a person bypasses one CAPTCHA and through this CAPTCHA the site gets 100 Satoshi, the site pays 20 Satoshi to the user and he still has 80 Satoshi profits
These processes is a good one to understand but who gives the site 100 satoshi, wouldn't the site completed some task to earn such satoshi? Let me understand how the site gets their 100 sat. Actually, it's true that nothing in crypto community is free, even airdrop as said as free is faulty, back then in 2017 when only submitting ETH address without tasks gives you free token. Ethereum blue was the free coin someone got that time. There are services that offer an api for bypassing captcha, this can be used by regular users to remove captchas, or by automated programms like scrapers and bots. Such services work by employing actual humans to solve captchas for a payment and sending the results back to customers all in real time. But to work this service needs to have a large pool of workers so that captchas can be finished within their time limit. It may be possible that Bitcoin faucets actually act as such services, provided they have hundreds of users solving captchas at any given time. |
|
|
|
Who can hardly relate to this situation guys? Trust me, I’ve been there a few times already!
I can hardly relate to such situations, because I haven't been participating in any bounties and airdrops ever since they stopped being worth the time you put in them. And back in those days KYC was unheard of, but today's bounty hunters are so happy to sell their personal information for a tiny chance of receiving $5. That's just sad. |
|
|
|
|
Assuming that proof of bandwidth is theoretically secure, what's the point of using it when we have PoW? Proof of bandwidth would have a lot of drawback, if it got big enough, it would slow down the Internet as a whole. We already saw how when the quarantine started, videostreaming services had to lower the quality because it was affecting the whole network. Now imagine the effect of Bitcoin going from PoW to this PoB. It would also make bandwidth more expensive for regular users, just like it happened with GPUs when they started to get used for mining.
|
|
|
|
Some quick calculations indicate that this guy earns around $10 billion per year, which is the equivalent of $27.3 million per day. I really don't think he cares about the hundreds of thousands or so he could get away with from manipulating cryptocurrency markets. He's already found the ultimate moneymaker, and that's Amazon.
"Earns $10 billion per year" isn't a correct way of thinking about it, he doesn't have $10 billion added to his bank account every year, what happens is that his networth is increasing by that number. It's the same as with us Bitcoiners - we could be unemployed, sitting on our asses all day long, but when Bitcoin goes up, we are "earning" money because our worth is growing. Today Jeff Bezos is worth more than the market cap of the bitcoin at its price right now, he's more than $1.5M ahead
It nay be fun to think about it, but really it's nothing more than a trivia fact. It has no consequences on the markets. |
|
|
|
People call coins shitcoin because they aren't pumping, I've seen this happened on telegram countless times before, or maybe the coin was surging and it start dumping due to market condition some idiots will start creating FUD, I'm surprised you haven't seen that before
If not pumping is the only reason why people call a coin a shitcoin, then these people are newbies who are only setting themselves up for huge losses if they will keep ignoring fundamentals. It's irrelevant what happens at any given altcoin market in short term, they can be up or down, but if you zoom out, they are all trending downward. This is because their fundamentals suck, they can compete with Bitcoin or Ethereum if they are trying to, and their innovation is either useless or non-existent. Hodling altcoins is stupid, and trading them is also stupid, because you can't win against the manipulators. No matter how you look at it, altcoins are shitcoins. |
|
|
|
actually there are. for example during 2017 whoever owned any amount of bitcoin (own means having the private key of the address holding those "coins" not having it on some exchange) received more than 50 different coins for free. all of them are shitcoins but they could all be dumped for valuable bitcoin so it was free money.
but generally speaking you are correct. every time you see someone is promising "easy money" they are most probably lying and are trying to scam you. it is definitely a scam if you are supposed to download/install something.
Receiving forked coins still doesn't count as free coins, because you had to invest in Bitcoin in the first place. People who are too broke to own any meaningful amount of coins couldn't get any forks. And that's where it is: we can choose to be pedantic however we want but the idea of "free" is a very fluid definition. WLOG this can also be applied to nearly every single word in existence, and beyond that, every single thought in existence - who's to say that I can't define X as Y? Convention? Status quo? From a meta standpoint those cannot be infallible means and processes for which we determine validity. 
Let's be honest: most of the time, you look upon the word "free" as "no monetary cost" and to that extent, unless you're being extremely anal about external costs (i.e. electricity, physical energy, etc) faucets should be considered "free money". Faucets require a ton of time and very repetitive work in order to receive "free" money, to the point were it can be considered a very bad job. If the reward/effort ratio was much higher, then they could have been considered free coins. I think the best example of free coins was airdrops - you just had to post your altcoin address and you received coins that you could then dump on exchanges. In earlier days you could get a couple of dollars worth of coins from each such airdrop, if you managed to sell it. |
|
|
|
You are severely misunderstanding Bitcoin if you think that being digital is its signature feature. One answer to the problem of cash flowing through the travel industry could be via Cryptocurrency such as Bitcoin.
