Activity & new membergroup limits

[Vlad2Vlad]

By comparison, how many hero accounts are there?

805

Wow, that's not many.  I was expecting thousands.  I feel special.  Well, I will in a few weeks.  Lol.

One final questions if you don't mind:  How many active member accounts do we have now?  I imagine we have at least 250,000 - although some people own multiple accounts. 

I think next year BCT will see its member accounts go up 5-10 fold [just by End of 2015] when that public Bitcoin ETF takes BTC mainstream and brings with it every type of investor and speculator known to man.

Thanks again!

[haploid23]

I'm open to ideas for a higher rank. I feel like "Legend" is too grandiose a title to give to a living person, though. Any other ideas?

I also feel the same. Reposting the same thing that I said in another thread: Legendary rank should only be given to a few, like original devs that are still active on this forum. If ANYONE can get that rank, then it detracts away from its epicness. Maybe a more fitting term for ~1k activity would be Noble or Templar.

[OgNasty]

I'm open to ideas for a higher rank. I feel like "Legend" is too grandiose a title to give to a living person, though. Any other ideas?

I also feel the same. Reposting the same thing that I said in another thread: Legendary rank should only be given to a few, like original devs that are still active on this forum. If ANYONE can get that rank, then it detracts away from its epicness. Maybe a more fitting term for ~1k activity would be Noble or Templar.

I was looking forward to seeing what came next to top that.  I'd like to suggest "Prophet" at activity 1566 to commemorate the death of Nostradamus.

[Vlad2Vlad]

I'm open to ideas for a higher rank. I feel like "Legend" is too grandiose a title to give to a living person, though. Any other ideas?

I also feel the same. Reposting the same thing that I said in another thread: Legendary rank should only be given to a few, like original devs that are still active on this forum. If ANYONE can get that rank, then it detracts away from its epicness. Maybe a more fitting term for ~1k activity would be Noble or Templar.

I was looking forward to seeing what came next to top that.  I'd like to suggest "Prophet" at activity 1566 to commemorate the death of Nostradamus.

Nostradamus simply took dictation - why not dedicate such a level to one of numerous real prophets in history.  Otherwise I think that's a pretty cool way to go.  Nice to have more goals to look forward to.

[johnnyrocket]

I'm open to ideas for a higher rank. I feel like "Legend" is too grandiose a title to give to a living person, though. Any other ideas?

I also feel the same. Reposting the same thing that I said in another thread: Legendary rank should only be given to a few, like original devs that are still active on this forum. If ANYONE can get that rank, then it detracts away from its epicness. Maybe a more fitting term for ~1k activity would be Noble or Templar.

I was looking forward to seeing what came next to top that.  I'd like to suggest "Prophet" at activity 1566 to commemorate the death of Nostradamus.

"Prophet" at 1566 isn't a bad idea. As a middle step between Legendary and that, activity 1337 could be Elite.

[Vlad2Vlad]

"Prophet" at 1566 isn't a bad idea. As a middle step between Legendary and that, activity 1337 could be Elite.

Too many levels could lead to confusion and pointless goal seeking.  I'm not sure what the right amount of levels would be, however.  Right now it's simple, everyone know hero is the top and the best and thar in itself gives it meaning and value.

[ReBoRn]

@Theymos
Sir if you add Elite Member instead of LEGENDARY is much better and then as any Member touch 1500 then add him in Hall of Fame and this spot not for all just for few like devs and very good reputable members 

[Dabs]

I guess I'm almost to the next level (Legendary) except I was randomly chosen to wait a little bit longer.

[DannyHamilton]

I guess I'm almost to the next level (Legendary) except I was randomly chosen to wait a little bit longer.

As was I.  Doesn't bother me any though.  These "levels" always seemed a bit silly and useless to me.

Being a higher level has never made someone more trustworthy.  It has never been an indication that their posts were any more accurate or reliable. It has never seemed to mean that the person deserved more respect.  It's basically just a label that says, "This person talks a lot."

[justusranvier]

I guess I'm almost to the next level (Legendary) except I was randomly chosen to wait a little bit longer.

As was I.

I feel robbed.

[Pony789]

Theymos, it is a good time now to update the OP to include the "legendary" rank.

[CanaryInTheMine]

been awhile since I wrote SQL... rusty.
just curious, can someone PM me how to calculate the value on my id?

Can you make getting legendary provability fair? So we know if you don't like us that we get it anyway

Nah, that'd significantly complicate things. Currently this randomness is done with a single SQL query, which is very convenient.

Code:

update smf_members set ID_POST_GROUP=21 where ID_POST_GROUP=8 and
activity>=775 and activity>=775+conv(substr(sha1(concat(ID_MEMBER,
secretSeed)), 1, 2), 16, 10);

The required activity level per user is suitably random for betting, but anyone who can read my code (there are a few such people) will be able to exactly predict when someone will become Legendary, so I don't really recommend it.

[dree12]

been awhile since I wrote SQL... rusty.
just curious, can someone PM me how to calculate the value on my id?

Can you make getting legendary provability fair? So we know if you don't like us that we get it anyway

Nah, that'd significantly complicate things. Currently this randomness is done with a single SQL query, which is very convenient.

Code:

update smf_members set ID_POST_GROUP=21 where ID_POST_GROUP=8 and
activity>=775 and activity>=775+conv(substr(sha1(concat(ID_MEMBER,
secretSeed)), 1, 2), 16, 10);

The required activity level per user is suitably random for betting, but anyone who can read my code (there are a few such people) will be able to exactly predict when someone will become Legendary, so I don't really recommend it.

You would need the secretSeed, which presumably theymos is not interested in revealing. As he mentioned, there are a few such people who are able to exactly predict, but I doubt they will reveal it to you either.

