Whoops!  Looks like you're right and those who want to run core as a wallet won't be able to do pruning mode for now.  In any case, I guess it's already clear that core isn't the most convenient (it might be the mose useful, though).


I think Amph is talking about Andreas Schildbach's Bitcoin Walet for Android.

It's not a tree, it's not even a DAG.  It's a graph with many cycles.  I think you could reconstruct the graph, by putting different users into the trust box and using "hierarchical view" then writing down the links.  Obviously this would be incredibly time consuming.  I wonder if Theymos could tell us about how he exported the trust graph earlier and if/whether that would be an easy function to make public.  I really enjoyed seeing the graph and the visualizations that people made of it.

Does this mean that Jonald should delete and repost his reply to Wardick's feedback in order to re-establish the original order of events?  It's unclear to me if Wardick is retracting his threat to keep on editing:



Jonald_Fyookball, wanna try it one more time to see if Wardick is done playing games?

@Wardick, do you actually have any evidence for your rating?  Or are you merely basing it on the discredited word of TradeFortress and Quickseller?  If the former, would you mind discussing it?  If the latter, perhaps you ought to reconsider given those people's reputations.  So far you just seem to want to insult and or threaten me.  Would you care to elaborate on your position?

Blazr, I have to respectfully disagree.  I think you've got something a little backwards.  If the escrow and one of the two parties are the same person, isn't that the definition of collusion?  How can I fail to collude with myself?  I am myself and my interests are not separate from me nor is my communication separate from me.  How can a "third-party" escrow communicate with one party privately if the other party is also the escrow.

There seems to be two schools of though here, one espoused by QS and Tradefortress (and maybe, hedgingly, TC), which is that when you choose X as escrow, X guarantees on X's reputation that the deal will go smoothly.  The other school of thought, seemingly held by nearly everyone else, is tha an escrow X gurantees to provide a neutral, third-party mediator to manage the deal and any conflicts which might arise.

I personally cannot understand the QS and Tradefortress' opinion here that an escrow is guaranteeing on their own reputation that a deal will go smoothly.  Surely the escrow cannot be held responsible if one party or the other fails to pay, or fails to send, or sends the wrong amount, or any other failure.  Surely what the escrow is guranteeing is that in those cases where some dispute arises, that the escrow will act neutrally to resolve the dispute, or else cancel the deal amicably.  I don't see how it could be any more clear that an escrow who isn't without a conflict of interest is critical for this role.  The idea that you could escrow for yourself and not be in collusion with yourself seems, pardon me, like nonsense.


So, QS, for you, if a person steals from you and you don't realize it then nothing was wrong with that?  You still can't seem to see that if someone pays you to provide a service as a neutral third party, and you hid the fact that you weren't a neutral third party, and then you went ahead and received money for that service, that that is clearly dishonest and stealing.  It doesn't matter if you duped your victim completely and the walked away without realizing it.

Finally, I have to tell you brought this on yourself, if you hadn't continued to pull in alt-after-alt into that crazy personal vendetta you have against me then I would never found your alts.  I don't generally look into any of this stuff.  The fact that you couldn't keep your personal vendettas and your escrow-scam separate is what led to your downfall here.  If you could calm that hot temper, you might have gotten away with it perpetually.  Who knows?  That doesn't make it right to do so, but it's true that no one was really looking.

Finally, after the pages and pages that QS has written to me about alts scams and fake reputation building by doing micro trades here and there to build trust, one has to acknowledge at least a small bit of irony, as it seems like that's exactly what you were doing here.  You continue to build reputation for your various accounts by doing small, risckless trades where the other person has to send first because they don't know you're the escrow.  What you were planning on using all these account for beyond just picking on people and sockpuppeting your hatred, I don't know.  Nevertheless, some of the irony in this has to be acknolwedged.

Here's one of the many posts where QS explains the trust-farming-scam he was actually apparrantely pulling himself: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1163292.msg12303462#msg12303462
Here's one that's chock full of irony as he pulls in a new alt in the thread about his longstanding abuse of me and he uses the sockpuppet to, wait for it, accuse me using sockpuppets! https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1129059.msg12312926#msg12312926

I think QS' true character has finally been revealed to the masses, and that's probably a good thing for the community here.

That doesn't work for me because my computer is a 4 year old ACER ASPIRE 10 inch laptop with an early 2 core AMD APU.  Ie, a low powered machine which has great battery life and works wonderful to run debian with LXDE, but start up a VM and try run WINDOZE and you may as well go make a cup of coffee every time you touch the mouse while you wait to see the screen register it.

