|
If you mean the information that you've stumbled upon doing a whois on the domain, that is normal due to whoisguard. Other then that, I don't see anything that would indicate 'links' to Panama. Seems like you're rambling again.
|
|
|
|
Nah, the mods are super busy deleting anything that goes against the core devs and their business interests  Banker shills are OK, though.  lol that's the truth. amen! No. That's false at best. There are a lot of different moderators here with different views. Some are neutral when it comes to the 'block size debate', some support Core and some actively protest it. The mods can delete my 'ETH GOING DOWN' posts but not the bitcoin spam posts.
What posts? If you spam something, then don't expect it to remain where it is. Good question. |
|
|
|
|
12803
|
Economy / Digital goods / MOVED: CHEAP Skygo,Nba,Fox soccer,Directv,ufc,Hbo,Slingtv,Nhl,Xfinity,Viaplay,Nfl More
|
on: April 03, 2016, 07:48:19 PM
|
|
No, I just get mad when rules are applied to me, while they are not for others. You're probably right that if I went through and reported all of them that they'd be deleted. Someone must have a lot of time on there hands, I don't have the time to do that.
That's just you being irrational. Moderators are supposed to and currently are (AFAIK) fairly treating everyone (and equally). You have to understand that there are a lot of factors involved, for example: 1) Complexity of report (e.g. referral link vs. cases of constant trolling which require evaluation). 2) Rank of reported user (reported newbies get handled very quickly). 3) Activity of moderator in certain period. 4) Other. We are certainly trying our best. Also moderators do a great job here and it seems to be more of a available resources problem..
The new forum should have much better moderating tools. |
|
|
|
Will the Collector's Signature Edition be numbered separately? If so, can we pick the numbers first come first serve?
I was just about to ask the same thing. Looking forward to the answer. This is quite important IMO and would possibly be the determining factor for me (to convert or not). |
|
|
|
Do you have an idea how much time will be required of the tutor?
I wouldn't call it tutor. To 'tutor' would imply teaching. In my case the person would solve the tasks and possibly ask questions (if I had any). As far as time is concerned, I can't be completely sure. I'd estimate under 1 hour per 1 task for someone who knows this well. You could post this via Rein which handles the escrow and order flow with Bitcoin and multisig. http://reinproject.orgI'll check it out. |
|
|
|
|
Hello.
I'm looking for someone to assist me in solving some Matlab exercises. They should be more or less simple for an experienced user. We would do this "1-on-1" via IRC (mostly just you providing solutions and eventually answering questions if there are any). The payment is negotiable depending on time spent to accomplish a certain task. There are currently 2 'major exercises' with small tasks within them (transformations and gama correction). If you are interested please feel free to send me a PM for more information. All payments will be done with Bitcoin using the exchange rate at time of completion.
|
|
|
|
You do present a valid flaw of a hypothetical one-time remotely possible transaction that may or may not exist.
He doesn't. Even though the article is nice, I think that you're wasting your time with this thread. Initially, they were complaining that Segwit is complex and now they're making up scenarios in which it is supposed to be 'insecure'. I doubt that you're going to reach a point where they admit to being wrong. While Segwit is complex and introduces many changes, it is still about the same number of lines of code as the Bitcoin Classic implementation of the 2 Mb hard fork because that implementation still needs additional changes to mitigate the problems with quadratic hashing.
This is false IMO. On segnet4 consensus changes are in commits 7c68afbd747ad57391fcb66485c377298fb02a8e to 4dd3d7dd8bf2f9dd7a5e62c3cb2ca8dbd1146daa
Git diffstats says 65 files changed, 1262 insertions(+), 350 deletions(-)
|
|
|
|
|
You would have to define your question better in order to get a better answer. Technically, Bitcoin can't be currently hacked. However, what can happen (and usually happens) is that the hacker infiltrates your system by various means and then either waits for your password (if encrypted) or just sends them to another wallet. This isn't a problem that is caused by any 'Bitcoin flaws'.
|
|
|
|
Hmm, well, yes, but maybe the term "vulnerable" is better than "flawed" then.
