encourage decentralisation by having large wallets stake disproportionately faster than smaller wallets. By doubling the size of your wallet you more than double the return from staking. That seems like a silly thing to incentivise, but that's what they do. I don't know if any other coins have the same. As I understand it, most don't. So why would we want to use a staking pool? 1. the pool runs all the wallets for us, saving us the trouble / bandwidth / disk space / maintenance / etc. of having to do it ourselves 2. pooling our resources reduces the variance; we achieve our expected return much more quickly than by solo staking 3. some coins stake better (ie. higher expected percentage return) the bigger the wallet balance is (eg. netcoin) and so pooling makes sense And why wouldn't we want to use a staking pool? 1. we have to trust a third party with our coins; there's no way of using multisig for staking coins, since in order to stake, the staking wallet needs to be able to sign a transaction with our private key; with the same private key the staking service can steal our coins 2. the staking service presumably takes some kind of fee (or 'penalty', call it what you will) which reduces our expected profit 3. if we were solo-staking, we could evaluate each coin and decide which one to invest in; with this setup it appears that such decision is made by the pool itself which leaves us vulnerable to manipulation (pool owner buys up some shitcoinX for himself, then buys a bunch of the same coin for the pool, then dumps his personal holdings at the pool's expense) These downsides could be alleviated to varying degrees, but the current lack of transparency and control really don't help potential investor confidence. (*) Netcoin balances stake better as they grow to 10 million, and then the growth stops. 10 million netcoin is current worth a little over $5000, which is probably more than most altcoin speculators are willing to hold in netcoin, and so there is clear pressure to pool. It appears that stakeminers already hold over 10 million netcoin, and so adding more won't increase their return, but from my point of view it does increase my return.
|
|
|
-snip- I think that he is a scammer, but I cannot call him a scammer unless I have proof. -snip-
If you think this is true please explain your rating - and I quote below just to make sure we are talking about the same thing - towards tsp without any reference or even a hint of evidence. He's talking about TF there, not tsp. It's OK to call tsp a scammer without proof, because he was paid some small fraction of a bitcoin more than he deserved by TF, where the small fraction was earned by a b0t, and that was against terms and conditions that were added to the site after the alleged 'crime' took place. It's not OK to call TF a scammer without proof, because he only 'lost' hundreds or maybe thousands of other people's bitcoins, most of which should have been in cold storage but weren't.
|
|
|
Obviously self escrow is a bad thing - no doubts. I am not sure however that it is really a scam and deserves negative trust. I would say shady/unethical, but I would also say with almost 100% certainty that he would never have ripped anyone off. I still think we were better off with QS on the DT than not on it though.
One could argue that charging for an escrow service while actually being the counterparty that the purchaser is looking for protection from is scammy in its own right. It could be considered that the purchaser of the escrow has been ripped off for the amount of the escrow fee. I would much rather see escrow providers make a clear statement that they will inform you whenever they are also the person you are trading with, rather than a wishy-washy statement like: "no representations are made as to the identity of the person you are trading with, this includes the possibility of trading with an alt of QS, as well as trading with someone other then you believe them to be". I mean, why not just tell people that you are wearing two hats at the same time, and let them decide whether they want to take the associated risk or not? In fact why even set up 5 or more alts in the first place, if not for trust farming and abuse?
|
|
|
as I have said now pass around 10
I don't understand that part, sorry. and expected time to earn reward still 18-20 day,(currently I staking 25clam but not in one block) and another question: in my client coin control panel I see that coin weight increase, but in dashboard I see my coin weight- 25 without change around week long?
The weight of each output is the same as its value in CLAMs. It shouldn't increase ever, except that the weight is 0 if the output is immature or has been involved in a transaction in the last 4 hours. If the coin control panel is showing changing weights, I think it must be wrong. I only ever use clamd, not clam-qt, so that's where I focus all of my bug-fixing attention. I don't think anyone is putting much effort into fixing clam-qt bugs, unfortunately. It's probably still worth creating an issue in the CLAM github issue tracker to make a note of the bug. On the other hand, it's normal for the "expected time to stake" to go up and down a little, since it is calculated using the current network difficulty, which also fluctuates. It's typically around 500/balance days, give or take. So if your balance is 25, that's 20 days. Edit: I made an issue in github: https://github.com/nochowderforyou/clams/issues/224
|
|
|
Seems like tspacepilot was hacked? There must be some serious conflict of interest between what he's doing and cetain people for such a thing to happen.
dooglus, any proof that the person that contacted you was the authentic tspacepilot?doog removed the feedback ![Huh](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/huh.gif) I'm pretty sure it was tsp who contacted me, and that his account is back under his control. Don't use a 'secret question' on your account, people. And scammers, when trying to compromise accounts by guessing their secret answers, don't be stupid!
|
|
|
this is some kind of anomaly or is it normal? ![Grin](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/grin.gif) Neither, but really quite lucky. You should stake about once per month with average luck, like kolloh said.
