Its okay buddy. You have legitimate questions and want an answer. I might not be able to provide it but let's take a look.

First of all, in your screenshot, you are showing outdated coin balances, one for BCHN (BCH) and one for BCHA. Your first screenshot was accurate and reflects your true balances, this second one is old. Also keep in mind the network split happened on 11/15.

Let's look at the BCHN wallet first.

You had 10 BCH on 11/15. You received 98 BCH on 11/22 and sent them on 12/7, and now have a balance of 10 BCH correct?

Looking at the BCHA wallet:


Buddy, that is your address! According to you, anyway:


It looks like you were sent 98 BCHA along with 98 BCH on 11/22. The BCHA transaction was confirmed 10 days after the BCH transaction (12/2). If they made a single transaction it was broadcasted to both blockchains somehow (lack of replay protection I assume).

Compare these two address histories.

This one is for BCH: https://blockchair.com/bitcoin-cash/address/qz5t86njxds9q7vucprdehlnxhslzylpls4qxkwd8u?_type=address

This one is for BCHA: https://blockchair.com/bitcoin-abc/address/qz5t86njxds9q7vucprdehlnxhslzylpls4qxkwd8u?_type=address

You can see they go on separate paths starting 11-21.

Answer me this before I go any further:

Are you supposed to have 10 coins each for BCH and BCHA at qz5t86njxds9q7vucprdehlnxhslzylpls4qxkwd8u, like you currently do, or are you saying your coins were stolen from... one blockchain or both?? Don't exactly understand what the problem is.

Welp, so long as somebody decides its a good idea to keep recruiting bounty hunters to advertise various shitcoin projects to each other all day long, the cycle will continue infinitely. I really don't understand how running a bounty is the least bit profitable knowing bounty hunters will always do the minimum amount of required work to get their tokens...

A long time ago when I was involved in an ICO, I checked our website analytics pretty regularly and determined bounty hunters were barely driving any traffic to our website. I know that there's more to it than that, like getting out brand recognition and stuff, but bounty hunters just advertise to themselves all day, like they do here in Altcoin Discussion, on Facebook and Twitter (its easy to get 5,000 FB friends or Twitter followers if you're all bounty hunters and you all follow each other).

Anyway, weird market forces are beyond my control.

Not plagiarism. He referenced the sources at the end of the post (as was noticed in post #2 of this thread, yet here we are on page 2).

Is there an example of someone who has been banned for plagiarism after including sources in their post? If you can find that, that would be a convincing argument that a new standard needs to be developed. However, it would appear that we are good with the standards we have now.

As far as the whole CM campaign angle is concerned, Ratimov works harder than most people here and I can't think of many more deserving of a spot in the campaign.

He's on to something here, but I'm not sure its for the reason he thinks it is.


This is only because these giant companies have lobbyists whereas retail investors don't.

Let's address the portion of the post that actually matters:


Not really. The logical place to "start" (you've had a custom trust list for years which you alter on a somewhat regular basis, so you're not really "starting" anything) is by adding people who you feel make good use of the trust system, not those who you've personally dealt with in real life (that's what trust ratings are for).

Surprised you never learned the difference.

Oh, you're absolutely right. Don't know how I missed that one. Weird how Og cares so deeply about trust scores that he's willing to undermine the whole point of the trust system in order to raise his score.

As for the people who still include Og, I'm not going to be sending them PMs on the issue or anything, and perhaps they view his contributions as "good outweighs the bad"... But he's clearly adjusting his trust list to pad his score, and its not a good precedent to set for current and future DT members.

I never really cared for or about this Michael Saylor guy. As CEO of a big company, he made a gamble and it paid off. That's admirable, and great for his shareholders. However, I don't think he understands what Bitcoin is supposed to be about. He'd obviously be pleased if he could mold it into a tool that benefited himself first and foremost.

All we can do is hope that Bitcoin Core remains democratic and self-regulating enough to not cave to corporate interests as its going to be more tempting than ever in the upcoming years.

Hello, I'm just curious: why are you still wearing the wolf.bet signature as the campaign ended in October? Why bother to keep the signature of a dead campaign?

Its very similar to aomakun, who returned to the forum a month after you did to comment on the same or similar threads, who is also still wearing a sig for a bounty that ended in September.

A fair answer to this question would be its because they want full control over their project. If I owned a food distribution company and wanted to use the blockchain to keep tabs on quality control or something, I wouldn't adopt a pre-existing method of payment and enrich devs and bagholders through pumping their bags. I would build it from the ground-up using Microsoft Azure or something.

As a method of payment, yeah creating your own coin for your own restaurant is only as good as the effort being put into the coin's success. They're better off accepting BTC, ETH, and LTC.

... And just like that I'm net green for the season.



Should probably call it quits.

