|
I agree that most of bitcoin's use today is financial speculation, however this is partially because of the massive runnup in price last year, and there were more financial transactions with economic significance in 2016 and early 2017.
I think that Bitcoin will most commonly be used for financial transactions over the long term. Yes there have been large hacks in the past, however this was due to the businesses inability to keep customer funds safe. If a bank were to leave their vault unlocked all the time, it will inevitably eventually lose a lot of customer money. As Bitcoin-related businesses learn to better protect the coins they are holding, there will be less losses. I also don't think the argument that a subset of people are not computer/financial savvy enough to use Bitcoin is a very good one, especially considering that the group you describe gets defrauded via the traditional banking system today.
I think that blockchain technology is most promising to change how property ownership transfers are recorded, and tracked. This would also affect how things like title searches are done. Blockchain technology has the potential to make it easier to prove ownership of a property, and to determine what, if any title issues are outstanding. It would also reduce errors in legal recorded documents, such as an incorrect legal description.
Another promising area is around the transfer of ownership of ownership of companies (eg ERC20 coins). Today, most ERC20 coins are essentially scam ICOs, however there would be benefits of a company using an ERC20 coin to keep track of who owns their stock, and would provide a cheaper way of paying out things like dividends and spinoffs than what transfer agents charge today.
|
|
|
|
If this is true, which is appears to be, then this is a pretty serious problem with LN. To me, this would indicate that hardware failing, or a DB getting corrupted would essentially mean that all money within all open LN channels will be lost, as you cannot backup a LN wallet until after the fact, unlike with most wallet implementations in which you can backup private keys prior to receiving funds. While it's true that channel states are obviously not deterministic and thus can't be backed up once via a mnemonic seed phrase like bitcoin private keys, the funds in the channel aren't irrevocably lost; the user can always close the channel unilaterally once the CSV timeout on the transaction has elapsed. Unless I am missing something, I don't think that is right. Consider this scenario: "A" and "B" open a channel and engage in several transactions. If immidiately after the most recent transaction, "transaction n", "B" losses all data associated with his LN wallet, and was unable to backup his data after "transaction n", then he will have insufficient information available to close the channel without risking all of his funds (with near certainty of loss). Remember that "B" does not have the current state of the channel. If "B" tries to close the channel, he must do so using an old state, and attempting to use this would result in "A" being able to claim all funds in the channel. Sure, you might argue LN worked exactly as designed, however I would say the design is flawed.
The design of the protocol isn't flawed; broadcasting stale channel states should be punishable or else nothing stops a peer from trying to cheat by broadcasting old channel states. What ever caused the peer to broadcast an old channel state, be it dishonesty or error, is not the problem of the protocol. I agree it is necessary to give incentives not to "cheat" within the protocol, however as it stands now, there will be too many false positives, and displaying these false positives is unavoidable every so often. Sure, if you do things like leave cash on the ground on the street, or send bitcoin to an incorrect address, that money is gone forever, however there are things users can do in order to protect against this, including things like the checksum in Bitcoin addresses. There should be a better way of storing/preserving old channel states that survives a hard disk crash or similar.
That design could be improved, but then again, Rome wasn't built in a day. Agreed. Back in the day, you had to backup Bitcoin-Qt after every transaction. I don't think this is right. My understanding is that Bitcoin Core/QT would pre-generate 100 addresses in advance, so you could backup your wallet and the backup would contain the next 100 addresses you would receive bitcoin to. |
|
|
|
|
Because of this, the entire forum will look like signature spammers with all the "please sir"'s being posted.
|
|
|
|
|
Lol, I had been looking forward to this years April fools prank!
Some of these stats would probably actually be useful to keep (if they are not too resource intensive). For example, the Coins stat might help detect shills in the ICO/altcoin section if it measured how many unique ANN threads a user has posed in.
I think the karma rating might be useful, depending on how exactly it is calculated (upon serious implementation).
Happy April fools!
|
|
|
|
We are paying $1 in btc for US amazon prime members who leave reviews plus you'll get a free product for doing so. PM me here for more info.
This does not sound very ethical to me. |
|
|
|
If this is true, which is appears to be, then this is a pretty serious problem with LN. To me, this would indicate that hardware failing, or a DB getting corrupted would essentially mean that all money within all open LN channels will be lost, as you cannot backup a LN wallet until after the fact, unlike with most wallet implementations in which you can backup private keys prior to receiving funds. Sure, you might argue LN worked exactly as designed, however I would say the design is flawed. Either way....best of luck with this. This is seriously the most important thing to happen to this protocol since it's inception. I have no programming or coding experience. Just a medium scale miner. I would love to hear any suggestions on how I could help, support and or further LND from my side of the desk....
Run a Lightning Node..  I think this incident is a good example of why this is not a good idea. |
|
|
|
|
There is pretty much zero chance this site is legit. Especially considering what is almost certainly a fake vouch on the OPs trust.
|
|
|
|
|
The exchange will control the private key to all of the coins (be it bitcoin, or some other altcoin) on deposit at the exchange along with having ownership of fiat on deposit and they will make an entry in their database once a trade takes place.
