I wonder even after 6 years of merit introduction, some users are still doing the same! It's like they discover merit and think about a way to send the sMerits to an account they care to rank up LOL
It's single user. We have had such incidents many times in the past.
One thing I don't understand is why they waste such marriages [merits]. These smarts are given to such posts by qualified posts [?]. If there have been many incidents like this before, then no proper action is being taken. It's difficult to understand but I guess I read it like: ... waste such merits. These smerits are given to such bad quality posts? If my translation is correct then the answer is: When there are strong evidences then forum members can make their own judgements about leaving a feedback or just ignoring it. The guideline from the admin is, as long as the merit source is not abusing smerits, there are no big deal. |
|
|
|
I wonder even after 6 years of merit introduction, some users are still doing the same! It's like they discover merit and think about a way to send the sMerits to an account they care to rank up LOL Likely a single user behind them all.
It's single user. We have had such incidents many times in the past. |
|
|
|
Let's get back to where we were. I guess we need to spread some positivity about PGP and it's usage.
We do. It's been over a month, no new post; which means either the topic is lost or everyone lost their interest. I will keep the topic unlocked for a few more weeks then I will lock it assuming it contributed a little to the community. |
|
|
|
Because he emptied my wallet as well, I think he used my wallet not to raise any suspicions with my guys.
So he got your phone, he got your wallet, what else he got? Your email, laptop, your door key, your spouse. You must be doing a big business online. How much is your yearly turnover? |
|
|
|
Because none of it lead to doxxing satoshi himself. Have anyone ever been able to post a complete doxxing for satoshi on this forum? I have not seen any.
And I suppose we can also fire guns in the general direction of people as long as we don't actually hit them? No, pretty sure it doesn't work like that. No LOL What is your point, sorry I failed to understand. Satoshi's email, name? Aren't all these are already public all over the internet? |
|
|
|
I just got access to everything now man but not the telegram account, I figured out many guys have been scammed after I opened my accounts back.
Please do not send any money to that guy who is having my tg.
Your account security is your liability. If you fail to secure it and anyone get scammed, you need to take the responsibility because practically you can not prove that it was not you. My suggestion is, take the responsibility and pay the debts unless you have somewhere something which says you will not do any business without a signed message like here I announced. |
|
|
|
Change address is quite commonly used now
People are now more aware about coin controlling and coins privacy than before. I do it always but never had this Quantum Computing awareness before when using change address. Scalable, just select how many qubits you need, and pay per hour  Absolutely correct observation. It did not cross my mind. Good thing is perhaps we are looking at it after a few decades, I am confident that not when I am alive LOL |
|
|
|
Do you have a list of DT voting to know who has highest number of DT voting to the lowest? The forum has the current list: dtview. For more data, see DT1-strength. DT1-strength topic does not serve what I was looking for but dtview does. Thank you for refreshing my mind. |
|
|
|
|
One can suggest to add it on the News section of the forum but on the Speculation sub-board the topic is always between 1 to 5 of the list. Unofficially it's pinned as a few others already wrote.
Adding it on the News section may attract new users to discover the thread and join the discussions.
|
|
|
|
So why do we allow rampant probing and scrutiny regarding the identity of satoshi? I don't see any justification for them to be an exception to the rule.
Because none of it lead to doxxing satoshi himself. Have anyone ever been able to post a complete doxxing for satoshi on this forum? I have not seen any. If it was then it would take the internet as a storm by now. |
|
|
|
|
Something is crossing in mind.
Do you have a list of DT voting to know who has highest number of DT voting to the lowest?
If I understand correctly then in the last one I have (6) and you have (62) DT points after deducting DT points of distrust list.
|
|
|
|
But aside from few government or elite, who dares to steal Bitcoin (which assumed to be mined by Satoshi) and able either to exchange or use it without legal problem?
