Happy new year all! Oooo I JUST saw that Steve's Multi Magic is back! Is it bad that I'm just following it for fun, not even knowing a single team mentioned in the game and not knowing if they're actually good picks?
Was that the one for Everton - West Ham, ManU - AV all teams score? I participate, only Everton disappointed us.
I have the following in play for the ManU - Aston Villa match. As it stands I'll win it, but the corners could do me in.  |
|
|
|
If the ticket wins, I'll regret not taking your advice.  Exactly my point. "It's better to regret things you've done than ones you haven't" I don't hate that advice, and I've been know to go "all-in" with two wheels under my frame. But something about risking hard-earned money makes me timid as a church mouse. |
|
|
|
~
Good luck. You should have put 1 BTC on it and made it a YOLO  You only lose once?  If the ticket wins, I'll regret not taking your advice. |
|
|
|
Here's my multi for the weekend:  Obviously just for fun, and because I earned a free bet for reaching sportsbet.io's Club House Silver Tear. Anyway, it'll be fun to see how I do. | ||.Game | || Wager | || Selection | || Odds | || | | ||.Miami.Dolphins.@.Buffalo.Bills | || Winner (incl. overtime) | || Buffalo Bills | || 1.79 | || | | ||.Minnesota.Vikings.@.Detroit.Lions | || Winner (incl. overtime) | || Minnesota Vikings | || 1.34 | || | | ||.Atlanta.Falcons.@.Tampa.Bay.Buccaneers | || Winner (incl. overtime) | || Tampa Bay Buccaneers | || 1.38 | || | | ||.New.Orleans.Saints.@.Carolina.Panthers | || Winner (incl. overtime) | || New Orleans Saints | || 1.33 | || | | ||.Green.Bay.Packers.@.Chicago.Bears | || Winner (incl. overtime) | || Green Bay Packers | || 1.41 | || | | ||.Los.Angeles.Chargers.@.Kansas.City.Chiefs | || Winner (incl. overtime) | || Los Angeles Chargers | || 1.5 | || | | ||.Washington.Football.Team.@.Philadelphia.Eagles | || Winner (incl. overtime) | || Washington Football Team | || 1.77 | || | | ||.Baltimore.Ravens.@.Cincinnati.Bengals | || Baltimore Ravens Total (incl. overtime) | || Over 28.5 | || 1.88 | || | | ||.Pittsburgh.Steelers.@.Cleveland.Browns | || Total (incl. overtime) | || Under 43.5 | || 1.77 | || | | ||.Tennessee.Titans.@.Houston.Texans | || Halftime/Fulltime | || Tennessee Titans/Tennessee Titans | || 1.59 | || | | ||.Arizona.Cardinals.@.Los.Angeles.Rams | || Winner (incl. overtime) | || Arizona Cardinals | || 1.68 | || |
| ||.Odds | || Stake mBTC | || Potential win mBTC | || | | ||.190.44 | || 0.0556 | || 10.5345 | || |
|
|
|
|
|
Why did I have to sleep in today:
1- GrosWesh
2- asche
3- wheelz1200
4- geophphreigh
5- tothemoonsands
6- -doubleU-
7- Evilish
8- tweetious
9- SiNeReiNZzz
0- krogoth
a- bL4nkcode
b- Buchi-88
c- makila
d- BTCLiz
e- trankil
f- beethoven92
|
|
|
|
but why consider some rules says that "hacked/stolen" and that kind of things are not allowed, those topics are still there and not removed?
If there is sufficient evidence that indicates the items being sold are stolen or hacked the post will be removed. But like all free societies, everyone gets the benefit of the doubt. why there is an option "locked/self-moderated" if someone will point you as "scammer" just because many of them doing that.
i mean, yeah i can see there is many scammers around, but not everyone is such, and how you can protect yourself from the competition if you do not moderate your own topic? Form features aren't there to be abused by scammers, they have legitimate uses that have nothing to do with sales threads. No one will support the removal of valuable forum features just because scammers abuse them. And scammers will continue to scam even if those features aren't there. and lets say someone had already experience in other platforms and it is familiar with the things around but not the things in this forum, why would some newbie rank will be called a scammer if he's not naturally stupid and can read how the things going around? This isn't some other forum, this is Bitcointalk.org. Every forum I've ever visited has it's own culture. Take your time, get to know this one, and you won't aggravate the natives. why should everyone be consider as scammer, if he use options provided by the forum no matter the rank ?
It has nothing to do with rank. There have been and likely still are plenty of high ranking members who are scammers. The specific threads you're talking about are commonly created by newbies because they're previous account was red-tagged. They create an account, get caught doing shady shit, get red-tagged, then create another account and start over. It's a never ending cycle. lets say people come in this forum only for sales but not valuable as knowledge posts, they will never rank up and earn that "merit" to get high rank.
