Able to log in with Wine?
Wine may run Windows apps under Linux, Mac OSX, & BSD
We do not support Wine, and it will not currently work. No shit dude, it's only about 3 posts back where me and NLNico are reporting that it's not working. Anyway, I'll probably keep playing with it, I'm still not seeing any errors, just that the client gets to Init15 and then exits with return code 0. We are seeing what we can do to make Wine implementation easier before we post a bounty on it.
I think NLNico already put his own bounty on it. Anyway, if you guys have extra programming bandwidth, maybe get that android client going. Or browser based. As soon as you have something other than WINDOZE ONLY you'll have a lot more players. I have an android phone and a million Unix based OSes, Windows is pretty much the one OS that I can't run. And, as we have discussed above, WINE sux. |
|
|
|
I'm going to go ahead and bite the bullet and try it with Wine. I haven't used wine in years, so no promises, but wish me luck. I agree with the sentiment that the public support is lacking and tbh sometimes in the wrong tone of voice  I feel like Seals and even first months of SWC, this was better. I don't underestimate how time-consuming and difficult it is to get a proper poker site running though, so much of respect overall for you guys(!!) But as a relatively small site (not like PS) I think the public "support" is important to keep players happy too. Personally I would love to see the PC client working on Wine. I feel like it is really possible with some libraries/configs but I don't have the knowledge about it. I would be actually willing to donate 0.1 BTC to the person that gives me proper instructions to get it easily running for me with Wine (not much, but I'm just a hobby player.) IMO even SWC could put some bounty up for that. Perhaps someone is willing to take the time to mess around with the Wine errors and come up with a solution, if there is some okay bounty for it. Because AFAIK the linux client would still take time, and with easy Wine instructions, perhaps it can bring in a few extra players. Should be worth it imo. In theory if that person finds out the PC client needs some small adjustments to work, it could be even possible imo. EDIT: I can't even find the errors yet. For me, starting the client shows a splash screen the the application exits. Here is the output: tspacepilot@computer:~/.wine/dosdevices/c:/users/tspacepilot/Application Data/SwCPoker$ env WINEPREFIX="/home/tspacepilot/.wine" wine C:\\windows\\command\\start.exe /Unix /home/tspacepilot/.wine/dosdevices/c:/users/tspacepilot/Start\ Menu/Programs/SwC\ Poker/SwC\ Poker\ Client.LNK
tspacepilot@computer:~/.wine/dosdevices/c:/users/tspacepilot/Application Data/SwCPoker$ PokerUpdate starting. C:\users\tspacepilot\Application Data\SwCPoker\PokerUpdate.exe PokerUpdate.exe
Number of args: 1
Temp folder: C:\users\tspacepilot\Temp\SwCPokerUpdate\
show splash
GetLatestProductVersion( https://www.swcpoker.eu/downloads/ )
Latest Version is 1.0.0.21
extra line
CheckUpdate: PokerUpdate.exe
getVersion for C:\users\tspacepilot\Application Data\SwCPoker\PokerUpdate.exe
File Version: 1.0.0.21
Installed Version is 1.0.0.21
Installed Version NUmber 2125463552
latest version 16777237 Installed Version 16777237
stage2
CheckUpdate: swcclient.exe
getVersion for C:\users\tspacepilot\Application Data\SwCPoker\swcclient.exe
File Version: 1.0.0.21
Installed Version is 1.0.0.21
Installed Version NUmber 2125463552
latest version 16777237 Installed Version 16777237
run the program. update is done
PokerUpdate normal shutdown
WSAStartup
Init Step 1
Init Step 2
Init Step 3
Init Step 4
Init Step 5
Init Step 6
Init Step 7
Init Step 8
Init Step 9
Init Step 10
Init Step 11
Init Step 12
Init Step 13
Init Step 14
C:\users\tspacepilot\Application Data\SwCPoker\swcclient.exe
got version
File Version: 1.0.0.21
Init Step 15
So what happens after Init Step 15? Why don't I see any errors? |
|
|
|
I've answered the Android question so many times, but I'll answer it for you again: we want it to be out as soon as possible but we don't have an ETA. When I have more info I will give it to you.
We are chomping at the bit after being away from seals and bitcoin poker for so long now ... |
|
|
|
Do you support TLS 1.2 SSL ?
I am trying to use your API for an IOS project and i get SSL errors.
