Worse still, they seem to encourage criminal activity. Got some stolen payment details? Make some fraudulent payments through the cashback service and get even more bang for your stolen buck. Have to deal with that crap on a weekly basis at work.
Probably. Though I'm really not sure how easy or hard it is to get away with stuff like that on these platforms. Ridiculously easy, I'm afraid to say. I don't know about this particular service, as it's based in North America, but there must be plenty of those cashback services here in Europe as I have to waste time at work dealing with the fallout of all the identity theft and fraudulent payments associated with them. It's yet another damning indictment that KYC not only fails to prevent identity theft, but actively enables it. Thieves are buying and selling vast tranches or personal information in conjunction with stolen payment details to commit ever-increasing amounts of fraud. |
|
|
|
Ehh, decent services for earning some extra sats, but I'd guess that these services are a nightmare in terms of privacy. They're businesses and they'd need to earn money one way or another, and I'm betting that it's through gathering of data.
Worse still, they seem to encourage criminal activity. Got some stolen payment details? Make some fraudulent payments through the cashback service and get even more bang for your stolen buck. Have to deal with that crap on a weekly basis at work. |
|
|
|
Nobody's "godifying" anybody. What I did was use Gavin's final words on the subject to demonstrate that there exists some doubt in his mind that Craig is Satoshi, whereas BSV supporters believe there is none and go around misrepresenting his actual beliefs. Then nullius construed my post to be a defense of Gavin which needed to be attacked, which was both insulting and stupid because it was nothing of the sort. I 100% believe that Gavin got duped, and even he admitted that was a possibility, and knowing what you already know about my post history here its ludicrous to entertain the idea for 1 second I am defending his 50% belief that Wright is Satoshi. I hope that's not what you were actually thinking. I see where you're coming from. The problem is that Faketoshi has become such a sore point for many that even the perception of a partial endorsement needs to be challenged. Have to be really careful about how we word things now. Your clarification makes sense to me, so I hope that's as far as it goes. I'm going to keep my fingers crossed that this is not something users will start falling out over on a regular basis. |
|
|
|
" General trustworthiness " is such a dangerous and subjective term it is a high level manipulators and scammers wet dream. These type of subjective and open terms that almost exist to ensure objective useful and valuable standards are defunct and dismantled should be avoided at all costs.
I appreciate your desire for things to be that black and white, good and bad, scammer and not scammer, etc. But sadly human beings rarely conform to such absolutes. Trust is inherently subjective. There's no way to remove that from the equation. I wouldn't rule out further tweaks or enhancements, but I also wouldn't support the removal of tagging unless there was a suitable replacement that still allowed for subjective ratings. Flags alone are not sufficient to do that. I personally want to hear a range of opinions before forming my own conclusions. If you have trouble accepting the opinions of others, you are free to ignore the tags. What you can't do, as much as you might like to, is to simply declare an "inviolable truth" when you have, in fact, merely given an opinion and then insist that everyone sees the matter the same way you do. I'm afraid it doesn't work like that. |
|
|
|
It is interesting this " Quality over Quantity" argument you are both advocating. Plays very nicely into supporting the argument for scrapping the tagging system.
Quality warnings based upon objective evidence and standards are indeed superior than a lot more subjective invalid noise. The noise devalues the quality warnings and can be gamed and manipulated to prevent free speech and this can in turn enable high level scammers operate with impunity and silence their critics or those wanting too raise the alarm but fear personal retribution.
Flags aren't suitable for all types of transgression. I don't believe Theymos ever claimed the flag system was intended to replace the tagging system. It was made clear at the launch of the flag system that the two were for different uses: I think that several of the problems with Trust were because three different goals were being jammed into one system:
1. Getting a general idea of someone's trade history and trustworthiness in one convenient location, sort of like reviews on sites like EBay.
