I stumbled upon something peculiar. Take blockchair_bitcoin_outputs_20220203.tsv.gz for example: 721577 f2ec8c7f07725959014613a5cf04dde4cf3079c8948bc011298479e751935fc3 11 2022-02-03 01:43:54 51200000 18970.623 bc1qt2kc82kr0wdyyyqns7qyvl377dap69ygzkpwmc witness_v0_scripthash 00145aad83aac37b9a4210138780467e3ef37a1d1488 0 -1
721577 f2ec8c7f07725959014613a5cf04dde4cf3079c8948bc011298479e751935fc3 11 2022-02-03 01:43:54 51200000 18970.623 bc1qt2kc82kr0wdyyyqns7qyvl377dap69ygzkpwmc witness_v0_scripthash 00145aad83aac37b9a4210138780467e3ef37a1d1488 0 -1
721577 f2ec8c7f07725959014613a5cf04dde4cf3079c8948bc011298479e751935fc3 11 2022-02-03 01:43:54 51200000 18970.623 bc1qt2kc82kr0wdyyyqns7qyvl377dap69ygzkpwmc witness_v0_scripthash 00145aad83aac37b9a4210138780467e3ef37a1d1488 0 -1
721577 f2ec8c7f07725959014613a5cf04dde4cf3079c8948bc011298479e751935fc3 12 2022-02-03 01:43:54 51200000 18970.623 bc1qx9jm85e08jasw75g0drr7y2x9xx45xck6xvxhe witness_v0_scripthash 00143165b3d32f3cbb077a887b463f1146298d5a1b16 0 -1
721577 f2ec8c7f07725959014613a5cf04dde4cf3079c8948bc011298479e751935fc3 13 2022-02-03 01:43:54 51200000 18970.623 bc1qmx0eraunssvj9ukel8m40cpt8ez4wxj4t2jn4q witness_v0_scripthash 0014d99f91f793841922f2d9f9f757e02b3e45571a55 0 -1
721577 f2ec8c7f07725959014613a5cf04dde4cf3079c8948bc011298479e751935fc3 13 2022-02-03 01:43:54 51200000 18970.623 bc1qmx0eraunssvj9ukel8m40cpt8ez4wxj4t2jn4q witness_v0_scripthash 0014d99f91f793841922f2d9f9f757e02b3e45571a55 0 -1
721577 f2ec8c7f07725959014613a5cf04dde4cf3079c8948bc011298479e751935fc3 13 2022-02-03 01:43:54 51200000 18970.623 bc1qmx0eraunssvj9ukel8m40cpt8ez4wxj4t2jn4q witness_v0_scripthash 0014d99f91f793841922f2d9f9f757e02b3e45571a55 0 -1
721577 f2ec8c7f07725959014613a5cf04dde4cf3079c8948bc011298479e751935fc3 14 2022-02-03 01:43:54 51200000 18970.623 bc1qr4jgu3t5fnjrcux646kssfmavsw5zftmj4tsc6 witness_v0_scripthash 00141d648e45744ce43c70daaead08277d641d41257b 0 -1
721577 f2ec8c7f07725959014613a5cf04dde4cf3079c8948bc011298479e751935fc3 15 2022-02-03 01:43:54 51200000 18970.623 bc1qw6dnjhw8qjyxtszn950l5zh57x60tm5lcsdtkr witness_v0_scripthash 0014769b395dc7048865c0532d1ffa0af4f1b4f5ee9f 0 -1
721577 f2ec8c7f07725959014613a5cf04dde4cf3079c8948bc011298479e751935fc3 15 2022-02-03 01:43:54 51200000 18970.623 bc1qw6dnjhw8qjyxtszn950l5zh57x60tm5lcsdtkr witness_v0_scripthash 0014769b395dc7048865c0532d1ffa0af4f1b4f5ee9f 0 -1
721577 f2ec8c7f07725959014613a5cf04dde4cf3079c8948bc011298479e751935fc3 15 2022-02-03 01:43:54 51200000 18970.623 bc1qw6dnjhw8qjyxtszn950l5zh57x60tm5lcsdtkr witness_v0_scripthash 0014769b395dc7048865c0532d1ffa0af4f1b4f5ee9f 0 -1 There are many duplicated lines! For the compressed filesize it doesn't matter much, but if I remove them, the number of lines drops by 1,046,856-879,157=167,699! I checked more archives: the older ones have only a few duplicate lines, the newer archives have tens or hundreds of thousands of duplicates. What could be the reason? And worse: it also makes me wonder if other entries could be missing. |
|
|
|
I was thinking very similar recently, based on how many users had previously earnt 10 and 250 merits compared to how many have now. I was trying to find data/charts on how many users had earnt this amount when DT1 eligibility had changed, in order to propose what it should be now, so that DT1 eligibility would remain at the same "difficulty" level. I have data on eligibility: https://loyce.club/trust/ranking/This was archived a month after theymos implemented the current DefaultTrust system: https://archive.ph/PmrZnIt'd be interesting to see how many users would remain eligible if the requirements for DT1 were increased from 10/250 to 100/500 for example. From what I remember, it was intended to have low restrictions, so users who joined later still stand a chance. If anyone can point me towards data earnt user-merit data from DT1 changes it'd be appreciated. My overview of Merit earned (on very large HTML pages) starts here. But it may be easier to just parse the data from merit.all.txt (31 MB). This file has every Merit transaction and the exact time. The eligibility difficulty should be maintained in my opinion, not lowered over time. It's maintained for new users, and gets easier for older users. The alternative would be that new users barely stand a chance (kinda like how they can't catch up on Activity). |
|
|
|
I'm sure people would get suspicious or bitch about how "that post didn't deserve 50 merits!!" and such.
