|
I had posted in what was most likely the same thread as the one that you had your post deleted in (the one about the bicycle driver named carrie with the youtube video). My post was not deleted.
I would say that what you quoted as saying was probably not spam however it did add very little to the conversation and would have probably been more appropriate to delete had you been wearing a paid signature.
|
|
|
|
|
How does she know that her customers actually paid her? Without something that is connected to the network she has zero way of knowing with any kind of certainty that she actually will get paid.
Although the tip feature/QR code on her bike does make sense for when she would receive payments that she doesn't need to know for sure will eventually get confirmed (and as a result few/no people will attempt to fake and ten double spend a tx to that address), she still needs to know that she will be paid when her customers actually pay their fairs
|
|
|
|
I can pay for your facebook account .03btc ?
and all your other accounts togethe .03btc ?
so, totally .06btc= for your life?
if you think my collateral is too small, sell your accounts to me in that price.
People tend to sell these kinds of accounts for less then these amounts in the digital goods section all the time. I do not have any interest in selling any of my accounts to a scammer, nor to anyone else at all. The issue is that it is very difficult to determine if an account is associated with a fake identity or not and as a result it is assumed that it is. |
|
|
|
the main reason is, because I tried in the beginning with a big loan/share offers but I get negative trust from this and that`s why I need to collect my trust with small loans.
Not because of the need of the small amounts, but I think everybody knows the reason I need a big loan.
IMO, you clearly want a big loan because you want to run away with the proceeds from the loan. You are not offering anything of any value as collateral. It should be clear to anyone viewing that you have zero intention of paying whoever (if anyone) you get this loan from. |
|
|
|
negative trust from Quickseller: Asking for 10 btc loan with dubious collateral = my collateral is pretty much personal. could you give all that?
negative trust from Vod: After losing 42BTC, Newbie is asking for 60BTC loan without collateral = was not a loan, trying to sell shares to my project.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Give me negative trust if I do something wrong not because you just feel that.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
User Date Risked BTC amount Reference Comments
Quickseller 4: -0 / +15(15) 2015-03-14 0.00000000 Reference Asking for 10 btc loan with dubious collateral.
Vod 42: -1 / +21(21) 2014-12-31 0.00000000 Reference After losing 42BTC, Newbie is asking for 60BTC loan without collateral.
Untrusted feedback
These ratings are from people who are not in your trust network. They may be totally inaccurate.
Show ratings.
Sent feedback
User Date Risked BTC amount Reference Comments
Vod 42: -1 / +21(21) 2015-01-06 0.00000000 YES, I lost money in Pbmining and I still believe that they will someway do right things.
And I was not asking loan only selling shares of 25pieces
Maybe I`m the first "scammer" with own 42btc and sadly lost these but life goes on.
Stop giving negative trust and you might ask people first and do little searching before judging people here.
I can understand both your poinf of view and theirs. I cannot understand the OP's point of view. I would say that there are various thread in the digital goods section for each of what the OP is offering as collateral for less then .01 for each account. PayPal is obviously very reversible and under no circumstances should be accepted. The OP is offering maybe .03 BTC worth of collateral but is asking for a 10 BTC loan. Can you not see the disconnect between the value of what he is offering as collateral and how much he wants as a loan? |
|
|
|
Transaction ID: cf5d54c3de3ebd340ad64f1a1a294c202ad47bbeabc23df1c4d9ab21c77be156 Payment has been confirmed, collateral is returned. Although this person did repay their loan, it very much should be noted that they did use collateral that was much more then the amount of the loan they took out and that they did not pay any interest (so taking out the loan did not cost them anything). I would say that it is still very much not a good idea to lend money to this person without collateral. |
|
|
|
Sorry, but it seems very hard to do any business here without reputation I don`t ask loan here only with btcjam.
