Auction ended. Final result: Slots BTC/Slot Person 2 4.50 victorhing 2 4.35 MariaQin 1 4.30 idsb2b 1 4.30 bitok.com 1 4.10 FortuneJack 2 4.10 betcointm 2 @ 4.2
Sorry, I'm not so sure about your service, and it seems to be down right now. |
|
|
|
I didn't check the headers, so I didn't notice this. That is very convincing that it is not Satoshi. But how can that domain name be spoofed? Does the sender set that name or is it done by the receiving server?
Here's apparently the person who sent it, explaining how he did it.In SMTP (the email protocol), you start your connection by saying who you are via a command like HELO bitcointalk.org ("hello, I'm bitcointalk.org"). Most servers will then check that the IP address you're connecting from actually matches the hostname you give, and if not will immediately drop the connection. But the mailing list's server is apparently really stupid, and just blindly believes that any given hostname is actually accurate. So you could tell it HELO whitehouse.gov and the server will believe that you're whitehouse.gov. Or whatever. |
|
|
|
This is spoofed. Received: from mail.vistomail.com (cpe-104-231-205-87.wi.res.rr.com
[104.231.205.87])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 01BCADF
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 10 Dec 2015 06:53:42 +0000 (UTC) 104.231.205.87 is not mail.vistomail.com. It's some residential IP, cpe-104-231-205-87.wi.res.rr.com. I feel like the mailing list must be seriously misconfigured to allow this sort of spoofing... You could exploit this to send mail "from" any of the devs, for example. |
|
|
|
Here are the luckiest and unluckiest Legendaries so far: +-----------------------------------------+--------+
| realName | alimit |
+-----------------------------------------+--------+
| teukon | 1029 |
| klondike_bar | 1029 |
| foggyb | 1028 |
| jl2012 | 1028 |
| jbreher | 1027 |
| DarkHyudrA | 1027 |
| zvs | 1024 |
| bitpop | 1024 |
| JoelKatz | 1024 |
| LightRider | 1022 |
| mc_lovin | 1022 |
| Portnoy | 1022 |
| PsychoticBoy | 1021 |
| Raoul Duke | 1020 |
| fsb4000 | 1020 |
| organofcorti | 1019 |
| marcus_of_augustus | 1019 |
| markm | 1018 |
| shmadz | 1018 |
| Serge | 1017 |
| tacotime | 1017 |
| notme | 1017 |
| ewibit | 1016 |
| ocminer | 1015 |
| bitfreak! | 1015 |
| Hyena | 1015 |
| theymos | 1014 |
| CrazyGuy | 1014 |
| elux | 1014 |
| CanaryInTheMine | 1013 |
| da2ce7 | 1012 |
| BitcoinEXpress | 1010 |
| ThiagoCMC | 1010 |
| b!z | 1010 |
| jtimon | 1009 |
| acoindr | 1009 |
...
