It was down for a bit when I first saw your message (and then I worried for a moment too). But it seems to be back up and working now so I'd assume they were just down momentarily for maintenance/upgrades/etc. |
|
|
|
findftp, if I recall corrctly, to import a python script as a module you need to have it in a directory along with a file calld __init__.py (which is sometimes empty but can include init routines for classes). To run the code snippet I sent you, you could do one of two things pretty easily: 1) open a python intepreter and just copy/paste in the function defs 2) run the python executable with the -i flag But, actually, I went ahead and tried it and realized there were two missing methods (countLeadingChars, base256decode) and a missing import (hashlib) in the snippet I gave you. Here's the entire snippet again with the missing methods included and a shebang line for good measure. #!/usr/bin/env python
import hashlib
b58 = '123456789ABCDEFGHJKLMNPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijkmnopqrstuvwxyz'
def countLeadingChars(s, ch):
count = 0
for c in s:
if c == ch:
count += 1
else:
break
return count
def base256decode(s):
result = 0
for c in s:
result = result * 256 + ord(c)
return result
def base58encode(n):
result = ''
while n > 0:
result = b58[n%58] + result
n /= 58
return result
# https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Base58Check_encoding
def base58CheckEncode(version, payload):
s = chr(version) + payload
checksum = hashlib.sha256(hashlib.sha256(s).digest()).digest()[0:4]
result = s + checksum
leadingZeros = countLeadingChars(result, '\0')
return '1' * leadingZeros + base58encode(base256decode(result))
def privateKeyToWif(key_hex, compressed=False):
if compressed:
key_hex=key_hex+'01'
return base58CheckEncode(0x80, key_hex.decode('hex'))
^^That should work for defining methods, if, say, you put that into a file called bitcoin.py you should now be able to do this to load those definitions and play at the intepreter: tsp@computer:/tmp$ python -i bitcoin.py
>>> k="1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111"
>>> privateKeyToWif(k)
'5HwoXVkHoRM8sL2KmNRS217n1g8mPPBomrY7yehCuXC1115WWsh'
>>> privateKeyToWif(k,compressed=True)
'KwntMbt59tTsj8xqpqYqRRWufyjGunvhSyeMo3NTYpFYzZbXJ5Hp'
>>>
Let me know if you're still stuck. |
|
|
|
You have reported 46 posts with 92% accuracy
Pretty sure mine should be 100% accuracy. I only ever report severe trolling so don't know why it's only 92% accuracy, oh well.
It's been talked about before on here that there's some fine line betwen "trolling" and "freedom of speech". Maybe in the coupla posts which you reported which were marked bad the particular mod's opinion just happened to come down on the other side of that divide from what you saw. Here, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1078561.msg11522393#msg11522393, Salty says that anything over 50% is "highly appreciated" so I guess you're good to go.  |
|
|
|
... As for the OP's question, I think you only need to check the signature and the txid. The signature will be invalid and won't match the original if any part of the signature or data it signs doesn't match. This will be different depending on what was signed. This https://bitcoin.org/en/developer-guide#signature-hash-types might be able to help you. Thanks. I've already read through thatand am still none the wiser. Can anyone else confirm if the txid, public key and signature are all that is required to spot all forms of transaction mutation? Maybe this will help http://www.righto.com/2014/02/bitcoins-hard-way-using-raw-bitcoin.html, in the second part of the article "how bitcoin transactions are signed" he talks about which part of the transactions are signed and which parts aren't. If I understand things properly, it does seem like any part of the transaction which isn't signed could potentially be changed. This overflow post takes you through a step-by-step on how transactions are signed (which parts, what data is moved where, etc): http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/3374/how-to-redeem-a-basic-txI hope this helps. Thanks for the thread, I'm learning a lot myself by trying to help answer you. |
|
|
|
That's probably 3 good reports, 1 bad report, 1 unhandled report.
Oh, I see. But I made my last report at least 2 weeks ago(before the one report today). You would think, somebody would have handled it, yet  I remember getting confused by this the first time I saw it too. And also, the same thing happened to me where some reports seem to have never been "handled". My guess is that perhaps sometimes some users report a post multiple times and then only the first report gets "handled", but I've never seen the mod screen so what do I know? There's this thread, too, for a "see also": https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1078561.0 |
|
|
|
it's very hard and expensive to stake your coins guys!
