2 blocks per second.....
The awesomeness of "CPU friendly" algorithms. No reason this same thing can't/won't happen to every "CPU friendly" FailCoin.
Diff will solve this... Have you ever watched a new blockchain starting with low diff? Genius, If you haven't noticed, as the diff is rising and so is the block generation LOL... Wait... WHAT!?!? Please tell me that you used an exploit to do that and that it's not built into the protocol... Maged... he's lying through his teeth ... no exploit, no attack, nothing ... he's full of crap the network is operating as it should with the rather large opening hash rate it had. Oh, in that case, he better think of something quick if he wants to keep his account. |
|
|
|
2 blocks per second.....
The awesomeness of "CPU friendly" algorithms. No reason this same thing can't/won't happen to every "CPU friendly" FailCoin.
Diff will solve this... Have you ever watched a new blockchain starting with low diff? Genius, If you haven't noticed, as the diff is rising and so is the block generation LOL... Wait... WHAT!?!? Please tell me that you used an exploit to do that and that it's not built into the protocol... |
|
|
|
|
It actually is against forum policy here to remain ignorant in the way that post describes it, but mostly because it's indistinguishable from trolling.
|
|
|
|
It's a shame that mods refuse to acknowledge the failings of this forum and try to improve it.
On the contrary, I acknowledge the failings of our moderation very well. For example, I very badly want to delete Gerken's post above. However, when you start moderating like that, you add the human element to the equation. Pretty quickly, you start moderating with your opinion. You could very easily start deleting discussions that would have ended up being quite important. This forum is designed to be anti-groupthink. While groupthink has its place, it's the last thing we want to encourage in a revolutionary currency still on the bleeding edge. Speaking of Bitcoin, that brings up a good analogy: Much like cash is the base form of money, Bitcoin is also a base form of money. Things can be layered on top of it to make it more suitable for a general audience, but you need that base. On the internet, cash can't be transferred directly. You need to use a layered version of cash: credit cards. However, credit cards suck for the merchants. Bitcoin fixes this by making its base form of currency exist on the internet itself, allowing things to be layered on top of it, but not requiring it. If you're following, you probably know where I'm going with this. Without a base form of a place to discuss Bitcoin that isn't censored, you would get stuck using a layer where you might never get heard. Bitcointalk hosts the base of all Bitcoin discussions, allowing information to flow on to the higher, more moderated layers, like StackExchange. In that way, I suppose that you could call us the 4chan of Bitcoin. Try imagining how dull the internet would be if it weren't for 4chan. |
|
|
|
Moderator: If we cant post in peace without whithering attacks and cross examination from self appointed high commsissioners, then we quit. Thanks for visiting! We wish you well in the future. |
|
|
|
|
Did you really just compare us to 4chan?
|
|
|
|
|
BitcoinEXpress,
I am this close to having you banned. Stop this shit. I don't care if you dox CH, but you need to stop making threads and otherwise troll about it.
|
|
|
|
still much better than a bank which can take days.
My credit/debit card is instant. That may be how it looks from the user's prospective, but if you asked a business, they'd tell you that credit cards actually take days. |
|
|
|
But okay, you all win... Next time I see a scammer I will not tell anyone.
Please do tell us about scammers when you see them. However, just telling us to be careful and to implement systems that already exist doesn't help anyone. If this information isn't readily available, perhaps we need a new sticky. Make a thread compiling all the scam prevention techniques mentioned throughout the forum and I'd be happy to sticky it. Leave the threads identifying a scammer to just that: identifying the scammer. Burying this information in these threads just makes the problem worse, not better. |
|
|
|
Hey, what the fuck, I never got my 2.2 btc out! lol Case not closed!!
Trade-BTC, you PM'd me. If you would like to just close my account on the site and send 2.2 to the address in my signature, that would be acceptable by me.
No, that is not acceptable. If you want me to reopen the investigation, it must be requested to be sent to a unique Bitcoin address. Otherwise, anything you receive after that post on that address will be considered a payment by Trade-Btc.com. |
|
|
|
Guys, there's no denying that the traffic to this forum has been in steady decline since June and I think it's fair to say that the high noise-to-signal ratio is partially responsible. So why not use the alt. currencies forum as a guinea pig to test if the iron fist approach makes it more enjoyable to read? You don't lose anything by trying since this is the forum you care about the least. "Hey guys! The bitcoin people are so insecure about their blockchain that they feel the need to censor alt currency discussions more than bitcoin discussions on their forum!" Yeah... That'll go over well... |
|
|
|
I'm so sorry I caused it to look this way guys. I am young, but not a minor, and when I made that auction for the domain I had sold it offline to a friend after the user DonnyCMU didn't want it based on the terms (it had something to do with the price of BTC dropping/rising). This of course all happened in PM and I'm sorry I was very new to the forum and didn't understand the value of my reputation enough to post a followthrough. I am most certainly not any of the people you mentioned and I'm truly sorry for causing this mixup.