This isn't some petty theft, and definitely not just FTX scamming customer of their funds. Stealing over 2 million Bitcoins is a big deal and I'm sure that there would be a way to launder it and ensure that these can be cleaned in the future. I'm guessing that the attack would likely be state-sponsored if it ever happens though, for the fact that they would have first-movers advantage. Quantum computers are not going to be cheap that average people are going to have one for each. I doubt even millionaires [at-least for the first few decades] will have one for each. It's going to be highly expensive that only government funded agencies can afford it. So when a coin will move, they will not tell it stealing, they will call it breaking bitcoin's security. There is a whole other issue about fungibility as well. Should we still allow hackers access to those Bitcoin, or condemn governments for attempting to censor it? This would be like Ethereum V Ethereum Classic again and hopefully we won't have to reach that stage. We can not ignore the fact that it's not going to happen too. Bitcoin already has some built-in quantum resistance. If you only use Bitcoin addresses one time, which has always been the recommended practice, then your ECDSA public key is only ever revealed at the one time that you spend bitcoins sent to each address. A quantum computer would need to be able to break your key in the short time between when your transaction is first sent and when it gets into a block. It will likely be decades after a quantum computer first breaks a Bitcoin key before quantum computers become this fast Quoting for highlighting from https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Quantum_computing_and_Bitcoin |
|
|
|
USA is not issuing their cbdc yet because they are working on quantum computing proof encryption. Do you have a source for this? I can think of many more reasons to delay their CBDC plans, and I can also think of many more worries concerning the rest of the banking system than just CBDC. I can't remember the source, I read it somewhere however I agree that there could be many other reason. A (partial) solution would be to require moving all coins to a new encryption long before Bitcoin is at risk, and burning anything else after a certain amount of time. But it goes against everything Bitcoin stands for.
Ultimately we will need a hard fork. From history we saw fork did not work well. Bitcoin never will be the same Bitcoin it is now. |
|
|
|
|
So they are working heavily in quantum computing from 2017. There is s race between China and USA to show who is bigger. So far China seems ahead in quantum computing.
tl;dr;
With quantum computing the current email security will break, anything even the banking sector that is secured by current encryption methods will be broken. USA is not issuing their cbdc yet because they are working on quantum computing proof encryption. Banks are will move to the new technology too.
Are we preparing to protect Bitcoin from quantum computing era?
|
|
|
|
Blackjack.fun is a SCAMMER
I have different opinion in this. As far as I know them, they are generous, community friendly and fun loving people. On the other thread, I agreed with the wager issue but that does not mean they are scammers. It's simply a business policy. Do I like the huge wager? No. Do I start hating them for it? No. In a business the intention matters. Blackjacks intention are still seem to be in the right direction. |
|
|
|
It is known that most people like bonuses, but bonuses that they can withdraw, I wonder why casinos don't change their strategies regarding bonuses, instead of placing absurd requirements they could explore options in which the casino could win a lot and the customer could also win, something like offering a bonus for example to a person who deposits 10$ plays and loses everything and wins 2$, in other words the bonus would be that when the person deposits, plays and loses everything they could win a bonus of 20% of the amount she deposited and could withdraw this amount without any conditions, most players would use this same bonus amount to continue playing and this would attract people because at the end of the day the casino would be the one that would earn the most, rather than talking about a bonus in which no one can claim
Very well said. When bonus are too complicated to get anything back as cash then bonus itself fails. In sportsbet they offer free bets and in the free bet whatever you will, you will keep that minus the free bet amount. It's an easy money for clients [not easy although but they think], some wins and that excitement keeps them coming to the bookmaker and deposit more. Even if you lose, you feel an emptiness and decides to deposit your own money to continue betting. I saw some casinos offered 30x or even 200x wager. For me 2x wager is okay but when I see 5x wager and more, I start to lose interest even to try the offer. |
|
|
|
If you didn't trust a person to repay, why would you "vouch" for them?
I saw people to vouch for others but then asked to do the due diligence for any scam or unexpected result, the voucher is not liable. I can not mention the specific threads but if my memory is working properly I saw it many times. However I do not see anything wrong in it. Not everyone of us is using words in proper manners. It may be different for native English speakers though. |
|
|
|
I had no ideea this would be an offence to their TOS otherwise I would’ve never had opened an account with them , it would make no sense for me if I had known.
Anyway do you mind giving their representative a DM to have a look at this topic maybe there is still a small chance I can sort this thing out.
Thanks.
I will but I don't think you will expect any exception for yourself. But either way, good luck. I will update after sending the PM. Update: PM sent to Rollbitcom and Rollbit Razer |
|
|
|
Sad to see that your tweet complaining about Bitmex was invaded by scam bots. Elon's twitter sucks!
I thought Elon was promoting freedom of speech on X LOL |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
