|
For those who didn’t see this thread before now, the link was “ my wallet ether.com” (without spaces). This site is a phishing site (for google search results).
You should not see this link on the forum anymore because it will automatically be changed to a warning of a phishing link.
|
|
|
|
|
It is not appropriate to “decentralize” everything. Exchanges, for example cannot realistically be decentralized because doing so would transfer credit risk to market risk resulting in delays and failures of trades (among other things).
The same is true for many manufacturing processes as having one entity responsible for the end product will ultimately mean less total losses from defects.
“Blockchain” is also not a magic word that will solve all of the worlds problems. Nothing about Blockchain technology can prevent famine, extreme poverty and natural disasters.
Blockchain technology will most affect financial services and the transfer of property. There are still improvements needed for Blockchain technology to have a maximum impact, for example there needs to be a better way to place (and enforce) liens on property; smart contracts somewhat solve this, but more work is needed. I believe the transfer of shares/stock will be most affected, including the ability to raise capital in a transparent way; we are already seeing this via ERC20 tokens.
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately, Kavanaugh hasn't ruled on many 4th amendment cases, so it is difficult to gauge on these types of cases in the SC. In regards to the specific case the article referenced, he opined that government collection of metadata was similar to the government obtaining a pen register without a warrant, which is legal as per Smith V Maryland, and being that the SC handed down Smith, it is binding on all lower courts under vertical stare decisis. He did not have the authority to overrule the Supreme Court. From the looks of it, congress passed a law that essentially obtains a pen register on all phones in the US. Since Smith says that a pen register is not a "search" under the constitution, this is not unconstitutional. This is similar to how, under the first amendment, I can hand out a flyer advertising the benefits of bitcoin to you if I saw you walking on the sidewalk at Trade and Tryon in downtown Charlotte, just as I have the right to hand out a similar flyer to everyone that walks by that intersection.
Another interesting case he has ruled on is United States v. Askew. His opinion starts on page 54. This case stems from a situation in which a suspect was being frisked that is clearly per Terry v. Ohio, the suspect resisted being entirely frisked, and the police subsequently unzipped the suspects jacket, finding a gun. Kavanaugh argued that because the unzipping of the jacket occurred after an attempt to legally frisk the suspect, the unzipping was legal. To my knowledge, there is no SC precedent that supports or rejects this conclusion, however I would note the police would have found the gun had the officer completed the Terry search without interference. |
|
|
|
Update: Trump has responded twice via twitter, once asking if the author is committing treason, and secondly demanding the New York Times reveal the identity of the author on national security grounds: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1037485664433070080Does the so-called “Senior Administration Official” really exist, or is it just the Failing New York Times with another phony source? If the GUTLESS anonymous person does indeed exist, the Times must, for National Security purposes, turn him/her over to government at once! |
|
|
|
President Trump is facing a test to his presidency unlike any faced by a modern American leader.
It’s not just that the special counsel looms large. Or that the country is bitterly divided over Mr. Trump’s leadership. Or even that his party might well lose the House to an opposition hellbent on his downfall.
The dilemma — which he does not fully grasp — is that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.
I would know. I am one of them.
To be clear, ours is not the popular “resistance” of the left. We want the administration to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous.
But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic.
That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump’s more misguided impulses until he is out of office.
The root of the problem is the president’s amorality. Anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making.
Although he was elected as a Republican, the president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people. At best, he has invoked these ideals in scripted settings. At worst, he has attacked them outright.
In addition to his mass-marketing of the notion that the press is the “enemy of the people,” President Trump’s impulses are generally anti-trade and anti-democratic.
Don’t get me wrong. There are bright spots that the near-ceaseless negative coverage of the administration fails to capture: effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and more.
But these successes have come despite — not because of — the president’s leadership style, which is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective.
From the White House to executive branch departments and agencies, senior officials will privately admit their daily disbelief at the commander in chief’s comments and actions. Most are working to insulate their operations from his whims.
Meetings with him veer off topic and off the rails, he engages in repetitive rants, and his impulsiveness results in half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions that have to be walked back.
