Topic: ㅤ - page 2. (Read 847 times)

Can you expand this a little more?

Right now you can add block 773400, it will say not mined yet. What would you expect?
Something like "expected to be mined in 10 days"?


I have seen giveaways where you can select a number from 1 - f , this is why I let people put their guess.

I will make an algorithm to add a number to each participant and chose one based on the block hash

I agree with LoyceV, developing a scraper for the entire thread would be a waste of time. There are many potential issues to consider such as someone posting in a wrong format or someone editing the post while the scraper is running... There are simply too many things that can go wrong. It would be more efficient for the contest organizer to manually prepare the list of participants.

I think you need to come up with a better way for selecting the "Target Block". For instance, if someone wants to organize a contest and announce that the winner will be chosen from Block 773400, your tool does not currently have the option to select a specific target block and can only choose a block offset from the most recent one.

I would leave out the "guess" for each user. Just a list of usernames, then base the winner on some algorithm that uses the selected block hash as input. That also means you don't have to ask how many digits to consider.
As long as anyone can reproduce what you're doing, it's (more or less) provably fair.
See my example, and the following post for the results. You don't even have to select just one winner, you can create a list of all participants in an order determined by the selected block hash. That way, the giveaway is flexible for multiple winners.

Most giveaway organizers will want to select who qualifies by themselves. You could ask for a link to one post that has all names, that way an unedited post can help ensure nobody edited anything afterwards.
So: the creator of the giveaway posts this, and copies the link to that post into your BGM:

I have created a first version, but I would like some suggestions from you and @LoyceV, who suggested the creation of this tools, before releasing and announcing it.

You can see it here:

https://bitcoindata.science/giveaway-manager/




It is already working if you add competitors manually.

I will create the scrapper today at night or tomorrow, but I would love to hear some suggestions.

Do you think I should scrap all users who added a bitcoin address in a thread, like this one? Then the user would just paste the URL of the thread in the tool.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/50-in-btc-giveaway-5435424

Then I would add number 1,2,3... for each user.

IF there is a code tag with all competitors, anyone can just copy/paste in the tool.

I (still) don't know databases, so i can't do it. The reputation of the creator shouldn't matter, as long as it can be verified. The website is meant for convenience.

Knowing that you have expertise, inside my mind I was thinking about you for doing this, but I did not write it in my previous post I as did not know if you are interested or not. However, any other member with good reputation is good as any other one of this kind

---

Speaking of which --


Thank you bitmover for giving a hand here! But do you think you will be able to do it until Jan 24th? This is the date when OP said he would like to roll. In case you can do it, will you let Rbah know, inside his giveaway topic that you are willing to organize the rolling? I'm saying this to have everything transparent there as well. (Being a Newbie, it's possible that he does not even know about the existence of this thread from Reputation board Oo)

---

Thank you also for showing your good intentions, TryNinja No worry about this, I believe that, once your bots will be fully prepared they will can be used in future similar occasions. After all, inside Collectibles board (at least) there are many such raffles and a bot would help a lot.

I can make a page for this in my domain.

Something like bitcoindata.science/giveaways

I will make it on the next week, as I am now traveling and I will be back on sunday. No laptop here 

Fun fact, I made a bot that does this to run giveaways on the forum (currently only on the Portuguese local board). Create threads, get tickets, and the bot uses a future block hash to draw a winner:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.60711596
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.61051620

I would love to make a website version of this, but I didn’t bring my laptop on my cold trip (I got the internet though, for $75 ).

Funny. I just posted in that thread in the hopes I would win but also with the thought of wonder as to why the user was giving away so much BTC (the first thought of course that came to mind, was merit). After reading all of the theories here, a lot more makes sense. The only way to validate which of the theories are correct is to see which winner is chosen. I have doubts that a winner will even be chosen if the user sees this thread. Time will tell!

Someone (@TryNinja? @bitmover?) should create a website for this: enter a list of participants, choose a future Bitcoin block, and after the block gets mined, use the block hash as random seed to pick a winner. Like I did manually here.

I also noticed (and joined) Rbah's giveaway. I did mostly because I was curious about how things will develop, being aware of Mitch212's scam, which had a similar giveaway, in September 2022. Both were made by users with low ranks, both had no rules stated from beginning.

However, unlike Mitch212, Rbah did not get (so far) benefit of too many merits. So far, he received just 1 and, I believe, until he'll pay this is also the only merit he'll receive for this giveaway.

I agree, this giveaway seems fishy, yet I would advise to not jump to conclusion. Until this very moment no scam was done. Most likely, we will find out the truth in less than 4 days from now on. He may be too new here or not too thorough to properly organize his mind and this may also be a reason for which he did not post any rules yet. So far, all I saw in his favor is his statement from post #7:


I believe that, if the rolling will be done by someone with a good reputation on the forum, nobody will complain about fairness in choosing the winner. Of course, the most important aspect, even in this case, is that we need to see the winner receiving the prize. Let's just have patience for a few more days then, certainly, things will clear up.

