|
Some users can't be resolved and are displayed as '??'
Not sure why this happen but it's not critical as their link is correct
To everybody:
Please confirm you found your list
I do!
|
|
|
|
Oh wait the script is broken... There are only 11 listsFixed  Thanks for catching that |
|
|
|
Is this an older list? Because I'm not seeing my votes on there, or at least it's missing a recent one that I was using to search for mine. Nope, it should always be up-to-date Are you sure your vote was taken into account? Is there a special character in his username? (I know that Goat works though so this shouldn't be the cause) |
|
|
|
There is quite some people interest in both Second Life and Bitcoin.
Thing is personally I would not trust you with my Lindens. Besides it's not allowed to sell L$ so your account may be blocked.
Virwox is extremely expensive to use, it's basically a ripoff.
Because you can't deposit L$ anymore you need to withdraw to Paypal (can take 5 days). Then deposit Paypal to Virwox, then buy L$ again, then buy BTC, then withdraw.
Most of these actions cost 4% fee so you will end up with a 10-12% loss.
There must be better ways to get bitcoins for L$. Probably withdraw to Paypal, to regular bankaccount, then buy at coinbase or local webservice.
The point of my object is exactly to make things extremely easy I've been using SL since 2003, and still have one of the early free accounts that earns 50 $L every week. Guess it's better than mining at this point  What do you use to determine the exchange rate, and how do you move money between $USD, $L, and BTC? Exchange rate is bestBuyPrice * last_all->value at the time of payment I have a friend who plays a lot and needs L$, so: - You send L$ to my object
- The object sends the funds to his account
- The object sends the payment data to my server
- The server gets the rate, calculates the resulting amount of BTC to send, then creates the transaction
- The transaction data is broadcasted and sent back to the player (needed for testnet and it seems to be a good idea to do)
- He pays me with fiat when we see each other
As for Linden Labs opinion on it, I'm sure they don't appreciate. But i won't advertise on SL, I don't even write the word Bitcoin anywhere, and the L$ you sent to my object aren't traded for fiat, so I don't think they will react soon. Even if they do, you'd have received the BTC anyway, so I would be the one screwed. |
|
|
|
|
Too much suspense over here
|
|
|
|
honestly, I use chrome too, but you should advertise tampermonkey and not the unfiltered addon. Tampermonkey is as a sandbox more secure!
Tampermonkey users use http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/174546 so I can't specifically advertise it, people already know it exists as it was the only way to get the script |
|
|
|
Ok, I finished coding Combining some of the projects in this thread with that, there could be a completely new user management regime, and allow multiple regimes to exist on one forum. This could allow all sorts of filters on users. For example, there could be a list which bans people who regularly advertise, a list which bans people who sell certain dubious goods/services, a list of people who turn everything into a political argument, a list which bans people who talk very technically, etc. It would probably also be feasible to eliminate the posts of people meeting certain "hard" criteria, such as activity count. These can be tailored quite precisely to what a person wants and doesn't want to see, whereas management in forums now generally forces an admin to either allow everyone to see the persons post, or ban him, and nobody sees his posts.
