Honestly, OP, the premiums are going to probably continue to decline (in BTC terms more than stagnation in fiat terms) and the hassle of selling is nearing its breaking point. Just take a look at this auction for a CasasciusCome to the Collectibles board.
Peeling and redeeming is actually a very viable option at this stage. Avoiding the risk of sale and having peace of mind (selling the now-defunct token as a peeled collectible afterward) is worth a lot to some people. |
|
|
|
hi,
this is screen shot of deposite -snip- I would block out the "To" address field in the middle of your screenshot: your transactions can still be identified if they look for the recipients on the blockchain. Remember that Bitcoin operates on a public ledger: having the date and output of an address practically gives away the transaction.
You really need to learn how to sing the message on the Bitcoin address. Probably you know, but it's very easy to edit some screenshots and adjust it to your needs. So, screenshots can't be valid evidence that is your Bitcoin address.
If its everything correct you use Blockchain.com as your wallet, so there is no problem to make a sign there.
Also, can you post transaction id here but not a picture, just copy/paste all characters.
You should need to know, it's very important for us to have real evidence of any possible scam. You can't sign directly, according to the website: Message signing is a way you can prove you control a particular address, and demonstrate you have ownership of the funds.
This feature is currently only available for your Imported Addresses
I think it might be possible to export the seed to a non-custodial wallet like Electrum as per this, though: Your Recovery Phrase |
|
|
|
It wouldn't help. $5 wrench would always know the exact sum you possess. He doesn't come at random and blindfold. If you deal with the excessive amount of crypto all your data are already in databases of the various 3-letters agencies and it is only the matter of time when they will be at the hand of $5 wrench. If we're dealing with this level of preparedness, then it's no longer a "$5 wrench" - it's a $5 wrench + you fucking up your privacy willingly + you fucking up your digital/analog identity connections + you dealing with a persistent mugging. And if I had the amount of Bitcoin required for someone to dedicate themselves to going to my location with a wrench attack, I probably wouldn't be the type of person who is willy-nilly about his privacy. If we're at the point where the guy is ready to start torturing you for every last one of your keys, odds are you're not going to survive, whether you give it to them or not. |
|
|
|
tried over then 2 hours to do that. as i understand in blockchain.com its not possible to do that and I really not understand In those things. Yeah, if it's a Blockchain Wallet you can't sign your generated addresses - it's only the ones that you directly import into their system. Can you take a screenshot of when you sent Bitcoins to Adkinsbet? In particular, any of the addresses that begin with the character 3 in this screenshot: 
This proves that you deposited to them. Showing the address that you received coins from only shows that you own an address to receive coins. |
|
|
|
1 BTC = 1 BTC is a true statement. Ripping the context gained from the subsequent paragraph: 1 BTC = 1 BTC is a true statement.
Connotations derived thereof are used as rhetoric depending on your interpretation.
The only reason anyone says this is to peddle their argument with a meaningless statement: the magic is that it takes the form of whatever argument and remains true, thereby having you falsely believe that you agree with their argument. -snip-
Like I mention, the only reason it's brought up is to push some opinionated conjecture as fact. Likewise, when you push your semantic context onto the proposition, you transform the actual contents of the sentence. I don't like it when my sentences are strawmanned to use in someone else's argument.  You can say the phrase to multiple people and they'll have their own interpretation of the tautology. Some users may use '1 BTC = 1 BTC' in their arguments to add credence to false claims, like attempting to get a higher (fiat) value for a transaction, or some users may use '1 BTC = 1 BTC' to argue about the lack of central authority governing Bitcoin's supply. That's it. They are meaningless statements that are self-evident.
People arguing to keep the ChipMixer payments at their current rates who are trying to get a bigger paycheck, they know that the campaign should decrease the rates and probably want the discussion about it to stop. It's logical, though a bit too smarmy. Contractors don't have the stability to say, "go ahead," when they could be booted from their 'job' at any time. |
|
|
|
|
Okay, you pedants, it's not time to argue about tautologies again.
1 BTC = 1 BTC is a true statement.
Connotations derived thereof are used as rhetoric depending on your interpretation.
The only reason anyone says this is to peddle their argument with a meaningless statement: the magic is that it takes the form of whatever argument and remains true, thereby having you falsely believe that you agree with their argument. In reality, you would agree with "circles are round because circles are round" purely due to the fact that it was self-evident. When you don't look at it for what it is - the meta structure of the sentence rather than its words - you can project random beliefs onto them.
|
|
|
|
i didn't Understand what you mean my friend..
ple re-explain. Read this thread: How to sign a message?!
