I get that not allowing user withdrawal address change automatically is a security measure.
But why not show which address is set to each user account for withdrawals? This makes me nervous to be honest. I don't see why the set withdrawal address isn't at least shown in the interface.

I was just browsing through the options for upgrading to copper member today, and noticed this:


I would have never thought that the Bitcoin forum would start accepting Altcoins for payments related to the forum. Afaik, transactions involving the forum were so far being completed solely with the use of BTC.

Do we know since when Grin started being an option to pay for copper membership? And what's the rationale behind accepting it?

Edit: small correction in the title.

To be honest, from OP's explanation I'm not able to understand the scope of this project fully. Overall it sounds interesting but the OP should in my opinion put more effort to better explain the concept.
So, there are real world machines that the user can have some control over remotely?


Out of curiosity, I'd be willing to help in this testing phase.

Tracing of cryptocurrency transactions isn't as much related to IP as opposed to inputs and outputs. One disadvantage of cryptocurrency in terms of privacy is the lack of frangibility.

Think of it like this, if you throw a handful of one cent coins in a tub full of one cent coins, the original coins would be hard to tell apart from the other coins.
Now, if you are the recipient of 0.02 USD via bank wire, there's no way to tell what the origin of those two cents was if the sender had more than 0.02 cents in his account. Electronic money is fungible. Meaning that the origin of money can't be traced back in history. Once they reach an account sum, they're all bundled together as a net sum, rather than a set of sub-sums depending on their origin.

With bitcoin however, every satoshi that makes up the balance of the address is traced through transactions. Inputs in the address make the total balance. If for instance an input is unspent, an output using this specific input can only be confirmed when the proceeding input has also been confirmed. This example illustrates how the origin of BTC can be traced.

Exchanges can utilize this aspect of bitcoin to know, at least approximately, where youc transactions come or go to. Other than that, crypto is pseudonymous. And aside of people being able to identify that many transactions are coming to and from you, if you are not attaching your ID to your addresses, tracing your person via BTC transactions isn't easy.

Yes, KYC is risky, but buying BTC with a bank card is already risky enough for both the exchange and the user... I'd never buy BTC in this way, but if I was absolutely forced to, I'd pick an exchange that at the very least had a well written TOS section. I think that people just get what they ask for when they want to buy BTC with bank card, they risk both their money and their identity more than with any other alternative and they couldn't have been warned enough. Even exchanges offering buying with card as an alternative usually showcase other methods first. 

Honestly though, if this limitation is not covered in their TOS, it's not something OP could have agreed to in anyway. It's very unreasonable to hold funds anyway, but to holw own funds under the limitations of a  bonus scheme just absurd.

IMO if this wasn't in the TOS then the casino deserves to be shunned and perhaps even a scam report written against them for malpractice and attempting to extort BTC newbies.

TBF, most companies had to change their Privacy policy to something that covers every single potential case of use after GDPR. It's not like they'd use it in all these ways as soon as you sign up... But it's just there to cover potential liability from such info not being included in the agreement. If OP is from the EU, he has the right to request deletion however and then the exchange would have to delete his personal info from everywhere it was stored.

You mean for the game to continuously crash at zero? That's not very common, but don't be caught up in gambler's fallacy also. Each run has it's own chances of going red, it's not affected by previous runs in a magical cosmos of chance. Not everything is related.

The author of this post claimed to be a journalist trusted by satoshi... He had posted a link to a twitter account, from which he linked to a youtube video which said 'info coming soon' and was narrated by a shitty text to speech program. He has been inactive after those three posts he made here. I hope mods lock this post because really it's just going to get filled with spam.

Ήρθα σε επαφή με το Zarpa.gr για να τους ενημερώσω ότι ένα άρθρο που δημοσίευσαν πρόσφατα πρόκειται για απάτη. Δεν μου έχουν απαντήσει ακόμα τόσες μέρες τώρα. Σκέφτομαι να έρθω σε επαφή με άλλα ΜΜΕ ως προειδοποίηση πριν το κάνουν οι απατεώνες.

https://www.zarpanews.gr/kryptonomismata-kai-to-neo-uca-to-chrima-toy-mellontos-i-mia-aney-proigoymenoy-foyska/

Cryptotalk is the new project by Yobit and to me it seems like they try to attract the lowest quality posters that have so far been having little success on bitcointalk. It makes sense that they'd run a campaign here. Probably to the eyes of advertisers, the source of traffic doesn't matter as much as the number of views.

YoBit could certainly use their own forum to pump homegrown scams with traffic via fake and unregulated bounty campaigns and whatnot. It serves their interests perfectly well. but so far almost all of the content in cryptotalk is trash. I wonder what is going to happen once they remove the per post payment.

For those more interested in the academic side of this debate, I recently found a paper that takes into account quantifiable measures to build a framework under which countries can be evaluated. Look for "Blockchain Readiness Index". Such work is much needed, as we also need non-biased approaches to evaluate such matter.

How could a website implement this efficiently? Crypto gaming is mostly anonymous and you could just create an new account afaik. It won't matter in the end. Better self control because it is not in the interest of the house to help you control yourself.

69 - alani123

the nnnice number for me please

Προσοχή αν δείτε να διαφημίζουν κάπου το λεγόμενο UCA coin. Το πλασάρουν ως κρυπτονόμισμα αλλά ουσιαστικά προωθείτε σαν σύστημα πυραμίδας. Όπως με την amway. Independent distributors σου πουλάνε μια κάρτα με νομίσματα, και αν την αγοράσεις από την εταιρία παίρνουν ποσοστό. Αυτή η εταιρία που έφτιαξε το νόμισμα είναι pyramid scheme από την Ελβετία που πλασάρει κάτι μαγικά νερά (or something). To νόμισμα δεν έχει καμία λειτουργία ή αξία. Δεν ξέρω αν αυτό το νόμισμα έχει καν δικό του blockchain γιατί η εταιρία που το πλασάρει προωθεί και «δωρεάν διαχείριση τον πρώτο χρόνο» αλλά αν είναι το ίδιο με αυτό στο crex24 ανταλλακτήριο, τότε μιλάμε για τεράστια αποτυχία.

