|
He has no business being in the DT network. Whoever has him on their trust list should be held accountable and promptly removed from their position if they will not adjust their trust list.
For some reason theymos seems to think it is a bad idea to hold DT1 users accountable and this is what we have come to.
Handing out negatives for being a “troll” is ridiculous and is absolutely inappropriate in any circumstance. I don’t think there should be second chances for someone who hands out negative ratings for this reason.
|
|
|
|
|
There is an argument that some permabans (relating to signature spam) should be a 60 or 90 day ban and then a 6 month signature ban with post/activity minimums (based on their previous posting activity), and perhaps after that, have reduced signature abilities for some time after that.
I am not sure that plagiarism should be a category that should allow these types of extended "2nd chance" bans, especially if they have made many plagiarized posts.
Separately, there is an argument that bans for plagiarism should be delayed by a week, or 20 posts from the time a moderator discovers the infraction. The purpose of this would be too see if they will continue plagiarizing many times, or if they did something stupid on one or two posts. Someone who copies 5-10 of their next 20 posts is clearly not someone we want around, while someone who copies 1-2 ever might deserve some leniency, especially if they make generally insightful posts. This would help decide if someone will have *really* "learned their lesson" and wont make the mistake of copying content a second time.
|
|
|
|
There was a couple of polls out of Iowa this weekend.
Iowa only matters because its primary is very early in the election season, and the results of their primary influence if donors will support candidates. Interestingly, CA is moving up their primary to March, on "Super Tuesday". This could actually backfire for Democrats and force Democrat presidential hopefuls to move left to get support of CA voters, but being so far left that centrists will be turned off. |
|
|
|
~ perhaps it would put pressure on the admins to put more effort into account recoveries.
3 days later: As an extra protection against any possible social engineering attacks, whenever * the administration changes an account's email address from its current value, the following process occurs: - The change is queued. - It is listed in seclog.php. - The old email receives a warning. - After 7 days, the change goes through and another seclog.php entry is added. The account stays locked throughout all of this. This is a component of a comprehensive new set of recovery procedures which will be fully rolled out in the very near future (before the end of the year). This will allow recoveries to move forward at a reasonable pace again. That means I can put this idea on hold now. Well it sounds like this project likely served its intended purpose. |
|
|
|
|
Does this mean that more password reset / account unlock requests will be processed by the admins?
|
|
|
|
|
Are you able to cancel the withdrawal? If so I would suggest you do so and convert the USDT to another stablecoin or bitcoin and withdraw that.
|
|
|
|
I would also obtain a separate signed message from the purported account owner to make sure someone is not effectively buying a stolen account. You should also solicit the opinion of theymos or another admin for each transfer prior to facilitating the transaction in order to give them an opportunity to voice concerns about giving the account back to the claimed owner.
You think that they would reply back in a suitable time frame? Most account recoveries aren't being responded to when sent directly to them or posted publicly so I doubt that they would be willing to work with someone offering a service like this. You would probably require permission from theymos on whether this service could be allowed but I don't see why not. I'm just against it because its encouraging paying for ransom. I don't think a response from theymos should be required to move forward, only an inquiry to theymos to see if he has concerns about the transaction, he may not answer and the transaction may move forward after a day or two without a response, however if he does respond, his advice can be taken into account. |
|
|
|
|
I am against using a fixed price. If an account owner is willing to pay $50, and a hacker wants $50 to give the account back, I don't see an issue with facilitating that if you are okay with facilitating a transfer for $25, or some other arbitrary number.
I would also obtain a separate signed message from the purported account owner to make sure someone is not effectively buying a stolen account. You should also solicit the opinion of theymos or another admin for each transfer prior to facilitating the transaction in order to give them an opportunity to voice concerns about giving the account back to the claimed owner.
If you are going to say your service is "no questions asked" and subsequently txid and/or address details, you will lose credibility with any hackers who want to use your service. Ditto if you later use that information for some kind of investigation. Also, you should keep in mind that a hacker may tell you to send the bounty to an innocent 3rd party's address in an effort to frame them as a hacker.
If implemented, the correct sub for this would be services, not meta.
I am on the fence if this is something I would offer myself, probably not. Although perhaps it would put pressure on the admins to put more effort into account recoveries.
|
|
|
|
Bankruptcy is used as a way to discharge loans, and even if it is something that isn't 'nice' to do, it does make debts go away and it's part of the law that can be used.
You're 100% right its legal and done frequently, but when you do it over and over again as a business model the guys lending the money end up saying ya, no fuck you no more loans. Then if your Trump and can't get loans in American you go to Russia who is happy to give him money for some reason  I am not aware of Russian (banks) lending to Trump on terms not being offered elsewhere. Do you have a source on that? A lot of businesses fail and bankruptcy doesn’t necessarily mean a total loss for bond holders. A business filing bankruptcy is very difficult than a person filing bankruptcy as creditors often receive nothing from a personal bankruptcy while creditors in a chapter 11 will sometimes be made whole. |
|
|
|
The Ukraine isn’t part of NATO and as such, western countries are unlikely to go to war over this in practice. Ah, but other obligations exists outside NATO: The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
Welcoming the accession of Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as non-nuclear-weapon State,
Taking into account the commitment of Ukraine to eliminate all nuclear weapons from its territory within a specified period of time,
Noting the changes in the world-wide security situation, including the end of the Cold War, which have brought about conditions for deep reductions in nuclear forces.
