|
Auction ended, final result:
Slots BTC/Slot Person
5 0.16 blenderio
4 0.16 lightlord
|
|
|
|
Crap, I wish I had paid more attention in my CS classes. No recollection of max flow whatsoever. Google is extremely unhelpful. So what's the range for X and how does it depend on merit? Can it be negative? How big is N - that's only users who have custom trust lists, right? I feel like I'm missing something obvious here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_flowhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmonds%E2%80%93Karp_algorithmNote that you can require a "minimum flow" per edge and still be the same problem, but that refers to requiring that much flow, where 0 is not allowed. My intuition is that with my "0 or 10" requirement, it becomes the (NP-hard) knapsack problem. There are good approximations for that, though.
I was thinking that X = earned_merit intdiv (10 or 250), but I'm not sure. N = all users who match the current truster criteria, either 10 or 250 earned merit. The "excluding merit sent by the trustee" thing couldn't be added here AFAICT, and would have to just limit users allowed into this step. M = the number of distinct users trusted by the users on the left side. |
|
|
|
@theymos No comment on this suggestion? I have a nice graph too
It's an interesting idea, but I think that trust ratings and trust lists are fundamentally different concepts which shouldn't be mixed. Just because you had a good trade with someone doesn't mean that you trust their judgement generally. For example, your system would tend to strongly amplify long cons like pirateat40, I think. Also, we're not going to moderate things like "did a trade actually occur, and with x value?". |
|
|
|
Hi guys, I have a question .
What does mining on testnet means exactly? it means that the coins that i mine now till january 15th doesn't have any value and i cannot trade them on exchange? thanks !
Right, the testnet ("floonet") is just to test that you have everything ready for Jan 15. The floonet coins are worthless. |
|
|
|
|
My opinion is that I'm not going to waste time reading your huge, rambly, low-content posts which you post everywhere.
Skimming:
- Dash is a shitcoin, like the vast majority of altcoins, but I've heard absolutely nothing which makes me think that it's a scam on the whole.
- Lauda has engaged in some behavior which I consider unethical or sub-optimal, but she's also done several good things. It's not for me to decide how her actions weigh out on net.
- Suchmoon is an excellent forum member.
|
|
|
|
I thought that I had a good idea for limiting each individual truster when handling the last two criteria: set it up as a circulation problem as below, and then find the maximum flow. The "user tX"s through whom flow passes would be the DT1s selected.  (The orders of the users would be randomized on each run.) There are efficient algorithms for maximizing the flow in problems similar to this, which is why thinking about it in this way occurred to me. However, it turns out that the "exactly 0 or exactly 10" requirement on the rightmost edges makes finding an exact solution too difficult. I might try to write an algorithm for finding an approximate solution to this, but I probably won't get to it in the near future. Anyone else want to give it a try? You might also be able to structure it as a knapsack problem or something else, but I haven't gotten around to thinking about that yet. |
|
|
|
Excuse my noobishness on the subject but... isn't Cuckoo Cycle PoW ASIC mineable?
If not, what makes it different from ASIC mineable Cuckoo algos?
Would be a shame if after all this talks/threads about mining with GPUs and CPUs on day 1 resulted in total pounding of the network by ASICs.
