|
Better he exposes the flaws in your coin than let it go on insecure, until eventually it is worth alot of money and some hacker comes up and makes off with millions of dollars in profit from hacking the coin, causing everyone to lose tons of money in the panic.
people who invests in these altcoins are taking the risk that they could lose it all to unforeseen circumstances. if a coin is truly great, bcx will be able to do nothing to stop it.
|
|
|
|
but we do know that in terms of C++ coding, the developer is an amateur.
First, define amateur, and then, how do we know exactly that he is one? assume "bro we need a prng for darksend. any ideas? i don't know much about RNG's admittedly" "fuck it, just use std::rand()" randomizeList (int i) { return std::rand()%i;}
coins are lost if main() terminates unexpectedly before lockedCoins.clear(), which should have a reference in the main scope so it can be called referenced during shutdown. void CDarkSendPool::UnlockCoins(){
BOOST_FOREACH(CTxIn v, lockedCoins)
pwalletMain->UnlockCoin(v.prevout);
lockedCoins.clear();
}
we know that session ids are used to identify with the network because of the following code. maybe this should be examine the protocol for this connection more closely. RelayDarkSendCompletedTransaction(sessionID, false, "Transaction Created Successfully");
This doesn't mean he is an amateur. judging by the coding style, and what i've seen through half tired eyes its a group. |
|
|
|
+----------+
| PLEASE |
| DO NOT |
| FEED THE |
| TROLLS |
+----------+
| |
| |
.\|.||/..
plonk lol. i'm gonna troll the forum posting this as a reply to every post Vod. makes. People are going to use the "Report to Moderator" link for the SPAM, and your account will be banned.    |
|
|
|
The good intentions of the dev? the intentions were probably not good at this point. If they were, they would have hired a professional. instead they created hype they couldn't live up to and probably profited nicely in doing so.
I was alluding to the fact that given the salubrious effect of many eyes/brains on FOSS, we may assume a dev has good intentions regardless of their actual motivation. It works in reverse too; if a dev refuses to release the code, we may (IE must) assume he has bad intentions. True, but i think the combination of our posts shows the whole picture. We can't prove for certain whether the dev had good intentions, but lets face it. if you're releasing coins you're probably trying to make money, gain notoriety, or in very rare cases, you did for the challenge of pushing the envelope. we don't really know the motivational factor(s) for this dev, but we do know that in terms of C++ coding, the developer is an amateur. It's not much of a stretch to speculate either way on his intentions at this point. PS: you have a salubrious vocabulary. learned a new word  |
|
|
|
+----------+
| PLEASE |
| DO NOT |
| FEED THE |
| TROLLS |
+----------+
| |
| |
.\|.||/..
plonk lol. i'm gonna troll the forum posting this as a reply to every post Vod. makes. |
|
|
|
WOW -11 trade trust what did you do?  I refused to bow down to the posters who control the default trust. and use their position to create arbitrary pseudo rules. they spent the last two days trying to convince me i was wrong and was trying to "buy trust". you should see the threads, i totally own them time and time again intellectually, the whole time pointing out the fact that they are behaving like holier than thou faggots. it was hilarious. |
|
|
|
This is also why you should be open sourced from the beginning
anonymity should always be trusted to open sourced solutions
This is all true. To be on my Legitimate Altcoin Whitelist, a coin must follow Bitcoin's example and be 100% open source. Not some half-assed delayed version. All the nooblings losing their shitcoins to Madoff Node exploits are being taught a valuable (and therefore expensive) lesson: DON'T TRUST CLOSED SOURCE! The good intentions of the devs aren't the point and don't matter; the of point open source is to verify the code's security with as many eyes and brains as possible. The good intentions of the dev? the intentions were probably not good at this point. If they were, they would have hired a professional. instead they created hype they couldn't live up to and probably profited nicely in doing so. |
|
|
|
I've been leaving people negative trust for buying or selling accounts for over a year. Only in your mind would you think I own an account selling other accounts.  I know you weren't involved in the selling of the accounts. that was solely blazr and his schemesters. He paid or extorted someone into leaving negative feedback on the people who outed him. The feedback is gone now but i really wanna say it was you that was the person who left it. I know it was either you b!z, or m0bux(sp?)  I need to find the other half of this document, but the people who had it are 3, and none of them are responsive. |
|
|
|
I am asking for the image. i know someone still has the records. i already have the text logs. the picture would be more damning though.
