I have always wondered why bitmain are charging a btc purchase at the same price as a usd purchase.
They don't have to pay tax when it is purchased through bitcoin!
Of course they do? Bitcoin is just a payment method, for something valued in $. |
|
|
|
There is a danger here, that this analysis is identifying 'communities' within bitcoin rather than alts
It may pick up trading communities, yes. for example - TookDK / Wheresmycoin
That's just an error, I flagged them wrong at some point when comparing 1000s of lists. They probably wouldn't even qualify for the lower tier of association. |
|
|
|
Hmm I dont know about that... I don't think bbit was bought. I was the one who outed hashie originally and most evidence I've seen points to hashie and bbit being two separate individuals.
If they are 2 separate individuals then they are associated, which is what this analysis highlights. Glancing through this list I see a few other accounts that I know for sure aren't alts. Nice idea but it isn't very accurate at all.
Glancing through the list will of course highlight names you say aren't alts, that doesn't mean the other 97% aren't associated in some way. Maybe you aren't thinking about this the right way, take a look at this one:
I would think that ahmed_bodi and mrbodi would more likely be alts of ahmedbodi rather than VERUMinNUMERIS.
You're looking in the really low association table which doesn't mean much. The higher association table already highlighted that ahmedbody = ahmed_bodi, and mrbodi isn't in the data because it has an unedited trust list. VERUMinNUMERIS is already strongly associated with 3 other accounts so its more than possible its the same person controlling them all. So in conclusion the analysis identified: 2 alt accounts with likely the same owner, 4 alt accounts with likely the same owner, and potentially a link between the two sets. I'd call that a success (see the diagram). |
|
|
|
Whoops.
lol. Upon further investigation, it appears that everyone who is not a legendary member is affected (possibly minus some additional people). They are now showing as having zero activity. Legendary = master race Is there any way to view the progress of the recalculation?
You can chase it via profiles. As of this post it was at about user 12,000. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=12100 |
|
|
|
Bitmain could still have a better replacement system. For instance they can and they do run the "outdated hardware" in their own mines for an extended period of time. We know that they keep some, since we know they still have some S2's. Since they can ship them out. So they could easily have a portion of the miners alloted to stripping down for parts when needed. For instance if its within the 3 month garante, you could maybe send a picture proof and get a replacement shipped.
Some farms operated by Bitmain are owned by third parties, like the S2 farm that was advertised. With a finite amount of space they don't necessarily hold sufficient stock of older miners. Having to ship the unit and wait for it to come back often mean you might as well just buy a new one, which is ridiculous. Then when the warranty is expired, you should still be able to buy S5's parts, where they will go to their mine, grab a miner and strip it down and sell you the part individually. They CAN do this, since again, we know they still have S5's and pretty much everything for more than 1 year after a miner is out of stock.
At some point you have to say "no". Having customers indirectly pay 1-3x the value of a hashing board in air shipping makes no sense. An S5 hashing board (10 months since release) is worth probably $40 yet is going to cost far more than that to ship out. Why, what's the point, exactly who is winning here? The customers who paid more for their S5s in the first place? Bitmain who now has to administer 10x more returns? Bitmain who now has to keep private farms of miners? The customers who then have to then again pay more for their S5s in the first place? The correct answer is only UPS and DHL win out of this. |
|
|
|
Aside from Black Arrow, anyone know any updates on scammer Butterfly Labs?
tldr FTC ate most of their money, they could never make anything again without money and with delays, they let everyone go and liquidated to pay off the few people they could. |
|
|
|
|
This is a silly question, of course everyone wants longer warranties but its not always practical. You make a finite number of miners in a finite number of batches. You keep a small number of parts to fix future miners. Having to repair miners far beyond their useful lifetimes means everyone is paying for 0.2 miners + labour + shipping alongside their miner.
|
|
|
|
|
Added batch 2, including some lower tier results. These should generally be ignored in isolation although can often identify some outliers to an existing alt network. Also added a visualisation of the first 2 batches of results.
|
|
|
|
Basically this one. Most of the time, I'm being brought to a half-loaded page.