Then why did you post here?  it was a link to btcjam Right. You are hoping people FROM HERE will invest in your btcjam loan. So stop lying. The problem with you is you think we're idiots over here. We're smarter than you think. If I post here that I need loan, you say that go btcjam? I`m neither stupid. what you have against me? I have never scammed no one or talked bad things, so please stop to be so negative against me Vod. Did I say that someone is stupid, if I said please tell me when I did that. The concern is that you are clearly trying to build up your reputation in order to eventually get a larger loan that you can potentially scam with. I am not 100% sure why the BTCjam community does not frown on reputation loans, however the bitcointalk very much does not like reputation loans because purchased/false trust means that it is much more difficult to actually see who is more trustworthy |
|
|
|
Can you clarify the ending time of the auction? Your header says that it ends at 3PM noon on the 16th of march.
Anyway I bid 1.02
Another copy paste fail. Ends 3pm HST. So that is 5PM on Monday Pacific time, correct? I will be sure to get off work early to out bid whoever else is the high bidder that day |
|
|
|
It is Bitcoin talk not altcoin talk... I think new forum should drop the alt section all together.
Altcoins got the idea from bitcoins, and there's so many of them, so I think we should keep that section. Though we could exclude that section from general viewing, maybe creating a sub domain such as altcoin.bitcointalk.org? i think altcoins are important for bitcoin. from a technical standpoint of creating new code derived from bitcoin to economics as in providing financial plattforms, which bitcoin doesnt. also i am convinced that bitcoin doesn't need to hide from competition, a reserve currency has no competition  so a no no from me @OP I also agree to adding an asset subforum, because marketplace is just to general and i doubt assets would get the attention it deserve. Bitcoin wouldn't hide from it at all. They simply do not belong here is my point. Would you go to a Ford forum and expect a Toyota section? The alt section is mainly garbage coins being pumped and dumped. The alt section brings no benefit to Bitcoins. If they make a new coin then register crapcointalk etc.. One thing that I find interesting is that I have lurked in both the litecoin talk and the NXT forums and in a number of places I have seen both references to bitcointalk and offers to use escrow by bitcointalk members for various trades. I think this shows just how much influence this forum has, and why the devs of the shitcoins choose to use bitcointalk instead of some other forum to push their coins |
|
|
|
|
Can you clarify the ending time of the auction? Your header says that it ends at 3PM noon on the 16th of march.
Anyway I bid 1.02
|
|
|
|
It is Bitcoin talk not altcoin talk... I think new forum should drop the alt section all together.
Yup +1 on this. I would personally like to see the altcoin section gone alltogether. Although I sadly doubt that this will happen considering how many posts (and as a result page views) the various altcoin sections/threads generate. There are actually a few altcoin threads that are in the top threads based on number of replies |
|
|
|
|
I have no idea as to the accuracy to the above answers, however I have seen multiple times two blocks being found almost one right after the other, sometimes by the same pool.
Also it is very difficult to answer this question because the time stamp on the node that broadcast the block initially could be off by up to two hours. As a result I would say the shortest block interval would be only seconds.
I do not know about the longest block interval, but I do know that it exceeds several hours
|
|
|
|
A survey? If survey results said my FaceBook password (god) was safe, would it be?
Well since your FB password is a word spelled backwards (dog), it must be safe no matter what. I don' think the point is so much how safe bitcoin actually is to use, it is more how safe it is perceived to be by the public, which is an indication of potential future use |
|
|
|
|
I guess - 2.26% to -2.50% (if it is not too late)
It is possible that whoever is DDoS'ing the various pools is doing so at more then one pool at a time and as a result both the primary and the backup are affected. Also just because there is the option to set more then one backup does not mean that the owner of a miner will set more then one backup (or set one at all as we say the other week when ghash was DDoS'ed).
