Hi guys, does ZCash any advantage over it's fork called ZenCash ? ZenCash looks very good to me, the only disadvantage could be a small adoption?
Smaller adoption is a big disadvantage here. It means a smaller anonymity set. (I here presume that percentages of shielded transactions would be not too dissimilar.) Anonymity set is important. It’s the main reason why I use Tor Browser, whereas it’s mediocre as a browser. It could be said that it’s the main reason why I use Tor, period. I here do not address any issue other than your comment about “the only disadvantage”. Arguendo, even if so, that kills everything. |
|
|
|
This user also sends PMs begging for merits. Truly hardworking shitposter. Dear my friend, Now, i have 111 post and 70 activity but dont have any merit score. How can i get merit score? Can you help me about this? Many thank and have a great working day!  I already don't like the way clicking on +merit takes you away from the thread. Can you please have it open in a new window?
Dear my friend, Now, i have 111 post and 70 activity but dont have any merit score. How can i get merit score? Can you help me about this? Many thank and have a great working day! Check this user’s trust page. Besides the negative trust I just left: (0) While I was leaving my tag, EcuaMobi left tag, “Begging for merit points via PM”. (1) Page currently says, “This user's password was reset recently.” Also, check post history; there is repetition of almost identical “Dear my friend” merit-begging spams. This needs mod action.
(Edited: I’d somehow left out quote of suchmoon’s report of begging via PM.) |
|
|
|
I like your idea there. Any chance of an https, no-Javascript version with links to the posts? (Not that I’d be begging for that.) |
|
|
|
I appreciate the fact that you tried to make an effort against the merit abuse .
Are you serious? |
|
|
|
Check the history sMerit between Lauda and aTriz
Why, you came within a hair’s breadth of an investigative coup. You barely missed the deeper truth: ATRIZ=LAUDA THE BIGGEST SCAM IN THE WORLD!!!! MORE SCAM THAN QUICKSELLER!!!!!!!!* nullius slaps tambenile with a psychotic trout.
What do you truly think you will achieve with this thread?
Your mistake, Lauda: It doesn’t think. That is why we have this problem. There are so many like it.
the format of this post gave me eye cancer
You’re so mean, crushing the poor thing’s artistic creativity that way. Perhaps you need a sensitivity training class, TMAN. Can’t we all just get along? Please???
the Moron Tabernacle Choir
Both noisome and noisy.
Hey friends . I need 10 merit to remove jmember rank. Anyone can help me??
You’re not my friend, you mealy-mouthed, obsequious imbecile. You just did the equivalent of begging the professor for a good grade because you want to advance to the next class, and you know you’re too stupid to do it yourself. I tagged you with negative trust, coloured red FOR SHAME. DO NOT BEG FOR MERIT. |
|
|
|
i have built dedicated box just for this.
[...]
do above all steps continuously. with new hex number evey time. its been up 1 month and didnt find anything.
My, that’s an expensive hobby for such an unprofitable purpose: p.s. i am trying to break the wallet's which are open for challenges and bitcoin eater address , if you are so concerned about .
Wait... a “gem”? Perhaps you really expect to hit the 2 -160 jackpot and find a key for an “eater” address? That address with the all-zeroes Hash160 has a balance of 65 BTC plus change; that would be a “gem”, but one you’ll never find. What other “gems” do you seek? i like incremental thingy coz you never know when you are gonna hit a gem., coz its all random.
(FYI, I’d be much less snide if you just came out and said, “Yes! I think that brainwallet users deserve a fine for their criminal stupidity in how they undermine the foundation of all cryptographic security; and I am here to collect the penalty. Consider me a Robbin’ Hood(lum) who steals from the stupid to give to me, me, me.”) |
|
|
|
But your post perfectly fits my argumentation, you were able to make quality posts as newbie which are now rewarded.
Nobody has to be a high rank member to make quality posts, any newbie account could have more knowledge in cryptos then most legendarys in this forum.
