I might be completely wrong here, but isn't the -O3 just going to build the program in parallel?  I guess I thought the wiki wasn't referring to optimizing the build process itself, but to optimizing the built binary for working on some harware or another.  Please correct me if I'm wrong!

I don't know why you think most people would hate it.  I agree completely.  If someone has paid into the tourney I don't have any problem picking up their blinds once a round.  As the blinds go higher, it's just free chips for those who are playing.  For what it's worth, it's not effectively any different than sitting there pressing the fold button again and again, it's just automated for you.

I guess I finally noticed this paragraph on the wiki page for vanitygen:

So that made me double-check and it turned out that my binary of vanitygen was:


Whoops!

So I rebuilt it and now Ihave a 64-bit executable and things are faster.  Okay, so I continue reading on the same page:



Well, I had built by just saying "make", so this makes me wonder what are the appropriate optimizations (are they Makefile options I should be passing?).  That's the point of this question then, should I just say "make" or should I be passing some kind of optimization parameters?

Right, you don't have to scrape from the text of a web page.  If you look in my post history you can find where I posted some basic scripts using curl and sed and perl and such to do some simple stuff with the primedice api.  Good luck Nowi.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1036194.0

QS and TC are still not responding.

I'm considering locking this thead and breaking it out into separate threads for the separate issues at play here:

1) TC is responsible for the actions of the people on his trust list.  If he trusts someone who is abusing others, then he is abusing others.  He says above that my gripe is with Quickseller, not with him.  However, as long as he's vouching for Quickseller's actions, I think it's only fair to ask that he engage in a discussion with me.  Given that last time he put QS on his trust list he was very very open and helpful and this time he's got me PM blocked before I even tried to write to him, I consider this to be very fishy.  Given that QS was recently selling a default trust account and that he threatened me openly just two days before being readded to TC's list, I think this is extra fishy.  I don't want to put on a tinfoil hat yet, but think it's only fair to ask that TC respond to trust abuse that's happening in his name.

2) QS is trust spamming.  He has attacked me with three separate accounts.  Even if his gripe against me is valid, he should consolidate his negative ratings under one account.

3) QS is trust abusing.  His gripe with me is clearly personal and puntive and has absolutely nothing to do with the safety of this forum.  He needs to come up with some kind of evidence that I did something wrong sometime if he wants to leave negative trust.  Leaving negative trust for personal reasons unrelated to anything is abusive.

Mods, should I lock this thread and make these three separate threads in an effort to better separate the issues at play and try to get some response?

As someone recently said to me in a PM, dealing with QS is next-to-impossible, he either comes up with a valid reply to something you say or else he ignore you completely and goes off-topic.  Literally his only reply to this thread was to openly mock me saying that he would pay BTC to anyone who could convince him to leave me alone.  Clearly he's enjoying the fact that (1) he's currently on default trust and he doesn't want attention drawn to all this abusive stuff he does so he's ignoring this thread (2) he's celebrating the fact that he's hurting me by being allowed to stay on default trust and keep his false and abusive ratings against me active (last time he was here he was forced to modify them to neutrals).


Edit: Given that (again) no one is responding, I have gone ahead and split this thread out into three separate threads for the separate issues:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1142352.new#new
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1142353.new#new
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1142354.new#new

Please comment on these issues in these threads, depending on your topic. This topic is now locked.

I guess that knightdk answer it just above you.


This explanation makes sense, the spammers are using greed to really amplify their attack.  I really appreciate you guys filling me in on the details missing in the OP.  Bitcointalk users educate me again!

I've definitely seen this with players who register and never play.  That they get removed after a certain time period and their entry fee refunded.  However, yes, if he played at least one hand, it seems really weird to remove him and his chips.  PaulC should hopefully speak up for himself on this one though, his account of it would be just as relevant as whatever support wants to say.

It's also mentioned in the primedice blog, if i recall correctly.  He's got big plans for it, but yah, the release date is certainly (for now) the Soon^TM that we know Stunna so well for.  I hope it does happen though, I'd certainly like to check it out.

Mitchell has been a little overworked with this thread for quite a while (according to his own admission).  Just like Mitchell took over this thread from someoen before him (I can't recall the name now), maybe it's time for someone to go ahead and make version 3 and allow Mitchell to enjoy his retirement after working so hard for so long.

Also, at one point, hillariousandco was thinking to go ahead and just edit the OP with Mitchell's permission.

I dunno, now we're on Primedice 3.  So, if you ask me, even in the relatively small realm of dicing sites, there's been soem innovations from primedice 1, to 2, to 3.

I haven't synced with the clamclient.  One thing you can try if using the client is awkward is the other method suggested by dooglus, to use the Just-Dice chat robot to dig for you.

teukon,

That was the best explanation I've gotten yet about how this stuff works.  I was aware of the notion of scripts and that it was possible to write unusual scripts which allowed unusual spend conditions, but that explantion was a very nice way to show how they work.

