|
I still think it's sad/weird to allow this old, once-dead, thread on sealswithclubs (now defunct) to degrade into a discussion about the problems they had with collusion. Yes, they had issues. In part that was because they did a very open, no-dox, allow anyone to play sorta site. As far as I know they took some steps to try to fix this but weren't entirely successful. Nultidah personally thinks Micon should burn in hell or something because of this. Maybe we can leave it at that?
|
|
|
|
All of the BIPs, a description, the author(s), type, and status are listed on this page: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips. Some also have the proposals and an in depth explanation of them. BIP stands for Bitcoin Improvement Proposal Thanks achow101. As documents, I wouldn't have looked for them in the github, where I would have looked for code, but there they are. Going to do my reading now  Locked as solved! |
|
|
|
I am not using intimidation tactics. I am merely stating facts. The fact is that at this point da dice is paying a scammer to advertise for them. If necessary, I will dig up the threads/posts where evidence is provided that shows based on what you yourself stated, would make a reasonable person conclude that you admitted to scamming TF. This would not really on in any way the word of TF.
At this point da dice is paying you to troll, and flame me. This as well as the fact that they are paying a scammer to advertise is absolutely unacceptable, and shows a very poor use of judgment, and shows ver poor business standards and ethics.
I would opine that any business that hires scammers to advertise for them and to represent their brand image is not deserving of my business, nor any one else's business. How can a business claim to be fair and honest when they are having scammers represent them?
Just because you decide that you don't like like someone doesn't make them a scammer. It's one thing to neg-rep someone (since, as we all know, trust is unmoderated), but following them around and trying to intimidate people not to do business with them is a whole 'nother level. And you say you're not doing it, but what else do you call it when you're posting in the bitmixer thread warning them not to work with Twippple because you have decided he is a scammer. Or where you post in the dadice thread just 24 hours before neg-repping me with an alt saying "i'm going to get you kicked out of here". If that's not indimidation, what is? These are just 2 examples I've seen recently, there may be more. |
|
|
|
Total Topics Started: 48 topics Do you launch coins? This thread is meant to be for altcoin announcements. There is a separate altcoin discussion board. *cough* https://twitter.com/jbsannbotSorry, I don't launch coins, I just put this in the wrong place. Mods, please move it possibly to the right place? |
|
|
|
|
Hi folks, I always see references to BIP XX where XX is some number and then folks will be discussing the implementation of this one or that one in some wallet or miner or cetera. I think that BIP is "bitcoin improvement protocol"? Anyway, I think these numbered documents suggest improvements or changes to bitcoin's protocol, or other. My questions is this though: where can I see the entire set of BIPs published? where are the BIPs to be read? I always just hear of this one or that one via second-hand reference, but I wanna see the list.
|
|
|
|
|
I asked this quite a while ago and I got a good response from you guys. But it's been a while and I know the altcoin scene changes a lot so let me ask: what's your favorite sha256 coin to mine (that I can also exchange out on poloniex, or some other reasonable exchange). Catch me up, altcoiners, I don't know what's happening in these worlds nowadays.
|
|
|
|
IMO the key factor for bitcoin's future will be whether the world develops faith in it as a reserve currency.
The dollar enjoys demand, because it does. Capital goods are useful for producing real goods and services. Bitcoin needs to develop its own special strength before it can be related to these two in a purely quantity-based analysis. (In other words, if people lose faith in bitcoin overnight, it can collapse, regardless of the relative quantities of these three things.)
On this I'm pretty optimistic. The global elites, for a variety of reasons, seem to want to see bitcoin do well (though not so well as to threaten the major fiat currencies.) Among these reasons is a potential future refuge for paper to be pegged against, when it finally runs out of steam (which it will.) It's almost analogous to bringing up a child -- you don't want the child to be more powerful than you, and you want to keep them under your control, but you nurture the child and hope they will help you when you grow old and weak.
If the authorities ever peg paper to cryptocurrency, it will probably not be bitcoin itself, since they are much better off developing their own version (but basically identical in design -- to gain public trust) and mining half the coins before publicizing it. But bitcoin has to do well and be well-regarded, before that can happen.
