i dont kno y he xclude u b4 but it make $0.xx
he said not to tag merit abuse and you did
what you get Why are you typing so cryptically? I don't mind it if you do wordplay. ($0.xx is pretty funny)Just wondering, though.
ch have more satoshis than exist accounts
me 2 C obnugdrdayt.s |
|
|
|
|
I see bonus. I like.
0.014BTC
|
|
|
|
now that theymos went against my advice of totally separating DT and Merit sources he has firmly placed DT in the hands of merit cyclers tis is a dissapointment for me too but theymos did just dt1 exclude tman and actmyname¯\_(ツ)_/¯ |
|
|
|
|
Didn't take long for the puzzle to be solved!
Step 1: The private key in the post leads to the public key 1bitdoN4...
Step 2: The [left] and [right] hidden BBCode represented binary -> "first five"
Step 3: The first five letters of the pubkey are "bitdo". bit.do is a URL shortener.
Step 4: The color code is #01112d. bit.do/01112d redirects to a pastebin with a 'privkey'.
Step 5: The funds were sent from 1bitdo... to 1CaeSAr... A Caesar shift of 13 was used to encode the privkey.
Step 6: Only the letters were shifted. Once you shifted them back 13 places, you got the privkey.
Done.
More puzzles coming soon.
|
|
|
|
Due to a rounding error, one part of the puzzle is less obvious.
Therefore, I will make up the difference by providing a hint:
Ere the lock is broken, there must be a force. Et tu, Brute? |
|
|
|
The hidden links everything together. 5KbFfA4qimBsqkzhSATkGXuz8ZCUkCKYhFoS7EqVa741SEkPTwF
|
|
|
|
1HhaMpuzHY7UU7sUg845XfQCJ73VPBA3VY Because ol' hamster don't like vanity addresses  -----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE----- b-but vanity addresses are cool. -----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNATURE----- 1HhaMpuzHY7UU7sUg845XfQCJ73VPBA3VY G8QLXzqEI7yS+tFttXQiWXegMxik5Mvuh2q4ib25vdn1R3pRXCz7F12kIdmoZQaQewqJeex46YlvfTiOa4F4Udk= -----END BITCOIN SIGNATURE----- |
|
|
|
I’ve made a positive step forward to resolve this, we need people to come forwards with solutions on resolution and education on the trust system in the local board. Members using the trust system as a popularity contest are crazy.
Let’s see what happens next Cheers. Glad you're being civil. Responsible trust list creation is the intention. Russian users have a right to be suspicious of the current DT system but if they're going to make their own trust lists, then they should tread very carefully... lest they inflate the ratings of people who would scam if given the opportunity.
Local board representation is important but the users should still be frugal with their inclusions and positive ratings. A dichotomy in the value of trust will only confuse new users who haven't yet built their own lists. |
|
|
|
|
If they deserve Member rank then they will get it, eventually.
If their posts are good, then they will be rewarded.
Why should we propagate high ranks at a great frequency? The point is for them to mean something. You don't expect a Sr. Member to have minimal bitcoin knowledge, do you?
|
|
|
|
Because of the actions of the gang in the composition of TMAN and Lauda from the list of DT2 was deleted local moderator Xal0lex (-1). He was attached to this list by theymos.
What kind of negotiations can we talk about in such a situation?
If these pieces of shit don't trust even to moderators - about what to talk to them and to agree? I would like to add something of note: excluding someone doesn't mean that you don't trust them. I could very well trust someone but think that they trust bad company: for example, if someone trusted some users but unbeknownst to them, those users were shady. |
|
|
|
|
Yeah. Removed my tag. I was wrong.
You know how I feel about A->B linkages. Insufficient evidence to induce a tag, I would say.
|
|
|
|
the community is indignant I believe this is way too broad. If you have some basis for this I'd like to know I should specify that to "the vocal community in Meta". There is certainly some resentment about some of the recent actions targeting Russian members, which is why I believe it would make sense to reverse or counter-act them. That could get a reasonable conversation started. I agree. We can't and won't get everyone to love us. They have their own Quicksellers. But we need to be reasonably consistent at the very least. Talking about DT inclusions/exclusions is not a crime over here and it should[n't]? be a crime when it's done over there. That's the problem, of course. At least for the ones that have replied in the Meta thread about the Russian DT0 reforms, they have a strong distrust of several current-DT1 members. Same with being misguided/misinformed/mistaken - there are many Russian users who'd be happy to learn but sadly we're paying attention to loudmouths for obvious reasons. It would be great to conduct some civil discourse. |
|
|
|
|
One core issue is that some users have decided to take the situation personally.
