 I personally don't enjoy playing dice, I'm more of a Poker and betting guy! But this site I gotta try  There are actually a couple of really great dice sites. Primedice is undoubtedly one of the best, but there are a couple others in the running. Then there are a whole lot of terrible and potentially scammy ones. NLNico's dice site comparison is a good place to start checking this stuff out. Good luck! |
|
|
|
But in the light of this: It seems to me that such a solution would move the discussion to what's really important, which is how full we want the blocks to be. Perhaps it would be even better if a limit adjustment takes place every 2 weeks, just like the difficulty, based on the total size of all blocks of the past two weeks. We then adjust the limit so that, assuming the past two weeks volume, we would maintain a desired average block size saturation. I'm really curious to hear how Gavin, Mike and Gregory think about this kind of approach. I most certainly hope they'll somehow find a compromise and avoid the risk of Bitcoin getting divided in Core vs XT. I do believe that we agree. Except that maybe I'm a little less worried about the fragmentation than you are. I guess I tend to think that when people get very passionate about doing things one particular way, the great thing about FOSS is that they have the freedom to go off and do it and see what happens. If Bitcoin (or any project) is truly resilient and robust then it will survive. If it doesn't survive (in its present form), it wasn't meant to be, I guess. Bitcoin has already given the world a huge gift of innovation and disruption and new ways to think about money and exchange of value and trustlessness. I think bitcoin has more to give, but only time will tell. |
|
|
|
It's not that complex. Pasting the wallet.dat format is more of a pain. You're making the problem more complex by trying to import it to a program taking a different format. Just parse it using protobuf, or bitcoinj's protobuf wallet parser. If you don't write java, you might not know how to "just parse it with protobuf". Here's the actual steps I used to extract private keys from a Schildbach wallet export: 1) decrypt the file using openssl aes-256 (as described in the linked stackoverflow) 2) dump the private keys using bitcoinj's wallet tool. This is not actually described in the document, but you can do it like this: $ ./wallet-tool dump --dump-privkeys WALLETFILE 3) convert the privatekeys to WIF, I used the "ku" program for this from the pycoin repo: https://github.com/richardkiss/pycoin4) import your WIF into bitcoind |
|
|
|
You probably don't know this tspacepilot, but you can encrypt messages with multiple recipients using GPG, I was able to decrypt it.
If you're going to ask people to not rush to judgement against Hexcoin, you should do the same for Quickseller and Tomatocage if you want to be taken seriously.
Thank you BadBear for the information. I don't know if you're implying that QS encrypted that message in order for Hexcoin to read it, but given the taunting and mocking tone of QS' message, its hard to believe that his intention was to be helpful. As for rushing to judgment, I'd hardly call the 5 months of mocking, taunting, sockpuppet lying negative ratings (three of them from three different accounts), and an inability to explain himself or a legitimate reason for his attack rushing to judgment. With respect to tomatocage, my only gripe with him is that he seems to be vouching for this kind of behavior now. Are you also vouching for this kind of behavior? My goal in posting was to call attention to the respectful tone of Shorena, asking for information and avoiding drama, and to contrast it to that of Quickseller, who in his first post in the thread, replies with taunting hautiness. This same taunting hautiness had had me harrassed by QS for 5 months now, as he exploded in rage on me when I dared to call him a hothead in late March---I thought it wasn't cool to call people idiots and fools just because they disagree with you, and I have paid the price for having crossed him. The amazing thing to me is that apprantely this kind of behavior is now sponsored. I can tell that you guys have warned him not to reply in my thread on his behavior, that if he does so he risks legitimizing my complaints, that if he wants to keep his many false ratings on me and stay on default trust he's going to have to avoid explaining himself (since, apparantely there is no explanation). Anyway, I know nothing of hexcoin's situation, but I recognize the bile of Quickseller all too well, and I thought it was worth it to contrast its style with Shorena's. |
|
|
|
Are you sure you would prefer a typical server-side solution (php) for something that can also be done client-side (javascript) ? BitcoinJs works well for this, and allows you to do it completely locally & offline. I almost never use php myself, I'm more of a python/javascript/perl/bash person, but I just have to point out for the record that you can run php in a terminal as a simple executable. Just put it on your $PATH and call "php" with your php file as the first argument. Say this is your file hello.php: <?php
echo "hello, world";
?>
$ php hello.php
hello, world
$
@OP, I hope anyone playing with brainwallets knows about this: http://www.wired.com/2015/07/brainflayer-password-cracker-steals-bitcoins-brain/ |
|
|
|
|
What I don't get with this whole topic about block sizes is why there's not a solution out there to dynamically increase or decrease block size based on usage. That's pretty much what we do with everything else in the network. Difficulty goes up and down based on how hash power there is to keep the block time constant on average. Why wouldn't we do the same thing with the block size? Imagine, if blocks are >95% full for 2 weeks, block size limit goes up; if blocks are <95% full on average in another two weeks, block size limit goes back down.
