|
Rejoining after a long time away. Good to see someone is actively managing this these days. Happy to be back.
|
|
|
|
Hey,
if i import a wallet, the client gets stuck (not repsonding), thats normal right and it just takes a while, or?
EDIT: yes it is
Prolly depends on your setup, but you can probably see the activity in the log file which would show you that it's doing some work and not just stuck. Use tail -f. |
|
|
|
That is proof-of-proxy, i.e. you. Whether you can be trusted with that is debatable for each individual. I'd prefer cryptography over trust. Anyhow, the password problem with Windows can be semi-easily mitigated and thus voids the excuse.
Yah, I don't use windows but you should just be able to put a linux distro on a usb, boot from that usb, mount the harddrive, read all the data you want to read. |
|
|
|
|
Anyone want to buy a level 8 account which is half way to level 9? Serious offers via PM please.
|
|
|
|
Good to see development still going for SwCpoker I used to play there a long time ago. Maybe when the android app or HTML5 client are up I could enjoy some games again.
This is exactly my status for the last 2 years or so. |
|
|
|
|
Back in the day there was the firstbits project, which aimed to provide a canonical shorter version of bitcoin addresses. As people decided that you shouldn't be reusing addresses, this fell out of favor.
|
|
|
|
So it means we have to download the software and then only we can play the game, hmmm it is the only thing which i dont like of downloading and playing because i dont want my computer to be full with lot of software uploaded. Is their any other way of online playing poker
For now SwC Poker is Windows Only. In the future we will provide an HTML5 client. Android development continues and is expected this summer. We have deployed resources to fix bugs and develop new clients. We hope prospective players that don't want to download our current Windows client will check back in the future to see if we meet your needs. It's nice to hear that you guys are finally moving ahead on options for non-windows users. I sorta figured that you guys had given up. Maybe I can play bitcoin poker again this summer. Can I still recover my sealswithclubs.eu account? |
|
|
|
I am not sure what you are talking about?
I am not an employee of any Bitcoin related company. Nor do I have problems trading with anyone, and my trading partners are almost always comfortable sending btc first to me.
My negative ratings are political in nature.
Yah @BitcSeo, he's not an employee of any company, he's running for office! |
|
|
|
i found this topic in internet, i want to login but i have 2af active, would you know how to pass this parameter, i am working with java by the way
I posted these scripts back in 2015. I haven't really used primedice since around that same time. The API may have changed completely for all I know. Also, as you see, I didn't really put everything together into any particular package, I was just playing around with throwing things at the API and rolling by machine. Sorry I can't help more. I basically have no idea what's going on in PD these days. As LuanX3 said, you might be better off modifying one the existing dicebots. |
|
|
|
Try the official version from the official site maybe. Or try redownloading fromgithub to ensure there was no data loss of data while it was transmitted on the pull request.
Is that github repo not 'official'? Indeed, I have. I built core on this machine almost two years ago. Since it was an old version, I did 'git pull' and tried to rebuild, and things failed. I have updated the system and double checked the dependencies. Of course last time I built it I was on a previous debian. And I was building against qt4 instead of qt5, so, yah, things have changed in the mean time. In any case, we know which part of the build process is having trouble, I guess I just need to drill down into that Makefile and figure out exactly which line went wrong and try to find a log from ld or something. I was hoping that in posting here I'd either run across someone who happened to have encountered the same error or else run across someone who's a real whiz with the C build process. Anyway, let me know if you see anything specific I should be checking. |
|
|
|
|
It's back up now. I don't know how long it was down.
|
|
|
|
Do you get the same error when building from the GitHub repo? I didn't see in the quotations above, but which version of bitcoin is in the debian testing repo?