It's using a modified Cuckoo Cycle algorithm called Cuckaroo which will be tweaked as necessary to remain ASIC-resistant. However, it's planned to phase in support for ASICs, with the goal of having an algorithm that's as easy for ASICs as possible so that everyone can buy ASICs, and nobody has an advantage. |
|
|
|
I more-or-less agree with your grievances, but where's the strategy? I echo The Pharmacist's comments in the other thread in saying that this movement is looking mainly like a group of undirected terrorists, which is probably turning off a huge segment of the population who would otherwise agree with you. If people are more worried about having their homes firebombed by an anarchic mob than about abstract concepts like freedom of speech, then your movement is dead. I suspect that the movement will lose size and popularity over time as Macron both cracks down and gives some concessions, until the remnants can be safely wiped out. To avoid this I think you'd need to create a sort of parallel government which can claim widespread support from the movement as a whole, and then compete with Macron's regime either within the current framework, or compete with the entire old government for legitimacy. Extremely difficult. (Admittedly, I'm nowhere near France or even Europe, so my ability to accurately perceive the situation is limited.) |
|
|
|
The number of users trusted by 100+-merit users is now over 700. I think that I may modify that to requiring 2 trusters with 250 earned merit. Number of 10-merit trusters: +------------------+----------+
| name | trusters |
+------------------+----------+
| DefaultTrust | 654 |
| theymos | 81 |
| Vod | 54 |
| Blazed | 47 |
| hilariousandco | 47 |
| Lauda | 46 |
| The Pharmacist | 45 |
| LoyceV | 43 |
| suchmoon | 42 |
| Mitchell | 40 |
| gmaxwell | 38 |
| dooglus | 37 |
| minerjones | 37 |
| OgNasty | 35 |
| SaltySpitoon | 33 |
| philipma1957 | 32 |
| Zepher | 30 |
| Lutpin | 29 |
| Hhampuz | 29 |
| krogothmanhattan | 28 |
| DarkStar_ | 27 |
| qwk | 26 |
| actmyname | 26 |
| Cyrus | 25 |
| TMAN | 25 |
| marlboroza | 23 |
| greenplastic | 22 |
| owlcatz | 22 |
| BadBear | 19 |
| monkeynuts | 19 |
| Lesbian Cow | 19 |
| -ck | 18 |
| Tomatocage | 18 |
| SebastianJu | 17 |
| John (John K.) | 17 |
| ibminer | 17 |
| achow101 | 17 |
| HostFat | 16 |
| JohnUser | 16 |
| BitcoinPenny | 16 |
| KWH | 15 |
| shorena | 15 |
| chronicsky | 15 |
| yahoo62278 | 15 |
| CanaryInTheMine | 14 |
| DannyHamilton | 14 |
| hybridsole | 14 |
| wheelz1200 | 14 |
| zazarb | 14 |
| satoshi | 13 |
| vizique | 13 |
| OldScammerTag | 12 |
| smoothie | 11 |
| NLNico | 11 |
| TookDk | 11 |
| hilariousetc | 11 |
| Maged | 10 |
| phantastisch | 10 |
| yxt | 10 |
| mprep | 10 |
| DiamondCardz | 10 |
| squall1066 | 10 |
| Stunna | 10 |
| hedgy73 | 10 |
| EcuaMobi | 10 |
| polymerbit | 10 |
| Gavin Andresen | 9 |
| TECSHARE | 9 |
| fluffypony | 9 |
| EFS | 9 |
| yogg | 9 |
| cryptodevil | 9 |
| ezeminer | 9 |
| Lafu | 9 |
| casascius | 8 |
| malevolent | 8 |
| Blazr | 8 |
| PsychoticBoy | 8 |
| monbux | 8 |
| TheNewAnon135246 | 8 |
| tmfp | 8 |
| Kialara | 8 |
| nullius | 8 |
| anonymousminer | 8 |
| ICOEthics | 8 |
+------------------+----------+
Number of 250-merit trusters: +-------------------+----------+
| name | trusters |
+-------------------+----------+
| DefaultTrust | 63 |
| Vod | 26 |
| hilariousandco | 25 |
| The Pharmacist | 24 |
| LoyceV | 22 |
| suchmoon | 21 |