And now newbies can show this by accumulating merits.
Well, then on this point, I’d say we vehemently agree! Hah. I’ve spent the past five days trying to tell others what you just said. I hope that the kinds of “newbies” we want to attract will be encouraged to put the time and effort into making high-quality posts. I also hope that the whiners will choose to cease giving this forum the gift of their noisome (and noisy) presence, for they contribute nothing else. Cheers.
I don't know why some normal comments/topics by high rank member get contributing very much merit ? For new members like me , it's very hard to achieve merit by someone even we have valuable topics
Link me to few of your valuable topics and I'll +Merit them. Protip: You can't. Not his fault. Legendaries are stopping him—I don’t know how, but they must be. Proof: It can’t be his fault; therefore, it must be someone else’s. The whole system is so unfair! |
|
|
|
ad hominem
Ooh, you cribbed some Latin words from the Interwebs! Fancy! Too bad you know nothing of logic or rhetoric. Like “appeal to authority”, argumentum ad hominem is only an informal fallacy; unlike formal fallacies, there are situations in which these are not fallacious at all. For example, whereas you have repeatedly shown yourself to be willfully ignorant and ineducable, it is not a fallacy to point out that achow101 is an expert (he is) and you are a doofus (you are). He is right. You are wrong. Quod erat demonstrandum.That’s not the most rigorous proof I’ve ever made, but it’s more than you deserve. So, get lost. |
|
|
|
dinofelis, your only discernible input on this forum is misrepresenting facts in a (kind of) subtle way. Well, you're also good at avoiding direct debunking of the things you say which aren't true.
You ought really to be banned, as it's too obvious that you're not interested in any kind of constructive debate, and never have been (unfortunately, dinofelis is likely the owner of many accounts that have been created with a suspiciously similar style of debate, only adding to the perception that the owner is very intent on wasting everyone's time on Bitcointalk.org)
This is why I enacted a policy of not arguing with him. I directly debunk a few pieces of his worst misinformation for the benefit of others who may not know. Then, I try to redirect the thread to its proper course—or just hurl around insults, if (as this thread) it has no proper course.
[...casting pearls before swine...]
I just realized you missed a crucial point of SPV here: achow101 has more knowledge of Bitcoin in his toenail clippings than you do in your head. The only thing he missed was a crucial point about that old aphorism against wrestling with pigs (you get muddy, and the pig enjoys it). Show some respect, you blockhead.
That isn't what he said, and you know it.
Go back and read everything. :) That isn't going to be happening, the best strategy with your posts is to skim-read them until one finds the deliberate errors you try to promote as facts The best strategy is to skim for the select pieces of deliberate misinformation which are most likely to mislead newbies and learners. That plus the anti-nodes agenda, and the parts who demonstrate craziness in the sense of severe mental defect. |
|
|
|
He could be in the bitcoin scene since several years but just now found this forum and created an account.
Therefore newbie accounts can have a large knowledge on many topics and contribute high quality posts which should be merit worthy.
The former can, and the latter are! I know this for a fact, because some posts which I made at “Newbie” and “Jr. Member” rank have been awarded merit retrospectively, more than a month later. In some cases, people actually remembered them; in others, fresh readers were linked to them from another post and/or it is an open-source software release thread which gets bumped occasionally. Following is an incomplete selection of posts I made before the start of the merit system, whilst at the bottom two ranks, which received merit long after the fact. It is reasonable to expect that had the merit system been active in December, many of my other “Newbie” posts would have been awarded merit when they were fresh. Note: I first started actively posting 2017-12-01. (I created the account 2017-03-29, then avoided this place for eight months due to the spam.) Note also: I ranked up to “Member” on 2018-01-30, so I started with zero merit; but on 2018-01-29, I logged in after a few weeks’ absence and found that I already had 17 merits from old posts. Wherefore, I agree that “newbie accounts can have a large knowledge on many topics and contribute high quality posts”; and per my experience, such newbie posts are indeed found “merit worthy” by others. Many people here are missing that there is a life outside of this forum and the rank here is only one of many indicators how well informed someone might be about cryptos.
