Everyone has messed up in their life at some point, and that doesn't define them. Its how the person reacts after them messing up which is important. I'll give you an extreme example, there have been professional footballers who have killed or harmed others previously, but are now making a living at the top level. There's been several scammers in the world which have turned over a new leaf. I don't doubt that you when in comparison with these, can overturn a small issue, and contribute to the community positively in the future.

Thus, it has been determined that a local board isn't required for the Bangladesh language. Although, it would be nice to get statistics from those that do have their dedicated section to be able to effectively compare the difference.

Not completely off topic, because before implementing a new section for local languages it is probably a good idea to look at the long term outlook of the section, and whether there is a reason for spikes in activity from a particular demographic, and try to establish whether this is likely to continue. For an extreme example, if a country declared Bitcoin as their official currency we would likely see a dramatic increase in users from that country, and this would likely be a long term trend. However, if its due to a signature campaign specifically for a certain language then this isn't likely to continue if that signature campaign were removed.

Bangladesh users communicating in their local section haven't had any such rises, and the long term outlook is probably very much the same as previous years.

There's a few things which line up, but there's no concrete evidence. There is definitely overwhelming support that these accounts are related, but there is no absolute definite connection. All of these accounts, or at least the ones that I've checked so far have woken up after a long period of time. I think checking whether the accounts could have been compromised is another thing we should probably look at.

I think when it comes to tagging these accounts its up to the discretion of those who do, because as always merit abuse is fairly subjective. Although, I think there's a strong case to argue here that the majority if not all accounts are connected.

It really depends case by case. I'd probably expect a user posting similar content to this user to be banned permanently after their first temporary ban if they carry on with the same behaviour.  There's no strict guidelines here on Bitcointalk where you have to hand users x amount of temporary bans before permanently banning them. Some staff members might have opted to permanently ban that user right off the bat. However, I probably take a more cautious route than others, and look to give users a chance unless its for a more serious offense. However, this ban was requested by myself, and I included a temporary ban suggestion, but ultimately its up to the global moderator or admin that hands out the ban what length the ban will be.

Those posts can be removed, but are probably low priority due to new reports coming in taking precedence. I'm actually a little more active after the Christmas break, so I could look at doing this in the next couple of days.

Some users request accounts to be nuked or banned within the report comments, but I'd like to think this has no bearing of the effect of the way the staff member handles it. Doing what you did, and asking the moderator to check the post history is the best way of going about reporting users who break the rules continuously. However, what happens to the account depends on who is handling the report, as well as the rules broken. Sometimes, the staff member that is handling the report won't be able to ban that user, and will have to contact another staff member or send a request to those that can. This can sometimes take a little time.

However, the user has been banned.

Changing the password would automatically log them out of their session.



This is very much a subjective answer. If you are okay with someone logging into your account to verify this information in the first place, then you'll have to decide who you trust rather than other users recommendations. Users on DefaultTrust may be a good start as they probably are trusted more by others. Although, contacting those that left you negative trust, and showing them personally might be a good option. Although, that would require trusting them. This is up to you unfortunately.

Seems that whatever service you're using to establish that it came from Turkey doesn't recognize it as a VPN straight off the bat. This doesn't mean they used their home address though. Sometimes when searching up an IP address on the internet using whatever search engine you'd prefer you can find past information where this hacker has been caught, and there might already be investigations undertaken previously or ongoing. Usually, hackers target a wide range of users for more successful attempts, and aren't one offs.

You might want to check your outbox of your messages to see if the user has left any other evidence behind. As well as mentioning this to the admins just in case its been deleted from your account, but has still been sent to others. The admins might be able to give you all changes on the account since the alleged compromise if they deem it plausible.

If you ever suspect that your system is compromised then its probably best to follow the steps of making it safe. Whether that's reinstalling or writing 0s to the hard drive or totally nuking it instead. The forum hasn't been knowingly compromised since you registered here so unless another database leak from another website has the exact same email, and password I doubt that is the case. Depending on how you log in, if you log in using the captcha bypass link that could have potentially been compromised. However, you need to go through the process of elimination, and find out what exactly has likely been compromised, and if you're still stuck then change it all. Password certainly needs to change, but that needs to happen on a non compromised system.

