This is just funny, Mr. Fakecoin Isnotscam tried to teach me how to use trust system and previously tried to produce some sort of humor: Astargath---didn't you know? if you are critical of the trust system, you must be a "sock puppet" and "alt" of someone else. this is very basic forum policy. are you sure you aren't new here?  Seems that "you must be a sock puppet humor" turned out to be "you are sock puppet":  So basically, whatever they said in this thread (and they made some laud posts about whole PN7 - QS), the truth is extremely likely opposite. all i did was make an innocent joke about the reputation board's culture of accusing everyone else of being alts/sockpuppets. i made absolutely no claim as to whether Astargath was an alt account, and that is obvious from reading the actual posts. so please explain: i told a joke in may 2018 making fun of the entire reputation board. how does yahoo62278 tagging Astargath in september 2019 as an alt account (with no proof/reference at that) prove anything about my judgment?i told an innocent joke 2 years ago and you believe this justifies claiming that everything i say is "extremely likely opposite the truth"? you're making yourself look incredibly petty and vindictive. i criticized you one fucking time (which you obviously felt the need to bring up here) and now you are digging up years old posts trying to discredit me? is this really how you spend your time? you must be very proud of yourself. |
|
|
|
You make a fair point, but think about your response. If users are asking legitimate questions, without being pricks, why would they be tagged? are you implying people should be tagged for "being pricks"? to answer your question, they might be tagged for retaliatory purposes. this has been known to happen. let's not insult each other's intelligence by denying that. I am not saying it hasn't happened. There have been many questionable tags given to users, but at the same time there have been many acceptable tags. sort of like saying "many innocent people have ended up in prison, but at the same time there have been many criminals imprisoned as well". is that really the standard you want---many innocent people getting punished? As suchmoon says, users use a throwaway account and toss shit at the wall and see if it sticks. DT members do that with their real accounts all the time, but they don't get tagged for it. regular members, however, are usually expendable. nobody defends them against red tags because no one wants to antagonize DT members. that's the difference. Those are the posts we as a community should avoid. Defamation, rude, ulterior motivated posts meant only to stir up drama and cause chaos shouldn't be given the time of day. DT1 members need to look in the mirror. set a good example about consistent standards in the trust system, and maybe we can get somewhere. refusal to exclude abusive DT2 members who engage in the above behavior is a huge part of the problem. for example, you still include Vod in your trust list, which suggests that frivolous and retaliatory ratings are perfectly acceptable. what example are you setting? Coming in here trying to sound cool doesn't make you cool man. Everyone thinks DT are at fault, but in reality its everyone's fault. i'm not trying to "sound cool". if i wanted to do that, i would parrot the DT members because they hold the majority opinion. saying it's "everyone's fault" is a blatant cop-out. the only people with power to change anything are DT1 members. they have the power to exclude those who don't use the trust system fairly or consistently. they have the power to use feedback in a responsible way. regular members have zero control over what DT1 members do. it's insulting that you are trying to claim we (or newbies?!) have the power to change anything. we can change precisely nothing. you're specifically not doing that. the topic is whether regular members can post criticism without fear of DT retaliation. you are completely sidestepping that question by claiming that every instance of such criticism is automatically meritless.
I didn't say that. Please refrain from making shit up. here you go: How often does a fake newbie brought up a credible accusation that results in some sort of benefit for the forum, versus just some random drama bullshit? It has become a ridiculous circular argument - a newbie accuser pops up so it must mean DT is so bad that the poor schmuck can't use his real account... nonsense. this narrative you are trying to paint where newbies have all the power and DT members are powerless is laughable. anybody with a brain can see right through that bullshit.
