Topic: LoyceVs PM publisher (Read 1156 times)
Last user: June 18, 2022. I assume this is still working
Bump!
@BitcoinGirl.Club
@BitcoinGirl.Club
Do your bots still work or are they being stonewalled by Cloudflare?
I got a notification so it must work. 
Ah I see. I guess I’m forgetting you’re working with what you can do here and now, which is limited since you aren’t the site admin (otherwise you could trigger the program to do stuff like disable BCC when utilized, of course right).
Correct. I'm only a user Quote
Is this the kind of thing SC’s might be able to do one day, removing the need for a third party ? (Thinking of Satoshis 3rd party-less escrow SC proposal).
What's SC? Smart Contracts? I don't think this will help prevent people from getting scammed. And from what I've seen, the most famous "smart" contracts turned out to be far too complicated for the users to understand. 
Is it possible to request it never be published, unless a trade goes sideways and it’s needed/one of the two/two+ parties requests it?
No, that would allow for loopholes like this:if a potential scam victim receives the PM as BCC, I can't know everyone involved.
Is it possible to make this program entirely encrypted until the delay is up/ publishing requested ? (Not sure if this would even be possible).
Only if you send an encrypted PM, and publish the decryption later. But that defeats the purpose of using a third party to publish the evidence.Ah I see. I guess I’m forgetting you’re working with what you can do here and now, which is limited since you aren’t the site admin (otherwise you could trigger the program to do stuff like disable BCC when utilized, of course right).
Is this the kind of thing SC’s might be able to do one day, removing the need for a third party ? (Thinking of Satoshis 3rd party-less escrow SC proposal).
Is it possible to request it never be published, unless a trade goes sideways and it’s needed/one of the two/two+ parties requests it?
No, that would allow for loopholes like this:if a potential scam victim receives the PM as BCC, I can't know everyone involved.
Is it possible to make this program entirely encrypted until the delay is up/ publishing requested ? (Not sure if this would even be possible).
Only if you send an encrypted PM, and publish the decryption later. But that defeats the purpose of using a third party to publish the evidence.
This is some cool Mr Robot stuff here (Trying to think of how/when this could be best utilized in collectibles).
Is it possible to request it never be published, unless a trade goes sideways and it’s needed/one of the two/two+ parties requests it?
Is it possible to make this program entirely encrypted until the delay is up/ publishing requested ? (Not sure if this would even be possible).
Is it possible to request it never be published, unless a trade goes sideways and it’s needed/one of the two/two+ parties requests it?
Is it possible to make this program entirely encrypted until the delay is up/ publishing requested ? (Not sure if this would even be possible).
Let's all make a wish to theymos to permanently disable changing username and password to the account LoyceVs PM publisher, let everyone know the username password and they can see whatever CCed in to the account 😉
You can of course create your own PM-publishing-account and share the password with a business partner. Just not mine, my password won't be shared and if anyone can read the PMs, the delay-feature won't work.Quote
The benefit is doing so will take out the burden on you too. People will not blame (falsely or rightfully) that you may alter information.
I'm not worried about being blamed. As long as I'm honest, there won't be any evidence to put the blame on me.I actually found a use for this: this unedited post wil prove my intentions with absolute certainty after 45 days. If I edit the post, the forum shows it. And if I edit the PM, the signed message can't be verified.
Again, don't take this the wrong way and you are not a poopy diaper either. 
Don't take is wrong way for me too @LoyceV It's PM for a reason. I understand the tool could have a use more or less but the bot actually do not make it's a PM anymore. In fact we do not need the bot at all. Let's all make a wish to theymos to permanently disable changing username and password to the account LoyceVs PM publisher, let everyone know the username password and they can see whatever CCed in to the account 😉
The benefit is doing so will take out the burden on you too. People will not blame (falsely or rightfully) that you may alter information.
By the way, just make sure to use TOR when you log in from this public account 🤪
Further, you can trivially check if a particular PM, based on the PMID contains a specific content, and if so, you could chose to confirm as much.