I'd eventually like to eliminate most moderation and replace it with web of trust rating/ignore systems so you can choose whether you want to see trolling, profanity, etc. by modifying your trust lists. This is the sort of thing that pretty much requires a forum rewrite, though: it's totally against SMF's nature. Global ratings like Bitcointalk++ aren't usefully scalable. It's too difficult to prevent (and even define) abuse as the number of users increases. Some sort of WoT is needed. By incorporating a "plural moderation" script (this isn't being developed, afaik, but seems like an obvious extension from the ignore+ script and the OP script), this could allow multiple lists narrowly defining "abuse," or anything else someone may not want to read. Lists would be maintained by one or a few people who go through posts and mark certain posters with tags. With the ignore script, this could remove threads and posts from users with certain tags, based on what the user individually chooses to filter out. Posts may be able to be tagged individually, too, if someone feels up to it. For example, "dubious investments" could be a tag, and the moderators of that list could remove those threads from the forum without "the forum" needing to do any moderation on its part. So, for example, let's say someone wanted to remove-from-view people who use referral links. Let's call the list "referral link spam." There would be 1-5 moderators of the list with mod credentials who could click a button next to a person's post (or through adding them manually), including brief reasoning for the inclusion in the list. This would tag them with "referral link spam" and remove their posts and threads from users' view who decide to exclude posts from people tagged with "referral link spam." From a user perspective, you could choose whichever lists you want, based on both the criteria and moderators maintaining the list (there could be competing moderators for multiple lists removing posts meeting the same criteria if someone distrusts a particular group's judgment). So let's say the lists are: *Spambots *BFL shills *anti-BFL shills *libertaritards *dubious investments *Jews A user could go into the extension or script settings and simply check off whichever groups of people they don't want - maybe BFL shills, Jews, and libertaritards. Anyone (or any post) with any of those tags would be removed from that user's view. The most important benefit from this, I'd think, is that it gets around the dichotomy of abuser or non-abuser, and allows people to really choose what kind of experience they get out of BTCTalk. The service may or may not benefit from incorporating a charge system for access to a particular list, the fees of which might go toward paying the moderators of the list. Re-reading this, it doesn't seem particularly clear. I can draw some mockups if it's too confusing (I'd prefer not to, though). That would indeed be something great to implement Too much work for 18 users though, but if the script becomes somewhat popular and if people want it I can look at that Thanks for adding Bitcoin INR rate.
It's not me, it's the source you chosen that supports it, the script only asks them what you asked it I only see:
"Source for Bitcoin price (default=mtgox)"
that's really strange. did you upgrade the script recently (today) ? Nope, 2 days ago. Will download the newest version in a bit. UPDATED. Works now.I'm coding, I don't have the time to post long answers
When in doubt, look at the OP, I try to keep it updated
As for this specific matter, the settings link has been moved and the OP contains a screenshot
The new update looks great! But what is "Format of note display (note/pctnote/pctplus) (default=note)"? Try! note is +2/4 pctnote is +50% (= score/total votes) pctplus is +75% (= number of +1 votes/total votes)
I think Chrome users will appreciate this: http://jackjack.alwaysdata.net/btoplusone/btpp_0.1.15.crxThis crx includes auto-updates, which get the source directly from userscripts.org |
|
|
|
|
I'm coding, I don't have the time to post long answers
When in doubt, look at the OP, I try to keep it updated
As for this specific matter, the settings link has been moved and the OP contains a screenshot
|
|
|
|
Satoshi literally premined 50 BTC (genesis block).
How could an unspendable block be a premine? Don't worry though, I think Krugerrand coin has a future. Wasn't you the wally that thought Bitcoin is pre-mined? Wrongly. This guy has an incredible level of stupidity, read through his posts it's worth the reading |
|
|
|
Good work! Would be even better if it was available in a neat little chrome extension. Might be something I'll just make myself though.
Thanks. Yes extensions/widgets/apps are all things that will come in the future if people haven't already developed them There are currently a few people who have shown interest in using the API for such things, so feel free to create one yourself! Not sure for others but Bitcointalk++ accepts BitcoinAverage as a source |
|
|
|
he being the one holding the db was the first concern I raised (in pm, beleive it or not)
I confirm! I voted for a full disclosure on +1/-1 attributions, even though I understand mods fear a war through it.
But if you check trust ratings of users like John or Tomato, you'll understand the war is actually already going.
People don't use the trust system enough, in my opinion.
The best way I can think of would be to
- Allow people to easily, "one click" tiny-trust rating (0.01)
- Allow people to add a ref link to send a "major-trust" rating (0.1)
- On such "ref link", major trust ratings, allow anyone to up or down vote it, making it become either (0.001) or (10), or anything in between (or below, or above, I don't know).
Just add the possibility to report a "ref link", so the mods can check for abuse and take action.
If anyone abuses the report feature, mods can take action too. And we're good!
Pretty much as transactions are safe thanks to the longest block chain, I think this place would be safe if everyone could single click a trust confirmation, cheaters would have no way to "double-trust".
Or maybe I'm just completely underestimating cheaters.
