|
I'm against deMeriting -- except for clear cases of merit abuse, which of course also leaves room for interpretation unfortunately.
In my opinion further tweaking the merit requirements may make more sense, as even the largest account farmers will run out of sMerits eventually. Maybe something like having hoarded sMerits decay over time could alleviate long term abuse of the airdropped sMerits as mentioned in OP. This would force account farmers out of the shadows, as they can't rely on a long-term supply of sMerits anymore.
|
|
|
|
[...]
And to solve this problem, I propose to the administration of the forum to introduce mandatory periodicity (for example, 1 merit per week) of receiving a merit by all forum participants, regardless of rank.
[...]
First option:
Obligatory receiving of 1 merit during a week of activity for all participants, regardless of rank.
The second option:
For get the rank of junior member make it mandatory to receive 2 merits, and since this will have a short-term effect, then continue to add 1 merit
Allowing people to automatically gain merit, regardless of their posting quality, would completely undermine the purpose of the merit system.If someone manages to stick around the forums for weeks on end, writing dozens of posts, without receiving even a single merit... than there's usually very good reasons for that.Edit: Disregard the above, I misinterpreted OP. Isn't "spam" (as it's generally not literal spam, not advertisement etc it's just very useless posts), a good way for the site to grow in terms of .. outsider perspective?
Not really. The more a forum drowns in shitposts, the less interesting it is to people who actually want to use it and to companies wanting to advertise their services. Fluffing a community's activity with shitposts may work in the short term, but eventually it will catch up with you. |
|
|
|
|
Please stop making threads about how everyone should stop asking for merits. These threads are popping up all over the place. There's nothing to be gained from telling everyone how you support the merit system.
|
|
|
|
Ich sehe oben gerade erst "News: ♦♦ Bitcoin Core users must update to 0.16.3".. Hab mal geschaut, ich nutze ja noch 0.14.3  Lade mir gerade bitcoin-0.16.3-osx.dmg runter und habe gesehen, es gibt noch eine bitcoin-0.16.3-osx64.tar.gz - was ist hier der unterschied? osx64 bedeutet 64 bit Betriebssystem (sehr wahrscheinlich bei neueren Rechnern, sind alle Betriebssystem die mehr als 4GB RAM handlen müssen); tar.gz heißt einfach nur dass das File komprimiert ist. |
|
|
|
I already stated my opinion on social media manipulation as a service. Just because I didn't comment on it, doesn't mean I condone it.
Okay, now that you are the only one that commented on this, do you believe those members should be negged just like me? To paraphrase, does it deserve a neg at all(since if yes, then they must be negged and I will be waiting for the members to neg them)? Sure. But I'm not one to leave feedback on people I haven't done business with. Despite my opinion on social media manipulation I'll neither neg you nor the other guy. I'm only here because of the complaint about the perceived hypocrisy of allowing gambling and tumbler ads. |
|
|
|
~
Twitter followers make people lose money the same way blindly investing does. Companies can buy followers so they can get coverage and spread the word to more people(because the way social media algorithms work, engagement + following = more impressions). It's on the investors to check the real project and what's behind it. Just because you have followers doesn't mean you are reputable. So we come to the conclusion that the following statement is false: Lol, I doubt people are losing money because of fake Twitter followers.
At least that's some progress. Blindly investing is not much different from gambling. Unlike "companies" buying followers, casinos are at least not pretending to be anything else but. Unlike tumblers that are also being used by privacy concious individuals, there's little to no use for fake twitter followers outside of trying to scam people. I notice neither of you have anything to say about the thread where Legendary and Hero members buy fake services. Double standards?  I already stated my opinion on social media manipulation as a service. Just because I didn't comment on it, doesn't mean I condone it. |
|
|
|
~
Lol, I doubt people are losing money because of fake Twitter followers. Serious question though, why do you think money is being spent on fake twitter followers, facebook likes and reddit upvotes? |
|
|
|
[...]
