It's funny that they put time and effort in updating their UI while their site has been known for being buggy and showing incorrect data. These bugs have been there since the very beginning and still nothing has been done to fix them. I will wait till the beta version has some decent updates so I won't be annoyed by any errors in their UI.
Maybe its an attempt at a complete redesign (including backend for the new front)? |
|
|
|
This is the first time I'm seeing something like this with the TXID .Transaction rejected by our node. Reason: Transaction was previously accepted but has been pruned from our database..What does this even mean? How can a transaction get rejected from a node ?
Its a blockchain specific message. It just means that they removed it from their nodes memory and their database(s) because they think it will not confirm anyway. |
|
|
|
OK - so now I've got 2 Bitcoin XT 0.11 in my peer list. How will they handle the 2Mb nominal blocks with under 1Mb in them?
I have no clue how XT/classic handles blocks, but I would assume the 2 MB limit is just an upper limit as well. Thus they would accept 0.5MB blocks same as core accepts them now. |
|
|
|
|
A new activity period will start some time today, IIRC, but updates can take a while. You should rank up to Jr. tomorrow at the latest.
|
|
|
|
I am selling for $ 100 Starbucks Gift Cards load balance $ 20 worth of BTC
You can transfer money to starbucks gift card of your own and use it like that. Registration card is not so that's up to you as well. Payment accepted
- Bitcoins You go first, and then I'll PM you the card number and security code, or I send a egift via PM
IF YOU WANT TO BUY BULK CONTACT:
_ Skype: khungboday94
Carded? |
|
|
|
I might have found another bug with your signed message verification. The following sign message was recently posted -----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
This is harizen from bitcointalk.org. Today is February 1,2016.
-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNATURE-----
1BzFQocxr7QABTpwGz6o9Dsb6tPpBqbWZ8
HyEuQEIIi5KS0dqyCaIWh6a5A3wIMFqkSEehuNa7jOUZTSyLa08czuASi5RUcj78hPI5PMNec0w6XhzflMbFNcM
-----END BITCOIN SIGNATURE-----
and electrum's GUI just did nothing when I tried to verify it, so I tried to verify it via blocktrail and it passed with OK, signature is valid!. Its not though, its missing a "=" at the end, $ bitcoin-cli verifymessage "1BzFQocxr7QABTpwGz6o9Dsb6tPpBqbWZ8" "HyEuQEIIi5KS0dqyCaIWh6a5A3wIMFqkSEehuNa7jOUZTSyLa08czuASi5RUcj78hPI5PMNec0w6XhzflMbFNcM" "This is harizen from bitcointalk.org. Today is February 1,2016."
error: {"code":-5,"message":"Malformed base64 encoding"}
$ bitcoin-cli verifymessage "1BzFQocxr7QABTpwGz6o9Dsb6tPpBqbWZ8" "HyEuQEIIi5KS0dqyCaIWh6a5A3wIMFqkSEehuNa7jOUZTSyLa08czuASi5RUcj78hPI5PMNec0w6XhzflMbFNcM=" "This is harizen from bitcointalk.org. Today is February 1,2016."
true
|
|
|
|
with current electrum from github I get: Wrong signature But if I add a = at the end of the signature I get: Signature verified. Maybe somehow the = got missing? Try adding it  Indeed -----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
This is harizen from bitcointalk.org. Today is February 1,2016.
-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNATURE-----
1BzFQocxr7QABTpwGz6o9Dsb6tPpBqbWZ8
HyEuQEIIi5KS0dqyCaIWh6a5A3wIMFqkSEehuNa7jOUZTSyLa08czuASi5RUcj78hPI5PMNec0w6XhzflMbFNcM=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNATURE-----
works, so its a blocktrail bug? Brainwallet copy does verify the message with "=" as well as without. https://chainquery.com/bitcoin-api/verifymessage reports a proper error without the "=" {
"result": null,
"error": {
"code": -5,
"message": "Malformed base64 encoding"
},
"id": null
}
Core isnt happy either: $ bitcoin-cli verifymessage "1BzFQocxr7QABTpwGz6o9Dsb6tPpBqbWZ8" "HyEuQEIIi5KS0dqyCaIWh6a5A3wIMFqkSEehuNa7jOUZTSyLa08czuASi5RUcj78hPI5PMNec0w6XhzflMbFNcM" "This is harizen from bitcointalk.org. Today is February 1,2016."