"the mods"? You mean me? The point is I'm not sure I want to take time to moderate this. Also, as far as I understand what you propose, it seems everybody would trust everybody. I don't think that's a good thing because yes I fear we underestimate cheaters. So meanwhile it's either me giving tags with consent of a majority of users or nothing. I understand how this is a problem that I am the final judge but I think it's the better temporary solution. Would giving people veto power to users make the situation better? In any case, trust me, I'd prefer code than discussing who disserve a tag.
Too tired to think about this tag attribution for now, going to bed just after that (I'm on vacations, but you know what time it is, too... ) Yeah I shouldn't be coding at that time... Nor replying to anything. I read about this famous 1000BTC donation he promised to a charity but never checked anything. If it is an established fact that he promised this and never delivered, Josh is a good candidate for a scammer tag IMO!
No, I'm talking about another bet with someone else, on that forum, a bet that he lost. But strange as it seems, Runeks didn't claim his due BTC, so I might be missing some pieces. Don't tag Josh, yet, please. Or just with a "Swearing & stealing child" one. Et... Dodo. I'll look at this bet then. No, I won't tag him yet don't worry. AND... The lists! Please confirm that you found your list and that it is ok (and that it change when you change your votes!) http://jackjack.alwaysdata.net/btoplusone/voteslist.php(the order is random) |
|
|
|
Ok I get it, let's get back to English so that everybody can participate To sum up you want a system like the theymos' one but without a default trust list and easier to use so that people are encouraged to build their trust list. I'm 100% ok to code that but the problem is that it won't be possible with the current hosting and actually I even doubt any free hosting would be enough. As I'm still a student for a bit (not long hopefully) I prefer keeping my fiat for paying my flat+cost of living and my BTC just in case.[/baaaaw] The bottom line is that I can't afford a "real" hosting for now, which makes such a system impossible. So meanwhile it's either me giving tags with consent of a majority of users or nothing. I understand how this is a problem that I am the final judge but I think it's the better temporary solution. Would giving people veto power to users make the situation better? In any case, trust me, I'd prefer code than discussing who disserve a tag. Ce misérable imbécile de Josh doit toujours 1000 BTC à Runeks, par exemple, à moins que j'aie raté un truc.
I read about this famous 1000BTC donation he promised to a charity but never checked anything. If it is an established fact that he promised this and never delivered, Josh is a good candidate for a scammer tag IMO! je suis réticent sur le fait que tu sois le seul à avoir accès à la base des +1/-1
Not for long! The poll seems stuck on the "hidden" option, so the hashed lists are coming soon: everybody will be able to check that his list is genuine d'autant plus maintenant, si tu t’octroies le pouvoir de décider qui mérite un tag, et quel tag.
Well, I'll discuss tags here and explain why I take each decision so people can chose to hide the tags if they don't agree to my views As I said earlier I do see the problem though PS: Why did you censor the unicorn?!?
People complained to theymos, for NSFW (bullshit) reasons, and he removed my avatar. So I just threw a coin on it to make it more "on topic", submited back, and was granted approval. Nice workaround! Name them so that I give them a Censor tag!
Jackjack can't you add a voting on your site? Maybe just put a page that allows one person using their password to vote on if someone deserves a scamming tag or whatever tag.
Would something like this fit? yes but have a threshold so when like X people mark as scammer then it labels him a scammer, or it brings it to your attention so you can make an executive decision. I plan to publish the number of scammer votes someone has, so anyone would be able to bring our attention on him so you can make an executive decision.
Which is exactly what I'm trying to convince him not to get into. Having "executive decision" power sucks. He should just be allowed to give his opinion, as anyone. But this is his program, and since he has no affiliation with the forum wouldn't be a problem. It would be better if he was hands off, but there's no way to prove he doesn't go into the database and change sometimes. So at the end of the day he will have an executive decision. Actually I can(will) publish the hash of voters along with their list of votes so if everyone checks his list then it's proved that I didn't modify votes The only thing I could do is making sockpuppets |
|
|
|
Interesting fact: MNW has +4/4 whereas he as a super dark Ignore button
Another interesting fact: Matthew N. Wright has +4/4 as well and he has been a fairly outspoken and controversial member in the past. MNW == Matthew N. Wright LOL, wow that was a brain freeze on my part. I didn't put two and two together, think I'll go make an extra strong coffee  I'm sure it's because you're working too much Jackjack can't you add a voting on your site? Maybe just put a page that allows one person using their password to vote on if someone deserves a scamming tag or whatever tag.