It seems to me that such a solution would move the discussion to what's really important, which is how full we want the blocks to be. I know that some want fuller blocks as a way to prompt higher fees, others say we don't want long confirmation times. Wallets are adapting to these spam attacks already to allow people to more easily set a higher or lower fee on a given transaction (even my mobile wallet has this option now). As wallets adapt to allow users to dynamically set their fee, the other variable is the block size, we don't want the blocks to be completely full all the time (right?), so how full do we want them? I don't know if 95% is right, but it seems like we might find more consensus around a proposal that wasn't going to arbitrarily explode block sizes if the extra space isn't really crucial. Allowing block size limit to expand and contract with usage means we might actually have a lower block size limit for a while.
I don't know, I know that others have proposed something like this, but it seems to be the least popular of the options. Most people seem to be either trying to send the block size limit off on some exponential increase or they are arguing for keeping the status quo. I think a dymanic block size limit (once which can decrease as well as increase) would be the more reasonable compromise.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know if this is supposed to be in here or in the mining subforum itself, I'm sure a mod can move me if I'm wrong. Anyway, my observation is that the description for the Mining subforum says "Generating Bitcoins". But in principle, mining is manily about securing the network and reifying blocks into the blockchain. The coinbase which diminishes over time is clearly a big movitvator these days, but isn't that really only a side-effect of the fact that we're in the early stages of bitcoin's existence?
Maybe a better tag-line for the mining subforum would be:
"Creating blocks and generating bitcoins"
^^^ with that, at least we'd make a nod to the fact that we hope that there will be miners long after there are no coinbases left.
What do you guys think?
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, as others have said, it's clearly false. Nevertheless, it is pretty funny and a cute nod to bitcoin. Also, nice catch to the person that pointed out that Gavin isn't spelled right.
I'm glad I saw this thread, made me smile!
|
|
|
|
May I get a copy of the proof? 4E32 814C 98C2 B12E C473 228B 940A 17DB BD6B 68E2Right now Im not convinced, the blockchain evidence that is presented here[1] is very thin and would IMHO deserve a neutral rating at best. [1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1108209.20Once again, well done to Shorena for not getting caught up in the lynch-mob hype that often surrounds these sorts of events. Being respectful and keeping the benefit of the doubt is something that Tomatocage once wrote to Quickseller as a standard for leaving feedback. Shame on Quickseller for once again making an ass of himself as he posts encrypted "evidence" in order to try to mock someone that he's smearing. If you actually have evidence and you're going to post it, post it. If you don't have the evidence it's better to keep your mouth shut. If you have the evidence and don't plan to post it, you should say that. Posting this kind of taunting foolishness is the kind of thing done by vengeful teenagers not adults with self-repsect and with basic human respect for others. Mods, you guys condone this kind of taunting? Although, since you did not stipulate the format that you want the evidence posted in, I will post it below: -----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----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=IACV
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----
I don't claim to know anything about hexcoin or whether or not he has alts. But I do want to draw attention to the way that people are behaving in addressing this concern. |
|
|
|
I believe we're allowed a daily bump on these types of issues. Mods, please correct me if this is wrong, I'm not trying to cause trouble. However, I can't really understand how someone on default trust is allowed to use sockpuppetry to trust-spam me with alts, is allowed to accuse me based on the word of a known liar, and is not required to explain himself. As someone said to me in a private message recently "I don't know how to deal with quickseller, either he has a valid response to my points or he ignores them". We can see which mode he's in now. It's quite clear that he wishes this would just go away without having to explain himself---I can imagine why he doesn't want to be drawn into this. But then again, if he can't explain his negative rating and everyone is calling for him to remove it (see list of extensive quotes in the OP) then isn't that a clear case of abuse? Why will no mod or staff speak up? Is techshare right that there's some sort of backroom club whereby no one on default trust will ever cross another one publically. To refresh everyone's memory, the last question addressed to quickseller was this: Dear Quickseller,
If you're working on a long reply then please take your time, I will be patient. If you're planning on not replying then maybe you could at least let me know why.
I'm really trying to avoid going back to the public fighting which I find quite useless. I hope that you feel the same way and you're willing to work this out. At the end of the day, however, if you refuse to talk privately about this then what recourse do I have other than to go back to the public to try to set the record straight.