LoyceV really shouldn't do that if he can't verify (as is the case with a BCC) that the person who's asking is a recipient and not merely fishing. Sequential message ID is not a substitute for authorization.
Further, you can trivially check if a particular PM, based on the PMID contains a specific content, and if so, you could chose to confirm as much.
LoyceV really shouldn't do that if he can't verify (as is the case with a BCC) that the person who's asking is a recipient and not merely fishing. Sequential message ID is not a substitute for authorization.
Anyone who was BCC'ed would not have the ability to have the PM published (assuming they are not also a CC or listed in the "to" field)
I don't want to add to the existing possibilities of misleading people. That's why I didn't use "LoyceBot" but created "LoyceV's PM publisher", and that's why I don't want to risk BCC-receivers to become a scam victim when they think they can use my bot as evidence.I thought of adding another decimal to the delay, but if it's 30 years a scam victim might want me to publish it earlier.
Further, you can trivially check if a particular PM, based on the PMID contains a specific content, and if so, you could chose to confirm as much.
Anyone who was BCC'ed would not have the ability to have the PM published (assuming they are not also a CC or listed in the "to" field)
I don't want to add to the existing possibilities of misleading people. That's why I didn't use "LoyceBot" but created "LoyceV's PM publisher", and that's why I don't want to risk BCC-receivers to become a scam victim when they think they can use my bot as evidence.I thought of adding another decimal to the delay, but if it's 30 years a scam victim might want me to publish it earlier.
One solution might be to only publish a PM if a second PM is sent to the bot account with a command to publish the PM. The second PM would need to be from the sender or receiver of the original PM.
This has been discussed: I can't know if there's a BCC-receiver, and I don't want this to be used for a false feeling of security.I believe that any automatic publishing of PMs is likely not going to be a net positive for potential users.
One solution might be to only publish a PM if a second PM is sent to the bot account with a command to publish the PM. The second PM would need to be from the sender or receiver of the original PM.
This has been discussed: I can't know if there's a BCC-receiver, and I don't want this to be used for a false feeling of security. That is an unusual implementation. It is more common to either ignore invalid argument float instead of an int), or to convert a float to an integer using integer division, eg 0.25//1
Removing all characters other than numbers was meant to handle a case where someone sends "delay=5" with bold font. This will read as "delay=5", and still work fine. It's basically me being lazy 
I didn't bother to work with partial days (and frankly didn't expect someone to try).Quote
I think it is somewhat pointless to have a PM published no matter what. I think some people will want to avoid publishing their PM conversations absent a dispute.
I'm pretty sure most people would want to avoid that. Lets' say it's not for most people Can you also delete a message from not appearing in the log at all?
Of course Let's say you really hate me for calling you a poopy diaper (I didn't though), and I use your bot for a deal that goes sideways. You edit the PMs to not favor my side of the story. I am now in a pickle. It's my word against LoyceV's and his bot. What chance do I stand against the all-mighty LoyceV when it comes to who is telling the truth and who is lying?
When it's about a PM you received, you can click Report To Admin, and ask the much-more-all-mighty Cyrus, hilariousandco, mprep, Mr. Big or theymos to verify the PMs authenticity. Unfortunately, you can't report PMs sent by yourself, so you'll have to either ask an Admin or do this:giving someone access to your account to check your PMs.
For what it's worth, I like to think I'm not that childish
If your poopy diaper stories are annoying, you might end up on my ignore list. If you try to spam my data scraping, I might create a blacklist just for you. But my data integrity can only be trusted if I never compromise it, and all you'd need is one piece of evidence to destroy any reputation I have when it comes to data.Of course, I can also click Report To Admin on a PM received by LoyceVs PM publisher to ask Bitcointalk's upper management to confirm the poopy diaper guy is the one who's lying.
First of all, I have no reason not to trust you. I want to say that before I say anything else so as not to get misunderstood. 
Second of all, great work on creating this for the community!
You have already said that you can edit any message that you want. Can you also delete a message from not appearing in the log at all?