The negative ratings that have been given out as a part of the debacle (i.e. in relation to the Russian exclusion threads) in order to discourage the exclusions of DefaultTrust appear to have only accelerated the process. This is a negative spiral.
On the local end of things, the community is indignant. They seem to feel that the current system is pitted against them and further conclude this with the assortment of negative feedback being given out to some Russian users.
Constructive dialogue will bring forth enlightenment to both sides, which is why I extended an invitation thereof.
|
|
|
|
Well, but my point is everyone is free to include best representatives from current DT. For example I trust theymos completely but lost confidence in Lauda after he/she kicked off TFS and made me red for nothing. So I'm right to suspect that half of her 1000 "reds" is just a fake. That is why DefaultTrust entry is unacceptable for me. But as I said each person must be free to decide if she or he wants to proceed with DefaultTrust. Okay, I see. Now, the issue with excluding DefaultTrust entirely is totally up to you. However, you run the risk of seeing scammers with neutral trust. If you have no problem with that and are genuinely careful with your trading, then go for it. However, I would seriously advise against promoting the exclusion of DefaultTrust to people who aren't careful with their trades. Users that don't look at the trust page of those that they're trading with are susceptible to scams. There have to be some users on DefaultTrust that you think leave well-intentioned ratings, right? |
|
|
|
There should be the opportunity for some civil dialogue in order to repair the already-strained relations.
I see no reason why the Russian forum must create their own DefaultTrust list to follow without having the security of the (literally thousands of) negative feedback targeting scammers.* U got it in a wrong way. Look at the Personal Text I wear. It reads - sets up your own DT0. That's it. And in our local board we encourage ppl to do so. Nevertheless, the fact that our DT1 representative was ripped off for the simple reason that he is "random' is forcing us to rethink this approach and build the centralized Russian oriented DT0 that excludes DefaultTrust entry. First of all, thank you for the insightful response. It's important to create discussion as some users may know things that others do not. My main point is that DT in its current state tags a huge number of scammers that manifest in the English boards (some in the Local boards as well). The issue with excluding DT1 members is that not only do their feedback stop propagating but also the DT2 members under them. You may say that this is not an issue because they have some ratings you disagree with but there is a better solution: one that can solve your problem without enabling scammers. If there is feedback you disagree with, you can counter it with your own positive trust (for those that are in your local DefaultTrust system) and potentially undo the negative by vocalizing it in Reputation or elsewhere. There will be times that the DefaultTrust members are unwilling to negotiate but since you've countered the trust, to all people who align with your DT0, they will see a positive rating.
Think of it this way: (arbitrary numbers) Suppose Lauda has 1000 good ratings and 10 bad ratings. If you exclude Lauda, you lose all of those 1000 good ratings. If you counter the 10 bad ratings, you keep the good ratings and nullify the bad ratings. |
|
|
|
So what's stopping you from starting this dialogue? I have repeatedly offered you this dialogue in English. You kept silent in response. Let's begin, then. List your issues with the DefaultTrust system and we will create a correspondence.
What language barrier? Are you kidding? I see them majority of people in [ Чeллeндж ] Hacтpoй и пoкaжи cвoй Trust-лиcт (and the Russian forum as a whole) don't speak English fluently. Plus, take a look at peloso's English posts. actmyname is stupid slave so all slaves trying to demonstrate his importance and he seems so funny  when d1 controlling such stupid slaves and scammers as Lauda thid must be destroy (IMHO) |
|
|
|
It's not really, no. You're encouraged to create your own list whilst not excluding everything that took many years to establish. If you do that, then you're essentially nullifying the security provided by all those ratings. Bad wording on my end. Like I said though, uncanny valley of what it's meant to be.
I have already answered this. Me and a lot of people around me got excluded solely out of spite whilst the user claims not wanting to involve emotions into this.  It was just a little strange because I had no interaction with the user at all. No exclusions, no posts about them. Must have been either roped in to a collective, or perhaps tagged members alluded to my exclusion. |
|
|
|
From what I've seen, cryptohunter is reasonable if you have the time to respond to his concerns... which can change. This is just a simple case of an exacerbated incident because sometimes his posts are extremely...  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