B4RF, does it genuinely appear to you that the account you and JayJuanGee are discussing fulfills these criteria for somebody with quality posts to contribute as a “Newbie”? Does that look like a “well informed” person who simply has “a life outside of this forum”? |
|
|
|
Anonymous Kid wrote: “Why the fuck did Satoshi implement the 1 MB blocksize limit?” To mess with your head, you vulgar retard, because he hates you personally. To let us know who the quality posters aren’t, by inciting the creation of trashy megathreads such as this one; he trolled you! Most of all, to divide the wheat from the tares in the realm of Bitcoin engineering: People’s blocksize opinions rapidly expose their true (mis)understanding of scaling issues. Scaling is always a hard engineering problem; and he wanted for it to be easy to spot those who are innately incapable of ever grasping it. But mostly just to mess with your head, personally, and laugh at you. (Giving the answer which the question is worth. I did not need to read more than the subject line to know that this was a stupid thread, which I studiously ignored until it refused to die. @#$@)
What is amazing in this, however, is how elementary and fundamentally wrong it is. It denies the very design of bitcoin !
The design of Bitcoin is a subject about which you demonstrate worse than zero understanding, insofar as misconceptions must be unlearned. You really ought to go study up on how Bitcoin actually works before you spout off. You don’t even grasp the basics. You talk as if you learned all you know by reading /r/btc.
Edit: It's not worth my time to argue this with you. You clearly don't understand how Bitcoin or SPV wallets work. To my ignore list you go.
Nobody cares whether the transaction is valid, if it is included in the block chain of course !
WRONG. Invalid transactions do not exist in the blockchain, because they cause the containing block to be rejected as invalid.Thus highlighting the flaw in premise underlying this ramble of a disorganized thinker: Nobody cares whether the transaction is valid, if it is included in the block chain of course ! The hypothesis of having to check whether transactions that are part of the SOLE current collective consensus might be "wrong" somehow, is making the hypothesis that bitcoin is entirely broken and that nobody gives a shit.
It would mean that miners have made a false block, that all other miners agreed to mine on top of that false block and then on top of that other block and so on. If a false transaction is deeply burried within the block chain, and miners are still mining on it, and no "clean prong" exists that doesn't include that block, then bitcoin is entirely broken. Because if that can happen, miners can just include ANYTHING. They can include erroneously signed transactions, they can include transactions of which the sum of the outputs is 500 times the sum of the inputs, they can include a coin base transaction that gives them 2000 BTC, they can include headers that don't correspond to the Merkle tree, they could include a porn movie, anything.
Moreover, there's not even another block chain in this world that is made correctly, because the massive amount of PoW that goes in this butched-up block chain cannot be re-done elsewhere. If the massive PoW voting power of the bitcoin miners collectively decide to make a butched-up block chain with false transactions in it, that's all there is to bitcoin, there is no clean version any more.
Yes, miner could fill a block with the output of /dev/random, if he wanted. However, he would only waste electricity on his own bill; for “Joes [] running nodes in their basement” (as you like to deride nodes) would treat the block as if it were /dev/null. There is no voting on the Bitcoin network, not “PoW voting” and not otherwise. Nodes do not blindly follow the chain with highest POW; rather, they follow the chain which is fully valid and independently validated by each of them and has the highest total POW. Moreover, in what way would a full node be helpful here ? A full node would have stopped for good when the first false block was mined.
Wrong. The node will ignore the “false block” as if it had never existed. Such is the power of nodes. (Now, how’s that for conciseness?) |
|
|
|
My core idea is that the Singularity is unavoidable, but I never figured out how machines would do it. I think crypto is the answer.
I already told people: the long version is free, for the short version, you'll have to pay. I didn't have time to be short.
