People can do whatever they want with the trust system technically.
I can't say about the flag thing but I unless you've deleted or edited the post, the other one is potentially overkill however it is just a neg, what affect does it have on you? It's not a flag and it's not trading related?
It devalues the warning system in general and now i can't be on chipmixer either Also if I wish to trade my gold bars people may be put off now that I have a red tag claiming I am telling lies ? I think that DT1 should not be handing out negative trust based on lies they make up or statements they can not prove or at least provide corroborating evidence. Deliberately making up lies to justify fake red tags dilutes the warning system. That is facilitating scammers. This is simply a DT1 making up lies to apply a red tag to my account. He is doing this because he wants to use the trust system to crush my free speech and deter me from speaking the truth. The trust system is not there to punish those telling the truth or those expressing an opinion they can strongly corroborate with independently verifiable evidence. I wish it to be examined. People shouldnt really trade gold without escrow anyway and I doubt it'll hinder too much. If your only intention is to join a sig then it's probanly good you've been negged. I didn't actually see you post any evidence even if you say you can produce it?
I want to emphasize for newbies that supporting or opposing flag whoever the person created is not worthy of negative feedback. This is just an isolated case because OP is a proven alt account of someone that has a bad reputation in the forum. So don't be scared on participating flag votes
It should NOT have been provided as the reason for giving the flag then! Because I can imaging it doing exactly that... nvm it was a lot of flags it maybe could. |
|
|
|
|
People can do whatever they want with the trust system technically.
I can't say about the flag thing but I unless you've deleted or edited the post, the other one is potentially overkill however it is just a neg, what affect does it have on you? It's not a flag and it's not trading related?
|
|
|
|
|
You might want to send a pm to chipmixer with that link rather than posting it here just in case it gets abused?
|
|
|
|
|
You're not paying anything. If you have funds in you're wallet, I'd suggest moving them out first. If you don't have any money in, how are they going to get you to pay for stuff?
|
|
|
|
|
Contact their support and ask sending the address?
Is it native segwit, beginning with "bc1"? What wallet are you using though also, if it is an address beginning bc1 you'll have to change the type of address being created.
|
|
|
|
Thanks for your answer.
I use Norton 360 for antivirüs program.
I downloaded from Electrum.org.
Notification about ''System infected:Coinminer activity''.
Can I delete Electrum Wallet? If I can, is it has price for deleting wallet?
Try running a scan with Norton and get them to remove it. It might be a virus as i use Norton and didn't get the notification. Try not to restart your computer before completing a scan and seeing it's clean. |
|
|
|
|
#4 just tells you when you post via email.
I don't see much of a problem with posts being deleted in a topic and you not being notified, I think there is a notification bot you can use for it (not sure what it is though).
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah check you don't loaded it from electrum.org.
If you want to get rid of it get your antivirus to do it as that's what it's there for.
It was likely a false positive if it says something like
Trojan gen windows (followed by a number).
Or if it was a community alert"not many people have this installed"
As well as a firewall issue as stated above.
How aggressive is your antivirus setup? Does it normally get rid of viruses automatically or have you whitelisted this one?
If you want rid of the file it depends on whether you installed it or just downloaded a standalone version.
|
|
|
|
|
Do you have any relevant transaction Ids for us to look sy. Also which mycelium are you using, android abs apple are pretty different?.
Depending on your phone and for how long you want to store it, you light want to look into getting a trezor if it's an android and is able to charge from it's usbc charging port (I think the ledger nano X also has similar functionality via Bluetooth). I'd remommend these probably is you're storing more than around 0.2BTC. If less, electrum should do fine just make sure you write down the 12 words and keep that safe.
|
|
|
|
|
My VPN was getting issues earlier about 12 hours ago but it seems to be alright now. Yesterday it was stuck loading a majority of the page and got stuck with a loading bar on 75% for a while.
|
|
|
|
|
We're certainly very far from the 2017 levels, there's probably fewer bounties and stuff now too to keep people here.
I'm expecting a pot of people had ambition to start something new and then decided to put it off until tomorrow and then do that every day - I was meant to send an email in March and I'm still working on it...