I don't know wheather it's worth to invest in CLAMs just for mine them..
PLEASE DO NOT ASSAULT ME IT'S JUST MY OPINION I'M OPEN TO THINK OTHERWISE
Maybe I'm reading you wrong, but it seems like you're saying that you don't know whether to invest in CLAMs by buying them and then staking or to just mine for them. But CLAM isn't distributed like BTC, the initial distribution doesn't involve mining. And the security of the network is through the staking, so there's not really any mininig there either (indendent from the staking). I'm not assaulting, you but it seems like you might not have all the facts on this one. |
|
|
|
|
@dooglus:
Indeed, I can create a screenshot showing me receiving the tip and one showing that I paid it back if anyone would like to see it.
I think the loan you offered to me has put QS' final claims to the test. As far as I can tell, the last concrete appeal he has made regarding this rating was that I shouldn't be trusted with even the smallest amount of money.
It's pretty clear from what's happened since that now he's going into full-on distraction mode. It makes sense that he's pulling in the alts now because his arguments against me aren't holding water and there's not really anyone who seems willing to stand up for what he's arguing for here (except perhaps panthers52, or ACCTSeller).
The unfortunate thing about this situation is that QS has blown up the matter so large that there's not really a graceful exit strategy for him. I tried to PM over a month ago to see if we could get this sorted out more discretely but he refused to discuss it. Clearly the right thing for him to do is to say "hey, maybe I overreacted" and to remove the negative rating, pick up what's left of his reputation, and go on with his life of "scambusting". I sorta thought we were headed that direction when he removed one of the sockpuppet trust ratings about a week ago, but alas, he only removed one of the two and it seems he's recently pulled another account out of the closet to try to distract from the topic at hand.
QS, even the best people can be wrong. The crucial thing is to recognize when you're wrong and go on. I can't recognize that I'm wrong in this case because I didn't do the things you accuse me of. I know because I was there and I remember what I did and didn't do. And, as far as I can tell, you weren't there, so how would have any idea? In your heart, you know how you started this and that it's time to let it go.
|
|
|
|
It's too transparent what you're doing here to engage with it any further. You tried this very distraction technique right at the beginning of this nonsense. I called you out here in mid april for abusing me but I had to wait until badbear returned from holiday in order for you to be corrected. When the thread wasn't going your way and people started to ask why you were doing such shady things to me, you tried to distract by saying "wait, this guy has an alt!" https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1032755.msg11150432#msg11150432Such distractions didn't work then and they won't work now. The fact that you're using a sockpuppet to try this distraction is certainly an interesting gambit, given what you have to lose with the fact that you've been using yourself as escrow for the trades this account does. QS, you're digging yourself into a bigger and bigger hole here. Eventually you're not going to be able to distract your way out of it. If you can characterize my interactions with Mitch all you want to. But until Mitch himself gripes at me, I'm not going to really talk to you about it. How do you know what PMs me and mitch have traded? Is he going to appreciate your trying to pull him into the middle of a personal dispute that he has nothing to do with? Quickseller, leave your sockpuppets out of this. It's all too transparent what you're trying to do. No one is going to be taken in. I'm not going to go over the mountains of evidence I've already collected showing that Panthers52 is your alt because 1) it's too obvious already to anyone who looks at what you've written using the two accounts 2) it's a distraction from the topic at hand---or maybe it's not. In some sense, it shows that although you removed the feedback from your alt ACCTSeller, which you originally used to try to smear me (used it for the trolling in the dadice campaing, used it for the necrobumping of an old thread) You did these things to try to do shady behavior without having that behavior associated with your main account. The fact that you're still trying these shenanigans really just shows that although you're willing to remove these kinds of things when you're backed up against the wall, you haven't learned your lesson and you're still willing to stop-at-no-cost to try to win a dispute. It's scary the way you operate man. |
|
|
|
|
I think you're cute. I love the few little twists you do with the "posting style" under this account to try to differentiate it from your main accounts. The evidence that this is your alt is out there, and it seems quite clear that you're not willing to deny this being your acount because you know that if it comes down to it, Badbear has ways of alt-checking which will reveal your attemtps to use yourself as an escrow. Yikes! Are you sure you want to keep pressing on this? Seems that when you got called out with your FunFunnyFan acount you suddently had to disappear that one. Presumably this account is more valuable to you as it seems to be the account you use for all your trading. Again, I think that the more alts you pull in is the more you're going to get yourself into trouble.