If it always stops at the ad then maybe the ad is triggering it. FortuneJack's ad (shown in that screenshot) is particularly heavy on CSS. It is valid HTML/CSS, though. Anyway around this ? had the same issue one too many times today.. It's not that big of an error; just refresh the page again and continue browsing. It can take up for a few seconds of your time and it's not particularly annoying, unlike that 502 error which usually persists for a minute. The same thing can happen when sending a message, posting or asking for a draft preview. A large portion of requests are either getting lost or not being replied to. Its not as simple as refreshing the page. I was talking about the error with the page half loading with only the advertisement on the page. I believe that error only occurs when you view a thread; I only get it at those times. My point is its just one of many symptoms of likely the same problem, all of which can't be explained away by routing issues unless we all are in the same place. |
|
|
|
-snip- -snip-
What if I told you that I did not post this yesterday because I was pondering whether or not I should post how to easily game your analysis, but still see identical trust ratings? I have not gambled for a while, would you be willing to make it a small bet?
I don't really understand your point. This analysis isn't meant to be the "no one can have an invisible ult account ever again" system, its simply used to unearth several 100 of them already in existence. Most of which are used for evil purposes. Maybe I just expected more than similarities between trust lists. Its certainly interesting work, I just dont think it can do what you suggest. On the other hand I might not have the background to judge the significance. Its an analysis of trust lists, its not magical  That being said if I had access to other forum data I'm sure it could get exponentially more accurate. Have a look at some of the batch 2's I've released, lots of alts. |
|
|
|
Basically this one. Most of the time, I'm being brought to a half-loaded page.
If it always stops at the ad then maybe the ad is triggering it. FortuneJack's ad (shown in that screenshot) is particularly heavy on CSS. It is valid HTML/CSS, though. Anyway around this ? had the same issue one too many times today.. It's not that big of an error; just refresh the page again and continue browsing. It can take up for a few seconds of your time and it's not particularly annoying, unlike that 502 error which usually persists for a minute. The same thing can happen when sending a message, posting or asking for a draft preview. A large portion of requests are either getting lost or not being replied to. Its not as simple as refreshing the page. |
|
|
|
-snip-
Which could be argued to bring in bias since it relies on your perspective and past experiences.
If 2 people both have Theymos, John K and BadBear in their lists, the correlation would be 100% but it doesn't tell us anything about the relationship between the two accounts because its so common. The current version doesn't weight based on frequency yet so it needs manual filtering. I agree that some additions to a trust list might be common while others are not, my point was that it brings bias if you alone decide it what is common and what not. The alternative is posting uninterpreted data which pretty much suggests everyone = everyone to some degree, which will include things like BadBear = everyone, Theymos = everyone etc etc which is pointless. That's only going to be used as a weapon to attack people. I post the trust lists (truncated to I think 160 characters) alongside any potential matches so you yourself can decide if you think its a match or not. There are different ways to get the same result and only the direct copy would be noticable by your reasearch. Additionally for those that actively try to hide their alts its very easy to manipulate their list in such a way that they no longer end up over 0.8 or any other limit for that matter.
The more you ask about the algorithm the easier it is to game, but as you'll see in later releases its no where near as easy as you're making it out to be to mask your list if you want it to be functional. The last batch I processed last night used ratings as low as 0.5 and there are plenty of strong correlations down there, so a future run will take even more. I also set maximum matches to 5 thinking most of these guys wouldn't have more than 5 but there are plenty already hitting that boundary. What if I told you that I did not post this yesterday because I was pondering whether or not I should post how to easily game your analysis, but still see identical trust ratings? I have not gambled for a while, would you be willing to make it a small bet? I don't really understand your point. This analysis isn't meant to be the "no one can have an invisible ult account ever again" system, its simply used to unearth several 100 of them already in existence. Most of which are used for evil purposes. |
|
|
|
It does however not - assuming here, please correct me if Im wrong - take into account how likely it is for someone to end up on a given trust list in the first place. From the trust.txt I downloaded just a few minutes ago I see that - as expected - certain users are more often on someones list than others. You have a top list for this as well IIRC in your other thread. E.g. theymos is on 170 different trust lists, dogie on 34.
It does not, that's why I'm manually screening anything I release at the moment, there are plenty of "strong correlation" results I filtered out because they're common results. Depending on how much time I invest in this, I may filter out some of the top people altogether. Which could be argued to bring in bias since it relies on your perspective and past experiences. If 2 people both have Theymos, John K and BadBear in their lists, the correlation would be 100% but it doesn't tell us anything about the relationship between the two accounts because its so common. The current version doesn't weight based on frequency yet so it needs manual filtering. There are different ways to get the same result and only the direct copy would be noticable by your reasearch. Additionally for those that actively try to hide their alts its very easy to manipulate their list in such a way that they no longer end up over 0.8 or any other limit for that matter.