I always think, whenever there's a slowdown, there's normally an advantage for people bullish on cryptocurrency to start projects and start building stuff without an immonant crash or ensuing fomo.
|
|
|
|
|
Wasn't a 3 year window passed for the US where a company knew that after the ico they had that time to innovate? If they haven't, its probably good they've been forced to close..
|
|
|
|
Bitmain a while ago held more than 50% of the hashing capacity on the network - it's why they completely split into 3 different companies with different ownership afaik but they seemed to manage everything in a fairly reasonable manner and have since gone below the 50% threshold by quite a bit. It is possible to hold more the 50% of the hash power but expensive. And it becomes even more expensive if you do shady stuff.
Bitmain is the owner of the antpool, antpool has been the largest bitcoin mining pool at one time before, but they have never had more than 50% mining hashrate capacity before. You can check the thread below posted by tranthidungI think you will like this good information about mining pools. No mining pool have https://www.buybitcoinworldwide.com/mining/pools/ From that thread With ~90% of blocks solved by 10 pools, is Bitcoin really decentralized anymore?, I made this one. Data sourceData I used here is total blocks found by Miners/ pools. All timeRaw data +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| rank miner blocks_total blocks_miner pblocks |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
1. | 1 Unknown 629697 245793 39.03354 |
2. | 2 F2Pool 629697 54080 8.588258 |
3. | 3 AntPool 629697 48856 7.758652 |
4. | 4 BTC Guild 629697 32935 5.230293 |
5. | 5 SlushPool 629697 32883 5.222035 |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
6. | 6 BTC.com 629697 29125 4.62524 |
7. | 7 GHash.IO 629697 23083 3.665731 |
8. | 8 BitFury 629697 19513 3.098792 |
9. | 9 BTCC Pool 629697 18027 2.862805 |
10. | 10 ViaBTC 629697 17364 2.757517 |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
11. | 11 BTC.TOP 629697 15368 2.440539 |
12. | 12 BW.COM 629697 12417 1.971901 |
13. | 13 Eligius 629697 11425 1.814365 |
14. | 14 BitMinter 629697 6464 1.026525 |
15. | 15 50BTC 629697 6392 1.015091 |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
16. | 16 KnCMiner 629697 6290 .9988931 |
17. | 17 BitClub Network 629697 5672 .9007507 |
18. | 18 OzCoin 629697 4845 .7694176 |
19. | 19 EclipseMC 629697 3488 .5539172 |
20. | 20 Bixin 629697 3355 .5327959 |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
21. | 21 ASICMiner 629697 3127 .4965881 |
22. | 22 Bitcoin.com 629697 2444 .3881232 |
23. | 23 KanoPool 629697 2428 .3855823 |
24. | 24 Poolin 629697 2135 .339052 |
25. | 25 GBMiners 629697 2093 .3323821 |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
26. | 26 DPOOL 629697 1918 .3045909 |
27. | 27 CloudHashing 629697 1824 .2896631 |
28. | 28 Telco 214 629697 1661 .2637776 |
29. | 29 21 Inc. 629697 1508 .2394803 |
30. | 30 Polmine 629697 1273 .2021607 |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
31. | 31 Cointerra 629697 870 .1381617 |
32. | 32 MegaBigPower 629697 816 .1295861 |
33. | 33 OKEX 629697 802 .1273628 |
34. | 34 58COIN 629697 745 .1183109 |
35. | 35 1THash&58COIN 629697 710 .1127526 |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
36. | 36 digitalBTC 629697 676 .1073532 |
37. | 37 Huobi 629697 643 .1021126 |
38. | 38 HHTT 629697 623 .0989365 |
39. | 39 Bitparking 629697 583 .0925842 |
40. | 40 MaxBTC 629697 449 .0713041 |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
41. | 41 BATPOOL 629697 441 .0700337 |
42. | 42 Bitcoin Affiliate Network 629697 438 .0695573 |
43. | 43 CoinLab 629697 346 .0549471 |
44. | 44 TripleMining 629697 333 .0528826 |