| theymos | 20 |
| gmaxwell | 16 |
| Lauda | 15 |
| actmyname | 15 |
| DarkStar_ | 15 |
| philipma1957 | 14 |
| SaltySpitoon | 13 |
| Mitchell | 13 |
| Blazed | 13 |
| Lutpin | 12 |
| marlboroza | 12 |
| dooglus | 11 |
| Zepher | 10 |
| ibminer | 9 |
| TMAN | 9 |
| Hhampuz | 9 |
| krogothmanhattan | 9 |
| OgNasty | 8 |
| qwk | 8 |
| KWH | 8 |
| hilariousetc | 8 |
| mprep | 7 |
| Cyrus | 7 |
| achow101 | 7 |
| owlcatz | 7 |
| monkeynuts | 6 |
| minerjones | 6 |
| yahoo62278 | 6 |
| John (John K.) | 5 |
| Anduck | 5 |
| Tomatocage | 5 |
| BadBear | 5 |
| DiamondCardz | 5 |
| shorena | 5 |
| JohnUser | 5 |
| tmfp | 5 |
| Lafu | 5 |
| ICOEthics | 5 |
| HostFat | 4 |
| Maged | 4 |
| squall1066 | 4 |
| DannyHamilton | 4 |
| Welsh | 4 |
| NLNico | 4 |
| yogg | 4 |
| greenplastic | 4 |
| cryptodevil | 4 |
| OldScammerTag | 4 |
| xandry | 4 |
| LeGaulois | 4 |
| Jet Cash | 4 |
| Gunthar | 4 |
| xtraelv | 4 |
| phantastisch | 3 |
| -ck | 3 |
| malevolent | 3 |
| BCB | 3 |
| Stunna | 3 |
| TookDk | 3 |
| EcuaMobi | 3 |
| Lesbian Cow | 3 |
| wheelz1200 | 3 |
| BitcoinPenny | 3 |
| chronicsky | 3 |
| nullius | 3 |
| Halab | 3 |
| iasenko | 3 |
| coinlocket$ | 3 |
| asche | 3 |
| anonymousminer | 3 |
| satoshi | 2 |
| sirius | 2 |
| allinvain | 2 |
| nanotube | 2 |
| casascius | 2 |
| Pieter Wuille | 2 |
| Raize | 2 |
| Meni Rosenfeld | 2 |
| grue | 2 |
| bitpop | 2 |
| BurtW | 2 |
| tysat | 2 |
| SebastianJu | 2 |
| zvs | 2 |
| Phinnaeus Gage | 2 |
| Blazr | 2 |
| Dabs | 2 |
| Xian01 | 2 |
| babo | 2 |
| BigBitz | 2 |
| buysolar | 2 |
| Micio | 2 |
| vizique | 2 |
| Ticked | 2 |
| Timelord2067 | 2 |
| dArkjON | 2 |
| BayAreaCoins | 2 |
| minifrij | 2 |
| TheNewAnon135246 | 2 |
| hybridsole | 2 |
| arulbero | 2 |
| AT101ET | 2 |
| MadZ | 2 |
| Avirunes | 2 |
| redsn0w | 2 |
| TripleHeXXX | 2 |
| pazor_true | 2 |
| Rmcdermott927 | 2 |
| bitkilo | 2 |
| dazedfool | 2 |
| iluvbitcoins | 2 |
| sapta | 2 |
| HagssFIN | 2 |
| generalt | 2 |
| Fakhoury | 2 |
| zazarb | 2 |
| ezeminer | 2 |
| BtcCrazy1 | 2 |
| SFR10 | 2 |
| zoose | 2 |
| rickbig41 | 2 |
| gt_addict | 2 |
| HCP | 2 |
| DJ1554 | 2 |
| duesoldi | 2 |
| Kryptowerk | 2 |
| MySeriousFaceIsOn | 2 |
| micgoossens | 2 |
| Xal0lex | 2 |
| o_e_l_e_o | 2 |
| Coolcryptovator | 2 |
+-------------------+----------+
If DT1 was reconstructed now with that modification: theymos
HostFat
dooglus
gmaxwell
OgNasty
SebastianJu
qwk
mprep
Cyrus
monkeynuts
ibminer
TMAN
Lauda
TookDk
Mitchell
vizique
Blazed
greenplastic
Lesbian Cow
suchmoon
achow101
owlcatz
JohnUser
minerjones
BitcoinPenny
yahoo62278
zazarb
LoyceV
actmyname
The Pharmacist
DarkStar_
marlboroza
Hhampuz
krogothmanhattan
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder if the ransomer will be stupid enough to treat XMR as an absolute black box, and go immediately sell it on an exchange. Because if the ransomee combines data with the exchange, they can basically prove that the funds came from the ransom in that case.
|
|
|
|
|
Unless major problems come up, I'm going to reconstruct DT1 again using the published criteria on Monday, so set up your trust lists before then. After that I'll probably switch to doing it near the beginning of each month.
|
|
|
|
|
Found & fixed it now, thanks.
|
|
|
|
I added it for mobile devices only using CSS media queries, but it seems to only work on the very newest browsers. Seems a little broken? They all have times of 0 I guess you’ve noticed this though.
