Very smart in buying Bitcoin early, not that smart cashing some out and quitting the job so early Just my opinion tho...

Good that someone from our community took that domain. Now please direct it to a page saying that ransomwares aren't Bitcoin's fault and that more fiat than Bitcoin is used for crime.

In OP's hypothetical situation, this new chain wins and is the longest. Now the question is, would you risk it all on a losing chain? Would like to see your coins on the older chain being unaccepted by merchants?

It's like asking if you'd keep being on the fork that perceived as "wrong" in both of these cases.

Anyways, this is counter productive talk. Speaking in worst case scenarios is what we don't need at the moment. But it is indeed for for thought...

A custom client probably caused some of these mistakes. It's also not impossible that unclaimed fees like these were donations. As far as reclaims go, it's up to the pool. Many have come forward and sent back the money and I think that's really good.

If the scenario you describe happens, the longest chain will be the one you refer to as "Jihan fork"

And this issue keeps being dragged, and dragged further, lost in countless meetings and trials, while depositors still don't have their money back. This is easily solvable by just returning the 200000 BTC "found", in % according to what each user had deposited. The rest is either gone or stolen by Karpeles. If it is stolen by him, it will eventually resurface.

Miners also have an economic incentive to play fair. If they don't do it, they're not contributing to Bitcoins success, thus not contributing to anyone, neither to users, other miners, themselves or their pockets. "Bribing" wouldn't get them far.

I am still not able to see how can one pinpoint a spam attack to someone or an entity or even prove successfully that there was a spam attack.

I've asked this many times on the forum and haven't got any answer, and I will ask again, since this thread has everything to do with it: why would people supporting a block size increase spam the network? That's counter productive. These people want bigger blocks because the 1MB ones we have are congested enough. Spamming the network will congest these blocks further. So people wanting a less congestioned Bitcoin are going to spam it? Makes no sense to me.


Block size is and will be an issue (this doesn't mean that SegWit or DDoS is irrelevant)

If you feel you've been scammed, there's a Section for it. Poloniex also has a thread on the forums, in the altcoin section, I think.

SegWit2x is starting to be discussed on the mailing list and a BIP containing it is being proposed... Sure gives for an interesting read.

I think it's very important for people behind Core and other Bitcoin devs or people who are simply knowledgeable in what regards Bitcoin client coding discuss every proposal... What do you all think?

If your post had irony, sorry, I didn't see it.

No government asked for a "master key", as they know that this is impossible. However, governments might try to regulate Bitcoin usage in a way that hinders its acceptance.

Nobody owns a "master key". This isn't a bank. Please read more... There's a Bitcoin wiki where you can start.

Read this

If you use a paper wallet's private key, you probably used it online to send coins, thus being at risk. You can create a new paper wallet and send the remaining funds to this new paper wallet or to a wallet of your choice.

Beware with change addresses when retrieving partial funds from a paper wallet.

I'm not sure there was any Bitcoin "pump" group, but not really sure where this thread should be placed either.

My only concern is that they seem to be spamming the forum lately, just to publicize themselves, and in the wrong sections, which is ridiculous. As far as their operation goes I really don't care.

I'm not voting for anyone, not because I think the users in question aren't capable of handling the thread, but because I think it would be better to simply have someone from the Staff handling the thread (mainly because Staff members are more used to patrolling the forums and supposedly spend more time doing so than any other members, thus being from the Staff). Since Nekrobios is the section's Moderator, I assume he'd be even more fit and/or capable to the task at hand than said users (otherwise why would he moderate the section in question and not one of the users in the poll?).

Although administration states that it's not really relevant who gets the job, the Wall Observer thread seems important enough to warrant it's own ownership vote thread, which is a bit odd/contradictory, as maybe it is important to choose the right person (from a seemingly random list of users). This kind of seems to throw off or de-characterize the "Staff" user position. If it's not all that important, why not just delete all Wall Observer threads except the first one created with self-moderation?

That being said, maybe I'm seeing things in a wrong way. And in the end of the day, whoever wins this poll is fine with me because, as I've said, all the users in it are probably suited to take the job.

Somehow this escaped me when it was posted. I'm willing to bet they wouldn't do this, if the majority wanted BIP148 they would just have to follow suit, otherwise they'd go down the drain financially and they cannot afford that risk. People usually forget this around here, but it is a fact. It's in their best interest to play ball with what the majority wants. They say so in the exact same post, but in other words.


That's why it is extremely strange when recently people accused them and other big blockers of spamming the network "to prove a point". That's just counter-productive towards the goal they're trying to achieve...

There won't be a split.

If a split occurred, however, you'd be fine in having your coins wherever. You'd then be able to spend on both chains regardless of where you store them. Storing them in a private key on a paper wallet isn't different from storing them on a private key on a computer.

A common method is social engineering. Making people install something that looks harmless on their computer... Either that, or phishing via email.


Most likely fake. Anyways, red trust from someone it DT in 3, 2, 1...

There's a Service Discussion section for these kind of things...