It's not simply a matter of the rules. It's a matter of common sense. If all you did was link to those articles, or if you had credited the source somewhere in your post, then it wouldn't have been a big issue. However, you copied the article without crediting the source, thereby making it appear as if it was an original content created by yourself. If you have to pass off someone else's words as your own just to make a post on a discussion board where you are not required to post, then your post is meaningless -- ergo, spam. That's just common sense. Without common sense, you'll just keep doing the same thing regardless of what you say. Long story short: buh-bye, baby.

As I already posted, it would be (52¹⁰ * 1,259,712) divided by the number of password attempts per second. That can further be decreased by getting more hints about your password. For example, knowing if you only uppercase or lowercase letters would decrease the possible combinations by a factor of 1,024.

There are 2 numbers and 1 special character at the end. You didn't specifically say how those 3 characters were ordered, so I would assume nothing regarding their arrangement. According to this page, I can assume there to be a subset of 98 special characters to choose from. Adding in the 10 digits of the decimal system, that would be a set of 108 characters. So the last 3 characters of your password, if taken separately, would result in a possible 1,259,712 (108 x 108 x 108) combinations.

Assuming that you are correct in your assertion that the 2 words which you used for your password cannot be found in any common word list, then we would be forced to use permutation of the 26 letters of the Latin alphabet instead. Using both uppercase and lowercase letters, the first 10 characters of your password would come from 52¹⁰ possible combinations.

With both parts, the password would have to be tested from a possible (52¹⁰ * 1,259,712) combinations of characters.

How long it would take to brute force through all those would depend on the hardware and software used. If you are wrong and the used words can be found in a word list though, then the time would be significantly decreased.

It's somewhat secure, but it becomes even less so the more hints that you give.





Stop spamming your sig, Captain Obvious. The OP knows all that. That wasn't his question.

Let me preface this post by saying that this is a stupid thread. People with common sense are capable of determining the quality of their own posts as well as of other people's. I will still answer it to the best of my ability though, hoping that my answer inspires you to lock this thread before sig spammers flood it with their ironic low-quality posts.




First of all, you need to ask yourself "why am I here?" Why are you a member of this discussion board? Why are you posting on a particular thread? Why are you reading the posts made by other members? If you know why you're here, then you can easily figure out the inherent quality of your posts before you even make them.

For example, if a member is here solely to earn BTC from signature campaigns, then that member's posts will inherently be of poor quality. You would see such a member frantically making successive posts about trivial topics in order to reach his/her daily quota of posts for the signature campaign. You might even see that member making dubious claims or giving advice about topics that he has no inkling of knowledge of just to pad his/her post count on the relevant subforums. (Trust me -- I've seen a lot of idiots posting about things that they know absolutely nothing about.)

However, there are also members who come to this discussion board to learn, share their knowledge and participate in meaningful discussions with other people regarding important topics. Those members will naturally make posts that can be considered of fair-to-excellent quality. Their posts will most likely contain meaningful ideas and insightful opinions.


Another thing to consider when appraising the quality of a post is how well it conveys the idea or information that it is meant to convey. It is easy to tell someone that they are wrong about something, but that really does nothing unless you can empirically prove that they are indeed wrong. It is possible that multiple differing opinions may simultaneously be considered correct by their own merits, but simply yelling something without acknowledging the ideas of the other party or showing them due respect tends to lower the quality of a post. Be proper and precise.


Read before you post. That is one of the most heavily ignored concepts by the sig spammers. You can usually see them spouting the same nonsense that has been said over and over in a thread because they didn't care to read anything but the thread title. Some of them don't even know what the topic of the thread is actually about. If you are a respectable member of the forum, then those are the people that you would want to cull Darwin-style. Don't be like them. Read, read, then read again. If you don't want to read, then you shouldn't be posting here at all.


Most importantly, practice common sense. That is the most important thing. That doesn't even need to be explained. Your common sense can tell you if your post is crap or not.




