|
Any reputable Bitcoin service should use GPG-signed emails. Any unsigned email should be considered with a grain of salt.
|
|
|
|
Payment received! Im here for another month!
Paid up to here. * Notes: If you received a half payment, that's because you have other ads in your sig. Note that you're supposed to get nothing. Users who link to their own links/services/websites and don't have an extremely colorful signature got paid the full amount. Accidentally made a few payments to those who recently renewed and shouldn't get it in the next month. Please send it back to me ( admin@glados.cc) or simply consider that this month's payment, made in advance. I will consider it this month's payment in advance. Will renew at the appropriate time as usual. If you accidentally double-pay, I will make sure to send it back. |
|
|
|
Believe it or not, there are 200 characters in that post. How much is it worth, though? 0. |
|
|
|
There's 600000 threads in Mining, which translates to about 500000 threads complaining about BFL, so to be realistic, you'd have to count all of those as 1.
That's what I like about BitcoinTalk's lack of antiduplication laws: you can figure out public sentiment just by counting how many threads there are on the same topic  . I like physical analogies to virtual things, so here's one. If we printed all of BitcoinTalk on paper, at a rate of 10 posts per page, there would be a stack of 341 thousand pages. At 0.1 mm per sheet, a stack of paper with BitcoinTalk posts on it would measure over 34 metres. This is higher than the Victoria Memorial Building in Ottawa, Canada! |
|
|
|
That Osiris seems fit the requirement here, although it has crashed on me a few times already.
There is a few Bitcoin forums on there, but doesnt appear to be any online nodes at the moment..
Osiris is a huge resource hog, even more one than Bitcoin itself. I moderated one of those forums once, but the pain it inflicted upon my computer was just too great to bear eventually. |
|
|
|
no, i think bitcoin encryption will be broken before that point.
What encryption will be broken? SHA? That's not really how the system works.. I mean technically aren't miners breaking SHA everytime a block is found lol It is just the leading 30 to 40 bits (depending on current difficulty) of a 256 bit SHA result? Remember, each additional bit doubles the amount of time. I doubt we will ever even hit 100 bits of difficulty (as in the first 100 bits of the random hash must result in a zero) within our lifetimes. You must not be planning on living long then... No hash algorithm has lasted even a third of a human lifespan without critical flaws being discovered. SHA2 will have to be replaced soon enough. |
|
|
|
|
Has anyone noticed this? We may not have more members (151789 vs. 358315), but we certainly have more posts (3409891 vs. 3377308). And when it comes to topics (184378 vs. 59902), BitcoinTalk leads by a large margin.
I realize our numbers may be a bit more inflated thanks to the more lax moderation here, though. Since XKCD's forums are older than ours, they should have more posts per member... but it's the opposite. And I think we have a bunch more topics because we don't have anti-duplication rules (i.e. someone is allowed to start new threads for already-discussed topics rather than continuing the old thread). Nevertheless, it's an important milestone!
|
|
|
|
|
The way it generally works is a WOT (Web of Trust). Each user trusts certain other users to moderate the forum (and of course is allowed to moderate the forum themself, as it's stored on their personal computer anyways). The client automatically accepts moderations by people of high "trust". "Trust" is passed on; e.g. if I trust you 0.9 and you trust someone else 0.9, I then trust that someone else 0.81. Above a certain threshold, users are considered moderators.
This ways, each user is free to pick their own set of moderators.
|
|
|
|
Slowly creeping back up. 1. 2013-04-09 W. Avg: 214.67
2. 2013-10-23 W. Avg: 196.25
3. 2013-10-22 W. Avg: 189.14
4. 2013-10-27 W. Avg: 188.76
5. 2013-10-24 W. Avg: 185.91
6. 2013-04-10 W. Avg: 184.65
7. 2013-10-26 W. Avg: 182.18
8. 2013-04-08 W. Avg: 181.49
9. 2013-10-25 W. Avg: 179.40
10. 2013-10-21 W. Avg: 175.72
11. 2013-10-20 W. Avg: 165.18
12. 2013-10-19 W. Avg: 163.26
13. 2013-04-11 W. Avg: 158.93
14. 2013-04-07 W. Avg: 154.26
15. 2013-04-24 W. Avg: 152.07
16. 2013-10-18 W. Avg: 148.31
17. 2013-04-25 W. Avg: 143.07
18. 2013-10-16 W. Avg: 142.61
19. 2013-04-29 W. Avg: 142.25
20. 2013-04-06 W. Avg: 142.16 Here's something marginally more interesting: weighted average by day of year. This data is uncorrected. Thus, all sorts of anomalies such as the end of data series, switch from Gox to Bitstamp, Gox trading freeze, February 29, etc. are left as-are.
