UPDATE:

Private talks with Quickseller to try to resolve this 6 month long trust-abuse saga have ostensibly broken-down.  QS has not replied to a simple request that he explain his negative feedback.  I honestly don't know the etiquette with respect to prosting private messages, so I won't do that unless QS has okayed it.  Instead, I'll simply summarize the conversation.  If QS objects to this characterization, then hopefully he'll allow me to simply publish his messages and my replies.  What I'm doing for the moment is trying to summarize his replies without quoting them, and I'm publishing my comments to him in full.

My first message to QS:


2) QS replies that "the fact" that I've stolen from coinchat means others must be warned about me.  And he says something about paying back one of TF's victims as some sort of retribution.



4) QS replies that if I can explain or have someone else explain how I didn't steal from coinchat then he will remove his rating.  He brings up the fact that he offered money to have someone explain to him how I didn't steal from coinchat.  He says he thinks I will always troll him.  He says he will not remove his rating for no reason. 

My reply:


I never heard back from him after this.  3 days later, however, I wrote to him again:


Now, several more days have passed and I still haven't heard from him.  I think that leaves me with no choice but to go back to the sisyphean task of asking the rest of default trust (and others) to look closely at this matter.  Quickseller has left me a negative feedback which interferes with my ability to use the forum and he is on default trust.  He literally refuses to explain his rating.

Furthermore, it's quite a shame that three topics have to be shoved into one thread, but the other two topics here are also crucial:

Quickseller is trust-spamming me, having left 3 negative feedbacks from 3 accounts.  This is a bannable offense in other threads, why is QS allowed to use sockpuppetry to continue his smear campaign against me?  More to the point, why is someone who does this kind of thing on the default trust list?

Tomatocage is normally quote judicious and fair with his ratings, but he is literally vouching for this abusive behavior.  Why is he so nonchalant about the damaging behavoir that's being perpetrated in his name?

I also note that I have written to a collection of 7 mods/staffs/default-trusters about this issue 3 weeks ago and I have not received a single reply.

What can I do to resolve this?  Am I going to have to spend the entirety of 2015 fighting against Quickseller abuse?  How can you guys go on supporting someone who behaves in this way?  Let's bring it back to the beginning, what started here is that I told quickseller he was being and asshole for calling people idiots who disagreed with him.  I told him this is not the way to behave.  6 months later i have 3 negative feedbacks from 3 of his accounts and he has been promoted to default trust.  (Note that I have asked QS to please let me know if there's some other motivation for this, he has not replied).  Note clearly that I am not trying to get onto any trust list, I never trade on here and my goal is simply to stand up for myself in this random, abusive attack from a guy that at this point, bitcointalk default-trust is vouching for.   Why are you guys supporting this terrible, childish, vindictive behavior?  If QS cannot explain his magical knowledge of something that happened on coinchat in 2013, something which no other forum member who was active at the time took issue with, how is it okay for him to use that as a proxy for starting some kind of a sock-puppet smear attack that's now lasted half a year?

It's time to end this issue, if QS cannot explain himself, default trusters needs to exclude him.

Great!  I wonder if you can follow up with a general sort of ETA.  Empahsis on the "E", so we're not holding you to it, just asking.  Early this year there was an estimation of 6 weeks given for the android client.  Now, it's been closer to 6 months.   How are things looking for getting out an alpha version?  Recall that you released the windows thingy in a very alpha state but people are willing to play and help you debug it.  Are we talking about the end of this year?  End of next year?  End of the decade?  Okay, I'm being sarcastic, but you know what I mean, can you give us an idea of when we might expect to get to try it?

Or take a moment to check out the transaction volume before sending.  There's actually a couple of useful websites for this.  At least one I've seen shows the average confirmation times for transactions sent at various fee rates at the current moment.  I can't recall the url at the moment but I believe it has fee estimator in the name.  I'm sure you can turn it up with a little searching.

