I realize that, but then how would you determine the post quality? Or just remove it from the results entirely?
ahh and why this needs to be here if you aware, how misleading it is? just because of sig. campaigns. (quality sig. campaigns are counted by humans and length of post doesn't matter anyway), or to just have another variable and "precise" results? imho best option is to remove it completely, because 75 chars rule was found by some low paying massive campaigns (typically coinomat), which are just focusing on amount of posts and were scared by totally useless posts like "lol" or ".".. I included it because of the standard request for the post quality of an account since that can affect the price of the account. I needed a metric so I just used what my sig campaign used as a metric for acceptable posts (probably wasn't a good idea). However, I feel that a price estimator without including the post quality of an account would not be complete. I will remove that if enough people want me to. So far, I have not seen anyone really mention their dislike with that feature (besides you) so I will leave it as is. |
|
|
|
I would advise you read the discussion on that pr thread and read the actual bip here: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010535.htmlIf you actually read any of those, it should be clear that this is simply giving operators the option of disabling bloom filters and thus disabling connections to spv wallets. It is just like the choice to choose Core or XT. Additionally, it is not only a change to Core, but a change to the protocol. It prevents SPV wallets from constantly sending requests to a node that does not support bloom filters (e.g. old nodes) thereby conserving resources ON BOTH ENDS so that they can be put to actual use instead of wasted. Furthermore, Core is not by default disabling this feature. It is only giving node operators the option to turn it off, and for people who just start Bitcoin Core and leave it running (like me) then it doesn't matter. |
|
|
|
I'm inclined to believe that they support XT and BIP101 simply because it is the only production code available that implements big blocks, which they all support. If someone creates different code that also implements big blocks (such as BIP 100) then we would have both more choice and that these companies would not stick to XT. |
|
|
|
It took some time to load the information here are your stats:
thanks a lot:) OP: nice idea, even this section "post quality" is quite misleading. There may be reply in 2 words, which is accuraty and help to solve some issue or fully answering the question and there may be 2 pages copy paste worthless crap. I'm aware, that is hard to determine by script, what is "quality" post and what not, anyway, maybe this should be changed.. I realize that, but then how would you determine the post quality? Or just remove it from the results entirely? I based the post quality off of what my sig campaign accepted for decent quality posts which is at least 75 symbols in length. |
|
|
|
|
So I have analyzed the potential activity issue and a manual count shows that my website is correct. I don't know why Bitcointalk says the activity is higher than what I calculated though.
|
|
|
|
|
It is OK and not stuck. Armory can take a long time to load. Just keep it open and after a while (can take several hours) if will load and be usable. The more often you use it, the less time the startup should take.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm trying to build it but it doesn't work. I tried using maven and through android studio but neither seems to build it. How did you build the app that is on the website?
|
|
|
|
That's funny. Could you try knightdk's APK?
I'm still trying to figure out the android builder. Maven is having trouble resolving perfectly OK artifacts, even after clearing my repository cache.
Hi i can not see the apk, where did he put it? I just used the apk on your website and that worked fine for me. I am currently building my own version and testing that. |
|
|
|
Just tried this one and work flawlessly on my localhost.
maybe devs can add text animation while this bot counting the potential activity (like loading... / progressing...)
I thought this bot did not work because no sign while counting
Adding onto what Lannister mentioned, if someone does want to implement something like this, this project would probably be of use when trying to implement such a feature. It mentions what page of posts the bot is on currently when calculating the account's value, so it's definitely doable. That project is written in javascript so the requests are done from the browser directly not from the server like with this project. This project here can post the pages it requests. But i don't know which server setting is needed to make the flush commands working. Normally it can post 1... then 2 and so on. Maybe the developer can say something about? Regardless of that... the script could be changed anytime. You only need to tip the address i posted for him in the first post. If he gets enough tips to make the work then he might want to implement everything requested. I agree though that the script should say... when it starts... something like Loading pages... but server side code is normally so that the server does everything he has to and then sends the total result. Except this setting is done that allows that the server sends signs not in one rush but continually. Maybe the dev can explain which setting is needed on php. Alternative a warning under the form that says that after sending it takes some time and everything is ok as long as the page shows loading. Actually it is written in Java which is translated to javascript for some of it. The server does all of the work which also runs into a problem of ip bans from Bitcointalk. I solved this by using a queue, but it doesn't always prevent the ban. The browser cannot do the requests itself due to same origin policy. |
|
|
|
When I put in UID 37522, it's taking so long to load it..