Now lock this thread.

And that actually helps the moderation team a bit (a very little bit). See, a spambot's account and threads will always get deleted. ALWAYS. But before that happens, if any of those sig spammers who are using bots themselves or are just plain stupid happen to post on those spam threads, then they can also get marked and monitored by the mods afterwards. You can look at it as an unexpected upside to a very serious problem.

Here you go.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=82821.0
http://askubuntu.com/questions/468808/how-to-install-bitcoin-mining-software-in-ubuntu-14-04-for-joining-a-mining-pool

I found those pages by using this site.

I'm tired of telling newbies about how CPU mining is irrelevant in today's meta. If you're not going to use Google for what it was created to do, then read those guides and mine with your CPU to your heart's content. It's 2016 and it's no longer anyone's responsibility to lecture people about their incompetence on using the Internet.

You need to learn about sarcasm like a normal human being.




If you were multiplying by 50, then you had it right the first time. I don't know what the value was when you calculated, but it surely wasn't $55 per.




You have 14 posts, and your Activity is capped at about two 2-week activity periods. You might as well create a new username instead of hoping for a miracle.




Adding onto what has already been mentioned here, ndnh has already addressed this issue here.

The question has been answered and an earlier thread (the one I linked to) has already discussed ndnh's specific case. You should lock this thread to curb any further sig spam (you know who you people are).

If you accept accounts as collateral for loans, then it is expected that you are selling the account in case the loaner defaults. That immediately gets you branded as an account seller, and would most likely get you insta-negbombed by people who are against account trading. I believe there is at least 1 person in the DT who is vocal against account trading, so you can say goodbye to your chances of having a clean Trust rating once you get discovered dealing with account trading. I don't support account trading either. I feel that had to be said.

Having said that, this was already mentioned. A good rule-of-thumb would be to sell an account for 150% of what its rank is capable of earning by participating in the 3rd-5th highest earning active signature campaign for 1 month.

It's useless to stake those addresses even if you were able to sign a message with them. The whole point of staking an address on BCT is to prove that you, as a BCT member who owns a particular account, are also in possession and in sole control of a unique private key. Since the people over at Yobit and 1Broker also have unfettered access to the aforementioned addresses (and thus the corresponding private keys), then any signed message from them would prove nothing.

Additionally, altcoin exchanges reserve the right to replace the deposit addresses of their users when it is deemed necessary. Some exchanges even allow users to voluntarily replace their deposit addresses. You know how some exchanges tell you beforehand not to mine to your deposit address or to always check your deposit address before sending coins to them -- that's in case the deposit address was replaced due to some unforeseen circumstance.

Eseentially, any signed message from an altcoin exchange's deposit address would not prove ownership of anything.

P.S. Ignore the earlier advices which don't know what they're talking about.

The last time I checked, Yobit's signature campaign had been closed to new applicants. The thread was prolly closed to stop illiterate n00bs from flooding it with applications. As for the website itself, it was working fine when I logged on an hour or so ago. It's prolly being DDOSed or something. Just wait for it to get fixed.

I have a couple of suggestions regarding the 5k exploration token event.

Firstly, displaying the current total of acquired tokens (of all players) would be very much appreciated. Doing so would also encourage other players to explore more once they see the goal getting closer (or conversely, the goal still being far away as the weekend approaches). (If it's already being displayed, then it's not visible enough.)

And secondly, there is no backlink to the index page on the page saying that tokens are found. That would make visiting towns and villages so much easier while still getting exploration tokens.

Character Name: Rimuru

EDIT: Oh, and a question. Doesn't the new skill system pretty much make having 3 different classes irrelevant? Since we now have free reign over the distribution of our character's stats, we can just build them as we want regardless of class. Magic didn't play much of a role even with the original system either. If it did, then it prolly wasn't until the higher levels (maybe 100?).