What does it say about a user from 2011 who keeps adjusting their trust list for the sole benefit of themselves, just to raise their already-high trust score by 6 measly points?

If I hadn't already excluded Og, I would exclude him again over this issue, as should anybody who values correct use of the trust system.

Here's Og's recent inclusions, all of which have left positive trust for Og (with the exception of nonnakip):

   achtung082 - hasn't left a trust rating since Feb 2018, hasn't posted since May 2019, no custom trust list.

   nonnakip - never left a trust rating, no custom trust list (obviously Og has nothing to gauge this user's ability to use the trust system correctly).

   senbonzakura - last trust rating left in 2013, last login 2013, no trust list

   rxalts - no problem here; rxalts doesn't reference his feedback often but not a real reason to not include somebody

   No_2 - this user doesn't have a trust list but their feedback seems to be appropriate, not a problem

   kingcolex - not a problem

   jonnybravo0311 - hasn't left a trust rating since 2016, no trust list

   ca333 - a semi-active user, don't have a problem with this user either

So only 4 of the 8 additions are questionable, 3 all of which pad his trust score; Og could have just not added those 4 and nobody would have flinched at the other 4. But because he is OgNasty, it just seems like he thinks he can do whatever he wants and it won't be challenged.

To the contingency that are overinvested in the OgNasty brand and will inevitably arrive to defend his legacy: whatever net good (arguably) someone did in the past isn't an excuse for them to do whatever they want now.

Well it hasn't been a runaway game thus far by any stretch of the imagination, but not looking good for Washington.

I'm a bit surprised to see you here. Were you bitten by the gambling bug after winning the big bet against eddie?


Gah. Awful time to go for it on 4 and 1...

Again... can't really believe you're being compensated in any form for this type of comment.

1. It's not abandoned.
2. It has blocks (the last one was found 12 minutes ago).
3. It has a hash rate.

https://abc.coin.dance/blocks

Would it be too much to ask that people do the slightest bit of research before commenting misinformative nonsense in this thread?

You know what this post reminds me of? It's like a saltine cracker. Boring, devoid of nutritional content, and nobody asked for it. If you ever wonder why you've never received a single merit, that's why: you're serving up saltine crackers and nobody wants them. I know you don't care, just pumping out those posts for the bounty. You'll never learn anything and thus you'll never earn anything. Great job.

Dude. Look at your own screenshot: its telling you that you have 10 BCHA alongside your 10 BCHN. They are both governed by the same private key, which you will need to import to a BCHA-specific wallet, which can likely be downloaded from the Bitcoin ABC website. Trezor was one of the few companies to outright support BCHA and not offer support for BCHN, but apparently they came around on Nov. 16th and changed their software. You may have to update your Trezor if you haven't since then.

Basically, if you aren't exactly sure what you're doing you'll be taking on a lot of unnecessary risk for $150. I would just let it die to zero while holding out hope that it one day evolves into its own brand, and higher prices.


And 10 days later, BCHA was indeed 51% attacked:

https://decrypt.co/49819/bitcoin-cash-rebels-launch-51-attack-to-destroy-bch-hard-fork

I haven't used this wallet for ages but its a mobile wallet for Counterparty and served me well:

https://wallet.indiesquare.me/

All of the reviews since Oct 2018 say it has connection errors or won't load; perhaps its been deprecated.

There's a billion other coins and blockchains that allow for token creation and they are too boring to list by name. We know Counterparty is safe to use and allows you to build tokens on the Bitcoin blockchain. Yes, ideally the DEX should have more liquidity but the fact that you have to pay a transaction fee to create, fill or cancel an order (something otherwise free in centralized exchanges) renders it impractically expensive for normal trading. Nevertheless, I think it will last on for quite a while.

Washington's last couple wins were from opponents that were more or less pushovers, but they really ran up the score big last time and seem to be on a hot streak. Which is what Pittsburgh's been on all year long. But I just feel like Washington needs this one while Pittsburgh doesn't, although I'm sure they want to keep their streak in tact, of course.

I put a bet in on Washington to win the ML, and a bigger bet to cover @ +6.5 (in retrospect I should have gone with +7). So if they just cover then I'll still be up a little, we'll see.

"That's the way she goes, bud. Sometimes she goes, sometimes she doesn't. This time she didn't go. Way she goes." - Ray

**edit: I just noticed my spelling error, but let's say its pronounced like Lebowski... Rainbowski.

It's just a pre-emptive measure to make sure scammers feedback never matters in case if for some reason they ever get added to DT (it happens). And because they are willing to wantonly abuse the trust system with stupid flags they shouldn't be on DT regardless of whether or not they're a scammer.

I also like the idea of using both bits and millibits as that pretty much has covered. mBTC are of course the standard used by many casinos, and bits (b?) is what is used by bustadice. 1 bit is worth almost 2 cents, and a thousand of those equals one millibit, which is (close to) $20.