To clarify, what we're waiting on is for you to say in concrete terms how it is that you think you know what happened at coinchat in 2012.
Best,
--TSP
It's been nearly a week and a half. If Quickseller has some sort of extra-sensory perception to see into my mind and my actions back in 2012 such that he knows what I did better than I know myself, isn't it time for him to go ahead and tell us how this is the case? It's been a week and a half, surely he can at least speak up and say something. If Quickseller refuses to take responsibilty for his smear attack (and you'll note how he's never once addressed the issue of his trust-spamming alts), isn't it time for a mod to question his role on default trust? I don't want this to go on forever, but QS simply shouldn't be allowed to wage this kind of unrepentant war on someone for so many months using so many accounts without having to say something for himself. |
|
|
|
but i think there is no much difference in betting via auto or manual, you still get the same results  On the whole you're obviously right. But the two methods definitely have a different feeling. When I'm autobetting or betting by script then I'm sure that I'm going to consistently apply some strategy. When I'm betting by hand I can decide that I get a "feeling" and switch something up (usually to my detriment, ha!). Even if you do get the same results, manual takes longer, and if the point is to have fun, then you may as well stretch it out. |
|
|
|
I'm still searching answer for maximum bets per second in autobet mode?
It is faster if you bet higher, but how fast can it get?
Clearly the upper-limit is going to be determined not only by whatever upper limit the software of primedice sets, but your network latency, the speeds of your computer, primdice's server, and every server along the way. In other words, no matter what the theoretical limit is, if you're playing over the internet, your mileage may vary. |
|
|
|
Basically, it is. If you wanna see the full document describing it, it's here: https://github.com/schildbach/bitcoin-wallet/blob/master/wallet/README.recoverI actually used this (along with some other utilities) to extract private keys from an old schildbach wallet in order to use them to dig some CLAM coins they were funded with. @forzendiablo, PM me if you need help, I've done this several times now. |
|
|
|
Why do i see Negatives on this guy , seems he just got it.
So it was trust farming after all :/
Not necessarily, I think OP doesn't understand that since his friends aren't on default trust, he doesn't get green trust. It may have more to do with the fact that the OP doesn't understand that his friends aren't on his own trust list. As far as I understand, the first thing you're supposed to do after learning how the trust system works is to remove default trust and start building your own list. See here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1103508.0The entire trust system needs an overhaul in my opinion...bitcointalk does need some form of trust rating, but its current form is flawed  Why don't you suggest what needs to be overhauled? Many complain but offer no solutions or suggestions. I've yet to see any feedback system that works perfect or doesn't have flaws or faults. |
|
|
|
Why are CLAM getting so much value?
There is a theory that demand driven by Just-Dice.com has caused the recent spike in the price of CLAM. Most of the CLAMs are in the Just-Dice bankroll, earning around 0.2% per day rather than sitting in sell orders on an exchange earning nothing. That means there's not much supply for people wanting to buy, and so the price tends to increase. I'm waiting for the annoucement that CLAM changes name to Just-Dice-Coin. |
|
|
|
Hey all,
Just got back from my vacation and I'll update this thread with --Encrypted--'s version either today or tomorrow (I'm quite tired and I would have to double check everything and go through the previous pages, which is time and energy consuming). I'm currently considering passing this work on to someone else, if someone capable is willing to take over.
hillariousandco seemed willing when he commented upthread. Being a mod, he'd be a good choice in my opinion if he's still feeling up for it. He's certainly capable and he seems to take more of an interest in the sig-ad campaigns than the other mods, from what I've seen. |
|
|
|
shit newbie can get this giveaway  Actually, they can't (see the OP). But maybe you knew that and just dropped the n't? I'm hoping that the fact that the giveaway happened literally on my pd birthday is gonna get me into the top 100 Username: tsp
Join Date: 10 August 2014 (seriously! today is my 1 year primedice birthday!)
Comments:
Primedice is one of the best-known, most-trusted dice sites around. I can say that I like primedice because they fix issues when they occur and generally, issues don't occur. In a lot of ways primedice sets the standard in this kind of industry. Here's two quick examples:
1) the btc bet ticker used to be crazy resource intensive, hurting my cpu's feeling and making my computer really slow. PD took heed of the comments and removed it (actually changed it to a btc won in the last 24 hours ticker which doesn't update near as often).
2) I once had an issue where a withdrawal didn't credit. PD fixed it and even gave me a little more for my troubles.
These kinds of things make primedice great. No website with as long a history as PD continues without problems. But fixing problems and continually improving are something to praise.