45. | 45 GoGreenLight 629697 333 .0528826 |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
46. | 46 CANOE 629697 321 .0509769 |
47. | 47 BTC Nuggets 629697 293 .0465303 |
48. | 48 Solo CKPool 629697 243 .03859 |
49. | 49 Yourbtc.net 629697 226 .0358903 |
50. | 50 bytepool.com 629697 202 .0320789 |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
51. | 51 ConnectBTC 629697 153 .0242974 |
52. | 52 NovaBlock 629697 133 .0211213 |
53. | 53 BitcoinRussia 629697 127 .0201684 |
54. | 54 xbtc.exx.com&bw.com 629697 116 .0184216 |
55. | 55 digitalX Mintsy 629697 116 .0184216 |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
56. | 56 Bitcoin India 629697 114 .0181039 |
57. | 57 NMCbit 629697 105 .0166747 |
58. | 58 CKPool 629697 86 .0136574 |
59. | 59 Mt Red 629697 77 .0122281 |
60. | 60 shawnp0wers 629697 72 .0114341 |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
61. | 61 8baochi 629697 51 .0080991 |
62. | 62 ST Mining Corp 629697 48 .0076227 |
63. | 63 EMCD 629697 46 .0073051 |
64. | 64 PHash.IO 629697 44 .0069875 |
65. | 65 simplecoin.us 629697 43 .0068287 |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
66. | 66 MiningKings 629697 41 .0065111 |
67. | 67 mmpool 629697 40 .0063523 |
68. | 68 Waterhole 629697 36 .005717 |
69. | 69 Binance 629697 35 .0055582 |
70. | 70 BTCDig 629697 33 .0052406 |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
71. | 71 1Hash 629697 30 .0047642 |
72. | 72 Eobot 629697 25 .0039702 |
73. | 73 HAOZHUZHU 629697 25 .0039702 |
74. | 74 transactioncoinmining 629697 24 .0038114 |
75. | 75 175btc 629697 22 .0034937 |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
76. | 76 Bitsolo 629697 22 .0034937 |
77. | 77 NiceHash Solo 629697 20 .0031761 |
78. | 78 DCEX 629697 19 .0030173 |
79. | 79 HotPool 629697 17 .0026997 |
80. | 80 A-XBT 629697 16 .0025409 |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
81. | 81 BCMonster 629697 15 .0023821 |
82. | 82 Bravo Mining 629697 13 .0020645 |
83. | 83 Haominer 629697 10 .0015881 |
84. | 84 BTCServ 629697 9 .0014293 |
85. | 85 bcpool.io 629697 8 .0012705 |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
86. | 86 myBTCcoin Pool 629697 8 .0012705 |
87. | 87 TBDice 629697 4 .0006352 |
88. | 88 Multipool 629697 3 .0004764 |
89. | 89 Patel\'s Mining pool 629697 2 .0003176 |
90. | 90 BTCMP 629697 2 .0003176 |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
91. | 91 Nexious 629697 1 .0001588 |
92. | 92 7pool 629697 1 .0001588 |
93. | 93 Tricky\'s BTC Pool 629697 1 .0001588 |
94. | 94 EkanemBTC 629697 1 .0001588 |
95. | 95 HASHPOOL 629697 1 .0001588 |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
96. | 96 HashBX 629697 1 .0001588 |
97. | 97 RigPool 629697 1 .0001588 |
98. | 98 UNOMP 629697 1 .0001588 |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
- In 2009: all miners are unknown (32490 blocks found)
- In 2010: all miners are unknown (67920 blocks found)
- From 2011 to May 2020, please take a look at bar charts.
No that's true. But they sit into antpool and btc.com and potentially another pool which did control more than 50% of the network when we had a crash in 2017 and people started turning off their miners. I don't think it lasted long (a month or so maybe) but they still had a large amount of hash power. I've seen viabtc be accused of being part of bitmain too, which, if true means they could have had substantially more than 50% for a while. Not sure what happened to btc.com though.
PS i wouldn't say never, it was 100% by Satoshi at the first few blocks  . |
|
|
|
Why would they think it was subject to a 51% attack before. I'm not sure if the testnet has been subject to one actually (or an isolated version of the blockchain from the start to check its reaction to it).
