He was on there (roundtable) , see link above posted by Amph . Adam Back
President
Blockstream
I'm very aware of that. But still, he's not part of Core dev team, and apparently he was attending as 'individual'*, even if he was authorised to act on behalf of Blockstream, does that mean that Blockstream officially has influence over the Core devs? * 'President Blockstream' at first, later changed to 'individual' later changed back to 'President Blockstream' As far as I read many core devs invested in blockstream. So influence might be not the right word. Conflict of interest maybe. Even though core devs are free individuals, we depend on them. If they would work on the bitcoin protocol in favour of their own project then it's in their best interest. Of course I could be wrong with that. It's pretty hard to proof informations and you would have to investigate which costs alot of time mostly. And I'm tired of doing that a bit. |
|
|
|
|
Is there no link anymore to see the results without voting?
I think it would have to be decided then. But preparations could be done anyway just in case of emergency.
Personally I would want to wait for segwit since there is a broad acceptance for it and I learned it is a good thing. Though I'm unsure how far and how fast SegWit can change the problems.
Surely, when bitcoin became unuseable at that time then a hard fork with winning is inevitable because users would be so pissed that a change would be enforced.
|
|
|
|
|
moyenage
Why didn't you use an escrow? Even though there are all risks for the buyer of you taking back the account or having it loaded with carded amounts, if the buyer would be fine with the risks explained you could have find an escrow.
And surely there would have been no way that you would not have gotten your bitcoins since you would have send him the details only after he sent the bitcoins to the escrow.
|
|
|
|
ausbitwhy the only my account from the list was tagged when its ownership was changed already and any blind person can see that from security log Security log doesn't prove who changed the password. The whole, I bought this account and etc has been used before. Not saying this is what you did, instead trying to show you why account buying can be risking. A user with common sense can get idea from security log that account ownership is changed An idea, yes, but no proof. Otherwise we would have ALOT of accounts with neg or neutral trust saying that it is a sold account. Sometimes scammers try to claim they bought the account only to make it ready for a better account sale. I did not check the evidences but blockchain proofs are pretty good normally. Might be you bought the wrong account and it was, unfortunately, unavoidable since it probably was impossible to find that before.
QuicksellerI will take a look at everything later and will give my opinion if ownership transferred prior to the negative rating being issued later today.
I believe that I checked for this when I placed my rating on the account, however I will check again.
I have removed my negative rating against ausbit, and recommend that others do the same. Looking at the archives of the security log, it does look like transfer of ownership potentially happened after the date that the address that connected the account to PoeEDgar et al. Although it is impossible to prove that ownership of the account did not take place, the burden of proof is on the person who left the rating to prove the account did not change hands between the time the address was posted that connected the account to the scammer and when the rating was left, and I am currently unable to prove that ownership did not change in this period. It appears as though I may have made a mistake when I left my negative rating for this person, and I apologize for this. I am however, still investigating and it is possible that additional negative ratings may follow regarding this situation. Interesting to see you getting more cautious.  Well, you are right, it is up to the one that gave the red trust. At the end the seclog might show that the previous owner changed the password twice to let it look like the account was sold. In such cases a private message could not really help too since it would be no problem to fake a sale with a newbie account too.
|
|
|
|
Avalon existiert noch? :O Das überrascht mich jetzt. Aber interessant zu hören. Ich vermute mal dass es heutzutage ziemlich schwierig wird Interessenten zu finden, einfach weil mittlerweile praktisch jeder weiß wie schwer es ist überhaupt das Investment erstmal wieder rein zu kriegen. Ich wünsche dir trotzdem viel Erfolg!
flikflakWas meinst du mit "Ein S7 wird 200b Profit ab"? Klingt irgendwie nicht real für mich. Ich denke der Strompreis ist ziemlich gut. In den USA geht es zwar besser aber ob es Sinn macht Miner erst in die USA zu schicken, mit all den Risiken wegen Zoll usw... |
|
|
|
When I get a notification of something like that I mark them red. I believe I'm back on default trust now. Or am I not? I understood it that way.
