I don't see how coins could ever be irrevocably blacklisted unless Bitcoin itself was hijacked in which case it doesn't matter any more because it would be worthless.
There's no shortage of voluntary blacklisting going on right now. That's easily sidestepped with a few nifty moves.
The amount of Bitcoin users is still low enough and committed enough to make a real difference by voting with their feet and shunning those who blacklist. In most cases though it's not the blacklisters who want to be doing this, it's The Man breathing down their neck.
But there might be a way to check coins against a list of scammed coins. What would you do when you receive coins? Checking them? Or don't care and risking that you have problems with these coins? In fact this can be done very easily and it only needs some who fear getting such coins to become a problem. |
|
|
|
|
Chinook does not have control of the escrow address. I received pm's notifying me about two deleted posts in his thread 2 hours ago. One was the warning and one me showing the escrow address.
I then checked the OP and i saw that i was changed 2 hours ago too and the escrow address was changed. So i gave chinook red trust and opened this thread to warn everyone. His actions of hiding things and preventing investors from deciding himself made this needed.
I will check back with badbear if he can tell me when the first post was deleted. When it really happened already 10 hours ago then the OP has shown clearly that he only wanted to scam. In fact i saw the edit time of the post and it matched my deleted pms. And i doubt that suddenly 5 bitcoins went into this ICO, in a couple of hours, while the whole ICO only receive 0.5 Bitcoin in 2 days.
Anyway... everyone should know to NEVER send coins to an address someone quoted or posted, claiming that the address came from an escrow. That is a common scam and if this really happened then the funds in that address are at the mercy of chinook. Since he already claimed he will not refund it might mean that these funds are lost.
|
|
|
|
|
I already started to refund all coins send to the ICO address, which is 1MhMNXUkNFaBUHMnqjnqDczcihdemtBfZg.
The issuer had time to provide a good explaination but chose to delete my warning post after i wanted to let investors decide on it's own if they trust the issuer.
It looks like a self moderated thread in altcoin sections should be considered a high risk.
|
|
|
|
I will refund the coins i hold in escrow. Yes, chinook deleted all my posts after i posted about the findings and became furious after i created a thread to repost my findings, like i already announced doing so when he deletes my post, and gave him red trust. For more information see: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1198504.new#new |
|
|
|
For everyone who wants to get a refund. Besides signature, if you really can't figure out how to do that, you can send an amount i specify to you to the old ico address. If you send exactly that amount to the address i give you and it comes FROM the address you sent from, then i can refund you too. Signatures would be way easier though so i prefer that.  |
|
|
|
I'm now in await of the scam accusation thread against me. Well... the support i have to do now is not funny.  Though the actions he took after me posting that lets me stopping him to trust in any way that one of his suggestions could be fine. I mean i already wrote that i will repost when he deletes the post but he did it anyway and replaced the escrow address with an address he funded since yesterday.  |
|
|
|
It seems the issuer of BitRush, chinook, now has deleted my two posts in his self moderated thread. That actually is a bad sign regarding what i have to say. So i need to repost it as a new thread. I was escrow for that ICO, until he now deleted my posts, and i have the investors coins safe in the escrow address. I only now saw that he has changed the ICO Bitcoin address. That address is not from me, it is an address he owns! So here again what i posted: Ok everyone, i had a conversation with chinook, the issuer of BitRush, about this and i think i need to let investors decide on their own what they want to do. I'm obliged to protect both, issuer and investors and even though it probably will hurt the project, i need to write it so that everyone can decide on it's own what he wants to do. If this post gets deleted i would need to repost it in a new thread. So yesterday i was informed (i leave it open to him if he will step in about that) that a commit to the sourcecode was done by upcoindevteam, which is the github account for the XUPcoin. And that coin ended in scam. The scam was