~
I've accumulated enough earned ones that I could probably give 4-5 merits for an average post instead of 2-3. Nobody would object to that, right? When in doubt, read theymos' post: If they complain about amounts, tell them to complain to me. It's best if sources try to exhaust their source allocations, even if it means giving posts higher amounts than is typical. |
|
|
|
I have a seed phrase, can I somehow import it from electrum? I don't think that's possible. You'll have to import all addresses separately. Do I need to do rescan? If the address has a balance: yes. |
|
|
|
After spending a lot of time in Google, I realized that it was about some descriptors I haven't used descriptor wallets yet, but achow101 on Stack Exchange gives this solution: The migration tool has not been implemented yet, and it is not for manually importing keys. Rather it takes an existing wallet and migrates everything in that wallet. As the error message says, descriptor wallets do not support the importprivkey. You will have to use importdescriptors with the private key you want to import as part of the proper descriptor. For example, if you wanted to import the p2wpkh address for a private key, you would make a descriptor of the form wpkh(<privkey>). Then use getdescriptorinfo to get the checksum and create wpkh(<privkey>)#<checksum>, and then use importdescriptors to import that descriptor Or maybe you can still create a New Wallet and untick Descriptor Wallet. |
|
|
|
According to him he has two other accounts on the forum, making three in total. Assuming he is cautious about privacy, the trust lists of the other two are not going to be exactly the same, but presumably some of the members he trusts have a boost in the DT system because he includes them in his trust list three times while he is one person. First, sockpuppets used for DT1-voting will be blacklisted from voting once discovered. I don't know to what extent we should consider this as acceptable. It's not completely unacceptable in my opinion but seems to me morally questionable.
Another thing is if we can not know which are the other two accounts and therefore, even if we consider that including in three trust lists the same person being you one is morally questionable. We can't know for sure indeed. So I checked his Trust inclusions: 8 out of 10 users have more than enough inclusions to not need another "small 10 Merit vote". One user has only 4 more votes than the required 10. That's still 3 other user's votes away from making a difference to the outcome. And there's one user with only one vote, which means there's no sockpuppeting for sure. I don't know what you think about it. I'm pretty sure there are more alt accounts that didn't confirm they're alt accounts. AnotherAlt is open about it, and I don't see much harm done here. |
|
|
|
Plus I'm pretty sure nothing works as intended anymore. Bounty managers don't even care if their participants have red trust, and that ought to tell you something about how the system is viewed by the average user who doesn't give a flying fuck about bitcointalk. The real question is: why does Bitcointalk give a flying fuck about bounty spammers? It's allowed to spam millions of links to spam on social media. And as long as they don't pay something that has real value, but only in tokens they made up by themselves, spamming has no real cost and only benefits to them. I think I'm going to clear my trust list tonight. Just wipe it clean. If you change your mind later on, I have a backup  |
|
|
|
I think it would be a good idea to have a wallet which warns you when you are about to transfer coin to an address owned by one of these taint-scam freaks. That won't work: there's no way to know who owns an unused Bitcoin address. And I don't think this is a feature that belongs in a wallet: a wallet should do what I tell it to do, without complaining. |
|
|
|
What "watch list"? Using ANY mixer definitely WILL put your PUBLIC ADDRESS in a watch list in a database somewhere. Using a centralized exchange could possibly do that too. I'm pretty sure I have a list of all Bitcoin addresses on a watch list, and I'm pretty sure there are also unused addresses on watch lists somewhere. About WasabiWallet, OP's concern is "taint". Wasabi's developers make sure that all UTXOs that enter their pool don't come from questionable sources. Wasabi uses a questionable source to blacklist addresses, while attacking the basics (fungibility) of Bitcoin as electronic cash. They merely want to protect their users from taint. They merely want to maximize their profit, and convincing people their Bitcoins are only fungible if they use Wasabi Wallet is part of that. |
|
|
|
1. To be eligible for DT member, you must have sent 100 feedbacks, otherwise, you are not eligible regardless of how many inclusion you have. I prefer quality over quantity. If the feedback has net positive score of correct/wrong, only then they will be eligible for being in the DT member provided they have met the above #1 criteria. That's going to be very complicated, because with each addition to DT1, everyone's feedback (score) changes again. |
|
|
|
