|
On behalf of the forum: 1 @ 6.5
Note that even though the forum is bidding, it may be possible to outbid the forum.
Current state:
Slots BTC/Slot Person
1 6.5 Bitcoin Forum
4 2.25 Inaba
2 2.25 betcointm
|
|
|
|
|
The Bitcoin Forum pledges 4 BTC to this bounty, and we'll probably also put up an ad about this in forum ad round 103. This is more than I really want to spend on non-forum development issues from the forum's treasury, especially when the forum software situation is non-optimal, but this issue seems to be becoming serious despite the efforts of many experts over a long period of time, so I think that increasing the bounty amount is important.
|
|
|
|
So then, when the target changes, it is verified by every full node?
Yes. Bitcoin is not a democracy. Except in a few cases where it can't be avoided, full nodes will follow their rules regardless of what everyone else does. |
|
|
|
|
Just lock it and create a new one. No need to contact a moderator about it.
|
|
|
|
The first change is to put the trust feedback list in reverse chronological order, so that we can immediately see what the person's been doing.
It is... Along with this the trust needs both positive and negative showing on posts It does... The second number (orange when non-zero) is the number of scam reports. |
|
|
|
|
Does anyone know of another reliable HTTPS proxy that would work? I'd prefer that the forum not do this itself, as we'd then need to worry about abuse, legal issues, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
To improve privacy and eliminate mixed content warnings, images in posts and PMs are now proxied through images.weserv.nl. Tell me if this broke anything.
|
|
|
|
Your block database is probably corrupted. Shut down Bitcoin. Go to the data directory and move the chainstate and blocks directories somewhere else. (Keep them for a while in case the devs are interested in looking at them.) Then start Bitcoin, and it'll resync. You could also try deleting just the chainstate directory for a faster resync, but this might not actually fix it. FYI: My block database was also corrupted recently with unmodified (but self-built) 0.8.5 on Gentoo. I wonder if a recent block/tx triggered this on certain systems. |
|
|
|
Our IT investigative team has re-evaluated the IP in question and the block will be removed for the next update, sometime within the next hour or two. After that time please update and try to access the site.
Great, thanks for contacting them! |
|
|
|
They've listed the forum for a long time AFAIK. See here. Maybe they only just updated the IP address. |
|
|
|
|
I've heard about that. Please post MalwareBytes' response here if you get one. My guess is that they don't like that there are links to stealth miners here.
|
|
|
|
Doesn't explain how I (MBAM PRO user) see the warning, but regular MBAM users do not? atleast investigate the issue. could have slipped some malware under your nose into the server for all you know.
You see the warning because you have website blocking (pro-only) enabled. bitcointalk.org is blocked in the site blocking list. I've already received reports of this. |
|
|
|
If there is actually a problem with the forum, MalwareBytes can collect a substantial bounty. But they're probably just wrong. Anti-malware companies make money by scaring users into thinking that everything around them is dangerous. The forum has previously been blocked by anti-malware software because you can find download links to stealth mining software here. |
|
|
|
|
Google Translate is terrible with Turkish. Can a few people summarize this thread in English?
|
|
|
|
What will the multisig treasurer set up look like?
I think that the treasurers will be split into several multisig setups with 4 or 6 treasurers each, and each such multisig will require 50% agreement in order to make spends. (I'm more worried about treasurers disappearing than trying to steal the money.) |
|
|
|
This is why it is fallacy to allow random people to hold your money, just because they have some positive rating and run some service that holds some good amount of coins.
Obviously I didn't base my decision-making solely on reputation, or I would have accepted TF's offer. I plan to switch to multisig in the next few months. I didn't do it initially because Bitcoin-Qt didn't support it natively, but it does now. If you're interested in being a treasurer, post here. |
|
|
|
Also if you don't want to go through all the ratings, then just add a column (or more) in the profile table and update it (them) each time someone adds a rating to the user
A column of what? Trust scores depend on the viewer's trust network, so it can't be cached globally. So the total scammed amount doesn't have any impact on the trust score?
No. |
|
|
|
I was guessing scammed == scam_reports (i.e. total unique users who report scamming)  Right. I fixed it. |
|
|
|
|
A committee is being formed to get this done.
I'm getting awfully sick of people complaining about the forum's BTC... ~57% of the forum's money is from ads, not donations. Perhaps 20% is from people who donated when BTC had very little value, and they (and I) thought that the forum software would be forthcoming. I apologize for taking so long, but my waiting has increased the purchasing power of this money by 500+%. The rest is from people who mostly just wanted the Donator/VIP label, and knew that the forum software was unlikely to appear soon. This is only an issue at all because my good management of the forum's finances resulted in a gigantic stash of money.
|
|
|
|
Currently, trust scores are calculated in this way: scam_reports = total unique users who report scamming
reports = total positive ratings
btc = total BTC from positive ratings
unique_reports = total unique users who posted positive ratings
oldest = timestamp of the oldest positive trust rating
latest_scam = timestamp of the latest scam rating
scam_multiplier = 1
# recent scam = bigger negative score
if(current_time - latest_scam < 7 days)
scam_multiplier += 1.5
# new member = bigger negative score
if(current_time - oldest < 60 days)
scam_multiplier += 3
months = months since oldest
total = reports + btc/50 # 50 BTC = 1 report
# long-term con men
if(total > 0 && scam_reports > 4)
scam_multiplier += (scam_reports / total) * 50
# Approximately limit the number of points each person can contribute each month
subtotal = min(2*unique_reports * months, total)
# Newer users have smaller point limits
limited_total = min(subtotal, 10*months) / 10
score = min((limited_total * months - scam_reports * scam_multiplier), 150)
This kind of sucks. Any suggestions on how to improve it? I'd prefer to avoid looping through all of a user's ratings because this is much slower than just using aggregates and single-row queries, but this server can probably handle it if necessary. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