“There is literally no telling whether he might change his mind from one minute to the next,” a top official complained to me recently, exasperated by an Oval Office meeting at which the president flip-flopped on a major policy decision he’d made only a week earlier.
The erratic behavior would be more concerning if it weren’t for unsung heroes in and around the White House. Some of his aides have been cast as villains by the media. But in private, they have gone to great lengths to keep bad decisions contained to the West Wing, though they are clearly not always successful.
It may be cold comfort in this chaotic era, but Americans should know that there are adults in the room. We fully recognize what is happening. And we are trying to do what’s right even when Donald Trump won’t.
The result is a two-track presidency.
Take foreign policy: In public and in private, President Trump shows a preference for autocrats and dictators, such as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, and displays little genuine appreciation for the ties that bind us to allied, like-minded nations.
Astute observers have noted, though, that the rest of the administration is operating on another track, one where countries like Russia are called out for meddling and punished accordingly, and where allies around the world are engaged as peers rather than ridiculed as rivals.
On Russia, for instance, the president was reluctant to expel so many of Mr. Putin’s spies as punishment for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain. He complained for weeks about senior staff members letting him get boxed into further confrontation with Russia, and he expressed frustration that the United States continued to impose sanctions on the country for its malign behavior. But his national security team knew better — such actions had to be taken, to hold Moscow accountable.
This isn’t the work of the so-called deep state. It’s the work of the steady state.
Given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the president. But no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis. So we will do what we can to steer the administration in the right direction until — one way or another — it’s over.
The bigger concern is not what Mr. Trump has done to the presidency but rather what we as a nation have allowed him to do to us. We have sunk low with him and allowed our discourse to be stripped of civility.
Senator John McCain put it best in his farewell letter. All Americans should heed his words and break free of the tribalism trap, with the high aim of uniting through our shared values and love of this great nation.
We may no longer have Senator McCain. But we will always have his example — a lodestar for restoring honor to public life and our national dialogue. Mr. Trump may fear such honorable men, but we should revere them.
There is a quiet resistance within the administration of people choosing to put country first. But the real difference will be made by everyday citizens rising above politics, reaching across the aisle and resolving to shed the labels in favor of a single one: Americans.
The writer is a senior official in the Trump administration. The above anon op-ed in the New York Times was published today. The author is purporidiqtly a senior member of the Trump Administration whose identity is known to the editorial board of the New York Times, but is being kept from the public. I am not sure this "official" actually exists, as I do not trust the New York Times, nor their editorial board. However, assuming the official does exist.... This sounds like there is in fact a "deep state" at work, and the author is claiming to be part of it. The author is claiming to be doing what is best for the US, however the US did not ask for his input. This sounds a lot like he is trying to overthrow the government, which is very troubling. What do you think? |
|
|
|
|
I think those who aren't active anymore/haven't been active in a while should be removed.
Good luck to all the contestants.
|
|
|
|
|
I’m sure most mirrors sell ads or otherwise monetize their site.
This is also true for nearly every other website on the internet.
There are probably too many mirrors and potential domains with similar spellings to bitcointalk for it to make sense to buy them. It would probably make sense to register unused domains though, especially considering how much money the forum is swimming in.
|
|
|
|
|
There was a WSJ opt-ed published a few days before he was nominated, and the WSJ editorial board has published multiple editorials (citations available upon request) supporting him since he was nominated.
From what I can gather, Kavanaugh is a constitutionalist who will uphold the constitution as written. I am not aware of any appellate court opinions or speeches in which he advocated for rights enumerated in the constitution to not be upheld -- if someone has an example please post one here.
I fully expect Kavanaugh to be fully smeared by democrats during confirmation hearings, similar to what they did to Boark and every nominee since.
|
|
|
|
I don't know how this dufde hasn't managed to get their profile red tagged yet but I'm pretty sure I have known them for a terrible loan repayment history. I can't find the related threads now but if anybody wants to consider a rational advice, stay away from this dude. Lending him money is as good as donating them to a charity.
