I believe in you but I don't believe in BTC trading
nvm
- schlossi155
- YES
- 4666
good luck
Brand new account just to comment here? I don't know about that dude |
|
|
|
G = (U, V, E) is a bipartite graph with edges from the left side, U, to the right side, V. There are N vertices in U and M vertices in V. A "capacity" function c: U -> Z is defined for every vertex in U. A constant integer "target value" T exists. Candidate solutions are subgraphs S = (US, VS, ES) of G satisfing the following requirements: 1. For each vertex u in US, the number of edges attached to u must be less than or equal to c(u). 2. For each vertex v in VS, the number of edges attached to v must be greater than or equal to T. Find an S such that the number of vertices in VS is maximal. Example:  Note that this graph is depicted as directed, but that doesn't actually matter. Note: - To satisfy requirement #1, you must exclude at least two of (u1, v1) or (u1, v3) or (u1, v4). - To satisfy requirement #1, you must exclude at least one of (u2, v1) or (u2, v2). - To satisfy requirement #1, you must exclude at least one of (u3, v1), (u3, v2) or (u3, v3) - To satisfy requirement #2, you must exclude at least v4 (since it cannot possibly get T=2 edges), and possibly more depending on the rest of S. In a very naïve greedy algorithm, you might just fill up vertices on the right from top to bottom until you can't do anything else. That'd give a candidate solution of: (u1, v1) (u2, v1) This is a valid candidate solution, but it's non-optimal because it includes only 1 vertex in V whereas 2 are possible. In order to achieve an optimal solution, you need some backtracking, at least. In this case there are two equally-good optimal solutions:(u1, v3) (u3, v3) (u2, v2) (u3, v2) or: (u1, v1) (u3, v3) (u2, v2) (u3, v2) It becomes more complicated as the graph gets bigger. Writing it down in this way reminds me a lot of the stable marriage problem, which gives me hope that it can be solved exactly. Two more questions : M (number of V vertices) is not given right? We have the number of u vertices, their capacity, and T the constant, and our solution is finding the vectors (u,v) that satisfy the requirements with the maximum number possible of v vertices? Typo on your end in the 2nd optimal solution? I figure you meant either v1 or v3 for one of those vectors? ---------- And where the user chimk? Yes, true, and where the user Veleor?
Can you stop? |
|
|
|
I wasn't able to find either an optimal or low-error-approximate solution to this problem. My current algorithm is sub-optimal in general and could produce results uncomfortably far from the optimal solution, but the current data doesn't actually present a scenario where it matters: my current algorithm is optimal with the current data. Long-term, if I can't find an algorithm that I'm happy with, I could make the trust lists ordered as some have suggested. I might help out and spend a day thinking about it but the explanation from the graph is a bit confusing. Can you dumb it down even further? Just a short description of what are the inputs exactly, and how do you want the output. Better if it's just an example with 5 users or something. |
|
|
|
No, I mean Microsoft can give your data to a different organisation. As long as someone powerful enough comes up with a good enough excuse, Microsoft will happily give some other organisation your keys
All of these things are extreme edge cases imo. I doubt OP is someone shady enough, or has high enough status to become paranoid of such things. I myself would only start caring about these things if my fiat worth was in the 7 digits and above. I'm sure there are hundreds if not thousands of people with 6-digit worth of money on their computers, so unless one of them has done some explicitly shady stuff, and actually feel targeted then it's a very long shot for either a 3rd party or for Microsoft themselves to try and pull a fast one on them. |
|
|
|
To all the people who are saying that this idea is insane: this is exactly what people and institutions do when they buy on margin, AKA use leverage. It's the same thing--you pay interest on someone else's money that you're using to speculate. I totally agree that for the average person, he/she should not borrow money to play around in the crypto market, and that advice is coming from someone who does not have a single credit card.
If you don't have the cash on hand to invest or you can't afford to lose it (I fucking hate repeating that advice), don't do it. Everyone in the gambling section will tell you the same thing, and trying to buy bitcoin on what you think is a dip is gambling.
