It's related to this topic.
I never said that it wasn't. I said that it was very bad to decipher due to the way that it was written (e.g. bad punctuation). If you see this kind of attack hit the bitcoin network to the strength of hitting all it's seeders and major pools. You will just see the bitcoin wallet look like it's out of sync when in fact it's not.
The only way to stop it is to manually drop the ip's within iptables . This isn't about debating, discussion.
Nobody ever said that Sybil attacks weren't a possibility. It has been listed on the Wiki page for a reason. The network has to remain as decentralized as possible and the number of nodes need not become very low in order to make attacks on the network harder. |
|
|
|
|
Yes, it was suggested before. Even though it can be quite annoying if you are constantly reading that section, there weren't enough threads the last time to justify a subsection. I honestly wouldn't mind putting them even deeper into the forum.
|
|
|
|
In my opinion, this is indeed a very dangerous situation, but I think this would not be possible until a fairly high level, because of the security system in the network of bitcoin is very safe and it may be just a network interruption or an excess of something. So the possibility of this situation will last for some time
This post makes does not make any sense. I highly suggest improving your language skills before posting in such threads. |
|
|
|
https://bitnodes.21.co/nodes/ are attacking my altcoin network also daily , I have been working a lot on this and they are making nodes/peers with "f yeah bitcoin classic" and all sorts of weird names What are you talking about? This does not even make sense. Who is attacking your "network" and why? I'm not even sure how this is relevant to the OP. |
|
|
|
Looks like after many coup attempts, bitcoin classic is finally dying.
No more shady backroom meetings, no more destabilizing hardforks... Bitcoin will be healthy once again:
Looks like their paid & centralized amazon hosting nodes dont really work out for them:
You need not revive these threads, as I'm certain that they will find a reason to justify the current situation. It was quite clear that these nodes are not going to last long, and have mostly been a waste of time and money. Classic will suffer the same fate as XT did, nothing surprising about that. |
|
|
|
This forum helps many people to stay away from those scams.
No, it does not. Since scams are not moderated and we have "investor-based games" section, this forum does not definitely prevent people from getting scammed. The First rule would be that to disclose any site would have to be a member junior
That's too low. I'd require full member or senior. I've seen lot of newbies in that section that just post an address and ask for "investments". third rule all who invest in the double site should mark red trust in the admin that running double site and withdrew the red trust this when he paid.
That should not be a rule since trust is not moderated. I'm certain that these people get flagged by DT members anyways. |
|
|
|
They do have special advantage in their signature as far as i know. Dividing us from the Legendary won't help the community grow.
Giving them a separate sub-forum is not the same as 'dividing' them from the other members. Lets say the admin allows it, what do they have to talk about besides the ones in the open forum?
There might be a higher chance for actual discussions without the spam seen from lower ranked members. would they have the advantage to which they'd be notify during the start of ICO?
It's not like people don't do this already via PM and other means of 'private' communication, right?  |
|
|
|
U spent $1 m and build this shit! I thought 1m would built a decentralised forum.  Everyone keeps talking about these things, yet nobody has a clue on how one should look like nor how to build one. Edit: A English (or maybe not) bug! The email I receive stated "© 2014 EpochTalk".
Report these things on the Beta itself in the Master Bug thread or the Github page. |
|
|
|
This was suggested a few times because people do not like doing their research first. This is problematic: ...increases the orphan rate, thus increases the amount of hashing power wasted. It also changes everything people have learned about confirmations, because now 2 confirmations provide the security of 1.
Although, I recall reading some research 'paper'(?) that stated that 7-8 minutes would be the optimal time for Bitcoin. The block time is not the debate we are focusing now, just the blocksize.
There will be a block size proposal in < 3 months. |
|
|
|
If someone will create a special sub-forum for Legendaries, please disable signatures and avatars on it, to me it even better.
I disagree. Most of the signature spam comes from members with lower ranks. It is quite rare to see a legendary member with really useless posts. Having a DT1 sub would be pretty useless as there are not very many of us. I suppose maybe a DT2 sub might be somewhat useful to discuss ratings, but then again not sure it would get used much.
I'm certain that it would not have much activity. I also disagree with this because it could feel like DT members are having "backroom deals" for the remaining members (since they technically "control" trust ratings). |
|
|
|
Does the activity drop if you spend time away from bitcointalk or does the level stay the same once you achieve it?
It does not drop. |
|
|
|
|
This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Ref. spam.
|
|
|
|
|
This was already suggested at least once. The issue here is what would be discussed in the sub (everything? Which would be a horrible mess) and potential inactivity. There as a legendary-only self moderated thread which was used for testing purposes in the German section (basically, a bot was used which deleted any posts from non-legendary members). There was inadequate activity to justify a single thread (however, it could be due to lack of legendary members that speak German). Now, if you are really interested in this idea OP, then you could open a self moderated thread in the Off-topic section just for legendary members and see how it goes.
|
|
|
|
If you want to draw a valid conclusion, why don't you research historical block times?
Isn't it obvious? Because then they would be spending too much time on a single post (hint: Look under his post). 30 Minutes is nothing my friend, I have waited over hours for my transaction get picked. Not just that I paid 0.0003 btc as fees and still took 2 hours to confirm the transaction, so it happens.
This is a common misconception. People think that X fee (as in high) will naturally mean your TX will be labeled as high priority. This is not true as it comes down to the size of the transaction, i.e. satoshi per byte. At the moment, the recommended one is is 40 satoshis/byte. |
|
|
|
|
Well, it is sometimes hard to decide whether something is a collectible or not. Which is only obvious as there are so many different item types. If you think your original thread is misplaced, i.e. the statue is not a collectible, then you can request that thread to be moved. Goods is basically a section for all non-digital and non-collectible goods.
|
|
|
|
That image however is difficult to understand,those 97% of addresses are from the total number of bitcoin addresses generated or the addresses in the same range IE 0.00-0.01 ?
Nothing difficult to understand. 97% of the total addresses generated have between 0 and 0.001 Bitcoins on them. Just take a closer look on the website. That means I should be able to track any number of addresses containing a amount which I intend to search for ?
Depends on how you implement the search. |
|
|
|
 Picture taken from:
As far as the '1 satoshi' part is concerned, counting that would be useless even if there was an effective way to do so. This is due to the fact that this is dust (actually even less than dust per this definition). Definition: A transaction output is considered dust when the cost of spending it is close to its value.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
