-snip-
I find it fascinating thought that buying an account for the purpose of scamming does not seem to ROI.
There's no actual evidence here whether it does or doesn't. This is the usual QS masterbation story, he's linking us to a thread in which he follows up on a Stunna accusation and takes credit for it in order to inflate his ego. It's anecdotal at best, and given that all QS anecdotes are about how great he is in his own eyes, it's certainaly a questionable anecdote w.r.t. facts. Be that as it may, but is there any evidence that its the other way around? The scam ponzi investor based games section is filled by newbie accounts. Among ranks, the newbies will most likely have the highest percentage of negative ratings. The loan section alone produces them daily. It certainly makes sense that buying an account for a scam does not ROI. Considering how accounts are valued as collateral items in the loaning section, the amount you could get with an account is typically in the "I could just sell it quickly and still make a little profit" area. I just wonder how this pans out so nicely. How to people know how much is an account worth, its not like there is an official price list. |
|
|
|
Is there any other real benefit of 1 minute blocks other than quicker confirmation when depositing to exchange/gambling site or alike?
Even that is unlikely. Exchanges already require a different number of confirmations based on the altcoin's block confirmation time. Anyone expecting exchanges to maintain the "6 confirmations" status quo if Bitcoin switched to a 1-minute confirmation time is delusional. I think thats very likely as well. Bitstamp requires 6 confirmations IIRC, mainly because they allow you to trade directly with other users. The other user might want to withdraw instantly, thus bitstamp has to make as sure as they can that they actually received the coins. With 6 confirmations a blockchain reorg is very unlikely. Should the time between blocks be lowered along with the difficulty, they would probably require 60 confirmations and the "speed-up" is minimal as you would only profit from the lower variance. I also dont understand why people are so demanding when it comes to confirmation times. Considering the alternatives in any situation Bitcoin is extremely fast. I doubt any stock broker allows live trades via their system 60 minutes after you created a wire transfer. |
|
|
|
no no i mean the payouts for the avatar campaign not the sig one  its once every 4 weeks i think so i just wanted to know when Sorry, dont know, but isnt there are seperate thread for that? |
|
|
|
oh cool thanks for the clearing up mate i felt like i had to get restricted there for a sec Nobody is restricted to anything. Anyone is free to post wherever they wish if they are participating. We will simply count as we see value for our campaign. In case we see that participants are posting only to increase their number to get higher pay, then there is a problem and we are strict about that. agreed mate  btw when do payments for the avatar campaign come out ? ive been there since the beginning so any etc on the first payment for that one mate :? Count stop is on tuesday, payout is on wednesday typically. |
|
|
|
BTW, congrats to Shorena this week who is, as far as I can tell, gonna be the first one to claim the bonus from Loyalty Points!
You can't tell. There are 3 who will claim it Okay, congrats to all three of them then. I just note that Sho has the highest amount of LP and I thought I would point it out.  Thanks and gratzs to the others as well. |
|
|
|
-snip-
i want my original account ie. vishwaratna it bears my name on it...i dont want my name to be associated with ban type of things...
What makes you think that further breaking the rules will help you in that regard? Your posts here: Another suggestion, I might be wrong though.
If you just put Bitcoin address or PGP key, it is easy to impose another person. A signed message is better.
Is exposing your bitcoin address is risk?? and here: hi.. BTCitcointalkersjust wanna know is it possible to create a custom bitcoin wallet address..  if yes then HOW ??are clearly not discussing your previous ban. |
|
|
|
-snip-
Fortunately, IBLT decouples the link between block size and propagation speed, although at extra cpu cost, and is likely to be most effective when the average block size is >10MB at least, a number of years away yet.
Still, bigger blocks should come with IBLT or the higher limit will very likely be pointless. If miners still keep mining 750KByte blocks because they are afraid the longer propagation rate the raised blocksize limit is not going to change anything. Regarding prime time. People already have to wait for confirmation even though they pay a fee durring certain periods. Timezone is CEST.  How about less talk and get on with it... while we're at it reward the minors... why so difficult?