Αν έχετε εμπειρία με της εταιρίες που προωθούν συστήματα πυραμίδας, ponzi schemes κτλ. θα ξέρετε πως αυτοί που έχουν επενδύσει μπορεί να γίνουν αρκετά φανατικοί. Έχω ήδη σε δύο περιπτώσεις δει άτομα να το προωθούν αυτό στην Ελλάδα. Μπορεί σε εμάς να είναι προφανές πως είναι απάτη, αλλά δεν ισχύει το ίδιο και για τους μεγαλύτερους σε ηλικία ανθρώπους.

Εμπρός λοιπόν, ας βγούμε σαν κοινότητα να αμαυρώσουμε το όνομα αυτής της απάτης που λέγεται UCA Coin. Ελπίζω να αποτύχει στην Ελλάδα.

It has to be inaccurate data all around. Data is not comparable, there's no checking on figures, there's no way to know if companies have backround deals for relabeling their units or licensing chip designs... etc. This research might shed some light on who controls what market share but shouldn't be considered reliable. It's very hard to classify the sales of bitcoin mining units when they aren't even considered a specific category from official statistic authorities.

Also worthy of note is the fact that companies don't have to report sales or hashpower and it's easy to label it as somebody else's hashpower if that could serve a purpose at all. I remember back in the day BitFury claiming that they had their own chips, at a mm scale other companies hadn't yet reached. But afaik didn't go on to sell miners to the public imminently and never sold smaller scale units.

I saw that the Lamb opened one of the seven seals, and I heard one of the four living creatures saying with a voice of thunder, “Come and see!” And behold, there was a white horse and its rider had a bow. A crown was given to him, and he came forth to conquer and intent on conquering.

When the Lamb opened the second seal, I heard the second living creature say, “Come!” Then another horse came out, a fiery red one. To its rider was given power to take peace from the earth, so that people should kill each other, and a great sword was given to him.

When the Lamb opened the third seal, I heard the third living creature saying, “Come and see!” And behold, there was a black horse and its rider had a balance in his hand. I heard a voice in the midst of the four living creatures saying, “A quart of wheat for a day’s wage and three quarts of barley for a day’s wage! Do not damage the oil and the wine!”

When the Lamb opened the fourth seal, I heard the fourth living creature say, “Come and see!” And behold, a pale horse, and the name of its rider was Death,g and Hades followed him. He was given authority over one fourth of the earth, to kill with the sword, with famine, with death, and by the wild animals of the earth.

When the Lamb opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been killed for the sake of the word of God and for the testimony they had kept. They cried with a loud voice, saying, “How long, holy and true Master, until you judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” A long white robe was given to each of them. They were told to rest for a while longer, until their fellow-servants and brethren (who would also be killed as they were) should complete their course.

---

The four stages of the trustocalypse. Thanks to DireWolfM14 for the inspiration with this post.

To be honest, my absolute preference is BTC, as I prefer to hold it over any other crypto but it's made harder due to fees. Lighting network transactions solve this issue and enable new applications and I hope more and more dice sites will start implementing it. But in the meantime I have to admit that I was usually depositing with LTC, and more recently ETH. Whichever I could get a better rate on at the time because I disliked holding either.

In terms of transactions, the only other advantage was confirmation speed, but for deposits it only should limit how soon you'd be able to withdraw other than anything else related to gambling activity.

The premise of match fixing is that there's money to be made on unsuspecting people and bookmakers.
The fewer people that know this, the easiest it is to profit greatly from it. In leagues without an avenue for players to report extortion and threats anonymously, this is very easy to be done. Just get thugs to blackmail the players, and matches can be easily fixed. Unfortunately, Greek league is like that and team owners are proven to be criminals. So it isn't unlikely that many of their matches are fixed by threatening unwilling players. Although, through the years, they might have found ways to make entire teams do it willingly even.

The quote of Theymos in the OP is pretty clear cut, but in reality any stated intention isn't going to stop people from using the trust system outside of what might be the intended scope.

The trust system is not policed by moderators and Theymos. In my opinion, rightly so. We don't need guidance from an authoritative figure or a high priest to figure out what's right and what's wrong.

What would really help is a change in sentiment. High ranking members of this community find ways to accuse each other, and when so many man hours end up being spent trying to find faults in each other, it ends up just being disappointing. Most saddening part to me, is that members of this forum tend to take sides when a dispute arises, even if it's about the most minuscule things and it's obvious that the accuser tries really hard to build an accusation even though there might have been no harmed parties forming an accusation.

How about, next time there's a spat between two forum members, they get no attention unless evidence is presented? In my very humble opinion, biased reports formed out of spite should result to shunning, with the accuser getting out of trust lists. What's currently happening in my view, is that other members form bandwagons by picking a side, with huge arguments going on and bloated threads over minuscule points related to relatively subjective matters such as ethics, laws etc.

On the above note, I think that scrapping the 'red tag' and establishing flags was a step to the right direction. It's no longer possible for a single member that is included in default trust to ruin somebody's reputation in a snap. Flags require popular support and are focused on evidence rather than opinions. In my opinion, this solves the issue of 'game of throwns' styles spats. A single negative rating, no matter how influential a user might be, doesn't do much on its own. Now, for the troubles to stop, we need a change in mind.
Theymos stating the intention even more coherently wouldn't actively change anything.