I'm the one who bought the domain from the seller. Been holding it since then as it's value appreciates. I am not taking a public stance on if you are lying or not, however, it appears that your domain was registered the day the other thread was created and the Whois was last updated earlier this month. I am not an expert in the value of domains, but I don’t think it would be a good idea for someone who is not an expert in valuing domains to accept your domain as collateral. If an expert believes in the value of your domain, they are free to risk their own money. |
|
|
|
|
It appears that remains have been found in the Carlton Reserve, FL, near an area that contained some of Brian's belongings. This particular area had apparently recently had been underwater but is no longer underwater.
This was apparently in a particular part of the Carlton Reserve that Brian liked, and Brian's parents had been helping with the search when the remains were found.
Given the above circumstances, I think it is probably most likely the case that the human remains are those of Brian Laundry. However, I am sure DNA testing and dental records will confirm if this is the case.
One of the items found was apparently a journal belonging to Brian, so it is possible additional information will be learned about Gabby's death, even if it is never tested in court.
There was also the body of another missing person found near the location where Gabby was found. This person's cause of death was apparently a suicide, and he had apparently gone missing around the time when Gabby was last seen. I am not sure if this person had the potential to be dangerous in any way, or if the two deaths are linked in any way except the approximate time and location of death.
Update:
It appears that investigators now believe that’s Gabby Petito was "murdered" after reviewing Brian's journal.
|
|
|
|
True, but the reason for it is not important, last month 3 million homes in same UK were dark. Even the example being UK wasn't important. For weeks parts of Louisiana (1.2 million homes) remained dark in the past month. Currently China seems to be experiencing a lot of power cuts. And a lot more... In any of these situations with homes losing power, did they also lose internet connectivity via cellular or satellite signals? If people still have cellular or satellite connectivity, then bitcoin can still function just fine. They can use their phones to make transactions and run light wallets, and charge up from power banks, solar panels, batteries, whatever. If people lose all internet connectivity, then bitcoin is probably far very down on their list of things they are concerned about. Almost everyone will be more interested in re-establishing wider internet connectivity (which will obviously include bitcoin) for things like communication and managing supply chains than they would about setting up some mesh network which is only designed to allow bitcoin to work.Another point that I would make would be: If Alice and Bob both have internet access, if Alice wants to buy fuel from Bob, it is very easy for Bob to know with certainty if a transaction has been confirmed, and if the transaction has been well propagated throughout the network. Bob can do this in two ways, he can connect to a diverse set of nodes that is random, and is unknown to Alice, and he can also use one or more offsite nodes he controls in a geographically diverse area that is also well connected. If Bob only has access to a mesh network, Alice will know exactly which nodes he is connected to based on their location. He does not really have any way of knowing if the transaction made its way through the mesh network to the on-ramp to the internet and into the bitcoin network and if the transaction has been well propagated (if the transaction is valid, but contains low fees based on the current fee market, it may not propagate). This makes it very difficult for Bob to assess if he can safely accept Alice's transaction. If Bob discloses to Alice prior to the transaction that he will need to wait for 10 or 20 confirmations before accepting the transaction, Alice will probably not be interested in paying with bitcoin. |
|
|
|
There isn't any serious allegation that tether ever printed money out of thin air. The reason why tether had to pay the fine was that instead of keeping money it received from people buying tethers in a bank account, tether used the money it received from the sale of tethers to purchase things such as treasury bills and other safe bonds. When someone buys tethers from tether, they generally do not intend to simply hold tethers, it is more likely for them to have the intention of using those tethers to purchase bitcoin or other cryptos. So I would expect the price of bitcoin to go up when tether issues large amounts of tethers. This is not unlike how I would anticipate the price of bitcoin to go up when people deposit large amounts of cash into their coinbase accounts, except amounts being deposited into coinbase accounts are not public, while the sale of tethers is public. The other reason people hold tethers because that want stable price to avoid volatility in the crypto market. So a person will sell crypto for tethers for price stability especially before a bear market so its not just used for buying cryptos. I was referring to when someone buys tethers using actual dollars. These people are intending on buying either bitcoin or another cryptocurrency at the time they buy the tethers. Is tether holding safe government bonds or high risk junk bonds?