@Jonald & @Blazedout419, I think this quote by theymos from page one means that leaving a positive to offset a negative you disagree with is just fine (emphasis mine):

It looks to me like W' created a "border between pre-and-post controversy" and that JF replied and that's within the rules.  But W is deleting and readding in order to create a different order of events, which Theymos specifically said you shouldn't be doing.  You might say that JF is trying to restore the original order, although clearly they don't need to keep going back and forth.  To JF's credit he hasn't deleted and readded again, but has merely called out W for threating to continue to add and readd his feedback (he said up thread he'd be adding more).  So, the real question is to Wardrick and Badbear: to W the question is what sort of nonsense are you up to?  Are you even the original W that Badbear added last year?  Could you sign an old bitcoin address to prove it?  To Badbear the question is whether he vouches for these kinds of behaviors and posts.  It may be that given the dramatic threads this weekend regarding QS, BB doesn't really want to get pulled into acting rashly, and that would make sense.  In any case, that's my take on things.

I'd like to correct that "has been" to "continues to be".  I was targeted for a very long time by someone who finally revealed his true colors to people with power.  Let's not forget that the reason I found that alt account he was using for his escrow scheme is because it was the 4th in a line of sockpuppets he was using to justify his abusive rating on me.  It's very strange to me that as soon as one accuser becomes discredited another one pops out of the woodwork, making even less attempt to pretend to be a neutral party acting on the behalf of the community, Wardrick's posts seem to be straight-up harrassment combined with threats of doxxing and hidden control of default trust (have you looked at what this guy is writing since he reappears?).  Certainly most of this is bluster, but it's not pretty and I appreciate folks calling attention to it.

Also, please keep in mind that I have never traded here.  Who knows, someday I might trade something here but I'm certainly not a service provider/escrow/seller/buyer.  I say this to emphasize that I don't need a green trust rating and I'm not trying to pump up my trust rating or anything else.  I do, however, object to abusive negative ratings being put on my account and the fact that Wardick seems to be continuing the tradition of harasing me based on TF's discredited accusations is certainly shameful behavior.

Theymos has explained why recent feedback throws the trust rating into ? ??, then we have Wardick having edited his feedback back and forth between two texts three times now in 36 hours.  That certainly seems like a blatant attempt from Wardick to game the system.  I understand that you don't think outing Quickseller's scheme should have brought so many trust ratings to my account, but I kinda think that if Wardrick weren't trying to manipulate the system and play games, then people wouldn't be standing up for me.

You know about the issues that blockchain.info android wallet had with using random.org for it's seed and basically giving the same address to everyone: http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/05/crypto-flaws-in-blockchain-android-app-sent-bitcoins-to-the-wrong-address/  (other discussions of this can be found on this very forum).  I don't know if I'd recommend and app with a reputation like that.

Do you guys have different race classes for your different starting faucet amounts/levels?

Posting it here is step 1.  The idea is that if your account was hacked or stolen, you could then sign a message from this address which you posted in order to prove that you were the original owner.  If you can't sign a message from the address, then you'll never be able to use the address for account recovery, which is sorta the point.

Right, but if the counterparty doesn't know that they're sending first (because they think they're sending to a neutral, third-party) then that seems like a pretty dishonest move.  If you're collecting an escrow fee from that counterparty then it's all the more shady.  Just my opinion.

Right, although if Ken's proposal is accepted, you won't want to write 0E3F anymore, but use the new codepoint instead.

To you guys who are saying that core is very heavy with storage space, I believe the new version 0.11 now supports pruning mode, so the storage space shouldn't be as much of an issue as it used to be.

At one point, theymos produced a large graph file of the trust network, I don't think there's any public tool to try to do that (but I could be wrong).  To see if you're on anyone's trust list anywhere it seems like you'd need to export the whole graph somehow.

There may be other ways to do it, but the easiest one I know about is to look at your trust settings page and add the person you're curious about to your trust list.  Then refresh the page and click "hierarchichal view" down at the bottom of the page.  After that, each person in your trust list's appears with their trust list indented below their name, if you're in their trust list, you'll find yourself there.

So you've decided to inherit the persecution of tspacepilot job, eh?  Nice legacy: Tradefortress --> Quickseller --> Wardrick!

This is a classic mistake and if these were the early 2000s, we'd say okay.  Windows hegemony used to rule and people used to use windows.  No doubt a few people still do this.  But seriously, in these days of android, linux servers, OSX, iphone, etc you really can't target a produce at a windows architechture and expect to work out from there because, for one thing, we all know that windows doesn't play nicely with standards.  That's their MO.


I hope you're right.  I miss playing poker on my bus (sad 2015 so far).

To clarify, I think the number in round brackets is the sum of inclusions - exclusions.  So, if you see (-1) it means that one more person at a given level in the hierarchy has excluded that person than that has added them.  0 means inclusions and exclusions are equal.