No, it is not forced, it would be possible to send a transaction back to the same address as you are sending from, if that is what you wanted to do. Doing so will result in reduced privacy for you though.

He was saying to use 2fa on their email accounts to prevent a hacker from hacking their email account, and using the email account to reset their bitcointalk account.

It is good advice.

A CPFP transaction is spending one of the outputs from an unconfirmed transaction, typically the change address. If your wallet software is not reusing addresses (it shouldn’t), it will send the transaction to a new, unused address.

I think this is a preview of the Biden Harris presidential administration. I would not be surprised to see Harris make the US into a police state, and use the military to silence dissent.

It would have been more appropriate to send 30,000 troops to each of the major cities that were being attacked over the summer to quell the insurrection and arrest the terrorists.

Its too bad we didn't see these same steps being taken during the terrorist attacks/insurrection over the summer during the BLM riots. I don't think history will look kindly on Mark Esper. IMO it would have been wise for Trump to fire Esper in June, rather than wait until after the election.

You are contradicting yourself here. Someone with the skill set to create a model that can write semi-coherent posts, and actually post using a bitcointalk account is not going to be wasting their time trying to farm accounts. Their time will simply be too valuable for someone like this to earn coin like this.


I don't think this is the case of the "user doesn't want to do much work" I think this is the case of the user wants to have their posts be 100% automated, without intervention without humans. The latter would allow someone to do much more than earn a few hundred dollars per week farming accounts. It would allow someone to effectively create propaganda using a troll farm. After the Wall Street Journal published an opinion piece with the headline "China Is the Real Sick Man of Asia" that was critical of the Chinese government, the Chinese government denounced this as racist, and flooded the Editorial Board's email inbox with "complaints about the headline, all containing remarkably similar language and demanding an apology". It is common for propagandists to send form letters to elected officials purporting to be from their constituents advocating for a particular cause.

If someone could write 5000 letters, all conveying the same message, but are written differently, it would be possible to make it appear there is public outrage about something that has public support. The problem is that if the recipient of these letters can detect they are the same, the letters will lose all credibility. Hence an attacker would want to try to use their working model where there are robust measures to detect plagiarism.

I don't doubt that Trump will be prosecuted by many local prosecutors, but I doubt they will stand up to Supreme Court scrutiny, at least as long as the case is heard prior to Democrats packing the court. Trump's speech in DC is clearly protected on first amendment grounds, as bad as it was for Trump politically.

With regard to Trump's phone call with the GA Secretary of State, I understand the conversation was settlement talks over a dispute that Trump was a party to. If this description holds up, it would be very improper for the GA Secretary of State to release the recording of the call, and in any case, what Trump was saying does not fit the statutes regarding Voter fraud.

Cross posting into a more appropriate thread
I don't think this person stands to gain anything by making two posts with a model someone else has created. My theory is whoever is behind Rohani6360 is using various forum accounts to make these kinds of posts, and is using the number of accounts that are banned and/or the number of posts that get removed as a measure of performance.

Look at his other post:
This looks like a plagiarized article, but multiple google searches of sentences in his post come back with only his post. lovesmayfamilis was able to find the original article. I don't think he found the correct link though because the link lovesmayfamilis provided does not have the "related read" links under the paragraphs.

In this post, he is probably using some kind of text spinner or perhaps a GAN of some sort intended for the use of plagiarism.

There were predictions of the price hitting 20k "this year" in 2020, see this bloomberg video from early 2020. I think Rohani6360 is a bot using various AI, including machine learning to make his posts.

It seems they have different policies based on the user's location, so they may require KYC verification based on some criteria that determines the location of the user. This could be based on the user's IP address, or it could be something else, such as a representation from the merchant.

The closest thing to "trustless cloud mining" is something along the lines of the business model that nicehash used, that is customers would pay a fixed amount for the ability to use a particular miner for a set amount of time. The amount of trust required could be reduced with LN if for example, the customer could have the right to rent a miner for up to a certain number of days, but would be charged by the minute, or half-minute, and would need to pay every minute, half-minute, or another interval. This would mean the customer would potentially lose only a small amount of coin if the cloud miner were a scammer.

The drawback to the above is that it will probably result in higher prices for the customer because the miner will have to finance the purchase of the equipment out of their own pocket, the owner of the miner would not have a guarantee their equipment will always be in use and would bear the risk that difficulty increases faster than projected.

I cannot think of a way a cloud miner could be considered anything close to "trustless" for the traditional cloud mining websites that sell "lifetime" access to a set amount of hashrate.

Typically outgoing Presidents will make a flurry of pardons on their last day in office, in the morning (they leave office as of noon that day). I would expect the same for Trump.

Pence as already indicated he is not going to invoke the 25th amendment, and the Senate is not in session until the 19th. Unless Trump resigns prior to the end of his term, he is not going to be removed from office.