If there has been an IP from turkey recently on your account, then it seems that the attacker got remote access rather than physical unless they used a VPN. You could look that IP address up on the internet to see if its connected with anything else, and what type of service it is identified as. It may well be a known VPN or might be linked with other scams on the internet separate to this forum.


These things are clear:

1. Determine cause via process of elimination
2. Take the necessary actions for a clean, and safe environment.
3. Change credentials in this clean environment (its probably a good idea to change password immediately, as well as again under a clean system)
4. Avoid whatever caused you to get compromised.

As for the feedback. Its up to the user who left the feedback to determine whether they are willing to remove it due to this proposed hacking incident.

Supercomputers aren't going to be as powerful as people think when compared to the grand task of taking down an encryption method. However, they're going to be fairly good at niche specific tasks. I think the development behind supercomputers is a good thing, but they are never going to get to the capability of breaking SHA-256 unless something truly groundbreaking develops in physics. Most people's home computers aren't cooled efficiently, but a super computer would literally have to spend its time in a super super cold freezer which allows the computer components to still move. Also, its the small problem of it having to be bigger than Roger Ver's ego.


It depends what you mean by using AI to tackle this problem. AI isn't automatically anymore efficient than other alternatives. The definition of AI is something that can imitate human behaviour. Whereas a human probably wouldn't be able to reverse the SHA 256 hashes why would AI be anymore effective at this? I'm not saying its completely impossible, but it is very unlikely that AI would be capable of this. Most artificial intelligence is quite....how do I put it? Dumb. There's been some advancements in AI over recent years, and there are promising results from various sources. However, these are niche specific, and none of them are related to deconstructing SHA 256 or reversing a hash of SHA 256.

There's definitely a possibility that things might change in the future. Although, I doubt theymos has any plans currently. The system largely has had a positive effect on the forum, and has reduced the amount of spam that was occurring prior to the merit feature introduction. However, I believe everyone should be prepared to adapt, and we don't know exactly what the future will bring. The great thing about the merit system is its scalable with adding, and removing merit sources, and any fundamental changes likely don't need to be made in order to adapt.

I think this forum remains friendly to newbies which contribute, and has largely reduced the amount of spamming in order to rank up, and join a signature campaign. If you're banking on the forum ranking becoming easier then I would say this is unlikely looking at the current feedback from the community. There has been complaints about the system, but the majority of these complaints are from those directly effected by it, and usually don't have quality posts.


Exactly. I think this is the best we've been prepared to deal with a new influx of users. The news Bitcoin halving will be well documented within news outlets, and it has the possibility of increasing the price. If that does happen we will likely see a massive increase in newly registered accounts if history is to repeat itself. We've got two systems preventing users ranking up unlike before. Activity, and merit will mean that most users, and spammers will stay at the newbie rank, and because of this there will be more exposure to moderators due to there being a few patrollers, as well as global moderators seeing their reports. Before, users might have gone unnoticed, and got the desired post count, and activity. Then, they were able to run rampant, and only global moderators could deal with these users if there wasn't a moderator active in the section. For example, Hilariousandco has is a dedicated moderator of Bitcoin Discussion. Although, they're also a global moderator there's only a few global moderators which can handle reports of anyone that is higher than newbies in that section.

Elon Musk is a smart guy. He knows that mentioning the word Bitcoin in a manner as he did will trigger a reaction from his followers as well as the rest of the world. This is especially true when it comes to the media outlets. These types of cryptic tweets are great ways to get engagement which results in exposure to different types of crowds. Also, Elon Musk has been known to troll his twitter followers a few times. I think he's a guy who likes to say, and do "edgey" time things. I remember the last time he went on Joe Rogan's podcast, and smoked weed with him, and the news outlets blew up. There was another time where he was in a photo with the Spacex crew, and people went crazy due to him wearing a anime t-shirt. The guy is the very definition of a "edgey" person, and these little things cause a big wave in terms of his brand exposure. He's also shown the "system" or the conventional etiquette the finger a few times which has resulted in the legal ball aches that you speak of.

However, is this price manipulation? I don't think so at all. I think Elon Musk is up to his old tricks, and causing a few waves over the social media platform. I don't there's much more depth to this than the things that I have already mentioned.

Nah, I share the same opinion. It would also result in more work for theymos if he had to code the system to present users with a unique address, and then its the logistics of verifying that data. Ultimately, it would result in a lot more work for theymos which isn't necessarily a in demand request, and when the forum isn't in need of money it wouldn't be worth that additional time spent on this.

