Okay, RHavar and sherbyspark, that explains it.  It's the number of confirmations required on a deposit in order to be able to withdrawal it (or presumably, any winnings from it).  This makes sense, cheers and thanks. 

Indeed.  And in theory, one of the first things people should do is remove defaulttrust from their trust lists.  I did this recently and it makes the forum much less dramatic.  dserrano congratulated me on it.  Quickseller obviously griped about it.  If people removed defaultrust from their lists and made their own trust lists from scratch based on who they actually trust, we wouldn't have have the problems we have with the trust-ranger movement and their power-jockeying.

OP, see this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1103508.0

True.  But as has been said again and again in meta, people on default trust are supposed to be held to a higher degree of accountability with respect to their ratings because of the extreme language that accompanies being marked red by someone on default trust.  QS uses the trust system vengefully against people he doesn't like and for his economic benefit against newbies that he doesn't know.  This kind of outlandish behavior shouldn't be tolerated on default-trust, and I still hold out a hope that eventually someone is going to put an end to it.

There's a big difference between refusing to use escrow and forgetting to mention escrow.  I also wouldn't send first to a newbie without escrow.

As we know, Quickseller runs an escrow service and makes money by neg-repping others and not looking back.  We've yet to see an instance where Quickseller admits he was wrong unless there was absolute concrete proof he was wrong (see the case of ndnhc).  He's quick on the trigger, so to speak, because that's what gets him to the top.

The problem is that there's no accountability for his false-accusations.  People with lower-ranked accounts will just move on and get a new account, maybe they'll even buy one from him (conflict of interest!?).  He can slash-and-burn his way through the lending section, dropping red trust and not looking back.  People who were caught in his cross-fire have no recourse and people who aren't caught in his cross-fire think he's somehow doing a service.

This is the problem with the trust-rangers, the people who are trying to consolidate power by dropping as many red-trusts as possible.  There's no accountablilty for their actions.  Either they were right, in which case people say "good job", or they were wrong, in which case the poor newbie just says "what the fuck" and makes a new account.  There are almost no people willing to stand up for themselves because of situations like my case which prove that QS can stand for 6 months dropping false accusations.  They see that he'll use sock-puppets and lies to knock you down and they don't have the stamina to fight back.  Mods can look in my PMs and see the many supportive messages saying they feel bad for what QS is doing to me but they won't speak up for fear of crossing him.

I don't know what this guy was actually trying to do and crucially, neither does Quickseller. The difference between him and me is that I'm not a trust-ranger/account-seller/escrow provider, so I have no vested interested in neg-repping newbie accounts.  If QS was actually trying to make a difference for good on the forum and not just puff himself up, he would have simply posted in the thread that PP is suspicious and debit-card should use an escrow.  That would have been enough to get the message out but it wouldn't have inflated his neg-rep count, which is how he's working his way to the top around here, and the blood of many of us peasants is running in the rivers as he kills his way to get there.

The difference between Quickseller and other DT members is that others will apologize and remove the negative rating if there's been a misunderstanding or a miscommunication.  We've yet to see QS do that.

What is the meaning of the withdrawal column?  Most sites say "instant" in there, but others say 2 confirmations (crypto-games) or 1 confirmation (3 of em towards the bottom).  If someone sends a bitcoin transaction to you, it's up to you and your wallet software what you try to do with this.  I don't understand at all how a site could delay you trying to spend bitcoins they've already sent you.  Can you explain this column?

I checked it out and was eventually able to get it to work using the tab button.  But on firefox the headline "freedice signup" is written on top of the box where you submit a username so it's kinda broken.

Might wanna fix this!

Oh my, that's pretty controversial for sure.  Mentioning XT gets you moved to altcoins?  Are all the mods doing this?  You linked to the meta in reddit, I'm not on reddit, I haven't seen this in bitcointalk but then again I miss a lot since I'm not on here 24/7.

Well, the fact that it's centralized has a lot to do with its marketcap.  Surely you can see how this works.  Imagine if Amazon.com made an amazoncoin and backed it with millions of dollars.  It wouldn't be hard for such a large company to get a coin to the top area of the marketcap chart because they've got a lot of money themselves.  Do you see the connection?

Okay, I don't know all the background.  What are you guys talking about with "censored"?  Can someone at least drop a link to further information about this?

