Primedice scammed me! I lost 0.31 to a glitch, and have yet to recieve a refund. They haven't even fixed the bug.
2/10 support, responded once asking me to "explain more". I responded with long paragraphs and pictures. 2 months later and no response.
Watch out! There's lots of bugs, you might be unlikely to encounter, but when they happen you will be mad!
Maybe you could 'explain more' here. If you add your long paragraphs and pictures to this thread then surely you'll either get a bunch of people behind you (and Stunna will reply quickly) or else you'll get a bunch of people telling you why you're wrong. In either case, you're sure to get a resolution. After years of reputation building, it's simply hard for us to believe your unsubstantiated claims at face value. Evidence is king! |
|
|
|
I've been keeping an eye on Eligius's memory pool (which doesn't contain the attacker's transactions) as other pools find blocks and for the most part it is cleared each time, which means that most legitimate transactions are being mined regardless of this DoS attack. Good for bitcoin.  It appears BTC China is filtering the spam, also, as it doesn't appear to be showing up in their recent few blocks. Good for them. As for Eligius, I feel the need to point out that Eligius's normal spam filtering is public for the most part, with the exception of the portions added recently that combat this specific attack (which would be silly to release during the attack and let the attackers work around it). Suffice it to say, as I mentioned before, the attacker's transactions are very easy to spot and thus very easy to filter. Admittedly, I'm kind of surprised that the attack is so simple to filter out. Leads to questions about the attacker's actual knowledge about bitcoin, or more specifically the lack thereof... I wouldn't be so sure abou that. There are plenty of legit transactions still waiting to be confirmed. For example, we have few here: https://www.nicehash.com/?p=miners&paymentsIf your mempool empties out with each block, then perhaps these legit transactions are never broadcasted to you? It looks like that eligius just found two blocks ( https://blockchain.info/block/00000000000000000638218146b8c0ac807315174c0104f390481853188df124 and https://blockchain.info/block/0000000000000000071359c423077912ed499e7351de61b9462d4178f2b45e94), both of which were under 52 kb and 82b43c7617e9bf1afcfbda94152da4fa9ccd2f477a6b5ed203326789d510847a and 5db4631aea702ee3ac6e0895f019e06d7c24b896e76f8cf1f1ba1e51e66d6acf are still showing as unconfirmed and are on the above link with recent mining payments from NiceHash. They do each have 8+ inputs and a large number of outputs.  So hard to figure out what people mean by that damn eye-rolly smiley face. You do understand that mining is a stochastic procedure right? Finding a block isn't going to be predetermined in size or number of inputs. I'll try it too: |
|
|
|
We are going to be soooooooo rich.
We are green 4 weeks in a row. That hasn't happened since the last bubble in 2013, so it's been 1.5 years! First time ever in that period of time we are in green 4 weeks in a row. The winkelsweeds are silent because they have actually completed their ETF and exchange and now they are waiting for the media attention directed towards bitcoin which will soon happen due to the beginning of the next bubble. When that happens, the twins will announce their ETF and amplify the bubble even more. All critical events will happen at the same time when it is the most critical time for the critical events to happen.
Maybe the meaning of "bubble" has some special connotation in the speculation section of bitcointalk. But if I understand bubble correctly then I wouldn't be wanting another bubble if I'm a permabull. The bubble implies that things are overvalued and they'll have to correct again soon. What I'd like to see is not "another bubble" but a steady and real valuation of bitcoin at a higher price. I definitely don't want another ride to a huge price and then a crash, that causes more harm than good, in my opinion. That is how markets work--huge ride up, then downward correction. Or, huge ride down, upward correction. Bitcoin's growth will be dominated by speculative bubbles just like every other market, ever. That seems like a huge blanket generalization which obviously can't be true. Every. Other. Market. Ever??? Surely there are and have been markets with movements other than "huge". I hope you're not correct that the only think that can happen is large speculative bubbles. |
|
|
|
I just registered to tell you that my bitstamp withdrawal has been stuck for 8 hours because of these "stress tests"
I have now missed making my mortgage payment because of this. Thanks... I'm already completely broke and struggling to feed my family. Now I have more bank charges and lost value from today's peak.
