So you can't conclude anything just because Dank has a signature.
For anyone wondering, he is still banned. If you take a look at when he was last active, you can easily come to the conclusion that it is mostly likely a permanent ban. And even if he defrauded that money on his music festival this is not valid ban reason according to forum rules.
Scams are not moderated, and thus that can't be the reason. |
|
|
|
When I was a newbie posted and taken 5 min to post again I was extremely annoyed that I thought about leaving the forum and not return more
There are usually no valid reasons to post again under that time limit,unless you are both involved and reading multiple threads simultaneously. The people who tend to create a 'burst of posts' in threads that they are not involved with are usually spammers. very annoying to have to wait 5 minutes to post, but I got used.
As soon as you rank up you will forget about it. |
|
|
|
I'm not surprised by this at all. At least he was finally caught. He was probably drunk or something....
No, don't justify his actions. He was clearly trying to promote big blocks (i.e. Classic) even though he can't use Bitcoin properly himself. This guy is losing all the rest of his credibility if you ask me.
He should have lost his credibility the day that he had vouched for Mt.Gox solvency.  |
|
|
|
You should not be surprised at all by this. It seems like you do miss quite a lot. If you take a closer look at the speculation section, you will notice a spam-post every once in a while from a new account. This has been going on for months. Larry summer can't control the blockchain neither can the DCG.
All they can do is control their own version of a centralized-blockchain. Other than that, they can't control anything. |
|
|
|
How would this be used, who are alice and bob in this case?
Is it used between two large companies? can you use it for your groceries?
Okay so the idea behind wallet-to-wallet routing can be explained by an example that includes a grocery shop: Alice and Bob are normal people; could be anyone. Alice has an open channel with a Coffee shop. Bob has a channel to the Coffee shop and to a grocery store. The idea here is that Alice is able to use these connections (Alice -> Coffee Shop -> Bob -> Grocery shop) to buy from the grocery store even though she does not have a direct connection to it. Will the different LN be interoperable?
There should be only 1 LN. |
|
|
|
|
This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Cracked accounts.
|
|
|
|
|
This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Illegal goods.
|
|
|
|
Even where it is available, a lot of users still feel a little hesitant/vulnerable in using credit cards generally is my observation, whereas bitcoin makes it so much easier to buy stuff online without having to be worried about exposing your sensitive information. Great news this.
I think that this problem is more inherent to the 'older generation'. I've almost encountered zero 'young' people that are hesitant when it comes to using CC's online. As an example, I know at least a a handful of people who won't even trust Amazon (not trusting it is beyond any kind of reason). The problem with Bitcoin is that it might be too hard for that generation (at this time). This pretty much made my mind up for getting a SteamBox rather than the next gen of console.
I have no idea why you would want one of those. There are better choices (albeit a bit off-topic here). Why the hell does America get it first?!?!?  You should not be surprised by this. |
|
|
|
Yes it has. Did you go to the link?
No, it hasn't. Do you even know that website works? They just have a lot of transactions of lesser value that have totaled ~1.8 Million. My argument is that bitcoin does indeed have a big lack of privacy due the fungibility problem,
'Big lack'? No. Frangibility is indeed a problem, but not something that I'd call big/huge else that would be the main priority (which it isn't. the fact that smarter people than us that know the protocol better than us like Greg Maxwell agrees with this only further proves my point. But like I said before, they are working to improve it.
"Smarter people than us"? I'd rather that you not put me in the same bag as yourself or the other people that fall under your usage of "us". It would be a very pleasant experience to hack this address..And probably many machines right now trying this..
No. Read the previous posts. |
|
|
|
|
I will have to agree with minerjones and TheNewAnon; out of those three, the first one is the best (I guess).
|
|
|
|
I mean im broke, but if I was rich, I would be annoyed that some people on the internet is speculating about my address moving X amount of BTC. That's now what p2p cash is and it says p2p cash in the whitepaper.
Exactly why would you store a lot of money in a single wallet/address and exactly why would you move out huge amounts of it at once? That is bad practice regardless of whether you're rich or not. We don't have enough privacy, even the likes of Greg Maxwell have stated that we need to improve it..
So your argumentation is, because 'the likes of G. Maxwell' have said it, therefore it has to be true? That is not how this works. |
|
|
|
No. Learn the difference between total received and final balance. 
Everyone who is talking about this (which is nothing special at all) is just wasting the time of everyone who reads this. It's usually a big deal when 10% of any asset gets moved around the world. It's kind of hard to hide too.
10% of nothing has been moved.
Correct, I didn't mean to say current balance
Then edit the misleading title. , but it's still a lot and as you see those addresses raise eyebrows and people speculate because we don't have enough privacy with Bitcoin yet.
Actually, we have an 'adequate amount of privacy (however, more wouldn't be bad either). Besides, it should be pretty clear to people that we will have more privacy in the future. |
|
|
|
|
I'd definitely take one at that price. It does look nice and a bit different from what I currently have anyhow.
|
|
|
|
|
This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Ref. spam.
|
|
|
|
For me, "off-chain" is a bad description, it emphasises a potential derogatory aspect; "mempool-verified" or "network verified" are both better tags for what Lightning does IMO.
There are many misrepresentations of LN, not to mention all the FUD that 'certain members' have spread in regards to it. There are even people who call it an altcoin which obviously does not make sense in any case. |
|
|
|
I wont be using such highly centralized system at all...
Nobody is forcing you to use it either. You are still free to transact solely on the main chain. If the decentralized routing can ever exist and is implemented then all fine. But unless I see working solution, I dont give it much faith its even possible.
So (mostly) baseless doubting and skepticism is your approach here? LN is among the best proposals that we've seen so far. Unless someone comes up with something better, we are going in that direction. The question is not whether it is possible, the question is how and when (just talk to the developers and/or track the Github pages for more insight). Besides, without something of this kind you can forget about 'mainstream Bitcoin'. My prediction is that we'll probably end up with a somewhat centralised approach and I do agree that getting the balance right is going to be important.
Decentralized routing is much harder than it sounds. We shall see what will happen. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