I don't think there is any evidence tether is holding any junk bonds. I understand they are holding some corporate paper, as is common for money market funds. |
|
|
|
They care about scoring political points and winning elections, that's all. You can say that about every politician, and every political party. No they[Republicans] aren't. They don't actually care about the debt ceiling or the deficit (which explains why the Republican presidents have racked up higher deficits and more debt over the past 40 years than Democratic presidents). There are obviously external circumstances that do not necessarily reflect if one party cares about the deficit more than the other party. A recession for example usually means it is appropriate to have temporarily increased deficits in order to attempt to overcome the recession and get the economy growing again. Similarly, the country being at war means that it must spend a lot more money on said war than it otherwise would. Reagan for example had to overcome the economic mess left by Carter and spent heavily to win the Cold War. HW Bush had to protect American interests in the Middle East. W Bush had the war on terror and the economic mess caused by 9/11. Trump had to deal with the economic mess left by Obama, and had to deal with Covid. Clinton saw budget surpluses due to the Republican congress, and because demographics meant social security saw huge surpluses. Obama gave money to politically favored groups and made attempts to get people to rely on government welfare. The uber rich will be insulated from any tax increase, as they have infinite number of loopholes available at their disposal. The uber rich are insulated from tax increases because of Trumps tax cuts, which overwhelmingly benefited the uber rich, and which will run until at least 2025. The uber-rich generally will not benefit from lower tax rates because they are able to delay realizing income, possibly forever. They can also more easily take advantage of tax loopholes that are more politically feasible to exist when there are higher tax breaks, and are politically easy to close when tax rates are lower. |
|
|
|
There isn't any serious allegation that tether ever printed money out of thin air. The reason why tether had to pay the fine was that instead of keeping money it received from people buying tethers in a bank account, tether used the money it received from the sale of tethers to purchase things such as treasury bills and other safe bonds. When someone buys tethers from tether, they generally do not intend to simply hold tethers, it is more likely for them to have the intention of using those tethers to purchase bitcoin or other cryptos. So I would expect the price of bitcoin to go up when tether issues large amounts of tethers. This is not unlike how I would anticipate the price of bitcoin to go up when people deposit large amounts of cash into their coinbase accounts, except amounts being deposited into coinbase accounts are not public, while the sale of tethers is public. |
|
|
|
I know this might sound like a conspiracy, but has anyone thought that the mining companies and the rig manufacturers are actively colluding to keep the difficulty as low as possible? Such a scenario might suit all parties if the status quo is maintained, cartels are nothing new!
Miners tend to sell their equipment in "sprints". For example, they might sell some number of batches of equipment in the span of a week, then go a month or two (or longer) without selling any gear. The price consumers are willing to pay for mining equipment is based on several factors, namely, the current difficulty, anticipated future difficulty growth, anticipated future price of electricity, and the anticipated future price of the coin the equipment will mine. All of these factors will be as of the day the equipment is purchased/paid for. If there is a situation in which some of the above factors are reflective of conditions that are more favorable to miners at the time the equipment is purchased, consumers might be willing to pay a higher price than they might otherwise be willing to pay. For example, if the difficulty is lower immediately prior to several batches going up for sale, consumers' profitability models might indicate the miner will produce more revenue due to lower difficulty and lower difficulty growth than what might actually is realistic. |
|
|
|
I would not worry too much about this. The impact of making a post in a thread is small. In Service Announcements, I've seen obvious scams almost reach the top of the list after a few people post in it (as a warning). As a test, I've bumped this topic on page 4. After my post, it was the 6th topic on the first page. I've removed my post again, it takes a bit longer to drop it down again. Update: 10 minutes later it's back on page 4. Well I don't think a thread temporarily being on the first page is going to hurt anything. If a service is an obvious scam, people warning about the service is going to make their potential victims have an easier time seeing the warnings. Similarly, if a service is not a scam per se, but is having problems, having a thread on the first page might alert potential customers of the problems if people are warning about the problems. |
|
|
|
If you are the last person to post in a thread, you need to either edit your previous post, or remove your previous post immediately after you create your new post.
If you are writing an "update", this is the same as a "bump" and the same rules apply. Should this really apply in all cases or it should be considered based on the situation. Signature threads require the managers to post payment updates weekly, and except there was a open spot, they are likely the most recent comment on the thread, merging such replies could get bulky and difficult to manage, as one would not know when any post was made besides the most recent edit. I will typically not report consecutive posts if they were written more than 5 days apart. However, the rule as written says that consecutive posts are not allowed. The rules are ultimately up to moderator discretion. You always have the option to create a new post instead of editing your previous post, and doing this means it will be more obvious content was added. I would not see it as a big deal if you post in a thread in the altcoin sub that results in its bump score increasing. If you are being critical of the project, anyone viewing the thread will see your criticism.