Admittedly, I haven't seen the PD backend code, so take this with a grain of salt, but it actually seems pretty trivial to implement.  You've clearly already got parameterization with respect to bet amount and you clearly have access to any user's stats.  I think it makes sense to say that if a user's deposits are greater than a user's faucet draws then go show that user a little more respect and let them bet faster even if it's a small amount.


I think there a bunch of reasons for the faucet.  Here are 2:

1) It keeps people dreaming and talking and chatting---this is important for a site with a social side like PD.  Having an active chatroom and a fast bet ticker keeps the site feeling full and chatty and fun even if there's no one on in a given moment who's betting big.
2) People can try out the system before depositing---this is important in general on websites that ask you to send them money.

Logging in via the website works just fine for me.  Maybe it's time for you to try it yourself (or check your bot!).

Good luck!

I think it's time for the monthly bump regarding clients for real computers.  SWC_Poker, can we get an ETA on the android client (isn't that the first one coming?)?

Even a very rudimentary one would be great so that we can log in and claim our krill.  8 months is a long time to be without action on a bus!

And FWIW, I'm taking an especially long bus ride tomorrow so, ya know, anything you drop tonight would be suh-weet. 

What do you mean about nickname change?  Are you GreenNode or was that just an account you were going to create?  I'm confused?!

I have to admit that I don't trade on here and I don't really keep up with who's a scammer and who's not a scammer.  I do try to warn people to be careful when I see people talking about doing some thing foolish.  I'm saying this in order to emphasize that I don't really know much about tomatocage as a whole.  I have had very limited interaction with him.  What stands out to me very starkly is the difference between this interaction and the last time.  (The PMs are posted upthread on like page 1 or 2 if you're intersted.)  Last time he was very cordial and made a big effort to tell QS that he needed to be sure that he wasn't putting up personal vengence ratings---within less than 24 hours he was able to convince QS (somehow) to change his slanderous ratings on me to neutrals.   When I saw that QS had returned his false ratings to negatives after being kicked of TC's list, I thought "oh well".  When I saw that TC had readded QS, I honestly expected that things would go as before, that TC would tell QS that he needed to fix his shit in order to be allowed on default trust.  I was quite shocked to find the PM block.  To me, it seems very suspicious.  And I realize that this is speculative, but given QS's open threat against me only 2 days before being readded and given QS' selling of some account on default trust and combining that with the stark contrast between TC's behavior this time and his behavior last time, I have to wonder if this is the same TC.

People, TECSHARE is welcome to drop a comment in this thead.  As his comment has to do with trust issues, it's relevant to the topic.  However, filling up entire pages abotu what TECSHARE's motivation might or might not be is getting off-topic.  There are three topics here: Tomatocage vouching for a trust abuser and not willing to discuss it; QS's trust spam (many ratings against one person using sockpuppets); QS's false rating against me.  Please stay on topic.  At this point, private discussions are going on with QS which I have smallest sliver of hope that they will lead to some resolution---this is with respect to QS's false ratings.  The other two topics are not currently being addressed in any way.  They are also really important and need to be addressed.

I can confirm that it says "not found" and "not active" for your account.  That does seem a little strange.  The only think I can guess is that it might be related to your feedback/trust.  I have removed default trust from my trust list so I see your trust rating as 0.  But I noticed that you do have quite a few negative feedbacks.  I don't know if some of those feedbacks are on default trust and bitmixer.io has finally implemented a trust filter for default trust or if they've got some other algorithm which disqualifies people with too many negatives.  Note that this is speculation.  I'm merely confirming that it seems like although you have the signature in place at the time of this writing the signature page does indeed say "not active" and "signature not found".

Good luck!

I'm not as connected as some people are to the reddits and githubs and IRC rooms where a lot of the bigwigs talk about this stuff.  Does anyone know if consensus is anywhere close on this block size increase issue?  It doesn't seem off topic here to ask given the direct relation between the attacks/tests and the potential increase.  I know the debate has been rancorous, I wonder if anyone has a gauge on where we stand at the moment on this.