Does it still do that? I never saw that. |
|
|
|
New page with info on the DT1 live "voting": https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;dtviewBut probably far less who will actually update their lists. Having said that, 10 people with 10 merits (and 1 with 100) trusting you is not a particularly high bar to be set. I would worry about potential scammers either buying or trading merits their way on to DT. If I'm not mistaken, 200 sMerit is enough to create 10 DT1 members: Send 20 Merit to 10 accounts, send 10 times 10 Merit to the last account, and give all of them this Custom trust list: All of the "DT1s" would also have to be of Member rank, which isn't trivial. Anyway, there are many conceivable ways to abuse the system, but if it happens, you can just shoot me a PM and I'll fix it, probably in less than 24 hours. To do it in a way that's non-obvious, where I wouldn't blacklist the accounts, would require tons of time and sMerit, and is unlikely. I'm inclined to let the current criteria go for a while and see if "unknowns" actually start habitually getting into it, in which case changes would be needed. Anyone knows if this counts as an -1 score on everybody on DT list if you are on DT1?
It doesn't. The algorithm would never work that way. |
|
|
|
Theymos quit being a coward,
You reinstated Lauda,and you remain silent.
Man up and admit she does unspeakable deeds for you.
Damn, I'm found out. While personally training Lauda in the dark arts of forum moderation, we fell deeply in love. I couldn't bear to see her endure the torture of trust drama while doing unspeakable deeds for me, so I invented this complicated algorithm as an excuse to add her back in even though I could've just unilaterally added her to DT at any second. Truly, my cowardice knows no bounds. |
|
|
|
I'll play around with it. Even if exclude him successfully not sure what's gonna happen if he changes his name again. Hopefully it's based on user ID somehow. You can just copy/paste his whole name, and it is stored as a user ID. |
|
|
|
Uh-oh. So if I send 10 merits to 10 people trusting me then I'm in DT1? That doesn't sound right. Perhaps merits sent by the candidate should be excluded from the calculation. Just to prevent the most egregious abuse (or being accused of abuse when none was intended).
Good idea, done. But don't worry too much about this stuff when sending merit or you're going to go crazy.
Since it already changed, I just reconstructed DT1 again, and maybe I'll do it again in a couple of days. Many people can get eligibility just by setting a trust list, so things could change quickly at the beginning. Then I'll aim to do it roughly monthly. To illustrate, this is how the current DT1 was arrived at: Static part: calculated only periodicallyEach number includes the previous criteria. - If rank was determined solely using earned merit, then you must be of at least Member rank.