Imagine a world in which you did not have to use your credit card or cold hard cash to book a flight or a taxi? Where one simple transaction, secure and quick books your entire vacation through one easy network...
There's no problem with cash in travel industry, and there's no big problems with card payments. Most people don't see much reason to adopt Bitcoin because existing payment methods already satisfying to them. You are misapplying Bitcoin if you think that it's more convenient or offers better user experience - it's not, because managing private keys is risky, people make mistakes with addresses, the fees can get high, hacks and scams are very common. The real benefit of Bitcoin is that it removes intermediaries, and in case of traveling it's useful if you need to move a large sum of money, that is much higher than existing limits, across the board. |
|
|
|
|
DeFi is pure hype, it's just a rebranding of existing smart contract projects under a new name, there's nothing revolutionary because many of them are old, and also now very useful on practice. So, DeFi isn't going to replace traditional finance, because it can't do everything that traditional finance can.
Ethereum only reached it's historical ATH thanks to Bitcoin, it can't repeat it without Bitcoin having a crazy bull run again, because that's how hard the USD price is tied right now. And even if Bitcoin will go to the moon, there's no guarantee that ETH and other alts will follow, so far they got only partial gains from Bitcoin's rally.
|
|
|
|
|
First, you need to understand that quantum computers that can crack the current EC cryptography don't exist and aren't going to exist anytime soon. Maybe they even will never exist. All these cutting edge quantum computers are just expensive prototypes with very little practical applications.
Bitcoin addresses are not public keys, they are the hashes of public keys, and quantum computers can't reverse hashes as well as they can theoretically crack EC cryptography.
However, if attackers can nearly instantly find a private key from a public key, it is a big problem, because they can immediately make a competing transaction that sends coins to their own wallet, and if they will manage to get it confirmed instead of the original one, the coins will be stolen. This can happen if the hackers send the transaction directly to miners and add a huge fee to tempt them.
|
|
|
|
|
Never google the site that you want to visit for the subsequent times, and never type the address from memory - only use your bookmark. Google might return phishing results, especially in the ad section, so never click on ad results in any search engine; typing from memory is prone to misspelling or you might just forget the correct address and either way end up on a phishing website. HTTPS is important, because it protects you from man-in-the-middle attacks, but HTTPS itself isn't a guarantee that a site is legit, because scam sites can get their own certificates too.
|
|
|
|
I've got a news to share about shitcoins, the moment the coins that people are holding aren't surging when they want they will start calling such coins shitcoins, many called electroneum and apollo currency shitcoins last year but this year the coins start showing good signs, you don't have to make your money from Bitcoin or popular coins, you can make money from not so popular projects too, remember HEX? Haha I'm sure you guys know what I'm talking about.
People don't call coin a shitcoin just because it doesn't have high returns, a shitcoin is a coin with poor fundamentals which means it has no long term potential. In short term even the shittiest coin can surge, and it even happens a lot, because shitcoins are subject to pump and dump schemes. Electroneum and apollo and both good examples of a shitcoin - they may look attractive, might have some short term momentum, but in a few years they will trade for 1 satoshi at best, or will just get delisted from all exchanges. Or maybe miners will abandon them and their networks will die. |
|
|
|
|
I just gave this situation a bit more thought, and I realized that the people who post suggestive content for TikTor or Twitch or other platforms are doing it very intentionally and not because they don't have access to NSFW platforms. A person who shows more of their (hot) body gets an edge over those who don't because it subconsciously grabs more attention. So these people would stay on TikTok even if they have an alternative that won't ban them, because it allows them to reach much broader audience and make more money.
|
|
|
|
They are not necessarily scammers. They are just experimenting on a new thing. Nobody could know for sure how they would perform and how the market would adapt them. This is very much like the dotcom boom, with lot of professional people experimenting to solve the same core problem. First being obviously how to P2P transfer a digital asset safely but the second is also how this asset can keep value. Shitcoins failed in this latter task. They did not know how the currency could uphold value.
