|
Lol.
The humor here is the massive blustering in private message and then here about “criminal actions” and “not a threat, a guarantee”. Yet, you have apparently just tried to do what you claim I did. How is that going to work out for you?
The better part is I actually respected your “command” (you made it clear that it was not a request, your words) and then you attempted to “cause harassment” by your (see how “you are” does not fit here?) own actions.
As far as the quote goes, I submitted that myself to bash.org (which was started and is run by friends of mine) in 1999; it is quite hilarious in the context.
As to the rest, you might want to work on your internet searching skills as they are not properly calibrated.
-j
|
|
|
|
And just to be clear, "chipless", you posted a link to your name in one of your threads. It's now "public" by your own definitions of what makes something public.
You can stop sending me PMs threatening "criminal actions". The only thing criminal here is your own stupidity.
-j
That link is gone and any results of harassment from it will come back on you guaranteed, whether it was on a link or not you took it upon yourself to use it for harassment purposes on this forum. Bottom line is you crossed the line here and as I said if any harassment comes to me or my family, you and me have a real big legal problem bigger then your pussy civil action, guaranteed. That's not a threat either it is a guarantee I will take legal action. Same with the pussy wannabe rocketman. In 25 yrs on the internet your the first baby I have seen cry copyrights violations on any forum that deals with custom firmware and other related hardware/software topics. I have a backup plan already because anyone who mods the firmware can use it for their own personal use and your copyright claims don't mean shit as long as they don't redistribute it. I believe you meant "you're", not "your". HTH. HAND. -j |
|
|
|
|
And just to be clear, "chipless", you posted a link to your name in one of your threads. It's now "public" by your own definitions of what makes something public.
You can stop sending me PMs threatening "criminal actions". The only thing criminal here is your own stupidity.
-j
|
|
|
|
Hey, release whatever you want as long as it has 0 bytes of content from my 'lcgm' or the file I have named 'libnss_mdns_minimal.so.2'.
Good luck on that power inverter!
Also, thank you for this post, it resulted in a net increase of 79 new miners on 2.1d, so I definitely did "enjoy" as you requested.
Jason
See I can use whatever I want from it without any violation, its a matter of how I put it together, you cant copyright the code itself you can only try to copyright certain routines. There is more then 1 way to get the final process done that you cant copyright. The code in lcgm and the contents that I named 'libnss_mdns_minimal.so.2' is 100% original code dude, not stuff built from someone else's work. You still don't seem to get that. You are correct that the concept of "code" cannot be copyrighted, but algorithms and methods, *can* be patented. It is literally (and I know what the word 'literally' means) impossible for you to do what I did without violating copyright -- and you don't have the experience or knowledge to even understand that. I don't mean that to be an insult, you just don't show the aptitude to comprehend this. Kinda like how you were arguing that people didn't understand your energy thing? Except in this, I'm right, and in that, you were wrong.. just like here, where you are wrong. I mean, you tried to use the fact that you had previously released "my" firmware as an argument to support your energy claims. How ridiculous is that? BUT, if you'd like to start, learn ARM assembly because a large portion of the core functionality was written in assembly, not C. Anyway, Good luck Mr Grams. -j |
|
|
|
|
Hey, release whatever you want as long as it has 0 bytes of content from my 'lcgm' or the file I have named 'libnss_mdns_minimal.so.2'.
Good luck on that power inverter!
Also, thank you for this post, it resulted in a net increase of 79 new miners on 2.1d, so I definitely did "enjoy" as you requested.
I'll see you on your next release -- this was your what, 4th release of firmware? You have 5 new threads on bitcointalk, 4 of which are variations on my firmware, one is 'free energy'.
Have a nice evening, Mark.
