No, it won't. Stop trolling.

Not necessarily. Generally (summarized), 256 bit for a standard computer is 'treated' as 128 bit for a quantum computer. However, keep in mind that while they are more faster in doing some calculations, they are much slower at doing others. The only potential vulnerability (so far) may be ECSDA. Bitcoin can fork and move away to quantum resistant algorithms. I'm not sure how exactly it may influence key generation, albeit I'd say doing so with a GPU would still be faster.

That's a weak way of generating random addresses. I will leave this picture here and it should hopefully explain why this attack isn't feasible:

---

People are generally bad with probabilities. It is more probable that an asteroid will wipe out humanity, than someone generating a collision in the future. I was going to provide some sort of numbers but it seems that DannyHamilton is on it.

Where are all the bidders? This isn't fun at all!

Interesting concept, but no. You need to think about this more deeply.

I disagree.

It isn't secure. I generally only use it on phones that don't have any sensitive data nor amount of money on them. People leave their fingerprints pretty much everywhere, one would just need to keep watch of where you're going for a few days and would surely be able to reconstruct your fingerprint from some public place (e.g. transport, coffee shop). Additionally, the law enforcement can unlock your device (or gain access to your money in this case) when we are talking about a fingerprint. When we are talking about passwords, they can't force you to give it to them. Depending on the complexity, they may not be able to do anything about it.

Adequate replicas are easy to make. You should do a bit research regarding the sensors used by smartphones these days. Generally, I think a iris scanner would be a better option.

Not necessarily. An example would be Blazed, IIRC they are also against campaigns but they did participate in some. IMO it is better for them to take a chunk out of the budget, than a few spammers.

You're looking at the wrong moderator. As a patroller, I can only moderate newbies and the sections for which I'm assigned as a moderator (Croatian & Speculation).

My point is, we can't really know if we don't try anything. Every solution is going to have cons and people complaining. Does that mean that we shouldn't try anything? I'm not generally supportive of this particular idea though. The quality has degraded severely during 2016 - keep in mind that the severity of this differentiates depending on the section. As an example, I'll take Bitcoin Discussion. It is extremely difficult to find content that is worth reading and replying to these days.

You're still speculating.

False analogy.

A value adjustment can be expected in this case. However, the situation becomes different to what we encounter now. Currently, the spammers are often able to start getting paid since the begging and one is incentivized to do this very early on. They would get nothing in most cases while they rank up (which takes time)

True. However, the OP could try and keep it clean.

It truly isn't. It comes down whether one has changed their posting habits after joining one.

I'm not sure why you think that matters to the forum? You do make a point with the Hebrew section though. Regardless, if you take a look at:

You will see that there is not enough demand that would justify another section. Usually, a section gets created only after there's enough demand.

---

PSA: Nobody should back up any data because it's bullshit. That's the right (ignorant) mindset. I wonder who you are going to blame once something goes wrong, your OS or Bitcoin?

Time to speed it up a bit:
0.75 BTC

---

Update: Lowered bid as agreed. Hopefully this encourages more bidders.

I may be wrong on whether and how effective this may be. However, I'm not wrong when it comes to bots. It would be very easy to code-up a bot that only posts the same message every 24 hours (e.g.) in a singular thread (or multiple ones). We have all kind of bots on the forums that are more complex than this.

I'm talking about consensus within the staff-members. Just because you say "this is the correct way to do it" that does not make it so. This was discussed several times before, and I'm pretty sure that theymos does not want to remove signatures.

---

Making it harder for them is the direction in which we should be heading. However, even without signatures it wouldn't be bad to prune that sub-forum or exclude it from counting.

I wouldn't mind pruning nor that.

I've heard this argument so many times, and I generally disagree with it. Should we not do anything in any section because the spam may move towards another section? The only section that can be used for post-padding without getting banned for spam are these giveaway threads. If we make it much harder to do so or render it useless, you can't expect those very same farmers to continue doing that just as easily. I also suspect that some of them are using bots to post in specific intervals (depending on the giveaway type). In other words, it would take a lot more effort to create an equal amount of posts (being created in these threads) in another section.

No. Punishing everyone because some people are abusing something is generally not the right way to proceed. From what I gather, the consensus is more oriented towards finding solutions and not removing the feature altogether.

You can't know that. You're just speculating about potential cons. Every single solution to this problem is going to have cons and there are going to be people complaining because they're losing their opportunity to spam and earn money by breaking the rules. I'd rather we try-out some solutions that seem good enough, than infinitely discuss how to tackle this problem.

I think a general thread used to report spammers (& copy-paste spammers) wouldn't be a bad idea. We've had a lot of these threads occasionally pop-up (sometimes singular and sometimes bulk reports). Since this is already happening, it wouldn't be bad to streamline it into a singular one. I'll talk to theymos.

This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Ref. spam.

This is correct. It seems many fail to realize this. However, theymos has not voiced their opinion regarding this.

I can see people complaining about that, however I think that giveaways should be meant for the people who are already on the forum. I would definitely agree to either:
a) Having a minimum rank for giveaways.
b) Pruning the threads every X days (dependent on the frequency of the giveaways).

---

If anything, this would render post-padding like that useless.

Confirmed. Thank you for participating. There are only 3 spots left now!

It was a fun challenge, you did beat me once (3:1).

Done and no.

---

Thread has been updated.

4 tickets to go!

I think the question was whether there would be more multisig. coin pairs, not specifically yin-yang coins.

This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Insubstantial duplicate. Please take a look around this sub-forum and use the Search function.

So let me get this straight, you have currency X and instead of using currency X you convert it to currency Y and then use Y? Nicely done.

Bullshit and spam.

This isn't price-talk/economics and other currencies have been more volatile from time to time.

Again, there is no trust. Bitcoin is based on math, there is no need to trust anything as one can independently verify the way it works.

This doesn't even make sense.

This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Illegal.