Margin is a bit different though. You're not taking a loan in order to repay the full loan per-se, you're only repaying the difference in price, and 2nd, you're FORCED to repay the full difference once your funds get burned. Taking a loan on the other hand, you're stuck with the exact amount in fiat that you need to repay. And there's no automatic liquidation, so in case there's a big red dildo up your bottom, it's going to go all the way down before you even realise what's happening (unless you're smart enough to put a stop-loss.. is it smart even?). I can't say I haven't been burnt off funds myself because of severe fluctuations, but hey, at least I'm not in crippling debt for the rest of my life. |
|
|
|
Sorry for the interruption but i guess when the rules says “local board”means it refers to the LOCAL LANGUAGES,because if not then theres no reason of pointing this out in the OP.and besides this rules applied by many managers now that only requires ENGLISH POST will be counted
Unless you will be posting english in that russian board then thats a different thing and only the CM will decide on that
Hope this clarify some issues,and if i am wrong then sorry for that
Stop over-analyzing. Rules say no local boards, here is what it needs to look like for you:  |
|
|
|
I thought that Monero was a good choice back then, now after the kidnapping here in Norway and the ransome that should be paid in XMR, I don't think the future for this cryptocurrency is so bright in the next couple of months.
It had a good start in the begging for the first few months but now...
I haven't heard about that news but I doubt it'll have any effect. You can't blame the users for abusing a feature that defines the coin. Think of it kinda like guns, a whole lot of people hate them, they get used for terrorism all day, but they're still being sold and manufactured more than ever. If anything, this ransom might prove how private the altcoin is. |
|
|
|
Is there any gambling sites that gives you a free coins at the start to let you play their game and might use it as a starting bet? It may not be withdrawable but your winnings will be, and also let you cash out even though you dont have any deposits yet?
If there is kindly give me the link of it, and what games can I play that has the high odds of winning with the use of those free coins.
Why would someone even do that? If i am the owner i would think that it will not bring any good to my business and besides, a lot of people will be spamming to create a new account just to get those freebies that you are talking. Think all of the exploits that people would use just to get that "free coins". A lot of websites offer a free faucet, (even bitvest, the website in OP's signature  ). The trick is to make the money low enough so it's not available for withdrawal. Also, you can only use the faucet if your balance is at 0. So you can't just keep stacking money. This way the casino makes sure that the event of someone using the faucet money to build up a bankroll that's enough for a withdrawal is rare and almost impossible. |
|
|
|
It CAN be verified manually.
How? You speak as if in the current state, you can verify anything at all in trust ratings?
You can check the reference link and other proof presented in the feedback and everyone can decide on their own what level of verification is needed/acceptable. It's still a manual verification. Just like you can red-tag someone caught posting a fake trust rating, you can red-tag someone who posted a trade with an amount that never happened. I really don't see how such a detail fundamentally changes anything. Every single part of information written in a trust rating cannot be automatically verified. @theymos No comment on this suggestion? I have a nice graph too
It's an interesting idea, but I think that trust ratings and trust lists are fundamentally different concepts which shouldn't be mixed. Just because you had a good trade with someone doesn't mean that you trust their judgement generally. For example, your system would tend to strongly amplify long cons like pirateat40, I think. Also, we're not going to moderate things like "did a trade actually occur, and with x value?". Like I posted in that post, custom lists arent a solution. You can't just set a custom trust list and live in your own world, so that's why my suggestion forces a decentralized common trust list for everyone. Custom trust lists already mean nothing because only the person using them sees them. Moderating the trust ratings also becomes the burden of the network itself. Newbies will have little to no weight compared to legendary members, and legendary members also have only a share of contribution compared to trusted legendary members. I honestly think it's possible for the network to calibrate itself. If someone is abusing trust, he's going to be red tagged. If someone is legitimate, he's going to be more and more influencive on the rest of the network and so-on. No centralized trust list needed. If someone's position changes, and he becomes trusted/untrusted after being otherwise, all the ratings specific to this account are going to propagate depending on the change. Still, I can see that it might be a drastic change and not easy to implement compared to the current solution of updating and reworking the default trust list. Would be fair enough to wait for its results before judging. |
|
|
|
@theymos No comment on this suggestion? I have a nice graph too
-snip-
Using amount risked in any calculation does not work for several reasons: 1) It can't be verified, thus it can be easily abused. 2) Sometimes users want to keep amounts private. It CAN be verified manually. You speak as if in the current state, you can verify anything at all in trust ratings? It's impossible to fix that problem, people can just neg/positively trust each other and unless there's another person that verifies that trust behind the scenes it may as well go undetected. And I quote from that exact same post : So in the end the only issue becomes actually verifying that the trust, risked amounts, and if the trades actually happened. Which wouldn't be a hard task because you'd only need to check people with a suspiciously high amount of trust. 3) Positive trust for reasons other than trading.