2. Warning newbies/guests who don't know how to research properly about high-risk people.
3. Deterring scams by creating a cost to scamming (ie. you'll "lose" a veteran account).
To improve this, I've split up these use-cases:
Use-case #1 is the old trust system, but I made the descriptions on the rating types a bit more general and removed the concept of a trust score. The numbers are now "distinct positive raters / distinct neutral raters / distinct negative raters". You should give these ratings for anything which you think would impact someone's willingness to trade with the person, but you should not use trust ratings to attack a person's opinions or otherwise talk about things which would not be relevant to reasonable prospective traders.
Use-cases 2 and 3 will be handled by a new system of flags. Why would anyone advocate not giving users a general idea of someone's trustworthiness unless you wanted to exploit that sudden murkiness to " operate with impunity", as you put it? |
|
|
|
bitrefill may have changed their tact
*Translation: franky1 now realises they were talking out of their arse and had it wrong the whole time, but clearly feels the need to gloss over that quickly so they can go back to spewing more meaningless techno-babble that has no basis in reality.* We're not letting you off that easy. Tell me what exactly they "changed", you pathetic liar. They were never using unbacked channels, you were just being an illiterate halfwit and falsely claiming they were. You're the one who needs to change tact. |
|
|
|
Topic in question: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5223497.20Specific quotes: if you go check that topic thread and read the post from above mine in that topic .. you now the one made by bitrefill.. you know the one you merited... you would read
'Channel rules are established between the two parties that enter them, it is voluntary. That means you can agree to any rules you want. If you use rules that are different than other LN wallets or the rest of the network, you will be limited to a subnetwork of people using the same rules. Turbo channel opening requires a custom channel, '
they are playing by their own rules to have the ability to open channels with millisat balance thats not pegged to a confirmed and locked bitcoin blockchain tx'
its bitrefill that should make it absolutely clear that people are accepting unbacked balance.
again shame on you for making it out the user is in the wrong for opening the channel
most users/consumers using these custom rule lite wallets. think its the same rules. think all LN millisats are backed. they are not coders or know how to check things. they just like many consumers blindly trust the PR thats been spouted out. again they are not coders. so yes they are unware of what they are agreeing to. but agree anyway because they are given millisats at a discount. they dont see they are given unbacked millisats
these wallets do not have a button of terms and conditions that in bold tell people that the balance is not pegged. it doesnt tell them the critical stuff.. its just a open channel to get milliats. and the person says yes they want them millisats.. without any consideration if those millisats are backed pegged to a real bitcoin confirmed tx lock of funds.
you are an absolute fool.
but its nice to know you admit now that you feel its ok to have unbacked balance in LN.. but shame your blaming the user for having unbacked balance by saying they agreed to it. you really dont care about users security or having a payment sstem thats as strong as what bitcoin is. total shame on you.
whats next blame users for being suckered into the HYIP schemes that are starting up in LN. do you have any moral/ethics to actually care about users experience and user risk. or are you just mr exagerated positive PR guy wanting to fame up LN under the FALSE pretense that its thought to be linked to bitcoin because people throw the buzzword around alot.
even thor turbo admits to this by saying their unbacked channels are customary and usually those accepting unbacked balance are using their software varient..
I'm not a lawyer or anything, but it looks like a slam-dunk defamation case as far as I can see. No less than three totally unjustified accusations of unbacked balances being sold to the public. Plus a comparison to a HYIP scheme to boot. |
|
|
|
even thor turbo admits to this by saying their unbacked channels are customary and usually those accepting unbacked balance are using their software varient..
I don't know what your fixation is with slandering BitRefill by claiming they are using unbacked channels. If they were unbacked channels (and they're not), they would be irredeemable on the blockchain. If users were paying for a balance they were not able to redeem, that would be a scam, which is demonstrably not the case. When Thor Turbo channels are closed and settled, the balance is redeemable on the Bitcoin blockchain. There is no "fractional reserve" as you previously claimed. I sincerely hope BitRefill take all necessary litigation against you for the damage you could potentially be causing to their perfectly legitimate business. From the horse's mouth: You misunderstand how Turbo channels work. The risk is Bitrefill's because we are fronting the BTC in that channel
From the website: What are the limitations?
