This has already been discussed in this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5079682.0

In summary: these wallets belong to Coinbase. All these wallets with ~66,000 BTC in them are linked by various transactions, such as this one from 2013: https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/a289ea76bcc396412e90d63b90eb462ea2adb326aa027d5a1bb8864c7c152012. Some of these wallets were emptied around this time last year and split in to 100-200 BTC increments across many addresses. A similar pattern of activity is being seen now with the remaining wallets. This is not a "whale", and these coins are not about to be sold.

I would suggest that if you want to get a green trust rating or become DT to make your account more valuable, then you are here for the wrong reasons and will probably end up with red trust.

---

Oh, I wasn't aiming that at you at all. I was just talking in generalities. Apologies if it sounded like I was accusing you of anything.

I appreciate the response. It is just frustrating that there seems to be a general disregard to the state of Bitcoin Discussion, when it should be the cornerstone board of the entire forum. Issues like this one, asking for more mods, changing merit requirements for signatures, etc, are raised on pretty much a weekly basis in Meta, and yet Bitcoin Discussion continues to be a spamfest. We can report all the spammers we want until the cows come home, but without some changes being made at the admin level, that board (and others) will never improve.

The banks are the biggest money launders on the planet. The most recent money laundering scandal with Danske Bank and Deutsche Bank is worth over €200 billion ($227 billion). All the big banks - JPMorgan, BoA, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, HSBC, Santander, Barclays, etc - have been implicated in money laundering schemes. They all escape with minimal, if any, punishment. Why? Because they pay the politicians.

The only people that G20 politicians are trying to help are themselves. They don't want an alternative monetary system that will challenge the supremacy of the big banks, because the banks pay them off/donate to their campaigns/provide bonuses/etc. They want crypto under tight regulations so they can control it and tax it. All they care about is profit for themselves. These are last people on Earth we should be looking to for help.

On the official site - https://fantasy.premierleague.com

I'm in a handful of leagues - one with a group of friends, one with a different group of friends, and one with work colleagues. The work one is just for bragging rights around the department, but both friends ones have some cold hard cash on the line. I know you guys had started a league at the start of the season, but since I've played Fantasy Football for years with people I know in real life, my account is registered with my real name which would have been revealed to everyone in the league had I joined. And it's not worth the wife aggro I would get if I spent even more time trying to manage two teams (especially after hilarious talked me in to signing up to both Superbru leagues ).

Well, I had predicted that Bournemouth might have been able to score one in their game with Liverpool, but I didn't count on it being an own goal, and I also didn't expect it to be such an amazing own goal. Cook might be having the worst game of his life, but that finish would have been up there with Ronaldo if it had been in the right goal, haha. https://streamja.com/4EMw

I may have got my prediction wrong, but a hat-trick from my captained Salah is great news for my Fantasy Football team.

Both the users I mentioned go on spamming sprees. You can review their post history and see them posting a new reply every 2-3 minutes for an hour or two at a time. They regularly open 4 or 5 new topics in the space of 20-30 minutes. I know they are posting more than the usual one line spam of "Bitcoin can make great profits if we just have faith and hold then we have a bright future", but they aren't contributing in any meaningful way. They join any and every thread and either claim bitcoin is dead or call everyone else morons. In my opinion, they are obvious trolls, and at the very least their posts should be deleted. Allowing them to continue spamming seems counter-productive to trying to clean up Bitcoin Discussion, especially since their posts are deliberately inflammatory/provocative and always generate a flood of replies.

In theory, yes, but we all know full well that most altcoin bounty campaigns will accept anyone - shit posters, plagiarizers, alt accounts, etc. The bounty managers do not care enough to check. Just like the bounty participants, they only care about being paid, and not at all about whether or not they make half the forum unusable in the process. Hell, some of the bounty managers enroll their own alts in their own bounty.



Again yes, but these bounties aren't usually the ones responsible for the majority of shitposting and spam.

Ledger Nano or Trezor are the best choices by far. They are both well established and independently tested to do what they say they do. My personal preference is the Ledger, and they have a 30% off sale at the moment. I know you said you don't want to spend too much money, but I wouldn't try to save 10 or 20 bucks by buying a second hand device or from a third party. It's not worth the risk



This is bad advice. You should never store coins you aren't actively trading on an exchange.