Bad publicity is still publicity. Also, most likely, the OP would be more viewed that the most recent comment several pages down. I would not worry too much about this. The impact of making a post in a thread is small. |
|
|
|
In the Altcoin section you have a situation like, an announcement and then reply to a user in a separate post in the same day, should I report it or it's just fine to be like this? Since the bumping score is calculated differently is the reply considered a "bump" there (if you don't have bumping power for example) and it doesn't bump the thread?
My understanding of the rules is that, assuming the posts are not being made at the time the thread was created, you cannot make a new reply if you were the last person to reply to a thread. If you are the last person to post in a thread, you need to either edit your previous post, or remove your previous post immediately after you create your new post. If you are writing an "update", this is the same as a "bump" and the same rules apply. Replays to genuine posts are fine. I keep seeing old style bumping services.
I suggest, if you see such project, inform the OP account first, because I've seen people fooled by those "advertising companies" to keep the project alive by breaking the rules and the owner has no idea about it.
These "bumping services" will be of little value to threads in most altcoin subs because merit is required in order to bump threads, which is not trivial to get. I would not see it as a big deal if you post in a thread in the altcoin sub that results in its bump score increasing. If you are being critical of the project, anyone viewing the thread will see your criticism. |
|
|
|
analysis can be done to ensure any coin being mixed is not stolen. That would mean 1 BTC ≠ 1 BTC! It means you could never accept a payment without doing an investigation, and the evidence of a possible theft (possibly far up the blockchain) could be weak. What if someone claims you stole the Bitcoin he paid you? I'd say that's a terrible slippery slope to enter. I specifically did not endorse the proposal I brought forth. Automated tools could be used to detect if a transaction is associated with a theft/hack, and could act accordingly. I do agree that there are issues if it is not clear cut if the coin being sent is actually stolen, or even if a hack/theft even took place. This is why it is better to let the courts decide, and judgements could be enforced when someone tries to convert their coin to fiat (not stablecoin). As I mentioned in my previous post, if you are moving 4k BTC through CM, for all intents and purposes, a competent professional blockchain analysis firm should be able to trace where the coin is withdrawn to. |
|
|
|
What would your proposed solution be? Try to answer this question with a succinct response.
The argument the OP seems to be making is something along the lines of that CM has profited from thieves using their services in the past, therefore those wearing the CM signature should resign their positions if they want to maintain credibility when discussing ethics. (This is not my personal stance, but rather is my reading of the OPs stance). I don’t think there is evidence that CM profited from the theft/hack in question by mixing the stolen coin. Given the amount involved, I think a competent blockchain analysis firm could reasonably track the stolen coin through CM. To answer your question as to what can be done, additional confirmations can be required and analysis can be done to ensure any coin being mixed is not stolen. Given 200-300 confirmations, could blockchain analysis detect stolen coin? Yes, probably. Is this a reasonable request? No I don’t think so, but this is up for debate. As I mentioned, with the amounts involved, blockchain analysis should be able to detect the outputs of the stolen coin in question. I think the benefits that mixers give, such as giving privacy for those dealing with moderate amounts, outweighs the drawbacks of mixers (the additional difficulty in tracking stolen and/or illegitimately obtained coin). |
|
|
|
This will surely add more fuel to the fire that vaccines don’t work, as Massachusetts also reported 45% of their covid related deaths last week were fully vaccinated.
The vaccination rate in MA is 68.9%. If 68.9% of the population is vaccinated, and the vaccines have no effect, then you'd expect 68.9% of people who died to be vaccinated. If only 45% of Covid deaths are vaccinated, then the vaccines work. Obviously a simplification, but the principle is sound... especially as in general the more elderly and vulnerable have a higher vaccination rate than the young and healthy. I don’t think people making the point that someone died from Covid who was vaccinated and therefore vaccines don’t work have a valid point, but I do think that OgN is correct that antivaxxers will make this point. Powell had cancer and was especially high risk. I think he may have been receiving treatment for cancer, which would put him in an especially high risk group. The data does show that Covid vaccines reduce the risk of negative outcomes when there are breakthrough cases. Unfortunately, public health officials and elected officials are especially bad at communicating the risks and benefits of getting vaxxed, arguably to the point they are unqualified for their positions. |
|
|
|
see below sudo code: for file in wallet_files:
pywallet.py --wallet=file --[any other options] Or you can import the relevant functions and/or create a class that inherets the relevant classes, and create a loop that reads each file you have. |
|
|
|
|
If you need to access coin before a nTimeLock has expired, you will be unable to access said coin without the corporation of the other party (specifically regarding a closing LN transaction).
