|
JJ12880
|
 |
April 21, 2016, 10:28:45 AM |
|
That means that it is waiting for you wallet to gain enough connects for so that it has a solid connection to the Radium network. If you want to skip that check, you can disable it in the startup options.
Check the box for
"skip peer check"
JJ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TalkImg was created especially for hosting images on bitcointalk.org: try it next time you want to post an image
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
gerb
|
|
April 21, 2016, 05:11:53 PM |
|
The project is very very interesting.
The benefits that provides the only thing of check your files is enormous. Maybe talk to Microsoft and Apple to adapt an application to do this tasks more transparents and easy to use for the final user, just a thought.
|
|
|
|
|
|
dannyman
|
|
April 21, 2016, 07:03:33 PM |
|
I feel like Radium has done so much to deserve a marketcap far more than present based on its tech, its not an entitled thing I just think its either undervalued or people aren't seeing the utility yet.
My personal belief is the project needs a contract or two for storing information. Seems like a PR guy job to make those kind of connections?
|
|
|
|
|
|
gerb
|
|
April 21, 2016, 07:23:52 PM |
|
I feel like Radium has done so much to deserve a marketcap far more than present based on its tech, its not an entitled thing I just think its either undervalued or people aren't seeing the utility yet.
My personal belief is the project needs a contract or two for storing information. Seems like a PR guy job to make those kind of connections?
Agree, the technology is there, now is time for far more marketing. |
|
|
|
|
|
JJ12880
|
|
April 22, 2016, 01:21:57 AM |
|
I feel like Radium has done so much to deserve a marketcap far more than present based on its tech, its not an entitled thing I just think its either undervalued or people aren't seeing the utility yet.
My personal belief is the project needs a contract or two for storing information. Seems like a PR guy job to make those kind of connections?
Agree, the technology is there, now is time for far more marketing. Agreed. I personally am not good at marketing, but would appreciate any feedback, including what parts of the ANN are easy to understand, and what parts need fixing or updating. JJ |
|
|
|
|
JJ12880
|
|
April 22, 2016, 01:32:41 AM |
|
Friends,
I am searching adding a user trust system to the SmartChain, and was interested if anyone had any suggestions. There are many variables that can be used in such a system, such as age of the account, their verified status, and a trust rating provided by other users.
Assuming that a system is in place for one user to provide a rating of another user, what type of system would be easiest to use? A finite levels system is one option, (level one, level 3, level 3) etc, or a "points" system where a user accrues points based on ratings provided by others.
Another thought I had was that a users rating of another user could in turn be based on trust of the person doing the rating, such that old well known and trusted persons have greater weight.
Let me know what your thoughts are.
JJ
|
|
|
|
Melancholy
Member
 Offline
Activity: 91
Merit: 10
|
|
April 22, 2016, 02:10:21 AM |
|
Friends,
I am searching adding a user trust system to the SmartChain, and was interested if anyone had any suggestions. There are many variables that can be used in such a system, such as age of the account, their verified status, and a trust rating provided by other users.
Assuming that a system is in place for one user to provide a rating of another user, what type of system would be easiest to use? A finite levels system is one option, (level one, level 3, level 3) etc, or a "points" system where a user accrues points based on ratings provided by others.
Another thought I had was that a users rating of another user could in turn be based on trust of the person doing the rating, such that old well known and trusted persons have greater weight.
Let me know what your thoughts are.
JJ
This is a cool idea! One option would be to basically have a +/- rating system where you can either trust a user (+) or avoid a user (-). It would essentially be a ratio or something like: lamptoast (+53/-4) <-- ratio showing both rating totals or lamptoast (+49) <-- net rating (positives minus negatives) or lamptoast (93%) <-- ratio as a percent We could also include the other factors you mentioned such as account age or even account activity (high, low, etc) (just realized this is a lot like bitcointalk's system, heh) IMO a "level" system might be gimmicky, depending on how its implemented. I'd love to hear what others have to say! |
|
|
|
|
tm2013
|
|
April 22, 2016, 02:34:31 AM |
|
Friends,
I am searching adding a user trust system to the SmartChain, and was interested if anyone had any suggestions. There are many variables that can be used in such a system, such as age of the account, their verified status, and a trust rating provided by other users.