Thanks. Matthew seems to buy this story, so I'll accept it too, for now, unless other evidence is presented. It also doesn't contradict your story, so it has that going for it. The scammer investigation is now closed. |
|
|
|
|
Oh shit, this just turned into an official scammer investigation. Trade-Btc.com: please send me any evidence you have that disproves your relationships with the above mentioned known scammers.
|
|
|
|
Coinotron has publicly requested that I test their security
What, are they not paying you? If they are paying you, I don't understand why you wouldn't just give the wallet right back... |
|
|
|
Scripting for multi-signature transactions should be fully implemented before OP_EVAL is considered. When multi-signature transactions are working, I believe people will come to realise that the "business need" for OP_EVAL is illusory. I expect that any bitcoin-accepting business will provide a "simple" per-transaction receiving address. Then, when the transaction is complete, the business will transfer the BTC to a multi-signature address according to their business needs. This is analogous to how it works in regular commerce. Day-to-day transactions are handled less formally by one person (but with internal controls). For example, the cashier at the bank or at the supermarket. Larger amounts are regularly transferred into bank accounts that require multiple signatures. It would be cumbersome if a store manager was not able to (e.g.) issue a small refund without involving all of the signatories of the main account. Consider a business that has a PayPal account. Customers don't send their payment to a PayPal address that says "these funds can be accessed by any two out of three of: a@example.com, b@example.com, c@example.com". Instead, they send their PayPal payment to a simple PayPal receiving address, and the business's own procedures take care of it from there. Similarly, when you pay by check you write the check out to the organization's name. You don't write it out to "any two directors or the company secretary". The organization itself puts those procedures in place internally. Even banks have developed processes that enable a teller to handle cash. Even if I'm wrong about the "business need" for OP_EVAL being illusory, OP_EVAL can comfortably be implemented at any later date, after we have good experience with how people actually use multi-signature Bitcoin scripts in the real world. To implement OP_EVAL up-front just adds the additional risk of "getting it wrong". Except there's a huge problem in your logic: you're not thinking with portalsBitcoins... Let's take your supermarket cashier. What if they never needed to give change and weren't authorized to provide refunds? Would businesses instead decide that a dropbox for the money instead of a register would be better? Say, then, that managers were allowed to give refunds. It would make sense to give the managers a key to each dropbox. However, managers also often steal, too. So, the manager could only open the box if a cashier or another manager was there (in case a manager was subing for a cashier), thus the need for multi-sig transactions. Each dropbox can be emptied into the owner's account nightly. As you can see, this meets an existing business need without exposing the money to the front-line cashier and making the customer worry about semantics. Next, let's take your wonderful check example. It's the closest thing we have to what we're actually talking about. Similarly, when you pay by check you write the check out to the organization's name. You don't write it out to "any two directors or the company secretary". The organization itself puts those procedures in place internally. When you give an OP_EVAL address, that is exactly what you're doing. However, you're missing a crucial point: While it's true that the organization puts the procedures in place internally for accessing the funds, what's stopping some random employee from going to the bank to withdraw all the money anyway? The answer is: the bank itself. How does the bank know who can withdraw funds? Because you told them who could withdraw funds written out to the organization's name. OP_EVAL is the same. The customer doesn't need to worry about what names to put on the check, just the organization's name. Yet, that name maps to only certain people that can access the funds, not the entire organization. |
|
|
|
I'm also a bit skeptical that this process is designed to fish for information of others in which the submitted images (if any) will be used for identity theft purposes. Shit is going to be very serious with whatever is going down with this site and wanting that much information from a user. At the least this might be filtering out those who use their Bitcoin/exchanges for non legal purposes who will outright refuse to give up that much information. I have to agree with this. If I were a criminal, I would have wished that I had thought of this first! Combine the loss of Bitcoins from MyBitcoin, along with the database leak of MtGox, and you end up with a bunch of money AND enough information from your users to perform identity theft! It's brilliant, really. Under NO circumstance should you provide them with information that they didn't already have. It won't help in verification even IF they are sincere. MtGox didn't even ASK for some of the stuff Bitcoin7 is asking for, and unlike Bitcoin7, MtGox's database was publicly leaked! In fact, I'm surprised that Bitcoin7 didn't just "leak" it themselves to appear more legitimate. |
|
|
|
Weird, my transaction isn't showing up.
Ya, the tid probably needs to be a real tid of the transaction prior to yours. Or something. Nope, just set it to the right currency (that link is EUR) and go a microsecond back. |
|
|
|
|
Again, it is highly unlikely that we'd ever do the verification ourselves. Instead, the only practical solution is to pass the buck to the various certificate authorities out there.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