proven when its dev said he burned coins and wiped the address's private key, but he had that address staking and he moved half of the coins out of the burn address, so that was clear scam because things like that can't happen with a normal burn address. The one informing me about that had it's post deleted and the commits were changed on github, though he has a printscreen of it. I asked the issuer of BitRush about the connection to that scamcoin and he told me that both coins had commits from a person that helped coding on both coins. He lead me to the one and i asked him about it. I will leave his username open, he can step in if he wants. That coder wrote me that he can confirm that he created both, the XUP coin and the BitRush coin and that he sold them both to the same person. The BitRush coin was sold before XUP went scam. The issuer of BitRush explained to me that xup was being developed by babur, which is an internet acquaintance/friend of him. He asked him if he could get a base coin created for myself, he got it sorted for him. "xup was never a scam, babur is still working on it. no coins were sold off like the fudsters claimed, the burnt coins are still being held in wallet, ready for a burn." That might be correct or not though it is impossible that coins are sent out of a real burn address. After that the issuer suggested letting it run as before or changing escrow. Both options would not be viable if the info is not given to potential and actual investors because they need to decide. chinook: "they were both sold to the user babur, but one was for him, and at a later stage one was for me, i understand this looks scetchy as im never seem to be able to word things correctly, so all i can do is say what i can say." I guess this concludes what i wanted to say. It might be that the issuer is a honest person with bad friends only. It might be that the risk is bigger. So in light of this, if an investor wants to get refunded i can do so when i get a signed message with date and purpose from the one who sent the coins. Only then i can be sure that the refund request doesn't come from a stranger who wants to scam. If you don't know how it works then see this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=990345.0 |
|
|
|
Back to a few points that I didn't address above...
Let me explain my 'matrix' and 'path' valuations. Say there are 10 verifying transfer nodes (a-j). Say that prior to being mined, a transaction needs to be verified three times before being mined. Say you want to monetarily reward good distribution. What you do is statistically prefer the least noted verification paths:
Here's an example of three different paths:
a->b->c-> mine
f->a->j-> mine
d->e->j-> mine
If a particular verification path (e.g., f->a->j-> mine) is continually repeated for many transactions, that path loses weighting. A miner will likely see the same transaction come in through various paths and can choose the one to insert into the block they are mining.
In my vision of things, a fair fraction of the block reward is distributed to each node who participated in transferring the transactions to the eventual miners thereby producing an economic incentive both to transfer transactions, and to be 'weird' (e.g., not one of 10,000 nodes operating within Amazon's cloud which offers no real value to the network.)
That would be an incentive that the miner would have to give? Then what happens when the miner keeps the rewards? Or is that cryptographically solved somehow? I would envision weightings when deciding how to do re-orgs. Thus, a miner would have incentive to produce as 'valuable' a block as possible where on factor of value is how much 'diversity' it has. As I mentioned in my last post, if the coinbase and transaction fees went onto a sidechain for collection by all block formation participants, the miner really would not have the opportunity to keep the entire reward. Probably 'old style' blocks would be allowed under certain conditions (e.g., no blocks for an hour.) This would provide a backup should there be a reward system failure.
And... that is a reward only. It might make it rewarding to run a node but it would be a problem to still run amazon cloud nodes. Next thing is that the reward can't be very high to make it worth to run a node. Plus, if it would be rewarding then it would get saturated to the point where it is not rewarding anymore. It would be like miners who run 100 miners or more. All owned by the same person. It might even happen that someone owns a huge part of it and holds back certain transactions. It would not be a free service anymore so misuse might happen more easy.
...