Lack of merit and rank don't prevent you from selling your goods. Use a trusted escrow, sell your goods only through the forum, don't sell stolen or hacked goods, and don't scam anyone. I guarantee you that none of the member who would be your "competition" are on DT, so their reviews would be essentially invisible. If any of them were to make allegations against you in your unlocked, non-self-moderated thread, they would need to show proof or no one will believe them. And, no highly reputed member is going to risk his reputation by making false allegations against a competitor. |
|
|
|
There's a lot to cover in your questions, and it's not a simple answer. All those "newbies" who create locked topics with auto-buy links are scammers, and none are actually newbies. They've been around a long time and only lock their threads so none of the legitimate members will post in them to warn real newbies about the scam for they're about to fall. Also, I'm going to assume you're talking about all the locked threads in the digital goods section, which are mostly hacked accounts, stolen keys, and other ill-gotten offerings. None of that is welcome here, but you're right about scams not being moderated. It's unfortunate for some, but caveat emptor is the philosophy of the trading section of the forum. As unfortunate as it may be for some, it is compatible with the philosophy of freedom from which bitcoin was born. That doesn't mean it a free-for-all for scammers, however. Through the trust system, the community does have the ability to expose scammers by leaving them feedback on their trust wall. Through an election system, senior members of the forum are chosen to what we call the "Default Trust" system. When a member from of the Default Trust system leaves a review on one's trust wall, that review has higher visibility and counts as part of the recipient's trust score. If you have a legitimate product to sell, you shouldn't have any trouble selling through the appropriate board. Don't lock your post, and don't make is self-moderated, when members do that (especially newbies) it's assumed to be a same. I also recommend against using auto-buy links. They may be convenient for sellers of of digital goods and access keys, but they are also commonly used by scammers. So, again any time some newbie is directing forum members to an auto-buy link it's assumed that it's a scam. |
|
|
|
OK, got better photos. Looks like one of them at least is still intact! I guess we should sweep the other one, it probably was just mishandled and the coins are still on it. Quoting for photo:  |
|
|
|
That actually looks like a good ticket, best of luck.
I got three wrong from that slip. West Brom was not able to score, in Arsenal match they had only one goal, and my biggest fear of hot favorite not to win their match. It was Barcelona. I see you lost your betbuilder too. Our luck did not favor us at all in those slips. I lost both of my tickets from yesterday also. I expected West Brom to score as well. Not that I'm complaining, I'm happy to see Arsenal get two wins in a row.
Avirunes is right, you only need to stake 0.1m BTC for the whole ticket. For any other regular bet you can stake as little as 0.01m BTC. I also wonder how many users we have in MM participating. Would love to see how popular is MM right now.
I'm signed up, but I can't win two in a row to save my life. |
|
|
|
Allright, i can understand i am newbie but by post big banner on my post is going to damage my sale.
I am willing to go first with any high rank forum member.
First off, I think this thread is in the wrong section, it should probably be moved to the Reputation board. You can move it yourself, there's a button at the bottom, left hand side of the page. Second, anonymousminer (like most of us) is very suspicious off-site sales links. These are very commonly used by scammers, who use new accounts to spread their links around the forum to lure unsuspecting victims. Your suggestion to send to a reputed member first may help you. Giving out a "vouch" copy or two may also help. The trouble is with your type of sale one key can be good and the next could be a scam, no one really knows. The best thing for you to do is sell your keys here, doing the whole transaction through the forum without employing off-site sales links. But that doesn't guarantee that it's not scam, nor does it mean you'll get any sales. |
|
|
|
|
Lot 1 0.0003 BTC
Lot 2 0.0004 BTC
Lot 3 0.0003 BTC
Lot 4 0.0003 BTC
|
|
|
|
So, if I were to give you a loan... And I were to hold your collateral, you don't think that would constitute bad intentions? Honestly, that is not something that would bother me, as long as all obligations to me are followed. It would bother me. Even if the intention was not to scam, and in the example above I would be jeopardizing the reputation of my main account if I were to scam, it's the deception that's troubling. One is left to question; why the deception? It wouldn't be wrong of me to insist on holding the collateral for a loan I granted. I'd like to believe that I'm trusted enough that most of my clients would feel comfortable with that situation. And if not, I'm not going to go out of my way to deceive them.
In my opinion: - This is misleading because you charge for a service you're not providing. (I think we can all agree on that)
- Apart from the fee, the escrow isn't used because of being a third party, but because of having a trusted reputation. If the deal would be with the escrow directly, the other party likely wouldn't require an escrow. (I'm not sure if we can all agree on this one)
- There isn't any more risk than any other deal in which the escrow deals with 2 real parties instead of his own alt and someone else. (I think violating this deal would be the same risk and result in the same reputation damage as violating a deal with 2 other parties)
I agree with you, and maybe that's not the best example if someone was looking to scam, but that's not what I suspect of QS. And this is mostly speculation but I wasn't arround at the time: did QS escrow this deal because he didn't want his alt to become known? AKA the main reason to do this was to secure his account farming at the time? Or did he knowingly suggest himself as an escrow to mislead the other party in pretending they are different people?