If a court has jurisdiction over the other party, the court may (attempt to) compel the other party to corporate in closing a LN channel. Without access to the subject private keys, there is no guarantee this will actually happen. In other words, the court can threaten the other party with arrest, or other sanctions if the other party does not corporate, and can direct law enforcement to attempt to gain access to private keys by force, but a court order alone will not allow coin to be spent.
The twitter thread you are referring to appears to be in regards to coin held in a coinbase account. This is similar to someone trying to access money in their bank account.
|
|
|
|
Found this thread from another one but I think it's a good place to ask this question.
There were times when different "Satoshi Nakamoto" claimers were investigated and arrested, one happened in Germany, another one in Australia and the story goes on. Since it's obvious that satoshi created the forum, was posting here, gave access on forum to other members, etc, because of these reasons, was there ever an attempt of investigation on Theymos, Cyrus and other old and famous bitcointalk members?
Arrested? Please do elaborate.. Sadly, this is not what you think. According to what I could research, he is referring to Jorg Jolt being arrested in Germany for claiming to have a 250k btc wallet, and for starting an "investment" fund that would use 60% of the proceeds to purchase mining equipment. This was something that happened in 2019. It does not appear that CSW was arrested as part of this investigation. |
|
|
|
they simply shift from eth to btc to ltc/doge. using the excess gear.
Ok, your theory now is more solid than before after you have explained it a bit further, one missing point which I'd like to know. Are you suggesting: 1- They run the most profitable gear at any given time regardless of everything else. or 2- They try to suppress the difficulty regardless of point no.1? ...
It might not be unreasonable to expect a miner to move equipment to mine a more profitable altcoin with the same algorithm,
...
This doesn't happen for any reasonable amount of BTC hash rate, it's easy to see it is unreasonable  e.g. if only 2% of BTC hash rate moved to Bitchcoin, it would more than double the Bitchcoin high hash rate. Bitchcoin over the past month has been between 1EH and 2EH. Adding just 2% of BTC (2.8EH) to it would be quite noticeable. Over the past month, the switching would be less than 1% of BTC if that hash rate change, up and down from 1EH to 2EH, all came from BTC i.e. 1EH is 0.7% of current BTC I don’t think there is the opportunity for this to happen currently. This happened when bcash first forked from bitcoin due to limitations in how much difficulty adjusted. This is reflected in the fact that (to my knowledge) most miners mine bcash at a loss and is horribly centralized. Ultimately, any coin that has a small minority of the hashrate of a given algorithm will see its mining operations centralized by a few players. Supporters of bcash and BSV can make arguments regarding the technical specs of their respective coins, but I don’t think they can reasonably argue in favor of using the same mining algorithm as bitcoin. Sharing bitcoins mining algorithm will ultimately mean it’s mining is centralized, which will negate any (potential) superiority in technical specs the coin has over bitcoin. I happen to disagree that bcash and BSV has superior technical aspects over bitcoin, but I think some others disagree with me. |
|
|
|
|
Bitmains profitability per miner is the same regardless of if they sell 1 or 10,000 miners, provided the cost/machine is the same. Miners have a limited shelf life, so if they are sitting idle, they are losing potential revenue. If someone has more miners than they do electricity, they are going to want to quickly either obtain more electricity capacity, or move the machines to a location with sufficient reliable electricity.
It might not be unreasonable to expect a miner to move equipment to mine a more profitable altcoin with the same algorithm, but it would be very unlikely that a miner acting rationally would turn off a profitable, working miner.
|
|
|
|
|
My experience with Royse777 is that he does not speak very good English. This leads me to believe that his "primary" language is something other than English. Out of 7k posts, Royse777 made approximately 250 in Russian before he started posting in the English subs.
I don't know if MonsterV's conclusion that Royse777 was sold in mid-2017 is accurate or not. I do know that Royse777 has not done anything to hurt me personally, and I am not aware of Royse777 doing anything to hurt anyone else either.
|
|
|
|
Theoretically... if you have a (trusted) "friend" that has a full unpruned node, one can simply copy the blocks/chainstate and drop them into a new node installation and "voilà", you have your full node without having to download anything, you just have to trust your "friend".
Dont do this. You can just do a full reindex, right? If your own Bitcoin Core installation verifies all the blocks you copied from your friend, you don't need to trust him anymore. The issue is not with verifying the blockchain. The issue is you are using hardware that is potentially infected with malware. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