The more you ask about the algorithm the easier it is to game, but as you'll see in later releases its no where near as easy as you're making it out to be to mask your list if you want it to be functional. The last batch I processed last night used ratings as low as 0.5 and there are plenty of strong correlations down there, so a future run will take even more. I also set maximum matches to 5 thinking most of these guys wouldn't have more than 5 but there are plenty already hitting that boundary. |
|
|
|
I'm running my S7 @ stock speed @ 2500rpm fans @ 30C ambient without issue. Its not inconceivable that one might be able to do the same after replacing fans given a lower ambient. Also worth remembering that both the ASICMiner Tube and Prisma cooled ~1KW through a longer heatsink using a single fan. And in the case of the ASICMiner Tube it was possible to replace the fan with 2x Corsair SP120s which are quite a way under the NF-F12s.
interesting...what is % setting and its boards temp? thanks 30% fans, 66C highest board. doubly interesting, so you don't think that going this high is troublesome? I thought in S5 you wanted to stay lower than this (it least initially, AFAIR). If i can go to 2500 and even 3000rpm, I can definitely host another S7 [Your quote is derped]. No I don't have any indication that going that high is troublesome. They wouldn't have chosen an 80C shutdown if 70, 80 or even 90C was the "turns to sludge" point. derped? how is that relates to anything i said? whatever See your post, its missing a quote line so its gone weird, that's what I was referring to: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1165628.msg12591510#msg12591510 |
|
|
|
hello good day.. any one know that how i can do solo mining because i have 45Th/s and i want to found my own block... please guide me..thankyou
With only 45TH it'd take on average 70 days to find a block with no difficulty increases. That means there's a reasonable chance you will never find a block with your equipment - is that really worth the gamble? |
|
|
|
Just to make sure we are on the same page. This is a measure how similar peoples trust lists are as well as a measure how large (as in complex) the average trust list between the two is. complexity(A,B) := [Count(A)*.3 + Count(B)*.3] / 2
The closest thing you'll find to this is the Jaccard index. You take two sample sets. You count the attributes shared by both samples (call this Z). You count the attributes observed in only one sample (call this X). You then count the attributes observed in only the other sample (call this Y). Finally, you can calculate the similarity index by using the three counts in this operation: Z / (Z+X+Y). It does however not - assuming here, please correct me if Im wrong - take into account how likely it is for someone to end up on a given trust list in the first place. From the trust.txt I downloaded just a few minutes ago I see that - as expected - certain users are more often on someones list than others. You have a top list for this as well IIRC in your other thread. E.g. theymos is on 170 different trust lists, dogie on 34.
It does not, that's why I'm manually screening anything I release at the moment, there are plenty of "strong correlation" results I filtered out because they're common results. Depending on how much time I invest in this, I may filter out some of the top people altogether. I also cant follow the premise that a person would use an identical (or very similar) trust list over multiple accounts.
They do, because for anyone not in DefaultTrust (99% of people), the only utilisation for their trust list is to show who's ratings they want to see. And regardless of which account they're using those preferences generally remain constant. To sum it up, what makes you draw the conclusion that similarity of trust lists has anything to do with alt accounts?
Past experience. |
|
|
|
re. "Data isn't being spat out in a nice form so formatting will look meh for now. I'll add in some of my other table codes in time."
You mentioned using Excel to generate this? If so, could you dump/export this to Google Docs, formulas & all?
I meant that the final data the analysis spits out isn't neccesarily interpretable or useful for humans straight away and requires a significant amount of post processing. Turning it from Excel into forum code isn't a problem, I have plenty of translators from my PSU / company table based guides I can reuse. There's quite a lot of manual work and some Excel only add-ons which would prevent Google Doc replication, but results could be published there. I'm still reluctant to dump a raw list without forcing a 'reasonable' interpretation on the information, I don't want this list to be weaponised. |
|
|
|
Do you consider incoming trust as well as outgoing? If someone is 'farming' trust, they will probably be leaving positive trust on multiple alts at a time. Recognising such patterns could maybe make your tool stronger.
No it doesn't although its worth remembering this is trust lists, not trust ratings. Being trusted by multiple people is hard to factor in although it could be used as an end stage check to see if accounts are cross trusting each other. For the time being I'll be working on visualisation and automation of the interpretation so I don't have to manually review 1,000s of them. |
|
|
|
|
Trust lists have to be public so there is accountability within DefaultTrust. Outside of that its also important to know who may be a good addition into DefaultTrust. I'm not sure I understand your comments about bribing people so I won't comment on that.
|
|
|
|
|
What interval between forum actions do you have set up on the bot?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