I am just thinking how can it be used as evidence if one person can make changes to the evidence if he wanted to?
Let's say you really hate me for calling you a poopy diaper (I didn't though), and I use your bot for a deal that goes sideways. You edit the PMs to not favor my side of the story. I am now in a pickle. It's my word against LoyceV's and his bot. What chance do I stand against the all-mighty LoyceV when it comes to who is telling the truth and who is lying?
Again, don't take this the wrong way and you are not a poopy diaper either.
Second of all, great work on creating this for the community!
You have already said that you can edit any message that you want. Can you also delete a message from not appearing in the log at all?
I am just thinking how can it be used as evidence if one person can make changes to the evidence if he wanted to?
Let's say you really hate me for calling you a poopy diaper (I didn't though), and I use your bot for a deal that goes sideways. You edit the PMs to not favor my side of the story. I am now in a pickle. It's my word against LoyceV's and his bot. What chance do I stand against the all-mighty LoyceV when it comes to who is telling the truth and who is lying?
Again, don't take this the wrong way and you are not a poopy diaper either.
That is an unusual implementation. It is more common to either ignore invalid argument float instead of an int), or to convert a float to an integer using integer division, eg 0.25//1
Removing all characters other than numbers was meant to handle a case where someone sends "delay=5" with bold font. This will read as "delay=5", and still work fine. It's basically me being lazy I didn't bother to work with partial days (and frankly didn't expect someone to try).Quote
I think it is somewhat pointless to have a PM published no matter what. I think some people will want to avoid publishing their PM conversations absent a dispute.
I'm pretty sure most people would want to avoid that. Lets' say it's not for most people I see there's a "0" no delay, so I'm trying out a delay=0.25 to see what happens (you never know unless you try)
I take the 6 characters after "delay=", then remove anything that's not a number, and limit it to 999. Your 0.25 turned into 25 days:I think it is somewhat pointless to have a PM published no matter what. I think some people will want to avoid publishing their PM conversations absent a dispute.
Most discussion that ensues on the voting of some members would only happen (if it happened) after results were published. While it may not appear, some discussions may actually be a bias to future members who are yet to vote and may feel constrained in voting in a specific user after seeing the feedback that the overall community has whenever that user is mentioned in a certain category.
The opposite can also happen: I wouldn't have thought of everyone I voted for without being reminded of their names by someone else.Quote
The PM would be considered a final vote and there wouldn't be room for edits/changes (it would depend on the rules established by whoever was running the event however).
Or a second PM would replace the first one.Quote
I think it's achievable to code a (python?) bot to scrap PM's, look for certain aspects (subject, see if member fills contest/event criteria, if the body is according to the format of entries, ...)
In my experience, many people won't follow the correct format. Humans are better at interpretation than bots.I've increased the update frequency from every 2 hours to every 5 minutes.
I just thought (@icopress) of another use case: Say you're running Awards, and you want to keep entries confidential until a certain date. You could require all participants to PM you, with a CC to "LoyceVs PM publisher" and delay=. That way the campaign manager can already see the entries, and once the contest ends, anyone can verify all entries.
You don't even have to (fully) trust me on this: each participant can verify their own entry. Disclaimer: I currently process a maximum of 20 new PMs in 2 hours. If it ever gets that popular, I'll have to check more than just the first page.
While I was going to work I though about this same usecase and I'm glad that I wasn't the only one. I think that this system would be beneficial in three ways (one of them I'm not sure if it's a good perspective):You don't even have to (fully) trust me on this: each participant can verify their own entry. Disclaimer: I currently process a maximum of 20 new PMs in 2 hours. If it ever gets that popular, I'll have to check more than just the first page.
- Most discussion that ensues on the voting of some members would only happen (if it happened) after results were published. While it may not appear, some discussions may actually be a bias to future members who are yet to vote and may feel constrained in voting in a specific user after seeing the feedback that the overall community has whenever that user is mentioned in a certain category. Not even only that, if I'm lacking for a user for a specific category I may be influenced by seeing what is the most recurrent nomination for a specific category in other posts and just assume that "Well, most members seem to like him/her, I'll just vote on him/her as well"...