On the topic of mock-distribution (e.g., 1000 VM's in Amazon's datacenter) it drives me nuts... Kaminsky's 'nooter' program measures timings to attempt to analyze whether a packet is from a node behind a proxy or is being deceitful in certain ways. I mentioned it as one potential way to try to discover if a well funded attacker had tried to amass an army of verifying nodes, but there are certainly others and I would anticipate using multiple of them. When I said 'compare notes', I mean that if (a) analyzed it's connection with (b) and (c) analyzed it's connection with (b) then (a) and (c) compared notes on (b), they might be able to pick out issues. If they found problems and warned the network of a possible cheater, it could help keep such problems weeded down and discourage people from trying to cheat (in this way) since their nodes (many) would probably end up blacklisted. If many nodes have the same 'fingerprint' (e.g., they are all VM's in the same Amazon datacenter) they all lose value as desirable 'neurons'. A relatively valuable node would be one which is sitting in someone's basement (which may be partially verified as the IP being part of a netblock used by and ISP for customer service for example.) A super desirable 'neuron' would be one accessed over a radio link and situated in Outer Mongolia. It's beyond the scope of this note to further describe some of the ways 'synapses' form and are valued, but suffice it to say, I look to the biological world as a model...in my musings about this stuff. Switching to a discussion of mining, that never bothered me much. Corp/gov could mine for all I care as long as they are not the only one's doing it. A hash is a hash. The ideas about weighting 'valuable' blocks based on the verification path metrics might provide some framework to deal with mining consolidation and abuse problems if/when they occur. Though such a notification system for possible cheater nodes could again be misused by someone holding a big part of nodes and wanting to weed out competition for rewards. And i still don't see why the fake nodes should be a problem. They can't really do anything. You worked on neural networks? I had some experiments coded some years back. I believed that you really can get surprising results but had to find out that all they can do is doing what you say them exactly to do. Only difference to a normal sourcecode is that they can find out similar things. That's all. |
|
|
|
...
For brevity, allow me to combine a few responses. (BTW, thanks for giving Adam at least a fair-ish shake...it made me less down on Epicenter after what I considered to be a total knob-job with Hearn and inclined to discuss things with out.) Mining algo: It would be a hard fork in more-or-less the same class as changing the 1MB blocksize. Me core dev?: Nope. Just a hodler. I've not written a line of code 'in anger' (for money) for years. I don't have any correspondence of significance with any core devs and have met a few only enough to mostly just exchange a few pleasantries. Not associated with anyone or any organization related to Bitcoin. Goal: I see a broadly distribute and autonomous support infrastructure as the main pillar upon which Bitcoin can provide value. I see this as being distinctly in the transfer of transactions around the network. POW is important, but secondary to me. I mention this because it helps explain why I am fixated on verifying transfer nodes and the matrix that they form. Incentives/overhead: I envision the coinbase being issued on a multi-sig basis where each participant in the block formation can collect their share. It dawned on me last night that if the reward messiness were handled on a dedicated sidechain almost all of the overhead could be borne only by those who were actively participating (for a monetary reward) and Bitcoin could remain similar if not identical to the way it is now. Value: The transfers of wealth within the mainstream and shadow banking systems worldwide is gianormous. If Bitcoin could tap into that, the support reward could be massive and sustain a very robust system. I personally don't even use native Bitcoin in an exchange capacity simply on principle. I personally don't think it is appropriate. I'm looking forward to something like sidechains so I can start using Bitcoin through that proxy. That makes sense to me as the only rational way to do scaling. I have no guilt about 'forcing' other coffee drinkers to use a proxy by pricing them out of the native Bitcoin market because it is something I would gladly do myself. And because I see almost nothing but advantages in doing so. Cracks: Since I got started, the need to shift to steganographic methods at some point has always been in my mind. For those who do not know, it would be something like taking 1% of a 'cat vid' and hiding data within it. These methods could 'slip though the cracks' of even an intensely controlled network of the likes most