I think it's not entirely clear what you mean by "transaction times".  If you mean "time to block inclusion/first confirmation for a lower fee transaction during a high volume moment" then yes, that's what he's saying.  If you mean the time it takes for a transaction to be propogated by the network, then I don't think so, if anything, passing larger blocks around might add latency to the network (but I'm no expert, I'm just guessing).  What do you mean by "transaction times"?

You're not wrong, but that's not all that there is to it.  At least one post has to be made each fortnight since the account's creation in order to register the account as "active" during that period.  If the account has made at least one post in each of the periods since being created in May 2015, then it would reach Full by September granting enough posts made.  Just to be clear: if 120 posts were made, say, on the first week then the account's activity would only be 14.  Then, if one more post were made yesterday, the account's activity would bump to 28 today.  Do you see how this works?  The formula is given in the OP of this thread.

I'm pretty sure that Multibit HD doesn't support this (unfortunately, in my opinion).  If you look in the "help" menu under "upgrading from multibit classic" you'll see:


I'd like to add that this decision is the main reason why I haven't upgraded to Multibit HD.  I'm really not sure why they don't allow a collection of old style private keys to be imported.  Andreas' Bitcoin Wallet for Android nowadays provides a HD wallet but you can import old-style private keys.  Bitcoin Wallet for android just shows these in a special menu and warns you that you have some old-style addresses in your wallet that aren't going to be regenerated if you are restoring from your wallet words.  In my own case, I like HD for 95% of the cases, but I still have some classic addresses that I want to keep track of, therefore I'm not a user of Multibit HD.  However, if you're willing to discard your old addresses, Multibit HD is probably a great option.

See the rest of that help section on upgrading from multibit classic if you need further instructions.  Basically they suggest backing up all your old keys then spending to your new HD wallet.

It turns out that BadBear does not want me to have separate threads for the three separate issues.  Therefore, I have posted below the content of the OPs of the three issues.  I hope that people responding can make it clear which of these issues they want to talk about and we'll try to manage this thread as some sort of 3 in 1.


Topic I (tomtatocage MIA):


I hope that Tomatocage will respond soon to this topic I.


Topic II (Quickseller Trust spam/sockpuppetry):



Topic III (Quickseller leaving false ratings based on known lies):


On this last topic III, there is a minor update which is that I have written a personal message to Quickseller to try to see if we can talk in private in order to come to some agreement over this.  I have to admit that I am not extremely optimistic that this will work, but I think it's worth a try.  Literally everyone on here is tired of hearing about this issue (I think) and perhaps even Quickseller is ready to admit that I'm not a threat to anyone.  If he and I can work something out privately, it may be that Topic III will soon be resolved.

It seems like it's going on weekly at this point.  I really wonder how long the "testers" can afford this.

kogshel, that would work, and it would be a perfect solution, except that QS is on default trust and his negative rating means that I have to deal with people questioning my integrity.  And, in a very direct way, it costs me money because on two occasions I've had to change or quit a signature advertising deal while until the campaign managers take time to look into this and realize that it's some kind of personal beef that QS has with me.  In point of fact, this was QS's stated goal when he started this "beef" using his alt ACCTSeller so many months ago.  He threatened me then to get me kicked off my signature ad campaign and for a while he succeeded.  If QS were just another forum troll, this would not be an issue.  It's the fact that trusted people are putting him in a position of authority that makes this trolling a real problem.

Thanks for showing up, QS.  It's time to put this problem behind us. 

You say it's not personal, then how do you explain the comments by your alt ACCTSeller which threatened to get me kicked off my signature ad campaign before going about your "research" looking through all my posts, finding the false and discredited accusations by TF, necro-bumping with your alt, "discovering" your necro with your main, then adding your negative feedback on multiple accounts.  Anyone who looks into can tell that it's personal.  You and your sockpuppets post history is full of threats against me and false accusations.  And why?  I've asked myself this so many times.