What the article is trying to convey is that 51% attack is possible on bitcoin blockchain, but the way it was conveyed is so misleading and inaccurate. Bitcoin blockchain with the hashes generated and the way it is generated that is not in a centralized way will makes it not possible as we all know. Which means bitcoin is not subjected to any attack. Bitmain a while ago held more than 50% of the hashing capacity on the network - it's why they completely split into 3 different companies with different ownership afaik but they seemed to manage everything in a fairly reasonable manner and have since gone below the 50% threshold by quite a bit. It is possible to hold more the 50% of the hash power but expensive. And it becomes even more expensive if you do shady stuff. |
|
|
|
It wasn't an option in Bitcoin, other than you could go modify the software to enable it-- which you could always do even if we'd never heard of the optimization. There is no case law that supports a conclusion that implementing something to test it in a non-commercial non-production scholarly manner is a patent violation: considering that the unequivocal case law in the US on the distribution of source code being a first amendment protected right, any attempt to block the scholarly evaluation of patented algorithms in this manner would be on pretty shaky constitutional grounds at best. Plus how could you even decide if you wanted to implement something without actually trying it?
Ahh yeah the python thing was for testing whether the algorithm could be broken readingnbacknthroughbitnthere we're two conversations at once.. I thought that was the endomorphism command that disabled the flag and increased efficiently. I guess this is the reason a lot of code is copied from similar places which hopefully doesn't need to happen now if people can start developing their own versions of the protocol I can't make any sense of this statement. I seem to remember a dev on here saying some of the original core algorithms for the ECC were from an open source library (I can't remember the name as I've used too many encryption libraries now)... So I assumed functioning code was just moved as per the mantra of not reinventing the wheel. |
|
|
|
|
Why would they think it was subject to a 51% attack before. I'm not sure if the testnet has been subject to one actually (or an isolated version of the blockchain from the start to check its reaction to it).
But yes it is extremely important not to just take some random articles m's word for it no matter how noteworthy the author is, especially in the field of cryptocurrency.
|
|
|
|
|
Isn't it still the core devs that broke the patent by allowing that option? I don't think someone enabling that in a private setting is breaking IP law imo.
I guess this is the reason a lot of code is copied from similar places which hopefully doesn't need to happen now if people can start developing their own versions of the protocol (legally). And is the few % (almost 25) gain of efficiency linked to this too or was that a separate topic?. Not that I'd support migrating to python but if the library is in C it might be an interesting take.
|
|
|
|
I experienced this too (even for v4.2 and lower, till 4.0?), but I think it's not a bug.
It happens when you close the application without waiting for it to fully close, like using "home" and swipe out of "recent apps",
or others that may interrupt the normal application shutdown process.
Ah so it's an android bug? I thought the default shutdown was swiping across not a double back button. I may as well just delete my data and start again every time it's potentially easier (only got two wallets). |
|
|
|
Governments like the UK, US and China already have huge reserves of gold so why would they enter?
UK sold its gold to buy EURO about 20 years ago at the lowest price possible. US has the worlds largest reserve but also enough debt to place every citizen 70k into the red so making its reserve not nearly as useful. China is the largest buyer and also producer of gold for a long time now but they also lack any good percentage reserve of gold compared to the amount of currency and debt they over produce. So gold retains its rarity in reserves most likely but I dont see price is a determination of success for anything. They still HOLD the gold in their vault and have managed to sell at least 5x the amount of gold they have held there, so I wouldn't exactly call it a sale... The US also have a lot of gold sold to India too I think... |
|
|
|
|
It doesn't promote integrity to block someone's research ideas based on even a hunch.
I'm sticking to it being somewhere between the two theories: it either came from a wet market or it came from a lab.
I doubt Europe were involved unless they were trying to make it look obvious but don't think I can say why... The US need China as a supplier of goods and they need a good trade agreement with them, the same goes for Europe so they can't exactly whistleblow.
Hopefully we'll see a hacking that can confirm whether or not it was man-made as the US department of defence have an awful grasp at making things secure...
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