- The PM would be considered a final vote and there wouldn't be room for edits/changes (it would depend on the rules established by whoever was running the event however).
- Not sure about this one: I think it's achievable to code a (python?) bot to scrap PM's, look for certain aspects (subject, see if member fills contest/event criteria, if the body is according to the format of entries, ...) and then automatically take care of recording the user input/classification/nomination if certain conditions are met. This could also be done in the thread itself I guess, but having a more contained environment vs an active thread full of discussion could show itself to be easier to navigate trough...
Still, this tool is a great way to ensure that there's an "overseer" - from neither side of the argumentation - that's just recording everything that's going back and forth in a conversation which may prove to be useful in the future - it may even be considered a tool to enforce future deals in the sense that I will only establish a conversation with someone if the seller/buyer is willing to record all conversations by means of this bot. Sure this won't stop scams from happening, but it offers a great tool to help balance the argumentation to be made if such event occurs.
There is a way to solve this but not sure if it's worth the hassle! You can hide PM ids on the PM_publisher/ page. Anyone who sends a publish request has to provide the the sender username and the correct PM_id as arguments. If they match then he is indeed a BCC recipient. You'll have to limit the number of requests a user can send (i.e 5 per day) to prevent him from trying to guess the correct id.
I don't think it's worth the hassle. 
This is a great project, thank you LoyceV for pointing me to this place. This project will no doubt solve some scam issues. If I have intention to scam someone and then remembers that we would be using LoyceV PM publisher, I will either reject the offer which will be a sign that my intention is not clear
Quote
You can remove the delay feature and never publish PMs unless the sender or the receiver asks for it to be posted in a specific scam accusation thread
This is my concern. Will it be in such a way that if I get bored ill just go and read people's pm? 
unless the sender or the receive asks for it to be posted in a specific scam accusation thread.
That creates the same problem: I can't know who the receiver is if they were in a BCC. And even if there are 2 known receivers already, there could always be a third in BCC.There is a way to solve this but not sure if it's worth the hassle! You can hide PM ids on the PM_publisher/ page. Anyone who sends a publish request has to provide the the sender username and the correct PM_id as arguments. If they match then he is indeed a BCC recipient. You'll have to limit the number of requests a user can send (i.e 5 per day) to prevent him from trying to guess the correct id.
This suggestion is regarding the publish feature not the destruct suggested by mocacinno
It can't be just the sender deciding on this: the receiver can require evidence too.
Indeed, it has to be asked by all the parts of the conversation - sender and receivers.
And yes, the BCC parts have "no rights" in this.
I just thought (@icopress) of another use case: Say you're running Awards, and you want to keep entries confidential until a certain date. You could require all participants to PM you, with a CC to "LoyceVs PM publisher" and delay=. That way the campaign manager can already see the entries, and once the contest ends, anyone can verify all entries.
This is nice and far less tricky than handling PMs.
unless the sender or the receive asks for it to be posted in a specific scam accusation thread.
That creates the same problem: I can't know who the receiver is if they were in a BCC. And even if there are 2 known receivers already, there could always be a third in BCC.I just thought (@icopress) of another use case: Say you're running Awards, and you want to keep entries confidential until a certain date. You could require all participants to PM you, with a CC to "LoyceVs PM publisher" and delay=
You don't even have to (fully) trust me on this: each participant can verify their own entry. Disclaimer: I currently process a maximum of 20 new PMs in 2 hours. If it ever gets that popular, I'll have to check more than just the first page.
Thank you LoyceV for yet another great tool!
I can think of many scenarios where this bot can be useful. However, usually in scam accusation threads it's the authenticity of the received messages that has to be verified. So, anyone who is going to make a deal via PMs and want to use the bot in an effective way, the first thing he has to do is to convince the other party to CC LoyceVs PM publisher.
