I think too that it's risky. And it should be avoided. Unfortunately it seems the network has not included real decision making besides forks. And i think it's relatively sure that, when one client starts at 0% of the network and reaches 75% that this client has an advantage that is recognized. It would be unlikely that those supporting it would suddenly turn back supporting the other chain then. At least not as long as serious problems show up with the fork once activated.

It looks to me like everyone staying in the old chain would simply be stupid, regardless of which fork it is. The chance to lose everything mined after that is very high. Or does he might be able to create a valueable altcoin out of the losing chain then?

Anyway, mining in the losing fork means blocks being found every 25 minutes?, which lowers potential reward even more. And this mining can take weeks. Deadly for a mining business. On the winning chain instead the blocks will be found every 13 minutes or so. (Obviously i'm no mathematician. )

It would be economical disastrous i think.

But i don't know a way to handle things differently. Especially when in such situation. Regardless which thing someone prefers now, the situation is so that some developers control the setup of the client. If someone disagrees and there are a big support like 50% of users and miners then there is simply no other way determined to handle things. Ok, the threshold for switching could be set higher, like 95%. This would do less harm of course. But in a situation where the community is divided that hard it's practically ensured that such a threshold can't be reached.

It's really a mess in my eyes. And i think a real crisis to bitcoin. Nothing like that happened before i think.


This is a possibility, especially with the collection of hashpower in single identities hands. Though it would be a pretty sneaky behaviour since those mining at those pools probably would support their attempt to mine on the fork too. They would be gone for good and mine in the new forks pools. Which would hurt the other pool alot.

Might be that miners can do it that own the miners. Ok, i don't know if there are such miners that would have a huge impact at all or only 10% or so.

It would stilly be risky. The most safe outcome for miners would be to trust that the other miners don't lie and follow them. The masse will win the game.


Man, i really hope nothing like that would happen. It would be like a war in the community and it would bring a deep deep canyon between user groups.

But i think exchanges have ways to protect themselves. They don't have to set on one chain alone. I mean they can own the same bitcoin addresses on both chains. They can run both chains. The only risk they would have would be to chose one chain only, then receive bitcoins that were not sent to them on the other chain. When the chain that they chose is dying then they are screwed and left with no bitcoins. But this risk can be completely eliminated by only accepting bitcoin deposits whose coins show up on the same deposit address on BOTH chains. Then they are completely safe. They would not even have to care which chain wins. They would always hold the right bitcoins.

Right?


Though that would be correct for the standard bitcoin chain too. If a fork reaches 75% and miners would still mine on the standard chain and the fork becomes the new real bitcoin then all mining on the standard chain after the fork will be gone to waste since the standard bitcoin chain blocks found after the fork happened would be invalidated. Additionally blocks would be found way way less often. Mining there would be economical suicide because the difficulty only would change each 2 weeks.


I think the Number of nodes can be completely forgotten. It can be faked easily and it most probably is faked since there are obviously fanatics who would do such things. There are not only cool headed discutants on each side.

Anyway, what matters is how the hashpower decides. And it really would be interesting to see what happens. In my opinion there is a majority for segway and for a raise of blocksize for 2mb at least for now. Stopping the delays in peak transaction amount times. I think the lightning network is not really loved by most. I mean it is a different system to use again. And all systems beside bitcoin had a lot of trouble finding it's acceptance.

Well thinking about that is obviously purely speculative.

But what i think is that exchanges would not have to fear any danger. I had to think about what i can do to protect me as an escrow too. And that was the solution i see for me. Only accepting coins that came in on both chains. When i receive coins only visible on the bitcoin address on one chain then i won't accept them. Too risky.

A solution for the arbiter could be something like including a second escrow. Though i wonder who might chose his escrow. Potentially a Fake escrow could be chosen too then but generally safety should go up  at least when x of x is rising + 1. Running a scam then would be a lot of work, though an escrow should be able to deny the use of an unknown escrow chosen by one of the traders of course.

We spoke in the thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1308670 about it. It should make scamming a lot harder at least. The downside is that two escrow would have to agree probably and the fees has to be higher since two escrows are involved. Of course it can be offered as the more safe solution to chose. A higher payment would be justified. Since you probably earn on fees then you would have 2 escrow involved in one trade too.

I think this might need more thoughts put into though.

You forget that just-dice is the oldest and most established dice site at all. So it has many fans already. Using clams is no real hurdle, only exchange on poloniex and that's it. But many hold clams on justdice as investor so they earn from justdice while playing.

Thanks for your nice reviews.

Carlosmnk it's normally the fastest to send me a pm, i get them forwarded to my smartphone so i can see if something has to be done.

I think i already answered you too.

I don't know your system and if it is really bound to the difficulty. If it would be then earnings should drop constantly, probably in a year you earn practically nothing then anymore.