of us have not yet seen. We do not necessarily have to give up all hope even if Bitcoin is attacked by everything corp/gov can throw at us. Adam says it best: "At the margins, steganography wins." Bitcoin being a non-realtime system means that latency can be used as a defense mechanism. Latency is the enemy of monitoring and stream analysis. Additionally, a transaction is a tiny bit of data (relatively speaking) and a 'one-shot' thing. These inherent strengths of the Bitcoin protocol could make it a very thorny problem for censors even without resorting to steganography. One of the reasons I would like to see constantly changing data paths (my 'j->h->f->miner' illustration) is that it would further complicate analysis and censorship methods. Yes, censorship can and would happen on sidechains, but they are not a single-point-of-failure and thus do not need the same level of security. They are the classic whack-a-mole. If one is killed off, several better ones will pop up to replace it. Only the core backing store (hopefully Bitcoin) needs complete protection. The Blockstream guys have gone one better than I imagined and seem to have plans such that even if a sidechain froze and dies, the money would come back to the owner eventually. Awesome! Only about the protection. Some years ago i was using Emule, which was a p2p adaption from edonkey. Used for filesharing. Since copyright groups did lobbying and the ISP's claimed filesharing hurts their business model because of the big data amounts transferred, the ISP's started to block that traffic. Emule then tried to go against with constantly changing ports, encryption of the traffic so that deep packet inspection was not possible anymore and other things. The effect was that the ISP's started to throttle traffic that looked like p2p-traffic. What i wonder is if bitcoin could easily overcome actions against the network. If there are enough interested people behind at all. I mean i know many will give up when bitcoin gets forbidden. Anyway... the nodes taking part in the network probably would be relatively easy be identified. I mean they only need to do it like the copyright protecters who ran modified emules to find the other users in the network, see what they upload and sue them for that. It was not illegal to run emule but if it would be illegal than whole countries nodes could be switched off that way. So i really don't know if bitcoin could survive that way since it needs a healthy network of nodes. Of course that's a theoretical problem only that won't happen most probably. |
|
|
|
i always try HYIP but only if that site is new and just once with some bitcoin but actually its not much, so far i've got double from them i.e bitcoinsdouble,com after that i leave it, i would never to deposit again because i think i will lose all of my bitcoin if i deposit again, but iam not sure if we're going to get double at the first time
Same here. Early investors always get profit from those HYIP. IF you are a late investor please think trice if you will join that HYIP or much better not to join it anymore even they are rocking for a weeks. NOT always. HyIPs are somewhat like waves, i think. Sometimes they run fine for a while, paying small amounts, then start to not pay bigger amounts, then stop all withdraws. But at times it seems there is no one investing besides those who think they can be fast. Then they invest and because nothing more comes in, the owner stops withdraws instantly. It looks then like no hyip is working at all. Guess most need to learn from their own failure. |
|
|
|
...
Hah, yeah, the forum can eat a lot of time. I don't understand fully what your vision is but i think there is zero chance that bitcoin will be the currency that implements that. Miners are the one to decide and they will never do that. I'm not sure if the network matrix and black listing would be a good think for decentralization though. If there were an update to the POW algo, existing miners would suddenly and abrutly have not jack shit to say about the course of Bitcoin. Um... yes, in the new altcoin. The miners would still use their old wallet and mine on that. The new algo only would become "the" new bitcoin when all users switch to it. And will they? Might be, when you promise that they can earn from mining without having an expensive miner. I wonder how the value of the original bitcoin would develop. Would the electricy cost put into it make it a stable price or would it be like riding a dead horse? Things which are rewarded economically are HIGHLY successful. More than I and more than probably Satoshi would have guessed. Unfortunately the only thing which was economically rewarded (in the core system at initial release) was sha256 hashing. ASIC came at least a year before my own best case estimates. Now we have absurdities like you pointed out where every transaction costs > 1 daily household energy cost and no clear way out of the maze.