First of all, this wouldn't be just the way you use Bitcoin, but the way you access the internet, and how you have your computer setup. Some websites go as far as collecting the languages which you have installed on your local machine. While others just collect information like computer screen size, and agent. So, to keep your identity, and your online fingerprint unique, and changeable you need to always be thinking about changing up your digital fingerprint, and blocking a lot of content on the web. This can, and almost certainly will break most of the websites that you visit.

However, mixing coins is a way to protect your identity, and as others have stated its probably the easiest to do, while also remaining cost effective. This does mean you're still trusting a third party, although some coin mixing services terminate all data after a certain period of time. Although, you can't verify that this is true, and that's one of the issues with several users on this forum. Although, there are some trustworthy services out there.

Another option is to exchange your Bitcoin into altcoins, and back again. However,  remember that for this to work you would need to find an exchange that doesn't keep data on their system. The best possible way of doing this would likely be P2P. Although, you're still trusting one person. Anonymity in modern times is very difficult, especially because websites deliberately collect information on their users to either sell on their data, make their website more usable or advertise to them more effectively. Remaining anonymous is possible, but its entirely up to you how far you want to go to achieve that.  

Are there many countries that have restrictions on cryptocurrency mixing services?

I believe Hal Finney received a transaction from Satoshi as a test back in the early days of Bitcoin. I believe it was 10 Bitcoin or somewhere around that figure. Therefore, Satoshi has spent his coins. His identity might not be known, but his addresses are tied to him, and everyone knows the addresses that he has used in the past. The way Bitcoin is designed, its not great for remaining completely anonymous, because of the way the Blockchain works every transaction is public, and if you are known to send any amount of coins publicly then you're linked with that address. This doesn't mean they know your identity, but you have become linked with an address.

I'd have to check again as I might be mistaken, but I believe Satoshi dipped into different dialects, and ways of saying things. For example, he would spell words different from time to time just like British, and American people spell humour (humor) different. I believe he was very aware of the way he went about things, and retaining that for a long period of time can be exhausting simply because typing is quick by nature, and usually your brain is going 110mph, which tends to mean your typing reflects the raw way of you thinking about things. He was very aware of his linguistic style.

Like I said I'd have to check to confirm this, but considering there would have been a few high level media outlets, and amateur investigators analyzing Satoshi's every move, and going as in depth as stylometry.

Full details are usually not given until an update is rolled out, and a lot of the user base has already had time to update to avoid any issues. I've talked about this a lot recently, but this is an example of when isolation of your computer using computer compartmentalization technology or by physically separating your computers from a insecure device, and a more secure device is important. If you have your computers physically separated, then the network could still be compromised if a browser goes haywire. Therefore, I think a software based approach would be the better option. You could run a level 2 virtual machines for your browser, network, and other software while remaining as safe as possible if one of them gets compromised. Firefox is probably the second most used browser on the internet, and millions of users were exposed to this vulnerability, and I'd agree with Ddmr how bad it is for a browser to get complete control of the operating system.

Its worth noting that you'll likely have to manually update Firefox, and double check after the update has finished whether or not you're running the version in the OP.

This is usually the case for most exploits. However, most exploits are used against specific targets, and won't be much of a threat to "normal" users. Unfortunately, there's no way of preventing this from happening, and vulnerabilities will always be found in software, especially in newly released updates.  There's a lot of debate among software engineers whether you should update or stick with a older version a little longer than usual. This is why a lot of companies keep a up to date long term support option.

If I believed the user was abusing this fact I'd likely seek a global moderators or admins opinion unless it was absolutely obvious. If it was borderline, and there's varying factors to consider I probably wouldn't ban them myself even if they were a newbie. This is a highly subjective situation, and I believe having a second opinion would be beneficial in borderline cases. I would probably remove the posts, unless either theymos states otherwise or another staff member presents compelling counter arguments to my reasoning.

You can report the posts, and see what sort of feedback you get. If you report enough of them, then its likely not going to just be one moderator handling it, and you could probably gauge whether you want to continue to report them. I can't really give you an example of my interpretation of this act as its very much so on a case by case basis.