Jason
|
|
|
|
However it turns out I have a backup plan... I guess if you want it stopped the next step is federal court and we can let the courts decide. Better yet I will just enable my backup plan, I will remove the link for now, it is out there enough for people to share until the new version comes out. Ah, I guess you just received the takedown notice for USC. 17 Section 1201, also and are trying to adjust on the fly as a result? Keep editing... -j |
|
|
|
However it turns out I have a backup plan... I guess if you want it stopped the next step is federal court and we can let the courts decide. Keep editing your original post... your lies just compound. First it was "the link has been restored", then it was "it will be restored in 72 hours", then it was "I have a backup plan!"... Sadly, I think you actually believe the things you say. I would suggest you read up on Dunning-Kruger, but you would not get it. -j |
|
|
|
Update:
Google pulled the link during the evaluation of the legal aspect of this firmware. After review Google's legal team has determined the firmware released is NOT in any violation of copyrights and has re-enable the download link.
It is determined that efudd has to follow the GPL license for the whole package and MUST allow changes to the package, In order for him to get around this he must do a complete firmware package from scratch and not use the original firmware as his base for modifications.
Told you Jason you had to claim...……..
Can you please tell me more about "circular energy"? Also, you might want to check again. --snip-- We're sorry. You can't access this item because it is in violation of our Terms of Service. Find out more about this topic at the Google Drive Help Center. --snip-- -j It will be working fine soon, I received notice on it earlier that it will be re-enabled Good luck Mr. Grams. While we're waiting, hope about that circular energy? Can you update us on how your attempt to turn 500W into 5000W+ worked out? -j |
|
|
|
Update:
Google pulled the link during the evaluation of the legal aspect of this firmware. After review Google's legal team has determined the firmware released is NOT in any violation of copyrights and has re-enable the download link.
It is determined that efudd has to follow the GPL license for the whole package and MUST allow changes to the package, In order for him to get around this he must do a complete firmware package from scratch and not use the original firmware as his base for modifications.
Told you Jason you had to claim...……..
Can you please tell me more about "circular energy"? Also, you might want to check again. --snip-- We're sorry. You can't access this item because it is in violation of our Terms of Service. Find out more about this topic at the Google Drive Help Center. --snip-- -j |
|
|
|
I'm sorry, did you really say "circular power" in that first video? Please tell me more. |
|
|
|
|
I think they tried that in the past, it doesn't exist now.
As far as my firmware goes, a license file can be expired, which will effectively disable the firmware. My original intention was to just revert back to factory in that condition, but that functionality will hopefully never be used. It is designed as a stop-measure if someone does grossly overuse their paid license. The few times I've had people go over a license count, it's been discussed with the purchaser and resolved. Most of the time it has been an "innocent mistake".
And yes, if it can't reach my servers, it also will not work. That was a tough design choice to make.
The further promise I've made to paid users (which will ultimately apply to dev-fee users, too) is if I ever do "shut down", I will provide a fully unencumbered and open firmware with plenty of notice ahead of time so users can migrate to that firmware.
The server side also allows communication to a user-- it's the method used to identify contest winners, as well as inform users of new versions, etc.
Only my paid users really know this, but I made a mistake in my licenses for the first 3 months which caused them to expire unexpectedly. I put provisions in place to ensure expired licenses continued to function server-side, and contacted each paid user to ensure they upgraded. I had one user who was away from their system for 3 weeks after their expiration and theirs never stopped working-- I kept running the server side piece in a special mode until that user could upgrade.
I have made a mistake in my calculations a couple of times which resulted in too much dev time. That was repaid back immediately by disabling dev-fees for a few days.
In another case, I had a paid user who made a mistake in their configuration resulting in their machine never coming online and I was unable to get a response from them when I tried to reach them. For that user, I put special conditions into place temporarily to make it a "dev" machine, but mining to their normal address until they could fix their system.
I've used this same infrastructure to automate deployments for some sites... they install my firmware and their systems automatically run as they desired with no secondary configuration.
net-net, there is absolutely nothing nefarious or underhanded in my intentions with the call-back based API server for protecting the work and I do strive to keep folk online and it is anything but a backdoor.
thank you,
jason
|
|
|
|
The following is from another thread where the user 'bswilmgton' provided the response that is quoted. I wanted to provide a public response to the concerns raised on this thread for openness. This is a fun thing to read I have to say. I will agree with one thing that is being said here, the fees (efudd). I believe every developer should get paid. I have seen your firmware and thought of trying it. But the dev fees outweigh the rewards. Now this is honestly your choice since you did do work to make it work correctly. But a small one time use fee or a 0.5% could be considered more reasonable. Also the back door into your the miner shouldn't be there. Bitmain does it, and I wish I was smart enough to remove it, but I am not. Maybe that is something you could eliminate, for everyone including yourself. But this is just my 0.02 so it means nothing. 1) There is no backdoor, plain and simple. There is, however, protection to ensure my work is not stolen and paid users are managed out of the same infrastructure. I know of multiple farms that claimed they had 1 machine and now run my previous versions on 1000+ machines. The fee I would have charged them would have been reclaimed in 1 day of their mining, but instead they decided to not be honest. That, and other folk who have behaved like chipless resulted in me putting protection in my work. 2) The firmware was available for a one-time fee, but management of sales took more time and effort than the worth. Heads up was given to inform users when sales would end. 3) The firmware was focused on the Z9 where the benefits well outweigh the cost in terms of the sale, or the dev-fee. The mini version only exists because of folk asking for it. I've stated to many users that I recommend batch1 firmware for the mini first... try my firmware if you'd like on your mini and see if it helps you.. if not, use batch1. I keep the batch1 firmware on my webpage at the bottom ( https://releases.broked.net). 4) I'm unsure what you are referring to with 'bitmain' and 'back door', unless you are referring to their recent attempts at locking down firmware to prevent them from being upgraded... that is easy to do with physical access, it's slightly less easy to do for everyone else without physical access. regarding a lower dev fee % -- it's really a catch-22 there. The cost of switching between pools for a dev fee results in a significant loss in earnings for the 10 minute it runs.. A 10 minute run really pays me out the equivalent of a 6 to 7 minute run. Dropping down even lower in % means even less run time to the point where the loss in switching times outweighs anything earned during the mining time. It can be fixed and optimized, but it requires the pools to update their software to support some other methods. flypool agreed to do so, then never did... I have a few other pools that have, but I cannot use other methods effectively until the major pools all fix a particular bug. Sincerely, thank you for your feedback and I hope this provides some clarity. It is not an attempt at justification, just information sharing. -j |
|
|
|
|
Sadly it is difficult to have meaningful discourse when intelligence does not exist.
Following your moronic logic. Take the original firmware, delete that file, observe that things run.
Your argument is that every single thing with the same file name is the same. Can you even comprehend how ridiculous that is?
And again, like the countless other things you are wrong on, you are simply wrong on the earnings. The firmware brings in about 35 dollars usd a day.
And your argument also forgets that the factory firmware provided 42KSol/second by spec and units running my firmware have an average of 57kSol with the latest units exceeding 62Ksol.
Hopefully your intelligence level will let you see that is greater than 3%.
As far as “hiding errors” goes, you are incorrect there as usual. Go take a stock firmware and evaluate what happens in the logs vs the dashboard and you might be able to see. An “x” in the dashboard ONLY occurs when an asic COMPLETELY goes offline. Nothing is changed in that handling.
The only loophole is you managed to get your hands on a firmware that was out for about 4 hours before I realized there was a mistake in DNS handling. It was fixed in my changelogs the early morning of 10/24 and will not work on any of the 2.1 and later releases. There is literally zero “mini” functionality in the 2.0 train.
I encourage you to perform and develop your own content, but I do not believe you have that ability.
I would honestly explain how it all works if I thought you had the capacity to comprehend, but clearly you do not.
The takedowns have been submitted and I guess we will just wait for process to happen.
-j
|
|
|
|
|
You know what dude, fighting with me is ridiculous since I am someone who was trying to *HELP THE COMMUNITY GET THE MOST OUT OF THEIR MINERS*.
You don't fscking understand dynamic vs. static linking. And lcgm and the .so.2 are *NOT* linked to cgminer and cannot be because cgminer is not a fscking library you fscking idiot.
And the original ".so.2" was a SHARED LIBRARY that other things would dynamically link to, you imbecile. If it was static, you wouldn't see it on the filesystem! Using the same _filename_ does not make the new contents exist under GPL as you so ignorantly and stubbornly assume.
These miners came out, purposefully gimped from the factory. I took the time to unlock them and release it to the community.
Then folk had issues with certain boards on specific batches, so I made a modification to let them get the most out of their system.
Then folk wanted voltage controls... well, you've just ensured that all future work stops because I refuse to sit here and defend against fscking idiots like yourself over and over.
My claims are on lcgm and and the the contents of the file named libnss_mdns_minimal.so.2, not the packaging. You are distributing my work in the packing you provided.
BTW, shit from idiots like yourself is why Bliss moved on also.
.. and the reason why I would have said "a billion dollars" or whatever to you is because you have been ignorantly annoying from the beginning speaking out of your ass with your posts and questions.
Good luck.
(Yeah folk, I *CAN* be an asshole, but most of the time I'm not.. and those of you who have dealt with me privately know that.)
-j
|
|
|
|
Yup a couple names had to guess on the older version. No big deal that still don't count as an intrusion.
And my change is unique to me. Lets not preach theft you started with someone else's code too. So if you say I am a thief then so are you.
Dear Chip- My firmware is an in-memory modification of otherwise GPL'd software. The factory image is provided, along with my non-GPL'd modifications which are performed at run-time. That is completely with all rights of GPL'd software. It's akin to how an Nvidia driver can be loaded into a GPL'd linux kernel, without the driver itself being GPLd. However, your action was to take my compiled code and resulting binary which in turn generates modifications at run-time on factory firmware. This maintains the proverbial "separation of church and state" with the Bitmain GPL'd code, and my work. My code is NOT GPL and is under copyright. Redistribution of it, even if not modified, is theft by any legal definition. It is simple as that. I am sorry you do not apparently have the capability to understand that. Talk to a proper lawyer who can explain things to you. I, on the other hand, work with the legality of GPL (and other licenses) as it relates to other software and components as a function of my actual job and have experience working with corporate IP lawyers on this type of thing, including the protection of ensuring GPL code does not impact non-GPL code. You are well out of water here and obviously do not have the experience or knowledge to make the claims you make. Your change is (by your own admittance) a modification of code I wrote completely from scratch followed by distribution of said change which is the exact opposite of a "unique" work in any way, shape, or form. Your own words counter your statements. Also, this is now the 3rd or 4th "firmware" you have released on these forums for these same miners. -j You need to look harder because under GPL once you changed a static linked file your claims can disappear and the file becomes part of the GPL whether you wrote it over from scratch or not and since you mixed your code with GPL you are also suppose to supply the source code if requested. You are using GPL libraries and so on therefore under the laws and GPL license for the main codes are GPL The distribution rights granted by the GPL for modified versions of the work are not unconditional. When someone distributes a GPL'd work plus their own modifications, the requirements for distributing the whole work cannot be any greater than the requirements that are in the GPL. This requirement is known as copyleft. It earns its legal power from the use of copyright on software programs. Because a GPL work is copyrighted, a licensee has no right to redistribute it, not even in modified form (barring fair use), except under the terms of the license. One is only required to adhere to the terms of the GPL if one wishes to exercise rights normally restricted by copyright law, such as redistribution. Conversely, if one distributes copies of the work without abiding by the terms of the GPL (for instance, by keeping the source code secret), they can be sued by the original author under copyright law. So threaten me with an order some more. Your software mods fall under the GPL license whether you like it or not. Laugh -- there have been no threats and these paragraphs are entirely too cohesive to have been written by you. There are 0 statically linked libraries associated with the content I named "libnss_mdns_mininal.so.2" or "lcgm". If you are going to copy/paste something from the internet to sound smart, at least give credits. You've pasted what you have implied (by the act of not providing a source) you wrote above from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_LicenseWhat you have _still_ failed to comprehend is that I am not distributing modifications that fall under GPL. Further, the fact that things are split across multiple libraries and executables is specifically to avoid GPL encumbrance. BTW, I'm still "Enjoying". -j |
|
|
|
Yup a couple names had to guess on the older version. No big deal that still don't count as an intrusion.
And my change is unique to me. Lets not preach theft you started with someone else's code too. So if you say I am a thief then so are you.
Dear Chip- My firmware is an in-memory modification of otherwise GPL'd software. The factory image is provided, along with my non-GPL'd modifications which are performed at run-time. That is completely with all rights of GPL'd software. It's akin to how an Nvidia driver can be loaded into a GPL'd linux kernel, without the driver itself being GPLd. However, your action was to take my compiled code and resulting binary which in turn generates modifications at run-time on factory firmware. This maintains the proverbial "separation of church and state" with the Bitmain GPL'd code, and my work. My code is NOT GPL and is under copyright. Redistribution of it, even if not modified, is theft by any legal definition. It is simple as that. I am sorry you do not apparently have the capability to understand that. Talk to a proper lawyer who can explain things to you. I, on the other hand, work with the legality of GPL (and other licenses) as it relates to other software and components as a function of my actual job and have experience working with corporate IP lawyers on this type of thing, including the protection of ensuring GPL code does not impact non-GPL code. You are well out of water here and obviously do not have the experience or knowledge to make the claims you make. Your change is (by your own admittance) a modification of code I wrote completely from scratch followed by distribution of said change which is the exact opposite of a "unique" work in any way, shape, or form. Your own words counter your statements. Also, this is now the 3rd or 4th "firmware" you have released on these forums for these same miners. -j |
|
|
|
I hope you have proof of the scanning of your server because I have never scanned anything. Attempting to download older versions is not scanning a server it is attempting to download older versions that you apparently removed from the server and no one tried to intrude your server.
Fine, here's a selection... 24.179.XXX.XXX - - [03/Feb/2019:10:18:59 +0000] "GET /Z9_2.0.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 404 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [03/Feb/2019:10:18:59 +0000] "GET /Z9_2.0d.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 404 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [03/Feb/2019:10:18:59 +0000] "GET /Z9_2.0.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 404 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [03/Feb/2019:10:19:00 +0000] "GET /Z9_2.0d.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 404 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [03/Feb/2019:10:19:00 +0000] "GET /Z9_2.0.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 404 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [03/Feb/2019:10:20:25 +0000] "GET /Z9_2.0b.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 404 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [03/Feb/2019:10:23:18 +0000] "GET /Z9_2.0b.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 404 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [03/Feb/2019:10:24:45 +0000] "GET /Z9_Unlocked__hashboard_control__2.0c.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 403 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [03/Feb/2019:10:24:57 +0000] "GET /Z9_Unlocked__hashboard_control__2.0.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 403 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [03/Feb/2019:10:25:15 +0000] "GET /Z9__2.0.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 404 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [08/Feb/2019:02:50:54 +0000] "GET /Z9_2.1d.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 200 12507784 "https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5036968.0" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [10/Feb/2019:10:18:14 +0000] "GET /Z9Mini_2.1d.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 200 12549086 "https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5036968.0" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [10/Feb/2019:10:44:50 +0000] "GET / HTTP/1.1" 200 4928 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [10/Feb/2019:10:45:34 +0000] "GET /Z9_2.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 404 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [10/Feb/2019:10:45:43 +0000] "GET /Z9_v2.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 404 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [10/Feb/2019:10:45:54 +0000] "GET /Z9_2.0.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 404 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [10/Feb/2019:10:46:01 +0000] "GET /Z9_2.0a.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 404 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [10/Feb/2019:10:49:34 +0000] "GET /Z9_Unlocked__hashboard_control__2.0.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 403 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [10/Feb/2019:10:49:49 +0000] "GET /Z9_Unlocked__hashboard_control__2.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 404 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [10/Feb/2019:10:50:01 +0000] "GET /Z9_Unlocked__hashboard_control.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 404 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [10/Feb/2019:10:50:18 +0000] "GET /Z9_Unlocked.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 404 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [10/Feb/2019:10:50:34 +0000] "GET /Z9_Unlocked__hashboard_control__2.0c.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 403 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
