Do you have a reference for saying that a single V100 can solve a 64 bit (of entropy) key in seconds?

If what you are saying is true, it would be advisable to not use RBF. The RBF would need to be set to False and a decent fee that is sufficient to be included in the next block should be used.

I looked at some of the documentation for kangaroo, but have not looked at the math closely.

It was reported that one Tesla V100 can check 715 M keys per second by using bitcrack. Assuming you can get google to rent you 176k V100's, I calculate a 1 in 488 chance that you will find the private key within 5 minutes. It was reported on that same post that a V100 can make 1430 Million "kangaroo jumps" per second (about 2x as many private keys tas than it can check using bitcrack). Assuming that the scope of what needs to be searched is the same, this would give someone a 1 in 244 chance of finding the private key within 5 minutes.

I am not sure how many V100 google has on its platform but 176k is a lot, but I calculate that many V100s as having a retail price of about $1.1 billion. If you spend more than 5 minutes trying to crack the private key, you will be spending more money than the value of the coin in the address.

I got it from the OP. As are the other metrics mentioned unless stated otherwise.

I haven’t looked at the OPs math.

The Tesla V100 costs about $0.21 per 5 minutes to rent from GCS. I don’t know if google has the capacity, but someone could rent ~357k GPUs for 5 minutes for $75k. I don’t know if this would be sufficient to find the private key. You can rent ~176k for 5 minutes for half that.

If you can figure out how to quickly calculate addresses on a TPU (ASIC that is designed for matrix multiplication), you can rent ~880k TPUs for 5 minutes for $75k. If performing calculations that TPUs are optimized for, the efficiency of a TPU is at least a factor of 10 more efficient than a GPU. Although I don’t know if google will allow you to scale that many TPUs.

Given that the private key range is known for each puzzle, I am not sure I understand the advantage that someone will have once the public key is known.

I also reported it 10 days ago, and the report remained unhandled until recently.

My guess is that several mods decided against removing the thread, and another mod was handling older reports and decided to remove the thread.

I do agree that the no begging rule should be enforced more evenly, or clarified to be acceptable under certain circumstances. There has been a number of established forum members over the years that have been able to have threads open that amounted to begging.

The OPs thread was moved to the trashcan. Begging is not allowed. I'm sorry for your Uncle's situation.

Using a third-party service to make an on-chain payment/transaction requires some amount of trust, and these services will typically charge some amount of fee.

MPPs should reduce routing failures, which should lead to more people using LN, which should lead to higher overall capacity.

As long as you are not intentionally reporting posts that you know are not against the rules, it is okay if you have some bad reports. If your accuracy is in the low 20's (or lower), you are still helping the mods address posts that are against the rules.

As you become a more experienced forum member, you will naturally get better at reporting posts.

The more address types there are, the greater the chance someone messes something up when trying to create some 3rd party application, or otherwise. If you are a user of this 3rd party application, this will negatively affect you, and if you are a bitcoin user, this has the potential to reflect negatively on bitcoin.

Also, if you are trying to recover your wallet from their seed, having multiple address types adds complexity to the process, and may make some people erroneously believe there is a problem with their seed when they use their seed backup to generate the wrong address type.

Having coin tied up in LN channels removes flexibility when compared to using on-chain transactions to whoever you are trading with. This is because you are restricted to spending amounts the network can support based on available routes. This will always be the case, but the issue is pronounced today because LN is still in its infancy. There is also the issue that most LN wallets are not as established as other popular wallets, and require the end-user to run a full node in order to use them (electrum does have LN support, but open channels cannot be in the middle of a route for other payments).

As a result of the above flexibility issue, most people will not use LN unless the cost to transact on-chain is high in absolute terms. There will be some people who will use LN in order to test out new technology, and who hope to profit from routing transactions, but most casual users will not use LN when on-chain transactions are nearly free.

I think once transaction fees are high for a sustained period of time, LN usage will increase.

On the iTunes store, the developer for the poolin wallet is "POOLIN TECHNOLOGY PTE LTD" while the poolin.com mining pool's developer is named something in Chinese.

With the above being said, the poolin wallet and the poolin mining pool's websites both have links to the others' website. There is clearly some type of relationship between the two entities.

My experience with reading altcoin threads is that it is unusual for "everyone" to be in agreement. I think it is likely to be more common for a group of accounts to defend a project, or for there to be a group of accounts that is positive about a project in order to drown out negativity.

As I said, I don't think that sentiment alone is going to be enough to detect shilling. I suggested some features for a model that might be able to be the input of a model that might be able to predict if shilling is occurring in a thread.

You also do not necessarily need to create exotic visualizations. For example, you can remove one dimension from your chart in the OP, as a binary classification model should use an activation function that forces the sum of the prediction outputs to equal 1.0. If you are predicting if shilling is occurring, you can probably just give a raw prediction. Or you could create a time series chart that shows when the probability of shilling was occurring over time.