Anyone on default trust who sees this kind of abuse going on can add ~Quickseller to their trust lists and that fixes the problem.  TC is the only one vouching for his bad behavior at this point.  There may be some kind of gentleman's agreement on the default trust list not to question each other's judgment, I don't know.
That may be the case.  However, what actually happened on coinchat so many years ago is that I was working on an answerbot for the first time, with TF's explicit help. I was new to asynchronous coding and something went down which made TF think I was trying to scam him.  I reached out to him to try to figure out what happened but all I got from him was "pay me back __ BTC or go to hell".  As the figure of BTC he was demanding changed literally every time he asked, I certainly was not very amenable to this.  On several occasions he was asking for more BTC than I even had to my name, it was clearly not calculated or careful in any way and I wasn't even sure what had happened.  I tried to ask him how he was coming up with these numbers but he would not talk to me.  So, that was that, we walked away from it.  Two years later you can see what kind of person he was and I'd like to say that you can see what kind of person I am.

 In fact, nobody at the time who reviewed the discussion thread gave me a negative except for Tradefortress himself.  This stood as my only negative until 6 months ago, when QS decided to try to murder my account.  Since then, I've received 3 more negatives, all from him.  Does he actually do a good job with scammers?  I know he self-promotes like crazy.  It's not hard to find him tooting his own horn every 10 posts or so and whenever he gets kicked off of default trust he shouts about how many people have been scammed because he's not on the default list.  However, I haven't seen any definitive proof that he's actually catching anyone.  I know that he echoes whatever negative ratings other people come up with.  But when it comes to his own "discoveries" it seems there are more false positives than actual scammers.  See the case with ndnhc, who he neg-repped twice and twice was proven wrong.  See the case with worhipper, where he neg-repped a guy just for refusing to work with him.  As far as I've seen, every single time that QS was the one coming up with the neg-rep, it has turned out to be either a mistake or else it was a newbie who clearly decided that it's impossible to try to war with QS and they merely created another account.  I think I'm the first person to try to stand up to him for my own reputation and you can see where it's gotten me: 6 months of trolling and sockpuppet ratings.  You say this is good for the DT network?!


I think it's important to note that last time TC added him, QS was forced to change his rating on me to neutral in order to be put onto TCs list.  It's very strange to me that TC was so proactive in fixing this the first time and so absentee this time. 

Anyway, I do appreciate you weighing in.  And I guess I can add your name to the ever-increasing list of people calling for QS to end this.  As far as I can tell, nearly everyone on the forum is now falling into three distinct classes:

1) People calling for QS to end these shenanigans.
2) People who are ignoring the thread (Tomatocage, Badbear, Quickseller)
3) People who don't care and never will.r

Crucially, I can't seem to find anyone in a fourth class who is saying that QS is right, that it's okay for him to use sockpuppets to neg-rep many times, that he should keep his false rating against me until the end of time.  For me, the most shocking thing is that someone who acts as QS has acted could be put on any trusted list.  Anyone who looks at this case can see what QS was doing here, he went after me with a vengence because I called him a hothead and and asshole.  I said to him directly that he shouldn't be calling people idiots just because they disagree with him and his response was to open an all-out arms race against me.  You guys remember the original scenario, right?  He logged in as his alt, "ACCTSeller" and threatened me,  then he went trolling through my past looking for something to hold against me.  He finally found the Tradefortress negative and necrobumped a 2 year old thread on it with ACCTSeller so that he could log back in as Quickseller and "find" this necrobump and neg-rep me with his main account.  It's crucial to realize that this was before ACCTSeller was outed as a QS alt.  Does this kind of dirtly little sockpuppet game really fit with someone on default trust?  Logging in as an alt to make threats and do dirty work just to log back in as a trusted account and "find" the problems discovered by the alt.   I have to admit, when I saw him doing this, and all of it based on the word of a known scammer Tradefortress, I basically thought to myself "well, he made a mistake there, his reputation is going down the tubes for this one".  The clear vengence, the lack of any wrong by me, the lack of any prompt to attack me, and all of this for nearly a half-a-year and somehow people are putting him onto a default trust list?!  To me, this seems absolutely nuts.

Nevertheless, I'm not out to fix all of the problems of the world, I'm merely fighting for my own reputation against a false accusation and a smear campaign that has lasted waaaaay too long.


Again, thanks Blazedout419.  I wonder if you could send QS a PM and try to get him to listen to reason.  As I posted above, he will not talk to me, apparantely.  He has posted in the past that he respects you so perhaps you can place the peacemaker here as Tomatocage is apparantely not interested in fixing the collateral damage he's causing at this point.