I can't connect your username but are you a core developer? I guess the question is which fork would win. Some people say the worth of bitcoin is given from mining. That is nonsense. You can put all the workpower you have into shuffling dirt from one side of the street to the other and back. Still, it would not create value. Value might be in securing the network, so the trust in bitcoin creates value. So trust is one factor. Next factor might be lazy people. It's very sure that a huge part of bitcoin users would not switch out of being lazy and or slow. Still it might not be a big problem over time. The miners, with a new algo, would not be a problem. They would not be the ones anymore who could decide which forks win with their hashpower. Believe... people would need to believe that one of the forks is the one having the value. Bribery... given users a reward might mean they get convinced. Though it might be that they use it and still hold the old bitcoin. I think it would be a hard step to reach. But i'm not yet convinced that the new system would be as safe and would have no disadvantages. I think at the very least the new coin is not allowed to be inferior to the current bitcoin. Speed, fees and so on would have to be the same or better. Otherwise the fork will surely not win. [You might say that the ratio can be improved by somehow getting Bitcoin to be used for every coffee purchase to which I would point out that transactions have been basically free (to end users) for half a decade and Bitcoin has not gotten traction in this role. I would further say that it is because Bitcoin sucks in this role, and making it get somewhere to par with dedicated exchange currencies would be a bigger re-design than some of the adjustments I suggest.]
I would not see it as black. Amount of transactions is rising. And adoption is slowly progressing. Surely... all the scams held bitcoin back for a big part. And yes, i imagine bitcoin like a future currency that is widely used. The missing amount of bitcoin users and the missing amount of accepting businesses is what makes bitcoin inferior at the moment. But that slowly and steadily will change. I'm very sure of it. Let me explain my 'matrix' and 'path' valuations. Say there are 10 verifying transfer nodes (a-j). Say that prior to being mined, a transaction needs to be verified three times before being mined. Say you want to monetarily reward good distribution. What you do is statistically prefer the least noted verification paths:
Here's an example of three different paths:
a->b->c-> mine
f->a->j-> mine
d->e->j-> mine
If a particular verification path (e.g., f->a->j-> mine) is continually repeated for many transactions, that path loses weighting. A miner will likely see the same transaction come in through various paths and can choose the one to insert into the block they are mining.
In my vision of things, a fair fraction of the block reward is distributed to each node who participated in transferring the transactions to the eventual miners thereby producing an economic incentive both to transfer transactions, and to be 'weird' (e.g., not one of 10,000 nodes operating within Amazon's cloud which offers no real value to the network.)
That would be an incentive that the miner would have to give? Then what happens when the miner keeps the rewards? Or is that cryptographically solved somehow? And... that is a reward only. It might make it rewarding to run a node but it would be a problem to still run amazon cloud nodes. Next thing is that the reward can't be very high to make it worth to run a node. Plus, if it would be rewarding then it would get saturated to the point where it is not rewarding anymore. It would be like miners who run 100 miners or more. All owned by the same person. It might even happen that someone owns a huge part of it and holds back certain transactions. It would not be a free service anymore so misuse might happen more easy. The more complex the system, the more easy it is to game. The real challenge is to try to make sure that the nodes are legitimately operated by independent players ('Joe Enduser' as much as possible) and are not cheating. We also want to do this while preserving anonymity as much as possible. A cheap USB device which only becomes unique in the enduser's hands can achieve this. If the nodes in the transfer network matrix are randomly making connections to one another and are cross-checking one another (see Kaminski's 'nooter') and comparing notes, liars and cheats can be identified and ejected.
So you say you can preven someone from running 10k nodes? Besides that... is the amount of non usefull nodes a problem at all? This sounds complicated, but functionally it is actually not a very big shift from what we have in today's Bitcoin. Most users would not even notice a difference.
Most semi-technical people can appreciated the overhead that keeping such a distribution network matrix healthy would add. If it becomes necessary to operate Bitcoin under steganographic methods, the overhead of that would dwarf the functional overhead which is why the current 1MB block size is not something I want to see vanish. Should the internet tighten up with global network filtering and regulations on distributed crypto-currencies, the choices would be basically one of three:
- Forget about distributed crypto-currencies like Bitcoin as a footnote in history.
- Comply with any regulations mandated to use them.
- Adapt crypto-currencies to slip through the cracks and provide economic incentives strong enough to incent people to try.