There are so many People using OP's site and the script is Pinging to Bitcointalk.org server so many times in an Hour , so OP's has created a method to wait between each user Request so that he could not get a Auto IP ban from Bitcoin talk server. knightdk I guess I am correct ! Well it has already been ip banned, so Can everybody wait a few minutes for the ban to clear? It usually only takes five to ten minutes. I see that the potential activity is still coming out lower than the actual activity. From my understanding of the activity calculation it should increase with 14 every 14 days (depending on the number of posts you did) so the potential activity in my case should show 266. Not a big issue,just thought I'll mention it. User Id: 373054
Name: RustyNomad
Posts: 548
Activity: 252
Potential Activity: 238
Post Quality: Excellent
Trust: Neutral
Estimated Price: 0.19293750 Only worth about $44  About the problem, I am still working on it (kinda busy though) but I think I will get the bug eventually. |
|
|
|
There is no guarantee that that is his actual timezone. It is possible that he changed his clock to further hide himself. He also could have posted at odd hours do that people searching for him would be following a red herring. |
|
|
|
It lists the proposals, but not clients or code for any of them except bip101 (xt). I'm looking for clients and code along with deployment plans |
|
|
|
Magic bytes (not packets, typo whoops) identify the network any network days is meant for. They precede the message. As of now, xt nodes and core nodes can connect and interact with each other because the magic bytes match. If that keeps up, core nodes can connect to xt nodes and will receive xt blocks and transactions and vice versa. This can cause problems.
The address prefixes also present problems since a valid xt address is the same as a bitcoin address so there could be confusion since it would be impossible to distinguish which network it is for.
Changing those also officially makes the coin that does so becomes an altcoin
It would not be possible to identify cross spends because any inputs from before the fork would be valid on both chains. Any transaction chains involving those inputs would be replicated on both chains as well.
And while cross spending with new inputs (mined after the fork) would result in failed transactions, old inputs would result in the coins being spent on both chains. Of they were to coexist, then this can't happen. This can be remedied by changing the prefixes and magic bytes and a few other things.
Thanks Knight. That helps a little with the understanding. Taking emotion and personal issues out of the picture - and given that Gavin & Mike are probably well aware of this - is there any last minute patch that could be done on their side to minimalize (I'm not saying eliminate) this? I'm not encouraging or suggesting this - but I'm just looking to predict what sort of monkey wrenches could be thrown into this. I really do think that players bigger than Mike are guiding this - and I know how they think. These guys are in battle plan mode and I am sure that all scenarios / solutions are being discussed and considered. I really would like to see Core survive - even though most of my money would go to XT, just out of survival principle. But I like the idea of a fighting underground - able to move money around - in the world I see coming. The only methods that minimizes the risk and problems of cross spending would be to completely separate both networks (almost impossible) or have one chain. There really is no way to prevent cross spending when two chains exist. |
|
|
|
|
It is possible but be completely pointless since each participantt would be getting a few satoshis which would be worthless unless the price goes up a lot.
Also, unless they can figure out how to make small, low power and low heat chips, it would say through the battery quickly, literally burn a hole in your pocket, and destroy the life of your battery since heat destroys lithium ion batteries.
|
|
|
|
Thanks a lot
I don,t have a back up and i tried to install it again but didn, t work. I have the debuglog. Would it help?
The debug log would help. Also, go into the data directory and copy the wallet.dat file to a safe location before doing anything. |
|
|
|
Exactly as title of posts suggests... WHY? List the negative consequences, because I don't understand the disaster scenario everyone seems to be implying if the Hard Fork happens, and XT were to be adopted by biggest Miners/Exchanges - but a hardcore group of "Core" supporters (say 10 - 20% for theoretical arguments sake) lived on, cranked back up their mini-miners, slowly found support on bigger miners as difficulty reduced, and just continued on. Why couldn't both chains live in harmony?