I think this last point by BobK71 is really interesting. The idea of Cryptos as a reserve currency seems really powerful, and one of the instances where even if it's not bitcoin, it may be blockchain technology which assures the correctness of the ledger of these future reserves. This seems especially nices as robots want to do high speed trades, distributed blockchain consensus lets who decided who traded first and at what price. However, I'm not sure how the exporting of bitcoin ideas like blockchain and distributed consensus will affect the price of our old-school, original bitcoins. |
|
|
|
As here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=425135.msg11327364#msg11327364And in another thread I've seen, QS is attempting to use intimidation to further alienate people he has neg-repped. Because he's currently on default trust, these people already have to wear an "extreme caution" tag on their accounts. In both of these situations that I've seen QS's rating are under dispute in Meta but he refuses to change them. Then, when apparantely, the person is still able to get work as an advertizer, that makes QS mad and he threatens the advertizer not to work with people he has neg-repped. Is this okay behavior for someone on Default trust? EDIT: this post has the other item where he tries to intimidate dadice for working with me: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1043260.msg11371229#msg11371229 |
|
|
|
He agreed to a deal with a seller and once escrow was setup he backed out of the deal. This is a sign that he was trying to avoid using escrow and only agreed to accept escrow to avoid setting off any red flags to others. Despite this being a bad idea, often times people will simply agree to trade without escrow if one does not respond and setup escrow quickly enough.
A neutral rating is more appropriate then, since no coins were lost and no scam was attempted. People are allowed to back out of deals. You should put in the rating your belief it's a sign he was trying to avoid escrow. The scam that was attempted was that he tried to scam the bitcointalk account from the seller. The reason given in this thread was something along the lines that he did not trust me, however that is contradictory to the fact that he asked me to escrow for him. To perhaps come at this from another direction (tl;dr 14 pages over again), did worhiper_-_ ask you to escrow 1) before... or 2) after...
...reading a ToS from you to the effect of "Quickseller escrow terms are at the exclusive determination of Quickseller. Buyers and sellers do not get to set any escrow terms themselves. By hiring Quickseller as your escrow, you agree that you are bound by these terms." If worhiper_-_ did knowingly violate that clear and effective ToS, then neg trust is warranted for depriving you of your escrow fee (time=money). If worhiper_-_ did not knowingly violate that clear and effective ToS, imagining that escrows are merely there to do whatever the buyer and seller agree the escrow should do, then neutral is. If I were you, I would require escrow counterparties to clearsign their agreement to that ToS before PMing you anything else at all. IIRC, wohiper_-_'s version of the story is that he and seller negotiated some terms, sent them an escrow request to QS, who agreed, but then sent different terms back, once W saw QS's terms were different from the ones he agreed to with seller, he decided not to go, and cancelled. QS's argument is that anyone who doesn't accept my God-given perfect terms is obviously a scammer and therefore deserving of my wrath. @TBZ and @Vod, also note that if you publically disagree with QS's actions, he can interpret your disagrement as an "attempt to weaken the trust system, and therefore scammy behavior" and will use that argument as a reason to neg rep you (he used this rationale to neg-rep me with his alt ACCTSeller, see my feedback page---effectively, if you disagree with QS, you are exhibiting scammy behavior). |
|
|
|
The fact that quickseller sells accounts which often go to scammers and two, that he quickseller is less than a year old on this forum truly AND has been abusing trust obviously for awhile with many complaints leads me to believe he should not be on default trust.
Who in the world gave a <1 year old person on this site DEFAULT TRUST? I mean Vod, that guy has been around for many years, OK. But a <1 year account with many instances of unethicalness including acting under multiple accounts to obtain information as seen in this thread, using his "tips" to promote his own business and then claiming one who calls him out as unethical as a scammer and THREE, spends his life on this forum while receiving numerous complaints.
This guy is worst than Vod, I mean just look at all the complaints about this guy. Seriously, a guy around for less than one year, sketchy as best, and on default trust...does no one see a problem with that?
There is no rule here telling the account should be 1 year old to be in default trust list and complaints about him are mostly scammers. *Valid* complaints are necessary for removing him from default trust list. How do you know they "are mostly scammers"? From what I've seen in this thread wohiper_-_ did no business with QS, but merely decided not to do business, got neg reppped? How is that invalid? In my own case, QS went after me based on some sort of personal animus---trolling me in several threads with multiple accounts and using the word of a known scammer as "proof". It's patently ridiculous. My complaint is also valid. MZ, you will be singing a different song when he goes after you. Yes "mostly" but "not all". worhiper has an exception in this and you, I have more to clarify about it. I don't believe you are an untrustworthy person but your behaviour in the old case is scammy. Well, so far QS hasn't come after me. So I can't tell how I will be. Let's see what happens if such a thing happens... Okay, leaving aside the fact that you know nothing about my "behavior" in the old case other than that I deny the charges that TF left for me, what about the fact that QS's motivation in attacking me was personal and vindictive? Is this somehow "invalid"? Here you have two cases where you say "okay these guys have an exception, QS seems to be abusing them", then you have to ask why is it okay for him to do so in these cases. How many cases have to be built up before something will be done? No, I didn't said "okay these guys have an exception, QS seems to be abusing them". I said ypu and worhiper have an exception in people who I referred in "mostly". What is the difference? Above you seemed to be saying, "no QS is doing the right thing, people complaining are scammers. The criticisms are not valid". Then I say, wait, wait, my criticism is valid and worhiper_-_ seems to have a valid complaint, too. And you say, ok, you guys are exceptions. Now you say we are exceptions but we are not abused? I'm not following you at all. I know it must be nerve wracking because if you criticize QS and you are not on default trust, you risk his coming down on you and smearing you. @Vod, okay thanks for the humor. What about an opinion on this situation with worhiper_-_? |
|
|
|
The fact that quickseller sells accounts which often go to scammers and two, that he quickseller is less than a year old on this forum truly AND has been abusing trust obviously for awhile with many complaints leads me to believe he should not be on default trust.