The exact term used in this case does not matter as long as the message gets through. Humanity is slowly going downhill. I don't really imagine how bitcoin can be stoped, lol.
How about you actually read the whole post linked in the OP? Then you might understand.
Update: Going downhill in what way?
The specifics might be suited better for another thread. |
|
|
|
They should have clarified which digital currencies they have in mind. Different people are going to differently interpret this. The more and more corporate invests in blockchain technology, the more mainstream it will become.
$4 Million isn't a lot. |
|
|
|
You can do that by yourself easily. Press "All" instead of viewing each page one by one (or add ";all" to the end of any thread link), and then CTRL+F. Type in whoever you're suspicious about and presto!
This only works if the thread is (equal to, or) shorter than 25 pages on this forum. Therefore, this won't work in bigger threads. Additionally, it would be better if a separate page opened with the desired results (so that one does not have to open a single page with thousands of replies). |
|
|
|
The problem that Bitcoin faces is that it needs to hard fork in order to scale, while at the same time it may be already too late for a hard fork that may have adverse economic impacts on members of the community.
What makes you say that? If you're among the people (?) who think that Bitcoin can only scale by increasing the block size limit, then you're wrong. Besides, you should be aware that transacting on a secondary layer is much more efficient (in theory) than transacting on the main-chain. There is a very critical lesson here for alt-coin developers.
Indeed. |
|
|
|
Instead of form a year from now it should be made tomorrow already.
This can seriously put bitcoin at risk
The only thing that would put Bitcoin at a risk (relevant to this thread) is what you've just proposed. |
|
|
|
For proper decicision making in any risk exposed business you need to provide some prestudy that contains an analysis covering
Status quo, Future expectation / simulation
Many different solutions to compare, Risks
All that needs to be really done independent from say 2-3 institutions like MIT, ETH Zürich, accenture,...
I don't see how this is relevant to the person that I've quoted. They stated that the block size limit should double every year, without mentioning any "side", developers and whatnot. You don't need third party institutions for minor calculations based on true information (when sources are provided). but nothing is done here
What do you mean by "done here"? |
|
|
|
Why?
Just no analysis again....
There have been plenty of analyses over time. You can't blame me if you either haven't been here long enough or are unwilling to search (there are too many threads about this).
I'm willing to shortly explain it to you. What are we looking at here, doubling every two years year? |
|
|
|
Exponential growth is the road to mass use of bitcoin
Actually it isn't. What Bitcoin needs is a secondary layer (e.g. Lightning Network). |
|
|
|
Thats pretty confusing pool question, as far as I know some Core members agreed to try put code for 2MB HF voting this July release of Bitcoin Core, with 12 month grace period for activation.
Yes, that is correct. There is nobody that could sign such an agreement for everyone who is involved in Core (some seem to think otherwise). The problem is 12 month grace period which is unnecessary too long.
That's debatable. I've recently read somewhere that someone will suggest a shorter one (not sure where; I'll try to find it). With such long grace periods you need to plan ahead. So argument we are fine now is worth nothing because you dont consider what can happen during one year at least.
Not really, no. Segwit should be deployed and activated and we should see the capacity growing over time. |
|
|
|
reported to moderator you should be banned
 Statements like this one tend to be truly hilarious. It seems like a decent portion of the users don't understand how the system works. Trust is not moderated either. It might be wise to do some reading. |
|
|
|
2. Oh, tell me.
3. Wasn't to harmfull then.
4. Oh, shame.
5. You mentioned a possible (presumably core) hard fork as a solution if things went the "wrong way". That's why I asked you
2) Just because you and I can't think of one, that doesn't mean that there isn't one. 3) It isn't a problem at 1 MB block size limit (it is at 2 MB). 4) You could always ask some developer about it. 5) I don't know as it could be a lot of things (e.g. something that 'breaks' Bitcoin in a certain way). |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