Way to hit the small guys.
My last 4 BTC.
This is the biggest consequence to my mind of these stress-tests. Average guys who didn't hear about it beforehand having to wait days for transactions to confirm. I know that the dudes who are "stress-testing" say they're proving some important point, but the collateral damage, in my opinion, is too great just to confirm conclusions that we already knew. Thankfully Eligius pool is working against the DOS attack and that fact is encouraging, that at least some miners are willing to prioritize transactions based on something other then pure fee---in this case, the Eligius miners are standing up for the small guy and regular users who are being disrupted by this "experiment". |
|
|
|
We are going to be soooooooo rich.
We are green 4 weeks in a row. That hasn't happened since the last bubble in 2013, so it's been 1.5 years! First time ever in that period of time we are in green 4 weeks in a row. The winkelsweeds are silent because they have actually completed their ETF and exchange and now they are waiting for the media attention directed towards bitcoin which will soon happen due to the beginning of the next bubble. When that happens, the twins will announce their ETF and amplify the bubble even more. All critical events will happen at the same time when it is the most critical time for the critical events to happen.
Maybe the meaning of "bubble" has some special connotation in the speculation section of bitcointalk. But if I understand bubble correctly then I wouldn't be wanting another bubble if I'm a permabull. The bubble implies that things are overvalued and they'll have to correct again soon. What I'd like to see is not "another bubble" but a steady and real valuation of bitcoin at a higher price. I definitely don't want another ride to a huge price and then a crash, that causes more harm than good, in my opinion. |
|
|
|
I repeat, 2 stricks streak of reds in over 20 bets placed busting my dice rolls! That is pretty common thing to have in PrimeDice actually How is it random rolls and how is it fair?
Pretty common? So I am rolling with 49.50% chance to get that roll right on a low bet and you say its pretty common to have 20 rolls rolling above 49.50 on a 100 provability chance? On another place I betted 15 times over 30 and I got 12 times under 30 in a row, so yeah, anything is possible. The thing to realize about these patterns is that any one pattern is as likely as another because the events are independent. As humans we imagine that "over 50" 100 times is super-special, but in fact it's just as special as "over 50", "under 50" repeated again and again. Any sequence of numbers is equally likely, that's the definition of random, independent events. every single time the dice is rolled in just about every online dice site you have 'MORE' than a 50% chance to LOSE because of the house edge. There's no special timer that gets reset to ensure a win after a certain number of losses. It's more likely as time and rolls go on that losses will be replaced by wins and eventually balance out to 49.5% wins in a 50/50 roll. Of course, I had simplified my discussion to a 50/50 scenario. But in fact if you're talking about a house edge which makes win 49.5 then it's by definition not a 50/50 roll, that is a 49.5/50.5 roll.
The idea that a win is more likely after losses is called the "Gambler's Fallacy". Many betting systems are based off the gamblers fallacy that aims to hedge losses to an eventual win. But the only way to ensure victory in the long run (24 hours doesn't even come close to the long run) is to have an infinite bank roll.
Here you're absolutely correct about gambler's fallacy. |
|
|
|
I repeat, 2 stricks streak of reds in over 20 bets placed busting my dice rolls! That is pretty common thing to have in PrimeDice actually How is it random rolls and how is it fair?
Pretty common? So I am rolling with 49.50% chance to get that roll right on a low bet and you say its pretty common to have 20 rolls rolling above 49.50 on a 100 provability chance? On another place I betted 15 times over 30 and I got 12 times under 30 in a row, so yeah, anything is possible. The thing to realize about these patterns is that any one pattern is as likely as another because the events are independent. As humans we imagine that "over 50" 100 times is super-special, but in fact it's just as special as "over 50", "under 50" repeated again and again. Any sequence of numbers is equally likely, that's the definition of random, independent events. |
|
|
|
|
Haven't tried this myself, but I'd check `top' to see if it's working hard (not actually frozen) and maybe there's some info in debug.log if it actually did crap out on you.