I do not think it's strange that you're using a sock-puppet to try to distract from the issue at hand. That's pretty much exactly what you tried with ACCTSeller in the first thread about this months ago (note: that was before ACCTSeller was revealed publically as his alt).
I've got no problems with bitcoininformation/Mitchell. Somehow, it seems like he and I have been able to disagree without it coming down to a trust-system abuse war. Presumably, that's just not his style (it's not my style, either, but I gotta defend myself when you falsely accuse me). When Mitch has something to say to me, I'm sure he can say it for himself. Your use of a sockpuppet here is transparent.
So, QS, you seem to be going a little crazy here. You're pulling in your most closely-guarded alt accounts to try to distract from the topic at hand. You're starting to attempt to attack dooglus---that's a big fish to pul down dude, I don't think you can do it. I'm a minnow here, I never hurt anyone and never did any trading. You decided that you could end me but I've stood up to you. I think if you try to make this about dooglus you're going to find that you've bitten off more than you can chew.
|
|
|
|
@tsp - Do you think it is strange that you are accusing QS of sock-puppetry when you engaged in that very practice earlier this year in your interactions with Mitch? I do think there's some irony in you, Quickseller, using this alt to accuse me of sockpuppetry. Your timing is a little uncanny, my friend: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1169243.0https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1077982.msg12232400#msg12232400others The more alts you pull into this, this more it's going to end up costing you in your long-run scheme. It looks like you've been given positive feedback by Panthers52 and vice versa and now you're using the account to do dirty work on Meta that you don't want to do under your own account. Are you sure pulling another alt into this was a good idea for you? It's really starting to seem like the personal side of your grudge against me is overtaking your judgment completely. When you were logged in as FunFunnyFan, newbie, anonymous account you had one task: sell an account on default trust. A lot of people would find this shady in and of itself, but that was your goal. However, you couldn't resist to mix business with the "pleasure" of taunting me. So, we have https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=519804;sa=showPosts. Now you wanna take your Panthers52 account, which you've been using to escrow for yourself https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1167247.msg12291275#msg12291275Isn't this sorta thing how you got your ACCTSeller account linked? You really are upping the stakes pulling in this alt account which you seem to have been keeping in the shadows for so long. Don't you realize how desperate this make you look to try do defend your bad behavior? You think I didn't know who you were when you PMd me a month ago asking for transaction details of a particular transaction which I said had failed to confirm? QS, you think you're so clever trying to play private-investigator on here with your account selling and sleazy sockpuppetry and demagogery. You're not going to be able to pull the rug over everyone's eyes forever, and the more you enroll your sockpuppet army to try to persecute me the less you're going to be able to use those accounts to positively rep yourself and otherwise to the sort of "trust farming" you were clearly describing from experience here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1163292.msg12303630#msg12303630
Please, QS, leave your alts out of it. Your shenanigans with this thread are all too obvious: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1169243.0And, for anyone who has a google search, your panthers52 account has been linked to you in the past. As if we didn't know ... |
|
|
|
It looks like there is not evidence to support this claim, but I wanted to add that margin trading is the biggest reason that any exchange trading on their own books is potentially a conflict of interest. In margin trading if you can see all the other traders' positions you have an advantage akin to being able to see everyone's hand in a game of poker. You can basically print money by knowing exactly how much it would take to make someone liquidate into your orders, or just direct the price slowly in your favor by taking the least crowded position.