As far as I can tell, this all started a long time ago when you were going to escrow for a signature ad campaign and you posted a signed PGP message rather than a bitcoin signed message from the escrow address.  I posted in the thread asking for you to sign a message from the escrow address---honestly thinking it was just a simple mistake---and you basically flew off the handle and called me an idiot and accused me of posting crap.  I definitely pushed back, I didn't think I deserved to be talked to that way when i was simply trying to help.  I really thought that you would have just said "oh, here's a signed message from the escrow address, I sign so often with my PGP key that I got confused".  The last thing I thought would happen would have been a 5 month long attack on me.  Again, this is all public (unless you've gone back and edited your posts), so anyone who's intersted can see it happen.  Only a few days after I pushed back on you calling me an idiot and a spammer, I found myself under the gun from your and your alts.The actual bottom line is that I never scammed anyone.  TF accused me of scamming, that is a he-said-she-said and as far as I can tell, TF's reputation speaks volumes about who is the reasonable party in that debate.  The rest of the bottom line is that you literally know nothing about that situation and what happened there.  It's really clear from your thinly disguised use of alts that you were attempting to find some kind of dirt on me.  Where you made a mistake was throwing in your lot with a known liar and a cheat.  This doesn't make you look good and it doesn't help your credibilty.  My 3 years of helpful posts on this forum with no beef with anyone (aside from you and tradefortress, nice company you're keeping there) speak volumes about what I'm up to and my ethics.  Your action as a vicious attack dog and account seller speak volumes about yours.  I'm not worried about you and your future, karma will take care of that.  I just want you to leave me alone.I think it would be great if you could dig up some kind of evidence.  But the problem with that is that you won't be able to do so because none exists because I never scammed coin-chat.  TF accusing me of scamming coin chat doesn't make it a fact.  If TF couldn't come up with evidence that I did so back those 3 years ago, how on earth would you have such evidence now?  None of that adds up. 

To be clear, the original thread about this topic was locked because you were doing nothing to resolve the issue.   It was simply a flame-war in which you refused to deal with the fact that you were starting a full-fledged smear campaign against me.  I locked that thread because badbear had put you on his trust list and was out of town.  I saw no evidence that you were going to be listening to reason and I felt that I needed to talk to badbear.  In fact, badbear removed you from his trust list only a week or so after returning.  I can't say that I know why he did this, but after you were removed, I saw no reason to reopen the flame-war thread.

Similarly, when TC added you, your changed your ratings to neutral so I saw no reason to deal with you.  It's only now that you've been readded that this again becomes an issue---one that I would love to have behind me (and I have to think that in your heart you wish it was behind you too, but I don't really know---this is costing your reputation a lot more than it's costing mine, I can assure you).  Therefore a thread has been reopened.  If you can find people who will argue that your smear-campaign against me is somehow useful for the forum, I'd like to hear from them.  Note: your alts/sockpuppets ACCTSeller/FunFunnyFan don't count!


That's completely misleading and another false accusation.  First of all, you were trolling me with your alt funfunnyfan on that thread but the fact that I was asking quite honestly about what in the hell the dudes were talking about when they were talking about "faucet farming" is in no way evidence that I was looking to faucet farm.  This is a lot like saying that someone who reads a news story about a murder is looking to commit murder.  It's a great way to start a rumor and to create FUD, but it's not anything like a valid argument.  Furthermore, there is another thread if you want to talk about your many sockpuppet ratings.  You really should consolidate them because leaving sockpuppet trust-spam can get you banned, but please stay on-topic here.

I appreciate that you've finally shown up here to face the music, now it's time to listen to your peers.  Literally everyone is asking you to drop this and leave me alone.  No one believes that I "scammed" coinchat except perhaps you and perhaps tradefortress.  If you can face this fact and clear up your mess here it's really only going to help your reputation.  The longer you continue this the more damage you're doing to yourself man.

Time to listen to reason and drop the false accusations.

I'm sorry you feel that way.  I'm certainly not trying to spam.  I can delete these three threads and reopen the original one if that's somehow better.