There's obviously something not right going on. Surreptitiously bulging a the reputation of the alt is the only thing I can see as the benefit of doin the deal described above. |
|
|
|
Hmmm, I see this thread was moved and I got no notice of it. Anyway, I THINK I found the cause. I run an Oracle Virtualbox WIN10 VM to use as a (LOL) sandbox for questionable items I find in posts on here before I report them as malware or whatever. It seems that is what bit me and I believe I know where/when I got it. Unfortunately (or fortunately) the guy was nuked after I reported his post.
After I reboot, I no longer have the issue but, so far, as soon as I load the VM it returns. That's how it looks at the moment, of course I can easily be proven wrong although I have replicated it about 10x so far. If that is the case it's easy enough to nuke the VM.
So, you had shared clipboard enabled? If so, this definitely makes sense. If it isn't, nuking the VM does not necessarily mean your problem is solved. And for the future, you might want to make sure to disable any interfaces such as shared folders, shared clipboard, network interfaces, etc.. And I am quite sure THIS download https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5305039.new#new or one similar to it is where it came from. https://archive.vn/wip/lIP97Head bob123's warning! I use VMs for a variety of things myself, mostly so I can test stuff on Ubuntu and MacOS, and I have those linked to my host PC via shared folders and clipboard, but if you are using a VM for investigating potential malware, make sure to keep that VM isolated. Deleting that VM might work, but unless you're a wizard with the windows registry and can confirm your host PC hasn't been infected I recommend you nuke the whole system and start from scratch. |
|
|
|
It was supposed to explain that I did not have bad intentions. This was something that others did out in the open. So, if I were to give you a loan... And I were to hold your collateral, you don't think that would constitute bad intentions? What if I had taken every precaution to cause you to believe that you were dealing with two separate people? Come on, man! You know what you were doing was wrong, don't play that bad intentions shit. And I'll be honest, the first thing that came to mind when I read the above paragraph was: who is this guy that gave you this shitty idea, and why haven't you exposed him for the scammer that he is? It was tomatocage. He was also caught doing this, and no one seemed to care. He also left himself positive trust, which is something I have never done. The above, along with the experience I posted lead me to believe this was an accepted practice. I have since realized this is wrong. Ah, I see. Was that before or after you bought the tomatocage account? |
|
|
|
Myles Garrett ...  Word! If Browns win, Steelers are likely play them again the following week in the wildcard game, which I think they prefer so this looks like a done deal.
I think the Steelers are pretty much locked into the third seed unless the Bills lose to the Finns, but I think everyone sees that as unlikely. If the Bills win, the Steelers have nothing to play for. |
|
|
|
|
I've been slowly learning how to screen the source code of python software. I actually studied computer science in college, but I haven't done any coding since. Fortran and Pascal aren't very useful anymore, not that I remember any of it anyway.
Getting into bitcoin has renewed my interest in coding, but I must admit, it's SLOW going. I don't have the time to dedicate to learning python as quickly as I would like, and often I go months without having any time at all to study for hobby's sake.
Having said that; I don't use open source software unless the packages are digitally signed, and I can verify the signature. Even if it's only MD5 encryption used to create the signatures, that's usually enough for me if the the software isn't something that could pose a security risk. Of course I'm very careful what I install on my main PC which does have all my crypto clients installed on it.
|
|
|
|
I have been reading about transactions, privacy, coin control etc. The truth is that until now I haven't worried much, but a couple of doubts have arisen.
The first one: if you don't have much bitcoin and you haven't done many transactions, you should be very worried about it?
The second one: would it be a good idea for example that what I earn with the signature campaigns goes to the same address and I use that address to send bitcoin without mixing with other of my addresses?
In other cases I think it will be unavoidable to use different addresses for sending bitcoin if you have little money in the addresses and want to send more. I could be mistaken, but I think you're concerned about your sig-campaign earnings being linked to your IRL identity? Regardless, only can answer the question of how important it is to remain anonymous. Personally, I try to keep any transactions I make as DireWolfM14 separate from, not linkable to "Dire Wolf" the biological entity. I have made some transactions here on the forum with folks that I trust, and thus exposed my IRL identity, but I'm not too concerned about that. Not that that's the right thing for you. Like I said, only you can answer how important it is to you. |
|
|
|
|
Wow, that must be frustrating. Sorry you're having that issue. The only thing I can suggest is trying to break up the transactions into two or three, and see if Electrum will accept them. The other thought I had: it looks like all 1060 inputs are to the same address, correct? If you have a bitcoin node running, you could try importing the private key into core and trying to send the transactions using core. Core should be able to handle all the transactions at once.
Anyway, I'm sure some folks with more knowledge and experience than I have will be along shortly, I'm anxious to learn as well.
Good luck.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