Nothing interesting with this. It's just an alternative presentation of the recent bubble If you look closely you can see the June 2011 bubble as well  . |
|
|
|
Looking at the diffs, there's no really critical updates in the patch.
The only important one I see is preventing clickjacking by blocking frames. I'm not sure if anyone has successfully executed a clickjacking attack on BitcoinTalk anyways, since layouts are often highly personalized. |
|
|
|
I tried to throw off personalized search by changing the wording a little. No Bitcoin, unfortunately  .  |
|
|
|
|
lulz
Serious: No method is perfect. In my opinion, making the activity system more complicated just makes it easier to cheat it. The more rules there are, the more ways there are to get around them.
|
|
|
|
|
The precision will have to be moved someday, since 2.1 quadrillion is not that much when you consider the world population. So a more accurate response would be "unlimited units"? I think not.
|
|
|
|
But you are aware about the SOL-Injection vulnerability that is still wide open?
The fact that you confuse O and Q is not helping your case. These two letters aren't even close to each other on the keyboard. |
|
|
|
Daily weighted averages are computed independently based on Bitstamp USD Volume / Bitstamp BTC Volume. Before June 10, 2013, Mt. Gox weighted averages from Bitcoincharts.com were used. 1. 2013-04-09 W. Avg: 214.67
2. 2013-10-23 W. Avg: 196.25
3. 2013-10-22 W. Avg: 189.14
4. 2013-10-24 W. Avg: 185.91
5. 2013-04-10 W. Avg: 184.65
6. 2013-10-26 W. Avg: 182.18
7. 2013-04-08 W. Avg: 181.49
8. 2013-10-25 W. Avg: 179.40
9. 2013-10-21 W. Avg: 175.72
10. 2013-10-20 W. Avg: 165.18
11. 2013-10-19 W. Avg: 163.26
12. 2013-04-11 W. Avg: 158.93
13. 2013-04-07 W. Avg: 154.26
14. 2013-04-24 W. Avg: 152.07
15. 2013-10-18 W. Avg: 148.31
16. 2013-04-25 W. Avg: 143.07
17. 2013-10-16 W. Avg: 142.61
18. 2013-04-29 W. Avg: 142.25
19. 2013-04-06 W. Avg: 142.16
20. 2013-10-17 W. Avg: 141.81 |
|
|
|
|
You would then need to prove you didn't sell the account and are trying to scam the buyer.
|
|
|
|
It's not that BTC-E volume has gone up, it's that Bitstamp/Gox/BTCChina volume has gone down. BTC-E is catching up in terms of prices, so this is to be expected.
False. The actual volume number has gone way up, not just the ratio. One day they were doing 8Kbtc per day on average and then it shot up to 20K-45K per day.  I do not see anything suspicious in this chart of BTC-E volume over the past few days. This looks very normal to me, given the Bitcoin trend reversal. |
|
|
|
|
It's not that BTC-E volume has gone up, it's that Bitstamp/Gox/BTCChina volume has gone down. BTC-E is catching up in terms of prices, so this is to be expected.
|
|
|
|
Nothing new in daily weighted averages.
But now we're missing yesterday in the daily weighted averages? x. 2013-10-24 W. Avg: xxx.xxThere was nothing interesting in daily weighted averages. Here's today's; it remains relatively uninteresting. With some claiming the bubble has popped, it is possible we'll have to wait a while before we surpass April 9. 1. 2013-04-09 W. Avg: 214.67
2. 2013-10-23 W. Avg: 196.25
3. 2013-10-22 W. Avg: 189.14
4. 2013-10-24 W. Avg: 185.91
5. 2013-04-10 W. Avg: 184.65
6. 2013-04-08 W. Avg: 181.49
7. 2013-10-25 W. Avg: 179.40
8. 2013-10-21 W. Avg: 175.72
9. 2013-10-20 W. Avg: 165.18
10. 2013-10-19 W. Avg: 163.26
11. 2013-04-11 W. Avg: 158.93
12. 2013-04-07 W. Avg: 154.26
13. 2013-04-24 W. Avg: 152.07
14. 2013-10-18 W. Avg: 148.31
15. 2013-04-25 W. Avg: 143.07
16. 2013-10-16 W. Avg: 142.61
17. 2013-04-29 W. Avg: 142.25
18. 2013-04-06 W. Avg: 142.16
19. 2013-10-17 W. Avg: 141.81
20. 2013-04-30 W. Avg: 139.87 Redaction: Here's something marginally more interesting: weighted average by day of year. This data is uncorrected. Thus, all sorts of anomalies such as the end of data series, switch from Gox to Bitstamp, Gox trading freeze, February 29, etc. are left as-are.  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
