I need a decent, online wallet where I control the keys. The user of a blockchain.info wallet DOES NOT "control the keys". blockchain.info does, and generates then subsequently deletes your funded private keys before they can possibly be backed up. blockchain.info wallet is NOT "decent". Google the massive amount of thefts and BTC loss from them! https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=281403.msg10604333#msg10604333 |
|
|
|
|
I prefer the second, due to the soundtrack. The 1st's soundtrack opens pretty harshly, the kind of TV infomercial I immediately shut off. But then the rest of the 1st's soundtrack is rather boring/subdued. The 2nd's soundtrack makes me want to listen to the script.
Imagery, no opinion, as I get lost in the script.
Voiceover itself is average on both. A bit more gravitas on the 2nd would provide good balance to its soundtrack. Conversely, a toned-down voiceover on the 1st would provide good balance to its soundtrack.
LG W1943 at 1360 x 768
99 cent headset earbuds
Same address as before.
|
|
|
|
|
LOL. Is there a mainstream source for this?
|
|
|
|
$11 =  Please add to your OP so I can delete, and do not excessively bump to thank me for this. |
|
|
|
If you'd like to use the easiest script I could find with a stable accurate price index (that won't go to hell just because a single exchange goes down), try adding this to your OP so I can delete (and do not excessively bump to thank me for this post): $50 =  Just enter this line of code where you want the price to be: [img]http://btc-priceimg.herokuapp.com/img/50[/img] |
|
|
|
|
"trust with extreme caution!"
|
|
|
|
$200 =  Please add to your OP so I can delete, and do not excessively bump to thank me for this. |
|
|
|
[Discussion] On what basis are trust ratings less trustworthy/useful as they age? A lot of them could be from the days of $3, $30, $100 bitcoin so in today's money would be significantly multiplied. Or is that a bad thing....
Not a bad thing. For those of us who won't sell lower than the ATH, the BTC we're holding is always worth the most it has ever been. Don't expire feedback. Once the trusted/untrusted feedback distinction is dropped, chronological sort by newest first (and hell, throw in seclog entries every time the password was changed, to hint at possible account sales since seclog only shows the last 30 days). Sybil attack patterns as well as single-username scumbag outlier ratings will become apparent, especially as they lack evidence, next to unique positives with proper reference links. |
|
|
|
1) Remove the numbers in the poster_info cell, they're too vague, and only tied to trust networks 2) Put a red highlight on the trust link for EVERY SINGLE USER who has received any positive or negative trust rating, rather than 100% neutrals or not a single rating at all. 3) Like Salty, I would also be for seeing what would happen if default trust was removed.Why #2? Because positives can be left by A) scammer alts B) account-abandoners who won't modify their trust when an undeniable scammer is found C) ____. Negatives can also be left by A) account-abandoners B) scammer alts C) those in the wrong D) _____. |
|
|
|
Well, CSI is a crime show after all. It wouldn't be too interesting if they just showed someone buying a pair of shoes with Bitcoins.
A plot could be "massive credit card breach, millions of identities stolen, signed up for porn free trials". Someone showed buying a pair of shoes with BTC at the beginning of the episode, split-screen, the breach ocurring simultaneously in full cinematic "hacker style". Then later on in the episode, either one of the investigators says "well that BTC customer wasn't affected!" OR they put a CCTV still on the news of the BTC customer as a material witness, because they showed up on CCTV but there was no ID to be leaked, then publicly have to exonerate them at the end after the real perp is caught. Tweeted this to them, RT at will! http://twitter.com/TheButterZone/status/600790689409040384 |
|
|
|
|
Ok, then the only PM I'm interested in at this point is from a mod/staff member who can show a preponderance of the evidence (logs, hostnames, etc) one way or the other. Don't PM me again Twipple, unless a mod/staff has told you they PMed me that first.
|
|
|
|
Can't make sense out of this PM I just received, HALP! Hi the ButterZone. I just saw your trust on my profile , and I wanted to request you to remove it. "Begging over PM, I have no idea who this is. Typo is theirs. "hey can you give me some btc as a firned ?"" There was actually a negative trust on my account because of some other issue, on which I had several threads on the Meta Section, so I didn't bother with the negative trust. But now just wanted to clarify things with you. I bought the account from Ume on 31st January. That is also the time he claimed ownership of this account, as he had received it because of a defaulted loan. He used the account before selling it to me to send you the PM for begging. Proof that I bought it and it was sent to me , after the PM was sent to you: https://i.imgur.com/GdW3BlD.pngAlso an unedited post by me addressing the fact that he begged over PM to you: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=974336.msg10634918#msg10634918All this was before you came to the defaulted list. If you need any other proof , please let me know. Thank you Compare this: "This" month=March. With this: I bought the account from Ume on 31st January.
That month=January. 2 whole months off. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLezV_FmX38https://bitcointalk.org/seclog.php only goes back 1 month, so I can't verify whether the password was changed at the alleged time of account sale. |
|
|
|
What would be great, is if they could zoom in on a counter, where a "Bitcoin Accepted here" sticker is displayed.  There's an initiative: get set dressers into BTC, so they stick a BTC logo next to the Visa/Mastercard/Amex ones at every single checkout stand/business door set in the post-genesis block era. Make it ubiquitous. |
|
|
|
If one party has made an offer, the other party has accepted the offer for something and there is valuable consideration being exchange (and there is the absence of a term that the deal is not legally binding) then a contract is formed. worhiper_-_ offered consideration of .1 BTC in exchange for the following: - full member account registered in 2012. With 135 activity and 135 posts with overall neutral trust
- an escrow to verify the above, and an escrow to provide an escrow address
The seller accepted his terms, an escrow (myself) agreed to (and did) verify the above information. An escrow (myself) did provide a funding address. If anyone can point out which of worhiper_-_'s terms were not met then I am all ears. However I would argue that a reasonable person would conclude that worhiper_-_ entered into a binding contract with the seller and worhiper_-_ did not follow through on his end. I consider myself a reasonable person (and according to SB5 IQ, "gifted"), and conclude what worhiper_-_ sent and meren verified was void for vagueness. IMO a contract should be unenforceable if it is too vague for the average person to understand, let alone the mentally incompetent. Now you've had the learning experience; when you see a counterparty like worhiper_-_ writing a vague blank check like that (to cover idiotic terms), and the counterparty at risk verifying that check... I have since made it a point to further point out that I will not adhere to such scammy terms and suggest alternatives so all parties can be protected on an equal basis, and decline to escrow when such terms cannot be agreed to. Good. However I stand by my statement that all terms the OP was requesting were met. And that was the quasi- or perhaps actual conflict of interest: hunt scammers for free AND try to get paid as an escrow agent trying your damnedest not to get bound up with idiocy/scamming prima facie indistinguishable from each other. Rather than dropping your clearsign, you could have legitimately said "I'm not the escrow for you" and (void for vagueness aside) their contract definitely wouldn't have been bound, until they found an escrow who agreed to do the second bullet point under the idiotic terms the blank check covered. I do not anticipate removing, nor excluding you from my trust list in the near future. You can make your own conclusion about this. Ok! |
|
|
|
From the redundant topic: Let's say all existing smartphones magically had these chips added to them. Would it be the highest th/s mining pool?  10GH/s * 100Million (smartphones) = 1Million TH/s Current network hashing speed = 352,247.23 TH/s Ok, then what is the current cost to the providers to serve those 100M smartphones (before subscriber fees)? Would making them a 1M TH/s pool enable all their service to be provided for free, with the providers having the mining proceeds take the place of subscriber fees? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