Mining at home really is dead but miner sellers are living from those that believe the initial earnings in first month will be at that level forever. :/

It is an exaggeration but in the negative sense. If you did not earn the investment back in, let's say a year, then you will never. Since the difficulty is rising, which means it will be harder and harder for your miner to findd a block.

Rewards are like that:

Month - Earning
1 - $1000
2 - $750
3 - $562
4 - $421
5 - $316
6 - $237
7 - $177

And so on.

If you paid $5000 for the miner, thinking that you will earn $1000 each month then you are screwed. On top you have a monthly power cost. That cost is not going down, it stays strong from the start till the end, further diluting your earnings.

Edit: To be more specific... Earnings develop like going to a certain number... lets say $5000 (i didn't calculate) and profit goes near that number... it might get to $4999 but can never reach $5000. Even after 50 years. It's more likely that you had cost of $7000 and you will run in the border at $5000 or so.

Yes indeed, running a miner is more like an expensive hobby nowadays. And hobbies cost money instead earning from them... at least most of the time.

The 3 to 6 months were the minimum someone could say that if he receives the miner on the correct date then he would break even when taking a rising difficulty in account. Later than that and the profits were so small that it touched the "Never break even"-Border.

Unfortunately very true. There were a lot early adopters 2010, 2011 who became practically rich with bitcoins. Though they had no clue how to handle it and how to avoid scams. At the end most of them lost all or a huge part of their riches. Simply because they did not know how to handle it.

I admit i lost alot too because of my inexperience. Well, now i only can go after them in the hope to get at least something back, whose chances are pretty slim and i try to prevent scams from happening as being an escrow. Actually that works pretty good since i already stopped a lot of scams by simply existing and by seeing the problems and stopping a trade.

No, i think it was a good step to post this since for sure you warned some people to be cautious with teamviewer.

What i wanted to know, since you mentioned somewhere that you scammed before, how big of a scammer were you? Since especially i'm interested into knowing if scammers on bitcointalk all play alone for themselves or if they meet in some community or so. Would be interesting to take a look in such a community, maybe watching scams on bitcointalk in realtime.

Only an idea.

Ok, that's what i was wondering about. So the only way this could have happened was when OP downloaded the software either from a fake domain, so the exe was a trojan, or when he allowed the other party not only to watch but to act on his pc.

If someone downloads from the offical website and does NOT allow the other person to act on his pc then it is still fully save, right?

I already became unsure if it is a general risk.

You probably need to create a support ticket on poloniex and provide a signed message from the address you sent from to prove that you were the one sending the coins.

I doubt support will react on here.

I withdrew bitcoins some minutes ago and it went through instantly.

I'm not sure but can it be that you missed to verify the withdraw through the email you received when initiating the withdraw? I forgot that too a couple of times but without clicking the link the withdraw won't proceed.

I was asked by netoo the issuer, to provide an Escrow address that is used to collect the funds for the ICO of Alt Block Chain Coins.

Who am i?

Iam SebastianJu, iam escrow on Bitcointalk since years. Iam not connected to the issuer or the coin. Iam an independent third party who acts as an escrow in an attempt to make the ICO more secure. See my Servicethread for reviews: [ANN] SebastianJu - Free Legendary Escrow Service - Escrowed over 8150 BTC.

Safety from Escrow

Once the Wallet and the Alt Block Chain Coins are released to the investors we will wait three days to see if problems arise with the wallet or Coin, then i will release the Bitcoins to the issuer. This way of handling things is usefull, the three days waiting time already stopped 2 scammy ICO's from happening, at least one other was stopped already before that time.

Please note that the safety i can provide only reaches up to the point where i released the bitcoins to the issuer.

Don't send to a quoted escrow address. ALWAYS only check out my post directly and send to that address! And please check regularly if the escrow link or address was changed in the first post of thread. Inform me fast by pm then so that i can act by giving red trust to the issuer to prevent damage. Post in the thread yourself and give red trust if possible to warn others fast then.

Only send Bitcoins from an address you can sign a private message from or at least where you are able to get the private key for that address! This is important since in case of REFUND you can't proof otherwise that you sent bitcoins when you, for example, sent the bitcoins directly from an Exchange. In that case better send them first to your wallet and then from there to the escrow address.

For information about what you need to sign a message you can check out this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=990345

Another alternative to proof your ownership of a payment would be to send me the last 4 numbers of your user id. Move your mouse over my username, see my profile id is 18640. You can see yours when you are in your profile and hover the mouse of the links on the left menu. Something like u=18640 in the links show your User-ID. The last 4 digits are 8640. When you add these 4 numbers as satoshies to your payment then it is pretty sure it's your payment too. For example you want to send 2 bitcoins and your profile id would be 18640 then you send 2.00008640 Bitcoin.

