Mods are for sale. Lauda and mprep did prove it.
You can't buy my cat. Bitcointalk's strategy is preventing bitcoin to grow and reach it's true potential.
Allowing signature spammers and account spammers to freely 'enjoy their work' does not contribute to the ecosystem. They are receiving an adequate monthly funding, yet only a few of them have nodes (as an example). And what is the swipe on Lauda and mprep?
The fact that they are part of signature campaigns?
Mprep is not even part of a signature campaign anymore, but is auctioning off his signature space.
This is not even really relevant to the original idea that was discussed. If they really have a problem, they would open a separate thread. |
|
|
|
can i ban a range of ip with setban or i have to manual ban one by one?
Yes, you can ban a whole range. For example (provided by Shorena): bitcoin-cli setban 51.xx.0.0/16 add
I specifically chose single bans and a 1 month time period in order to see whether more will show up from AWS IPs and whether they would be taken down by then. |
|
|
|
Any ideas on why anyone would do this? What could possibly be gained for these asshats? I don't get it.
It comes down to what they're trying to do with these nodes. They could be possibly testing some exploit or something (e.g. Bloom filter as listed in OP). I'm not really sure at the moment, and there isn't much information about it either. However, they don't seem to be causing much damage (besides crashing a few nodes) so there's nothing to worry about. I'm still waiting for Amazon to contact me back. |
|
|
|
So I guess this is why my node has been crashing... I haven't been monitoring it, so I haven't bothered to check what's happening, but I assume it was this since it was working flawlessly for quite some time. I'm rebuilding the blockchain now, crashes made it go corrupt.
You shouldn't really 'not-monitor' your node completely. You should at least check it occasionally, or add e-mail notifications for downtime (in case that you haven't). As far as your node crashes are concerned, the 'attack' doesn't necessarily have to be be the cause of that. It comes down to the hardware and OS that you're running in addition to the configuration and internet speed. My node was 'fine' while only being 'sluggish' sometimes and failing to authenticate via the software that I use.
I'll be banning these IP's and I'll see if things get better.
The list that I've made with the 'setban' seems to be efficient. I've updated the picture a few minutes ago. |
|
|
|
Lauda, I'm not saying that Segwit won't have its advantages.
Correction: It has its advantages. But it needs to be deployed alongside an increase in the hardcap limit on the blocksize. Multiple solutions are better than one.
The block size limit increase is not a solution/improvement, it is a workaround. Besides, that's just a difference in opinion. You think that, while other people think otherwise? Also, I'm sorry that you've dismissed what's currently happening as "hyperbolic nonsense," which is an extremely foolish position to take. Just look at the rise of ethereum. It would not have been possible without bitcoin's lack of leadership and the unwillingness to implement sensible scaling solutions.
So you people really think that ETH is rising because of BTC not being able to process more TX's? |
|
|
|
Some kind of fuss between dogie and him.
That does not matter in the eyes of the staff. Whoever breaks the rules should be punished accordingly.
I've already reported some of them and requested a ban. |
|
|
|
Nope. That is not the proof of anything. Just because the administration allows a place for ponzi threads to be opened/moved to, that does not mean that the administration supports a single ponzi within that section. I'm pretty sure that scams aren't moderated.
Exactly. |
|
|
|
It's just a re-arrangement of information in the blocks, an accounting trick that is overly-complicated just to get a slight boost in transaction capacity. 2mb would be far more effective, simple and efficient. And that's what bitcoin needs right now - simple efficiency, not overly complicated solutions that require every single wallet's code to be completely rewritten just for one change to work.
Anyone who calls something as beneficial as Segwit a 'overly-complicated accounting trick' or 'accounting trick' in general can't be taken serious. Almost every single developer in the ecosystem appreciates/approves the development. The main idea behind Segwit is not capacity either. 2mb would be practically harmless.
Until someone sends a block that takes too long to validate. There is no real immediate downside from such a small increase..
There is, and it is called a hard fork. dissuading new bitcoin companies from opening up their doors because BTC can't scale, and pricing hundreds of users off the network, or causing their transactions to take 2-3 days in some cases, not to mention contributing to the rise of altcoins.
Just hyperbolic nonsense. All those altcoins suffer from the same problems (unless they're centralized or weakened by other means). lack of scaling to 2MB now mean bitcoin price is plunging
Hovering between $440 and $450 == plunging? Sound logic indeed.  |
|
|
|
Due to certain reasons, I had to ban them within the software. In order to ban them for 1 month, the following commands are needed: setban 51.17.174.61 add 2592000
setban 52.30.29.120 add 2592000
setban 52.30.204.116 add 2592000
setban 52.51.32.197 add 2592000
setban 52.51.136.220 add 2592000
setban 52.51.170.201 add 2592000
setban 52.51.170.223 add 2592000
setban 52.51.180.197 add 2592000
setban 52.51.186.21 add 2592000
setban 52.51.204.39 add 2592000
setban 52.51.204.55 add 2592000
setban 52.51.204.57 add 2592000
setban 52.51.204.60 add 2592000
setban 52.51.204.88 add 2592000
setban 52.51.204.93 add 2592000
Another one appeared after: setban 52.17.174.61 add 2592000
If you guys see more, please let me know. This is how it looks like after the ban (updated):  |
|
|
|
do you know of any other bitcoin forum/resource with such significant influence like bitcointalk allowing promotion of ponzi sites?