Cool. So at some point in last 6 months or the next 6 months I might withdraw at least one chip of an unknown value from ChipMixer. Feel free to tell me when I do and tell me which chip it is, since obviously you've managed to crack it where everyone else has failed. He'll just watch all chips, and say you're on the list  This is one of the reasons I want to make a graph showing the total number of funded chips over the years. I expect a clear case of "hiding in plain sight". |
|
|
|
oh and chip mixer uses known 'chip' amounts. so its easy to spot the pattern. so when services see random value split into chip value amounts.. thats flagged as a mixer deposit. and then they investigate that persons use of coins prior to deposit. Anyone could make their own chips. Even years before ChipMixer existed, many chip-sized transactions happened. I'm still working on a graph with amounts of chips, but there's a lot of data to analyse. |
|
|
|
i would like to know is its Palgrism if my all posts own a reffence to original source. Plagiarism by definition doesn't provide a reference link. Post a link and you're good. |
|
|
|
Personally I care much more about the value of posts, than the intent on posting Valid point. I don't even mind seeing valuable posts from Twitter here, because I don't use Twitter (and my computer can't even access it). |
|
|
|
they are really watching only about 25 tx an hour with high suspicion Who is "they"? Are they watching us right now? It seems important for you that "they" don't see your transaction, while I'm pretty sure "they" see everything. |
|
|
|
Why not let all users vote against DT1-members instead? At a minimum it should be users who are eligible to vote for DT1 members as well - i.e. the merit and rank requirements. If you let all users vote them it becomes trivial to manipulate. That's what I meant: you currently need 10 or 250 for a small or large DT1-vote, and the same should apply for downvoting. Would that make much difference, though? Currently, excluded DT1-members can still downvote others. That would be the main difference. |
|
|
|
Would you feel safer using one over the other? It depends. Let's take banks for example: I don't trust them, but they're regulated and government guarantees they'll pay back deposits up to €100,000 if they go bankrupt. That government guarantee means it doesn't really matter if the bank is stable or not. As a consumer, that's easy, and I already know I have no privacy with banks anyway. If there were 2 major players say DaveExcange 1 and DaveExchnange 2 the 1st operated in most states / countries the 2nd was avoiding the ones that required more licensing and financial checks. But outside of that they were both around for years had a good reputation and so on.
Would you feel safer using one over the other? I wouldn't trust an exchange that can't spell "Exchange", so both are disqualified.Jokes aside: I do use regulated exchanges that have been around for years, and I feel pretty safe doing so. I'd love to see a totally anonymous exchange with only a .onion domain and a very good reputation, but unfortunately I don't know any of those. The "less regulated" exchanges I know usually don't have a very good reputation, and worse, many anonymous exchange sites still ask people for their documents, which makes them much worse than the regulated exchange. |
|
|
|
However, it is one thing to write a code that purposely harms like a malware and quite another to write a code that could be used for illegal purposes. If we go down that road, why isn't Bill Gates in jail? And Linus Torvalds and every software developer on the planet? Code in general can be used for good and evil. Just like guns. Or cars. Or virtually any other product. I don't think we should hold software developers to a higher standard than gun manufacturers. |
|
|
|
My point was without being a regular in WO OP is complaining about merit distribution in WO. I could be wrong to sense it though. I don't think you have to post there to notice the thread I also think WO-users are very capable to decide which posts deserve Merit. In general, the Merit to post ratio is very high there, and that makes it an attractive place for Merit farmers. I'm surprised it doesn't happen more often. |
|
|
|
How about having 20% out of 99 or less or more than that? This should reduce the difficulty to have all 99 in your trust list. It's still too much. I'm not willing to do monthly work to reach DT1. I'm okay with not being on DT1 though. I have a different idea: Currently, anyone with enough earned Merit can vote for the DT1-election by inclusing users on their Trust list. But if they exclude them, that exclusion is ignored for DT1-election and only other DT1-users can take away that user's DT1-status (while the user can still vote in favour or against other DT1-members). Why not let all users vote against DT1-members instead? If exclusions would be counted for the DT1-election, users with many exclusions wouldn't reach DT1 in the first place. This would make political elections very interesting too. Especially on Hillary vs Trump, where many people voted one person because they didn't like the other, they could both have ended up with negative numbers of votes |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