Ah, so someone fed you fake text logs, knowing you had a beef with me and would eat it up? You're religious too, aren't you? Gullible idiot. Did you just give me an easy out lol? why thank you, but i am enjoying riding the edge for now. there is a good chance the screenshots are gone, and i will end up looking like the liar you claim me to be. the online copy is gone: https://i.imgur.com/tdUoUY4.png I see Blazr is gone as of september 2014 as well. i guess that deprives me of my smoking gun. I was going to ask him {very nicely of course} to get you in line. |
|
|
|
I know it's there! I only have the one account. No time or interest to make fake accounts. If you are going to post otherwise, please include your imaginary proof. Otherwise, no one is going to believe a liar. I am asking for the image. i know someone still has the records. i already have the text logs. the picture would be more damning though. |
|
|
|
wow. so many jr. members with such strong opinions on the matter. this is not a democracy, it is a privately owned forum. if you don't like how things are handled, leave and start your own.
This should be stickied.  right along with the screenshots of [you] admitting Blazr paid you to negative rep a certain poster's profile. feeling nostalgic? Let's see the screenshots! You've gone from simply wanting to buy trust to being an pathetic liar, haven't you? I love the BS feedback you've left me and cool. You'll fit in fine with the rest of the scammers here. So you deny knowledge of the following profile, is this correct? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=125582 |
|
|
|
wow. so many jr. members with such strong opinions on the matter. this is not a democracy, it is a privately owned forum. if you don't like how things are handled, leave and start your own.
This should be stickied. right along with the screenshots of [you] admitting Blazr paid you to negative rep a certain poster's profile. feeling nostalgic? |
|
|
|
Oh my bad .06BTC
Lol, no your bid was legitimate. the other guy was asking what the lowest bid he could enter was. the rules state the minimum increment is .05. your original bid was valid. |
|
|
|
Wow this is full of trolls and loons lets clear things up!
1)This has not and will not happen in the US, America is getting businesses that deal with bitcoin to open and they pay taxes
2)Russia probably won't have this pass
3)"Actor"Tom_Truong is full core insane and all europeans are not inbred and there is no conspiracy here
4)Cary on like usual even if a ban happened there would be zero enforcement.
I agree on points 1,2,3 and but i'm not sure 4 is true, especially if russia approves the ban. Its hard to see them pass it though. they would stand to gain financially by launching bitcoin related commerce projects. |
|
|
|
wow. so many jr. members with such strong opinions on the matter. this is not a democracy, it is a privately owned forum. if you don't like how things are handled, leave and start your own.
This should be stickied. Private ownership doesn't exclude you from legal liability :-) |
|
|
|
Look like the DRK spaghetti code has already made one victim   #shitcoin #SCAM wasn't the code called into question by a hero member way back on page 60 something of the darkcoin thread? it was around the time they were rolling out the masternodes and selling them. |
|
|
|
whats the lowest you can go for?
right now the lowest bid is .06 btc, since blazedout has recently bid .05 |
|
|
|
Actually the forum would be protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act which basically says that a website with user submitted information (posts) is not considered to be the publisher of such information. The person who actually posts information (posts a post) is liable (when liability is appropriate) for anything they publish (post). Any lawyer will tell you that doesn't hold up in court, because it usually doesnt. Why don't you give some examples of cases when this did not hold up in court? it won't hold up for a second in court against a lawyer worth their salt, and lets face it, in these types of cases, the prosecuting attorney is always worth their salt. You asked for proof, so here you go. One of the most famous cases in internet history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pirate_Bay_trial#.22King_Kong.22_defenseSection 230 does not provide protection against a site breaking IP (intellectual property) law, which is what copyright law is. Section 230 doesn't matter. EU directive 2000/31/EC was over ruled in court already, setting a precendence for prosecuting cases in relation to anti-trust, such as a forum failing to remove objectionable content within a reasonable time frame. The defense may try to hide under 230, but there are any number of laws that can be used to sidestep that protection. study consumer fraud law, and realize that this forum is absolutely liable for its content. always has been, and always will be. The forum is used to facilitate monetary trades, and thus is open to more scrutiny. |
|
|
|
Actually the forum would be protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act which basically says that a website with user submitted information (posts) is not considered to be the publisher of such information. The person who actually posts information (posts a post) is liable (when liability is appropriate) for anything they publish (post). Any lawyer will tell you that doesn't hold up in court, because it usually doesnt. Why don't you give some examples of cases when this did not hold up in court? it won't hold up for a second in court against a lawyer worth their salt, and lets face it, in these types of cases, the prosecuting attorney is always worth their salt. You asked for proof, so here you go. One of the most famous cases in internet history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pirate_Bay_trial#.22King_Kong.22_defense |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