It is not my "inability". It is my lack of desire to waste time on being succinct. I can be, but it takes time and effort I don't want to spend on a forum. I already spend too much time on it, I cannot spend 2 or 3 times more.
Have you ever read, say, an exposition of general relativity ? How many pages do you have to acquire, follow explanations, fill in gaps the author left, think through what the author is saying, not being quite sure that you're with him, before you actually start understanding the argument ? Compared to that level of difficulty, "working through my walls of text" is leisure in a blink of an eye. People not capable of doing this, can probably not reason on a sophisticated enough level to even start being useful.
[...]
If you tell me that the few people capable of seeing that, are elsewhere, then one must conclude that the amount of brain power here is too low to be of any sensible use in the development of any form of advanced argument. That's also a possibility of course.
Ynqvrf naq tragyrzra, jr unir n trahvar xbbx.dinofelis, I admit that my brain is no match for your “advanced argument”. Indeed, I am certain that none of the regulars on this forum has a brain capable of operating on the level of yours. I grant you all thanks you are owed for your having been so magnanimous as to grace us with your presence. Please, do not waste further time here. Go forth to seek the company of like-brained people. Just remember to give us a wave (a particular wave) when you are accepting the award to you of the Fields Medal, or whatever; and please tell the Singularity to go easy on poor, be(k)nighted old nullius, nobody’s man. Now, this started as a most excellent thread on the topic of the Lightning Network. I know, I admit, it is a characteristic of our brains that we need thoughts concisely organized and focused. Be that as it may. Does anybody have anything further to say about the Lightning Network and the metaphor of unicast networking? I will make explicit a specific question I earlier implied: Are the Lightning engineers availing themselves of the fine research literature on network routing protocols and routing algorithms? If that could be answered off-hand by anybody who’s been following Lightning development much more closely than I have, I’d be much obliged. Thanks. |
|
|
|
I'm willing to retract some ratings that are circumstantial but I believe there are at least some that seem pretty absolute.
There is a commonplace misconception that “circumstantial evidence” means weak evidence. Even in a criminal court which requires the standard of proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” (also known as “moral certainty”), it is indeed possible to obtain a conviction based exclusively on circumstantial evidence. As a practical matter, this is very difficult, and should rarely happen. But it does happen; and there’s nothing wrong with that in principle. Of course, this is neither a law court nor a criminal proceeding. I am only pointing out that “circumstantial evidence” can meet even the most demanding standards. The question is not whether the evidence be “circumstantial”, but rather, whether it be strong enough to meet whatever standard you are applying. (Also n.b. that even the most demanding standards do not demand absolute certainty—only “moral certainty”. If the only possible way the accused didn’t do it is that space aliens did it instead, then you can’t be absolutely certain of his guilt. You can’t be absolutely certain that space aliens didn’t do it! You can’t even prove that aliens don’t exist! But you can be “morally certain”, beyond any reasonable doubt. Reasonable people understand that. Absolute certainty does not exist in this world.) If I were in your position, I would aim somewhere between the standard of “clear and convincing evidence“, and that of “the preponderance of the evidence”. The latter seems relatively weak to me; but it’s good enough for winning a big-money lawsuit most places in the Anglo/American influenced parts of the world. That seems it ought suffice for distrust-tagging people accused of abuse on an Internet forum. I’d want to aim a bit higher, because I would also desire to be highly careful about not stomping on innocent users. I don’t like hurting innocent people. I would also have a zero-tolerance policy for anybody who was even a little bit guilty. This forum now has a great opportunity to recover from having been buried in garbage. It is not enhanced by the presence of people who believe in being halfway honest, and just try to cheat the new system a little bit—the same way they just cheated a little bit on school tests, when they wished to merit a passing grade. As food for thought, and not to suggest any sort of legal proceeding or legal implications, here is an intentionally cute layout of a spectrum of standards of proof; treat this as if I made it all up on the spot: - Reasonable (articulable) suspicion: You have a suspicion which can be clearly explained in reasonable terms. More than a mere hunch; much more than a guess. But still no more than a suspicion.