After their "consideration" Lauda decided to give me neg trust because they already negged one user for buying Reddit upvotes(and I'm selling them). Meanwhile, the members "considering my case" either advertise gambling or tumblers-mixers(which are used by criminals). So, I ask you, members, how is what I did immoral and wrong, but advertising gambling websites, which is illegal in some states, is totally okay with everyone? People lose homes gambling, which can't be said for fake Twitter followers lol.
[...]
In the end fake twitter followers and reddit upvotes are still being used to manipulate people into losing their money to someone else, every other view on things is rather naive. Besides you seem to imply that it's hypocritical / logically inconsistent to accept gambling and tumblers while battling social media manipulation, which is sort of a weird argument to make. Just because one thinks that gambling and tumblers are OK, they also have to accept social media manipulation? Should being OK with people smoking weed also lead to being OK with investment bankers peddling potentially toxic assets? In an ideal world legality would fully coincide with morality, alas this is not and can not be the case. In the end a community has to police itself and if it finds a certain set of behaviours acceptable (eg. gambling) while condemning others (eg. social media manipulation) you either play by the rules or find yourself a community that shares your values. |
|
|
|
You get some idea, how easily BTC price can be manipulated from here: https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactionvalue-btc.htmlCompare median and average transaction value, that shows very well, how half of transactions are made actually in silly value of 300 dollars or less, but aritmetical average is as high as 25 000 dollars. As there are not as many active addresses, as You would like to think, it means that several whales control HUGE share of transactions. [...] Good thinking, but keep in mind that those large transactions do not necessarily represent individual whales. Exchanges and companies may shift balances between internal addresses (eg. when moving coins between the hot wallet and cold storage or vice versa) and batched transactions will look huge in almost any case (ie. looking merely at the stats above you can't tell a single whale depositing USD 25,000,- from an exchange paying out USD 25,000,- to dozens their of users). That being said, short of regulating cryptocurrencies to death you won't get rid of manipulation that easily -- heck, even in strongly regulated classical markets manipulation can be a problem. The question is to what extent and I'm afraid that's close to impossible to tell reliably. |
|
|
|
1) Welche Wallets passen ambesten für MacOS und IOS? MacOS würd ich am ehesten Electrum empfehlen, evtl. Bitcoin Core aber für die meisten Leute wahrscheinlich zu unpraktikabel weil hier erst die gesamte Blockchain runtergeladen werden muss. Auf iOS hat Breadwallet (BRD) einen recht guten Ruf, hab allerdings keine persönliche Erfahrung damit. 2) Können Bitcoins aus der Wallet auf dem Gadget von Apple gestohlen werden? Ja. 3) Garantieren diese Betriebssysteme die Sicherheit?
Nein. Ein (nicht-gerootetes) iOS zählt noch als einigermaßen sicher da Apple sehr restriktiv ist was Apps betrifft; wirklich sicher sind coins allerdings nur in cold storage -- entweder auf einem airgapped, dh. offline-Gerät mit zB. Armory oder Electrum; oder auf einem Hardware Wallet wie Trezor oder Ledger. Bei letzterem am besten direkt beim Produzenten bestellen (trezor.io, ledger.com), bei Kauf aus zwielichtigen Quellen (zB. eBay oder Amazon Drittanbieter) besteht ein erhebliches Sicherheitsrisiko. |
|
|
|
I'm researching to see what types of "real-world" crypto transactions you would find most useful? Venmo/Cash App type - Peer2Peer Daily life spending (grocery stores, coffee, etc) Paying bills Etc... I'm asking your thoughts on this Anything that I'm currently using my credit card for, ie. online shopping, booking hotels and flights. Being a freelancer, I'd also prefer receiving bitcoins from my international clients and partners (in my case: outside the Eurozone) rather than bothering with the likes of PayPal. Alas adoption is not quite there yet. I don't care much about using Bitcoin for daily life spending and paying utility bills though. |
|
|
|
Wait, did o_e_l_e_o and Don Pedro Dinero just get merited to mess with our newbie friend?  Seriously though, OP: Most of your posts are in the Altcoin section, many of which are hidden within the depths of various mega threads. Nothing bad in itself, but usually not the part where one would go for a fruitful discussion. |
|
|
|
The main reason why I don't use 2FA, I don't want to be dependent on a 3rd party to be able to log in somewhere. If I can not have a full control over the 2FA, ok, otherwise nope. And if the site doesn't give the choice I simply don't use it and switch to something else. Binance is a good example, you're forced to use 2FA or you are not able to transfer out anything, no problem, there are plenty of exchanges to use instead
@OP, your only hope is what @ETFbitcoin posted above. good luck ^^
OP is apparently using text message based 2FA though (as opposed to OTP / app based 2FA), which is both less secure and puts you at the mercy of your mobile provider (as experienced by OP). App based 2FA usually allows you to keep a separate backup of your 2FA key and can be used via a variety of apps (as mentioned by TryNinja). Especially in crypto I wouldn't dare relying solely on a password, if I could I'd use 2FA for BCT as well :X |
|
|
|
[...]