error: {"code":-5,"message":"Malformed base64 encoding"}
$ bitcoin-cli verifymessage "1BzFQocxr7QABTpwGz6o9Dsb6tPpBqbWZ8" "HyEuQEIIi5KS0dqyCaIWh6a5A3wIMFqkSEehuNa7jOUZTSyLa08czuASi5RUcj78hPI5PMNec0w6XhzflMbFNcM=" "This is harizen from bitcointalk.org. Today is February 1,2016."
true
$ bitcoin-cli verifymessage "18uTXyQubfaYrkbQDdaXhzd2ALEY5YN77B" "IFtLgDZCpvfw0DT70RCLcYXj3Dbjf68sc6pj/C+u5K6IC8PIhHE4Y/ldllt1/yhrZpVW/shFRf7rxQYdsW/CcBM=" "This is shorena from bitcointalk.org and today is 2015.03.14
> or as some of you might write it 03/14/15 pi day 2015"
true
So if anything its just that electrum has no GUI message for it and blocktrail somehow catches this or has an error somewhere. Thanks, I will let them know about this. |
|
|
|
-snip-
Now that my fox19891989 banned permanently by you, I should make a new account, right?
No, you are banned. You the person behind the computer, not only the account. The "whybanfox" account will be banned as soon as you create a single post that is not discussing your ban. Every other account you ever create will be banned as soon as someone finds a connection. But today I find you banned my new account permanently(not this one: whybanfox), it doesn't make sense, because btc and btc-related things should be anon and free, but you only allow 1 person/1 ip/1 account?
No, you can have as many account as you want, unless you are banned permanently. Well you can still have as many accounts as you want, they are all banned though. This also has nothing to do with bitcoin. Maybe this[1] can help. [1] https://xkcd.com/1357/ |
|
|
|
That's what I thought, so how can the 2Mb chain survive if half the nodes (not miners) reject large transactions. It seems that miners won't build large blocks and risk them being rejected. This means that the 2Mb blocks will never be created, hence no practical change to the blockchain.
I assume it would be introduced similar to a soft fork... Allow the miners to vote on it based on block version number... if 75% consensus is achieved, it becomes standard. Then at 95%, non-standard block are rejected, causing the hard-fork... Thats not "like a softfork" and it does not solve the "full nodes problem" Jet Cash is talking about. If that happens, there wont be much hash power left in the 5% fork (or I suppose 25% when it activates?)... it would die quickly
The assumption with a hardfork is that nodes will update, preferably all within one day. If they dont - for whatever reason - the network just splits and the new network is smaller. The relay of blocks will work fine within the new network. |
|
|
|
Maybe both things can be good, mods will be able to disable signature on their local sections, global-mods instead should be able to disable the signature everywhere.
You brought the section specific rules for a signature up several times now (I think). It made me wonder if it wouldnt be possible to have different signatures for posts in different sections as well. Let users define a global signature that is valid unless a "local" (as in for a specific board or subsection) setting overrules it. This would allow e.g. those active in local language sections to use a translated signature. It would also allow for more complex signature campaigns which may or may not be desirable. |
|
|
|
I'm running 0.11.2 core at the moment, and looking at my peer list, there are 4 running 0.11.2, 1 running 0.10.2, 1 running 0.11.0, 1 running 0.11.1, 1 running 0.9.3
so only half have upgraded to the current version. Will nodes who don't upgrade still be able to process 2Mb blocks, or are the block-doublers trying to force a number of nodes offline?