Is that really a bad thing? Name one reason where you would want to red tag someone without bias, that doesn't involve money. It can easily be fixed by setting a default non-zero number for trust ratings that don't involve risked amounts, which is completely fine imo because any trust rating that isn't exactly this : "How much money I trust this user with", is honestly just a biased opinion that is the whole cause of why the first trust system is being binned. EDIT : Regardless of how important I think risked amounts are, if @theymos would rather start with a less complex system first then you might as well just remove risked amounts, my system is still solid. The concept is similar to what he wants to do but won't require an exponential amount of time to calculate compared to the intractability of the current way on how he wants to calculate trust. If the list starts to have numbers in the triple digits, Trust will actually stop being updated instantly just because of the time needed to calculate propagation through the tree. |
|
|
|
@theymos No comment on this suggestion? I have a nice graph too
---
That's why you need to read the ratings and/or use custom trust lists. If you don't like the trust system, set your own trust list. I still haven't done it, because I prefer to see users as most people see them. But feel free to start promoting custom trust lists, if enough people agree, DT will become less powerful.
It's a good idea but a shame that so many people promote custom trust lists to solve a problem that shouldn't exist in the first place. If the majority agrees that DT is a select group of people that might not reflect the true list of actual most trusted people in the forum, then doesn't keeping DT as it is make it even more of a problem? Custom lists might look like they're solving the problem, but they're really not because the majority of the forum uses default trust. So in the end you're going to be living in your own echo chamber by removing default trust from your list, because you're completely oblivious to how everyone else actually sees you. I'd say it depends on the situation. I've received some positive trust for being helpful. I don't think that's "worse" than someone who receives positive trust after a few small trades with DT-members. In fact, it took me many years to get this (and I appreciate the appreciation), while it's quite easy to gain trust by doing a few trades.