I think it would not be possible to slip through regulations. They would make sure to rule over them all. If that really happens then yes, it would be a big hit. But bitcoin would be used anyway, at least the way it is working now. I don't think that a small incentive would be needed or change much. Even with big regulations i think the advantages of bitcoin would attract users. A reward system could never be rewarding enough to make a difference. If it could then bitcoin would be as expensive that practically no one would want to use it. |
|
|
|
From what I've read and i've read quite a bit, the limit is not an artificial one because some guys have an agenda to push Bitcoin into a fee market model, the thing is, the problem surrounding Bitcoin now leaves us no other choice but to do this unless we want to jeopardize the decentralization of nodes + other security problems.
How do you get that idea? Centralization will happen anyway. If or without high fees. With higher fees miners to buy or rent will be more expensive. There is no reason to believe that a different fee would change something regarind centralizaton. I believe i have read that even satoshie foresaw the centralisation of mining. I wonder if he viewed that as a problem or not. |
|
|
|
Eutanasia for perfectly healthy people who have suicidal-thoughts?? It's really bad things the doctors do. Doctors' job is to cure people illness not to kill healthy people eventhough it's their own wish to die. If they have suicidal thoughts they should go to psychiatrists or pychologist to erase that crazy thought instead of going to doctors who have eutanasia for them. Both sides are stupid  Not long and we will have suicide cells like in futurama. Maybe not exactly the same but it seems it's not so hard to predict what the future brings. https://youtu.be/4-vRpQ0YyYo |
|
|
|
I was asked to provide an Escrow address that is used to collect the funds from those who want to invest in this coin. Once everyone received their Punishercoins i will release the funds to the issuer. The escrow address is: 12mtYqjNqkPphUexuoDkGjjmU5Gdx2fpd8 Before payment i would suggest you take a look at http://www.cointape.com/ to check out if the network gets spammed again. Below the graph there is shown what amount of fee is needed to get instant confirmation. Checking that page could prevent that transactions are stuck for hours or days because they dont get a confirmation. -----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
20151001 This is the escrow address for the ICO of Punishercoins and the escrow address is 12mtYqjNqkPphUexuoDkGjjmU5Gdx2fpd8
-----BEGIN SIGNATURE-----
1K2UFGCKyNQNx4h2m5ZRCaw9BWHTBcCZAA
G4WPdsga6xHDCXvrjPgtjxSIutMh7D2ohgyHgpTUvt1px2jJ2QF1vVPwUKx9bueMfEo7J7v8kRWgH3mCTCocpCs=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Message signed with an old address of mine, that i posted may 2013 on bitcointalk. See my Servicethread: [ANN] SebastianJu - Free Legendary Escrow Service - Escrowed over 8150 BTC. You can check a signed message very easy. The fastest way is to visit http://wallet-2sx53n.sakurity.com/#verify. Good luck everyone with this ICO! |
|
|
|
I would say that it's about time to start at least pushing into the phase where there is organic competition and fees start to become a factor. Who knows what Satoshi would say. Not that I ever really ever considered the guy to be an infalable oracle of infinte wisdom, but it is certainly not a crazy idea that there would be competition for space in blocks either.
An artificial constraint can't be the basis for organic fee pressure. There is nothing 'artificial' about the transaction rate. It's just an operational parameter which defines how the system works and is no more 'artificial' than the 21m currency base, the 10min block frequency, or the POW algorithm. Changing this parameter will have pros and cons, just as would changing any number of other operational parameters. I think it is artifical since it only was implemented to prevent spam. Though the spam never happened. Only now when it is possible to pay for the spam it comes out. So the spam did not be prevented by the limit though in fact it is made possible now. You can fill the block rather cheap. The 21m is artificial too, though the currency can work with it without problems. That is not the case with the blocksize limit. You can't triple the userbase including trippeling the transactions and await that bitcoin still won't work. It will not. Inevitably around half of the transactions can't be confirmed. And the race for fees are not able to change anything with it. The fees can't make the transactions less. And a bitcoin where you don't know if your sent money is really sent is so unreliable that only a few would use it. 10m block is artificially too, it's a compromise that had to be made in order to make bitcoin work. Folks like me who wish to see the transaction rate rather severely limited simply value the aspects which are enhanced by having a low data rate. In my case I highly value the potential flexibility to adapt to certain types of attack (which we've not seen yet.)