Agreed. The move to require 1 merit was a long time coming - I suspect it will be several months more before he even considers a further change. The Meta board has been filled with requests for more moderators for months, with no sign of any progress.

I do think it's more likely he would increase the merit required to display a signature than he would decrease requirements for other ranks and remove half the airdropped merit though.

Rather than lowering the requirements for higher ranks, I think a better way of combating spam would be to increase the requirements for lower ranks. Specifically, raising the merit required for Junior Member, and therefore displaying a signature at all, would do far more to reduce spam than making it easier to reach legendary.

LoyceV's data have shown us that the one merit rule has had a significant effect on spam. A 10 or 25 merit rule would be even better.

As I mentioned, bitcoinfees.earn gives you the fees to try to guarantee placement in the next block, whereas coinb.in gives you the fee required to be included within the "next few blocks", which explains some of the difference. Still, if we look in the last block, we can see plenty of transactions with fees of 12 and 13 sat/byte, and a handful down at 2 or 3 sat/byte. So while 34 sat/byte would certainly be likely to get you included in the next block, it is somewhat overkill. I'd pay that if I absolutely needed my transaction to go in the next block, but somewhere between the two prices may still get you in the next block, and the lower of the two will get you in the next handful of blocks.

Probably about the same despite the price slump, actually.

Take a look at https://coinmarketcap.com/rankings/exchanges/ and https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitcoin/historical-data/?start=20171207&end=20181207. Exchanges like Binance, Bitfinex, Coinbase and Bitstamp are currently up anywhere from 40-70% in terms of volume over the last 7 days. Bitcoin daily volume has been sitting around $3-4 billion since May. For the last week or two, it's been up between $6-8.

A lot of that volume is from people panic selling their coins which is causing the price slump, but increased volume means the exchanges take in more in fees.

I find that bitcoinfees.earn.com tends to overestimate the fees required, and as it always calculates fees based on the next block, if you don't need your transaction in the very] next block but within the next hour or two, then you will definitely end up over-paying. This site (https://www.coinb.in/#fees) provides a nice calculator which will recommend much cheaper fees, but you need to have a little bit of knowledge to use it properly.

I also like to use this site for a visual representation of current unconfirmed transactions in the mempool: https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#0,8h

As we can see, when OP made the post, you were looking at requiring fees of >50 sat/byte to guarantee inclusion in the next block. We are now currently chipping away at transactions with fees of 5 sat/byte, so it is likely that OP's transaction has now confirmed.

This rule would also effectively ban anyone from using Tor or a non-static VPN. It's not exactly logical for a crypto forum to be banning users who have an interest in privacy and security.

Many users trade here effectively and safely, as can be evidenced by the hugely busy Marketplace and all its sub-boards. If you do not personally trust the account you are dealing with (which may including signing a message from an old address as proof the account has not changed hands, although this is not infallible), then you should be using a trusted escrow service.

If, as you say, there isn't the will amongst the staff to outright ban users like freightjoe and btc-room101, then could we have some guidance on reporting their posts? I would never report a solitary post simply for saying something I don't agree with, even if I do think it is just baseless FUD. But when these users post 20 times in under an hour, even when their posts are somewhat on topic, in my opinion it crosses the line from discussion to spamming/trolling. Can we report all their posts when they do go on one of their spamming frenzies?

Just signed up Piggy and received this reply:


Obviously it is misinterpreting underscores as spaces. Is this something that can be fixed?

o_e_l_e_o's notification thread for Maggiordomo bot.

Definitely crazy. Even Sarri doesn't think they can beat City: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfTPJrgP1XM&feature=youtu.be&t=395 

City only beat Watford 2-1, but it could easily have finished 5-1. They dominated most of the game, created plenty of chances, and Foster was the only thing that saved it (pun intended) for Watford. Yes, they became too complacent and eased off too much towards the end, but I'm sure Pep gave them a bollocking for that. Chelsea on the other hand looked poor all game against Wolves. Hazard seemed to have lost his stride, and Chelsea depend way too heavily on him. Willian, Morata and Alonso looked very poor throughout.

I know I'm comparing just a single game, and anything can happen, but I'm still favoring City by a goal or two.

I echo Lucius in saying thanks to everyone and obviously thanks to DarkStar_, and good luck to you all for future slots.



There could well have been other members in the past who joined with younger accounts, but even at present, both DdmrDdmr and iasenko have younger accounts than I do.