If they are just experimenting, then why are they asking the general public to fund their experiments and promise them high returns and delivery of a working product? If it's an experiment, it by definition have a chance of failure. And why do they need so much money anyway? With dotcom bubble people needed money for servers, offices, employees, but with blockchain the system is decentralized and it's hosted for free by many independent parties across the world. |
|
|
|
|
Of course bounties are used to promote a project, that's the definition of bounty - a social media campaign compensated with tokens. A few years ago the scammers who ran ICOs could get most of their profit from the ICO itself, now they also sell their issued tokens on exchanges because there's not much initial investors. Perhaps they even do like you describe - try to sell before the bounty hunters, because bounty hunters can crash the price. If this is true, then it only signifies how unpopular the ICOs have become. Maybe it's time to already acknowledge that bounty hunting isn't worth it anymore?
|
|
|
|
So, after poking around on their support pages for a bit ( https://kirobo.io/support/), it seems that it works like this: I first sign and broadcast a transaction sending coins from an address to I own to another address I own, called the "safe address". I then sign a second transaction sending the coins from the "safe address" to the recipient. This second transaction is encrypted with a password I choose, and Kirobo store the encrypted transaction on their servers. I send the password to the recipient, who logs on to Kirobo's site and enters the password, which then decrypts and broadcasts the signed transaction. At any point before that happens, I can reclaim my coins from the "safe address", rendering the encrypted transaction invalid. All-in-all, it seems like a massively over-engineered solution for the problem of not double checking the address you enter. Why would I go through all this effort when I could instead just spend 10 seconds to make sure the address is correct? Not to mention that your transaction is now entirely dependent on a third party. Sending coins to your own address is really redundant, especially at the times of high fees, why not just mark existing outspent outputs on a wallet level as "safe outputs" and use them for this feature. It's also possible to cut the middleman and make some software that takes payment request, creates signed transaction and then the user sends unbroadcasted transaction to the merchant, who validates it again and broadcasts if it's all good. But even now you can just a use bitcoin: urls to avoid copypasting addresses if that is the problem. And I think most of the time people do transactions by mistake if they do something like taking addresses from their transaction history instead of going to the service and copying the address provided there, so in such scenario there's still a room fore error even with the setup of this startup. |
|
|
|
|
Shitcoins are shitcoins because the devs are scammers, they have no intention of making a good product, they're doing it just to dump their premined stash and move on to a next shitcoin. They don't posses any extraordinary programming skills, so even if you take 100 such devs, they won't make a cryptocurrency that can compete with Ethereum or Bitcoin. Shitcoins need to die, that's the only solutions to this problem, but they will live as long as there are idiots who invest in them.
|
|
|
|
Is this another scam? Any insight would greatly be appreciated.
Anyone who offers to retrieve hacked or stolen coins is a scammer themselves, there's simply no way to do so unless you can somehow get the private key of a scammer, which is nearly impossible. Even a good private investigator won't be able to do anything most of the time, especially since the scammers can be anywhere in the world. A tiny chance to see your coins again exists if the scammers get caught be law enforcement and the coins are retrieved by them. |
|
|
|
I’m just trying to understand options safe storage.
There's three main vectors of losing coins: the software way - for example infected system, malicious wallet, faulty RNG; an accident - a housefire, a flood, a family member threw your wallet away while cleaning, etc.; a target theft - a thief knew what they are looking for a steal your seed, or use force against you to make you give up the wallet, this includes kidnapping for ransom; Generating your wallet on an offline machine helps against the first type, and you also need a good security knowledge - you need to know how to verify software, avoid malware, etc. Against accidents you need redundancy - have multiple copies of your seed in different places, use strong materials like stainless steel instead of paper. Against theft you need strong physical security, keeping low profile to not attract thieves and use encryption instead of storing seed phrases or private keys in plaintext. |
|
|
|
Believing in opportunities the forum can bring
This will be your fuel to make quality posts. I believe opportunities, but opportunities runs towords people that work for it. Work hard, be patient and opportunities will come, this is how someone can be one of the established members of this forum.
By opportunities you mean signature campaigns, right? Because what else would require a user to have a high rank account to make money. Imo it's a poor approach to using this forum, most sig campaigns don't pay good money, $50-100 per week is the median pay of Bitcoin campaigns, and shitcoin sig bounties are just a waste of time. Maybe newbies dream about one day joining Chipmixer's campaign, but at this point it's easier to become an astronaut than to do so. People who come to this forum to earn should bring some skills or offer some sort of service or sell some goods, it's much better in the long run because with that you can even earn money outside of crypto, while sig campaigns will be gone one day. |
|
|
|
*When people were fighting over toilet papers there were some celebrities using it to prank their household members , this did not only receive a harsh backlash from the society but it also did prove that , as long as you have money, you can live peacefully even when the whole world is burning*
Yeah, things like that would never happen in a communist country, because there would never be any toilet paper in the stores to begin with ( wink-wink to people who actually had to live through socialist regimes). All this talk about inequality is completely wrong, because inequality isn't inherently wrong - people don't get poor because of others getting rich. This gets proven every time a communist regime gets installed, as the population overall quickly slides into extreme poverty. The twentieth and the current centuries are full of examples that capitalism works and socialism doesn't, but naive people still think that the grass is greener on the other side. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
