LoyceVs PM publisher

[LoyceV]

Can you also delete a message from not appearing in the log at all?

Of course

I am just thinking how can it be used as evidence if one person can make changes to the evidence if he wanted to?

It's the same with my posts archive: I like my data integrity, and I've published all censoring I have done (for instance creditcard data or doxing).
If there is any doubt, maybe someone can create "TryNinjas PM publisher", then just CC that one too so you don't have to rely on my data.

Let's say you really hate me for calling you a poopy diaper (I didn't though), and I use your bot for a deal that goes sideways. You edit the PMs to not favor my side of the story. I am now in a pickle. It's my word against LoyceV's and his bot. What chance do I stand against the all-mighty LoyceV when it comes to who is telling the truth and who is lying?

When it's about a PM you received, you can click Report To Admin, and ask the much-more-all-mighty Cyrus, hilariousandco, mprep, Mr. Big or theymos to verify the PMs authenticity. Unfortunately, you can't report PMs sent by yourself, so you'll have to either ask an Admin or do this:

giving someone access to your account to check your PMs.

For what it's worth, I like to think I'm not that childish If your poopy diaper stories are annoying, you might end up on my ignore list. If you try to spam my data scraping, I might create a blacklist just for you. But my data integrity can only be trusted if I never compromise it, and all you'd need is one piece of evidence to destroy any reputation I have when it comes to data.

Of course, I can also click Report To Admin on a PM received by LoyceVs PM publisher to ask Bitcointalk's upper management to confirm the poopy diaper guy is the one who's lying.

[PrimeNumber7]

That is an unusual implementation. It is more common to either ignore invalid argument float instead of an int), or to convert a float to an integer using integer division, eg 0.25//1

Removing all characters other than numbers was meant to handle a case where someone sends "delay=5" with bold font. This will read as "delay=<b>5", and still work fine. It's basically me being lazy I didn't bother to work with partial days (and frankly didn't expect someone to try).

The <b> would actually be the bold bbcode command. A solution would be to instruct users to not have any special formatting in the argument line.

I think it is somewhat pointless to have a PM published no matter what. I think some people will want to avoid publishing their PM conversations absent a dispute.

I'm pretty sure most people would want to avoid that. Lets' say it's not for most people

One solution might be to only publish a PM if a second PM is sent to the bot account with a command to publish the PM. The second PM would need to be from the sender or receiver of the original PM. This would avoid the automatic publishing of PMs, but would have the same theoretical authenticity.

[LoyceV]

One solution might be to only publish a PM if a second PM is sent to the bot account with a command to publish the PM. The second PM would need to be from the sender or receiver of the original PM.

This has been discussed: I can't know if there's a BCC-receiver, and I don't want this to be used for a false feeling of security.

[PrimeNumber7]

One solution might be to only publish a PM if a second PM is sent to the bot account with a command to publish the PM. The second PM would need to be from the sender or receiver of the original PM.

This has been discussed: I can't know if there's a BCC-receiver, and I don't want this to be used for a false feeling of security.

Anyone who was BCC'ed would not have the ability to have the PM published (assuming they are not also a CC or listed in the "to" field).

I believe that any automatic publishing of PMs is likely not going to be a net positive for potential users.

[LoyceV]

Anyone who was BCC'ed would not have the ability to have the PM published (assuming they are not also a CC or listed in the "to" field)

I don't want to add to the existing possibilities of misleading people. That's why I didn't use "LoyceBot" but created "LoyceV's PM publisher", and that's why I don't want to risk BCC-receivers to become a scam victim when they think they can use my bot as evidence.
I thought of adding another decimal to the delay, but if it's 30 years a scam victim might want me to publish it earlier.

[PrimeNumber7]

Anyone who was BCC'ed would not have the ability to have the PM published (assuming they are not also a CC or listed in the "to" field)

I don't want to add to the existing possibilities of misleading people. That's why I didn't use "LoyceBot" but created "LoyceV's PM publisher", and that's why I don't want to risk BCC-receivers to become a scam victim when they think they can use my bot as evidence.
I thought of adding another decimal to the delay, but if it's 30 years a scam victim might want me to publish it earlier.

Well to be clear, any global mod can publish, or more specifically confirm the contents of a PM that is reported to them. So if you have a case in which someone is "BCC'ed".

Further, you can trivially check if a particular PM, based on the PMID contains a specific content, and if so, you could chose to confirm as much.

[suchmoon]

Further, you can trivially check if a particular PM, based on the PMID contains a specific content, and if so, you could chose to confirm as much.