Assuming that a system is in place for one user to provide a rating of another user, what type of system would be easiest to use? A finite levels system is one option, (level one, level 3, level 3) etc, or a "points" system where a user accrues points based on ratings provided by others.
Another thought I had was that a users rating of another user could in turn be based on trust of the person doing the rating, such that old well known and trusted persons have greater weight.
Let me know what your thoughts are.
JJ
This is a cool idea! One option would be to basically have a +/- rating system where you can either trust a user (+) or avoid a user (-). It would essentially be a ratio or something like: lamptoast (+53/-4) <-- ratio showing both rating totals or lamptoast (+49) <-- net rating (positives minus negatives) or lamptoast (93%) <-- ratio as a percent We could also include the other factors you mentioned such as account age or even account activity (high, low, etc) (just realized this is a lot like bitcointalk's system, heh) IMO a "level" system might be gimmicky, depending on how its implemented. I'd love to hear what others have to say! One thing that must be considered is anti-fraud measures. It would not be good if SmartChain trust could be rigged and used for malicious purposes, as has been the case with things like Yelp and the Bitcointalk trust system. A cost in Radon could help, but it must not be so high that it excludes users from sharing their trust experience. It would need to balance out, such that the following scenario could take place: Alice gives a false negative trust rating to Bob. In response, Alice receives a certain level of negative trust for this action from other users. The weight of Alice's trust rating would go down to a certain level, neutralizing the effect of her false negative trust rating on Bob, and any other users she may have attacked. |
|
|
|
|
gerb
|
|
April 22, 2016, 02:53:33 AM |
|
Friends,
I am searching adding a user trust system to the SmartChain, and was interested if anyone had any suggestions. There are many variables that can be used in such a system, such as age of the account, their verified status, and a trust rating provided by other users.
Assuming that a system is in place for one user to provide a rating of another user, what type of system would be easiest to use? A finite levels system is one option, (level one, level 3, level 3) etc, or a "points" system where a user accrues points based on ratings provided by others.
Another thought I had was that a users rating of another user could in turn be based on trust of the person doing the rating, such that old well known and trusted persons have greater weight.
Let me know what your thoughts are.
JJ
This is a cool idea! One option would be to basically have a +/- rating system where you can either trust a user (+) or avoid a user (-). It would essentially be a ratio or something like: lamptoast (+53/-4) <-- ratio showing both rating totals or lamptoast (+49) <-- net rating (positives minus negatives) or lamptoast (93%) <-- ratio as a percent We could also include the other factors you mentioned such as account age or even account activity (high, low, etc) (just realized this is a lot like bitcointalk's system, heh) IMO a "level" system might be gimmicky, depending on how its implemented. I'd love to hear what others have to say! One thing that must be considered is anti-fraud measures. It would not be good if SmartChain trust could be rigged and used for malicious purposes, as has been the case with things like Yelp and the Bitcointalk trust system. A cost in Radon could help, but it must not be so high that it excludes users from sharing their trust experience. It would need to balance out, such that the following scenario could take place: Alice gives a false negative trust rating to Bob. In response, Alice receives a certain level of negative trust for this action from other users. The weight of Alice's trust rating would go down to a certain level, neutralizing the effect of her false negative trust rating on Bob, and any other users she may have attacked. Other thing that may take into consideration is the use of bots to gain trust, like someone receive positive trust from new participants and those same participants give trust between them. |
|
|
|
|
|
JJ12880
|
|
April 22, 2016, 03:03:37 AM |
|
Other thing that may take into consideration is the use of bots to gain trust, like someone receive positive trust from new participants and those same participants give trust between them.
That is an important thing to consider. My initial thoughts would be to limit it so one account can only leave one rating on another account, and have some minimum standard that much be reached before a new account is permitted to leave feedback. We can also add a Radon cost, to make botting financially unfeasible. Thoughts? |
|
|
|
|
tm2013
|
|
April 22, 2016, 03:10:36 AM |
|
Other thing that may take into consideration is the use of bots to gain trust, like someone receive positive trust from new participants and those same participants give trust between them.
That is an important thing to consider. My initial thoughts would be to limit it so one account can only leave one rating on another account, and have some minimum standard that much be reached before a new account is permitted to leave feedback. We can also add a Radon cost, to make botting financially unfeasible. Thoughts? Minimum account ages and one rating from one account to another would be good. However, users should be able to swap a previous rating from positive to negative and vice versa. If an account is marked as compromised, the trust influence of that account should automatically go to zero. |
|
|
|
|
gerb
|
|
April 22, 2016, 03:12:05 AM |
|
Other thing that may take into consideration is the use of bots to gain trust, like someone receive positive trust from new participants and those same participants give trust between them.