This is the thread you are looking for. It looks like it took about 9 months to repay a 1 months loan. Being that the OP is offering his account as collateral, it is probably safe to say any lender will have sold the OP's account (for a large loss) long before the OP is ready to repay. |
|
|
|
|
I don't think that domain is making an active effort to trick people into giving any kind of personal information. If you have evidence this site is trying to obtain some personal information via deception, you should post said evidence.
Bitcointalk.to appears to be a mirror of some sort, similar to the many other mirrors that are out there. Mirrors are useful in that they give people behind things like the GFW additional ways to access the forum, and its free flow of information.
|
|
|
|
|
Generally speaking, someone should add some kind of response to a quote after they quote it. If someone copies what someone else says, responds, and the only thing missing is the [ quote] BB code, this should be at worst treated as a minor infraction (only because it can make reading their post confusing), as it is not plagiarism in a sense that they are finding content, copying it and solely using said content for their own post. This means that someone should be adding a thought in response to a quote. If someone adds a word or a sentence in the middle of the quote, this is trying to pass off the quote as their own and is unacceptable.
I would be especially forgiving when someone is trying to remove a portion of a "quote pyramid" as this is easy to mess up, provided they respond in some way to the quote they incorrectly quoted.
|
|
|
|
|
It is too bad funds were not paid out according to the milestones considering one of the founders declined a portion of his share.
Further a review of the Blockchain reveals how much was paid out and money is in fact missing.
|
|
|
|
Another term that was very cleary broken was that Lauda, Blazed and Minerjones would keep the bitcoin at a specific address, however the bitcoin was moved out of the escrow address very early on. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Hello.
I am one of the escrows for the NVO-ICO. The 2-of-3 multi-signature address for this project will be:
3AiGej11G8jUXvEBPvQKPLiHXC7ruUCp1Z
Lauda,
17/05/2017
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJZHJdIAAoJEPTjrTxS+ZrbuQcH/ia4aFdQQe9+p6EnuuYed7gY
eubk16Pkzx21l8JcljJYadIDYW51TI76IukSFwYmoLfG3HoRTexwD02ZYa0bA4oO
cm4kaikbf3U9CU32uJ6jklthpc8HbrLs2H+BJMrcA/1dofQKhXntDHUqPQFuTqlR
JitQ3uzLlJ1OFyiRXOpO5kvSD1lGLUS2rXugULZrXZExT0xcA39j+du9QfdC/26N
lFl9y/HA+XSRgf618dSPmxpv6JtORtERvS4kklZvVFIjIxuNy/+kwE2t1qO1Xz1Q
x2UBkbGATrw3MYPbck5TLdcbLNOdX3321r2K8YY7K2CKNCe4zbP0td+gKTPQLEc=
=n++w
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Agreed. Any movement of funds should have been publicly explained and new messages signed. It is very clear there was wrongdoing here. They never even acknowledged where the bitcoin was being held. Also, based upon the speee at which transactions were broadcast out of escrow, I think there is a good chance that one person was in effect control of the coins when the three signed messages clearly implied each escrow agent would control one of three keys to the address that requires two signatures. Multiple people involved in the deal were demanding transparency however the escrow agents were promptly ignoring such demands. Just look at the responses from monerjones and Blazed. All of the responses by lauda were essentially non-answers. |
|
|
|
|
We need to make bitcointalk great again!
The topics themselves are not that boring, there is a lot of nonsense posted in response to many interesting topics, making discussion difficult.
|
|
|
|
I don't see where it doesn't say that all funds go directly to me in case of dispute either. You play on a lot of slides too when you were young suchmoon?
