Round 2? 
I really can't trust the actions of the pool owner anymore. This may be another attempt at trolling. If you follow his twitter, you will be able to reasonably conclude that he was extorted into signaling for SegWit. |
|
|
|
The business that you are selling is worth, but i am worried how much extra i have to put in order to run it after buying the project from you. How i will give support/technical/PR to the clients who buy hosting space on my site?
_______________________________________________________________________________ _____________________
If you can answer the stuffs that i asked then it will be good for me to think on buying your project, but at the moment i am afraid to make any decision.
The OP is a serial scammer. I suspect that most of his 'earnings' is from theft from others. |
|
|
|
sounds ok but do we need a third party escrow or who will send first
If you wish to use escrow, then I would suggest OgNasty (I would ask that you cover his escrow fee). Otherwise I would ask that you send the collateral first, and when the loan is repaid to repay the loan prior to receiving the collateral back. edit: If you are comfortable sending first, then please post or PM me a LTC address to fund the loan to and a BTC address to return the collateral to edit2: I am signing off for the night. Please see below for a GPG signed offer for loan terms. If everything is in order, then please fund the collateral address. The offer will expire if the collateral is not sent to the below specified address by the below specified due date. I will fund the loan in the morning provided that the BTC is sent to the collateral address. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 This is quickseller from bitcointalk today is April 15, 2017 Borrower: jonald_fyookball (UID# 261027) Lender: quickseller Loan Amount: 200 LTC Repayment amount: 214 LTC[1] Due date April 21 2017 by 2359 Eastern Time (US) Collateral: 2.44 BTC BTC address lender will hold collateral in: 16diUsZz3Z9HMaP7xWGSubVbmHH1PXcVuq BTC address collateral will be returned[2] to (less tx fee): [tbd] LTC address to fund loan: [tbd] LTC repayment address: LSjqeWBLJeRmYj3DcAxuqQChoJnDoBpkr5 [1] - If loan is repaid by April 22, 2017 (24 hours late), then repayment amount is 219 LTC. If the loan is not repaid by May 4 2017, then it will be converted into 221 LTC, and the balance will be returned to you (or if the value of the collateral is not sufficient to purchase 221 LTC, you will owe me the remaining amount to purchase the difference between that the collateral purchased and 221 LTC). [2] - (see [1] and) The collateral can be exchanged into LTC upon your request via bitfinex that would be used to repay the loan (bitfinex trading fees would be covered by you). Regards QS This offer will expire and will become invalid if 2.44 BTC is not send to the collateral address by 3 PM EST (US) April 15, 2017. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJY8cUxAAoJEApD4sx+J2dtLQEP/jG4r5jZfquAeqSdTijWWbbe zv526FhUz71M4N+scGQZ03YW1M2aI7QKuz4Ig1uxqoDcQ7ylgePqRhD6O0lNQFMD g6W7JpDGDchvn1VNetVT52JO4aKc33fgKlRELZj82kmHUgv3CNXeNpniVakJ1ZS8 9+OCVJE7bAibQgto80V7GlgahkN2qEOHJvPLx0tfj2K1PXcxT4QKZtN9mZT7ASwG mhJOJ2SNJLbRQxc9j9b8pQ0/wEmAm61IEaYernfYxkiLDSz3LRXrQN0drt1Vapo5 NOpFZ8tz6+y5c+nUOuZW0CwDEuVooJUbQAJAOCZNm/n07JjQfAn7/CgyWEssEgCb plMZ6f/fmFiQNV7Tnz3nnroQCv2Mw42KXL5baM9knbxlyBc+SUr3m9ZtNG4YJ/s8 k5P7eGWVOf9Xu9hWvJBHyNHw80SV//BMQrK4mxz+MPLjD89PBbv9Fruany6dNQ5w q1i4YV8pwHPjoO7cXr2fMl+wHwz9qCgUyTRwhfslXMjnjtJjyPh3M+S3MN4ClJ2V evPeuHjAwsclU4+if/V4z0c4dKvuUmWvGBem8cO66g9e5wHutqmB7MwUT1Ig7lNQ JDO5k1vZbObdqH/bOj1e5O6+9p3tS9XwWH9k0keTiw18kLCHtMBV/wgAVT/4V8Dn L+GKOkwasthDb35m4SRF =8T9X -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
|
|
|
What interest rate are you offering?