Maybe post your ssl errors? |
|
|
|
Seems like this must not work on all browsers/OS's. I just tried it on firefox on debian and again in chromium and I didn't get the pop-up in either browser.
Debian 8 w/ iceweasel 31.8.0 shows the popup, Debian 8 w/ Chromium 44.0.2.24... shows it, Ubuntu 14.04. LTS Desktop w/ Firefox 41.0 shows it. The "arrow" looks a bit odd like a questionmark on all systems. I dunno, I'm using iceweasel on debian 8 and I'm not seeing it. Maybe I'm doing it wrong. Maybe it's my settings?! |
|
|
|
Why multibit send change to other used addresses, I want to keep it in the same...
Address resuse brings up a bunch of privacy concerns, these have been linked not only to the privacy of the individual(s) reusing addresses, but it has been argued that these privacy concerns end up affecting the entire network, leading to fungibility issues (potentially). Anyway, discussion of these has lead to most modern wallets not reusing addresses. FWIW, my older version of multibit sends change back to the same address, so how this works really depends on your version of multibit. |
|
|
|
|
I've always assumed this is because there are more and more transactions as we get closer to the current block. Bitcoin wasn't very popular in 2011, and so on. Blocks from late 2014 forward start getting pretty big, then, with the "stress tests" of 2015, we've seen a lot more transactions than we used to.
|
|
|
|
I don't think this mattered very much to Vod. He has a solid history of not conducting any meaningful amount of research prior to leaving negative trust against someone (or in this case doxing someone), and when he is called out on such negative trust with the lack of evidence, he simply trolls them until they leave.
Why would this case be any different?
Let's see what Quickseller has to say about Vod, historically:
I will un-exclude Vod since he is gone and his ratings are very helpful to many people. My only concern was his rating against Armis, however I can "manually" ignore this.
Edit: the vast majority of the I hate Vod/quickseller/tomatocage threads are made by scammers.
haha wow that is a lot of negative feedback. Well I guess we now know who was behind all those spam negatives that Vod got not long ago. None of them have any credibility though, especially considering that they all have negative trust
I am glad to see that people are still trolling Vod, over a month after he left - this must mean that he did a good job at stopping scammer
My experience with Vod is that he is generally a reasonable person,
Here's a fun one: Seems that most people who feel Vod needs to be removed
are people that have received negative trust from Vod.
Just sayin.
I am fairly certain that if vod is removed then someone will step in and negative trust everyone that he gave negative trust to It gets better: I agree that Vod is sometimes a little aggressive when dealing with people. I wouldn't say that he is entirely to blame as the people he is generally aggressive with tend to attempt a campaign (or in this case campaigns) against Vod. I do however consider him to be fair with his ratings most of the time (as in 99.9%+).
I think a lot of the "Vod drama" would go stop if he were to simply "walk away" once the person he is dealing with starts things like personal attacks and trolling him.
Vod should not be removed from Default trust list as he has way too many people negative rated as scammers and he puts in a lot of time and effort into preventing scams. There are few other, reputable people on here that are willing to put in this much effort into protecting the community.
Lets finish with this one: Don't get me wrong, I very much respect and admire VOD. I just think it is funny as to what lengths people go to try to "get back at" VOD for giving them negative trust and ruining their scam attempt.
QS, you've come a long way from "respect and admire", what happened? |
|
|
|
Just been on your website maybe I'm blind or stupid but is there or where is the Android client ?
The Android client is still being developed. The only way to currently play is through the downloadable PC Client. Dang it I was looking forward to playing it on the move like I use to when getting the train back and forth from work. Me too. And with no browser option either, I haven't been able to play bitcoinpoker at a respectable house since approx Jan. |
|
|
|
|
It seems that a lot of the campaigns these days want to pay to an account you have on their website, then you have to login and withdrawal. Sometimes that involves extra steps like giving out a phone number (in the case of bit-x) or other. I know that I'm only interested in campaigns that are willing to pay to a btc address. I wonder if it's worth it to add another column to the table. I guess there are already a lot of columns, so maybe not. But it's just an idea.
|
|
|
|
Shorena is incredibly knowledgable about this forum, but I thin khis answer could be improved with just a few notes. I searched for a topic that explains this but i didn't find anything. So can someone explain how the trust settings work?
I can give it a shot. I know i'm on default trust, i'm not sure who sat me on it.