I didn't say that either. You sure you're responding to me and not to one of your straw people? then why have you ignored everything i've said about DT trust abuse, while projecting all blame onto newbies? btw, here you go: this doesn't mean shit coming from DT1 members, who perpetually reinforce and turn a blind eye to trust abuse. until you guys actually take a stand against improper use of the trust system, nothing will change. Noble goals, doesn't usually work that way in practice. Fake newbies just throw shit at the wall to see what sticks, some jump in with their account farms to "substantiate". That's because the thread is about newbies making such posts. If you want to discuss DT members - there's plenty of other threads about that. so the thread is about newbies making such posts, but not about why they do? interesting claim...... Sockpuppeting is not going to solve DT problems. nobody said sockpuppeting would solve anything. what i've said repeatedly is that many DT members are retaliatory and abusive, so sockpuppeting is reasonable and to be expected.anybody expecting otherwise is just being dimwitted. |
|
|
|
you're not addressing the actual problem
I'm addressing the topic of the thread you're specifically not doing that. the topic is whether regular members can post criticism without fear of DT retaliation. you are completely sidestepping that question by claiming that every instance of such criticism is automatically meritless. your claim is obviously unprovable, and it does not address the original question in any way. like TECSHARE implied, you're trying to flip the issue on its head to take attention away from DT trust abuse and project it on powerless newbies instead. this narrative you are trying to paint where newbies have all the power and DT members are powerless is laughable. anybody with a brain can see right through that bullshit. How often does a fake newbie brought up a credible accusation that results in some sort of benefit for the forum, versus just some random drama bullshit? this entire board is a waste of space. it's mostly DT members throwing around baseless accusations and engaging in flame wars against people they don't like. why are you fixating on newbies when highly respected DT members are constantly perpetuating this behavior? |
|
|
|
What noob would actually read Tman's negative comment for you and not take it with a grain of salt? Many noobs may be quite naive, however I doubt that few would not trade with you because of it. I could be wrong...
so you're just giving him a free pass to red tag people based on utter horseshit? why is that the norm around here? because he kisses the right asses and (unjustifiably) red tags the right people? just to be clear, TMAN is on DT1 and everyone around here is fine with him dishing out negative trust for "being a wanknozzle" and "having a micropenis", and of course for good measure "fuck you, your mum, your dad and smell your pillow as I just wiped my shitty dick after taking it out your dads arse". this is the purpose of the default trust system? to make sure noobs see these incredibly important "warnings about scammers"? which is it? is the default trust system to protect noobs from scammers or to perpetuate your unbelievably pathetic little flame wars? lauda, will you red tag TMAN for "lying" and "dishonesty" since he didn't really fuck TECSHARE's father in the ass? i didn't think so. you only tag people for "lying" when it suits you. this shit is such an embarrassment to the forum. |
|
|
|
~
Noble goals, doesn't usually work that way in practice. Fake newbies just throw shit at the wall to see what sticks, some jump in with their account farms to "substantiate". who cares if a newbie makes an unproven accusation? DT members constantly make unproven accusations around here, yet only one of the two groups has the power to ruin the other's reputation.you're not addressing the actual problem: people can't post from their real account without fear of retaliation from DT members. therefore, expecting people to post critical views from their real accounts is flat out ridiculous. that was my point to the OP, who i doubt will post here again. you are making it out like newbies have all the power and DT members have none. totally backwards!  |
|
|
|
The department of justice should state clearly on what for them is a partnership and how they arrived on their classification that Alphabay and Helix are define partners.
i'm sure we'll get all the nitty gritty details in time, but we can already infer the basics from the law. a "conspiracy to launder money" charge has very specific requirements: A conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people to join together to attempt to accomplish some unlawful purpose. It is a kind of "partnership in crime" in which each member becomes the agent of every other member. https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-2167-jury-instruction-conspiracy-18-usc-1956hthe charge requires both explicit agreement among the accused and willful intent to commit a crime. importantly, guilt by association alone is not incriminating: One does not become a member of a conspiracy through an association with members of the conspiracy or by the mere knowledge that a conspiracy exists. ....so merely transacting with DNM admins/users in the ordinary course of business (even knowingly) does not meet the requirement for a conspiracy charge. |
|
|
|
People are simply using other blockchains that have ample transaction capacity without worrying about the insane complexly of LN.