After all, we've all seen a Newbie paying back 1000$ in BTC; it can also happen to see one paying a prize of 50$.

Chances are, he could always give it to a sockpuppet account.

Yes, that's right. Let's see how the whole thing turns out. Which is also true, without Ratimov I would not have noticed all these connections. He deserves merit for that. 

I really don't see the relevance. If someone doesn't like something on the internet, that doesn't mean someone else has to change what they're doing.

I'm more and more starting to get theymos' stance (and eddie13's frustration) with this. The freedoms Bitcointalk offers are really rare on the internet. Cherish it!

Giving away in a non-transparent way is fine by you but not fine by all. Some members want transparency. As may have been noticed by others, I did not join for those precise reasons.

In that thread we get to post #6 before a suggestion is made on how to select the winner and the OP replies in post #7 that he will spin a wheel or maybe ask a trustworthy member to do it. There is no clarity on exactly what is happening but the benefit of the doubt is given because they are a newbie. To a point I can understand that but it is down to members participating in the giveaway to ask the most basic of questions.

Yes you did join, that is a decision for you and mentioned in your joining post that you had some communication with them therefore you might be more inclined to believe them (though there is no evidence to disbelieve them either).

I have seen newbies get tagged red for simply asking for a loan in the Lending board yet there seems to be a different mindset when it comes to giveaways.

If a newbie comes along and says he is giving away 10 BTC, will you avoid asking questions (and expect others to not ask questions) purely on the basis you do not want them to jump through hoops just in the event he is genuinely going to give away 10 BTC? If that is your stance then that is for you but not everybody feels that way.

No, he doesn't need that. I think this is what eddie13 called "regulatory bullying". Bitcointalk is all about freedom, and if someone wants to give away $25 in a non-transparent way, that's fine. If you don't like it, don't join.

I joined. I don't want to annoy a new user with questions and hoops to jump through. If he doesn't select a winner, we'll know it was fake. But I don't want to discourage genuine users from running giveaways.

As with most things, time will tell. Unless there is compelling evidence there is not much that can be said but the OP has made a case that presents suspicions and I thank him for his efforts.

I never mentioned merits, the first to mention merits was the OP followed by DaveF.

Though not mandatory, if the OP of the giveaway thread had mentioned using escrow as an option himself without being prompted then maybe that would have given more credibility. If he already used a respected escrow then started the giveaway thread then this thread would not have been created.

As for questions, something such as these should have been asked:

"what do you do on the other forums you mentioned"
"how much have you given away on other forums"
"Why are you giving away money on other forums and now here"
as well as the all-important question "how do you in intend to pick a winner and why did you not announce the method of selecting the winner in the OP"

Yes you are right it is not conclusive but 24th January is not far away. Even if $25 is given away in that thread there needs a tamper proof and transparent method of selecting the winner.

You did nothing wrong by creating this thread. To a degree we can negate the problems created by lack of information in that giveaway thread because the creator is a newbie but to not make it clear in the OP how a winner will be selected is not good. What is worse is that most members lined up to participate without even asking for clarity and many of them were here a long time.

For those that do not know, I am running a free lottery and you can enter there if you are interested: JollyGood Free Lottery #1: FURY vs USYK

I have added $25 to the prize and Ratimov has kindly donated $25 to the prize therefore $50 will be given to the winner. There is 1 in 58 chance to win. You can select a free slot/number or ask for one to be given at random.

FREE SLOTS ALLOCATED: 20
FREE SLOTS AVAILABLE: 38

Welcome to 2023  

Aside that the said amount is being small for the task ahead for the prize I don't give listening ears to such kind of giveaway personally, i want to believe they are upto something that seems hidden to us about creating a giveaway thread that won't actually award the rewards to the beneficiaries, they may wanted to use it as reference to what they have been participating and consistently doing as a point to convince their kind of victims that they would want to receive financial support from, I've recently seen another member opening a merit giveaway thread but not having smerits himself to give out, what has that implies, there's hidden agenda somewhere.

After reading whole accusation and @Mitch212 trust feedback, i thought something interesting. Rather than buying merit (AFAIK starts from $5/merit), merit fishing on Wall Observer or doing certain task (such as sign with PGP/bicoin address), merit/account farmer could choose host small giveaway instead. For example, if @Mitch212 were to deliverer his promise, he could got a good deal ($25/20 merit or $1.25/merit). And the cost could be reduced to almost $0 if he decide to make his altcoin as winner.

And i also agree there's no sufficient proof about connection between @Rbah and @Mitch212. I decide to join his giveaway and see whether he'll deliver his promise or not.

There is no doubt that @Mitch212 and @ArabianFella are alt accounts, as evidenced by the use of the same social media accounts. This conclusion can be drawn, even in the absence of an admission of such by the individuals in question.




https://ninjastic.space/post/56849367


In regards to the @Rbah account, while the writing style and giveaway topic discussed are similar to the previous account, I believe that the evidence is still not conclusive enough. However, the coincidence of matching registration and last activity dates with ArabianFella should not be ignored.