Also, I'm following-up here for my own info. is RCP different from RPC (remote procedure control). And what you wrote doesn't look like the typical rpc commands, it looks like Java to me. I'm sure I'm missing something, thanks!
|
|
|
|
I looked a bit at the php documentation and it seems that those namespaces are translated into file paths by the php interpreter. If I understood it correctly, those backslashed paths would fail on a standard Unix-like machine (because \ is an escape character). On the other hand, I believe that Windows these days recognizes the standard path delimter /. So maybe forward slashes are going to be more portable. |
|
|
|
Here another link for you http://dicesites.com/tools and from the sites you can check that the probability to get 20x loss streak is about 0.00011637% . The number is close to zero but it is not impossible so with that being said, conclusion is that you are unlucky to have 20 + loss streak More generally, the probablility that any set of rolls go a particular way is just the multiplication of the probabilities. This also makes intuitive sense. If you have one roll at 50/50 there's a .5 chance, but when you want two rolls at 50/50 on a particular outcome for each roll, consider with coins and H, T: HH HT TT HT Those are the four possibilities, so getting any particulare one is a 25% chance, that is, .5*.5. The patten continues with 3 rolls, there are 8 possible outcome sequences and the probabilitiy for any paritcular outcome sequence is .5*.5*.5 (ie, 12.5%). If you want 20x, it's .495^20. This is indeed a small number if you only roll 20 times then the chance that you guess the outcome of all 20 rolls in sequence is very small. But if you roll 20 times, then another 20 times, you just doubled your chance. If you roll a million times, it's another story. So, you have to consider how many times you rolled if you want to decide whether any particular streak of 20 is "lucky" or "unlucky". |
|
|
|
I think this will do what you need - https://github.com/bit-wasp/bitcoin-php/blob/src/Chain/Difficulty.php. Use composer to install `bitwasp/bitcoin`. $difficultyBits = \BitWasp\Buffertools\Buffer::hex('1d00ffff');
$diff = new \BitWasp\Bitcoin\Chain\Difficulty(new \BitWasp\Bitcoin\Math\Math());
echo $diff->getDifficulty($difficultyBits) . "\n";
It's not perfect, and won't handle overflow or negative bits, but should work for most cases.. The url you linked to gives me a 404. And is it really okay to use path literals with backslashes in PHP like that? UNIX paths are /, but in most programming languages I've used, path strings need to be quoted and if you're doing package paths it's usually a dot or a colon. Just curious as I don't use php all the time, I tend to write in python or perl for scripting stuff. |
|
|
|
I have a few noob questions.
I have my clams in my wallet, they are staking but even though I have quite a few, it is only expected to stake every 49710 days! how can that be?
I moved them to my wallet on Saturday, but the age hasn't increased. They are still staking at 1 per CLAM, does the age only increase when I have the client open? Can they only stake when it is open?
Does it matter that I use 1.4.3.0? The new ones want to re-index, so I am not in a hurry to update!
I'm pretty sure that in all of the POS coins you can only stake when your wallet is open. If you're not connected, you're not in the race. I'm not an expert (and many others in this thread actually are experts) but if I understand correctly, POS is a lot like POW in that you are racing against others to find a hash that fulfills certain criteria. Actually most POS coins have age and you can't rewards based on the age. Clam has a system where there is no age. So only the people that are online more and secure the network get more rewards. So to reiterate, clams doesn't have age. Right, this is the "proof of working stake" thing. I had forgotten bout this when trying to answer bitcoiner2015's question. Clam is not really POS or POW but a hybrid. |
|
|
|
Oh and I bet you poor vulnerable devs are still out here looking for sympathy I'm all for traders sticking together, if anything, all this guys comments has done is shown me what developers really think about us i dont think all dev think that way i dont think like that traders i have no problem with them, I like trader and never have i insult trader trader, schmader these clowns have formed some bullshit traders union so they think they are powerful im not now, nor have i ever been a pussy so i will say what I feel If you trade and you dont respect developers then you can take a massive FUCK YOU! I dont give a shit How long do you expect me to just sit here and watch ryans group hijack every fucking coin on the market? We're not talking small change here, you just go and look at the volume that they have pulled since last year They are nothing but financial terrorists so i'm not gonna bow to them what makes me sick is ryan wont even come here and acknowledge my posts shows how much he cares about developers One way to "not bow to them" would be to stop putting worthless coins out onto the market which can be manipulated so easily. It's really a dog-eat-dog world out there man and if you keep getting eaten then I think the thing to do is look at yourself and how you're making yourself vunerable and reconsider your actions. If it's simply that you want to be the one manipulating and they're not letting you then, again, this means that you're not doing it right, not that someone else is doing it wrong. One thing that's guaranteed not to help is frothing at the mouth and shouting. It really just makes you look even weaker. why do you talk out of your ass? It's actually typing with my fingers but I can see already that you're not into details...