If there is no way to distinguish between legitimate players and the 'fixed game' players, then perhaps you should re-examine your system: it shows there's a flaw on your side. Every single time casinos use some form of circumstantial evidence without direct connections to link together accounts and groups, they risk false positives. Is it so hard to believe that? ToS apologists will argue the absolution of the contract which is simply a testament to their stupidity. |
|
|
|
I just got mine recently and I shove it up my ass and carry it everywhere with me.
But if I had any substantial amount I don't know what would feel safe to me. What are your experiences when carrying more crypto? Multiple wallets and redistribute evenly between them? Or are there any safer ways? Maybe some VIP package for wallets that make them safer? Thanks in advance for the reply. Dilute your finances into as many offline, air-gapped wallets that never touch the internet and you're alright. If you fear that the risk of losing one wallet is too much for the amount stored on it, split it up. If you want redundancies in your seed/privkeys then that's up to you, but it's a security risk. Depending on the amount, you might even want to start memorizing seed words rather than recording them down in tangible forms.
I know that Trezor T uses Shamir Backup as an option: https://trezor.io/shamir/Alternatively, check out some of those fire-resistant steel options for recording down phrases and strings (for privkeys) |
|
|
|
Just tell them the profits and they are ready to invest as per your guidance That's roping people into Bitcoin through the potential of profitability, which is something that you cannot guarantee. Do you know a similar business model that employs this kind of strategy? Pyramid schemes, which a large number of people tend to equate with Bitcoin (though, it's lessened to a certain degree these days), and you will only further this conflated concept without explaining the reality of Bitcoin in at least some basic way. If people don't want to invest in it for that alone, then so be it! I don't force you to eat ham sandwiches every day, and not everyone is ready for the volatility of Bitcoin: easy come, easy go. |
|
|
|
A further introduction into the various systems (i.e. trust, activity, merit, ranks) are relevant only after this. I wouldn't mention things like trust, DT, the different type of flags, and things like that at all. That will just confuse newbies and maybe have them look for alternative sites to discuss bitcoin and crypto. For ordinary members, doing any changes with the default trust setup is something most never even do. That's my point: the bottom line is that Newbies should be introduced to the rules of the forum. Anything that is related to business or transactions should be dealt separately once the user is integrated into the SMF system. By placing guides to certain difficult forum concepts when they most prominently arise: maximum post error page linking to the h+c rank guide, an actual link to the forum rules when you get a post deleted by a moderator, a confirmation warning when clicking on Newbie/flagged-user links, etc.
Making users pass a quiz and testing their knowledge might be too much. That is just giving them a reason to go away even before they started. Displaying a message with the most important rules and warnings why people get banned here should be enough. How about a rank-up quiz? That shouldn't be too bad, should it? Then, people can't feign ignorance when they complain about bans. |
|
|
|
Wrong... what are you even talking about? If anything, this thread is probably the most relevant one for the Reputation board, compared to other recent topics.
I paid 5000 EUR for miner Innosilicon A10 Pro+ 6GB Ethereum miner ( 720 Mh/s) - Europe (Incl. import duty) × 1 Innosilicon A10 Pro+ 7GB Ethereum miner ( 750 Mh/s) for 10500 EUR. I cannot find any information about this device in https://www.innosilicon.com/ . So i think it will be the same for all new buyers. Note the difference, though. Interestingly enough, on their A10 Pro page, they're sold out and the stats are different from the ones you've mentioned. The reason you didn't find it is probably due to cycling inventory. |
|
|
|
Whenever someone attempts to use an algorithmic process to beat the house, it is usually positive due to variance and/or a small sample. You claim that your script does the equivalent of counting cards. The reality is that what you're effectively trying to do is unravel the SHA256 hash chain generated in the seeding event. I fail to see how you could capitalize on the randomness there and beat the 1% house edge without any precursory knowledge. Scripts against -ev games are mathematically unsound. If you can share your bustabit account and let it run with your script constantly, showing a profit, there may be a reason to believe your claim. Otherwise, it's nothing more than glorified superstitious gambling. |
|
|
|
Lots of funny comments there. "Bitcoin they can control. Hell, they can even pull the plug. Blah blah Blockchain" 
It's basically an ETF with no expense ratio, despite having a professional custodian. GBTC charges 2%. Even when a Bitcoin ETF does get approved, it'll probably be in the 0.5%-1% range (wild guess). GLD, the largest physically-backed gold ETF, charges 0.4%.