i'm fine with that. altcoins---like any offchain protocol or sidechain---offer weaker security guarantees at a cheaper price. that's the free market at work, and it's good for bitcoin users too.Actually it is not good for bitcoin. What you are saying is that , it is ok if the majority of the car buyers buy Toyota and Chevy vehicles and quit buying Ford vehicles. it is okay. i trust free markets. if another coin overtakes BTC, so what? altcoins free up block space for bitcoin users = cheaper bitcoin fees. altcoins also offer bitcoin users cheaper options where they don't need bitcoin's security guarantees. this is good for bitcoin users.you are just taking the fearmongering position of an altcoin shill. a more reasonable position is the one held by philipma1957: I see BTC as the super highway and alt coins as taxis and trucks needed to move transactions. if the majority of the crypto buyers buy Ethereum and Litecoin/Doge coins and quit buying Bitcoins. let me know when that happens.  i think you are plainly wrong that people will stop buying bitcoins because there are cheaper/less secure options. the market has proven over and over that bitcoin users are willing to pay high fees and/or wait for longer confirmation times. but even if you were correct, that wouldn't be a legitimate reason to weaken bitcoin's security model by bloating blocks or speeding up block times. bitcoin is not here to pander to peoples' desire for free shit. if you don't want to pay for adequate security, you can pay the consequences instead: Two Miners Execute 51% Attack on Bitcoin Cash |
|
|
|
I can not believe that there are still people talking about this in 2020, especially after seeing miserable adoption of LN, the same as bitsquare or bisq today. The problem is not the technical part, it is the decision making ability of the dev team, they made one after another wrong decisions
As predicted, segwit and LN has permanantly polluted bitcoin blockchain and there is no way to remove them you are conflating "miserable adoption" with "polluting the blockchain".......why? People are simply using other blockchains that have ample transaction capacity without worrying about the insane complexly of LN.
i'm fine with that. altcoins---like any offchain protocol or sidechain---offer weaker security guarantees at a cheaper price. that's the free market at work, and this situation benefits bitcoin users. |
|
|
|
I'm going to follow this thread, but still I think it would be great if PMs were sent to the potential participants several hours before the tournament starts.
Can't wait for tournament to start! Good luck, everyone!
the people on this list expressed interest in playing. i'm planning to PM them the password this week, once the tournament is created: efialtis AlexSimion Trofo buwaytress DarkDays big_daddy safari88 bering EdenHazard Haunebu Ryker1 Avirunes mitchr4 StephenJH boltz SyGambler Steamtyme Rush2c slarsum Globb0 cryptofrka Stakefast tyKiwanuka Betwrong BitcoinsGreece ronaldo40 Red_Evil eddie13 Marukh666 iv4n manchester93 naikturun CoinEraser bullrun2020bro johhnyUA rhomelmabini wheelz1200 cygan wwzsocki redwine49 Beethoven92 Improved i know a couple people said they can't make it next week---this is just intended to be a running list. i assume we should also publish the password in the thread the day of the game. anyone else who wants the password PMed to them, please post here or PM me.  |
|
|
|
This post was not made only because a person hid behind an account to make an accusation or speak a truth. It's not about whom they attacked/questioned.
It's a post to tell people to stand up and have a voice. There is no need to hind behind a new account.
people get DT red tagged on this forum based purely on opinion. they get tagged for having trust lists other people don't like. they literally get retaliatory negative feedback for publicly speaking out against others. it's painfully obvious that people should hide behind alt accounts. If users have a concern or question, they should be able to voice it without fear. "should be able to" =/= "can". this doesn't mean shit coming from DT1 members, who perpetually reinforce and turn a blind eye to trust abuse. until you guys actually take a stand against improper use of the trust system, nothing will change. so stop complaining...... |
|
|
|
|
SwC got back to me. here are the tentative details:
Date: Sunday 2/23
Time: 18:00 UTC
Name: "Bitcointalk Forum Tournament #2"
Buy-in: 0.001 BTC = 100,000 chips
Late registration: 45 min
Starting stack: 3000 chips
Starting blinds: 10/20, antes begin at 50/100
Speed: 12 minute blind levels
hopefully people are okay with the non-turbo structure. i think it should make things interesting and will give latecomers a fair shot.
apparently they can't add extra money to the prize pool in non-freerolls. so i'm just gonna manually pay 0.0015 BTC to 1st place and 0.001 BTC to 2nd place. please post your SwC handle in this thread prior to game time so there is no ambiguity about the winners!
i'll update the thread when i have the password and the game is in the lobby.