so it is okay for them to join together in their numbers and create a fucking traders union?
Of course it's "okay". An open market is an open market. Crying and screaming isn't going to stop this. If you don't like what happens when you put your coin onto the open market then maybe you need to think twice about what you're doing.
developers work on our own mostly
so how do you expect us to defend ourself against a fucking gang of traders?
It's hard for me to understand why you think the developers should be "defending themselves" against traders. If what you developed had real value, then it wouldn't be so easily manipulated. What it really sounds like here is that you want to manipulate by hyping a worthless coin that you "developed" and you're mad that someone else is doing it better than you.
they are fucking bullies
just look at all the coins they have hijacked and manipulated since last year
you go and look at the volumes for all the coins and give me a figure for the amount of money they have pilfered for themselevs
they have sucked millions from this market
Sounds like the market had a lot of millions waiting for the taking. I really don't get you. I think you're mad that someone else is doing a better job milking people from their money than you are. You hope to make a sweet fortune by riding some cheapo coin you made "to the moon" and you're mad that it keeps not working for you. Maybe you should reconsider your own actions. Or develop something of real value.
i am not saying all developers are angles
but we should all be on a level playing field
[snipped giant image spams]
I dont think there should be any room for traders union terrorists like this
this is my problem
and if all the other devs are too fucking gay and scared to speak up
I WILL
Funny. You are definitely "speaking up". But the impression I get from you is a fish out of water taking it's dying breaths and splashing everywhere. All you gotta do to beat these guys is develop something of real value. If it had real value then it wouldn't be pump-n-dumpable. Of course that is difficult to do. But screaming that these guys are doing a better job than you at taking candy from babies is not going to help you acheive it. |
|
|
|
Oh and I bet you poor vulnerable devs are still out here looking for sympathy I'm all for traders sticking together, if anything, all this guys comments has done is shown me what developers really think about us i dont think all dev think that way i dont think like that traders i have no problem with them, I like trader and never have i insult trader trader, schmader these clowns have formed some bullshit traders union so they think they are powerful im not now, nor have i ever been a pussy so i will say what I feel If you trade and you dont respect developers then you can take a massive FUCK YOU! I dont give a shit How long do you expect me to just sit here and watch ryans group hijack every fucking coin on the market? We're not talking small change here, you just go and look at the volume that they have pulled since last year They are nothing but financial terrorists so i'm not gonna bow to them what makes me sick is ryan wont even come here and acknowledge my posts shows how much he cares about developers One way to "not bow to them" would be to stop putting worthless coins out onto the market which can be manipulated so easily. It's really a dog-eat-dog world out there man and if you keep getting eaten then I think the thing to do is look at yourself and how you're making yourself vunerable and reconsider your actions. If it's simply that you want to be the one manipulating and they're not letting you then, again, this means that you're not doing it right, not that someone else is doing it wrong. One thing that's guaranteed not to help is frothing at the mouth and shouting. It really just makes you look even weaker. |
|
|
|
If you don't trade then why are you so interested in changing a system that you do not use and that does not affect you Because it did affect me when you went after me with all your might trolling me with multiple accounts, you even made a new account a few weekends ago and started again (see feedback of "funtotry"). This cost me money because for a limited amount of time I was unable to contract with my signature sponsor due to the fact that you were briefly on default trust. Anyway, that kind of abuse is clearly why you didn't last on the default list. But I advocate for changing the situation so that others aren't abused the way I was. And so that we can have a more fair and honest system if I do want to start trading. |
|
|
|