Sorry, 'the repo' was ambiguous there. I should have said 'building from the github repo on debian testing'. $ git remote show origin
* remote origin
Fetch URL: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin
Push URL: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin
HEAD branch: master
Remote branches:
0.10 tracked
0.11 tracked
0.12 tracked
0.13 tracked
0.8 tracked
0.9 tracked
master tracked
Local branch configured for 'git pull':
master merges with remote master
Local ref configured for 'git push':
master pushes to master (up to date)
|
|
|
|
I'm getting an error from the linker when building bitcoin from the repo on debian testing. When I get to building qt: CXXLD bench/bench_bitcoin
CXX qt/qt_bitcoin_qt-bitcoin.o
CXX qt/qt_libbitcoinqt_a-bantablemodel.o
CXX qt/qt_libbitcoinqt_a-bitcoinaddressvalidator.o
CXX qt/qt_libbitcoinqt_a-bitcoinamountfield.o
CXX qt/qt_libbitcoinqt_a-bitcoingui.o
CXX qt/qt_libbitcoinqt_a-bitcoinunits.o
CXX qt/qt_libbitcoinqt_a-clientmodel.o
CXX qt/qt_libbitcoinqt_a-guiutil.o
CXX qt/qt_libbitcoinqt_a-intro.o
CXX qt/qt_libbitcoinqt_a-modaloverlay.o
CXX qt/qt_libbitcoinqt_a-notificator.o
CXX qt/qt_libbitcoinqt_a-optionsdialog.o
CXX qt/qt_libbitcoinqt_a-optionsmodel.o
CXX qt/qt_libbitcoinqt_a-peertablemodel.o
CXX qt/qt_libbitcoinqt_a-rpcconsole.o
CXX qt/qt_libbitcoinqt_a-splashscreen.o
CXX qt/qt_libbitcoinqt_a-utilitydialog.o
CXX qt/qt_libbitcoinqt_a-addressbookpage.o
CXX qt/qt_libbitcoinqt_a-addresstablemodel.o
CXX qt/qt_libbitcoinqt_a-askpassphrasedialog.o
CXX qt/qt_libbitcoinqt_a-coincontroldialog.o
CXX qt/qt_libbitcoinqt_a-coincontroltreewidget.o
CXX qt/qt_libbitcoinqt_a-editaddressdialog.o
CXX qt/qt_libbitcoinqt_a-openuridialog.o
CXX qt/qt_libbitcoinqt_a-overviewpage.o
CXX qt/qt_libbitcoinqt_a-paymentrequestplus.o
CXX qt/qt_libbitcoinqt_a-paymentserver.o
CXX qt/qt_libbitcoinqt_a-receivecoinsdialog.o
CXX qt/qt_libbitcoinqt_a-receiverequestdialog.o
CXX qt/qt_libbitcoinqt_a-recentrequeststablemodel.o
CXX qt/qt_libbitcoinqt_a-sendcoinsdialog.o
CXX qt/qt_libbitcoinqt_a-sendcoinsentry.o
CXX qt/qt_libbitcoinqt_a-signverifymessagedialog.o
CXX qt/qt_libbitcoinqt_a-transactiondesc.o
CXX qt/qt_libbitcoinqt_a-transactiondescdialog.o
CXX qt/qt_libbitcoinqt_a-transactionfilterproxy.o
CXX qt/qt_libbitcoinqt_a-transactionrecord.o
CXX qt/qt_libbitcoinqt_a-transactiontablemodel.o
CXX qt/qt_libbitcoinqt_a-transactionview.o
CXX qt/qt_libbitcoinqt_a-walletframe.o
CXX qt/qt_libbitcoinqt_a-walletmodel.o
CXX qt/qt_libbitcoinqt_a-walletmodeltransaction.o
CXX qt/qt_libbitcoinqt_a-walletview.o
CXX qt/qt_libbitcoinqt_a-moc_bantablemodel.o
CXX qt/qt_libbitcoinqt_a-moc_bitcoinamountfield.o
CXX qt/qt_libbitcoinqt_a-moc_bitcoingui.o
CXX qt/qt_libbitcoinqt_a-moc_bitcoinunits.o
CXX qt/qt_libbitcoinqt_a-moc_coincontroldialog.o
CXX qt/qt_libbitcoinqt_a-moc_guiutil.o
GEN qt/moc_modaloverlay.cpp
CXX qt/qt_libbitcoinqt_a-moc_modaloverlay.o
CXX qt/qt_libbitcoinqt_a-moc_notificator.o
CXX qt/qt_libbitcoinqt_a-moc_optionsmodel.o
CXX qt/qt_libbitcoinqt_a-moc_overviewpage.o
CXX qt/qt_libbitcoinqt_a-moc_peertablemodel.o
CXX qt/qt_libbitcoinqt_a-moc_paymentserver.o
CXX qt/qt_libbitcoinqt_a-moc_receivecoinsdialog.o
CXX qt/qt_libbitcoinqt_a-moc_receiverequestdialog.o
CXX qt/qt_libbitcoinqt_a-moc_recentrequeststablemodel.o
CXX qt/qt_libbitcoinqt_a-moc_rpcconsole.o
CXX qt/qt_libbitcoinqt_a-moc_sendcoinsdialog.o
CXX qt/qt_libbitcoinqt_a-moc_sendcoinsentry.o
CXX qt/qt_libbitcoinqt_a-moc_transactionfilterproxy.o
CXX qt/qt_libbitcoinqt_a-moc_transactiontablemodel.o
CXX qt/qt_libbitcoinqt_a-moc_transactionview.o
CXX qt/qt_libbitcoinqt_a-moc_walletmodel.o
CXX qt/qt_libbitcoinqt_a-moc_walletview.o
AR qt/libbitcoinqt.a
/usr/bin/ar: `u' modifier ignored since `D' is the default (see `U')
OBJCXXLD qt/bitcoin-qt
//usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libxcb-dri3.so.0: undefined reference to `xcb_send_request_with_fds'
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
Makefile:3564: recipe for target 'qt/bitcoin-qt' failed
make[2]: *** [qt/bitcoin-qt] Error 1
make[2]: Leaving directory '/home/tsp/src/bitcoin/src'
Makefile:8897: recipe for target 'all-recursive' failed
make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory '/home/tsp/src/bitcoin/src'
Makefile:685: recipe for target 'all-recursive' failed
make: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
My config: Options used to compile and link:
with wallet = yes
with gui / qt = yes
qt version = 5
with qr = yes
with zmq = no
with test = yes
with bench = yes
with upnp = yes
debug enabled = no
target os = linux
build os =
CC = gcc
CFLAGS = -g -O2
CPPFLAGS = -DHAVE_BUILD_INFO -D__STDC_FORMAT_MACROS
CXX = g++
CXXFLAGS = -g -O2 -Wall -Wextra -Wformat -Wformat-security -Wno-unused-parameter
LDFLAGS =
libxcb-dri3.so.0 exists and is where you'd expect. I'm not sure why ld is failing. Let me know if you guys have tips! Oh yah, and presumably the issue is not in that file: $ strings /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libxcb-dri3.so.0 |grep xcb_send_request_with_fds
xcb_send_request_with_fds
Cheers! |
|
|
|
As shorena said, it doesn't make economic sense to scam/spam with a purchased account because that would mean loosing the money you just spent on buying said account. Doing this would more or less be throwing money away.