LoyceV really shouldn't do that if he can't verify (as is the case with a BCC) that the person who's asking is a recipient and not merely fishing. Sequential message ID is not a substitute for authorization.

[PrimeNumber7]

Further, you can trivially check if a particular PM, based on the PMID contains a specific content, and if so, you could chose to confirm as much.

LoyceV really shouldn't do that if he can't verify (as is the case with a BCC) that the person who's asking is a recipient and not merely fishing. Sequential message ID is not a substitute for authorization.

Someone who is BCC'ed on a PM will have the exact content of the PM, word for word. If someone is able to produce an exact replica of a PM, I think it is fair to say they have access to the PM. It is not trivial to know the PMID of a message, along with the exact send date and all the receipants. This is distinct from someone providing general content of a message.

[BitcoinGirl.Club]

Again, don't take this the wrong way and you are not a poopy diaper either.    

Don't take is wrong way for me too @LoyceV

It's PM for a reason. I understand the tool could have a use more or less but the bot actually do not make it's a PM anymore. In fact we do not need the bot at all. Let's all make a wish to theymos to permanently disable changing username and password to the account LoyceVs PM publisher, let everyone know the username password and they can see whatever CCed in to the account 😉

The benefit is doing so will take out the burden on you too. People will not blame (falsely or rightfully) that you may alter information.

By the way, just make sure to use TOR when you log in from this public account 🤪

[LoyceV]

Let's all make a wish to theymos to permanently disable changing username and password to the account LoyceVs PM publisher, let everyone know the username password and they can see whatever CCed in to the account 😉

You can of course create your own PM-publishing-account and share the password with a business partner. Just not mine, my password won't be shared and if anyone can read the PMs, the delay-feature won't work.

The benefit is doing so will take out the burden on you too. People will not blame (falsely or rightfully) that you may alter information.

I'm not worried about being blamed. As long as I'm honest, there won't be any evidence to put the blame on me.

I actually found a use for this: this unedited post wil prove my intentions with absolute certainty after 45 days. If I edit the post, the forum shows it. And if I edit the PM, the signed message can't be verified.

[ChiBitCTy]

This is some cool Mr Robot stuff here (Trying to think of how/when this could be best utilized in collectibles).

Is it possible to request it never be published, unless a trade goes sideways and it’s needed/one of the two/two+ parties requests it?

Is it possible to make this program entirely encrypted until the delay is up/ publishing requested ? (Not sure if this would even be possible).

[LoyceV]

Is it possible to request it never be published, unless a trade goes sideways and it’s needed/one of the two/two+ parties requests it?

No, that would allow for loopholes like this:

if a potential scam victim receives the PM as BCC, I can't know everyone involved.

Is it possible to make this program entirely encrypted until the delay is up/ publishing requested ? (Not sure if this would even be possible).

Only if you send an encrypted PM, and publish the decryption later. But that defeats the purpose of using a third party to publish the evidence.

[ChiBitCTy]

Is it possible to request it never be published, unless a trade goes sideways and it’s needed/one of the two/two+ parties requests it?

No, that would allow for loopholes like this:

if a potential scam victim receives the PM as BCC, I can't know everyone involved.

Is it possible to make this program entirely encrypted until the delay is up/ publishing requested ? (Not sure if this would even be possible).

Only if you send an encrypted PM, and publish the decryption later. But that defeats the purpose of using a third party to publish the evidence.

Ah I see. I guess I’m forgetting you’re working with what you can do here and now, which is limited since you aren’t the site admin (otherwise you could trigger the program to do stuff like disable BCC when utilized, of course right).

Is this the kind of thing SC’s might be able to do one day, removing the need for a third party ? (Thinking of Satoshis 3rd party-less escrow SC proposal).

[LoyceV]

Ah I see. I guess I’m forgetting you’re working with what you can do here and now, which is limited since you aren’t the site admin (otherwise you could trigger the program to do stuff like disable BCC when utilized, of course right).

Correct. I'm only a user

Is this the kind of thing SC’s might be able to do one day, removing the need for a third party ? (Thinking of Satoshis 3rd party-less escrow SC proposal).

What's SC? Smart Contracts? I don't think this will help prevent people from getting scammed. And from what I've seen, the most famous "smart" contracts turned out to be far too complicated for the users to understand.

[NotATether]

Bump!

Do your bots still work or are they being stonewalled by Cloudflare?

[LoyceMobile]

Do your bots still work or are they being stonewalled by Cloudflare?

I got a notification so it must work.

[LoyceV]

Bump!

@BitcoinGirl.Club

[LoyceV]

Last user: June 18, 2022. I assume this is still working