Regarding destructing archived PMs, it's a useful feature but I agree with you: both parties (the sender and the receiver) must agree to it otherwise it can be abused.
There is another alternative, though. You can remove the delay feature and never publish PMs unless the sender or the receiver asks for it to be posted in a specific scam accusation thread. This can be done by sending a message to the bot with a command like this:
I can think of many scenarios where this bot can be useful. However, usually in scam accusation threads it's the authenticity of the received messages that has to be verified. So, anyone who is going to make a deal via PMs and want to use the bot in an effective way, the first thing he has to do is to convince the other party to CC LoyceVs PM publisher.
Regarding destructing archived PMs, it's a useful feature but I agree with you: both parties (the sender and the receiver) must agree to it otherwise it can be abused.
There is another alternative, though. You can remove the delay feature and never publish PMs unless the sender or the receiver asks for it to be posted in a specific scam accusation thread. This can be done by sending a message to the bot with a command like this:
Quote
publish PM #N, thread_id
I wonder if it would be usefull to add an optional destruct-code in the PM aswell? This way, you could send a first PM with a destruct code, if a deal falls trough the PM gets published... But if the deal goes fine, the initial sender can send a PM with the destruct code and the initial PM will be erased instead of published?
It can't be just the sender deciding on this: the receiver can require evidence too. I thought of adding a command like "remove=10925297", but it has to be confirmed by the sender and all receivers. However, if a potential scam victim receives the PM as BCC, I can't know everyone involved. So I decided to abandon this idea unless a better solution comes up.
I just sent a test-PM. Hopefully everything works fine
I'm quickly going over the usecases, and i wonder if i'd be able to make a feature request (if this feature is deemed usefull by other people aswell, and offcourse only if you're interested in programming it)?
I wonder if it would be usefull to add an optional destruct-code in the PM aswell? This way, you could send a first PM with a destruct code, if a deal falls trough the PM gets published... But if the deal goes fine, the initial sender can send a PM with the destruct code and the initial PM will be erased instead of published? Or maybe a cache functionality using a cache code: the PM you CC'd with an optional cache-code never gets published, unless your alt account receives a second PM with the cache code? Just brainstorming here
I'm quickly going over the usecases, and i wonder if i'd be able to make a feature request (if this feature is deemed usefull by other people aswell, and offcourse only if you're interested in programming it)?
I wonder if it would be usefull to add an optional destruct-code in the PM aswell? This way, you could send a first PM with a destruct code, if a deal falls trough the PM gets published... But if the deal goes fine, the initial sender can send a PM with the destruct code and the initial PM will be erased instead of published? Or maybe a cache functionality using a cache code: the PM you CC'd with an optional cache-code never gets published, unless your alt account receives a second PM with the cache code? Just brainstorming here
I might be missing something here, but apart from not being able to verify the content of the quotes, the same thing goes for verifying if someone actually sent them...
Lost in translation, I've rephrased it:Although I know for sure is who sent the PM, I can't verify quotes inside it.
The warning was meant not to trust any quotes that can't be verified independently.But I really like you 
Lol. 
I can't verify quotes inside a PM. All I know for sure is who sent it.
I might be missing something here, but apart from not being able to verify the content of the quotes, the same thing goes for verifying if someone actually sent them...Here's a "fake" example:
- Lost in translation, I've rephrased it:Thank you for clarifying it.Although I know for sure is who sent the PM, I can't verify quotes inside it.The warning was meant not to trust any quotes that can't be verified independently.
I see there's a "0" no delay, so I'm trying out a delay=0.25 to see what happens (you never know unless you try)
I take the 6 characters after "delay=", then remove anything that's not a number, and limit it to 999. Your 0.25 turned into 25 days:Code:
13. PM 10925957 (delayed by 025 days) from Timelord2067 to LoyceVs PM publisher (February 16, 2022, 10:16:32 PM)
Quote
I take it you can just log in and review any posts?
Yes. And while testing I may actually do that, but if all works fine I plan not to look it at again. 