Directory.io is now down (it has been for some time now). There are some clones floating around on the internet.

Directory.io does not have a database of all bitcoin private keys. Each page of the directory.io website will generate 256 private keys and their corresponding addresses. Page 1 of directory.io has private keys of "1" through "256", page 2 has private keys of "257" through "512" and so on. Accessing page 'n' of directory.io will cause the directory.io server to generate 256 private keys on the fly. There are  904625697166532776746648320380374280100293470930272690489102837043110636675 pages on directory.io. For all intents and purposes, you are not going to be able to navigate directory.io and find a private key to an address to which you do not have prior knowledge of its private key.

In 2020, Facebook prevented anyone from posting “praise and support” for Kyle Rittenhouse, including links to his legal defense fund. Under section 230, "internet" companies can remove content they deem "objectionable". Should section 230 protect an "internet" company that decides any post about Rittenhouse that says Rittenhouse is not a "terrorist" is "objectionable"? I don't think it should.

There is also the issue of Marsh v. Alabama (1946) in which a town in Alabama was entirely owned by a corporation, someone tried to distribute religious materials near a post office and was arrested for trespassing on "company"/"town" property. The Supreme Court found that "[t]he more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it.” I can see a subsequent Supreme Court case regarding major social media platforms in the future.

Major tech platforms have used 230 to ban Trump under the guise of the threat of violence from Trump's posts, while they let terrorists such as government leaders of Iran, Chinese propagandists, and Democratic leaders calling for more political violence to remain on their platforms. One way to improve 230 would be to require social media platforms to have a binding list of unacceptable types of content that must be enforced evenly. If someone such as Nancy Pelosi can call for "uprisings in the street" is allowed to remain on Twitter, so must Trump, who was making similar statements. If a social media company is not going to enforce its policies evenly in groups of users with similar visibility, it should be prohibited from enforcing its particular policy.

The new government in the US is entirely controlled by Democrats. Prominent Democrats have called for particular actions by major tech companies, to which they complied. There is an argument this makes the tech companies an arm of the government. This is similar to how many companies in China are effectively arms of the Chinese Communist Party.

This is almost certainly not the case. Either they have KYC information, or they don't. It is possible their software is not properly written to request KYC for customers when their policy says it should.

Some gift cards they are selling have strangely high markup pricing. My guess is they sell those gift cards in a low enough of a volume that costs associated with procuring the gift cards is so high they need to charge more.

I would think Netflix and Amazon would not meet the above criteria though.

I am not familiar with IronKey, but I would think it would be possible to copy the (encrypted) contents of the hard drive an arbitrary number of times to allow for additional password guesses.

I think there are legitimate concerns about the election, but Trump's messaging was horrible. Trump was repeating unsubstantiated nonsense that likely cost the GOP the Senate after the GA runoff elections.

GOP leadership is firmly not behind Trump right now. Trump's behavior is also a risk to the future of the Republican party, so Republican leadership has good reason to not want Trump to be able to run for President in 2024. An impeachment conviction would prevent Trump from being able to run for office in 2024, and more importantly, would prevent him from running as a 3rd party candidate when he loses the Republican nomination.

Republican leadership did not "whip" votes in the Impeachment vote, and if it has not been as hurried as it was, I suspect more Republicans would have voted to impeach. There are reports that McConnel is very mad at Trump, and may go as far as to vote to convict Trump in an impeachment trial. My guess is if Trump is acquitted, it will be narrow.

The miners could make blocks look full with their own fake transactions that appear to pay high transaction fees, and leave only a small number of actually paying transactions outstanding. This would make it appear the market transaction fee rate is higher than it actually is.
Correct. A miner with a small percentage of total mining capacity could potentially broadcast valid spam transactions, and end up with more mining revenue after accounting for the transaction fees from the spam transactions.

It is an arbitrary figure, and I haven't studied the data supporting it. I would prefer that the rate be too high than too low. If the rate is too high, a soft fork can be implemented to reduce the rate, but if it is too low, a hard fork would be required. It is much easier, almost trivial, to implement a soft fork, while a hard fork is at least an order of magnitude more difficult.

Democrats are pursuing impeachment at a time when Trump has no real power. The only thing Trump can do today is sign executive orders that will be quickly reversed upon Biden taking office.

McConnel is appearently in favor of impeachment because of how Trump acted after the election, and how Trump basically cost Republicans the Senate, possibly permanently. Unless Trump has zero Senate votes, the Senate cannot start an impeachment trial until January 19, but McConnel could schedule a vote immediately on the 19th, or on the 20th in the morning if he has the votes. This would prevent Trump from running in 2024, although it would not prevent him from causing trouble during the primaries and in the election, but without his social media platforms, he would have limited ability to communicate with his supporters.

No. Being a patriot is allowed here.

---

The forum very much believes in freedom of speech. As long as you are not advocating for breaking the law, or are causing disruption, you will generally not face consequences from the forum.