I'd be surprised if someone were banned for sending a mass pm to a set of people they had legitimate business.  What I recall is people being banned for doing solicitation via PM.  Essentially spamming pms to people saying "try my service" or "use my bot", etc.  If you need to tell you participants that something has changed with respect to a deal, I think PMing them would hardly be spam, and as vervolioman said, it could be quite useful.

I'm not sure if waterpile is thinking of something like in just-dice where each account has a unique ID but people can change their "name" to appear however they like.  It's kinda fun to be honest, I think it wouldn't be bad at all if PD implemented something like this.

For those following this thread, Monopoly seems to be following up about the post btchris linked him to:


So, Monopoly, "filename" is the name and path to the file which contains a list of private keys  in WIF format.  The contents of the file are what's shown in the second code block.  Each line should have at least two fields:

PRIVKEY DATESTAMP

I hope this helps.

I think what chriswen is suggesting is that if your BTC addresses are in a bitcoin wallet then you could just use that bitcoin wallet in your clam client and voila.

But you're apparantly still having trouble syncing your clam client, eh?  It seems like it would be very slow, but you could in principle make a script to loop  through the private keys and generate raw transactions.  Are you sure that of your 1000s of private keys, all of them have funded clams?

Surely nothing keeps him from keeping any amount on an S5.  But I thought that this thread would be about the technical details of the effort (this is the technical discussion board).  Seems like 90% of the posters in this thread just can't help saying "I don't like your idea".  But come'on, people, surely someone has a technical opinion if you want to hang out in this board.

So far, all of the folks saying it's not a good idea haven't really said why it would or wouldn't work.

If I were going to do this, I would:

* Install Cyanogenmod and a propery recovery
* Go ahead and remove the radio blobs so the phone has no way to connect to cell phone networks

At this point, you're sure that you have a non compromised android.  You could then use Andreas Schildbach's bitcoin wallet for andoird as it's an open-source wallet you can check for issues.

Finally, it goes without saying that you'd want to make a backup of the entire device (but especially the private keys).

Okay, so, if this is not a good idea, lets hear why, not just "not a good idea".

Assuming that Monopoly can get them into a file, one per line, I can show how to loop through the file in bash.

I would think that you'd want to go ahead and run your own clamclient for this, so if you go that route, it may just be a matter of formatting the file so that it's in WIF and clicking import.

BrianM: maybe you would.  In fact, I'm pretty sure that's what QS expected me to do about 5 months ago.  As far as I can tell, he makes his way to the top by slashing and burning and not looking back.  I believe he thought he could smear me off of the forum and just use me as another stepping stone in his power-trip.  I'm pretty convinced he's a dangerous guy.  But anyway, I'm not going to give him the satisfaction of just going away.  If he's going to persist in throwing false accusations that even he can't explain, using sockpuppets to bump my negative feedback once every two months, etc, then I'm going to have to persist in calling him out.

His stated goal when he started this with me was to get me kicked off a signature ad campaign.  Again, I ask you, would you really let some random guy who buys and sells (default trust) accounts hurt your hero account in the pocketbook?  You would just say fuckit?  I guess I'm not willing to let him get away with it and while I'm sorry that I have to drag everyone else into this, it's really the default trusters who are vouching for his behavior who ought to answer this thread.

Still, I'll register you as yet another in the long list of people asking QS to listen to reason and drop the false accusations (or at least explain them).

Interestingly, you had to remove a false negative rating in order to be added, then after being removed, you replaced the rating which you originally had to remove in order to be added.  It sounds a little like the opposite of TBZ's situation.  It certainly is a curious situation that TC allows the false rating to stand this second time around.  I can't explain it and TC's only comment on it suggests apathy.


BrainM:  I'd love nothing more than this.  QS has no real grudge against me (that I can tell).  And I have no real grudge against him (other than his attack on me).  I'm standing here holding out an olive branch and asking him to stop and fix this (really for his own good as much as for mine).  But if he's not going to withdrawal his attack, what can I do but continue to draw attention to it.

I couldn't agree more with your sentiment that it's time for him to end this.  But I have to emphasize, he's the aggressor here, not me.

What would you do if you were in my situation, BrianM?  Imagine that QS suddently turned on you and started neg-repping you left-and-right using sockpuppets and false charges, what would you do?

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