Here's a conundrum:
I'd assume that alt accounts are more likely to agree with points raised by their primary account (although some would also be set up to argue), but what would the percentages be? e.g. 99% of alts align their views with their primary account, and 1% argue opposing points, or would it be closer to say, 60/40?
You could probably write an entire thesis (and more) on the topic, and if I were still in college, perhaps that's what I'd do.
Hmm, I can see the title now. "Detecting Recurring Patterns Between Accounts To Find Individual Users with Multiple Accounts" Maybe compare the users' introduction posts in the "Introduce Yourself" thread. Except accounts on internet forums would be just a small subset of the research. Detectives already do similar stuff IRL when someone forges a signature, or steals an identity. The signature may look okay to the naked eye, but up close it has very specific traits that can identify the real writer. Although I am interested in the programming aspect, it's not really an I.T. topic at heart. It's probably more psychological / social. |
|
|
|
|
Here's a conundrum:
I'd assume that alt accounts are more likely to agree with points raised by their primary account (although some would also be set up to argue), but what would the percentages be? e.g. 99% of alts align their views with their primary account, and 1% argue opposing points, or would it be closer to say, 60/40?
You could probably write an entire thesis (and more) on the topic, and if I were still in college, perhaps that's what I'd do.
|
|
|
|
The average IQ level for all posts will also help at suckpuppet detection. The problem might be that most suckpuppet masters might fall on lower 20% on IQ scale.
That would probably depend on how easily they were detected! The dumb or careless puppet masters would be more obvious while the high-IQ alts would probably be more conscious of their traits and hence be better at flying under the radar. |
|
|
|
I used to check bitcoincharts to get an estimate of the difficulty increase. Then one day, that value disappeared. So I started "shopping around", and found this: http://dot-bit.org/tools/nextDifficulty.phpIt seemed to be pretty reliable. Then one day, for kicks, I checked out bitcoincharts again. Lo and behold, the difficulty estimate was back. The values between bitcoincharts and dot-bit were pretty close, but today they are wildly different. Is this a hint of the future? As of now bitcoincharts says: Estimated 3293791 in 2016 blks
dot-bit.org says: Next 207648 02/11/2012 15:38 12'709'063.05 x3.85
I'm assuming dot-bit has a glitch somewhere, cause I don't have my asics yet!! M And here is a 3rd, completely different estimate: 3,294,514
How is it calculated? How is that completely different? Bitcoin charts: 3,293,791 bitcoindifficulty: 3,294,514 They are different by less than 3/10th of 1 percent. Sorry partially different. What I meant was, although they have arrived at a similar number, they must be using a different calculation. |
|
|
|
I used to check bitcoincharts to get an estimate of the difficulty increase. Then one day, that value disappeared. So I started "shopping around", and found this: http://dot-bit.org/tools/nextDifficulty.phpIt seemed to be pretty reliable. Then one day, for kicks, I checked out bitcoincharts again. Lo and behold, the difficulty estimate was back. The values between bitcoincharts and dot-bit were pretty close, but today they are wildly different. Is this a hint of the future? As of now bitcoincharts says: Estimated 3293791 in 2016 blks
dot-bit.org says: Next 207648 02/11/2012 15:38 12'709'063.05 x3.85
I'm assuming dot-bit has a glitch somewhere, cause I don't have my asics yet!! M And here is a 3rd, completely different estimate: 3,294,514
How is it calculated? |
|
|
|
Language is pretty easy.
Form a histograms of:
Syllables per word
Words per sentence
Sentences per paragraph.
Vocabulary.
And ratio of exclamation marks to word count!!! Thanks, keep 'em coming  |
|
|
|
I guess many accounts will be stockpuppetdetected with total strangers. With more registered and active users there will be more false positives.
Agreed, but if it were scored based, an automated system could at least rank users from 1 (very unlikely to be an alt) to 100 (highly likely to be an alt) and then a human could keep an eye on the higher-scoring accounts. I'm sure that absolute certainty would be impossible, however I'm still interested in what metrics could be used to come up with such a score. And the pursuit of accuracy through refining the algorithms is rather intriguing to me. |
|
|
|
|
I think this topic would get a *lot* more views if you put the word 'breast' in the title.
eg. [NSFW] Need 500 btc loan for Breast implants.
|
|
|
|
I'm going to be helping someone set up a forum, but we haven't decided on what software yet. Anyway, it got me curious about how sockpuppets and alt accounts can be detected, with varying degrees of accuracy. What ingeniously-complicated algorithms already exist to do this? And what could be coded better? Some obvious metrics to consider: - IP address
- Language
- Grammar
- Vocabulary
- Profile preferences, eg. Timezone
- Regular login and post days/times
- Use of smileys or images
What else? Is software to do this built in to the major forum scripts or is this kind of thing studied separately by mods? |
|
|
|
I really wish you hadn't said what you did hamdi. I'd bet that your statement of my service being to expensive turned away a lot of people. I understand where you're coming from, but why not keep such things to PMs, you know?