I see. I have to admit I don't know anything about margin trading. Thanks for the education on this point! |
|
|
|
I guess this gigantic novel of a reply is what you've been saving up towards? As far as I can tell this reply can be divided up into a couple of major sections. Section 1: Quickseller rehashes a thread from 2 years ago, tries to dig into the minutia of an agreement which he never saw. Section 2: Quickseller actually tries to defend his comparison of me to a rapist?! Section 3: Quickseller says I am a troll. Here I would take the time to point to numerous threads in which QS and his alts go trolling hard against anyone and everyone he disagrees with. I don't think it's necessary to look up the links because I think everyone has seen it by now. QS has even made direct threats against me using his main account. Some of the stuff he's pulled with his alts has been absolutely despicable. Section 4: QS, surprisingly, brings up troll account FunFunnyFan. You'll notice that he attempts to suggest the account isn't his without actually denying it. I have evidence that it is his account, and at least one other person on th forum can do so as well, so QS doesn't want to go on the record as definitively saying that it's not his, but he doesn't want to explicity deny it. The 3rd claimed rating, from FunFunnyFan, has no connection to me.... QS: are you explicitly denying that FunFunnyFan is your account? Be careful! Section 5: QS transitions to attack dooglus. Claiming that he's "selling trust". Very interesting that again we have QS making claims and speculations about stuff he knows nothing about. Also, shows the MO of QS, obfuscate and attack with minutia, look up a bitcoin address on the blockchain and offer wild speculations about the motivations of this or that person. I'm going to let dooglus speak for himself, obviously, but the vamp to start going after dooglus is definitely upping the stakes here for QS. I really thing the guy just doesn't know how to gracefully admit he's wrong and back down. Instead, he keeps upping the stakes for himself and those involved. Months ago QS could have listened to his peers and to his own rational brain and removed the negative trust ratings against me. Now, he's been excluded from at least one trust list on default trust 1 and it looks like he's still trying to up the stakes.
I'm quite happy to reply in more detail to any particular point, but I don't think that going point-by-point when QS has basically copy-pasted an entire thread in here is helpful. My reply summarizes his attack. None of the four sections makes any defense for his attack on me, his use of alts to troll me, or his refusal to go ahead and make things right. Even now, this latter solution is there for him (QS: look at the OP of this thread and listen to your peers), but instead of looking to fix damage he's done, he just keeps trying to up the stakes. Alas. |
|
|
|
If I wanted to scam user A, then User B would only need to use Account B1 to trade with user A, ask to be put in their trust list, then put 100 of my own alts in my own trust list, give Account B2 positive trust from those 100 accounts that are in account B1's trust list, then attempt a large deal with user A from Account B2. Significantly easier to scam then with the current trust syste
I fixed your quote to more accurately the name of the scammer. You don't get any style points for being an asshole. You are the one talking about "me", "I", etc. I'm just trying to follow your reasoning. You can continue to try to describe increasingly complex and unlikely scenarios in which you say it becomes easier to scam than it is currently, but we all know exactly why you argue against a change: it would mean that you would lose power. You've been fighting like a rabid dog to increase your power around here for quite a while now, what you're planning to do with this power in the long game, we don't know yet. I find that people who are desperately hungry for power should be "trade with extreme caution" people, to say the least. I encourage a robust system in which people take responsibility for themselves and not one with only a few central points of failure. |
|
|
|
If I wanted to scam user A, then User B would only need to use Account B1 to trade with user A, ask to be put in their trust list, then put 100 of my own alts in my own trust list, give Account B2 positive trust from those 100 accounts that are in account B1's trust list, then attempt a large deal with user A from Account B2. Significantly easier to scam then with the current trust system
I'm not trying to be dense, but I don't see this at all. First of all, are you user B? How many people are in your scenario? It looks like three people: A, B, QS You say: 1) A trusts B1. 2) QS trusts QS1...QS100 3) QS1...QS100 trusts B2. 4) B1 trusts QS1...QS100 5) B2 tries to scam A How does that help? A trusted B1. If A has trust-depth=1 then A still only trusts B1 no matter what other shenanigans QS and B are trying. It looks like you're trying to set up a chain of trusts with: A -> B1 -> QS1...QS100 -> B2 But it seems like A would need trust depth of 3 for this to even be a chance. And even then, who says that user A is going to trust anyone in his trust list without doing escrow or due-dillegence? I think you're grasping at straws here. |
|
|
|
In order to have "enough trust to scam" user A, you'd have to actually be on user A's trust list (or the trust list of someone user A trusts, depending on A's depth). Nope, user A would need to have trust from people in user B's trust list. Who's user B? The more decentralized the trust system gets, the higher depth users would be advised to keep their trust settings at in order to have a sufficiently large trust network.