Exchanges will generate deposit addresses for each customer for each coin.
|
|
|
|
I don't see any of those examples being valid for this case. In all those three examples, none of the participating parties are not alt accounts and to our knowledge they haven't attempted to sell/buy merit. However, in the case of OP we are talking about multiple accounts per entity (assuming the alt account connection is valid; I have not checked the details of the report) abusing both bounties and merit. Actually you and aTriz are in business together so the situation is very similar to as if you are the same person. Also the circumstantial evidence that some people use to say that you are aTriz are the same person has roughly the same strength as the circumstantial evidence to say that other merit “abusers” are sending merit to themselves. I’ve also seen multiple instances in that someone was essentially doing something that someone else didn’t like with merit, received negative trust for said action and any serious discussion was refused. |
|
|
|
Everyone here should be treated fairly
I agree with this statement. This is how people should be treated. I am not so sure how much weight I would give the rest of your post. |
|
|
|
|
This has been a known issue for several years now, although this seems to be getting abused more frequently as of recent.
I believe TheButterZone used to edit his auction threads fairly frequently, however for some reason this seems to have stopped.
|
|
|
|
Being on DT2 shouldn't mean that user can be trusted with money. This is horrible advice. Being in the DefaultTrust network means you will influence others as to if certain members can be trusted with money, including sockpuppets that may or may not be public. Are you trying to imply I advised DT1 members to include untrusted people, scammers or users with red trust to their trust list? Read everything I posted, including this Of course you won't add a scammer to DT2 under any circumstances as he will abuse his power but just being trusted to hold money is not reason enough
In order to be on DT2, you should be very trusted, because you can potentially make other accounts, including undisclosed sockpuppets, look very trusted when this is not appropriate, and can use the threat of negative ratings to obtain things that they are not due. Having a little bit of positive trust is very far from being sufficient to be on DT2. Being on DT2 shouldn't mean that user can be trusted with money. This is horrible advice. Being in the DefaultTrust network means you will influence others as to if certain members can be trusted with money, including sockpuppets that may or may not be public. If you are in the Default Trust network, your "sponsor" should be able to trust you with an absolute minimum of 6 figures (USD) at the drop of a hat, however $1-2 million would be much more ideal. That doesn't make any sense. Many (perhaps most) DT members never even approach the amounts of monetary risk you're talking about. My largest escrow was about 45k My biggest trust was having 75k in gear at buysolar's solar array Suchmoon has a history of acting in bad faith. I very clearly said the DT1 member should be able to trust every single person on their trust list with a hundred thousand+ dollars [if the opportunity arose] without hesitation. Suchmoon responded to my statement as if I was saying this kind of transaction would need to have actually happened. |
|
|
|
Still this thread not reached to FBI, but ill submit it to FBI and CBI.nic.in as one Indian here said same thing retarded.   Assuming the FBI would even care about this, are you sure that Lauda lives in the US? What if they are non-American citizens living on the other side of the world? 
I doubt there are going to be huge manhunts for someone that might not even relate to the country. The FBI will not care about Lauda's tax evasion, although they may care about his extortion schemes. The Croatian tax authority will probably care more about lauda's tax evasion. Which government agency that cares about Lauda's tax evasion doesn't really matter though. The point is that lauda himself evading paying taxes makes lauda's claim that the extortion attempt was a "sting operation" to catch someone evading taxes be less believable. |
|
|
|
|
Interested to see what exactly the criteria is for feedback removal.
|
|
|
|
Have $400k+ BTC in stock, looking to exchange for ETH/LTC/BCH. May sell for PayPal aswell. Contact: Kik: ender Email: endersocialmedia@gmail.com~ What rate are you looking for? |
|
|
|
I think the lack of a response is your answer. I support your idea, however one drawback to showing default trust to guests is that it gives more weight to the DT system, which goes against what theymos wants, and would make it more difficult to maintain the hands off policy regarding trust disputes the administration has taken. |
|
|
|
I think that tagging may be appropriate in particularly obvious cases, or particularly egregious cases involving hundreds of merit points and several posts. But generally you should start out by assuming good faith, and only change that opinion as the evidence really piles up. Tagging someone immediately after an instance of apparently-inexplicable meriting is too trigger-happy IMO. Even if it is a case of illegitimate merit, even hundreds of illegitimate merit points are not much of a problem IMO, so you have to ask whether it's worthwhile to possibly make a mistake by tagging someone who is merely suspicious.
|
|
|
|
Being on DT2 shouldn't mean that user can be trusted with money. This is horrible advice. Being in the DefaultTrust network means you will influence others as to if certain members can be trusted with money, including sockpuppets that may or may not be public. If you are in the Default Trust network, your "sponsor" should be able to trust you with an absolute minimum of 6 figures (USD) at the drop of a hat, however $1-2 million would be much more ideal. |
|
|
|
|
I don't think this falls under an "altcoin giveaway" because there is no incentive for insubstantial posts.
I would say that if you think this is not trustworthy, to let someone within the local community to agree with you and leave a negative rating. I would not say the intent behind the thread was to purchase merit, even if this was the end result.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