|
|
|
I think "the same thing" was in reference to you escrowing for yourself. You did that, right? Why not use another escrow? Saving on fees? No, and I can't blame some people for believing that it's my alt, but he really is a completely separate person So what did you mean when you said that you were "busted" when you accidentally outed yourself here? If you accept neteller i could gather enough neteller funds to buy the whole 1.8btc Sorry, can't do Neteller ![Sad](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/sad.gif) lol did you post from wrong account or something? Dammit, busted ![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif) Anyway, still for sale ![Tongue](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/tongue.gif) I read that as an admission that it was your alt, and figured that this jokey "it was a co-worker" story was only made up later when people seemed to start taking notice of the situation: Well, Krispy really is an actual person, though I admit I probably (accidentally) posted from his account as much as he actually did. Dude is a co-worker who was having some bad luck, so I rented out my guest room to him. Those coins that I escrowed for mysel.. oops I mean Krispy really were his coins though. Very convenient explanation, right? I wish it made for a more exciting story, but that's pretty much all there was to it.
What next, QS comes up with a "Panthers is actually my little brother" story?
|
|
|
I only want to say couple word about vod. How you can talk about other guys? You abusing trust system, and u think u are god? Quick dont scam nobody but this is what he is doing is not ok, but he is still better guy then VOD. He should get ban... He give red trust without any reason fuck him . ![](https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.gyazo.com%2Fa45c09d3433c95d20be8b1946ead26ec.png&t=665&c=YD8rDFW3UkchvA) That looks like he negatively rated a bunch of 0-post alts which were doing nothing but abusing the trust system. Why would you have a problem with that?
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure in cyberpinoy's universe it goes like this: That screenshot proves that you're untrustworthy, it doesn't prove that I am.
And your screenshot doesn't have a fancy theme background, which would make it tamper-proof.
I'm still in benefit-of-the-doubt mode, in which maybe he simply misunderstands a few things or hasn't thought them through, rather than being deliberately obstructive. I know you know this already, but since the wallet is open source I can change the numbers in the source, rebuild it, and have the program overlay them on whatever fancy theme I want. Edit: if screenshots were proof of anything we wouldn't need cryptography. We could just trade screenshots of Bitcoins and forget all this silly cryptographic signature nonsense.
|
|
|
It's not clear to me yet whether he is being deliberately obtuse or not. I see no reason not to prove solvency if it's possible to do so, and every reason not to if it's impossible.
Couldn't agree more. I doubt you'll get anything else out of Mr. Fodor, nobody was able to yet. You can steal coins from an address just by knowing the address? And there are images which can't be edited by Photoshop? Cause for concern...
Well, you're a bit late to the party, we've had tons of fun with those statements and many others weeks ago ![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif) Yes, basically Leroy's proof-of-everything is like this: "I'm not a scammer because I said so". Since wallet screenshots are untamperable, here's solid proof that I in fact own all the BTC that will ever exist. And then some: ![](https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FZZv7dHh.png&t=665&c=Anf7ybZtHBaVvA) Edit: DIY instructions: edit OverviewPage::setBalance() in src/qt/overviewpage.cpp to display whatever numbers you like.
|
|
|
OK, but do you have any evidence that his staking thing is a Ponzi?
You're probably being a tad sarcastic, but here is what I could figure out. I'm not aware of cyberpinoy ever providing proof of solvency. Initially he refused to even publish his staking wallet addresses, claiming they could be hacked, later claiming users could mistakenly deposit funds into those addresses. Still not showing them on the website, but they are buried somewhere in this thread (sorry, can't link to a specific post, stupid phone): https://forum.gethashing.com/t/pos-mining-stakeminers/3925So perhaps we do have some proof of staking. I wasn't being sarcastic. I'm aware of Bruno's tendency to go off on tangents with his crazy Google skills, and wanted to bring him back to the main point here: forget which direction his roof points. Is it a Ponzi or isn't it? I received a PM reply from cyberpinoy giving a list of staking addresses, and the same explanation that "we can't publish the addresses because people might send deposits to them". I replied that Just-Dice is effectively a staking pool and has always published its staking addresses and never had a problem with people sending coins to the staking address. Each user has their own deposit address. If they send coins directly to the staking address they don't get credited, and nor should they. I checked the addresses he sent me, and they have coins in them. But that's not enough. For a proof of solvency we need: 1) the address(es) 2) proof of ownership of the addresses (typically via signed message) 3) a list of liabilities (user balances, effectively) 4) check that the assets proved in (1) and (2) exceed the liabilities in (3) So far I only have (1), and even that is apparently to be kept secret. It's not clear to me yet whether he is being deliberately obtuse or not. I see no reason not to prove solvency if it's possible to do so, and every reason not to if it's impossible. On that other forum thread I see comments like the following which make me feel bad inside: you know nothinbg about blockchain technology yes an address can be used to hack a wallet. ![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif) lets see if you know how becasueI already do ![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif) and besides that the proof is right in the website, you cant photoshop those images, those are real images of the wallets weather you guys like it or not.
You can steal coins from an address just by knowing the address? And there are images which can't be edited by Photoshop? Cause for concern...
|
|
|
[words] going over the deep end of his lying pool.
OK, but do you have any evidence that his staking thing is a Ponzi?
|
|
|
|