I see there's a "0" no delay, so I'm trying out a delay=0.25 to see what happens (you never know unless you try)
I've also gone the other way with a generic delay=999 to keep people in suspense whether or not there's a hidden message.
I take it you can just log in and review any posts?
I've also gone the other way with a generic delay=999 to keep people in suspense whether or not there's a hidden message.
I take it you can just log in and review any posts?
Not sure if this is a bug or its because I PMed the BOT directly, but I just sent a message and it's not showing my name?:
It's a bug, the HTML format changed a bit. This is a bit trial and error. I'll see what pops up next.
Code:
11. PM 10925544 (delayed by 7 days) from OmegaStarScream to LoyceVs PM publisher (February 16, 2022, 05:39:51 PM)
Not sure if this is a bug or its because I PMed the BOT directly, but I just sent a message and it's not showing my name?:
Code:
11. PM 10925544 (delayed by 7 days) from to LoyceVs PM publisher (February 16, 2022, 05:39:51 PM)
This service is meant to provide evidence when a PM-trade falls apart.
Background
Once in a while a scam accusations requires evidence of a PM-history. Since screenshots can easily be altered, it's not easy to prove what was said without either involving a Global Mod, or by giving someone access to your account to check your PMs.
Yesterday, I got the idea to create a bot for this.
How it works
When sending a PM, CC LoyceVs PM publisher. Don't send anything you want to keep private (such as your address!), the bot will publish everything you send. If a deal falls apart, the evidence is readily available to post on the Scam Accusations board.
Delay
By default, I publish PMs after 7 days. The sender can change this by adding "delay=" anywhere in the body of the message. This also works if the command is quoted. If it's shown more than once, I use the first occurrence.
Example:
The delay can be anything from 0 to 999 days.
Data URL
I publish the data on loyce.club/PM_publisher/.
Updates
For now, this bot updates every 5 minutes.
Disclaimer
I will publish any PM I receive on LoyceVs PM publisher!
Even when I delay publishing, I have access to the messages. My webhost can read them too, and of course Bitcointalk Admins can read any messages on the forum. Don't send any personal data.
I'm not sure which board fits best. For now, I'll post this in Meta.
When replying to a PM, obviously I can only archive it if LoyceVs PM publisher also receives the message.
Warning
I can't know who received a BCC.
Although I know for sure is who sent the PM, I can't verify quotes inside it.
Miscellaneous
I use forum time for this project (in most of my other projects I used Amsterdam time).
Bugs
Let me know if anything fails. Let's say this is experimental.
Test it!
Feel free to send a PM (with or without CC to someone). I need some data to test this
Background
Once in a while a scam accusations requires evidence of a PM-history. Since screenshots can easily be altered, it's not easy to prove what was said without either involving a Global Mod, or by giving someone access to your account to check your PMs.
Yesterday, I got the idea to create a bot for this.
How it works
When sending a PM, CC LoyceVs PM publisher. Don't send anything you want to keep private (such as your address!), the bot will publish everything you send. If a deal falls apart, the evidence is readily available to post on the Scam Accusations board.
Delay
By default, I publish PMs after 7 days. The sender can change this by adding "delay=
Example:
Code:
delay=30
Data URL
I publish the data on loyce.club/PM_publisher/.
Updates
For now, this bot updates every 5 minutes.
Disclaimer
I will publish any PM I receive on LoyceVs PM publisher!
Even when I delay publishing, I have access to the messages. My webhost can read them too, and of course Bitcointalk Admins can read any messages on the forum. Don't send any personal data.
I'm not sure which board fits best. For now, I'll post this in Meta.
When replying to a PM, obviously I can only archive it if LoyceVs PM publisher also receives the message.
Warning
I can't know who received a BCC.
Although I know for sure is who sent the PM, I can't verify quotes inside it.
Miscellaneous
I use forum time for this project (in most of my other projects I used Amsterdam time).
Bugs
Let me know if anything fails. Let's say this is experimental.
Test it!
Feel free to send a PM (with or without CC to someone). I need some data to test this
Jump to: