|
Putin gave cancer the USA.
|
|
|
|
You seem like a smart dude.. can you explain to me like I am a full blown retard why the op has a problem. If I sent to him can I not easily prove it by sending the transaction details? If he doubted that I sent the coin I could always log back in and send .00001. Why would signing a transaction to the op not prove that I sent the coin? The transaction details are public - any random Joe could see it and claim they sent it. How would you sending .00001 BTC prove you sent the initial 0.01 BTC? It wouldn't. People don't sign transactions, wallets do - and there is no reason one should ever assume there is a 1:1 relation between people and wallets. Luke-Jr's moronic hacker continues, can't even remember his own encouraging of others to "do things unsafe", such as not learning what one of the fundamental elements of bitcoin is. What gems of wisdom will you grant us next, dude? 'The user of bitcoin shouldn't need to know anything about bitcoin'?
The users of cars don't know how engines work. The users of air conditioning don't know how air compressors work. The users of airplanes don't know how the navigational computers work. The users of cows don't know how their DNA works. Why should the users of Bitcoin be expected to know how its scripting works? Luke-Jr's moron hacker continues... we all know Luke is way too fucking intelligent to make a false analogy that equates to people "shouldn't need to know what..." an engine, an air compressor, a navigational computer, or DNA "...is". We get it dude, in your world, people "shouldn't need to know" anything about anything and be willfully ignorant instead. Now take your own medicine and enjoy being on my ignore list. |
|
|
|
Don't you just love how moronic Luke-Jr's hacker is, to assume the sender will choose not to spend their own goddamn, exclusively controlled private key so they cannot sign their own goddamn BTC messages with it. How much do we all want to bet that Luke-Jr's hacker assumes that healthy bitcoiners are too stupid to breathe without someone screaming BREATHE! at them?
The sender shouldn't need to know what a private key is. Nor did he mention upfront the buyer would need to abuse the sign message function for something it was never intended for, or even that he was relying on a bunch of broken assumptions ("from address" bs). tl;dr ignorance should be a blissful feature, not a bug. tl;dr You don't know the first thing about Bitcoin, but want to pretend you do and encourage others to do things unsafe. Luke-Jr's moronic hacker continues, can't even remember his own encouraging of others to "do things unsafe", such as not learning what one of the fundamental elements of bitcoin is. What gems of wisdom will you grant us next, dude? 'The user of bitcoin shouldn't need to know anything about bitcoin'? |
|
|
|
Don't you just love how moronic Luke-Jr's hacker is, to assume the sender will choose not to spend their own goddamn, exclusively controlled private key so they cannot sign their own goddamn BTC messages with it. How much do we all want to bet that Luke-Jr's hacker assumes that healthy bitcoiners are too stupid to breathe without someone screaming BREATHE! at them?
The sender shouldn't need to know what a private key is. Nor did he mention upfront the buyer would need to abuse the sign message function for something it was never intended for, or even that he was relying on a bunch of broken assumptions ("from address" bs). tl;dr ignorance should be a blissful feature, not a bug. |
|
|
|
|
Don't you just love how moronic Luke-Jr's hacker is, to assume the sender will choose not to spend their own goddamn, exclusively controlled private key so they cannot sign their own goddamn BTC messages with it. How much do we all want to bet that Luke-Jr's hacker assumes that healthy bitcoiners are too stupid to breathe without someone screaming BREATHE! at them?
|
|
|
|
I don't know why people think this a problem witn the exchanges. If you don't like KYC/AML laws then you need to tell this to your government, not the exchanges. They do not make the rules and they are not going to violate the law so you can keep you 0.5BTC secret.
True , but if they allow you to deposit without verification then they have to let you withdraw in a reasonable amount of time as well if the rules change. When you sign up for an account with an exchange, you will need to accept (and agree to) certain terms that the exchange provides you. One of those terms is that you will submit certain KYC/AML documents so the exchange can verify your identity (and likely that you cannot withdraw any funds until these documents are received and accepted) Did Bitstamp have those terms the instant it opened for business? Did Bitstamp have those terms the instant the OP signed up? |
|
|
|
|
-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
A moron has hacked Luke-Jr's account. 01e0f1dae1136d77019e4af559e9891eade53571cdf33f6ce4cb982a0001036c
-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNATURE-----
Version: Bitcoin-qt (1.0)
Address: 1TBZjmXho6mdGhoESaMV2svtqJXYtWfEp
G2TmDH7EvzraHCBURRdWjNfcbiEYkwnHvtqgah1LrdO3TF4giSzxIY8dSyNkpPRdVF3NHPyRBXjTxyc RH/YB768=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNATURE-----
|
|
|
|
|
'Verified' PayPal does not mean live DNA, fingerprint, retinal scan are verified upon every login, so they may as well be saying 'this account is stolen'. PayPal almost always sides with scammers (including convicted financial criminals) who "hack" their own accounts.
|
|
|
|
|
tl;dr Spend at a loss!
No thanks;fuck off.
|
|
|
|
If Bitcoin is going to take off, you've got to use it. I just talked to a customer service guy at Newegg. He said 'hardly anyone' pays with bitcoin. He said he's only dealt with two orders done in Bitcoin.
So that means he's only dealt with two customers who need service. Last I checked, Newegg processes orders without any customer-to-employee contact, by default. |
|
|
|
do you guys shave off your pubes?
Sometimes. Why? Why? Because it is unmanly? And pointless. Yeah, if you don't get your pubes caught in your zipper on a daily basis, you're not manly! |
|
|
|
don't need to redefine any word
AAPL was $700/share and after a stock split (1:7) it became $100/share with increase in unit numbers, but not value
Nobody is talking about changing the number of fundamental units (which are 2.1 quadrillion satoshis)
Just split bitcoin 1:1000000 and say that it (defined as XBT or XBI) is now only 100 satoshis, but you have 21 trillion of such "bitcoins" or "bits" or "whatever" (XBT or XBI)
The concept of a stock split is familiar to EVERYBODY
I'm not part of EVERYBODY, it seems. It's not the first time I've been excluded, though. And yes, if 1 Bitcoin = 100000000 units, but then 1 Bitcoin = 100 units, that's exactly what “redefining” means. I guess I'm not part of EVERYBODY either. LOL |
|
|
|
what a rip off
If you think $3500 USD is a rip, then you'll spontaneously combust once you see how much a Vermeer-style reproduction of this rare print costs. |
|
|
|
|
Any nomenclature between a full bitcoin and a satoshi pisses the fuck off of me. Easier just to write 0.001 or whatever.
|
|
|
|
Perhaps this policy will not apply to bitcoin use? We really don't know how they are going to implement it yet.
Yeah, maybe PayPal will only accept cash in the mail with a signed BTC message proving ownership of the key in the envelope, and restrict withdrawals to that address with re-signing required each time.  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