But why fear it if you could create balance or merge the technology in a way that even the country as a whole could benefit from the evolving technology, don't you think so?😂
For one cryptocurrencies threaten the governments' monopoly on money. Having a monopoly, especially over something as essential as money, grants one power. No one likes losing power. Second, the current status quo of the monetary system works very well for the people on top. So obviously one is hesitant about changing the status quo. Naturally both assumptions contain their fair share of paranoia, which may or may not be warranted. So far only few governments actively battle cryptocurrencies or try to smother its market. However there seems to be a correlation between a government's urge to control the economy and money supply and the extend of their crypto regulation which leads me to the conclusion that the assumptions above at least in part reflect reality. |
|
|
|
[...]
What baffles me is why are the government making lives difficult by banning or limiting it's use? Is it because it threatens the political power or are they scared it will improve the global economy or force the traditional banks to reduce their ridiculous interests rate which we have been robbed of for decades now.
[...]
Most governments barely understand the workings of the internet (otherwise we'd have less silly and / or damaging regulations), let alone the workings of cryptocurrencies. As such I'd still ascribe most of the restrictiveness to incompetence and ignorance as far as new technologies are concerned. Or at least that's the best case scenario. I'm sure there are some that very well understand the implication of cryptocurrencies. Those for the most part will likely fear loss of control. |
|
|
|
|
I don't quite get your question, do you mean to ask how safe it is to use an operating system booted from a Live CD for sending coins from cold storage? I'd say reasonably safe, however there's rather sophisticated malware out there so I'm not sure I'd bet my house on it.
Have you looked into Tails? AFAIK it comes with Electrum out-of-the-box, so that might be a good starting point?
|
|
|
|
For inexpensive rooms in Europe while offering reasonable and reliable quality I can recommend the a&o hostel / hotel chain: https://www.aohostels.com/en/Expedia used to accept Bitcoin in the US for flights, but apparently they removed that option a couple months ago. |
|
|
|
|
Yes, as long as the master key and the derived private keys are kept completely offline (eg. using a hardware wallet or an airgapped machine), this is a fairly sane and secure approach. Be aware that keeping private keys offline does not only include web servers but also any other machine that is connected to the internet including your development hardware and your clients' computers.
Minor heads up: Be aware of gap limits when checking the wallets for balances. HD wallets usually only check for 20-30 unused addresses in advance, after which they assume that no other addresses have been used so far. This may become relevant when multiple consecutive derived addresses have not been used due to eg. a cancelled payment.
|
|
|
|
[...]
Look, we just had a sudden 35% increase in hashpower recently (from what I read in the news), that's enough for a selfish mining attack, so to trust in the decentralization of Bitcoin mining is a bit of a shaky argument I believe, and I don't think what I am suggesting is urgent, but should carefully and smoothly rolled in, without much complication.
35% increase of total hashpower is not the same as a single miner increasing their hashpower by 35%. Looking at Bitcoin's current hashrate distribution per pool, the proportions don't seem to have shifted much [1]. Distributed evenly, a 35% hashrate increase merely means that attacking the network via hashing power just got harder. [1] https://www.blockchain.com/en/pools?timespan=24hoursThere have been other core developers also concerned with the decentralization of mining, and even planning for a PoW change in case a 51% attack happens. I think other technologies like sidechains and merge mining will strengthen decentralization and hashpower attack prevention in the future also. I know too little about sidechains to give an educated opinion, but what brings you to the conclusion that merge mining helps decentralization? I'm only thinking of Namecoin right now, so I might have missed some recent development in this area. [...]