It seems like you have previously created a similar thread here. Thanks for the bump, I had intended to link to that thread as well, because in it are many discussions of the problems with default trust. However, that thread has a distinct purpose from this one. That thread's purpose was to make suggestions about how the trust system should work. Wheras this thread is about announcing my complete removal of the default trust list from my own trust list and soliciting feedback from others about whether they have done or will do the same thing. I'm pretty sure that you're not going to be removing the default trusters from your list, QS, but I am curious if there's anyone on there who you have removed. The other nice thing about your linking to that thread is that you're providing a nice object lesson about the people who are jockeying to be on default trust will use alt accounts and sockpuppetry and feedback manipulation to try to get there. We all know about the fact that you have been jockeying to get onto the trust system for a while, and that you were on it for a minute, but that your overamitiion and vindictiveness and ego caused you to provide waaaay too many inaccurate ratings too fast so you were removed. While you were in your "smear tspacepilot with all my might" phase, you decided to leave some negative reputation from your alt account "ACCTSeller". Your rationale in your alt account was that anyone who is arguing against default trust is a threat to your ambitions to get onto default trust and needs to be stopped. Beyond all that, again, I appreciate you taking the time to link this thread to one of the better threads which details the problems with the trust system, and I thank you for the object lesson about how people who are jockeying to be on default trust will use alt accounts and sockpuppetry and feedback manipulation to try to get there. |
|
|
|
W.r.t. getting scammed and quick feedback, I have to admit, I've only heard the self-congratulatory claims that QS saves lives by this quick feedback, but I've never actually seen that story, please send me links. How can I link you to scams that never happened because of his feedback? If there's no evidence at all, then why suggest that such a thing happened? I admit the connundrum is difficult---to provide evidence of something that would have happened but didn't. But you were the one making the claim that something would have happened. I'm merely asking for some sort of basis for the claim. On the other hand, I was the victim of a personal smear attack he perpetrated on me, and he ran ndnhc through the mud unneccesarily for almost a week. Ie, I've seen him wrong again and again and I can't really think of a time when he backed down and apologized. I'm just saying Vod is inactive. QS is (thankfully, for the moment) removed from default trust, but he's still out there doing his power-hungry thingy. QS and vod are not defaulttrust. It's bigger than them two and the one that you feel you were wronged by is not on it any more and the other is away as you said. What other issues have arisen lately from it? 99.9% of the time it works well going unnoticed and managing itself and nobody complains but when they do if abuse has happened then it usually gets worked out in one way or another. From my observations, the "default trust" scheme currently going on really causes more harm than good. It creates and unnecessary and unreliable sense of security for newbies who need to take the time to investigate before trading. It doesn't; it's the opposite, it does far more good than bad. I know there would be much more chaos if there was no feedback system at all or one where everybodies were equal. Everyone would be in the red. Getting rid of the default trust list doesn't imply that there is no feedback system at all. To my mind, the fix here is to replace default trust with an empty list. Ie, new accounts have empty trust lists and when an account has an empty trust list, people see the "Trust: " link with a message which says "you have no one on your trust list". Clicking on that leads to a post which tells you about the trust system and how to use it. From there, you could even have some suggested trust list for starters. By simply adding this one extra step to reify default trusters, people are going to be more aware of how trust works and how it doesn't and they'll become more educated about how to do business instead of relying on green and red colors as meaning "give this guy your money" or "stay awaaaayyy!", respectively. It creates a privileged class of people who can lord their feedback over others---whether or not they've traded with them. Sure, being on it is a privilege but having traded with someone isn't a reason not to leave feedback but feedbacks need to be justified. People who use it vindictively likely wont stay on there long. So far that seems to be what I experienced, yet I still don't see the positives associated with having this privileged class. It goes against the bitcoin ethos of being your own bank, making decisions for yourself, etc. If we're going against the ethos of bitcoin then the forum should be decentralised, but it's not. If you want one that's decentralised I think you would find it'd be far more chaotic than this forum ever was or will be. People can still make decisions by themselves but the feedback is there as a guide to help you make that decision. You could ignore vod's or Qs's or anybody else's ratings if you so wish. I'm not arguing that every single thing has to meet with some "ethos", just that in this particular case, I don't see the merits of enshrining a ruling class of default trusters, especially in conjunction with the account trading that goes on here. The two add up to too much power and potential for manipulation and conflicts of interest. This is just my opinion. The only arguments for keeping it in place (which I've heard) come from those who are on default trust or are clearly working hard to get there and they say "but default trust helps newbies". But these claims are not supported by evidence (that I've seen).