What? How would you even determine that a certain wallet is under control by a minor? |
|
|
|
There is a wide selection of wallets -> https://bitcoin.org/en/choose-your-walletIts impossible to suggest a single client to everyone. It depends on your preference. These -> https://bitcoin.org/en/you-need-to-knowhttps://bitcoin.org/en/secure-your-walletarticles should also get you started on the basics. If you have a specific question you can always ask here or use the search function. Chances are high someone already had the question. -snip-
And bitcoin wallets, there are so many. i recommend "bitcoin core". But only if you have the required hard disk space and not the slowest internet connection.
-snip-
Keep in mind that bitcoin core also requires you to create regular backups to avoid losing coins. Roughly every 30-50 transactions send would be good, due to the limited keypool. |
|
|
|
-snip-
the value of an account to the seller does not matter. It could be worth 1 btc for example but the owner only values it at .75 btc, they obviously won't sell it for the lower amount, conversely if someone wrote to value their account for 1 btc but the market would only support a value of .5 btc then the account would either not sell or would sell for less then what the owner values it at.
My point is that the value of an account of ultimately determined by the market. People can give a value to their account if they want however any rational decision will be based off of market prices.
While its certainly true that you cant create a working asking price based on your personal feeling of a price. If my selling point is not met however I am not selling at all and thus increase the price of other accounts on the market because I lower the available supply while the demand stays the same. @salty- I'd be interested in seeing your calculations and no I don't mind reading your walls of text.
2nd BTW, good job holding back on the insults! You're making progress, it seems.
No reason to start the bickering from your side now. Who says that no default trust accounts have never been sold? I can tell you for sure that this account was on default trust when it was sold; I got it removed once it tried to participate in a scam. I can also say with a good amount of certainty that it was purchased for roughly 2.5 btc and probably was able to scam for roughly zero. Apparently I did not think this through in my thought experiment. Maybe because I would consider the sale in that manner a scam already. I dont see it as enabling someone to scam, but a scam in itself. It would be deceiving towards those that put trust into me as the holder of the account. A sale without proper precautions would be to misuse the trust. I find it fascinating thought that buying an account for the purpose of scamming does not seem to ROI. |
|
|
|
-snip- I didn't talk of 7 days, but yes you are right  . It is a really big confusion the activity system, maybe less time we are thinking of it and less trouble we will have. Looked like it  -snip-
31 weeks * 14 points = 434 activity points.
|
|
|
|
-snip-
1 Activity point * day , so it is basically 1 point per day max 14 points each 2 weeks (if you post at least one post every day). This is how the activity works (in the easiest way).
Its still 14 time points in 14 days, not in 7 days. Besides the simplification of 1 activity per day is wrong in certain cases. E.g. an account created today would get possibly 28 points for the next 15 days. I think most confusions about how activity works is that people do not see the difference between time points and activity. |
|
|
|
I think it is possible, if we count from the 1st March of 2014 to now (1st May of 2015)... we obtain = 436 days. 1 activity point * day, so the account has 434 as activity (there is not wrong in that situation).
31 weeks * 14 points = 434 activity points.
You dont get 14 activity per week, you get 14 time points per 14 day period. Considering that the account is from March 1st their first activity period would have started Feb. 18th 2014 (unix time: 1392710000). With the current period included thats 33 periods * 14 = 462 possibly activity. Assuming they posted in every single period. A single post tomorrow would add another 14 time points. |
|
|
|
-snip-
I guess this is right, but it's also in his/her interest to neg-rep as many accounts as possible, in order to increase demand for farmed accounts. In my opinion, account-farming and default trust are in a clear conflict of interest.
That is a point. I dont think that the amount of time QS invests in haunting (not a typo) scammers is worth the coins earned through sales to said scammers. I would like to think that the majority of their customers are looking for a spot in a signature campaign. Arguably this would make their actions against spammers a conflict of interest as well. Every spammer banned is a possible future customer. The new account will probably get banned as well, because the do not learn the lesson or dont care because they still ROI. I personally think its part of beeing human to contradict itself. |
|
|
|
-snip-
Indeed, and this is basically what Shorena argues above. That because we can buy-and-sell accounts then of course we can buy-and-sell trusted accounts. But I hope it's become quite clear that this makes the trust system effectively a system in which we can buy and sell trust.
