[BPIP] Bitcointalk Public Information Project [Back in Action]

[suchmoon]

This may sound idiotic or may have been suggested earlier some day; but to add some know (or at least one) Bitcoin address to each profile? I'm not talking about addresses a user may have posted over the time, but rather one (or more) addresses that have been staked in a similar way to this. I'm not completely sure how it could be implemented, but I can think of a couple of use cases to have a staked address showed

I thought about scraping the staked address thread but there are some challenges, particularly if we want to verify signed messages.

[1715267168]

1715267168

[1715267168]

1715267168

[1715267168]

1715267168

[Csmiami]

I thought about scraping the staked address thread but there are some challenges, particularly if we want to verify signed messages.

Taking only the ones that have already been verified by other forum users?

[suchmoon]

I thought about scraping the staked address thread but there are some challenges, particularly if we want to verify signed messages.

Taking only the ones that have already been verified by other forum users?

That's probably even more complicated... I think a somewhat-plausible solution would be to check how many addresses a user has posted in the staking thread, if it's only one - assume that's the one we need, otherwise review manually. Or perhaps automatically take the last one if it's 2-3 total, and manually review if it's more than that. Definitely don't want to process every address manually.

[LoyceV]

The website was also showing the "DT1" label next to your name and on your profile etc. The bug is limited just to the DT change log, which says "no longer selected". Processing of that log is already quite slow so I'm reluctant to make any changes to try to fix this as it's such a rare issue.

I noticed another side-effect: Lauda reached DT2 again, but no change was mentioned in DT Change Log. This change happened because Blacknavy wiped his Trust list, which was only shown as "Blacknavy DT1 is no longer selected into DT1" in the DT Change Log.
It's a pity the Change Log overlooks toggling DT2-members this way.

I'm taking this here:

Does MajorMiner have their own DT trust list?

No, and he's never had one either.

BPIP seems to think they do https://bpip.org/Profile?id=40565 but none is found on the link here: https://loyce.club/trust/2020-10-31_Sat_04.09h/40565.html

loyce.club/trust/latesttrustlist.txt is my complete list of latest Trust lists for each user, but BPIP doesn't use it (yet).

[ibminer]

^ The last part is apparently due to the way my search through the file is being done, which apparently acts more like a wildcard search. It needs to be switched to reading it line by line. Currently it is finding '40565' because of '540565' being in the user_ids.txt, just needs to be corrected on our end.  

[GazetaBitcoin]

I just spotted another inconsistency on the website, regarding users which woke up after being offline for a while, such as I am. When you search for such profile on the site, the date of waking up is stated twice on the profile page, but with different values (at the Security/Moderator Log and Meta Log sections).



In this case, you can see in the upper part of the picture, at Security/Moderator Log, that the profile woke up on October 17th, 2019 at 8.19 AM. In the lower part of the picture, at Meta Log, the wake up date is October 18th, 2019, at 7.21 AM.

Is this normal?

[hosseinimr93]

Is this normal?

I think it's normal.
The information shown in Security/Moderator Log is collected from forum's seclog. That's the time you logged in to your account after a long time.
The information shown in Meta Log is based on the time you made a post after a long time.

You logged in to your account on 10/17/2019 8:19:32 AM
You made a post on 10/18/2019 7:21:31 AM

[ibminer]

Is this normal?

I think it's normal.
The information shown in Security/Moderator Log is collected from forum's seclog. That's the time you logged in to your account after a long time.
The information shown in Meta Log is based on the time you made a post after a long time.

You logged in to your account on 10/17/2019 8:19:32 AM
You made a post on 10/18/2019 7:21:31 AM

Sec/mod log does pull the date from the forum's seclog.
However, the meta log of BPIP is essentially telling you the date that BPIP noticed the change and parsed the post. It doesn't use the date of that post itself, just the date that it parsed it and noticed the change, which should normally be within seconds/minutes of the actual change.. assuming parsers are running efficiently.

So, technically, I'd interpret this as:

You logged in to your account on 10/17/2019 8:19:32 AM (based on seclog)
You made a post on 10/18/2019 8:16:35 AM (based on the forum's info)
BPIP parsed/captured the post on 10/18/2019 7:21:31 AM (based on BPIP's DB)

^ why this last date is recorded as before your actual post date, I'm not 100% sure... maybe some sort of timezone issue/difference that happened on the recording of this entry?
I'd guess BPIP actually noticed/parsed the post at 8:21:31 AM that day, not 7:21:31 AM.

[GazetaBitcoin]

So, technically, I'd interpret this as:

You logged in to your account on 10/17/2019 8:19:32 AM (based on seclog)
You made a post on 10/18/2019 8:16:35 AM (based on the forum's info)
BPIP parsed/captured the post on 10/18/2019 7:21:31 AM (based on BPIP's DB)

^ why this last date is recorded as before your actual post date, I'm not 100% sure... maybe some sort of timezone issue/difference that happened on the recording of this entry?
I'd guess BPIP actually noticed/parsed the post at 8:21:31 AM that day, not 7:21:31 AM.

Yes, this is a bit curious... maybe BPIP's time wasn't synched with forum's time... Otherwise I can't see how the website could parse my post at 7.21 AM if the post was created at 8.16 AM (unless Foxpup inserted some time travelling software in the site's code back then ). Anyway, now I understood the difference between the Security/Moderator Log and Meta Log. Thank you for the thorough explanation.

[hosseinimr93]

^ why this last date is recorded as before your actual post date, I'm not 100% sure... maybe some sort of timezone issue/difference that happened on the recording of this entry?
I'd guess BPIP actually noticed/parsed the post at 8:21:31 AM that day, not 7:21:31 AM.

The first post made by GazetaBitcoin after he woke up isn't the post you see in his post history.
GazetaBitcoin had made a post which isn't now in his post history.

According to Loyce.club, GazetaBitcoin made the first post after waking up on October 18, 2019, 09:21:35 (CEST) which is 8:21:35 (GMT).
Loyce.club parsed that post 4 seconds later than BPIP.

[suchmoon]

According to Loyce.club, GazetaBitcoin made the first post after waking up on October 18, 2019, 09:21:35 (CEST) which is 8:21:35 (GMT).

Actually it's 7:21:35 in GMT/UTC. So I think there is no issue with time zones or timestamps here, everything works as expected. BPIP uses UTC for timestamps, which is also forum's default time.

Loyce.club parsed that post 4 seconds later than BPIP.

Slacker...

[LoyceV]

Slacker...

Lol

Serious answer: Maybe BPIP uses the actual post time, I use my scrape time.

What happened to theymos in Strongest DT1 Position? He should be at DT1 strength (51), but he's shown as (0).

[Timelord2067]

What happened to theymos in Strongest DT1 Position? He should be at DT1 strength (51), but he's shown as (0).

I see they are using a kind-of equal ranking for users who have the same scores - will this be applied across the board to other equal ranked members in the MATR score cards?

[Csmiami]

Sorry if this has been brought up before; I tried to check every previous report but something may have slipped.

Anyway; I was checking one profile to see if seclog showed any "waking up" (it didn't), but while doing so, I saw that the user had received one (1) merit in total, it was displayed in his "merit fans", but merit information showed that he had not received any merits. I tried refreshing the profile and nothing changed; so I've tried some more random profiles with 1 merit received and this happens every time. This does not happen only with profiles with 1 merit

Profile I checked

Random profile 1 merit
Random profile 2 merits

I don't know whether this is a general thing, a bug, or a profile case error, but I felt like it needed to be reported. Once again, sorry if this had already been brought up

[ibminer]

Thanks, the merit information does show in the merit count of the profiles, and the s/merit log shows the merit transactions.. but under the counts it is indeed saying 'has not earned any merit'. Looks like a bug in the stored procedure.. should be able to fix later today/tomorrow.

Update:

I have fixed it. I had noticed it before with another profile that had a lot of received merits but didn't send anything.

Thank you!

[Csmiami]

---

Yep, that's what I meant... Sorry for not being able to provide any screenshot but couldn't add any at the moment

[suchmoon]

Thanks, the merit information does show in the merit count of the profiles, and the s/merit log shows the merit transactions.. but under the counts it is indeed saying 'has not earned any merit'. Looks like a bug in the stored procedure.. should be able to fix later today/tomorrow.

I have fixed it. I had noticed it before with another profile that had a lot of received merits but didn't send anything.

[Csmiami]

----

That's great to hear, thanks for the job you put into this!

Just a few couple of (I hope final) notes:

-I've also seen that the search function comes empty whenever you are searching for a username with a space in it

Example one // profile page

Example 2  // profile page

-And finally; have you considered adding different languages to the site? I wouldn't mind translating a few strings before re-floating the BPIP spanish thread...

[hosseinimr93]

-I've also seen that the search function comes empty whenever you are searching for a username with a space in it

Given the links you provided, it seems that you are putting an extra space before the first part of those usernames.
You are searching for (space)sajedul(space)islam instead of sajedul(space)islam and (space)Extons(space)Official instead of Extons(space)Official.

Your first example must be changed to this
Your second example must be changed to this

[Csmiami]

----

I think I may just sometimes be plain stupid; thanks for noticing