And the only ones I hear for getting rid of it come from those who aren't on it or wish they were or felt wronged by it in some way or another (whether justified or not). Again, I don't know what facts or stats you'd like or where they could be gotten from on how default trust doesn't or does cut down on scams but from mere observation it works in many cases I've seen but it is also logical that most people would not send money to scammers had they been marked red. You can disagree if you wish but it's my belief that it cuts down on scams a lot (though of course it can also be abused in ways but the vast majority of the time it's used as appropriate). Fair enough, opinions may differ. I don't trade so I can't really say that I have a good idea how many scams it may or may not have cut down on. On the other hand, I do enjoy the technical discussion and gambling boards on this forum and it's amazing to me, when I peep into meta, how much drama and recrimination and shouting seems to go on over who's been marked red by this or that person. FWIW, I do ignore the ratings of Vod and Quickseller (albeit for different reasons) and I appreciate that at least the trust system allows us to edit our lists. I just think that this could be made stronger by not offering a default list, but instead, a suggestion for people to build one of their own and a link on how to do it. Thanks, hilliarious, for the replies, I respect your opinion. |
|
|
|
I'm not the only one on the forum who thinks that the problems surrounding reliance on default trust have caused more harm than good. Here's a well-written summary of some of the issues: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1074134.msg11725411#msg11725411There are many more posts detailing many more problems with the current system, but I can't index them all for you. Instead, I started this thread to let everyone know that I've taken the step of removing default trust from my trust settings, so I'm starting blank, and I'll add people back to my list as I feel I can trust them. I'm encouraging others who have done this to post in this thread to let everyone know. One sneaky, technical detail of this is that if you try to blank your trust list completely, default trust gets added back. So you have to either: 1) put "~DefaultTrust" onto your list or 2) have at least one trusted person other than yourself on your list in order to actually remove default trust. Many good suggestions have been made for improving the issues caused by default trust, but none have been implemented. I encourage people to "vote with your list". Remove default trust from your list and encourage others to do the same. Then post here that you've done it. |
|
|
|
-snip-
Many good ideas have been put forward for improving the system from where it stands currently, but none have been implemented.
Can you sum those good ideas here or give me links to those posts? All of them related to decentralizing and de-reifying the default trust list and encouraging people to build their own lists. One of them is the one you quote just below. Saltyspitoon has said he'd be for it. I haven't heard anyone say they'd be against it, but it hasn't been implemented or even commented on by Theymos. One, tiny, incremental improvement which would help a lot would be to change the warning text from the inflammatory "TRADE WITH EXTREME CAUTION" to the more descriptive "this person has received negative feedback from someone in your trust list". Making this simple change would encourage people to say, "huh, my trust list? I have a trust list?" and to start figuring out who they want to be on that list and who they don't.
Yes, the current warning text should be changed. I'm glad you agree. One think I'm going to do is remove default trust from my trust list altogether. I think I will start a thread in meta to see if I can popularize the idea and bring more attention to it. EDIT: here it is: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1103508.msg11746372#msg11746372 |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