I understand the reasoning behind the change, but I still prefer the old dropdown layout. It's just a personal preference though. I'm one of those players who make sure every message, notice, alert and whatnot get marked as READ, and having a separate page for the logs essentially doubles my loading time to get to them. It's not a big deal though, so I'm not complaining.




^ This.

A Lv 1 mob is not gonna reward you with the same amount of Dragon Points as a Lv 100 mob, and so on and so forth. Village buildings don't raise their own levels either. And there's also other stuff which I don't really want to delve into detail.




If you spend coins on the game, then you're going to get an advantage, but it's not really necessary. You would mostly be exploring and grinding at the start anyway. As you keep playing, you'll most likely be able to make a measured decision on your own whether to invest on the game or not.




I'm not sure if it's still ongoing, but there was a promotion where you can become eligible to receive 1000 Dragon Points daily if you contributed to this thread (this one, the one that we're on) by participating in meaningful discussion and posting your character's name.


Character Name: Rimuru

No. The "hash" we are getting from mining is the final hash derived from the approved list of transactions, after difficulty and random nonce and all that other stuff have been considered. I didn't really go into that since that's more than what an ELI5 explanation should go into. A block cannot contain only hashes, as that will render it impossible to keep, check and verify the details of a transaction. This page explains the actual contents and structure of a block. The blockchain is the series of such contiguous blocks accepted by consensus.

As for your second inquiry, in a nutshell, yes.

Banning account trading isn't enforceable. As have been mentioned throughout the thread, there is no 100% verifiable way to prove original ownership of an account, nor any way to stop anyone from transferring over "ownership" of an account to another. Unless you can provide us a means to employ fingerprint verification, retinal scanning, DNA verification, or a combination thereof as a way to access the accounts, then your suggestion is pretty much meaningless.

If you're still having trouble understanding, then consider the case of MMORPGs. High value accounts are sold everyday despite the various efforts made by large (and medium-sized) companies to hinder the act. If account trading in general can be stopped in an efficient and non-disruptive way, then it would have been done a long time ago.

He prolly won't remove that negative feedback. Unlike his neutral feedback which he may have removed eventually (assuming that you don't sell your account or engage in account trading in the future), that negative feedback is based on your verifiable abuse of the Trust Rating system, which is a malicious act that proves that your trustworthiness as a member is suspect, if not completely nonexistent. Essentially, he doesn't trust you. Unfortunately for you, he is in the DT tree, which makes his feedback more relevant.

If the negative trust rating is really an issue, then just ask your trading partners to read up on your received feedbacks before trading so they can see what you were negged for and decide whether to trust you or not accordingly.

You just mentioned that you sell accounts though. I don't know what accounts you are selling, but I've never heard of any service which allows anyone to sell or trade their accounts legally, so you prolly won't get even the neutral account removed. All things being fair, you should prolly get negged for account selling as well.

Touching onto that, could we also get some Exp from killing units stationed by the Dark Wizard at an Outpost? The immensely delayed RoI on resources is already a large deterrent, and I've only seen 2 players other than myself (so far) who holds Outposts. If we get even a little Exp from attacking an Outpost, then people might start attacking them even if they don't intend to seize them. That will make the game more dynamic as we see smaller players farming Outposts for Exp, while larger players fight each other over Outposts left with severely lowered defenses. The number of defenders stationed by the Dark Wizard on Outposts can be further increased as a compromise. I don't know. It sounds like a good idea and a bad idea at the same time. Just something to consider, maybe?

Apparently, you think that by quoting me out of context by omitting parts of my post and keeping only the parts that fit your agenda, you can somehow change the facts, all while making yourself look good at my expense. Maybe try it on someone less knowledgeable than yourself next time?

