--snipe--
Either way,that negative shouldn't be removed.You are involed in too much shady shit.It's a coincidence that every account you have sold has involved in a scam.Or maybe you sell accounts to scammers ? After selling accounts,warning people to stay away from them personally doesn't make things any better.Real life implications would be : Imagine a Gun Seller who sold the Gun to kill the president.Doesn't matter how much awareness he spreads about the Gun being sold,at the end of the day,Death of the President makes him a criminal too. (I hope it has been resonated as it should be) Worse : You sold an account which was in a campaign. Correct. I will de-list him/her from the table as they are not an alt. However, the negative rating will remain after I re-write it. Just another example of the harm caused by account trading.
This also makes the situation more difficult as I have to re-view the whole addition and evidence while factoring in date of sales. |
|
|
|
segwit cannot be easily undone and there is a danger that funds in segwit addreses could be spendable by anyone (stolen)
if segwit has to be rolled back
Nobody claimed that it can be easily undone (or at least I hope so). hopefully the litecoin experiment can be used as a working testnet while a better solution is developed
There is no better alternative. if we have to use segwit ,give everyone plenty of warning and do it via HF in combination with a blocksize increase
It seems that someone managed to spread the false idea that Segwit would be so much better with a HF. Guess what? It wouldn't, and the code change would almost be trivial. |
|
|
|
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.
I could maybe see a improbable scenario, where the campaign has a very few limited amount of spots and due to this rule you're favoring individuals. However, I don't expect them to leave trust ratings because of disallowing alts. However, in most of our campaigns (I think) there are plenty of open spots so this is a moot point. I don't expect a unified stance here, as DT members don't have to cooperate at all should they choose not to. |
|
|
|
While I'm still curious to see SegWit in action to find out if the scaling claims prove to be accurate, there have been some fairly strongly worded warnings doing the rounds online. Anyone care to refute or debunk? Or is there a thread about that article elsewhere on the board that I've missed? I think the majority of the people do not even want to bother trying to refute such stuff anymore. The problem is that biased people keep spewing up articles with either completely misleading information, half-truths and whatnot in an attempt to completely undermine Segwit. Just read through the recent article on the Bitcoin Classic (Segwit vs. Flexible Transactions) and you will see (it has been mentioned on #bitcoin-core-dev). Some aren't sure whether Garzik truly believes some of the nonsense that was written on there. Here is a small example: In practice, based on the average transaction size today and the types of transactions made, the block size limit is expected to have a maximum limit of ~1.7 MB post-SW.
They use outdated date to make it seem like Segwit brings only a little improvement for a 'lot of complexity'. Latest transaction pattern usage review shows that we can expect around 2.1 MB. 3.6 Once activated, SW cannot be undone and must remain in Bitcoin codebase forever.
If any critical bugs resulting from SW are discovered down the road, bugs serious enough to contemplate rolling it back, then anyone will be able to spend native SW outputs, leading to a catastrophic loss of funds.
Segwit can be undone with a hard fork, just like any other soft fork. Surely it won't be simple very simple due to the Segwit UTXO, but it will not lead to a catastrophic loss of funds (exaggerating).
I'm too tired to even attempt to refute anything technical or economical, and there are surely people that are better fit to do this. You could ask on IRC in #Bitcoin (you may get lucky).
The idea of a free-market block size limit is also absurd as it gets. If anything has been shown in the Bitcoin world, it is that markets behave irrationally. Bitcoin was never intended to have a free market block size limit as per Satoshi (who they seem to quote only when and in a context that suits themselves). |
|
|
|
Change in password and email address should follow the confirmation email sent to address used during sign up.
But many users use fake non existing email during sign up so first we have to make sign up confirmation also
You don't have to describe the standard way of how this could/should be working. It is what it is right now, and I doubt that we are going to see changes before the switch to the new forum. I don't see the current method being a problem as long as there is at least 1 active admin that can respond to those requests in a reasonable amount of time. |
|
|
|
|
This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Referral link.
|
|
|
|
In some cases I was indeed including very simple text when reporting threads and posts, but I will now include more information where the mods will be informed properly in case of a thread posted in the wrong section for example.
It really depends on the 'complexity' of the report. However, if you care about your accuracy and want to be on the safe side, then do so. In some cases mods do handle quickly, but some times it takes quite some time to get a report handled even though I see other reports are indeed being handled as the threads are either moved or deleted.
That depends on who you're reporting (user rank), where you're reporting them (which section) and the complexity of the report (e.g. standard bot spam vs. trolling). Reports on newbies should get handled really quickly at almost all times. |
|
|
|
What if someone has reported a thread as being posted in the wrong section, but a staff member spots it without looking at the reports and move it to the right section himself, will the reports then vanish, or will they remain active even though the thread has been moved to the right section. If the report stays active, and a moderator or other staff member sees that the report shows "wrong section" while it has been reported before the move, then it's obvious that the report will be market as a bad report.
Simply illustrated with an example: Let's say we have a thread that is meant for Meta but is currently in the Reputation section. If you report it with :"Wrong section." and someone moves it before the report gets handled, we'd be left with a thread in the appropriate section being reported as "Wrong section.". It would be marked as a bad, because that's what it would be in that case. This is why you should formulate your reports in a better way: When I make reports like that, they usually look like this "Wrong section -> Section to be moved".