This can easily be fixed if the risked amount is also taken into account (Why is it there in the first place if it's not?). In my opinion, someone with a few trades is more trusted than someone who posts all day on the forums, because at the end of the day, someone who had money risked through their hands means that they're not tempted to scam at least that much. Of course, account rank also comes into play, because a legendary hero wouldn't scam someone off a few dozen bucks simply because their account is worth more through sig campaigns. Actually, using just 3 variables : 1. Account rank 2. Account current trust 3. Amount risked I can come up with a system that won't depend on a centralized default trust, and at the same time gets updated in real time depending on member's trust over time :  If any of these 3 members get negative trust, then all their network is going to have less trust points because that person becomes shady. If User 1 has biased vendetta against User 2, because there's a risked amount variable then baseless claims will have little effect. This can't be spammed using multiple accounts because newbie ranks and risked amounts are too little to matter. So in the end the only issue becomes actually verifying that the trust, risked amounts, and if the trades actually happened. Which wouldn't be a hard task because you'd only need to check people with a suspiciously high amount of trust. This cliché of me pitching up ideas is getting rather old, is btctalk hiring?  |
|
|
|
Hey OP, is your computer still not restarted? If that's the case and you're using the latest Window 10, try pressing the Windows Button + V, hopefully the clipboard option was activated by default for you maybe. You can also just try pasting again you know, in case you never turned off the PC and never copied anything else. You also need to double check your actions and stop panicking. Are you sure you sent the data to USB? maybe you pasted it in a different drive? It used to happen to me all the time. Do you remember the name of your text file? Try to retrace your actions, and recover the file from your own PC, if the USB was no good. There is also this not so well known recovery tool that helped two of my friends back in the day, it's very efficient : https://www.r-studio.com/Data_Recovery_Download.shtml |
|
|
|
I guess you're on Windows? You can just open a commandline in the parent folder and type "rename yourfolder.2018 mywallet.dat". You could also try this software I coded a few weeks ago, Im curious if it would work with "fake" or corrupt folders. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5071775.0Hi, Thanks for replying, I'm a total tech idiot when it comes to cmd. Originally, the folder was named 1.1.2018 and the wallet inside was named mywallet.dat, currently the file (folder) Is 1.1.2018, so the command should be rename 1.1.2018 mywallet.dat? OS is Win 10 Wouldn't that just rename the incorrect folder to a new dat file format rather than fixing it and separating file/folder? I misread for a second, sorry about that! So your folder got converted into a file, yes I dont recommend renaming it. Try reading the accepted answer here : https://superuser.com/questions/42202/how-to-recover-folder-converted-to-file-by-check-disk Go to Change folder and search option -> View -> check Show hidden files and uncheck Hide protected operating system files.
You should see a folder with name "found.***" in your drive. Right-click on that folder and take ownership or grant yourself read/write permission on this folder through the Security tab.
Now open "found.***" folder. There might be multiple "dir***.chk" folders inside.
Go through each folder. One of them should have your lost data. You can simply copy/paste from here.
It seems to have worked for other people from a different thread too. It should work for you. In case it doesn't I found from this source : https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_xp-pictures/how-to-back-my-folders-have-changed-to-file-types/5e9c156a-e616-4db5-8f25-c799e5db2d9b?auth=1someone recommending to download and run this tool : https://www.z-a-recovery.com/download.aspxHope you recover your wallet safely. If you can, try making a copy of this folder before you make any changes. |
|
|
|
I guess you're on Windows? You can just open a commandline in the parent folder and type "rename yourfolder.2018 mywallet.dat". You could also try this software I coded a few weeks ago, Im curious if it would work with "fake" or corrupt folders. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5071775.0 |
|
|
|
yeah i know that i dont use it anymore.
In case you try to do this in the future again, dont use half patterns.. The difference between 10^-80 and 10^-60 is almost inexistent, youre better off searching for full patterns rather than maybe landing on a close relative to your address. |
|
|
|
@OP and everyone else reading this in the future that might need testnet coins, remember, its great to have a network where you can use and play around with worthless coins. But remember that they are worthless, so when you're done testing, please return them to the faucet you took them from unless you plan on using them again  I believe this is one of the main reasons why faucets have dried out, people tend to forget they can just send the coins back. |
|
|
|
For once, I like the changes. Not necessarily the best iteration yet, but experimenting and acknowledging there was a problem means that at least we wont have to settle for trust abuse and biased ratings based on personal grudges. Going to quote myself from the past, my solution is almost similar to theymos's except I multiply trust by user rank / risked amount.
---
That's why you need to read the ratings and/or use custom trust lists. If you don't like the trust system, set your own trust list. I still haven't done it, because I prefer to see users as most people see them. But feel free to start promoting custom trust lists, if enough people agree, DT will become less powerful.