Thanks primedice and happy primedice birthday to me!
--TSP
But more seriously, is the list of winners going to be posted somewhere or do we just keep looking in or PD accounts? |
|
|
|
Thanks again MZ. I believe I included you in the list of quotes in the OP. The only think I have to take issue with is this: Like I said in my earlier posts, I think QS should change negative feedback to neutral. If he suspects tsp that much, it is probably better for him to keep an eye on tsp. But for now, although tsp did withdraw those coins, he is not worthy for a negative trust feedback/score.
In fact, if TradeFortress had been able to talk calmly and rationally about whatever mistake happened when I was working on the bot with his approval, we might have been able to figure out if there were actually any coins which I should have returned. What actually happened was that he demanded varying random amounts (including amounts I didn't even have to my name) so there was no way to figure out if he was actually interested in making this right or if he was just trying to blackmail me. Because I couldn't figure this out, there was no way to move forward. Nearly three years later, we know what kind of person he was and I think people can imagine why I wasn't able to work with him. I hope that if people keep on unanimously calling for a resolution to this, eventually QS and Tomatocage will have to address it. Since you're here, I wonder if you'd like to comment on one of the other outstanding issues. For example, do you think it's okay that QS is using sockpuppets to leave me many negative feedbacks? |
|
|
|
People who are on the default trust list will not open their mouths when they see abuse like this, because as I said it is like a Mexican standoff, no one wants to be the one to stick their neck out for something that doesn't directly affect them. As a result the system is abused over and over, and no one gives a shit until they are the target, then they get ignored like everyone else does. The ones who have influence are afraid of losing it, and the ones who don't are completely dismissed. This is exactly what is happening in tspacepilot's case.
It does seem like this is exactly what's going on. Not a single peep from anyone high up in the trust list on this---despite the fact that it's clear abuse. Only a few brave souls who are daring to sheepishly say "why don't you guys just shake hands and make up" (well folks, I'd like this as much as you would). I've sent a message to high-ups and mods, not a single reply. Here's what everyone else gets told when they cry trust abuse: "don't worry, just bring it up in meta, the person will fix it or they won't be on default trust for long". Here's what's going on with me: Quickseller is ignoring this thread with all his might because he really can't explain his behavior. As you said, no one else will step up because apparantely there's some kind of gentlemans agreement that you don't fuck with someone else's trust choices. Without retyping the whole saga, the current state of affairs is that everyone who is willing to speak up is calling for Quickseller to stop this behavior. Quickseller is ignoring this thread and my reasonable request that he explain his negative feedback, that he consolodate his sockpuppet ratings, and that he leave me alone. If you weren't completely flabberghasted that this guy is allowed to do this to someone with no accountability, you might or might not find it shocking that it quite shocking that someone who engages in such puerille and vindictive shenanigans would be put into a position of responsibility. After all of this, if his behavior is somehow defensible, why won't he speak up to defend it? If those who trust him really vouch for his actions, why won't they speak up? EDIT: OP updated to include list of people calling for Quickseller to end this. If you're brave enough to publically call for Quickseller to end this saga of childishness, feel free to PM me or post in the thread and I can add your quote to the OP. |
|
|
|
@tspacepilot: I agree that QS does leave ratings randomly and sometimes he doesn't analyse the account and just takes a decision in haste. However, when he is proved wrong, he does rectify it (may be without apologizing for his mistake). Even I was a victim earlier but I don't even know when he removed his rating and I dint want to go after him for that. I have often been critical about his ratings and hence I understand that he isn't 100% accurate while terming a person a scammer (may be 80% accurate). I don't quite agree that because he is an escrow, he leaves ratings on other users as I have seen it's not true. May be because he is an escrow, people blame him. LOL!
He is a trusted member over here and that's what matters more and he hasn't been too rude or abusive as other members here and so I have no issues with him anymore. I see that many a times he does leave accurate ratings and hence it's fine.
Well, I'm glad to know that he finally corrected himself with respect to you. It's good to know that there was at least one situation where he went back and fixed a mistake. I don't know how you can say that he's not rude---of course, rudeness isn't that big a deal---but from what I can tell the whole reason why he's currently assaulting me has to do with the fact that he was calling people idiots for disagreing with him and I told him that was not appropriate. Even since then, he's been smearing me with sockpuppets. There's also this, I wonder if you're merely trying not to say anything too cricial of him now in order to avoid getting caught back in his crosshairs. Apparantely, you used to be under attack by him and somehow got out. I know that if I somehow got out from under his attack I'd be treading on eggshells in order to avoid going through this nightmare again. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