| Tigggger | 795 |
| sardokan | 795 |
| sgbett | 795 |
| Mabsark | 795 |
| Biomech | 795 |
| Eisenhower34 | 794 |
| bitcoin carpenter | 794 |
| BurtW | 794 |
| siameze | 794 |
| markj113 | 794 |
| Chalkbot | 793 |
| derpinheimer | 793 |
| Richy_T | 793 |
| stahanovec | 792 |
| runeks | 792 |
| eleuthria | 792 |
| vokain | 791 |
| BTCat | 791 |
| ninjaboon | 790 |
| chungenhung | 790 |
| siulynot | 790 |
| killerstorm | 790 |
| wknight | 790 |
| Benson Samuel | 790 |
| Pieter Wuille | 790 |
| TTBit | 789 |
| Grumlin | 789 |
| nikkus | 789 |
| Azrace | 789 |
| DiabloD3 | 788 |
| MemoryDealers | 788 |
| 600watt | 788 |
| giszmo | 788 |
| Gabi | 788 |
| cyclops | 788 |
| weex | 787 |
| dreamwatcher | 787 |
| nwfella | 787 |
| Justin00 | 787 |
| haploid23 | 787 |
| Abdussamad | 787 |
| film2240 | 787 |
| ethought | 787 |
| andrehorta | 786 |
| Nagle | 786 |
| friedcat | 786 |
| saddambitcoin | 786 |
| marcotheminer | 785 |
| crazyates | 785 |
| sunnankar | 785 |
| MicroGuy | 784 |
| klaus | 784 |
| phelix | 783 |
| Miz4r | 783 |
| Xenland | 783 |
| cypherdoc | 783 |
| Bytekiller | 782 |
| loshia | 782 |
| icey | 781 |
| klee | 781 |
| Adrian-x | 781 |
| shitaifan2013 | 781 |
| rpietila | 781 |
| dexX7 | 781 |
| ajareselde | 780 |
| BayAreaCoins | 780 |
| cinnamon_carter | 780 |
| ulrich909 | 780 |
| piramida | 779 |
| gizmoh | 779 |
| GIANNAT | 779 |
| eldentyrell | 779 |
| MysteryMiner | 779 |
| BitThink | 778 |
| monbux | 778 |
| BitcoinForumator | 778 |
| muyuu | 776 |
| Grinder | 776 |
| mogrith | 775 |
+-----------------------------------------+--------+
|
|
|
|
So reduce the actual block limit to 500KByte? (effective max 2 MB).
I was thinking 1 MB normal blocks + 1 MB witness. Apparently most transactions are nowadays about 50% witness data, so we'd be able to pretty much fill up both the normal blocks and the "witness blocks". You're right that typical blocks would only fill 1-2 MB of witness data (2-3 MB total) with sipa's proposal, so maybe it's OK. But I'm not 100% sure yet. |
|
|
|
Finally cleans up issues with signature TX malleability, makes fraud proofs viable for real SPV security and incidentally frees up some capacity breathing room for the near term (2-3MB per block), who could argue against it? Unless there is some truly objectionable security risk discovered it should be soft-forked in ASAP. A few niggles about 'cleanest' way to do that but hopefully that wont turn into too much slide-rule swinging.
One issue is that if the "effective max block size" with SW is 4 MB, then the maximum bandwidth that a full node will have to deal with is the same as if we had a hardfork to 4 MB blocks. With the current way that the network functions and is laid out, this might be too much bandwidth. Maybe this could be somewhat addressed with IBLT, weak blocks, and other tech, but that stuff doesn't exist yet. I think that there's basically agreement that 2 MB would be safe, though. |
|
|
|
Were hash algorithms 1 through 11 added to any well known OpenPGP implementation before 2009?
All software would have supported it, and it even would have been possible to manually force GPG into creating a key with those preferences in 2008. But we already have a key for Satoshi. Everyone knows that it's accurate. It was created on Oct. 30, 2008, and it used the default GPG cipher preferences at the time. Now we're asked to believe that Satoshi had a secret additional key also created on Oct 30, 2008, but it used the default cipher preferences of today's version of GPG. Why would Satoshi create two keys on the same day with different cipher preferences (one of which is conveniently the default for modern GPG versions), and keep one totally secret? It's theoretically possible, but it makes no sense. By far the most likely explanation is that it was back-dated (easily possible with stock GPG) in order to trick gullible people into believing that this person is Satoshi. The other "evidence" is similarly worthless: Satoshi never used satoshin@vistomail.com (only satoshi@vistomail.com and satoshin@gmx.com), and the blogs were obviously back-dated as well. I am very disappointed in the community for (largely) being fooled by this obvious imposter. |
|
|
|
Well what im trying to do is to use the "report to moderator" as much as i can, i just hope that moderators do not become tired about me by reporting them all  That's definitely fine. When a post is deleted, the reports on that post are automatically marked "handled", so it's no extra work for mods. And if you happen to see something that mods don't, it helps. At the same time, it is unlikely that these posts will be missed for very long, so don't worry too much about reporting them. |