Another think I can note is that your explantion of what the OP was talking about differs from what knightdk said.  He suggested that these were simply publically known private keys (brainwallet for "cat", for example), whereas you suggest that in these cases there simply are no private keys involved at all.

I suppose both types of UTXO must exist, and it makes sense that miners want to claim these funds as much as anyone else does.  However, I guess you'd need to write a pretty clever program to "interpret" scripts of UTXO and try to decide if they're easy to solve.

One last follow up, why is anyone sending bitconis to an output with a script which says "tell me X where X is true"?  That seems like you're just giving your bitcoins away.  What's the motivation for anyone to do this?

One thing I can add here is that when bitcoin was at 1500$, I definitely spent quite a bit on drinks and food and physical items.  Now that bitcoin has shrunk back down to 300$, I'm basically holding it.  I just can't stand the site of so much btc disappearing per beer.  It has a lot to do with the psychology of it.  Because I was able to get a whole meal for me and a friend and a few beers 0.05 BTC back in the day, it just feels too painful to spend that much on a pair of drinks nowadays.

At least in the original "stress-test", part of the context was trying to "prove" that the blocksize limit needed to be adjusted sooner rather than later in order to accomodate more transactions.  The idea here is not exactly that it's profitable in the short term to spam, but that the spam proves a point which you wanted to prove.  I don't really think this succeeded, btw, and I'm not 100% sure that was the actual motivation, nevertheless, it's one hypothesis.  Here's another one though, again, it's not for profit, but you can imagine that there are trolls out there who want an idea to fail.  Maybe you're a banker and you're threatened by bitcoin the same way hotels are threatened by airbnb.  You want bitcoin to fail so you spend money to make it hard to use.  Again, this may not be the case, but it's another plausible explanation.

I agree with you that the idea that someone is somehow profitting directly by spending a lot of coins to slow down Bitcoin seems a bit farfetched to me.

Probably the previous "post" in that context was your login.  I agree that the wording seems wrong.
"digging" is when new clams are made active from the initial distribution.  That is, if I understand correctly, the initial distribution of CLAMS was such that BTC,LTC, or DOGE addresses which were funded above a certain dust threshold on some date in 2014 (May something?) were set up so that the private key from these addresses could be used to fund a clam address with like 4.6 clams.  People refer to new clams being entered into this system from this initual distribution as being "dug up".

Cheers, man, the multis are awesome.  What stakes?  Of course you know that getting two multis in a row isn't really correlated with how busy the site is.  I've seen more multis than that in a row.  All many multi's in a row means is that there's going to be a lot of reds and greens in a row soon.

Also, what's your name in game?  I'm a pretty old-school player there, now at level 8.

Okay, that definitely eases my mind a little bit.  I was surely getting nervous that if there was a way for miners to generally decide to send someone's btc to an unspendable output, that would have basically meant that bitcoin was completely broken.  Ha.

Anyway, I guess that if people are sending money to these sorts of wallets then clearly there's a race to be the first to cash them out, I suppose that miners have as much of a right as anyone else to get into that race.

I have to admit guys, I'm totally confused by this thread.  How can a miner take an output which belongs to someone else and spend it?  I thought that you'd need the private key to do that (in order to sign the transaction).  If a miner decided to spend my bitcoins to an unspendable output, I'd be screwed.  There must be some piece of this puzzle that I'm missing, which is why I was asking for a link above to some discussion of it.

Help!?

Of course SWC is windows only (for now) and Lucky Flop won't seem to let me make an account from my location (haven't yet tried yet with TOR) and betcoin wasn't working on Linux last I tried.  So I still think there's a lot players with no place to play at the moment.

Anyway, you're right that it seems that this project is all but abandoned.  I don't really know why the OP would even keep the site open at all for the moment.  But anyway, maybe he's considering next steps and will make some kind of decisions soon and tell us.

What's more, he's attempting to put words into Shorena's mouth just above:


I basically completely agree with ndnhc here.  It's one thing to say that you wouldn't play there and to warn others accordingly, it's another thing to troll dadice's threads, calling them scammers, calling people associated with them scammers, and all with zero scam or evidence of scam.  All based on some kind of bad feeling.  Dadice should notice the very stark difference in approach between Shorena and Quickseller and shouldn't be lumping them into the same bucket, IMO.

The only thing I'd add is that while I understand that Shorena doesn't want to talk about other casinos here, I think it is relevant to ask him why he feels okay with promoting (and presumably playing) at the casino he's currently advertising if they haven't shown their cold-storage wallet, etc.

Finally, as I asked upthread, I wonder what the statue of limitations is on this bad-feeling that he has.  As has been pointed out, many many casinos are offering services without showing cold-storage addresses.  Apparantely not all of them generate the same bad feeling for Shorena.  I wonder how many months/years would have to go by before Shorena would be willing to say "hell, okay, maybe they never showed their cold storage address but they have now  been offering services for XX years/months and it's clear that they're not in it to scam, they're merely offering a gambling service and profiting on the house edge".