I have detected a thread in the Invites and Accounts sub that is removing multiple bumps per day. Today he bumped his thread 4x, and appears to be testing the limits as to how frequently he can bump his thread going from bumping 3x per day on the 20th, and bumping at least that frequently every day since.

Would it be possible to have the invites sub restricted to prevent users from deleting posts similarly to the other problematic sections?

eta: I sent a PM to the offending user bringing the rule to his attention.

edit2: found another thread that has been consistently bumping his thread 3-4x per day for months.

edit3:
There are other ways to detect bump spam with more precision, even if they is more time between bumps

When taproot was "locked-in", I would expect to see sentiment regarding bitcoin to increase. Ditto for when the bitcoin-futures ETF was approved. Does this mean there were bitcoin shills posting during these times? No, I would be very surprised if there was any actual evidence to support this.

I am not sure what your actual goal is, so some of my advice may or may not be helpful to your project. You could compare sentiment over time to the price of a particular altcoin. For example, the sentiment on a particular day could be compared to the current price, the price some number of days in the future, the price some number of days in the past, or by some measure of volatility in the past, present or future.

Some people have a genuine interest in a coin/token, even if there are shills promoting the coin (this is the point of shilling a coin). So it is possible that someone speaking positively about a coin when the coin is being shilled. However, if there are a group of accounts that consistently are positive about a coin when there is apparent shilling, there is a good chance that the group of accounts are professional shills.

If you can create a model that you are confident can accurately predict if a post is positive or negative about a coin/token, you can use the output of that model (in aggregation) as an input for a second model that can predict if shilling is occurring on a particular date. Other inputs for the second model could be data points such as the percentage change over the previous x amount of time as of the date in question ("x" could be substituted with "x, y, and z"), the percentage change in price over the previous x amount of time as of y amount of time in the past, and/or in the future, the number of posts made in a thread on the date in question compared to the number of posts made the previous week, expressed as a percentage. You can be creative and will have to experiment some.

Your second model will have to utilize some unsupervised learning method, as I don't think you can reliably label a thread being shilled at a sufficient scale.

I can guarantee you that the forum will not delete a post just because it contains inaccurate information. The reasons for this are similar to why the forum does not moderate scams. There are many cases in which the moderators do not know with 100% certainty if something is true, including in the case of the thread referenced in the OP. There is also the potential or moderator bias.

You misunderstood what I was saying. I was saying that many people who have previously received a lot of merit are actively participating in the subject thread. A low-value topic in one in which it is not possible to make meaningful replies to the thread. If someone has received a lot of merit, it is generally unlikely for them to be making a lot of low-value posts.
The user prohibited2021 was nuked earlier today, and as such all his posts were removed. When a post is removed, generally all reports against that post will be marked as "good", even if the reason is incorrect. I am not sure why he was nuked, however, he made several posts today that were basically one-liners.

My opinion on the subject thread remains unchanged.

Do you really think the number of times shamm posts the text of his guide affects the amount of help he is giving people? They are receiving the same amount of help regardless of if he posts a link to his thread, or if he writes the text of his thread.

Some people do not like the fact that he is posting the same thing multiple times and receiving merit for the posts.

I think it is actually a 1% profit for the seller (aka the OP). He is selling $1 worth of coin for $1.01.

I agree that it cannot be known if the OP is intending to scam, however there is not information to suggest that he is.

@mindrust, if you have received a “sample” of the OPs “work” you should provide some kind of vouch or public review, as was clearly the reason why the OP sent you a free sample. You can give an honest review. The OP didn’t send you dirty pictures because she likes you, she was hoping to grow her business.

I found it interesting to see how much P2P trading is done in developing countries. This may be influenced by remittances from wealthy countries to poor countries. It shows that bitcoin has a seat in the global economy.

The index only accounts for on-chain transactions. With LN and other L2 solutions, this is going to be less meaningful over time. I would expect countries with developing economies to have an outsized adoption of LN due to tx fees relative to average income.   

The forum does not come close to having the same requirements to cite sources as is required when writing an academic paper.

He writes content that people clearly find useful. I don't think the amount of merit he receives would be affected by him quoting or citing himself. I think he is probably trying to be helpful to new users.

I might compare your argument to someone saying that I write interesting, and helpful posts in order to get merit, and that the fact my posts are interesting and helpful is somehow a bad thing.

Removing consecutive posts is about readability. When a single account has multiple posts written in a row in a thread, it makes the thread more difficult for others to read.

If someone deletes their posts that you were previously replying to, it would be appropriate for moderators to merge posts accordingly.

I don't think this is something that is going to lead to any kind of punishment or negative consequences for you.

I think it should have been obvious, considering the timestamps of the quotes.