7%? 7% for 1 week (I could go to 3 weeks, but would want a higher interest rate). Interest amount would be fixed at 214 LTC, regardless of when the loan is repaid, unless it is repaid 24 hours+ after the due date. If loan is repaid within 8 days (24 hours late), then repayment amount is 219 LTC. If the loan is not repaid within 19 days, then it will be converted into 221 LTC, and the balance will be returned to you (or if the value of the collateral is not sufficient to purchase 221 LTC, you will owe me the remaining amount to purchase the difference between that the collateral purchased and 221 LTC). Collateral will be 2.44 BTC. The collateral will not be automatically liquidated if it's value falls below any threshold. The collateral can be exchanged into LTC upon your request via bitfinex that would be used to repay the loan (bitfinex trading fees would be covered by you). Collateral can be held in a wallet whose private keys I control, in my bitfinex account (for quicker conversion into LTC if you wish to trade the BTC for LTC to repay the loan), or by a mutually agreed upon escrow. I will assume counter-party risk if collateral is held in my bitfinex account, I will assume responsibility to maintain the security of the BTC in my wallet, and you will assume counter-party risk if collateral is held by a mutually agreed upon escrow. Let me know if the above terms are acceptable to you, and if not, what modifications you would propose. |
|
|
|
|
What interest rate are you offering?
|
|
|
|
If your account didn't unbanned more than 30 days (1 month) it's likely you have got perma-ban.
If you bothered to read his post you would see that the ban duration was stated Ban duration: 3 days. |
|
|
|
It looks like they were DDoS'ed into signaling for SegWit.
how exactly do you get "DDoS'ed" into signalling something else! and by the way in the coinbase it still is showing the "EXTBLK" so they are still signalling the same thing! ~2 days ago f2pool said they are a long term holder of btc and were not signaling for SegWit because they thought SegWit will damage Bitcoin over the long run. They also said that they were signaling for SegWit on litecoin because they don't care about litecoin nor do they hold any litecoin. They also said they started signaling for SegWit out of fear of DDoS attacks. Within a day of saying the above, they were the subject of a substantial DDoS attack, that was large enough to actually take them offline for about 45 minutes (their website for longer). Very shortly after coming back online they announced they will support SegWit. Anyone exercising reasonable judgement should be able to connect the dots. |
|
|
|
Yeah, 70,000 garbage, no-fee transactions by tumblers and gambling sites. This is not true. The required fee to get a transaction confirmed has risen substantially over the past few days based on the artificial fee market. If these were low/no fee transactions then the required fee would have stayed the same. The tumblers can go to hell. Bitcoin is not supposed to be Mastercard. It is a settlement system for people transferring significant amounts of money, not jokers buying sandwiches and playing nickel slots.
Also not true. Even if you were to only look at transactions into and out of exchanges cold storage, then most transactions would not meet your criteria if you define "substantial sums of money" in line with the global economy. If you look at Bitcoin transactions then almost all transactions are around your explicit definition of what Bitcoin transactions should not be. |
|
|
|
|
It looks like they were DDoS'ed into signaling for SegWit.
|
|
|
|
You can do this for free with OpenVPN. DigitalOcean even has a guide on how to set this up. |
|
|
|
I think the dump was more likely associated with f2pool announcing that they do not support SegWit on btc because they want the value of their btc holdings to increase over the long run, and their subsequent DDoS attack against them by who is likely to be Blockstream.
Yep, segwit getting attacked by miners causes dump coupled with bitcoin.com propaganda. Franky1 will continue once again denying the facts to no end. Everytime the price crashes because of something segwit or BUcoin related it's a "coincidence" for him. For clairification, it is the opinion of f2pool that SW is trash (which is a generally accurate representation) and fear that it will do long term damage to Bitcoin, which is also likely true, especially without any increase in the max block size. Roger Ver is well within his rights to have his opinion and to tell other who are willing to listen what his opinion is. |
|
|
|
|
I think the dump was more likely associated with f2pool announcing that they do not support SegWit on btc because they want the value of their btc holdings to increase over the long run, and their subsequent DDoS attack against them by who is likely to be Blockstream.
|
|
|
|
|
Not everyone wants to talk politics everywhere they go.
I suspect they want their chatbot to have a more friendly non-political discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
If neither proposal gets sufficient support, then neither will get implemented.
At this point, I don't think there is anything remotely resembling consensus for either proposal, and neither are likely to get implemented.
|
|
|
|
|
I am fairly confident that you are not even the owner of the account you are trying to hack into...
|
|
|
|
after segwit is activated, is it possible to revert the change and soft fork back to without segwit? or will the technical debt be too high to do that too?
Reverting a soft fork requires a hard fork. It has nothing to do with technical debt. It won't be able to revert SW even with a hard fork. Doing so would allow the miners to steal all btc in SW unspent outputs. |
|
|
|
THE REGISTRAR
[...] I do not see an alternative to the use of a central registrar to handle Alias registrations. [...]