They could live in harmony provided that certain things happen. A) The coins have different names and symbols which distinguishes them B) One changes its magic packets and address prefixes to prevent confusion and cross spending C) Exchanges exchange both xt coins and bitcoin treating each as a separate currency. However, these all depend on one group to actually change something, thus becoming an altcoin. And with the egos of the developer's and community, such changes will likely not happen. So you are saying that the Cross Spending IS the main problem. Don't know what "magic packets" are - and can guess as to address prefixes, but again, couldn't a technology solution be developed that would speed recognition of cross spend attempts and alert on them? And would there be a way to "Grab" a Coin that was being attempted to Cross Spend, and then "Mark" it with an identifier, so that at least that one was then forever marked. Or maybe a technology that does a one time "Check - Mark" on a Bitcoin, thereby locking it into that Chain - but more importantly IDENTIFYING it quickly in future transactions. Over time it would reduce the issue closer to zero. AND... if I am reading you correctly, you are saying that if this continues to look bad as "Zero Hour" (75% acceptance) approaches - then XT could single handedly decide at last minute to do the magic packet / prefix thing? And that would solve the crisis of Cross Spending? And of course, again - Cross Spending simply results in a failed transaction and a bit of confusion. No different really than a bounced check. Heck, I've had a few of those in my life. I'm still here, so is my bank, money, etc. Still not sure this is rising to the level of a "Global Bitcoin Doomsday" event. Magic bytes (not packets, typo whoops) identify the network any network days is meant for. They precede the message. As of now, xt nodes and core nodes can connect and interact with each other because the magic bytes match. If that keeps up, core nodes can connect to xt nodes and will receive xt blocks and transactions and vice versa. This can cause problems. The address prefixes also present problems since a valid xt address is the same as a bitcoin address so there could be confusion since it would be impossible to distinguish which network it is for. Changing those also officially makes the coin that does so becomes an altcoin It would not be possible to identify cross spends because any inputs from before the fork would be valid on both chains. Any transaction chains involving those inputs would be replicated on both chains as well. And while cross spending with new inputs (mined after the fork) would result in failed transactions, old inputs would result in the coins being spent on both chains. Of they were to coexist, then this can't happen. This can be remedied by changing the prefixes and magic bytes and a few other things. |
|
|
|
Exactly as title of posts suggests... WHY? List the negative consequences, because I don't understand the disaster scenario everyone seems to be implying if the Hard Fork happens, and XT were to be adopted by biggest Miners/Exchanges - but a hardcore group of "Core" supporters (say 10 - 20% for theoretical arguments sake) lived on, cranked back up their mini-miners, slowly found support on bigger miners as difficulty reduced, and just continued on. Why couldn't both chains live in harmony?
They could live in harmony provided that certain things happen. A) The coins have different names and symbols which distinguishes them B) One changes its magic packets and address prefixes to prevent confusion and cross spending C) Exchanges exchange both xt coins and bitcoin treating each as a separate currency. However, these all depend on one group to actually change something, thus becoming an altcoin. And with the egos of the developer's and community, such changes will likely not happen. |
|
|
|
I will make a starting bid if u accept it from 0.1 btc, i know it isnt ur asking price, but yeah, better than Nothing right?
Regards,
Joust
This isn't an auction. Oh sorry, than I will take back my words and good luck for you selling your account. Price is very cheap so is the post quality bad or has it been banned? Regards, Joust Is the price considered cheap? I based it off of my calculator from this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1142314.0 and discounted it a little. |
|
|
|
I've got an address from 2013 that has some clams in it and a little bit of change (0.0002). I will sell it to you for 0.05 BTC
Lol if there are clams in it, why haven't you claimed them for yourself and made a profit. Because I don't care enough to claim the clams. I can prove that I own the address if you want me to. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