Confirm the following:
1. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.
2. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
3. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.
4. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.
5. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm, in the case of Ukraine, their commitment not to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a State in association or alliance with a nuclear-weapon State.
6. Ukraine, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America will consult in the event a situation arises that raises a question concerning these commitments.
— Memorandum on Security Assurances in Connection with Ukraine’s Accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons I still don't think War will come of this. It could be argued that this was violated in 2014 with the annexation of Crimea that Obama promptly ignored and Trump did not take action on when he became President. We might see more economic sanctions as a result of this, but probably not military conflict. I would be surprised to ever see two countries with Nuclear weapons engage in a military conflict, but we will probably see war break out in efforts to stop countries from obtaining Nuclear weapons (Iran). With oil prices where they are, the Russian economy cannot withstand more sanctions, and Russia may be forced to retreat because of the sanctions. |
|
|
|
Perhaps a solution would be to invalidate the code after xxx number of consecutive attempts to login to an account not associated with the code. Shouldn't that be implemented for incorrect passwords too? If you fail more than 10 times, you should get a captcha again. That also stops any brute-force attack in case your unique link is leaked: If someone else gains access to your unique captcha-bypass link, then they could try to brute-force your password. In that case, you should reset it: Perhaps, however if you keep the link secret, this will not be an issue. My login code (that I have since reset) is 893f4e9d4e171dc97db6 -- If someone were to know that someone uses this code, they could attempt to login using every username until they don't get an error message anymore, then bruteforce my password. Another solution might be to only give the error message for the first xxx consecutive attempts to login to an account not associated with the code but keep the code active. This would prevent an attacker forcing someone to use the captcha while reducing the risk that an attacker could use a captcha bypass code to first bruteforce which account it is associated with and then bruteforce the PW |
|
|
|
The Ukraine isn’t part of NATO and as such, western countries are unlikely to go to war over this in practice. |
|
|
|
Thank You President Trump.
Uhh, he started the war.... why thank him for fixing something he caused? Actually he is standing up for the US after decades of abusive trade practices by China (and others). Prior to Trumps intervention, tarrifs on US exports was much higher than US imports, putting the US at a major disadvantage. China specifically also has a long history of stealing technology developed and owned by US companies. The US cannot do this to Chinese companies because their companies don’t own technology to the extent US companies do. |
|
|
|
|
I suspect that Apple will stop developing iPhones and related software in Australia and google will likely follow suit. Other technology companies I am less certain about. If technology companies don’t have anyone to create the Blackfoot mandated, the requirement will be a moot point. When Australia looses many high paying technology jobs from this law, it may eventually get repealed.
|
|
|
|
They are wrong. Environmental almarmists have consistently been wrong about the negative effects of global warming and the magnitude of global warming. The amount of electricity that crypto mining uses is very small compared to total energy consumption and mining farms tend to be in places that use renewable energy where electricity is cheaper, verses coal based electricity. Further a 2 degree increase in temperature is less than the difference between the temperature in NTC and Miami. Even further, if the world is generally warmer then less electricity will likely be used in the winter to warm homes  |
|
|
|
|
The reason she was arrested is because the US wanted him arrested so they will almost certainly extradite her, Canidan court permitting.
It is very common for governments to arrest people wanted in other countries. The bigger part of the news is who she is.
Her company is very likely an extension of the Chinese government whose purpose is likely to spy on foreign governments and companies not located in China. It is probably a bad idea to use anything produced by her company if you don’t want the Chinese government knowing what you are up to.
There may be a scandal regarding the timing and if Trump knew of the arrest in advance due to the trade talks that were occurring immediately prior to her arrest. There is the potential that her arrest will escalate into it being prohibitively dangerous to do business in China, if the Chinese government starts arresting American executives on bogus charges (the charges referenced in the OP are likely NOT bogus).
|
|
|
|
|
I tried using my own custom trust list, but was fairly quick to find problems with trust ratings within my trust network, and frequently had to research why certain people whose ratings I didn't agree with was in my trust network, and excluding many who either gave many ratings I disagreed with, or who included many people who I didn't want in my trust network.
I suspect the root cause reason why so many do not use custom trust lists is because so many people are bad at creating maintaining a custom list, and cannot be bothered to keep it updated. It only takes a small number of people whose ratings/list is 'trusted' that maintains a bad trust list to cause problems in the entire trust network.
I want to think about this topic some more....more to come on this subject
|
|
|
|
Report them to twitter and to bounty manager. If the advertiser is getting the exposure they are paying for this should not be an issue.
Does it apply to bitcointalk too? If advertiser is getting the exposure bots and spam shouldn't be problem? I don't think so. It shouldn't be different with twitter or any other social media. The appropriate response to someone using a bot to spam on bitcointalk is to ban them, assuming the posts are breaking forum rules. There are a couple of bots running around here that some may be interested in advertising in their sig space. If someone can develop an AI bot that is smart enough to post intelligently, a reasonable person not on a power trip will not have an issue with this. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