What exactly would be the argument here? BTCT is supporting X because BTCT allows it and has 'significant influence' while others don't? No, I'm not familiar with similar forums because they're mostly filled with conspiracy rubbish (e.g. HF fanatics). As far as Bitcoin forums go, BTCT is the most popular one, yes. |
|
|
|
What's wrong with that statement? Do you have a proof that Bitcointalk doesn't support the illegal ponzi schemes? [ironic smile]
Why would I have to provide proof of 'non-existing' support when you haven't provided proof of 'existing' support. Tolerating those 'games' is one thing, participating and supporting them is another. |
|
|
|
ok i don't accept the red trust from cryptodevil and i can do nothing about it, i don't like your attitude Lauda and can't do anything about it neither, instead of directly saying to me the facts and my possibilities you acted in other way posting unrelated off-topic non-sense and accusing me of other actions. But ok let's move on.
Incorrect. I provided (or at least tried) to provide you with the correct information the whole time. Usually in trust-related cases (DT2) the options are: 1) Contact the person who left you the rating. 2) Contact the person from DT1 who has them in their list. 3) Try to get other DT1 members to exclude them. About point 2: That would be dooglus; I've told you this already
Do you have any other requests/questions? Has this thread served its purpose or is it going to be continued with the "BTCT supporting ponzi's" stuff? you should sue money because it helps people get drugs  |
|
|
|
yes i started this topic asking for removal the cryptodevil from DT, but you said is not possible, ok i see the dead end. So i go further to get some explanation why i should accept that trust while the ponzis are allowed here based on current situation.
I never said that it was impossible. What I did say is that there is no sign of clear/extensive abuse which would require the intervention of the administration. Just because you don't agree with someones ratings that does not mean that they're abusing something. ok, but also bitcointalk donesn't moderate ponzi threads, which indirectly supports it
Example: Facebook also supports every single evil entity that shares anything that could be considered 'immoral'? Doubtful at best. well, what i wanted is simple justice. If ponzis are allowed why would i get red trust for it, in those sites are not allowed then ok my red trust is earned.
Again, you seem to fail to realize even how this forum works. You don't usually get negative rating for breaking the forum rules, you get punished (e.g. banned). You got negative ratings for things that are 'frowned upon' by the community, e.g. support ponzi's, scam and such. I hoped that the staff could remove it as i wasn't doing anything against forum rules.
Do I have to draw this out for you? Staff does not moderate trust ratings. |
|
|
|
I've still received no response from Amazon. I haven't had the time to block them just yet on my own node. I will do so later, check whether more will come up. Mainly because I cant take care of this every day or think about a more smooth solution.
-snip-
Is the list that you've provided from your own node? |
|
|
|
please explain in which part i appeal to emotion and which demands of me are irrational other then the moderation of default trust which i understand now that it's not common here.
The whole thread is based on you not being able to participate in signature campaigns. Apart from that, you have made no clear and valid arguments (which is why it is irrational). You're asking for: 1) Removal of the section. 2) Moderation of DT. Both of which are extensive changes. @Lauda you accused me of being signature spammer out of nowhere, while you yourself have the jetwin signature which makes you hypocryte and prejudging person, plus it was totally off-topic and any solution to my request.
Is the thread about cryptodevil, "BTCT supporting ponzi's" or Lauda? Pick one; you can't have it all at once. Based on your 'logic' i'm saying that bitcointalk supports and spreads the illegal ponzi schemes allowing them to go to wide masses.
No, BTCT does not support everything that is present on it nor can it be held responsible for the actions of the users. where does it come from, your statement that "Ponzi sites aren't allowed in this forum" ? Please lead me to such rule, where is it written?
He doesn't know what he's talking about. There is no rule against ponzi's as far as the forum's rules are concerned. When it comes to trust ratings, the the story seems to be different.
Again, you need to focus on what you really want to do here. If you want to get the ponzi section removed and ponzi's banned, then focus on building up the proper argumentation for your request. |
|
|
|
I didnt spammed anyone can see that,i cant have more then one account ,others can,there are people with 5-10 accounts into signatures spamming and you dont do nothing.
Shifting the blame to other people and trying to dodge a bullet when you have obviously broken the rules is not going to help you. The fact that you aren't willing to accept and learn from your mistakes, but rather want to complain about 'unfairness', tells us more than we need to know. Read: and continued posting the exact same way
THIS IS PERSONAL
It isn't. Before anyone reply here im not crying,this isnt fair but its life.
It is fair. |
|
|
|
|
This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Trolling.
|
|
|
|
Some say the moderators on this forum go too far. I disagree. I say they don't go too far enough.
I concur. ...the other mods to close the shitty spammy topics was a great move but btctalk still needs few active mods in:
-snip-
BTCT does not need additional mods. What BTCT needs is a better distribution of moderator workload, and a stricter policy in general. Some moderators are just softer than others so it comes down who handles the cases. P.S. I think theymos should be more active on the forum as i have said in the past.
Seems like he is 'too busy' to be more active on here. |
|
|
|
It was given by some silly guy acting here like police and abusing the trust system.
He gave me red trust for one post in investor-based thread. I did not scam anyone!
He hasn't abused anything and red trust is not necessarily given out for only scamming. For example hackforums has it's own rules and i don't think people get red trust for promoting ponzi sites there  see the difference?I couldn't care less about the rules of that forum. The trust ratings here are not moderated and you should have known this by now. So firstly i would like to know the official statement from the forum administrator that ponzi websites are not allowed here, then i wouldn't say anything more on this topic.
I also want the forum administration to donate $1 Million to my BTC Address.
Comedy aside, you're appealing to emotion, and making irrational demands to complex problems. Making such a change is not as easy as it might seem in your world. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