[Hfleer]

I guess I'm almost to the next level (Legendary) except I was randomly chosen to wait a little bit longer.

As was I.

I feel robbed.

Haha, that is some pretty bad luck there

[dserrano5]

I guess I'm almost to the next level (Legendary) except I was randomly chosen to wait a little bit longer.

As was I.

I feel robbed.

Seems there are a few of us on the verge of becoming legend . @DH, we both even have the same activity .

Re: the secretSeed, the resulting hash is substr'ed to extract only two hex digits, so if I'm not mistaken there are tons of seeds that yield the same substr(sha1(…), 1, 2). It's easily bruteforceable.

[dree12]

I guess I'm almost to the next level (Legendary) except I was randomly chosen to wait a little bit longer.

As was I.

I feel robbed.

Seems there are a few of us on the verge of becoming legend . @DH, we both even have the same activity .

Re: the secretSeed, the resulting hash is substr'ed to extract only two hex digits, so if I'm not mistaken there are tons of seeds that yield the same substr(sha1(…), 1, 2). It's easily bruteforceable.

The substr is done after the hashing. If the secretSeed were substred before the hashing, then you're right that the secretSeed (or rather, the relevant byte of the secret seed) could be brute-forced given enough data. Unfortunately, the way it is set up right now, the entire state space for the secretSeed must be brute-forced to retrieve it (or a vulnerability in SHA1 found).

You are correct that there are many seeds that yield the same hash, for one particular user id. However, if you have data for that one particular user id, there is no point brute-forcing anyways.

[Hfleer]

I guess I'm almost to the next level (Legendary) except I was randomly chosen to wait a little bit longer.

As was I.

I feel robbed.

Seems there are a few of us on the verge of becoming legend . @DH, we both even have the same activity .

Re: the secretSeed, the resulting hash is substr'ed to extract only two hex digits, so if I'm not mistaken there are tons of seeds that yield the same substr(sha1(…), 1, 2). It's easily bruteforceable.

The substr is done after the hashing. If the secretSeed were substred before the hashing, then you're right that the secretSeed (or rather, the relevant byte of the secret seed) could be brute-forced given enough data. Unfortunately, the way it is set up right now, the entire state space for the secretSeed must be brute-forced to retrieve it (or a vulnerability in SHA1 found).

You are correct that there are many seeds that yield the same hash, for one particular user id. However, if you have data for that one particular user id, there is no point brute-forcing anyways.

But even after having a bigger samplesize of existing Legendary members you can't get any results, because you don't know what activity level each of those was needed for the status.

[dree12]

I guess I'm almost to the next level (Legendary) except I was randomly chosen to wait a little bit longer.

As was I.

I feel robbed.

Seems there are a few of us on the verge of becoming legend . @DH, we both even have the same activity .

Re: the secretSeed, the resulting hash is substr'ed to extract only two hex digits, so if I'm not mistaken there are tons of seeds that yield the same substr(sha1(…), 1, 2). It's easily bruteforceable.

The substr is done after the hashing. If the secretSeed were substred before the hashing, then you're right that the secretSeed (or rather, the relevant byte of the secret seed) could be brute-forced given enough data. Unfortunately, the way it is set up right now, the entire state space for the secretSeed must be brute-forced to retrieve it (or a vulnerability in SHA1 found).

You are correct that there are many seeds that yield the same hash, for one particular user id. However, if you have data for that one particular user id, there is no point brute-forcing anyways.

But even after having a bigger samplesize of existing Legendary members you can't get any results, because you don't know what activity level each of those was needed for the status.

Someone dedicated could probably collect that data, but it stands that such data cannot be used to brute-force the secret seed, and hence is useless for calculating the Legendary activity levels for other members.

If Theymos released a list of, say, 100 potential secret seeds and guaranteed that the secretSeed was one of them, I suspect it would be possible, simply by looking at members between 700 and 1000 activity, to determine which one was the actual secretSeed using process of elimination.

[Hfleer]

I guess I'm almost to the next level (Legendary) except I was randomly chosen to wait a little bit longer.

As was I.

I feel robbed.

Seems there are a few of us on the verge of becoming legend . @DH, we both even have the same activity .

Re: the secretSeed, the resulting hash is substr'ed to extract only two hex digits, so if I'm not mistaken there are tons of seeds that yield the same substr(sha1(…), 1, 2). It's easily bruteforceable.

The substr is done after the hashing. If the secretSeed were substred before the hashing, then you're right that the secretSeed (or rather, the relevant byte of the secret seed) could be brute-forced given enough data. Unfortunately, the way it is set up right now, the entire state space for the secretSeed must be brute-forced to retrieve it (or a vulnerability in SHA1 found).

You are correct that there are many seeds that yield the same hash, for one particular user id. However, if you have data for that one particular user id, there is no point brute-forcing anyways.

But even after having a bigger samplesize of existing Legendary members you can't get any results, because you don't know what activity level each of those was needed for the status.

Someone dedicated could probably collect that data, but it stands that such data cannot be used to brute-force the secret seed, and hence is useless for calculating the Legendary activity levels for other members.

If Theymos released a list of, say, 100 potential secret seeds and guaranteed that the secretSeed was one of them, I suspect it would be possible, simply by looking at members between 700 and 1000 activity, to determine which one was the actual secretSeed using process of elimination.

Ok, gottcha!

But why did Theymos say that a few people will be able to tell what activity is needed? Was he referring to staff that has access to the secret seed?

[dree12]

Ok, gottcha!

But why did Theymos say that a few people will be able to tell what activity is needed? Was he referring to staff that has access to the secret seed?

I suppose some people have read-only access to the forum's code, which would contain the SQL query and hence the secret seed, but I don't know who those people are. They could be staff, developers, security contractors, whoever is hosting the forum, people working with the new forum, etc.