I refuse to give a click to yellow page trash articles like this.
Simply open up C:\Windows\System32\Drivers\etc and add this line to your hosts file: Problem solved! |
|
|
|
|
I'd call ponzi if it weren't for the A- credit rating from PatrickHarnett. My money's still staying away, though.
I'm not going to tell anyone what to do with their money, but I'd advise they don't send it to Rusty.
Patrick, do you have his ID?
|
|
|
|
So how do they tell?
Anonymous Jr. member with no prior transaction history, speaking of an unmentioned "we," proclaims breakthrough research in genetic algorithms, neural networks, and artificial intelligence; s/he offers a net 3.15% weekly. VS 1 month old Jr. member who has donated $100 to bitcointalk.org borrows at 3% interest to finance short term investments, mining, and private lending; he has an A- credit rating from PatrickHarnett. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=96163.0You decide  |
|
|
|
Hmmm... was this the Bitcoin economy's first public forward contract?  I wouldn't call it a future, but it was a forward, at least. It's margined but not marked to the market, and it's otc; does that make it half-future half-forward? |
|
|
|
Coinbase seems to be a blockchain.info clone (or hybrid of Blockchain and BitInstant), so maybe they'll clone that feature too  Coinbase is a Flexcoin clone that doesn't have Flexcoin's interest. Flexcoin offers interest? Kinda, but they pay it out using the 0.01 BTC/TX fee they charge, so it's negative-sum. |
|
|
|
|
You can't stop it. There's nothing you can do to stop it. No government can tell anyone how to spend their bitcoins, and that's why I'm here.
|
|
|
|
To be fair to Lord Micon I think what he was trying to say (although it was lost in the douchebag=>english translation) is that it appears as though PH is giving very high credit ratings to people who in Lord Micon's opinion are scams.
Perhaps PH can clear up how the credit ratings were assigned for our lord.
Hmm... I wonder if that's what the table in the OP is for  |
|
|
|
So, does this mean that since Pirate was HONEST enough to LOSE the bet, that he will remain an OP in the #bitcoin-otc IRC channel ?
This concession should definitely help boost his OTC ratings as well, as he was completely honest in regards to the bet. He deserves +10 Ratings from EVERYONE.
....it only makes sense, right ?
Well he did pay... (the bet) No, the escrow that both parties put their money into 56~ days before the bet was ended paid the bet. ;p Splitting hairs. Also he did concede to nanotube (rather than throwing up technicalities) According to nanotube, pirate conceded the bet in private conversation. |
|
|
|
|
It's all part of a maturing free market.
|
|
|
|
   Did you know this kid is FIVE?  Korean version of LMFAO? Yes. |
|
|
|
Back to the original topic. I was curious about the possibility of SHA256 being "biased". I generated 8 million random 256 bit numbers and looked at their hashes. Distribution was random as far as I could tell. I looked at both the rate of occurrance for each 32 but output value overall and then stratified by the input. I stratified by both the first and last 32 bits of the input. No detectable patterns or bias.
Look I am not a statistician (although I do work with them) so I wouldn't dare call it conclusive but at first look I could find no obvious bias in the output that would be exploitable.
One idea that may be useful for future designs is to simplify the number space. Take say the lowest significant 32bits of the transaction hash. With a smaller input it may be possible to more exhaustively analyze the situation.
For example rather than working with a random sample set you could analyze all 4 billion possible inputs and all 4 billion possible outputs. It eliminates the possibility that something is missed in the representative sample.
If we call SHA256 a pseudorandom generator G, we can test the bias of its outputs using any efficient algorithm A such that A(G(k <-- R-- 𝒦)) (the algorithm run on pseudorandom numbers) returns 0 with sufficiently higher probability (called the 'advantage') than A(r <-- R-- {0, 1} n) (the algorithm run on truly random numbers). http://www.fourmilab.ch/random/ looks promising. I'll be back. |
|
|
|
Sweet crap guys. Yeah, it is pretty ridiculous. 1) You can login on Vanilla VISA website and see all activity on the card. Pretty easy to prove what happened. The summary should clear everything up: Total Holds/Preauths (-) what is this? $2.00
Total Debits(-) $22.76
Total Credits(+) $25.00
Available Gift Card Balance $0.24
Holds/Preauthorizations are transactions that may appear on your account after using your gift card at retail.
These holds will automatically clear from your account once the merchant completes the sale or voids the transaction. Please note that holds may appear on your account for up to 7-10 days. If you swiped at an automated gas pump then the hold will appear for up to 4 days. 2) You must set the zipcode on Vanilla VISA website for online purchases. Likely it is set to seller's zipcode and buyer used the buyer's zipcode in the purchase.
Eeyup, until he gave me his zip code, at which point I started running into other payment processor errors. |
|
|
|
Humble Bundle contact@humblebundle.comAug 28 (3 days ago) to me Hi there, We were trying to process your Humble Bundle for Android 3 order, but unfortunately your Amazon Payments transaction did not go through successfully. The specific error from Amazon was "Insufficient funds or over limit on the credit card". A few common things to try are the following: - Please try a different credit card - Please try PayPal or Google Wallet - Transfer a balance to Amazon Payments from your bank account and try again Sorry for the inconvenience! Jeffrey Rosen Amazon Payments noreply@amazon.comAug 28 (3 days ago) to me Greetings from Amazon Payments, We're sorry, but your Aug 28, 2012 payment to Humble Bundle, Inc. of $2.00 has failed. Details of this transaction are below: Payment details: --------------- Transaction ID: [redacted] Recipient: Humble Bundle, Inc. For: Purchase Humble Bundle for Android 3 (transaction id: [redacted]) Amount: $2.00 Your payment can't be processed.
Please update your card.
Aug 28
An attempt to charge $2.00 to VISA xxx-[redacted] failed. You must update your payment information within 7 days or your order will be cancelled. Let's give it 7 days from August 28 and see if the $2.00 goes back on the card. |
|
|
|
Maybe the fact that the money was gone was the source of all those payment processor errors |
|
|
|
The money is gone? Wtf? Then where is my gift code? I tried spending the card through PayPal, through Amazon, and through Google, on a Humble Bundle giftable code sent to my email. If the card is empty, then why is there no gift code in my inbox All I got out of any payment processor was errors. |
|
|
|
|
My problem with explaining it is that it is too revolutionary. It has so many properties that I don't know where to start.
-Decentralized
--No central authority
---No central point of failure
---No inflation at said authority's whim
---Can't be taken down
-Relies on cryptography
--Can't be stolen no matter how good the excuse
-Pseudonymous
--Can be totally anonymous if done correctly
-Near-instant transactions
-Near-zero fees
-Open Source
--Tested by a large number of people
--Anyone can audit it or submit bugfixes
-Distributed fairly to those who help secure the network against attack
-Created at a predictable rate
-Blockchain enables many cool things like SatoshiDICE's provably fair gambling
Etc etc. That's a lot of meaningful points, and it's hard for people to get their heads around all of it.
|
|
|
|
No, I'm not going to give away my trade secrets publicly.
Is it really that hard to believe I can't make a >3% profit over a month week?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