This is my take on it, but other moderators will likely have differing opinions; Only substantial posts should contain a advertisement. There is a difference of linking to a source, and linking to an advertisement. If the user owns the site then its far more likely to be an advertisement, and not a genuine source. However, this should be determined on a case by case basis, and factors that would contribute to determining whether this is okay or not is by quality of their content within the post on the forum, and how often they link to this resource. As linking semi regular would indicate that they're the owner of the website, and they are merely posting to advertisement, although if its a substantial thread then this may still be allowed. It entirely depends on the individual case that we are presented with.

For example, Sally posts a link to a website which contains referral links, but is not a direct referral link, and does not continue to do this multiple times, and is a one off. I would consider this fine as long as its relevant to the discussion, and they offer insightful information within the contents of their post and aren't just linking to a source. At this point, it doesn't matter to me whether they own the site or not. If its useful, and isn't a direct referral link then its fine. However, it needs to be a substantial post for this to apply. To give you an example of my example; If someone posts within the service discussion section asking for reviews of the top exchanges. A user gives their own constructive opinion on it, and then links to another source which provides reviews from another source on the internet, which happens to have indirect referral links. Using my discretion I'd probably allow this if first of all the post itself was substantial, and it wasn't a direct referral.

However, I believe this should change as soon as this is a regular occurrence of a user, and they're offering low quality posts while plugging a certain website every chance they get. I treat linking to news articles the same, as a lot of users are now trying to get traffic to their website without posting on the forum for discussion. They simply quote a small bit of the article, link to it, and then never return to the discussion, and start the process all over again for their next article. I usually remove these types of threads, especially if there's alternative discussion on the forum already.  

Although, this will be entirely at the discretion of the moderator handling the report as we all have different interpretations of post quality, and determining a users intentions when posting a link.

Before I proceed with my explanation, my personal interpretation from this quote is that theymos is talking specifically about threads that the user created themselves that contain advertisements.

This is the policy that I try to abide by when it comes to these types of posts. Note that, theymos talks about hosting content on the forum which requires the post itself on the forum to be significant, and substantial. However, I'll admit that indirect referral links can sometimes be tricky. If a user replies to another user trying to help them, and links to a resource which includes a referral link within the page then it should probably be removed. However, if they have posted a significant thread of their own, then it should probably be taken on a case by case basis.

I've been very close a few times from putting a number that I intend on giving them in front of the default "0" that is present by default. I think it might be a good idea to remove that to prevent that issue. I don't recall actually ever doing it, but if it wasn't for double checking I could have very easily.

Nah, I don't factor in rank or merits received from others. I merit the post on what I think is deserved. Although, I understand why others would be more inclined to reward users who haven't received merit on mass. I still think rewarding legendary users is important, and its not like they go to complete waste due to the fact that they can redistribute them.

Seeing this thread again reminds me of a story here in Wales.

There's a story of a Welsh dude near me that lost thousands of Bitcoin after throwing out a old hard drive. Rumors are that he spent days searching the local landfill for the hard drive, but was unsuccessful. It would be worth around $55,040,000 these days, but was worth a considerable amount more only a few months back. However, it was definitely a mistake due to him throwing the hard drive away when they were worth $975,000. I'm not sure whether this has ever been verified to be true, as it would be difficult to do so. However, he did get a considerable amount of media attention because of it.

If its a post that specifically targets malware which is related to Bitcoin it will likely fall into one of the main Bitcoin sections, and I'd recommend tailoring it to Bitcoin users. However, if its general, and doesn't apply to Bitcoin its probably best to either put it in off topic. If it relates to Altcoin malware, and their tricks that they like to pull you can put it in the Altcoin section or the serious discussion section.

Convincing win, but I honestly was expecting a little more counter attacking from Sheff Utd. Seems with Gomez back in the squad we are starting to pick up a little more clean sheets also. Next few fixtures for Liverpool are going to be the deciding factor I think. Especially, the game against Man United which they always seem to get at least a point from in recent times.

I assure you not many users over in the Altcoin section want to see his garbage either

I don't usually read much of the discussion about him, but if it applies solely to altcoin, and doesn't have any relation to Bitcoin at all then you can report it, and it'll likely be moved. As for discussion relating to Bitcoin as long as its quality discussion then I don't think censorship is the right answer.

I'd like to see a scam accusation section board within the Altcoin section. I think it would be beneficial as the current setup is a little confusing to see Bitcoin, and altcoin sections separated in most sections, but Scam accusations, and reputation.