Why would it go to you? In case of a dispute the escrow decides if the product has been delivered and the funds go to the seller, or not and the funds go to the buyer (the latter is what happened here). Is that another one of those Merriam-Webster things that you don't want to accept? I can do ad hominems with the best of them so perhaps let's take it easy with the playground insults. What funds? The amount that some anonymous 'aliased' escrow promises you is the number? "Just trust me guys". I'm done here anyways. With your voice actually meaning something here I figured you'd act a little different. Transparency is one of the biggest things in order to establish trust.. especially with the ol "not your keys not your bitcoin". In this case the investors don't even get to see the public key side which is what bitcoin and public decentralized ledgers are used for. My questions raised have never been whether or not I believe there is theft or fraud happening here, it's been solely about transparency and answers for the less fortunate. The few that have this power have remained silent or continue to talk circles. If this does not raise red flags for you then I'm sorry and I hope the best for you in life. Unfortunately, Suchmoon is known to take the side of those who is in a greater position of power. It is her way to gain power herself. Obviously it is ridiculous to say that transparency is not required because it was not expressly agreed to ahead of time. Another term that was very cleary broken was that Lauda, Blazed and Minerjones would keep the bitcoin at a specific address, however the bitcoin was moved out of the escrow address very early on. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Hello.
I am one of the escrows for the NVO-ICO. The 2-of-3 multi-signature address for this project will be:
3AiGej11G8jUXvEBPvQKPLiHXC7ruUCp1Z
Lauda,
17/05/2017
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJZHJdIAAoJEPTjrTxS+ZrbuQcH/ia4aFdQQe9+p6EnuuYed7gY
eubk16Pkzx21l8JcljJYadIDYW51TI76IukSFwYmoLfG3HoRTexwD02ZYa0bA4oO
cm4kaikbf3U9CU32uJ6jklthpc8HbrLs2H+BJMrcA/1dofQKhXntDHUqPQFuTqlR
JitQ3uzLlJ1OFyiRXOpO5kvSD1lGLUS2rXugULZrXZExT0xcA39j+du9QfdC/26N
lFl9y/HA+XSRgf618dSPmxpv6JtORtERvS4kklZvVFIjIxuNy/+kwE2t1qO1Xz1Q
x2UBkbGATrw3MYPbck5TLdcbLNOdX3321r2K8YY7K2CKNCe4zbP0td+gKTPQLEc=
=n++w
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|
|
|
What is the accusation?
Transparency? The accusation is that a portion of the money being held in escrow was stolen or otherwise misappropriated |
|
|
|
How long is it reasonable to wait? Another month? Another two months?
The refund has already been finished.  Oh shit lol! Any thread or Telegram documentation on that? Yeah. This was the first post explaining the timeline; this was the second post containing all the batches. Missing from that information is an accounting of funds released to various parties and the conversation from the car alts to bitcoin. |
|
|
|
I have read through all 11 pages of this thread. There aren't many questions that haven't been asked and answered,
What question has been answered? Can you point to the posts in which actual information was given in an answered question? |
|
|
|
Generating the SHA-256 checksum can be done by hand but that would be a bad idea. It takes a long time and it is prone to error.
This is okay. If you make a mistake, your seed will be invaded and won’t result in lost funds. In general however, I believe what the OP is proposing is excessive for real world use. It would be more ideal to come up with a way to generate a seed on a computer that you are confident is not using flawed RNG. Perhaps to buy individual computer parts at various stores over time, keeping the parts in a safe until you are ready to use them. Alternatively, you should develop a way to test the RNG to ensure it is in fact random after several million (or maybe billion) generations. |
|
|
|
It appears as if the escrow agents are going to refund about 1400 btc to investors. The problem with this is that there is a lower band of 600 BTC missing from this amount. All of the escrow agents have refused to address any concerns that anyone has brought up, even after acknowledging being aware of said concerns. Further none of the escrow agents are providing even a basic accounting of the funds. Based on the above, it appears the escrow agents are engaging in a similar scam that TF likely pulled in regards to inputs.io, meaning refunding a majority of funds held, while keeping substantial amounts for themselves to which they are not entitled to. I am curious to know if theymos is okay with someone with such a large amount of money in dispute being not only directly on his trust list, but on DT1. I would encourage everyone reading this thread to make the following changes to their trust list: I would encourage everyone who cares about the situation to engage in the above quoted thread. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