Profile -> Trust -> Trust Settings -> Hierarchical view (at the bottom) -> search for your name -> turns out you are escrow.ms's list. Here I just want to clarify that you are not on "default trust" you're on the trust list of someone on default trust. People often call this default trust level 2. It's kinda like being on the default trust list because the defaut settings have people's trust lists set to depth=2. Anyway, the term "default trust" gets used in more than one sense so I thought I'd try to clarify that. There's the account "DefaultTrust" which is trusted by default in peoples trust settings. There's the depth=2, which is also a default setting. That leads to the notion of "being on default trust" being someone ambiguous, sometimes people use it to mean that your trust ratings appear by default on a newbie account as "trusted feedback" (ie, level 1 and level 2). Other times people use it to mean that you're trusted directly by the DefaultTrust account (which is sometimes called level 1). When i rate someone then this rating is visible for everyone.
Yes and it influences their overal trust score, unless someone explicitly removed you or escrow.ms from their list. All ratings are always visible for everyone. But users can decide whether a particular rating is "trusted" or "untrusted" based on their trust lists. Being on the trust list of someone trusted by default trust (ie, being on default trust level 2) means that your ratings are shown as "trusted" for all users who have not changed anything about their trust settings. There's really no such thing as "overall score" which is universally available. Each person sees the trust score of an individual based on who's on their trust list and what depth it's set at. Does my rating change the trust lists i have?
No. Then, in trust settings you see a list with depths and names. And you can enter usernames with a trust depth level.
So can i set someone on default trust when iam on default trust?
Depends. The default depth is level 2 thus only those on level 1 can add people to the trust network as most people will see it. Right. But I use depth 3 (for now) and so if you add people to your trust list, I will see the ratings of the people you have added in the "trusted feedback" section and those ratings will count towards the trust scores I see under people names. Also, if someone adds you directly to their trust list and keeps depth 2 then those people will also see the ratings of those you have added in their "trusted feedback" section. If not, is when i set someone on level 0 default trust that this person is most trusted? Level 4 is trusted?
Level 0 for you is your personal list, its those that you put on your list. By default thats only the user "DefaultTrust". Level 4 is only considered trusted if you change the settings accordingly. I would like to know what the consequences would be when i play around with these settings.
For others? None. For you, depends on the changes. Increasing the level will add a high amount of people. Adding people to the list while keeping the depth on level 2 will not only set those people (lvl 0) on the list, but also those on their list (lvl1) and those (lvl2) on the list of those (lvl1) on the list of the person (lvl0) you added to your list. -snip-
Default Trust ist Level 1? Only theymos is level 0?
Theymos is on level 1. DefaultTrust is on 0 Though when i set people on trust levels like 1 or so, then this means i will see their ratings the same way like i will see the ratings of everyone on default trust.
But what i wonder, when i set people on higher trust levels, does it matter to others does it matter only to me who is seeing the trust ratings those persons gave with higher importance than before?
You can not set people on a specific level. You can set people on your list or explicitly remove people from your list (e.g. ~shorena will remove all my ratings no matter why I show up in your personal trust network). You can also set the depth, but its the same for everyone on your list. As long as you are not on the trust list of the account "DefaultTrust" and thus end up on most peoples list on level 1 your personal list does not matter for most other people. The exception are those that increased the depth. Right, but I believe this is very problematic. SebJu is doing the forum a favor (one which everyone should do) by looking into his trust settings and adding and removing people from his trust list based on his experiences with those people. People who are not on default trust level 1 (in my opinion) definitely should be making individual trust lists so that when someone adds them to their trust list they're not just getting a cycle on defaulttrust. Imagine, if I decide that I trust Shorena and add him to my trust list and it turns out that he doesn't have anyone in his trust list except DefaultTrust then all I've done is add a cycle to my trust network (assuming I already trusted defaulttrust). If Shorena take the time to build a trust list of people based on his experiences with those people, then, by trusting him, I actually get an enriched network. I hope this helps. |
|
|
|
Neotox you must have missed this post.  https://bitcointalk.org/trust.txt.xzI made it so that'll update every Saturday at 02:52 UTC. -> is "trusts", and -/> is "excludes". Only people with at least 1 post are included. If someone has never touched their trust list, then their trust in DefaultTrust is not shown. If this list updated every Saturday, where it could be found? link above refers only Downloads Old. regards -zz What I understand is that https://bitcointalk.org/trust.txt.xz will be the latest. You don't find that that's the case? |
|
|
|
Confirmed same here when I checked this morning, but now I don't see the same behavior. Was some fix implemented? I also noticed that poster number 3 in this thread went from a username of the empty string to a username of "bad_char1".