|
|
|
|
Didn't most exchanges start using both Segwit and transaction batching within this time? That's gotta account for quite a big drop. the huge drop came after the 2017 bubble popped. huge inflows and outflows from exchanges (at inflated fee rates) ceased after that. side note: this has a lot do with really bad fee estimation/overpayment by exchanges and wallets. it's not all about transaction volume. people tend to assume there is a linear relationship between transaction volume and fees but that isn't true. a lot of exchanges (including the biggest ones like coinbase and bitmex) still aren't batching transactions. |
|
|
|
Well, it's been a long time since the mempool was flooded in such a dramatic way as it was flooded in 2017-2018 (don't remember the exact time period, just that it's been a couple of years). It's possible that the "spammer" is still creating transactions, but if he does, it's no longer to a degree that causes issues with other people. the memorable mempool backlogs in 2016 were likely caused by a sophisticated spam attack originating in august-september 2015. https://bravenewcoin.com/insights/bitcoin-spam-attack-stressed-network-for-at-least-18-months-claims-software-developerthe mid-late 2017 backlogs were less likely to have been "spam" attacks per se. they were highly correlated with rising bitcoin price and heightened exchange activity throughout the year, climaxing in december when the bubble popped. bitmex, coinbase, binance and others were either drastically overpaying for withdrawal transactions to ensure next-block delivery, not batching transactions, or both. this will happen again during the next bubble, especially since exchanges have done very little to optimize their withdrawal systems. 8 months ago, coinbase's CEO said batched transactions "should be coming out in a few months". *crickets* everyday, bitmex clogs the network during USA business hours with its unoptimized mass withdrawal. https://twitter.com/ziggamon/status/1134490591264497664If I remember correctly, spamming started around the beggining of 2017, as a preparation for SegWit2x, to force community to accepted a big block fork, but at that time the fees were around $1. it all started way earlier than that. in 2015, coinwallet.eu kicked things off with their "stress test" of the network: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1094865.0this was shortly before the release of Bitcoin XT. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin and altcoins need to adapt to any perceived threat before they can cause any harm therefore need to be prepared for any and every eventuality.
Yes, definitely. The question is when should bitcoin adapt, and that is a balancing act. Move too late, and people won't have sufficient time to move their coins to quantum-safe addresses. Move too early, and there will be chaos as a) there isn't a consensus on exactly what is the best quantum-safe cryptography to move to, and b) as QCs are still widely considered a future rather than current threat, the inevitable disagreements about whether or not to burn coins that don't move could erupt into civil war, or if not that then people would at least separate into opposing camps and begin to become entrenched in their opinions. the dilemma is further compounded by the fact that all known quantum-safe signature algorithms are very unwieldy in size. lamport transactions would likely be hundreds of times larger than their ECDSA counterparts. https://crypto.stackexchange.com/a/51947this would be horrible for scalability, absent significant technological/infrastructural progress re bandwidth, latency, storage. it would also force us to revisit the question of increasing block size---already a contentious issue. it's a clusterfuck with no easy solutions, which is probably why no one is talking about it.  Kind of strange that burning is stealing, but using a QC to hack someone else's private keys and take their coins isn't.
indeed! |
|
|
|
the difficult part is dealing with the 5+ million vulnerable coins (p2pk outputs, outputs sitting in reused addresses, shared xpubs, etc). implementing a post-quantum signature scheme alone doesn't address the fact that 1/3 of the supply is vulnerable to theft. people need to voluntarily move their coins to quantum-safe addresses for the fork to be effective. that could take a few years, based on the adoption rate of segwit.
Indeed. The question of what to do with the coins that are not moved to quantum-proof addresses is a huge problem. From my amateurish perspective, it seems to me that if the problem couldn't be solved in time, and it came to a choice between either (a) burning anything that hasn't been moved, or (b) leaving them there to be scooped up by a QC ... then I think option (a) is far preferable. You can't just soft-fork to a situation where some bitcoins are quantum resistant and some aren't i agree, (a) is hands down the most reasonable option. you've just highlighted the crux of the problem: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1469099.0it's crazy, but most bitcoiners would prefer not to burn QC-vulnerable outputs. they would prefer to let QC wreak havoc on bitcoin's monetary integrity. the consensus is that burning outputs is "stealing" and that we simply shouldn't worry about the QC boogeyman. if that's what the community plans to do, then everyone should stop repeating that "lost coins are a donation to holders". that's a lie---they aren't a donation because they can be stolen and dumped on the market once ECDSA is compromised. If it did come down to it I honestly cannot see anybody complaining about a hard fork if it was a simple choice between the end of Bitcoin or it carrying on (but those who did not move their coins before any fork just might have a differing view).