I split things out like this because there's really three issues at play.  Trying to get TC to discussion is clearly separate, for example, than QS's multiple ratings from sockpuppets.  Because each of these issues is important, I felt that creating three topics was valuable.  If one of them gets solved (say QS consolidates his sockpuppet ratings into one) then that thread can close while the others go on.  Futhermore, I wouldn't think that the thread trying to get TC to take responsibility for his trust list would need comments about the sockpuppet ratings, etc.

I'm certainly open to reconsolidating and deleting if that's somehow better....

As has been discussed previously (but not conclusively), QS has left me a negative rating which is based on zero evidence, is clearly punitive and meant to smear me off the forum.   This topic is being started in order to discuss the merits of QS's false rating separately from the other issues which complicated this thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1129059.40 (the previous one).

A quick recap for those who aren't in the know:

1) Early in this year, I called out Quickseller for his temper.  I told him that he shouldn't be calling people idiots and that there are more helpful ways to disagree.
2) QS responded by calling me and idiot.
3) QS further responded by logging in as an alt and beginning to troll me.  He told me that he'd be having me kicked off my signature ad campaign and made other threats.
4) QS spent 24 hours looking through years of posts in order to try to find something against me.
5) QS found tradefortress' false accusations on me and necro-bumped a 2.5 year old thread to threaten me using his main alt ACCTSeller
6) QS logged back in with his main account, and "found" the bump from ACCTSeller, and used it as an excuse to neg rep me.
7) QS's plan backfired, temporarily, the signature ad campaign continued to employ me because they could see that what was happening was someone trying to troll me; QS's vitriolic temper became well known; not long after he was kicked off of badbear's trust list
QS continued to troll me for months
...

And that basically brings us to where we are today.  Now QS has been readded to default trust and his rating are again causing me issues.  I have no desire here except to be left along and it blows my mind that someone who has publically acted in such a way as QS could be added to a default trust list.  How can you trust someone who takes such extreme measures to exact vengence on someone just because you don't like that hey called you hot-tempered?

At this point, basically everyone who has weighed in on this issue says that they find it extremely hard to believe that such nonsense could go on for so many months and yet, here we are.  I'm pretty convinced that when QS started his smear campaign against me he just thought that I would roll over and die, or perhaps purchase a new account (from him?!) and try to get back to hero member status in a few years.  That he could steamroll me off of the forum.  However, I'm not going to let that happen.  Instead, I'm publically calling attention to this behavoir and asking what we can do.

I think it's going to be next to impossible to get QS to remove his false ratings at this point.  I'd love to find out that I'm wrong, but the last thing that QS has said to me was basically mocking me and everyone else.  He said that he'd be paying 0.1BTC to the first person who could convince him to leave me alone.  So, what to do now?

I have opened another thread in which I solicit TC to reconsider his trust of QS, or else to at least talk to me about it.  But that is purposely in another thread so that here we can discuss trust abuse by QS against me and what do about it.  I'd like to further add that at this point, a number of poeple have spoken to me about this privately (mods can verify this) but asked not to be revealed because of the attack power of QS.  People are afraid to cross him.  Is that the kind of person who should be on default trust?

There is at least one other obvious solution, other people on default trust can remove QS from their trust lists in order to fix this.  I honestly have no idea about the internal politics of this.  Is it seen as a slight against Tomatocage if, say, badbear adds ~Quickseller to his trust list?  I don't know.

I also don't know what to do about this issue.  I think a lot of people are afraid to speak up and those that are speaking up are asking QS to drop this assault.  I wish he would.  I look forward to your input.

Thanks for the tip, I'll remove the debugger flag and rebuild.  Cheers!

EDIT: that actually does appear to have made a small difference, but to be honest I think it's in the margin of error (10Kkeys/s or so) since I'm doing other things on this computer at the same time.

Thanks, I'll look at the Makefile that I downloaded from github and see what's going on in there with respect to CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS.

EDIT:

This is the top of the default Makefile, looks like I'm okay if that's the only optimizations they're referring to in the wiki: