[β] BPIP Extension: user info & extra features add-on/extension, Firefox/Chrome

[NeuroticFish]

I just saw this happen in this thread on this page but like an idiot clicked refresh instead of investigating

At least I know now that there is indeed another issue and will try to figure this out.

LOL, no worries, as long as you are aware of the issue, you'll reproduce and fix it sooner or later. This bug is not that elusive.

I was able to reproduce it by navigating quickly to another page before the BPIP values are loaded, and then going back. The browser showed cached page without BPIP values. The problem is that I don't recall clicking "back" when it happened earlier.

I am also 99% sure that when I've reproduced it I didn't press <back>

[dkbit98]

What would be the purpose of the userscript? Just to get it sooner? Have some patience but if there is another reason let me know.

I don't need to get it sooner.
Purpose is for people who don't want to use extensions, and they already use other userscripts, I think that is also safer option.

[Crypto Library]

What would be the purpose of the userscript? Just to get it sooner? Have some patience but if there is another reason let me know.

I don't need to get it sooner.
Purpose is for people who don't want to use extensions, and they already use other userscripts, I think that is also safer option.

Even though there are no extra features available in the script, I didn't find this idea bad.
So I thought I would make suchmoon's work a little easier, but due to my lack of knowledge of coding and scripting, I had to struggle a lot while vibe coding.
But in the end, I got the output exactly like the bpip extension(test version) 3.1.1, which is the point. However, this script might need to be updated again when the next update comes out.

Anyway, I have given the code and screenshot gif below, you can try it.



the codes-
https://gist.github.com/cryptolibrary/d6d559ee83060c881a1384511e1b34e7

or you can directly add it from greasyfork-

https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/598963-bpip-extension-test-version-3-1-1-userscript

[dkbit98]

Anyway, I have given the code and screenshot gif below, you can try it.

Nice work and I will test it, but maybe you should first asked permission from suchmoon and BPIP extension guys for doing this, even though code is not closed source for extension.
And if you used any AI tools in making this, you should post also that and give credits for that.

[Crypto Library]

Anyway, I have given the code and screenshot gif below, you can try it.

Nice work and I will test it, but maybe you should first asked permission from suchmoon and BPIP extension guys for doing this, even though code is not closed source for extension.

sorry, to the real dedicator behind of BPIP extension, as I didn't ask for the permission to make this script.
But to be honest, I also first identified that these codes are open source, so I created the script and at the same time, if you look at my codes, I have basically given the copyright to BPIP EXTENSION AND suchmoon. Even before   jumping to the main codes  I have make the credit more specific using multi-line comments.

But yes it is true that I have taken credit for making the script. But here I also want to say that if I need to make any changes to this script or modify it in any way, the BPIP extension authors have the rights. 

And if you used any AI tools in making this, you should post also that and give credits for that.

Yes and I have already  mentioned that I made this by vibe coding, even to be more specific, I used CHATGPT.

[dkbit98]

But yes it is true that I have taken credit for making the script. But here I also want to say that if I need to make any changes to this script or modify it in any way, the BPIP extension authors have the rights. 

You should be fine if you add proper credits in github and greasyfork pages.
I didn't know what vide coding was, but I suspected it was connected with AI in some way

[suchmoon]

sorry, to the real dedicator behind of BPIP extension, as I didn't ask for the permission to make this script.
But to be honest, I also first identified that these codes are open source, so I created the script and at the same time, if you look at my codes, I have basically given the copyright to BPIP EXTENSION AND suchmoon. Even before   jumping to the main codes  I have make the credit more specific using multi-line comments.

But yes it is true that I have taken credit for making the script. But here I also want to say that if I need to make any changes to this script or modify it in any way, the BPIP extension authors have the rights. 

No worries, I'm quite sure I've stated somewhere in this thread that anyone is free to do anything they want with the extension.

As long as it doesn't hammer our server with excessive requests.

[dkbit98]

I have been testing BPIP usersctipt made by member Crypto Library and his AI buddy, and so far it looks like everything is working exactly the same as with extension.
It would be good if other members could do the same thing, so we can find any potential bugs quicker.
For download links please check few posts above, or use this link:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5224821.msg67212908#msg67212908

[suchmoon]

I have promoted 3.1.1 to be the default (production) version, it's also still up as the test version but that may soon (-ish) be replaced with the next development version.

[suchmoon]

New test version is out, more details here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5224821.msg53812982#msg53812982

Please note that I have reworded the very ambitious statement in the OP that previously said "We don't log your IP", which put a lot of hidden weight on "your". What it meant to say is that we can't link you (the forum user) to the IP address that the request comes from. New wording ("We don't send your username") also hinges on a bit of a technicality, i.e. we don't send your username but we do send your user ID if you happen to open your own user profile... except we don't know if it's you or someone else looking at that profile. Anyway, I don't want to make it too convoluted, so I think the current statement is more accurate and I'll leave it at that. More detailed privacy policy is here: https://bpip.org/extension-pp.txt (the link is also in extension settings).

[DireWolfM14]

Just out curiosity, how is this calculated:



If I were to take the header at face value, i.e. S/R and assume "S" means sent, and "R" means received, my numbers at the time of writing this post would make my S/R Ratio 0.4966 (3033/3107).  Since I'm not a merit source, it would be impossible for me to send more than half of what I earn.  Even if the calculation takes into account the depreciation factor of merit (i.e. 2 rMerit = 1 sMerit) that would still make my ratio 0.993.

Am I misinterpreting what is meant by "S/R"?

[suchmoon]

Just out curiosity, how is this calculated:



If I were to take the header at face value, i.e. S/R and assume "S" means sent, and "R" means received, my numbers at the time of writing this post would make my S/R Ratio 0.4966 (3033/3107).  Since I'm not a merit source, it would be impossible for me to send more than half of what I earn.  Even if the calculation takes into account the depreciation factor of merit (i.e. 2 rMerit = 1 sMerit) that would still make my ratio 0.993.

Am I misinterpreting what is meant by "S/R"?

It's the number of users you sent merit to vs the number of users you received merit from, 627/406 in your case. I know, it's confusing and in the wrong place. But no worries, it's somewhere between issues #100-200 in our TODO list, so it will be fixed before the heat death of the universe for sure.

[fillippone]

But no worries, it's somewhere between issues #100-200 in our TODO list, so it will be fixed before the heat death of the universe for sure.

I do appreciate the fact that you maintain a TODO list, and you don't put too much trust in the "I test in production" bias I often found myself in, totally biased by my junior dev.
Because you probably know what you are doing, probably.

[JeromeTash]

I don't know if this is due to the recent update or maybe I have been blind all along. I just saw this today and was wondering what it actually meant. Usually the DT1 indicator is coloured (green/red – blame it on my red-green colour blindness), but this time around this one is just not coloured. Why?

[suchmoon]

I don't know if this is due to the recent update or maybe I have been blind all along. I just saw this today and was wondering what it actually meant. Usually the DT1 indicator is coloured (green/red – blame it on my red-green colour blindness), but this time around this one is just not coloured. Why?

I'm assuming you're on the test version (3.1.6). This "faded" DT1 badge shows excluded DT1 members. Hover on it and you'll see. Also you can go to the extension settings and turn the DefaultTrust strength option on, which will show something like this "DT1: -10" on the badge, meaning the user has been selected into DT1 by theymos but has been demoted by peers to have negative "strength".

• DT1 member badges are shown on inactive DT1 members, with a different background (no new setting)
• DT1 and DT2 member badges include a strength value, i.e. inclusions minus exclusions (off)

I do appreciate the fact that you maintain a TODO list, and you don't put too much trust in the "I test in production" bias I often found myself in, totally biased by my junior dev.
Because you probably know what you are doing, probably.

Probably not, but I pretend really well

[DYING_S0UL]

I don't know if this is due to the recent update or maybe I have been blind all along. I just saw this today and was wondering what it actually meant. Usually the DT1 indicator is coloured (green/red – blame it on my red-green colour blindness), but this time around this one is just not coloured. Why?

I'm assuming you're on the test version (3.1.6). This "faded" DT1 badge shows excluded DT1 members. Hover on it and you'll see. Also you can go to the extension settings and turn the DefaultTrust strength option on, which will show something like this "DT1: -10" on the badge, meaning the user has been selected into DT1 by theymos but has been demoted by peers to have negative "strength".

Saw the same with Vod's profile, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=30747

"Default trust level 1 candidate with negative strength -8. Retains DT1 voting powers"

[Crypto Library]

Sorry if I repeating this things here.

If I go directly to my point, I see the DefaultTrust strength in the BPIP extension. Although I am still confused about the DefaultTrust strength issue, is its real meaning a rank type things or something else?

However, the issue that has come to my attention is that I am seeing the same number showing next to multiple member names, is this a bug or something else?

$crypto$DT2: 1

LuzinDT2: 1

[suchmoon]

Sorry if I repeating this things here.

If I go directly to my point, I see the DefaultTrust strength in the BPIP extension. Although I am still confused about the DefaultTrust strength issue, is its real meaning a rank type things or something else?

However, the issue that has come to my attention is that I am seeing the same number showing next to multiple member names, is this a bug or something else?

The "strength" number shows how many DT1 users include that user in their trust lists (minus how many exclude with "~", if any). So it is quite common for many DT2 members to have the same strength.

In other words, it's not a rank but more like a score.