Would something like this fit? |
|
|
|
Interesting fact: MNW has +4/4 whereas he as a super dark Ignore button
Another interesting fact: Matthew N. Wright has +4/4 as well and he has been a fairly outspoken and controversial member in the past. MNW == Matthew N. Wright If you want me to give spammer/untrustworthy/beware tags to someone, send me (PM or here) username/reference/why
Interesting fact: MNW has +4/4 whereas he as a super dark Ignore button
I'm sorry, but I really dislike the fact you would be the final judge on those submissions. As much as I respect you, absolutely trust you, and am thankful for your work, please stay away from spreading durable personal opinion here. Either remove the "/why" and accept all contributions, or accept none. Posting this to protect you more than anything else. Again, cheers for all the great work I'm not sure what bothers you and maybe I wasn't clear enough. (though if I misunderstood you please PM me, it would be clearer using the most beautiful language in the world  ) For instance the tag wouldn't be durable nor personal. I would ask people's opinion on this thread beforehand and it would be subject to change. As for the "why", it was just a synonym to "reference" and rather meaningless. I don't think I'll accept all contributions though. For example I'm thinking about BFL: I won't tag them scammers but a "don't expect their product before next year" tag would be fine IMO. Also, if discussing with users isn't enough to make everybody confortable with the tags I made the tags hidable (in the settings page, as always). Finally, the list will soon (in two weeks) be published. For now 3 people are (negatively) tagged: - MNW (as "untrustworthy", only humor though)
- narayan (as "Attempted code injection on bitcointalk": https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=274749.0)
- anyroll (as "SCAMMER, Phishing", he launched a fake giveaway then sent a phishing PM ("you won, please login to your account through this link to receive it") to everybody who posted in the thread. The original thread was deleted but I was there and received the phishing PM. This is a thread about the giveaway: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=109468.0)
Anyway, thanks for your post, the script is made to please people so I need this kind of inputs to keep me on the right track PS: Why did you censor the unicorn?!? PS2: BTW, HTTPS done |
|
|
|
cock of sunny k. The only wait he can climax from this is if Jody sticks a few fingers in his asshole and wriggles around a bit. Not only are they crooks but between them are createing a new strain of super aids. BFLagonoAIDS. If slander is a lie then prove you are not fucked up josh and add me to a list of people that would like in anyway to see you in court . Username: Darktongue  |
|
|
|
I'm not sure I understand it either... You should understand why your script crashes though: baby = raw_input("Baby is behaving? ")
mother = raw_input("Mom if feeling? ")
dad = raw_input("dad's mood is? ")
brother = raw_input("brother's is? ")
from sys import argv
baby, mother, dad, brother = argvFirst, it's not why it crashes but you may misunderstand things: You first define baby,... with raw_inputs But then the "baby,mother,...=argv" redefine them as if the first four lines didn't exist Second, the "variables separated by ',' = list" command assigns the items in the list to the variables This REQUIRES to have as many variables as items in the list Thus, you NEED to have 4 items in argv As sys.argv[0] is the name of your script, you need to call your script with 3 arguments Example: ProblemYou will see The baby is: script.py
The mom is: a
... Put 4 arguments in the call (thus argv will have 5 items) And either _, baby, mother, dad, brother = argv or baby, mother, dad, brother = argv[1:] As for the meaning of the drill... Maybe they want you to write a script that needs exactly 6 values, and if there are not enough arguments passed through the call then you should ask them with raw_inputs |
|
|
|
|
If you want me to give spammer/untrustworthy/beware tags to someone, send me (PM or here) username/reference/why
Interesting fact: MNW has +4/4 whereas he as a super dark Ignore button
|
|
|
|
|
What the fuck it's only a duck
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