A more interesting question for the remaining part of the network is just how badly the hash rate was affected, and how long it would take of the 10 minute average block time take to be re-established. It might be wise for bitcoin to adopt one of the more sophisticated diffalgos which were developed for alt coins suffering from wild hash-rate swings for this reason: the unexpected disappearance of substantial hash rate. Unlikely, yes, but impossible, no.
In theory, yes. In practice I think this is much harder to achieve in a robust, nearly side-effect free way than one may imagine. Prime example is the mess that was BCH's EDA. That is not to say that solving this problem is impossible. I just think that it's a harder problem than it looks -- moreso with a crypto the scale of Bitcoin. @Heretic says: If the mining reward is reduced with a drop in difficulty, Bitcoin becomes even less profitable to mine, with more and more miners leaving as block reward is further and further dynamically reduced, creating the very pool of "spare" hashing power that the difficulty-dependent-block-reward is trying to avert.
I want to revist this scenario, assuming no merge mining. First, I think a price drop will be slightly offset by the lower rate of coins being mined. Also, confirmation times will get longer: Both the time to get a block will increase and the number of confirmations needed to have enough work done on the chain so that your transaction is considered safe. The fees would likely rise and this would increase rewards to miners, especially in a fee-market dominated future. It would be nice to write this up in terms of mathematical equations to see exactly what would happen. I've also been thinking about how the decreased currency issuance rate could absorb part of the price drop. However I think the negative price pressure would be larger for two simple reasons: 1) Historically speaking, decreased currency issuance rate (ie. halvings, in our case) took a couple months to be reflected in Bitcoin's price 2) Low confirmation times and increased fees put a lot of negative short-term price pressure that could turn into mid- to long term price pressure in case of a downward spiral @Heretic says: Anyone willing to waste their resources on mounting a 51% attack on Bitcoin will do so regardless of whether we try to tweak the incentive structure in one way or another. Assuming such an adversary exists, selfish mining or covertly aggregating (unused) reserve hashing power would be the least of our worries.
Also revisiting this...I think I should add another category of attacks that I am trying to prevent: subtle attacks that are profitable and don't significantly affect the price of Bitcoin. This could be block withholding attacks (mining pools wasting each other's resources), networking attacks (to mess with other miners' connectivity), physical attacks (like purposely selling defective hardware and for yourself mining with the good hardware). I think this is what Peter Todd was talking about in the Reddit post about "other subtle and more effective attacks", and he (and others) likely don't want to lay them all out to give attackers bad ideas. Even EMP attacks on general electric devices can be considered "subtle" as it can be done to look like just an attack on general devices, while really it is targetting an area dense with honest miners. The selfish mining attacks and collusion attacks (the other categories) can also be done quite profitably I think, but with Internet anonymity still immature, they are less practical (as Peter Todd also indicated). In general, the point of my proposal is to disincentivize miners from driving out the competition. With the same reward for a lower hashrate, it is profitable to drive out competiton (lower overall hashrate) as that gives a bigger share to the attacker, and the same reward. If someone knows other ways to achieve this goal, then please let me know. This is one simple way that I think would work. I think the subtle attacks that Peter Todd was talking about where political attacks similar to the BCH / B2X dramas we saw in 2017. That's just my guess though. |
|
|
|
Can we still push metadata onto the bitcoin blockchain and if yes, How do we do it and how fast will the ownership of a particular element get transferred from one person to another.
As mentioned by other posters, look into OMNI [1] (FKA Mastercoin) and XCP [2] (AKA Counterparty). I'm not sure how healthily maintained either project is though, as most tokens have moved onto the Ethereum blockchain. The transfer speeds of colored coins should be the same as the transfer speed of regular bitcoins; at least so far I'm only aware of on-chain colored coin transactions on mainnet. Note that transaction size and thus transaction fees may differ from regular transactions. [1] https://www.omnilayer.org/[2] https://counterparty.io/ |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