- You must have been online sometime within the last 3 days. 2431 members - Your trust list must include at least 10 users, not including ~distrust entries. 100 members - You must have posted sometime within the last 30 days. 90 members - You must not be banned or manually blacklisted from selection. 90 members - You must have at least 10 people directly trusting you each with an earned merit of at least 10, not including merit you sent yourself. 23 members - You must have at least 1 person directly trusting you with an earned merit of at least 100, not including merit you sent yourself. 23 members, giving a final DT1 of: theymos
HostFat
dooglus
gmaxwell
OgNasty
SebastianJu
qwk
Cyrus
monkeynuts
TMAN
Lauda
Mitchell
Blazed
greenplastic
suchmoon
achow101
owlcatz
JohnUser
BitcoinPenny
zazarb
actmyname
The Pharmacist
krogothmanhattan (Omitting lists for undisputed ones.) theymos: Total votes 9 = included HostFat: Trusted by theymos; distrusted by gmaxwell, TMAN, Lauda, achow101, owlcatz, The Pharmacist. Total votes -6 = excluded. dooglus: Total votes 8 = included gmaxwell: Trusted by theymos, OgNasty, Cyrus, TMAN, Lauda, achow101, The Pharmacist; distrusted by HostFat. Total votes 6 = included. OgNasty: Trusted by theymos, SebastianJu, greenplastic, achow101, krogothmanhattan; distrusted by TMAN, Lauda, suchmoon, owlcatz, BitcoinPenny, The Pharmacist. Total votes -1 = excluded SebastianJu: Total votes 4 = included. qwk: Total votes 5 = included Cyrus: Total votes 7 = included. monkeynuts: Total votes 6 = included. TMAN: Trusted by Lauda, greenplastic, owlcatz, BitcoinPenny, The Pharmacist, krogothmanhattan; distrusted by OgNasty. Total votes 5 = included. Lauda: Trusted by gmaxwell, qwk, TMAN, Blazed, suchmoon, owlcatz, JohnUser, BitcoinPenny, The Pharmacist; distrusted by HostFat, OgNasty. Total votes 7 = included. Mitchell: Total votes 9 = included. Blazed: Trusted by Cyrus, monkeynuts, TMAN, Lauda, Mitchell, suchmoon, BitcoinPenny, The Pharmacist, krogothmanhattan; distrusted by zazarb. Total votes 8 = included. greenplastic: Total votes 2 = included. suchmoon: Trusted by dooglus, Lauda, Blazed, owlcatz, The Pharmacist; distrusted by OgNasty. Total votes 5 = included. achow101: Total votes 2 = included. owlcatz: Trusted by TMAN, greenplastic, suchmoon, BitcoinPenny, krogothmanhattan. Total votes 5 = included. JohnUser: No trusts/distrusts on DT1. Total votes 0 = included. BitcoinPenny: Total votes 4 = included. zazarb: Total votes 2 = included. actmyname: Trusted by TMAN, Lauda, Blazed, suchmoon, The Pharmacist; distrusted by theymos. Total votes 5 = included. The Pharmacist: Trusted by qwk, TMAN, Lauda, Blazed, suchmoon, owlcatz; distrusted by OgNasty, zazarb. Total votes 6 = included. krogothmanhattan: Trusted by monkeynuts, TMAN, greenplastic, BitcoinPenny; distrusted by owlcatz. Total votes 4 = included. So the final result is: theymos HostFatdooglus gmaxwell OgNastySebastianJu qwk Cyrus monkeynuts TMAN Lauda Mitchell Blazed greenplastic suchmoon achow101 owlcatz JohnUser BitcoinPenny zazarb actmyname The Pharmacist krogothmanhattan |
|
|
|
For years I've been unhappy with how DefaultTrust ended up as a centralized and largely-untouchable authority, but I was reluctant to change it because the alternatives seemed too messy. However, I've finally decided to try some changes, and we'll see how it works. #1As a special exception to the normal algorithm for determining a user's trust network, if you are on the default trust list ("DT1") but more other DT1 members distrust you than explicitly trust you, then it is as if you are distrusted by the default trust list for all purposes except for this very DT1-composition determination. So if someone on DT1 is doing something stupid, you can ask other DT1 members to distrust them. See here for live info on this "DT voting". #2You can view any page as if you were using the default trust settings by putting ;dt at the end of the URL. Eg. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=35;dt#3I will periodically (maybe every month) be reconstructing the default trust list to include everyone who matches these criteria: - If rank was determined solely using earned merit, then you must be of at least Member rank. - You must have been online sometime within the last 3 days. - Your trust list must include at least 10 users, not including ~distrust entries. - You must not be banned or manually blacklisted from selection. - You must have posted sometime within the last 30 days. - You must have at least 10 people directly trusting you each with an earned merit of at least 10, not including merit you yourself sent. These "votes" are limited. - You must have at least 2 people directly trusting you with an earned merit of at least 250, not including merit you yourself sent. These "votes" are limited. Unlike the previous policy, I will not generally be trying to cultivate a good list; that will be left to the DT1 members themselves. However, I reserve the right to remove you and blacklist you from future selection if you engage in egregious and obvious abuse, or if multiple known alt accounts could be selected. Currently not that many users are eligible. If hundreds of users would be selected in the future, I plan to instead choose a random subset of about 100 eligible users each time. This DT1 reconstruction may even automatically happen on a schedule in the future, but it doesn't currently.
A major goal of this is to allow retaliatory distrusts and ratings to actually have some chance of mattering so that contentious ratings have an actual cost. If someone is obviously scamming, then any retaliatory rating should not last long due to the DT1 "voting", but if you negative-rate someone for generally disliking them, then their retaliation against you may stick. In borderline cases, it should result in something of a political battle. This is inspired partly by something that David Friedman said once (though I can't find the quote), that one of the requirements for a peaceful society is the credible threat of retaliation in case you are harmed. As DT was organized previously, one or both sides of a dispute was usually unable to effectively retaliate to a rating, at least via the trust system itself. Now your ability to effectively retaliate will tend to increase as you become more established in the community, which should discourage abuse generally. (Or that's the idea, at least.) All that being said, I still discourage retaliatory ratings, and with these changes I encourage people to try to "bury the hatchet" and de-escalate rather than trying to use any increased retaliatory power you now have. Also, it's best to make your own custom list, and you must do this if you want to be on DT1. I am never completely tied to anything, but let's try this for at least a few months and see how it works. |
|
|
|
|
What happened yesterday was that Marina Uni renamed the topic to something English, moved it to an English board, and then reported it. A moderator in that board, not being aware of any of this context, then trashed it for being off-topic.
I restored it and temporarily banned Marina Uni for moving the topic to where it would be off-topic. OPs do not own the replies to their topics, and unless it is self-moderated, they have no right to have the replies deleted.
|
|
|
|
|
Today I finished rewriting the forum's payment processing code, partially with LN acceptance in mind. I can now add LN support with only a little more work. However, I ended up deciding not to accept LN at this time because I think it'd end up being too much of a headache:
First, Internet protocol designers often underestimate the fragility of the Internet, and don't realize that DDoS protection is probably the single largest issue facing any site large enough to be noticed. You can't just expect sites to run some non-standard public-facing server like it's nothing. Most affordable anti-DDoS services don't even support anything but HTTP(S). I know how to set up an effective layer 4 anti-DDoS system on my own, having run the forum behind such a system for years, but most people can't do that, and it's a big hassle which I'm not going to endure just for LN. (In reality, if I was going to set up LN now, I'd put it on its own VPS and just not care if it gets taken down. But this isn't a good solution.)
Second, because the forum's use-case is in many ways perfect for LN, the forum's LN node could be called on to do a lot of LN routing. So I'd then become a service provider for something new that I don't have time for, where many people will be adversely affected if I decide to bring my LN node & payments down for a few days for tinkering or whatever. LN will make money across many tiny fees, but since the total value is likely to be minuscule, this'll probably be more of an accounting annoyance than anything.
So anyone who wants to accept LN payments in a fully-participating manner basically needs to enter a new side business with a whole new set of paying (but not-very-well-paying) customers who might get annoyed at you for various reasons, and a whole new set of technical concerns. This does not appeal to me...
I suspect that the only people who will accept LN payments in its current state are enthusiasts who are too small or too enthusiastic to care about those issues, plus maybe the very largest of businesses which have both the motive and ability to deal with this. For LN to see wide adoption in its current state, I'd expect it to only be through a proliferation of trusted-third-party LN-based payment processors, which is very much not ideal. In order to avoid this, I recommend one of these solutions:
- Create a system where third-parties can trustlessly proxy incoming LN payments. It's OK if the final recipient needs to run an always-on daemon, just as long as it's not public. Bonus points if the final recipient doesn't need to open any ports, or if you can do something to allow offline recipients.
- Restructure LN to be inherently DDoS-resistant. For example, instead of having one public node IP/onion, a unique onion with restrictive data limits could be automatically created and given to each new person you interact with (eg. included in invoices). Also, make LN refuse to route transactions by default.
- Rather than LN, put more focus on other off-chain systems such as sidechains.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