I used to do "Shouldn't be in X section -> 'Move to Y section' OR 'move to appropriate section'" (depending on whether I'm certain where it belongs). |
|
|
|
You have reported 294 posts with 97% accuracy
Let's assume you have ~286 good reports and 8 bad ones based on that (note: this may not be true due to potentially unhandled reports). You need to make a total of 400 reports, i.e. 106 good reports from now to reach 98%. That's 400-8 = 392, which is 98% of 400.
The numbers may be wrong, but you get the general idea. You need a lot of correct reports in order to move up those percentages. |
|
|
|
Anyways, If the accounts are proven to be owned by another person would it be a bad idea to tag them?
It depends on what you think about these users. I wouldn't trust someone who owns e.g. >5 accounts with anything. Therefore, I usually tag those once discovered. Due to the way the internet works, it's a never ending battle and you cannot win.
I'm pretty sure you can win most of the battles with the proper policies.
As far as my campaign manager position is concerned: If you are caught doing this, you will instantly be permanently blacklisted and tagged. As far as my DT position is concerned: If you are caught doing this, you will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and probably get tagged.
This is a good starting point if you want to tag some alt rings: [User Generated] - Known alts of anyone. |
|
|
|
For a long time, my accuracy is stuck at 97%. What can be done about it?
How many total posts have you reported? The answer is obvious anyways: Keep correctly reporting posts. |
|
|
|
Are DT members leaving feed back comments only on members they have traded with and dealt with or if someone asks them to be a judge in a situation they give negative trust if the case is legit?
You don't have to have a single trade with anyone to leave them a rating. The system is a web of trust, not a web of trades. |
|
|
|
Dunno just saying what could be the leaks.  That's not a Bitcoin private key leak, but a [insert service] leak. It is highly advised to avoid the use of web wallets, online address generation, et al. However, it seems that some users are too ignorant to realize why. -snip-
Learn English and stop shit-posting. all the codes that i have seen so far for making a paper wallet are suggesting the following as first step:
- download code
Code compromised -> Going offline is useless. |
|
|
|
[b][u]Accounts connected:[/u][/b] [url=http://1EfzEpfoPgqyPUJcoKYR7TQpShc8htjDDj]gany[/url]
Your link is broken. -snip-
I can report he was dishonest with me and has spammed wrong information about me without having done proper research, without seeking clarification, across many threads I have posted in. With Avirunes it's accuse and attack first - think later (if ever).
Attempting to hurt my reputation by posting misinformed negative statements across multiple threads is Spamming. Spamming on a grand scale like this is problematic, should not be taken lightly and is a sign of Avirunes not being a credible person.
You didn't really refute the evidence in the previous post (the giveaway usernames), but rather just started attacking Avirunes for making this connection. |
|
|
|
Sounds like a scam to me.
It's unfortunate to see just how gullible people are in areas that they don't understand. It seems to be very easy to make them believe things in the information age, especially when using some 'buzzwords'.
You can, however hack Bitcoin users and steal files from their computers/laptops/smartphones.
This is nothing special, and this is what the general population needs to understand. The users of pretty much any service, ranging from social media to internet banking can be hacked when their machines or networks are compromised. Bitcoin itself is not 'hackable' in the traditional sense. There are some known attack vectors (e.g. 51%), but that's about it right now. The bitcoin I heard have some private keys, if leaked then it will be the end of bitcoin as hackers can really mess up the bitcoin network in this case.
Enrolled in a campaign and you don't know how Bitcoin works? "The Bitcoin I heard"?  Private keys can not leak in the traditional sense, thus making your FUD post useless. |
|
|
|
So far, our customers are all from this forum , I can not run girlbtc without this account.
Doing business on this forum is not a "right" it is a privilege and you lost it
It seems that this needs to be made much more clear. Doing anything on this forum is, and should remain a privilege. Ban evading only made your case worse. -snip-
I can say sorry to him directly.
Sorry doesn't get you out of jail time either. |
|
|
|
DT is not a unified front.
Indeed. There is no any sort of obligation to leave feedbacks. You can leave feedbacks. You can bring it to their/others notice (which you did.). That is it.
Exactly. It seems that there are quite a few misconceptions regarding the trust system. It is not really possible to effectively tag everyone doing X (even if one wanted to). Tagging accounts red for participating in legit account sales is pretty much just making a whole economy riskier to scams and fraud because you can't deal with trusted people and at the same time hampering the legit lending economy forcing trusted lenders to go underground to complete their business..
Step 1) Don't trade accounts. Step 2) Enjoy the reduced amount of spam and scams. I wish account selling was banned, alternatively the post count could be reset, as it is not relevant to the new "owner".
Unfortunately it isn't. |
|
|
|
955
What makes you say that? Exactly... I have had to revise my thinking, too because I was fairly certain that either the move between $800 and $900 was going to be slower or that there was going to be some considerable correction within that that price range - especially since the status of bitcoin still remains without any kind of meaningful or significant price correction since about August... I have some tentative ideas, but I am really afraid to say them because I am just likely to be proven wrong or someone who has no fucking clue.  I suppose, nothing wrong with that when we seem to have continued upwards price movement. I think that Bitcoin can be used as prime proof of a market being irrational. However, not irrational in a sense that it shouldn't be increasing in value / moving upwards, but the timing and amount it moves usually catches most people by surprise. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