Just to make this clear. It does - at least to me - but I dont have a solution. I think that's what the OP was driving at, and I think it's a well-reasoned point. I'm not sure how/why buying and selling trust isn't just as "okay" as buying and selling accounts. As far as I can tell, it's effectively the same thing.
As it was argued by SaltySpitoon, the difference is that one (selling account) is commonly accepted by the community while the other is not (selling trust directly). @Shorena in re whether or not default trust accounts are bought and sold. You may be right that it doesn't happen often, but how would we really know? I don't understand what you mean about "there'd be no incentive", it seems to me that if you have a default trust account and you have a buyer willing to pay a lot for it, the incentive is there, whether or not the two people reach a deal is some sort of empirical matter.
Yes, exactly. Lets just assume that I want to cash out big time here. I would probably start with spamming up to the max number of posts I can get payment for, Bit-X is currently not limiting the number of post I think. I might even be possible to convince marco to offer me a special deal and get paid in advance. I do write constructive posts, that is somewhat established. The next step would be to take a loan without collateral and just offer my credibility, which would probably not be worth much, but a least a bit. Finally selling the account at the same time or shortly afterwards secretly on another board (hackerboard maybe?). The sale would ofc include the private keys to addresses I posted in the past to make sure the new owner can perfectly argue (with signed message) that they are still the same person and that the loan was done by a hacker. Considering that the loaned amount would not be much, they would probably curse a bit and just repay it to stay on DefaultTrust. I should probably add my PGP key to convince Quickseller and others as well as every message I every received encrypted by them. A complete all around shorena sell out, mail, (empty) wallet, PGP key, german lessons, everything included. I have next to no incentive to tell BadBear that I am about to sell the account and it should be removed from DefaultTrust. In fact I have an incentive to do the opposite. I find this very troubling, same as our trolling friend. I do not think that banning the sale of accounts in general is a valid option though. In the above scenario it would not make a difference whether selling the account would be allowed or not. To make this perfectly clear: I have no plans to do what I described above. Its just a thought experiment. Edit: I think my main point is that DefaultTrust or a green rating does not equal trustworthy. |
|
|
|
17LSnHK3LZjNKKKunDW3igCQN2kcWqzL61
|
|
|
|
-snip-
I agree this is a terrible idea. By the way the now centralized TBF would likely become a MSB under US law and be subject to MSB regulations. There is a clear lesson here from what recently happened to Ripple.
Now back to the thread topic. Increasing the 1MB blocksize limit is an absolute must for Bitcoin.
I agree that we need bigger blocks, but just increasing the limit to 20 MB will just push the problem into the future and not solve it. Eventually we will have a "20 MB is too small for a block" problem and the same discussions starts all over again. We also might run into the problem sooner than we expect, because bitcoin is not used uniformly through out the day. There are times with more TX and times with less TX, which is only natural as there are times when people sleep and time when they move their coins around. Thus "30% full on average" might actually be 80% full durring "prime time". IMHO the blocksize limit and the propagation speed are closely linked. As long as miners have a strong incentive to miner small blocks due to higher orphaned rate for big blocks a raised limit alone might not solve the issue at hand. |
|
|
|
I tried everything. Can someone tell me where is stored wallet password, inside wallet.dat file or on some server?
The password is not part of the file in the sense that you can just open the file and look for the password. It is used to encrypt your wallet.dat. It is not stored on any server, unless you saved it there (which you should not). |
|
|
|
One pool allowed zero fees for a time in the past. Something like that should come again. These transactions took their time, but worked. You had to manually configure the fee's hight inside the config.
The default settings for bitcoin core are still to reserve 50Kbyte (or KiB not 100% sure) for transactions without fee. Its just a matter of priority and time you are willing to wait. |
|
|
|
I just testing martingale gambling method.
This is my experience:
After 2 days of gambling I collected 1500 Dogecoins
After 3 days of gambling I lost about 2000 Dogecoins
So I lost because, I have 20x negative times in row.
I expected about 18x or 19x.
Anyway, can anybody tell me what is max negative times in row?
Anybody have same expirience?
I hat 22x in a row in the past and IIRC just-dice had a 32 losing streak for martingale. As PenguinFire said there is no maximum. Its very unlikely to lose 22, 32, 42 or 662 times in a row, but eventually it will happen. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