Escrow Address

The escrow address is:
Before payment i would suggest you take a look at http://www.cointape.com/ to check out if the network gets spammed again. Below the graph there is shown what amount of fee is needed to get instant confirmation. Checking that page could prevent that transactions are stuck for hours or days because they dont get a confirmation.


Message signed with an old address of mine, that i posted may 2013 on bitcointalk. See my Servicethread: [ANN] SebastianJu - Free Legendary Escrow Service - Escrowed over 8150 BTC.

You can check a signed message very easy. The fastest way is to visit http://wallet-2sx53n.sakurity.com/#verify.

Refunds possible?

Refunds can only be done in case the issuer agrees or there are reasons to stop the ICO by the escrow, because there came up doubts that make the ICO too insecure to proceed.

As long as you did not verify your investment transaction in some way i will see your investment as unverified. Otherwise it could mean a random person could claim an investment as his investment and steal it from a shareholder.

Refunds can only be done instantly when you can proof ownership of the investment. Either by signing a message from the sending bitcoin address or by your investment amount matching your forum user id. See description above.

If you can't proof the ownership of an investment and a refund needs to be done then you need to wait some weeks so that the risk of being scammed is lower for me and the (potential real) owner of that investment. You would want i protect your investment too when someone claims it was his investment and only can show the transaction id, right?

Good luck everyone with this ICO!

Having no such ordertypes makes the app relatively useless since you only can trade when you sit before all the time. And alarms on other exchanges often enough have way different prices than those on okcoin futures. Which is confusing.

Don't know yet how to handle it.

You are lucky, claiming is still possible though clamholders might soon disable that feature out of fear.

Clams hold their value mostly only because just-dice exists. It's a pretty big casino from a very trusted user. Clamm became some kind of dice site coin and gamblers buy regularly on the exchanges. This makes the price stable.

That statement would only be true when the actual bitcoin would work better then. It certainly is not true when the services are built to replace a non working bitcoin or even worse bitcoin is held nonworking so that people will use the applications.

Das ist allerdings sehr unwahrscheinlich. Ich bin mir nicht sicher wann aber ich glaube ich habe mit MrLehmann schon vor einem Jahr auf purse.io gehandelt. Und er hat seinen Account immer noch.

Nachdem purse.io amazon.de rausgeschmissen hatte hatte ich es ein wenig mit .com und anderen amazon versucht aber das gibt nur Probleme. Obwohl .com sehr sehr viel besser ist mit Wunschlisten rückgaben.

Am Ende habe ich purse.io genervt ob sie amazon.de wieder aufmachen und wenn nicht sollen sie mich doch mrlehmann kontaktieren lassen. Ich hab das nicht selten gemacht und irgendwann war er hier im Forum.

Sorry i can't let these statements stand this way.

Just increase the fee and your transaction goes through. But don't you realize that this means that at the end of the line legit users, who paid legit fees, will be pushed out and never implemented too at one point in time? The higher the amount of transactions that want to be included the higher the fee. And that means you sending a transaction will never be sure that you added enough fee. All the others might have thought that a higher fee is needed already. And you are out.

Surely that is very bad for bitcoin. Imagine using your bank, doing a bank wire and then you have to wait three days. Only then you know if your transaction went through or not. That is a plain stupid payment system and users will run away in masses.

Well... it would solve the problem, less users more space in blocks. 


What are you speaking about? It did not get more expensive in that way, it is too profitable. So that more and more miners want to have their share of the rewards. Some months ago we already had a network that was 100 times more secure than needed. Which means you easily could drop 99% of all mining hashrate and bitcoin still would be secure. And oh wonder, what do you think how rewarding mining would be for the 1%?

It did not get more expensive. Only too many want to play with it. Simple market rules.

By the way... giving out these high rewards make the network a huge mess for power consumption. There was a study some months ago that claimed that one regular bitcoin transaction consumes as much electricity like 1.75 average US households use in one day. 1!!! normal transaction. Bigger transactions eat even more.

Again, this shows we have way way too many miners. And we have too many miners because mining is way too rewarding.

That the one who can produce miners the most cheap has an advantage is clear too.


There is no right for miners to stay profitable. What do you think will happen when we pay double the fee now? Simply more miner will find that mining is profitable and they will fill up. Mining is expensive again.

Sorry, higher rewards is no solution at all.

Though SPV Mining only has a small advantage in time. There was an experiment i have read about that used Mikes Network, or whatever it is named, to check out if SPV-Mining is needed to prevent you block being orphaned. Matts network is a relay network that propagates new found blocks in a very short time to many big nodes. So reaching 50% as fast as possible.

Turned out that system was faster than SPV mining.

Don't know anymore where i have read that.

Yeah, right. I don't even want to think about all the time i lost searching for errors that only were caused by some kind of cache that i did not think of.