I sent a PM to theymos and BadBear with a list of accounts with that character asking them to rename (or delete) those accounts. Maybe they did because of that or realized it by themselves. I also noticed those accounts were temporarily under theymos' trust list so I guess he was checking it. My fake account was also renamed to bad_char13. It seems to be working fine now. Got it. That also explains why they were showing up by default for a moment there. Thanks Ecua for filling me in (and thanks admins for fixing it). |
|
|
|
|
Confirmed same here when I checked this morning, but now I don't see the same behavior. Was some fix implemented? I also noticed that poster number 3 in this thread went from a username of the empty string to a username of "bad_char1".
|
|
|
|
If he is not running bots, then you would receive the benefit of him chatting with other customers/players of your which would in effect cause them to gamble more, hence the benefit.
Quickseller! You just outed the Encrypted Malice (TM) that I sent to dooglus one dark and stormy night. I hatched a plan to chat on his site so that other customers/players could enjoy the benefit of my cutting wit and entertaining banter with the evil part being that once they enjoyed this, they would gamble more so me and dooglus can do mad profits!!!!!!!!!!!!! The fact that you were unable to get they keyserver link right on your signature for a good while is an indication that you really do not know what you are doing when it comes to PGP, so I think it would be unlikely that you changed the time/date on your computer prior to creating your PGP key.
I wonder what exactly you were needing to encrypt less then 24 hours prior to dooglus blindly supporting you. It seems very fishy to me. I would not be surprised if it was something malicious
Damn, you just made me spew beer all over my keyboard  You still got it, man. That shit is hilarious. |
|
|
|
tspacepilot locked the topics he made about the matter as from what it seems he now considers that it's taken the right turn.
Actually, you said that. I try not to talk about myself in third person [insert quickseller sockpuppet joke here ] Completely agree with that statement. Those threads were a huge circle jerk caused by Quickseller pointing baseless accusations at people and defending himself against all like a madman. Not only did you help the forum receive less spam by locking those topics, but you're also indirectly helping Quickseller drift away from absurd narcissism. I really hope that he's only digging himself a bottomless pit.
I take your point. I'm not sure if your optimism about QS' response is well-founded. But time will tell. |
|
|
|
tspacepilot locked the topics he made about the matter as from what it seems he now considers that it's taken the right turn. I'd expect QS to pretentiously call this out as if it was a crime.
That thread was created in order to call attention to QS' abuses. I'd say that goal has been more than acheived so why provide him a platform to continue trolling me on. Of course he's welcome to make his own "TSP is Scammer" thread and I'm sure that will get a lot of attention.  In any case, this thread was supposed to be about QS' accusations of Vod. It seems that as that ran out of steam, to keep attention from swinging back to himself, now he's trying to throw shit at dooglus. I wonder who's next? I'm not on default trust so I'm not really worth it, let's see who QS slings his outlandish speculation at next! |
|
|
|
Putting a negative feedback and explicitly saying you're never going to remove it - regardless of any future events - is questionable to some though.
TSP has not made a single factual argument as to why the negative rating(s) he has are inappropriate, Here are couple of arguments, I'm sure you'll just ignore them though, so maybe this is for the benefit of others: 1) I never scammed anyone. 2) I have a long history of not causing problems 3) All of my negative ratings are from you (and your sockpuppets) and tradefortress 4) Tradefortress is a known scammer and liar 5) Looks like you are too! 1) you scammed coinchat for ~.5 BTCYou've never come up with any evidence of this. And I don't have any evidence of it either (because it didn't happen). This is where someone is supposed to say "proof or gtfo". 2) except when someone calls you out as a scammer, then you sling mud at them, harass them and stalk them until you can find something even remotely negative, even if it is based on bogus evidence.
If you mean when someone falsely accuses me that I stand up for myself, then okay. You were the one who kept bringing your alts and sockpuppets into this. If you hadn't been sockpuppeting with panthers52, I would have never uncovered your escrow scam. 3) no. You have a negative rating from at least one other person then myself and TF It's not clear that TF wasn't controlling that Wardrick account. But it's nice of you to finally admit to all of your sockpuppet ratings. 4) okay. What is your point. The point is the that the kind of sources you're relying on are known to be completely untrustworthy. 5) nope.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1171059.0https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1174622.0
I think we're done here. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