Who in the world gave a <1 year old person on this site DEFAULT TRUST? I mean Vod, that guy has been around for many years, OK. But a <1 year account with many instances of unethicalness including acting under multiple accounts to obtain information as seen in this thread, using his "tips" to promote his own business and then claiming one who calls him out as unethical as a scammer and THREE, spends his life on this forum while receiving numerous complaints.
This guy is worst than Vod, I mean just look at all the complaints about this guy. Seriously, a guy around for less than one year, sketchy as best, and on default trust...does no one see a problem with that?
There is no rule here telling the account should be 1 year old to be in default trust list and complaints about him are mostly scammers. *Valid* complaints are necessary for removing him from default trust list. How do you know they "are mostly scammers"? From what I've seen in this thread wohiper_-_ did no business with QS, but merely decided not to do business, got neg reppped? How is that invalid? In my own case, QS went after me based on some sort of personal animus---trolling me in several threads with multiple accounts and using the word of a known scammer as "proof". It's patently ridiculous. My complaint is also valid. MZ, you will be singing a different song when he goes after you. Yes "mostly" but "not all". worhiper has an exception in this and you, I have more to clarify about it. I don't believe you are an untrustworthy person but your behaviour in the old case is scammy. Well, so far QS hasn't come after me. So I can't tell how I will be. Let's see what happens if such a thing happens... Okay, leaving aside the fact that you know nothing about my "behavior" in the old case other than that I deny the charges that TF left for me, what about the fact that QS's motivation in attacking me was personal and vindictive? Is this somehow "invalid"? Here you have two cases where you say "okay these guys have an exception, QS seems to be abusing them", then you have to ask why is it okay for him to do so in these cases. How many cases have to be built up before something will be done? Why don't you do something about it? Threaten to break his legs or something? Roll Eyes
How is this in any way constructive, Vod? You keep giving snarky replies here to this or that, but have you actually weighed in on the situation described by the OP? He said to kill Vod or something. I think it is something related to that comment. I must have missed that. Still, I wish Vod would comment on the situation in the OP. He's here and reading the thread but I haven't found anything where he supports or complains about QS's actions against worhiper_-_. Maybe there's an unspoken thing where people on default trust don't complain about each other publically, IDK. |
|
|
|
The fact that quickseller sells accounts which often go to scammers and two, that he quickseller is less than a year old on this forum truly AND has been abusing trust obviously for awhile with many complaints leads me to believe he should not be on default trust.
Who in the world gave a <1 year old person on this site DEFAULT TRUST? I mean Vod, that guy has been around for many years, OK. But a <1 year account with many instances of unethicalness including acting under multiple accounts to obtain information as seen in this thread, using his "tips" to promote his own business and then claiming one who calls him out as unethical as a scammer and THREE, spends his life on this forum while receiving numerous complaints.
This guy is worst than Vod, I mean just look at all the complaints about this guy. Seriously, a guy around for less than one year, sketchy as best, and on default trust...does no one see a problem with that?