In other words, this will never happen. The world is full of examples of centralized organizations, for better and for worse. Can you give me a more detailed reason why you think having a registrar automatically is worse than the value provided? I've already explained how the Registrar would be structured so it could only eliminate registrations, not alter them nor create them on behalf of others. It would basically just be a filter. The worst thing that could happen is people complaining that they couldn't get their preferred alias accepted due to some perceived slight, leaving them no worse than they are today. If a registrar has the ability to cancel registrations after the fact (you indicated that it could cancel due to a court ruling), then it effectively has the ability to edit registrations because it could cancel a registration, then create a new registration. This would also make any cryptocurrency that utilizes said central registrar be subject to censorship. No. The Registrar would have no ability to create a new registration with altered data. It could only cancel one. The world is full of organizations with much more power than this that we rely on every day. The list is literally endless. So while I expected this to be a hurdle, I would hope that we can move off this point. If they approve registrations, then nothing would stop them from approving an arbitrary entity's registration for an alias that has nothing to do with the entity, including an entity controlled by the registry. |
|
|
|
For all intents and purposes, you need to either be connected to the internet, or some other private network. If both parties are not connected via some low latency network, then other costs (such as time, and likely communications related) will most likely make it much more efficient to use some other medium of exchange.
Holy fuck. No. First of all that's bullshit. LT's are promissary notes. You can even write them on a piece of paper. What are you suggesting that people are going to use otherwise that is faster and/or cheaper in any form and doesn't require the internet or a private network and is more efficient and not a bank? It's certainly not bitcoin, cash, or any existing payment processor. What the fuck are you talking about? For all intents and purpose? Are you even thinking about the words you are typing? You can write down the various signatures on a piece of paper, however you will need to pay for both the paper and the ink to write down the various communications between the two parties (channels). Multiple messages need to be exchanged, including a "handshake" agreement as to what the new state of the LN channel will be, and these messages must be exchanged in a very specific order. If paper is used, then you will need to either handwrite or print the various messages, if the messages are printed, then you must also pay for a portion of the printing equipment. If the font/print is too small to easily read, then scanning equipment will also need to be paid for. The time it takes to print (either with a printer or by hand) the various messages will take time (which is worth money). If you are not physically located in the same location as the other person, payment will need to be made to send the paper containing the messages to the other party. If paper is used to exchange the necessary messages to change the state of a LN channel, then you are almost certainly at risk of the other party of employing a $5 wrench to steal your bitcoin, so some amount of trust will be necessary. You also have the option of blinking in morse code to the other party in order to exchange the various necessary messages, however this would be very expensive in terms of time. If you have the option of exchanging messages via pieces of paper, then you will probably be better of exchanging a $10 bill. Are you even thinking about the words you are typing? Yes. |
|
|
|
131YqifpKuavYRoMTj53YhVskQMP6581KS is part of [0000408cf7], which has much too many transaction to be considered controlled by a single person -- it is most likely the address of some kind of exchange/service, it could possibly be a cloudbet address that has not yet been spendlinked to the rest of the cloudbet addresses. Also, quickly looking at the post history of Chevas, I see that his english is fairly good, and would not consider him to be a signature spammer at first glance. A quick look at the post history of the last page of posts by bazar165g make me think that he cannot speak english very well, and see a lot of one liners with very little being put into each post. Based on the above evidence alone, I don't think they are the same person. Although I have not seen any evidence that would entire exclude them from being the same person, so I would be open to them being the same person if I saw evidence that suggests them to be the same person. I don't know about the rest of the "conspiracy" in this thread, but it should be pointed out that quickseller -499: -9 / +13 has fabricated a quote to make it appear that he has previously written the above - as quoted from another thread when in reality, all it does is link back to quickseller's -499: -9 / +13 own profile page - as archived here: http://archive.is/aPg6Q#selection-2631.0-2935.1That quote is actually a message sent to Avirunes who asked for feedback about the threat he made about the OP. |
|
|
|
They need to be able to communicate with eachother to send eachother the signatures to the updates closing transactions. They don't have to use the internet to do this, however it, by far makes the most sense to.
You figure when they asked you a and b need to be online what they meant was "do a and b need to be able to communicate with each other in any shape or form?"? For all intents and purposes, you need to either be connected to the internet, or some other private network. If both parties are not connected via some low latency network, then other costs (such as time, and likely communications related) will most likely make it much more efficient to use some other medium of exchange. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