How do I know it was you? The PM I sent you a few minutes ago where you clicked the link, specifically designed to validate that I had indeed previously identified you. 24.179.XXX.XXX - - [11/Feb/2019:23:16:16 +0000] "GET /chipless HTTP/1.1" 301 433 "https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=pm" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
-j Yup and like I said no one was trying to intrude your system it clearly shows I was attempting to download older versions. Anything else. That is not scanning that is downloading previous files you released. Ok dude. You should get your system checked out for malware or viruses then... and not all of those were released and is guessing. Regardless, the method of doing changes in memory on ARM *IS unique* to me. Theft is theft man. Enjoy your thread. -j |
|
|
|
I hope you have proof of the scanning of your server because I have never scanned anything. Attempting to download older versions is not scanning a server it is attempting to download older versions that you apparently removed from the server and no one tried to intrude your server.
Fine, here's a selection... 24.179.XXX.XXX - - [03/Feb/2019:10:18:59 +0000] "GET /Z9_2.0.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 404 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [03/Feb/2019:10:18:59 +0000] "GET /Z9_2.0d.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 404 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [03/Feb/2019:10:18:59 +0000] "GET /Z9_2.0.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 404 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [03/Feb/2019:10:19:00 +0000] "GET /Z9_2.0d.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 404 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [03/Feb/2019:10:19:00 +0000] "GET /Z9_2.0.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 404 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [03/Feb/2019:10:20:25 +0000] "GET /Z9_2.0b.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 404 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [03/Feb/2019:10:23:18 +0000] "GET /Z9_2.0b.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 404 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [03/Feb/2019:10:24:45 +0000] "GET /Z9_Unlocked__hashboard_control__2.0c.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 403 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [03/Feb/2019:10:24:57 +0000] "GET /Z9_Unlocked__hashboard_control__2.0.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 403 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [03/Feb/2019:10:25:15 +0000] "GET /Z9__2.0.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 404 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [08/Feb/2019:02:50:54 +0000] "GET /Z9_2.1d.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 200 12507784 "https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5036968.0" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [10/Feb/2019:10:18:14 +0000] "GET /Z9Mini_2.1d.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 200 12549086 "https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5036968.0" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [10/Feb/2019:10:44:50 +0000] "GET / HTTP/1.1" 200 4928 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [10/Feb/2019:10:45:34 +0000] "GET /Z9_2.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 404 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [10/Feb/2019:10:45:43 +0000] "GET /Z9_v2.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 404 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [10/Feb/2019:10:45:54 +0000] "GET /Z9_2.0.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 404 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [10/Feb/2019:10:46:01 +0000] "GET /Z9_2.0a.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 404 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [10/Feb/2019:10:49:34 +0000] "GET /Z9_Unlocked__hashboard_control__2.0.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 403 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [10/Feb/2019:10:49:49 +0000] "GET /Z9_Unlocked__hashboard_control__2.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 404 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [10/Feb/2019:10:50:01 +0000] "GET /Z9_Unlocked__hashboard_control.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 404 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [10/Feb/2019:10:50:18 +0000] "GET /Z9_Unlocked.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 404 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
24.179.XXX.XXX - - [10/Feb/2019:10:50:34 +0000] "GET /Z9_Unlocked__hashboard_control__2.0c.tar.gz HTTP/1.1" 403 348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
How do I know it was you? The PM I sent you a few minutes ago where you clicked the link, specifically designed to validate that I had indeed previously identified you. 24.179.XXX.XXX - - [11/Feb/2019:23:16:16 +0000] "GET /chipless HTTP/1.1" 301 433 "https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=pm" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko" "-"
-j |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