It's not exactly a secret. You've written your prices in the OP. |
|
|
|
|
Sounds to me like OP will not be guarding against double-spend attacks, in the way that Satoshi Dice does.
|
|
|
|
I couldn't find a way to put it at the beginning
Using regex
[Xx][Ii][Aa][Nn][Oo]
How about: ^1[Xx][Ii][Aa][Nn][Oo] |
|
|
|
I can get it. My bother is a boss at American Airlines.
The last time I called my girlfriend a bother, she kicked me in the nuts. |
|
|
|
Lets pretend this plan has no flaws ... it isn't free you do realize that. It is $2M in opportunity costs (i.e. someone could invest $2M elsewhere). Add to that the risk of loss both from the trading system and from an exchange hack and the cost is most certainly >0%.
TL/DR:
Yes with $2M one can generate income using a variety of sources.
2 two 20 twenty 200 two hundred 2,000 two thousand 20,000 twenty thousand 200,000 two hundred thousand 2,000,000 two million +2 |
|
|
|
and then moves the decimal after the calculation is done...
This is my entire point (emphasis mine). The reward will always be based on a calculation where '50' (in whatever shape or form) is the only hard-coded amount. |
|
|
|
|
If the tx doesn't show on the site straight away (or even within 10 minutes), do you have some script that will go back and make sure you processed everything?
Still waiting for mine.
|
|
|
|
So obviously the calculation won't lose accuracy as time passes, but will always be based on 50*something.
Actually, since bitcoins are only divisible down to 8 decimal places, the reward drop will indeed "lose accuracy" on the 10th halving (sometime around the year 2048), when the reward will drop from BTC0.09765625 to BTC0.04882812 (it is always rounded down to the 8th decimal place, so there will be no confusion about it when the time comes).
I believe it is technically handled by performing a bitwise right shift on the reward as an integer. So right now the block reward is 5,000,000,000 which can be represented in binary as: 100101010000001011111001000000000 When we see the reward cut in half in a few weeks, the programming will simply chop a digit off the right-hand side of that binary number giving us 10010101000000101111100100000000 Which is 2,500,000,000 in base 10. In 2048 the reward will go from 9,765,625 to 4,882,812 100101010000001011111001 (9,765,625) 10010101000000101111100 (4,882,812) You can see that we will "lose precision" any time we chop off a one, and we will have a nice even halving whenever we chop off a zero. What will the next list of rewards be . . . ?
For the list of rewards, try this: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=0b100101010000001011111001000000000+in+decimalThen you can just remove digits from the right hand side of the binary number to represent the number of "halvings" you are interested in, and you should see the new reward represented in "Satoshi". If you want to see it represented in BTC, just move the decimal 8 places to the left after the conversion. However, these truncated values are not hardcoded into the software, but rather the software still only contains the hardcoded 50 (100101010000001011111001000000000) with a run-time algorithm to determine how many times it's shifted. So this means that it does not lose accuracy each time. i.e. The accuracy loss when a 1 is chopped off does not *compound*. Example: Let's say we only had 1 decimal place and the reward started at 10, then at some point in the future we decide to use 2 decimal places. If accuracy loss was compounded we'd have the following series. 10.0 5.0 2.5 1.2 "Hey everyone, let's use more decimal places!" 0.60 0.30 0.15 0.07 Whereas if accuracy-loss is not compounded (i.e. only the initial 10.0 is hardcoded into the software) then we end up with a different series 10.0 5.0 2.5 1.2 "Hey everyone, let's use more decimal places!" 0.62 0.31 0.15 0.07 |
|
|
|
and the answer is:
Andrew Nollan: Yes its been a long time. I should actually know more once this GLBSE situation gets resolved.
Hahahaha I added this option to the poll in case people are still voting. |
|
|
|
This is on an iOS device? I am experiencing the same thing but only on my iOS devices, we are working to correct this.
No, just Firefox. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