That is an important thing to consider. My initial thoughts would be to limit it so one account can only leave one rating on another account, and have some minimum standard that much be reached before a new account is permitted to leave feedback. We can also add a Radon cost, to make botting financially unfeasible. Thoughts? In the world of corruption, the money is not the problem. Maybe, in some point create accounts that it will not corrupt (I do not know how) maybe accounts with great trust, institutions, entities, something big that watch over for the community. I don't know, is a good debate. |
|
|
|
|
|
dev0tion
|
|
April 22, 2016, 01:03:09 PM |
|
Ideally, there should not be "someone" watching over the community, but the code should allow the community to watch over itself.
I'm not sure which parameters you should take in to measurement, but definitely include user feedback, activity (how?), age of the account, verification of the account.
|
|
|
|
|
|
justinc2014
|
|
April 22, 2016, 02:19:12 PM |
|
I am looking for a roadmap of development? is there a link so have further idea of the future of RADS
|
|
|
|
|
|
Selsonblue
|
|
April 22, 2016, 02:20:45 PM |
|
I am looking for a roadmap of development? is there a link so have further idea of the future of RADS
A lot of development is coming out soon. That will include a more specific target market and marketing strategy. Thats all I can offer from my discussions in slack. |
|
|
|
|
|
tm2013
|
|
April 22, 2016, 02:43:54 PM |
|
I am looking for a roadmap of development? is there a link so have further idea of the future of RADS
Hello! We do not have a roadmap, because we do not believe in hyping goals and making promises that could possibly fall through. That being said, we do inform the community as things are being developed, and we release products as they are completed. At the moment, there are more administrative updates taking place. Those updates include both websites, the ANN, and other various marketing campaigns. On the code side, we are working towards updating the backend and UI of both SmartChain Core and SmartChain Verify. There are other experimental features in the works, and more information on those features will be released as they are further coded and tested. |
|
|
|
TrueAnon
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1120
Merit: 1000
|
|
April 22, 2016, 03:17:55 PM |
|
All I know is time to reload!  |
|
|
|
|
|
mybitcoin101
|
|
April 22, 2016, 07:05:08 PM |
|
Do I save my .dat file then delete the old wallet then download the new wallet?
|
|
|
|
|
|
dannyman
|
|
April 22, 2016, 08:30:44 PM
Last edit: April 22, 2016, 08:41:07 PM by dannyman |
|
I feel like Radium has done so much to deserve a marketcap far more than present based on its tech, its not an entitled thing I just think its either undervalued or people aren't seeing the utility yet.
My personal belief is the project needs a contract or two for storing information. Seems like a PR guy job to make those kind of connections?
Agree, the technology is there, now is time for far more marketing. Agreed. I personally am not good at marketing, but would appreciate any feedback, including what parts of the ANN are easy to understand, and what parts need fixing or updating. JJ I thought you just employed a professional PR guy?  I wasn't thinking about Twitter campaigns, viral ads etc....I was thinking more about getting some real world companies onboard using the system. Like Factom has some Chinese high tech cities using their system etc.....something along those lines. People need to see a company using the tech. I don't see why you guys couldn't contact companies, show them the tech and use them as examples of the tech in use for others to see. Even subsidizing them with Radium so you can use them to advertise the potential. I feel like you guys are sat on a massive high tech company but you haven't been able to realize that in a tangible way yet......and I say YET cause I have faith you guys will get there once the tech is further polished etc. Here's a thought. How about a basic product and a paid for more featured product focused on business use, in the same way much online software is sold, a basic free option and the pro bundle etc....possibly with helpline support etc. I know this is not the current state of the project but it could help build the vision long term as a real high tech company further down the line. |
|
|
|
|
|
NSA360
|
|
April 23, 2016, 12:44:26 AM |
|
Do I save my .dat file then delete the old wallet then download the new wallet?
Yes, save the .dat on your backyard. Then you must delete everything. After this, downloand the new wallet, go to the backyard, dig grab and replace the downloaded .dat for the backyard .dat |
|
|
|
|
|