There is no rule here telling the account should be 1 year old to be in default trust list and complaints about him are mostly scammers. *Valid* complaints are necessary for removing him from default trust list. How do you know they "are mostly scammers"? From what I've seen in this thread wohiper_-_ did no business with QS, but merely decided not to do business, got neg reppped? How is that invalid? In my own case, QS went after me based on some sort of personal animus---trolling me in several threads with multiple accounts and using the word of a known scammer as "proof". It's patently ridiculous. My complaint is also valid. MZ, you will be singing a different song when he goes after you. Why don't you do something about it? Threaten to break his legs or something? Roll Eyes
How is this in any way constructive, Vod? You keep giving snarky replies here to this or that, but have you actually weighed in on the situation described by the OP? |
|
|
|
Yah, me too. I haven't tried the windows steps, but I mean me too on missing the old seals and the regular action. Can't wait till there's a universal client of some sort. At last report, they were gonna have the android client out in a few weeks. That one will get me playing! |
|
|
|
Default Trust is a good idea - when a users scams one person, everyone is pretty much in agreement they are a scammer. This is true if there's some objective proof that a user has scammed one person. However, as you know, not everyone considers your marking of sellers of microsoft projects to be perpetuating any scams. In my own case, I've been marked as a "scammer" simply because someone on default trust took a personal hate of me for constantly calling them out for their hot temper. Point being, if people marked as "scammers" by default trust were objectively scammers by some universally agreed upon criteria, then your point would hold. But the state of affairs is that people on default trust can do whatever they feel like they should be doing, and there's a lot of disagreement from person-to-person about who is doing right and who is doing wrong. It's not at all agreed upon that someone marked by someone on default trust has done anything at all.
Default Ignore is not a good idea - when a user posts things someone does not like, other people may still like it.
I still believe default ignore was intended as a satire of default trust, not an idea to be considered on its merits, but an idea to be compared to default trust, as a way to reconsider the merits (and flaws) of the default trust system from a fresh perspective. |
|
|
|
Redsn0w can you get the fuck out of here? You made 80 FUCKING POSTS yesterday alone. I wonder how you're not banned yet. Since you can't contribute to the discussion here in any way, please show yourself out. Fuck fuck's sake, this is not the place to spam your signature.
? what is going here now this thread is still open? close it man unless you like the damn drama, no need for this.  I can think of one reason the thread was left open, Quickseller's reputation attack on him is still standing. As far as I can tell, the issue is far from closed from the perspective of worhiper_-_. |
|
|
|
|
I must be missing something because many of you guys have said that bitcoin is inflationnary. But I don't think this is correct insofar as there's a known number of bitcoins going to be produced ever. Some bitcoins will inevitably be lost, so this seems deflationary to me. Maybe I didn't understand what was said to me about dogecoin being inflationary. Isn't there something doge where it will never cease to produce more and more coins faster and faster, or somerthing like that?
Also, thanks to the poster who talked about the rumor about the "joke" country adopting Doge. But, I have to follow up, what country was it? And was the news itself a joke?
|
|
|
|
|
I know it was a hot commodity for a little while last summer. But I also read somewhere that it was completely inflationary. If I understand this right, it means that people's DOGE are getting less and less valuable over time. Is that right? What's the situation now? Why would anyone buy Doge at this point? Not trolling just curious to understand how an inflationary currency can be valuable.
|
|
|
|
On your issue, it looks like it was reported here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/3483as fixed (maybe update your debian, or your libboost). BTW, why are you building as root? Isn't it more normal to build as a normal user? $ make && sudo make install |
|
|
|
If the OP issue is about the advertise in signatures, this topic has the solution: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=973843.0But the proposal is ridiculous. Ignore list is a personal thing. Default Trust isn't. I suggest to the OP to use a private mailing list. See my post on page (1), this is clearly a satire of default trust. You say that an ignore list is a personal thing, but it clearly doesn't have to be. Trust is, in theory, a personal thing, but we have an opt-out default trust system which is used as a weapon against some accounts/users. In practice, you are correct that for the moment, trust is a shared thing and ignore lists aren't, but in principle there's nothing that says that things have to be that way. |
|
|
|
It is at its core the same discussion, the main question being:
Does some one who is on the default trust have a right to use their negative ratings for personal issues, especially when no actual harm can be demonstrated?
The concise answer is "with no clearly defined, concise rule set, everything is permitted. Or not. Maybe." I think a few users in the defaultTrust list are doing this thing, but only "few users". The phrase is always, trust systems is not moderated, but we should understand what does it mean "moderated". The personal issues should "stay" away from the trust system, in some cases (almost always). But redsn0w, I think the thing is that a few users is a few too many. I think it'll feel a little differently when you're the one who gets dinged because someone decides they didn't like you. I have to admit, I was quite, quite shocked to see that nothing was done about it when QS went after me the way he did. I also admit that I don't really know the scope of the problem, I've definitely seen it for myself in Quickseller and I don't know what I'm supposed to do about it. Thankfully, for the moment, QS's plan failed because the folks I was advertising for saw what he was trying to do to me and decided it wasn't right. However, who knows what future partners will say. As long as this stands, I'm going to be sending everyone I want to work for to this silly thread where QS acts like an amateur detective with a chip on his shoulder, rehashing the lies of a known scammer in order to make me look bad. Again, I don't know what the solution is, but I think you'll feel it much more personally when you end up being the victim. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