Each Thor channel will be kept open on our side for 30 days, potentially longer if there's activity on it. The reason for this limitation, and why this service comes at a cost, is that opening an empty channel requires us to lock up our bitcoin into your channel and keep them there.
And the same applies to the Turbo channels. Thor. Turbo. Channels. Are. Not. Unbacked. You. Moron. The service has been operating for over a year now. I think someone would have noticed by this point if the funds weren't redeemable on the blockchain. If you are still confident that the channels are unbacked, please get in contact with BitRefill's legal representatives and pass along your personal contact information. I'm sure they'd love to hear from you. |
|
|
|
A simple look at the rate of speed new posts occur across the forum since 2014, shows their has been a mass exodus of users.
If those users were of a similar calibre to yourself, it's safe to assume nothing of value was lost. You should probably factor in the significant portion of this "exodus" comprised of spammers and plagiarists that were banned. Quality over quantity is preferable and I'm pretty sure we're not going to miss those accounts. The rate of new posts is an invalid metric to judge the success of the tagging system. |
|
|
|
A return to the old tagging system, would again begin damaging the entire forum, as it made many just leave never to return.
Or simply claim they're leaving and then start using a new username in an attempt to hide the fact they've been red-tagged.  |
|
|
|
a simple checkpoint ensured no 51% attack could revert any data before the checkpoint.
Exactly. Which would be of zero consolation to anyone who received BTC after the checkpoint. So, despite having literally just explained the primary weakness yourself, you somehow still can't see the problem? |
|
|
|
Satoshi approved of coded checkpoints, do you dumbmad now claim to be smarter than your savior Satoshi.  What you're presenting here is an appeal to authority logical fallacy (likely because you're fresh out of arguments). Just because satoshi implemented a particular feature, it does not mean that feature can't be removed later if it no longer serves a purpose. In the fledgling early years, checkpoints made sense, but as Bitcoin has evolved and grown, the decidedly limited protection they offer has simply made them redundant. Bitcoin handles far too much wealth on a daily basis to revert back to an arbitrary earlier point in time. I wouldn't claim to be smarter than satoshi, but I would proclaim you to be dumber than a box of rocks. |
|
|
|
I suggest you tell them to quit spreading nonsense and I won't have to use detailed examples to explain to them why they were wrong.
The problem there is, I don't think you'll be able to convince me that they are wrong while you have such fundamental misconceptions over the supposed importance of checkpoints. Your " detailed examples" are based on a flawed premise. If you ever reach a better understanding of the matter, perhaps I'll reconsider. |
|
|
|
When flags come from an infamous troll, I see them more as a badge of honour, not a taint. You must have been doing something right to earn one (or three, as the case may be). Keep up the good work.  |
|
|
|
It's worth pointing out that we're giving someone ample opportunity to plug their coin, when such blatant advertising should be happening in the altcoin board. If we're not going to steer the conversation back towards Bitcoin, I'd call for this topic to be locked/moved. The question as to why Bitcoin no longer uses checkpoints is answered rather well here. I hope this clears up any confusion some people might be having. |
|
|
|
Only the strongest will remain in this market.
And part of Bitcoin remaining the strongest will mean not compromising the parts that make it strong in the hope of making it more conducive to use as a currency. Some forkcoins have already proven that's not a viable path. We need to find ways to make it more usable as a currency without sacrificing the existing qualities people believe in and rely on. |
|
|
|
but its nice to know you admit now that you feel its ok to have unbacked balance in LN..