|
|
|
LOL  (I still don't agree with your and Satoshi's dislike of Bitcoin data transactions, though. I still think that my old BitDNS idea, while flawed, would work better than Namecoin or a sidechain.) |
|
|
|
The forum money I held has largely been spent now, mostly in the forum software project. Slickage was paid $100,000 per month in all of 2014 and until May in 2015. Since June 2015, they've been paid $50,000 per month. The exchange rate varied substantially throughout this period, but the end result is that most of the BTC was spent. The rate ($85,417/month average as of the end of 2015) might seem high to people unfamiliar with professional software development, but it's normal. The project is quite a bit over-due and over-budget (the original estimate was 1 year and $1.2 million), but I've been constantly monitoring Slickage, and they've definitely been making solid, continual progress, so it seemed correct to continue to project. The vast majority of total forum revenue was from ads, not donations, but to the extent that donations were used: this software was in fact the main stated goal of donations. As I've said before: I have absolutely no personal relationship to Slickage, and I receive no "kickbacks" whatsoever. I've never even met them in person. I first learned of Slickage from Warren Togami, who had previously done a lot of work for the forum and was himself recommended by gmaxwell and others. (I've also never met Warren in person.) The current status of the software is that it's ~85% done. The core of it is entirely functional and often much better/faster than SMF, though there are still several missing features. There will be a public beta before the end of the month, I think, at which time I'll post more about what's left to be done. Also see http://epochtalk.org/ for more info. |
|
|
|
|
Probably the next one would be "Mythical".
|
|
|
|
|
"Activity" is a good name because it shows how many days you've been active on the forum. If you created an account in 2010, used it for a week, and then returned in 2015, your activity (including potential activity) would be pretty small.
I agree that it'd be better to look at the quality of your posts and things like that, but this can't be calculated automatically.
|
|
|
|
why not make it easier on everyone and just allow say, 64 or 128 bytes of random data in a transaction?
That's already possible. <pubkey> OP_CHECKSIG. <pubkey> can be 33 to 120 bytes. I also support a third transaction type for timestamp hash sized arbitrary data. There's no point not having one since you can already do it anyway. It would tell nodes they don't need to bother to index it. |
|
|
|
Satoshi (my emphasis): A generation ago, multi-user time-sharing computer systems had a similar problem. Before strong encryption, users had to rely on password protection to secure their files, placing trust in the system administrator to keep their information private. Privacy could always be overridden by the admin based on his judgment call weighing the principle of privacy against other concerns, or at the behest of his superiors. Then strong encryption became available to the masses, and trust was no longer required. Data could be secured in a way that was physically impossible for others to access, no matter for what reason, no matter how good the excuse, no matter what.
It's time we had the same thing for money.
|
|
|
|
Did a start up with -rescan. Balance on 'getbalance' is still the same. That means all is well, right? Would you recommend I do anything now?
That should be accurate. -rescan causes Bitcoin Core to re-check all block chain transactions for changes to your wallet transactions. |
|
|
|
I wish that Google was smart enough to notice this copying and ban the copycat sites. I just attempted a login.
You should change your password here just in case. |
|
|
|
|
Run Bitcoin with the -rescan switch.
|
|
|
|
|
Legendary already takes several years to obtain. I feel like this is enough. Maybe if I someday start to see that there's some decently-sized subset of Legendary members who are "noticeably more veteran", then another rank would be appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
Browsers don't send referrers on HTTPS -> HTTP links.
|
|
|
|
|
I have two extra slots in the current round 160. They will each last for at least 3 days and perhaps as many as 5-7 days from the time of this post. I will sell them for 0.45 BTC each, or possibly the best lower offer. First come first serve. PM me. Edit: Both sold.
P.S. fastdice.com can bid on any number of slots in this auction, and idsb2b can bid on 1 slot.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