- Probable cause: On the face of things (at first sight, “prima facie”), the accused probably did it.
- Preponderance of the evidence: Evidence of guilt outweighs evidence of innocence. Implemented via those balance scales you see carved into statues of blindfolded ladies. Note: This requires reasonable thoroughness in loading both sides of the scale, not just stuffing one side and jumping to a conclusion.
- Clear and convincing evidence: Evidence of guilt is strong. Evidence of innocence is weak or nonexistent.
- Moral certainty, beyond a reasonable doubt: The only way he didn’t do it is if space aliens did it instead.
I hope that helps provide materials for a mental framework to support tagging decisions (past or future) which will gain not only your own confidence, but also theymos’. For your work has been important for the forum’s well-being as a community at a critical moment. Based on the timing, I have a reasonable suspicion that the DDoS attack expressed displeasure over the merit system. Thank you for your efforts to protect it, actmyname.
He pwned you there, revealing THE TRUTH that you are not theymos.
Sorry, the truth can be painful sometimes.  I’m sorry I hurt your feelings, Lauda. My heart bleeds negative-trust red. |
|
|
|
I saw a guy uploading certificates and other personal stuff in another thread on this forum so yeah people in dire circumstances are fucking desperate for money and could do anything.
What if the uploaded data is not his? I don’t know what you mean by “certificates”, but I presume you refer to some sort of identity info. There is a thriving black market for such things. — (Edited to add:) This could be an easy means to “cash out”. (Somehow, I overlooked this before. Thanks for highlighting it.) Can you add link to that thread ? Was it added to show identity proof to a campaign manager ?
|
|
|
|
Thus you may understand my reflexive irritation at apparent fear, uncertainty, and doubt...
There are many people with an axe to grind against Bitcoin.
With apologies for the ridiculous noise, I believe this incidentally demonstrates my point: This is a major problem for Bitcoin because like i keep saying the development team are working
for the wrong masters and by allowing the miners to ramp fees up to $55 and doing nothing it may
have been a fatal wound to Bitcoin and the price has been going down ever since.
We have 20,000 miner so the ones that don't like the changes can leave and allow the remaining
miners to share around whats left and earn a honest wage.
To avoid derailing the thread over a known troll, I will avoid taking that any further. |
|
|
|
Hereto, I avoided replying here out of an apparent conflict of interest. I wish to make it clear that what I say is not based on LoyceV having picked some of my posts. Much as humanly possible, I will avoid thinking about that when I consider whether or not LoyceV should become a merit source. The criteria for a merit source should require that a source must be fair and possessed of sound judgment, well-informed, resistant to corruption, and deeply invested in the Bitcoin Forum’s long-term success as a community. By such evidence as I have seen in my experience here, LoyceV appears to have these characteristics in more than adequate measure. A merit source should ideally be someone who actively strives to promote post quality in a positive sense, by making and promoting quality posts, and also in a negative sense, by fighting spam and abuse. LoyceV’s post history is impressive for his own quality as a poster. Almost from the first day I actively started posting here, I noticed his aptitude for both starting and encouraging generally helpful discussions. On the spamfighting side, LoyceV’s copypaste plagiarism reporting thread is an endeavour I much respect, independently of the merit issue. I suggest that it clearly demonstrates his devotion to forum quality, plus the superlative level of effort he will expend for it. I haven’t always agreed with everything I’ve seen LoyceV say in this forum; but that’s not important or relevant to this topic. Frankly, I also do not agree with all his above selections insofar as I myself would not have awarded merit to some of them (though none is an unsound selection). I state these things to make clear that the foregoing is neither based on any general agreement of opinions, nor on any expectation that LoyceV would award merit the same way as I would. I here consider only matters which speak to likely soundness as a merit source, as described above. I hope that the administration is considering his application, for I believe that its acceptance would be beneficial to the forum. |
|
|
|
Stop harassing others, you basement dwelling pest. Oh right, now I see why: -1010: -10 / +14.