it could even be done with soft forks---one soft fork to implement a post-quantum signature scheme, and another to destroy all ECDSA-secured outputs after date x. |
|
|
|
I'd be fine with trying out SWC just to be sure we have a tourney and everyone gets more than a week to get prepped. I'll just have to see if i can access it through mobile.
This might be useful anyways for everyone who couldn't join or didn't want to kyc.
playing poker on SwC on 23rd would be ok for me.
i've asked SwC to set up a private NLHE freezeout tournament for 2/23 @ 6pm GMT. i'm waiting to hear back and confirm the details (password, blind structure, late registration, money added). i'll be adding 0.0025 BTC to the prize pool from my own money---a little extra incentive to get people in the game. i'll post details in the thread when i know more. |
|
|
|
-snip-
i've PMed @efialtis. hopefully we can get a game set up in the lobby soon so everyone is on the same page. at this point, the 23rd is most likely.
Efialtis was banned for 7 days. Currently he cannot answer PMs here in the forum. His last post is from 02/10. Therefore I think from 02/17 or 02/18 he can answers PMs again. ouch, that's too bad. we're obviously not playing on the 16th now. what do you guys think, should i go ahead and set up a game for the 23rd? i've been in contact with a rep at SwC. they can set something up for us. i can add a couple mBTC to the prize pool to make things a little more interesting. or should we wait to hear back from @efialtis next week? |
|
|
|
What would be the best way for Bitcoin and alts to protect themselves against this threat when it is on the verge of being created?
post-quantum cryptography like lamport signatures already exists, and it could be implemented into bitcoin today. that's the easy part. the difficult part is dealing with the 5+ million vulnerable coins (p2pk outputs, outputs sitting in reused addresses, shared xpubs, etc). implementing a post-quantum signature scheme alone doesn't address the fact that 1/3 of the supply is vulnerable to theft. people need to voluntarily move their coins to quantum-safe addresses for the fork to be effective. that could take a few years, based on the adoption rate of segwit. |
|
|
|
The article doesn't explain everything and I may defend Kraken in this case. When you work for this kind of company, you have several non-disclosure agreements in your contract that you have to respect. Once you left the company too.
You can't go and repeat what happens, how the company works and so on. that doesn't address one of the primary issues: the subpoena itself is based on vague claims and conjecture. kraken has no proof that former employees even posted on glassdoor, nor have they articulated which statements are actionable. this argument from the EFF's motion to quash is spot on: Payward fails to specify which particular statements within the review are allegedly actionable, much less specifying what actionable meanings the statements convey or providing evidence sufficient to sustain a finding that the statements were capable of any actionable meanings. The vagueness of Payward’s claims “is redolent with the possibility that greater specificity might not disclose” confidential information or disparaging/defamatory remarks, “but a lack of merit in the claims themselves.” kraken is essentially throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks without meeting any of the legal requirements before them. they also haven't proven that defendants shared "confidential information". did you read the reviews? they are really quite generic and opinion-based. then there's the disparagement claim. kraken fails on virtually every front there, but this one is the most obvious: a breach of contract claim for disparagement requires the plaintiff to show evidence of false or misleading statements. kraken hasn't even attempted to prove that, and i strongly doubt they could. http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S207172.PDFApparently the person tried to break the agreement, as a company Kraken has also its right to defend its interest
that is 100% not apparent. kraken has not proven in any way that the confidentiality agreement was broken, nor that the defendants engaged in disparagement. you're just taking their word for it IMO. read the EFF's response. it's quite illuminating. there are multiple important issues at hand---not only free speech but rights to privacy. kraken shouldn't be given the authority to violate privacy rights simply on the basis of meritless allegations. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