Unless they're not interested in trust, maybe they don't trade and they don't want to be pulled into the drama. The point of a decentralized network is that users are advised to take their fate into their own hands, to be responsible for themselves and to construct relationships based on experience. Particular characteristics of the topology of such a network is an empirical question, and given the weakenesses and central points of failure in the current pyramid of standard trust, it's time to take a close look at how to encourage people to start using the tools that the forum gives them. |
|
|
|
and you then can leave trust to your other accounts and repeat until a few of those accounts have enough trust to scam, no? Just like what default trust list members can do now..... I don't think so; but maybe I'm misunderstanding you. I imagine that very few people would have their trust depth set so deep that someone trusting their alts and trusting their alts and so on would make any difference. Keep in mind that there's a difference between positive/negative feedback and being on a trust list. Furthermore, I suggest that if the trust system weren't so centralized, there would be less of a such thing as "enough trust to scam" in general. In order to have "enough trust to scam" user A, you'd have to actually b on user A's trust list (or th trust list of someone user A trusts, depending on A's depth). But getting onto any particular users' trust list wouldn't be very easy because there's no central "trust bank" that's going to make you look good in everyone's eyes (as there is now). Do you see this? I'll admit the system is fucked but there is not much that can be done. Switching to a better system is one thing that could be done. We have all these nice tools for making a decentralized trust system, what's missing is the education to know how to use them. Have you see this? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=914641.0It's not perfect but it shows that Theymos is looking for ways to get people to take a more active approach towards managing their trust lists. |
|
|
|
This has been offered up before, but it's just a red-herring. Getting rid of default trust <-> standard trust doesn't mean that all ratings are equal, it means that each user decides who to trust and who not to trust. If you make 100 accounts and trust spam with them, how are you going to get those 100s of accounts onto anyone's trust list?
oh, I don't know.... maybe the same way the people you're complaining about got on to default trust? only it would be MUCH easier.  Sweet! The eyeroll smiley, now your point is truly proven. Account farm. Couple of legit deals, more then likely small / mini trades, get trust, add trust from that account to your other. Repeat. See what I'm saying?
I think I see what you're saying. And if I do understand you correctly you're pretty much bass-ackwards on the facts. It's actually a lot easier to farm trust when there's one central top to the trust hierarchy. In a distributed network, the only people that you're going to potentially get to trust from are the ones that you're doing these legit deals with. If all of your trading partners have their own trust lists which aren't necessarily pointing towards the same top of the pyramid then again, your "trust farming" scenario is a lot harder to pull of than it is right now. As it is right now, you only have to convince one of the 10 or so blessed individuals on default standard trust in order to make you one of the blessed. In a distributed network, the system is much more robust to this because there's no central point of failure. Ideas and suggestions are great and all, But I believe bitcointalk.org has one of the fanciest reputation systems when it comes to forums software. If you remember the old scammer tag, that was the real centralised system.
Even though I've been burned in the past, I like the system. You can have your own trust network and if you're added to the list of a high ranking member your list might be part of the default.
[jk]I'd say that it's a very anarchocapitalist trust system[/jk]
worhiper_-_, you're right that the software allows you to have your own trust network, the real issue is the standard trust list which ends up seen by everyone as the de facto truth. Presumably, we didn't get all these fancy features for setting up individual trust lists just so that they should be ignored. |
|
|
|
|
Looks like you guys basically achieved what was in the OP.
I think you ought to put some kinda very cheap faucet for the first two weeks or something like that. Otherwise you might find that no one is willing to be the first to put their money on the line. I thought about buying in with a small amount to play a little bit, but there was no one in the main room to play against.
Good luck! I'll be keeping an eye on this, I love agar.
|
|
|
|
The problem with having all trust ratings equal would be trust spamming. Although a user may be very reputable, if all trust ratings from all accounts were worth the same amount, someone could ruin their reputation with just a few, brand new accounts. Having all trust ratings equal doesn't make sense to me, I think the system works fairly well right now but obviously there will always be some problems with whatever trust system is implemented.
This has been offered up before, but it's just a red-herring. Getting rid of default trust <-> standard trust doesn't mean that all ratings are equal, it means that each user decides who to trust and who not to trust. If you make 100 accounts and trust spam with them, how are you going to get those 100s of accounts onto anyone's trust list? The idea isn't that every feedback has equal weight for everyone across the board, the idea is that each individual decides how to weigh the feedback from each person they encounter. Note: this was already answered upthread, if we have to keep rehashing the same failed arguments, the conversation just doesn't go anywhere... ^^click link to go upthread to the quote |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