Lauda, take a chill pill. You’re only sore at Quickseller because he was brave enough to dare deny that you are theymos. Hurt your ego, did it? Well, even a stopped clock is right twice a day—and even a Quickseller must be honest at least once in a lifetime. He pwned you there, revealing THE TRUTH that you are not theymos.
Other than the escrow scammer/account farmer, and OP, everyone is in support of actmyname in this thread.
|
|
|
|
People can first find a clearnet connection to sign up with first then use tor.
No, no, no! Mixing Tor and non-Tor use for the same login is a privacy cardinal sin, the kind of thing you find in FAQs on foot-shooting and “what not to do”. It has already happened that I advised a user here to totally abandon his account and make a new one, after Google refused to serve him a login CAPTCHA and he gave up and signed in via clearnet; I doubt he heeded me, but what I told him was sound. Please do not ever advise people to do this, much less consider it as a basis for policy.(Perhaps I read too much into it, but if you meant more than explicit in the word “find”—no, an open wifi hotspot should never be mixed with Tor use. I mention this, because it’s also FAQ fodder.) I wouldn't be against users signing up via tor paying a (bigger) fee, and have in the past suggested that all connections are blacklisted once used to sign up via, but a user could then bypass that by paying a fee or buying a member rank etc to whitelist it for themselves.
Interesting. Do you have stats on how much abuse is actually coming through Tor? I’d presume much, but I wonder how much; it is never good to proceed based on assumptions. As for abusive account signups specifically, is the current fee not enough? That would surprise me, given the economics of spamming and the nature of the payment method (no stolen credit cards!). There is always a delicate balance when abuse issues collide with the privacy interests of legitimate users. One of the things I most appreciate about this forum is its friendliness toward Tor users, with good precedent insofar as theymos says that Satoshi “always used Tor” (I presume with no mixed clearnet use!). I am also keen on fighting abuse; I actually didn’t use my account for eight months after signing up, because the quality here has been so bad that I didn’t want to waste my time. If you’d care to discuss this further, perhaps on a new thread, so would I. I have not inconsiderable expertise on the Tor side. I also have some substantial longstanding familiarity with net.abuse issues, though not much at all with those specifically affecting this forum. I’d like to help somehow. The point is to make it so creating multiple to hundreds of accounts just isn't financially worth it but people should be able to have one or two or as many as they can afford or pay for. I guess with the merit system the number of accounts you can have now for signature campaigns requires more work and will slow farmers down greatly but I think people will still find ways around it by trading or buying merits etc.
I think ultimately, the merit system will succeed if and only if it becomes a social solution applying technical tools, rather than a technical bandage applied to a bleeding social wound. That’s why I’ve been so intent on posting about this in Meta lately. Technical obstacles can be hacked and gamed around. A cohesive merit culture would not be so easy to fool. |
|
|
|
I think this is the best the decision you could take by removing abuser in your trust list, and i think you should ask Blazed to stop recruiting racist and abuser in his trust list. Noone of those abusers fignt realy againts spammers all they want its money,power to destroy user accounts. Its time to leave the trust system in the hand of moderators instead of all those bad guys.
How come you are so smart as a newbie in terms of knowing which members are problematic? Furthermore, why do you think that it is a good idea to bold your whole statement? Why do you feel that your ideas are so important, as a newbie? Oh, snap. I hope that people with requisite information access are paying attention. Due to the boldface, I mean. The boldface is very impressive, especially when it is turned trust-negative red in colour. [Edit: Check post history. Interesting.] By the way, my respect for actmyname increases substantially with each new post of this kind. They show that he was right on-target. I hope that Blazed does the right thing, and keeps him in DT2. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