You're DT2 courtesy of Blazed. Leaving negative feedbacks according to those tries is the right thing, but those only can happen afterwards, we also need to think about what we can do to prevent fake escrow scam attempts from happening inbefore. Well, staff implemented a good thing with "Warning, this user is a newbie" on top of pm's coming from newbies. It became a bit harder to fake now. Especially because they would need to make posts with it and there is the chance they get noticed with their strange username. I'm not sure what else could be done. |
|
|
|
Lutpin I paid the highest fee I've ever paid to get a transaction through. This was almost 12 hours ago. It's sitting there pending, along with the minimum fee and recommended fee transactions I've done since two days ago.
Did you maybe include spare coins that were left in an adress you sent before? I have read that this will be a problem because the spare coins are not confirmed because the first transaction is not confirmed. So another transaction basing on that will only get confirmations when the first transaction gets one. We'd have to see the transaction in order to say anything about that, maybe it's an unconfirmed input, maybe the transaction size is just quite high, there are alot of options which could prevent a transaction from being included in a block despite paying a "highest fee [you've] ever paid". Yes. In fact I once was really surprised to find out how big of a fee electrum can calculate only because you have alot of inputs in the sending address.
Intermediary The more transactions you received in the bitcoin address you sent from the higher your fee would be. It's best to let your wallet calculate it for you.
|
|
|
|
Verifying your identity is possible with a signed message from a very old address of yours. I do that. I think it might be that more users know how to verify a message instead a pgp key. But at the end, if the escrow sends a link to a checking site, it does not matter. It's easy to check anyway. |
|
|
|
I think this is just some misunderstanding on how to do it and and accounts that is not confirmed?? And maybe they are not aware of some rules??
I don't understand you I think. But when you mean that the attackers don't know the rules then surely not. The spam ended now, it seems, but they paid tenth of k USD each day it ran. Surely no error. |
|
|
|
so the best option just use automatic fees setting features ,it will give you proper fees ,and maybe it's neither too high nor too low so you don't need something to be worried about
but there are no any online wallet having this feature, even largest blockchain.info don't have this or aren't accurate on calculating enough fee and the one who is sending can't figure out what will be his size of transaction to include enough fee. Well, electrum has at least a "calculate fee by kb" or so setting. It then calculates the size of the transaction and creates a fee in the height you specified. It doesn't take into account spams though. But with a setting of 0.0005 BTC/kB I have no problems getting transactions included instantly. And electrum is a widely used wallet. But youre right about blockchain.info.. |
|
|
|
And of course never ever send coins to a quoted address. Only to the real address mentioned in the pm from the escrow.
Its easier in OgNasty's case, as he uses only one address as the escrow address: 168WXhArv7Fasqvi2xm5MQMfLhG18jifMe . Do not send to any other address, unless OgNasty himself can confirm in his thread(do see if its still bitcointalk you're on) publicly. Also, if it gains enough support from the community, theymos can probably insert an admin note saying so(Example: Send only to x address) Edit: If you notice an impersonator, PM either me , shorena , Lutpin or EcuaMobi or better yet a group PM. Didn't know that but it still would not help when a user first is using OgNasty. Or when he does not know about that fact. He still could fall for a quoted address the seller claims coming from escrow. I had alot of these scam attempts. Luckily no buyer fell for such scam yet. Though I think OgNasty might overthink that. It might give a bit insurance, though that can be given through other ways too. But it is not really great for anonymity of his users. And I believe it might be a nightmare to keep track of everything you hold in escrow if you don't have different addresses for each case. When I get a notification of something like that I mark them red. I believe I'm back on default trust now. Or am I not? I understood it that way. |
|
|
|
Well this problem was about to happen and i honestly don't understand why it's still a problem. How hard can it be to find a consensus in this story?
Wasn't the bitcoin community united?
Isn't bitcoin build cutting edge technology where we can vote to force a consensus?
The community was united until now... unfortunately. It all ended when the 1mb blocksize limit was met. Something that was only implemented as a temporary spam prevention measure. Now it is held up as a basic rule of the protocol, like 21 million cap or 10 minutes blocks. Voting at the moment could only work with a hard fork because community is so divided. And that sounds like it would be a nasty battle. I really don't like thinking about it. |
|
|
|
I paid the highest fee I've ever paid to get a transaction through. This was almost 12 hours ago. It's sitting there pending, along with the minimum fee and recommended fee transactions I've done since two days ago. hey all come on...lets discuss someone attacked on bitcoin block by making lot of transaction with lowest transaction fee.