I can see the appeal. Might incentivize others to do similar things. This amount of interest in an unsaturated market is practically begging to be captured, even if corporate bodies are concerned primarily with the bottom line. |
|
|
|
your not so smart are you??? I have proof that theyve been scamming and will publish the evidence on my social media platform i have over 55k subscribers and i am an s.e.o digital marketing professional i know how to rank and stay ranked the gambling industry will know the truth about this scam rigged low rtp software. We also got casino daddy and rosthein on board cant win to see everyones reaction its going to be EPIC! I mean... they do have pretty low RTP games - the towers game sucks, for example, since you're hit with the house edge every time you go up a level. I find your claim hard to believe, though. As far as anyone is concerned, without anything to back it up (including your 'social media platform'), these are no different than the ramblings of the crack addict you pass by on your way to the subway. No details whatsoever, vague and outlandish remarks... definitely heard some similar things from Craig the other day. |
|
|
|
In fact, we have a large number of members who have little understanding of English or don't speak English at all, so the basic forum rules should also translate into all local languages on the forum. Part of the problem is with those users using their bad English skills to try and create replies in the primarily English-based sections, whether it's for signature campaigns or to farm posts. Take a look, for example, in the Off-topic section and at some of the replies from the Wall of shame.
Aside from what dkbit98 mentioned, questions/tests that educate newcomers.
Name it Bitcointalk Readiness Assessment, to educate and not to intimidate. Was thinking of a way to make it easier for Newbies to be able to discover rules - could links that lead new users to relevant guides when they run into restrictions - for example, when they hit post limits perhaps a hyperlink on that "wait 6 minutes" page, to the process of ranking up by hilariousandco. Just a thought. |
|
|
|
Afaik, self mod option only allows users create local rules, but they can not override forum rules. Self-moderated thread owners can remove any post at their discretion. Local rules are a separate topic: you usually designate them at the thread head to add moderator support instead of self-moderation, or when you are unable to make the thread self-moderated (e.g. Meta).
You can try to conflate them with a troll status but good luck getting someone banned for trolling. When's the last time that happened? |
|
|
|
Not only that, but we also need to take into consideration the important factor that as bitcoin grows in price, so does Bitcointalk's traffic, and most probably so does ChipMixer's traffic(hence also an increase in earnings). So I guess we can probably make the assumption that it sort of all balances out in the end? If it's less than 1:1 in the conversion of % Bitcoin growth to traffic/earnings, which it is, then the assumption falls flat. |
|
|
|
I agree, only the question will remain unanswered. For example, consider 3 cases: 1. The user publishes someone else's picture. 2. The user publishes someone else's picture but does not say "this is mine" (you can not say "that it is mine", but feed it so that everyone would think "that it is mine" ) These cases are not considered plagiarism on the forum. 3. The user publishes someone else's picture and says "this is mine" If this should be understood as a fraud, then the fraud on the forum is not moderated, then the flag should be set. The difference between 1 and 2 is that 1 has omission of attribution whereas 2 would have the user to have the intent of misleading others. Without getting too pedantic into the epistemic technicalities of plagiarism via lying vs. misleading, I think you should be able to conflate 2 and 3 in certain cases.
Suppose in an example scenario that the user fulfills #2 by neither confirming nor denying ownership of the art: when one asks about the origin of the picture or if they applaud the user for their work and the user in question doesn't respond, it's in bad faith. Sure, people may skim over a few posts here and there, but if thinking in absolutes there's a certain threshold where you would have to disagree with the willful ignorance. What would they even say when posting the image, anyway? "Here's a piece of art:" |
|
|
|
Whats funny reading your thread is the first reply which says, I am sure they can never be $50k per 1 bitcoin. It is unbelievable. And 7 years later.... bam almost $50K. It's all relative. Some people are saying, "no way it gets to $100K," despite the percentage change in prices being much lower than some bubbles in years prior. Thinking in absolute dollar figures is part of the reason why people believe that Bitcoin is so expensive. Stack sats. There will always be detractors and there will always be hodlers. Besides... that QE ship needs to set sail again. |
|
|
|
I have already met several times accused of plagiarism due to the use of other people's images.
If this issue were clarified in the annexes to the rules, there would be less controversy. Would you not agree, though, that this situation is different? Did you ever post an image and say, "this is mine"? You weren't taking credit for other peoples' ideas and content - the user in this case was.
Even if you don't call it plagiarism, are we going to let people get away with spam by letting people post images and pretend they drew them? Might as well start scraping content from popular crypto artists and make threads out of them. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