The concept of Bitcoin faucets was developed by Gavin Andresen, as he created the first Bitcoin faucet which gave away 5 Bitcoins to every user. According to him, he did that because he wanted "the Bitcoin project to succeed, and I (sic) think it is more likely to be a success if people can get a handful of coins to try it out". A single bitcoin wasn't worth $600 back then, but he was still giving out more than anything he could get back even if the site was ad-supported (which I don't think it even was originally).

It's true that faucets nowadays are mostly created to generate small amounts of income for their operators, which is what my post said before you omitted the parts which didn't support your biased arguments. But you already knew that, didn't you?

Faucets were never meant to be a source of income anyway. Faucets were conceived to help get newbies acquainted with bitcoins and the Bitcoin client. The idea was to provide newbies with some dust which they could then use to learn about sending, receiving, transaction fees, and all those other concepts that Bitcoin users need to know about. However, along the way, the concept got twisted into what it currently is by people who think that Bitcoin is free Internet money that they could get rich from while being a NEET. It's pathetic, really.

This is the first thing that newbies should know about bitcoin: bitcoin is not free money. Some got rich by being early adopters, some by being skillful (lucky) traders, and some by more dubious means. None of those have anything to do with people giving away random amounts of bitcoin dust. Invest, work or trade -- that's how you increase your bitcoins.

I see what you're getting at, but I'm calculating it differently for the sake of convenience. I'm only calculating the cost in resources and ignoring all costs in gold. That seems like a shortsighted approach at first glance, but gold comes so easily, and I barely notice the passing of time since I can't play as consistently as I would prefer to.

Using the numbers that you gave above, my method of calculation (ignoring gold costs) would amount to such:

8540 soldiers x 4 resources each = 34160 resources invested
34160 resources invested - 8540 resources instantly harvestable = 25620 resources
25620 resources invested / 10 resources per hour = 2562 hours to recover investment -> 106.75 days before RoI

Granted, that's higher than the average amount I've seen on the few samples of Lv 5 Outposts that I've seen (not that I've seen a lot), but it's still not bad, especially considering that the current meta prolly has less than 5 players overall constantly monitoring Outposts. In fact, you can prolly hold an Outpost for that long without anyone else noticing. I've held about 3-4 unguarded for almost 2 weeks without anyone noticing. Since those are mostly Lv 1 Outposts, I'm quite close to recovering my resources invested on them.

All in all, it's easier to recover your resource investment against Lv 1 Outposts. There are also fewer players who'd bother to antagonize you over them if you're higher-leveled or belong to a large clan.

Having said all that, I must remind you that I don't take gold costs into consideration. If you do (as you should), then you'll never make RoI for a long time. Meanwhile, those already holding Outposts are gradually breaking even as we speak.

P.S. I wouldn't mind getting some decent Exp from attacking Outposts though.

Character Name: Rimuru

EDIT: Please also note that Lv 1 Outposts can have as few as 300 total defenders. I've even seen a rare Lv 4 Outpost with about 1500 total defenders. I don't know if those are poorly defended because they have been attacked prior to me finding them, but no attacks have landed on them since, so I have to assume otherwise. By "shopping around", it becomes easier to get an RoI on the resources that you invested on soldiers. As for the gold cost, well, you'll most likely recover that too if you don't lose your Outpost early on.

Personally, I don't think there's a need to remove Outposts. A Lv 1 Outpost generally takes 30-40 days to break even on resources, scaling up to 60-80 days for a Lv 10 Outpost, so it's understandable that people don't seize them because they can be easily seized by larger players afterwards. But if you think about it, villages suffer from the same issue as well, but there's not much aggression happening on that front in general. If making RoI on Outposts really becomes a major issue, then we can just have it so that Outposts cannot be abandoned nor attacked by another player for 30 days after being seized. That would give the player who took the initiative to attack an Outpost enough time to conjure up enough defenses for it. If anything, I think we should be getting better incentives from attacking Outposts instead. (And yes, this is a biased sentiment coming from someone who holds a few Outposts scattered all over the map.)

Character Name: Rimuru