It might be worthy for that case but it would definitely not be the alternative to the banking system. It would be a very limited thing. And there is no real reason to limit it at the moment. You don't imagine bitcoin becoming a world wide used currency? Maybe in 50 years being the mostly used one? I think the advantages of bitcoin can bring this. So taking away advantages of bitcoin, or making it unreliable, will let it stay in a niche. At least i don't want that. Conversely, having a wide userbase for native Bitcoin itself is not very interesting, and in fact I consider it a negative. Most users add nothing toward infrastructure support even at our low data rate. Most people are not prepared technically to safegaurd their BTC and Bitcoin get's egg on it's face every time one of them gets ripped off, and it is an appallingly inferior solution for run-of-the-mill coffee purchases anyway compared to systems which were designed from the get-go to be real-time.
Sorry, but a currency that is not used will die. Why should bitcoin remain being a geek currency? Yes, scams happen but every new thing born had it's birth aches. Even when you don't want that... this will not stop. Since always some will leave and some will come. Only education and learning will help there. No reason to be in fear and restrict everything. Being in fear is the first step for dying. In fact it is the fate of conservatism. There will always be change. Don't fear it or you will be hurt. And since when did conservative thoughts stop the evolution really? North Korea? Will go down at one point. Maybe when they don't have enough money anymore like all socialist countries. |
|
|
|
A way to raise the amount of bitcoins is to find out when bitcoin will crash most probably. Sometimes you can see it already coming. Then simply exchange your bitcoins to nubits and wait until you think the bitcoin price stabilized. Buy bitcoins back and voila, you have more than before. I have a question on your suggest if nubits prices are almost equal to one USD then why can't just hold the USD instead nubits? If prices are same then no need to switch to nubits right? But if you have any other advantages then I'm not sure about that, may be you can share with us. Because were will you store that fiat? Will you exchange it to cash? Then you have to pay a high fee to the exchanger. If you are the exchanger yourself you need to hold a lot of money all the time. You can let it lie on exchanges. But that would be incredibly stupid since exchanges die or get hacked all the time. And your bank account? You don't want some agency believing you are in money laundering or anything like that. Many incoming and outgoing transactions look suspicious. On top you would have fees for that in the most cases. |
|
|
|
looks like this thread is dead.
Nobody tried? Guess the risk standing at the airport and having nothing more than an imaginory seatplace was too high for everyone. |
|
|
|
this is really getting frustrating ... i have sent the admin few Pm's and not even a fart form them  Is this solved in the meanwhile? I wonder how long things like this take. Did you did not get an answer at all yet? |
|
|
|
Doing communication via board private message is inconvenient in order to talk about deals. Most users usually use Skype or MSN but some do not use any of them. I am looking for an instant messenger what is usable for both parties after a quick and simple registration. Any suggestions?
I tried Slack but its usage is limited for free users.
@mods: I do not know if this is the right section for this question. Please move it, if not!
I noticed that nobody has suggested Bitmessage. Doesn't it meet your requirements? Or am I missing something here? Edit: Ops, it must be the 'instant' part what is missing with Bitmessage... I use it since some time directly and through bitmessage.ch, an email provide who is tunneling emails through bitmessage. I have to say that bitmessage is eating quite a lot of bandwidth. I'm not sure if it can be used for instant messaging, i doubt it a bit. But for using it as a secure email alternative it is a great thing. |
|
|
|
I was the account making wakka622 green, I have just changed that to a neutral rating and it now shows as "0: -0 / +0" I would do the same when i know an account is sold where i voted green. Though of course sellers won't chose me as the escrow then. And yes. Green Trust accounts have a high risk. Unfortunately the new owner can't simply ask everyone to remove the rating because he most probably will get a neutral rating saying that the account was sold. It might hinder in signature campaigns. I'm not sure about that though. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