Quickseller often invokes this sort of rationale "it doesn't make economic sense to do __" in discussions. What's fun is to look through his posts and see how the __ is often in contradiction to itself across time. That is, he's happy to reason at one moment that some behaviour makes economic sense and then later that it doesn't. What I'm highlighting here is that whether or not something makes economic sense is actually one of the hardest things to find agreement upon: thus the varying behaviour of people (both within and across). Quickseller might argue, it doesn't make economic sense to scam, yet we find scammers, so it's not really valid to suggest that because QS says something doesn't make economic sense means that we won't find anyone doing it. Here's the kicker, even if there was universal agreement about what does and doesn't make economic sense (which clearly there isn't), we have the problem on top of this that people are not rational. Anyone who actually studies economics knows that the idea that people are perfectly rational agents who always act in their own best interests isn't true at all. People act emotionally, irrationally, etc all the time, often against their best interests (economic or otherwise). I don't know that this will help QS (logic and argumentation isn't really his strong suit), but it might help others here to avoid taking the bait when QS offers it. The argument that 'X does/doesn't make economic sense' isn't intersting or valid if you're trying to support a proposition that people will or will not do X. The official name of this logical fallacy is non-sequitur (doesn't follow). For fun reading see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic) Cheers! |
|
|
|
You have still not given an explanation why alts should not be allowed in signature campaigns that does not involve you farming trust,
You're the only one who seems to think it does involve farming trust. Everyone else seems to accept the idea that an advertizer might want to hire 10 people not 10 'accounts'. You seem to be the only one who can't accept that 10 accounts is not 10 minds, and that an advertizer may want to actually pay 10 separate minds to post their content, not 1 person doing their damnedest to simulate 10 minds.  I see no reason to assume that someone making 2,000 posts in a month will not be making quality posts.
Yah, we know you see no reason to assume that. We think it may be related to your army of shills and your particular world-view of the fractured person as many accounts. Here's a question for you: what sort of number would you need in order to go ahead and assume that someone making that number of posts will not be making quality posts? If not 2000 (66 per day), maybe 10000 (333 per day)? 100000 (3330 per day)? I'm just curious what number, from your special point of view, seems like an implausibly high number to you for one person posting on a forum. |
|
|
|
The only reason a campaign manager would have a "no alt" rule in the first place is to build/farm trust....maybe we should have a public discussion about campaign managers farming trust in this way.
Hard to see how this is the case. The OP mentions several reasons why one might want to enforce a no alt rule. It'll be fun to see a typicall quickseller explanation with the old hand-waiving and 'most-likely ...' stuff, if he does choose to try to explain it. How would a manager be farming trust? Im looking at it as if we know for a fact a user has alts and is entering multiple campaigns, then theyre posting shit 99% of the time. If we allow only 1 account for sig campaigns period some of that stops.
Clear and concise. What you say here is certainly reasonable. What's going on is that you're threatening a cornerstone of Quickseller's MO on this forum: account sales and many many alts for sockpuppetry and manipulation. Don't forget that he started out selling many many accounts. Even now, when he gets into arguments, he pulls out an army of accounts to shill for him. Lately i feel like youre just in an argumentative mood, maybe its just me. Ive never had a problem with you personally but i would like a deeper explanation as to your meaning here.
You're not likely to get anything clear, but we may get a typical QS paragraph trying to support his argument, then a handful of alts to back him up. |
|
|
|
|
It's back up today, I'm actually a bit surprised by this.
|
|
|
|
|
chopcoin.io is now down for "a few days". We'll see if they actually come back up.
|
|
|
|
We've had no DDoS related problems since August - not sure why this keeps coming up.
Teppy
It's people trying to troll. It may be supa, Idunno. As you say, there haven't been any actual problems, just an anonymous troll posting in this thread. Ironically, bumping this thread probably actually drives people to try out the game. |
|
|
|
His analysis is useless and inaccurate. He is trying to distract from the fact that Lauda is an unqualified, inept (and more) moderator that does not have any business being anywhere near authority.
Pretty sure you're trying to distract from the fact that you're using so many alts in these threads ... Good luck! Here's the thing, once you get caught doing this, no one is going to take any threads where QS argues seriously because we all know that most of the opinions in that thread are just you posting under alts. Maybe go back to that thing where you said you were going to take a long break and stop harrassing us on this forum? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