I think if these kinds of attacks last long enough it will move mining even further away from pool mining into more centralized corporate farm mining. When a pool is successfully DDoS'ed they effectively shut down and stop working. However a corporate mining farm can do something as simple as switch to a backup internet connection if their node starts getting DDoS'ed
|
|
|
|
Make a ring engraved with a private key forged in the fires of Mount Doom in Mordor
The Key only becomes visible when the ring is heated in fire
I think Charlie Shrem did this already...... How about storing them in plane sight??? Make a bunch of new addresses in a wallet each with 1 satoshi. Then pay all those satoshis back to one of your primary well-known wallet address that you can recognize. Use the 2nd number/letter of each address as the passphrase for a brain wallet which then give you a private key/public key. HIDDEN IN PLAIN SITE and won't go away unless bitcoin is dead. --Now that this method is said it is not safe (and not really random either), DO NOT ACTUALLY DO THIS!!! lolYou could possibly do some variation of this. Instead of the second number, you could use the last digit or the second to last digit. You obviously would not use 1 satoshi inputs, but instead use inputs starting at .01 BTC and increasing up to 1.12 BTC in .01 BTC increments, and having the digit that you use for the .01 input as the first number/letter of your passphrase, the .02 input the second digit and so on until the 1.12 digit is the last digit of your passphrase. You could first create transactions to an intermediary address (or several so you would need to go back a few 'hops' to get back to your passphraise inputs), then create the brainwallet and fund the brainwallet. |
|
|
|
you can't double spend in an open environment ... you can double-spend with a isolated bitcoin core server and local network ... and a wallet with "trusted IP" pointed on this server (to accept 0-confirmation transaction). in real world, you can't have this ... even if you want. This is not true.....well unless it is assumed that the attacker does not control any mining hardware and only executes his attack with nodes. If an attacker were to broadcast a particular transaction that is accepted by the nodes and then confirms a valid block that double spends at least one of the inputs from the transaction then the original transaction will no longer be valid and will fall out of the node's memory pool. Another alternative to confirming the double spend themselves would be to pay a pool to confirm a specific tx that happens to double spend at least one input from the unconfirmed transaction in question, I know there at least used to be at least one pool that offered this "service" |
|
|
|
I don't get why a company will do something like this. Any centralized solution is faster and the reason to go to BTC technology is the ability to keep it decentralized. If they are running it anyway there is no point to it.
They are trying to implement bitcoin technology for something they can hopefully profit off of. The concept of using a blockchain where the units are backed by hard assets is deeply flawed because it relies on a central authority to exchange the units for the asset on demand which goes against the concept of having a decentralized blockchain. It would also make it difficult to give enough incentives for the miners to mine early on because it would be irrational to offer any kind of block subsidies as it would be essentially giving away money |
|
|
|
|
I voted 'blockchain' with a lower case 'b'
In response to the OP's concerns about satoshi calling it the 'block chain' - a lot of bitcoin's terminology has changed somewhat over the years. I am not sure what caused these changes, probably just the way the people on the forums in general write. Even theymos used to write Bitcoin as "BitCoin" on one of his first posts
|
|
|
|
Is this where a 51% attack could make this plausible? 1 person broadcasting a block to the network would immediately be rejected but if 5100/10000(for example) broadcast the same fabricated block, this could fool the system, correct?
a 51% attack is actually when 51% of the mining hashrate/hashpower somehow attacks the network, the most common fear would be to execute a double spend attack. All that would happen if someone did what the OP proposed is would create a premined altcoin. |
|
|
|
Mining is almost never profitable. Exceptions (and large mining centers) occur in rare circumstances:
Well from what I have seen is that some people will buy an ASIC miner, run it for some period of time and then resell it. If they time everything correctly then the sum of the mining revenue and the amount they receive when they will it will be greater then the sum of the price they paid plus their cost of electricity Also? Lots of miners who were exploiting ASIC advantages early on liked to overclock their machines. Overclocking increases power requirements per hash. Overclocked machines are now all losing money in a market where they have to compete with identical machines that aren't overclocked.
The owner of the OC'ed miners could simply return the speed back to stock, or even underclock the miners |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