Hardly an attack. Pay a higher fee than those unconfirmed low-fee transactions and you're fine. Did you maybe include spare coins that were left in an adress you sent before? I have read that this will be a problem because the spare coins are not confirmed because the first transaction is not confirmed. So another transaction basing on that will only get confirmations when the first transaction gets one. Though Iam not fully sure if I understood correctly. |
|
|
|
mexxer-2 Well, I wonder if it is more widely known by others since it looks a bit strange when a trader might get told to use an escrow named mexxer-2 and when he wants to he sees he might be a criminal mastermind.  Meh, I've got many escrow requests even with the avatar. F*ck those who don't get the reference  I heard of it. Well, I'm not sure how widely known it is. But even if not, the effect might be zero. Probably only established members know the fear of such names.
bitcrystal yes you have right but what is if a guy here have buyed his good ratings?
yes right but if you have to work with people that give you a bad review because they can not appreciate your help what you do then? Then you will be punished for your good nature and others then think poorly of you you do wrong because you're innocent or it actually mean only good.
yes you have right but if you work with guys the not can estimate for example your work here. For example i develop more years and release projects here for free. If you help guys to install your work but then you know that the guys have dont make free work for others and can not estimated develop works because they don't have develop works for free to the community here then is this rating useless.
therefore i try to make my own picture and goes sure,save my work, if i give anybody root access etc. Then everybody can have bad ratings but he is a good guy and that its the problem.
Buying good ratings is not allowed and you can be sure that people are around that would alarm everyone when it looks like this is happening. If you receive a bad rating then you don't need to care when this person is not on default trust. If he is then you can try to proof your innocence but no one can force him to remove it. You then can only try to proceed and get positive ratings from other default trust members to negate the effect of the red trust. Actually I know some people that even have default trust red but I can't agree to these ratings. I still would trade with them then. For example some receive red trust only for their fiery temper and such.
|
|
|
|
The seller sends the bitcoins to the bitcoin address of the escrow
You pay the seller
The seller notifies the escrow he has received your payment
The escrow releases the bitcoins to your bitcoin address
Finished
Who are you buying from?
How much are you buying?
What is your payment method?
What are you writing? Did you mix up seller and buyer? Edit: I realize you don't pay with bitcoins, you take bitcoins as the goods. It's easier to only handle bitcoins as the currency on this forum. You buy and sell everyhing by paying with bitcoins. You buy fiat with bitcoins for example. In these terms it would be this way: Of course the escrow sends the escrow address to both traders. Then seller pays the bitcoins to he ESCROW address. Once the seller see the coins in that address he will ship the goods to the buyer. Buyer then tells the escrow that he received everything in good state. Escrow releases bitcoins to the seller. That's all. |
|
|
|
Trading forex is more hight risk than trading bitcoin, for this time i don't interested. I will try trading forex if i have got system trading who suitable with me. Because trading is serious business
I did not get constantly successfull in trading bitcoin or forex but I found that forex trading has the advantage that it works with the rules for technical analysis way better. Probable because of the huge volume and manipulation is not as easy as with bitcoin. Though bitcoin seems to be foreseen easier for some, without any indicator. Hope some day I will learn it finally. |
|
|
|
|
I wonder why you sell them with a starting price of 0.1 bitcoin when you claim they can create income of 0.18 bitcoin in one month. A twitter campaign isn't very time intensive isn't it?
|
|
|
|
so the best option just use automatic fees setting features ,it will give you proper fees ,and maybe it's neither too high nor too low so you don't need something to be worried about
It seems that is what is needed now. Implementation of automatic fees setting into all wallets. Only that will stop the complaints about not working transactions that give bitcoin a bad reputation. The only complaints we would hear then would be "Why is the fee so high that I have to pay?". Though that is luckily a bit in the future... maybe some months? |
|
|
|
*lol* That's funny. It's like americans were asked by which pubescent kid they would want to be ruled. Well, not that the one in charge would not rule in favour of businesses instead of the opinion of the small people. Money rules theses votes so money will rule. |
|
|
|
|
Well, exactly what satoshi wished for. Freeing the people from the power of the banks.
Unfortunately the banks have the power over most politicians and public opinion through media. So I wonder how it would end when they would get serious. Surely it would be no fun.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