*Facepalm* That's like saying you are admitting Bitcoin's total supply can be modified because anyone can change the supply consensus rules in their client. But in doing so, you effectively create your own network with no one else on it. Read more carefully and actually TRY to comprehend. Don't just deliberately take things out of context to support your pre-existing misconceptions. |
|
|
|
Emphasis mine: 'Channel rules are established between the two parties that enter them, it is voluntary. That means you can agree to any rules you want. If you use rules that are different than other LN wallets or the rest of the network, you will be limited to a subnetwork of people using the same rules., '
So you freely admit that: You can't open a channel without having funds locked on the blockchain unless both participants have freely chosen to allow that. Meaning no one can find themselves in a position where the other party was doing something they were unaware of. You would also be unable to interact with any other Lightning users with the standard settings if you did that. Or to put it another way: Your actions in opening a "channel" without funds like that would be the equivalent of writing "twenty pounds" on a piece of paper and playing make believe with an equally gormless friend that you were exchanging money with each other, while the rest of the world didn't even notice you existed and went about with their normal everyday lives. To insinuate that anyone could confuse your play-time with a legitimate financial transaction is absurd. Thank you for finally clarifying your mindless FUD. It should be apparent to all that your earlier "scenarios" (in the loosest possible sense of the word) were yet another attempt to cause panic over nothing. Further, BitRefill then went on to clarify how Thor Turbo channels work, but you are still somehow misinterpreting it. As usual, the only confusion is whether you are deliberately misrepresenting what was said in an attempt to weave a false narrative, or whether you are simply too unintelligent to comprehend the meaning of what is being explained to you. All the facts have been presented to you, but you somehow still reach a flawed conclusion. Again, emphasis mine: Sorry, but it seems you are predetermined to paint LN, and Bitrefill's use of it, negatively and incorrectly. Calling any of what we do with Lightning fractional or custodial is literally false. The coins in the turbo channel are owned by the recipient the moment they are pushed, they have control and can close the channel to claim them or route a payment to spend them. No one can print new Bitcoin in LN, and no one can double-encumber any coins in LN. |
|
|
|
your explanation had tooo many if's and maybes and assumptions in it. I've come to learn that caveats need to be included when dealing with pernicious cunts like you. Maybe if you weren't such a pathetic troll, I could deal in absolutes. I have to make it clear that Wumbo needs to be enabled by both parties in order to facilitate a 10 BTC transaction, or you would try to claim that I didn't know that needed to be the case. It's just how you operate. Try being less of a shit-sack if you don't want me to cover my back and protect my reputation by preempting your repeated attempts to deflect from your own misunderstandings of Lightning. but lets play your game of assumptions.. just for fun
so assuming all went as you assume in the world where we both agreed and assuming that you then kept the channel open to use the funds later.. as you said... well by using the funds later means you pushing funds back to my side of the channel..
.. oops theres one assumption you did not think much of.. yep me getting coins back If I were simply using you to route a payment to someone you had a connection to, you wouldn't get to keep the coins. Of course, if you were unreliable or uncooperative, the more likely outcome is that someone would close the channel with you. Sorry if that contains one too many "ifs" for you, but even a simpleton like you must understand there is more than one potential outcome. lets try another assumption
oh and assuming that i didnt give you a 'unconfirmed' txid for channel opening .. you know one thats not in a block AKA not broadcast.. .. yep if the initial funds are not on the blockchain then you cant then have control of 10btc...
oh did you forget that channels can be opened without actual blockchain confirmed funds..
dang.. you really did assume without research...
so in this case.. if you broadcast a close session.. there would be no locked coins to close against. thus you et nothing..
shame again for you not really thinking about all assumptions I am tired of this ridiculous song and dance of yours. Please name the unmodified client that allows this so that your claims can be investigated. If you reply "do your own research" or any variation thereof, I will leave you negative feedback for unsubstantiated claims. Based on past conversations, I am convinced that you are still misunderstanding the Thor service from BitRefill (a representative from BitRefill has confirmed as much to you in the Development and Technical board before you got banned from it, linked here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5130122.msg50947683#msg50947683) and I'm not wasting any further time on you until you can prove otherwise. |
|
|
|
Because many of us here are a deeply suspicious bunch, it's always best to include a direct link to your GitHub so that people can easily inspect the code: https://github.com/nathanp/crypto-price-widgetIf I hadn't spotted that link on your site, I'd have already posted a warning for other users to be wary. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