It's a good idea but a shame that so many people promote custom trust lists to solve a problem that shouldn't exist in the first place. If the majority agrees that DT is a select group of people that might not reflect the true list of actual most trusted people in the forum, then doesn't keeping DT as it is make it even more of a problem? Custom lists might look like they're solving the problem, but they're really not because the majority of the forum uses default trust. So in the end you're going to be living in your own echo chamber by removing default trust from your list, because you're completely oblivious to how everyone else actually sees you. I'd say it depends on the situation. I've received some positive trust for being helpful. I don't think that's "worse" than someone who receives positive trust after a few small trades with DT-members. In fact, it took me many years to get this (and I appreciate the appreciation), while it's quite easy to gain trust by doing a few trades.
This can easily be fixed if the risked amount is also taken into account (Why is it there in the first place if it's not?). In my opinion, someone with a few trades is more trusted than someone who posts all day on the forums, because at the end of the day, someone who had money risked through their hands means that they're not tempted to scam at least that much. Of course, account rank also comes into play, because a legendary hero wouldn't scam someone off a few dozen bucks simply because their account is worth more through sig campaigns. Actually, using just 3 variables : 1. Account rank 2. Account current trust 3. Amount risked I can come up with a system that won't depend on a centralized default trust, and at the same time gets updated in real time depending on member's trust over time : If any of these 3 members get negative trust, then all their network is going to have less trust points because that person becomes shady. If User 1 has biased vendetta against User 2, because there's a risked amount variable then baseless claims will have little effect. This can't be spammed using multiple accounts because newbie ranks and risked amounts are too little to matter. So in the end the only issue becomes actually verifying that the trust, risked amounts, and if the trades actually happened. Which wouldn't be a hard task because you'd only need to check people with a suspiciously high amount of trust. This cliché of me pitching up ideas is getting rather old, is btctalk hiring? |
|
|
|
You can't be the house without a structured and well detailed business plan. Then in this plan you will have your people which will also give you different suggestions to choose from. However as a bare minimum you need at least 50 Bitcoins and that is a low amount because a whale can play and if he wins , you have lost your casino. True good casinos start with 500-1000 bitcoins.
To be honest. I was surprised about the capital to start Bitcoin Casino and being a house. Because I think, the minimum capital of 10 BTC is enough to be a house. But evidently, the minimum capital 10 BTC is not enough because even with 50 BTC of capital we are at risk of losing the casino. Damn, that means I really don't understand the theory of being a house. Honestly I dont want to be rude but @swogerino overexaggerated the issue. Its nice to have a team, have a lot of money to invest, have a business plan, a roadmap......... but fuck it lets face it, bootstrapping with a single good developer that know how to market a business with minimal investment is not unheard of. If you plan to open up a casino, you could very well do it with as low as 1btc. Of course you will adjust your payouts accordingly, you cant afford whales just yet. But there are a lot more questions to answer before that, the 1st one being : why will people gamble with you? If your casino comes with the same content as every other site : Live casino, slots, sports, card games, dice.... You're already treading muddy waters, the market is saturated with that stuff. So think of something new and fresh, build your community. If you simply cant innovate in content, you need to up your marketing bar : innovate in bonuses, marketing campaigns that reward on-site bonuses with goals just close enough to reach, but far enough to make the majority lose and deposit out of spite.. All kind of ways that make you lose a minimum, hell, casinos have marketing techniques that MAKES them money. Shit's dark, but everyone does it. If you still cant come up with something... theres always boobs, boobs work too. |
|
|
|
Using a hardware wallet to store online coins is like carrying a credit card inside a safe? The thief can just skip your dumb security altogether and compromise your bank blockchain account.. Quote from their faq : Why should I use a hardware wallet?
Hardware wallets are immune to computer viruses that attempt to hack or steal private keys. By storing your private key in a hardware wallet, you are securing your crypto offline, keeping it another step away from hackers. But it's already online.....  |
|
|
|
---
I thought you went to sleep with your funds in USD :p This dip would have been perfect for you. Still, looks like there's a long road ahead of you my friend. Skipping days is alright as long as you stick to your goal I guess, so good luck |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