From the nodes perspective its just like any invalid block. It will refuse it and not relay it. If the peer continues to send invalid data (e.g. 2MB blocks) it will be banned by the node. Thus the old nodes will over time create a separated network from those that made the hardfork to 2MB. The network will be split, which is expected for a hardfork, the important question is which part will survive and if the other parts death will be quick. |
|
|
|
Thank you for some great feedback...........and not for laying it on so thick.....lol. Yeah, I walked right into it.
1. He scammed me for about $350
2. I downloaded Team Viewer from the website, not a link.
3. Thank you for the tips about securing my computer, I haven't noticed anything weird...but I will do all the necessary scans.
4. The question about the code.....no I told him I knew how to use it, but he wanted to see it applied to my debit account online (we never got that far obviously....I'm not sure what exactly he said to me to get to my wallet right away. I think something about needing to verify that I had the necessary amount available for the trade.) I'm not exactly sure how the particulars of the Team Viewer work where he could actually gain access to my computer.............and empty those coins out.....did he somehow key-log my password on blockchain.info?
I dont think TeamViewer allows you to log keys pressed by default. Did it happen instantly? I suspect it has something to do with the "code" you mentioned in your first post. The funny thing is I used to scam....so it's like it all comes back around. Scam and be scammed. I don't know why I fell so hypnotized in this scenario....part of it was being a noob to this particular style of trading, part of it was just being too gullible - nice- thinking everybody was my friend. Part of it was greed and needing to make a fast buck. LOL, it's been a long time since I was on the opposite end of a scam....so perhaps I was overconfident. I hope this helps somebody...or at least serves as a lesson on WHAT NOT TO DO.......
Thanks everybody for being constructive and not telling me how stupid I am (because I already am aware of that......lol)
Best trading advice I ever got was: never get rushed and never assume you are superior. |
|
|
|
Yes, I would suggest them to hire an experienced person to manage that campaign but it is not an issue if it doesn't happens.If there is no news in a day or two then it was probably a quick promotion strategy.
People join anyway, so its not like they need to hire someone or even use an escrow. There is a high demand for campaign spots, too high for people to be careful. In the end they only lost time anyway. |
|
|
|
betking.io removed -> http://pastebin.com/uT6Ahb40-snip-
the manager also has little experience, but i know they can be trusted
How? Do you have any past expierence with them? -snip- exactly. especially since the signature campaign starter (vegascasino.io) says he himself will pay the participants directly, i don't think you need to worry about the manager. Notes:
Payments will be directly processed by me.
Who is also new. |
|
|
|
Please, verify and quote my new address:
Address: 1FbhrBhFhqpAsH18BmjF2Afo5y343tMzUb
Message: That is my Bitcoin address 1 Feb 2016
H7+qNoqdQSZU3uEp0mfPEDan5Z8/8aqVwN5wo6s8/mRpcwtK5QTHb/N/zRAKDp48qzidDEk/ZdLlUgxUhX7pdX4=
Thank you
verified. |
|
|
|
-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
This is shorena from bitcointalk.org and today is feb 1st 2016.
Please change my payout address to 13c575szb4KXR4sZivGPdZUAiUdzxq8fta
thanks.
-----BEGIN SIGNATURE-----
19Vwjav1zwmuNtHW71GGaRwuBxHSyytLb8
H0/a7GeQO0gRZzl6dlKeSwWnPXzOOOB9pILJAfDTnpMfTisXRmmHVp2cqI60p54dnKEqgjBZEntRqHwmEHLeRBU=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
|
|
|
|
Can you get malwares and keylogers if you downloading movies via torrents?
Sure, maybe not in a video file, but there might be an executable involved. Will antivirus react on it?
Maybe. Someone have experience with this?
No, I havent pirated something in years. It was however common that pirated material had viruses with the files, esp. for programms or games and cracks or key generators for those. Most viruses are made for Windows, but this is changing as Linux and Mac are more and more common. |
|
|
|
It already has 5 confirmations, what exactly is your problem? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
