You willfully missed the entire point. Nobody here is swayed by your arguments, regardless of how many times you repost the same text over and over again. I'm not sure you're capable of experiencing humility, so there's no reason to continue this discussion. |
|
|
|
Why do you think o_e_l_e_o would backstab theymos and miseducate the users of his forum by telling them the opposite?
You actually believe that framing things out of context helps your argument... It does not, because most of us see right through what you are doing. - o_e_l_e_o is allowed to hold his own viewpoints... if they differ from theymos' that is not a case of "backstabbing." - he is not "miseducating" the forum by expressing his viewpoints. - theymos hasn't mentioned Wasabi since 2019. Its quite possible his opinion has changed in the last 4 years. As I already mentioned, he also said this: transaction analysis may still be possible, especially if you leave other traces; the coordinator could possibly do an active sybil attack against specific coins
It just so happens these are currently both giant, omnipresent concerns with Wasabi. You're obviously here to protect a vested business interest, but you should attempt to have the insight to understand when you are doing more harm than good. If you have no ability or desire to self-reflect on your actions and correct your behavior, then you will be cursed with a shitty reputation. This holds true in all aspects of life. |
|
|
|
|
You got your $30 back.
You were offered a $100 bug bounty which you refused.
You have yet to point out what the actual "scam" is and can't name a single victim.
I feel bad for anyone who has to deal with you.
|
|
|
|
|
Sure, I mean why not, the potential for old memecoins like this to make a resurgence is there.
I'd never heard of this coin before today. Wish you all the best with it.
|
|
|
|
If i remember correctly then it was the intend of satoshi to increase block size when bitcoin becomes more popular. Since he had to disappear before bitcoin became popular enough for problematic high fees there was never an adjustment. Now we are stuck with a lobby of miners that always say that everything is still "so cheap compared to a visa card" that we will probabyl have to live with those fees forever.
There have been a couple of block size increases: first from 500 kb to 1 mb, and with Segwit it is now at a maximum of 4 mb. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability_FAQ#What_is_the_short_history_of_the_block_size_limit.3FOh and before I foget it, yes bitcoin is a store of wealth how can I forget it. Nobody ever said that transactions should be cheap  Its a relative term, but I consider anything under $3 for a tx fee to be "cheap." |
|
|
|
It is also here & a few other places: https://bitcointalk.org/Satoshi_Nakamoto.ascWhen you import it into a PGP program, it shows that the key was created 10/31/2008 and includes the email address " satoshin@gmx.com". Since the archived version on bitcoin.org only goes back to Feb 2011, yes, we'd have to trust that the key was not altered between the time Satoshi first added it to the website and the date of the archive. Seeing as how Satoshi was communicating with others up until April 2011, its likely that its the same key. Updates to DNS records for bitcoin.org suggest the domain didn't leave his control until May 2, 2011. According to theymos, sirius was also an operator of bitcoin.org during this time -- he would have no motivation to change the PGP key either. ...
Fast forward to Dogecoin and he does it again.
...
To quote satoshi, WTF?
|
|
|
|
UP UP as a SCAM is SCAM
I read the whole thread and you failed to demonstrate where the "scam" is. You rejected $100 from them: I declined his 100USDT offer as it showed me that he wants to buy me and no one can buy me.
Furthermore, none of your complaints make any sense. This is what a rational person would do: stop the obsession & move on to a better site. |
|
|
|
In addition to signing a message from an address known to be controlled by him, he could also sign a message from this PGP key, which is the same one he was talking about here: What's interesting is he never actually signed a message with this key, as far as we know. But signing the same message from both bitcoin address and PGP key would certainly be a good start for proving that he was back. |
|
|
|
I think in order to be mad at someone for spreading misinformation you have to determine if it’s being done because the person is an idiot and doesn’t understand something that they think they do, or if they are genuinely trying to spread FUD.
In this case they are just pasting stuff from ChatGPT, which is often wrong when it comes down to the technical details of how bitcoin works. I remember seeing one such poster post about how the internet isn't required to make cryptocurrency transactions. But they posted it in Altcoin Discussion so it didn't matter as much, because nobody really reads what's in there. |
|
|
|
Do you believe theymos?
That was close to 5 years ago now. Perhaps his opinion has changed. He also said this, mind you: transaction analysis may still be possible, especially if you leave other traces; the coordinator could possibly do an active sybil attack against specific coins
Why do you think I'm a "piece of shit" for telling the truth about how you can keep your Bitcoins safe and data private?
That's not why. The reason why is the same reason the creation of this thread was necessitated. You think you can "win" by reframing everything to cast you as the hero instead of the villain, yet everybody can still see what you wrote. https://ninjastic.space/search?author=kruw&topic_id=5481890Go back to your hole. |
|
|
|
|
Because I was bored & trying to time my bet, I've been watching the Super Bowl line and it has been fluctuating between SF -2 and -1 on a few different books. Seems like in the playoffs, experience & poise has trumped expectations just about every time, which is why I'm tempted to bet on KC.
Funny to watch a lot of reactions from the internet about the way things panned out. Here's a few of the more interesting themes I've seen running:
- This is a Super Bowl between the league's two most hated teams (not true, I think those are the Cowboys and Eagles).
- The Ravens took a dive to help ensure we get a Taylor Swift Super Bowl, since she has drawn in millions of new viewers.
- At the same time, millions of regular SB-watchers will tune out this year b/c they don't care who wins.
On paper, SF should win easy. But things aren't always what they seem.
|
|
|
|
I've gotten to the point where I can now just take a quick look at a post and know with 95% certainty whether it was AI-generated or not. More AI garbage by coinremitter. This is the 3rd time they've been mentioned in this thread and I think they are a prime candidate for a ban. Post #1 Reducing Bitcoin transaction times is a topic of ongoing discussion within the cryptocurrency community. The current transaction times are influenced by factors such as network congestion and the chosen transaction fee. As the technology evolves, scalability solutions are being explored to address these issues.
There are ongoing developments, like the Lightning Network, designed to enable faster and more scalable transactions on the Bitcoin network. While these solutions show promise, it's important to note that achieving instant transactions on the main blockchain might still pose challenges.
The scenario you've mentioned, where Bitcoin transitions from a primarily trading asset to a predominantly held asset, could potentially impact transaction volumes. However, achieving instant transactions also depends on the consensus and implementation of new technologies by the community.
It's advisable to stay informed about the latest updates and technological advancements in the crypto space, as they play a crucial role in shaping the future of transaction speeds and overall efficiency. Keep an eye on community discussions and official channels for the most accurate and timely information.
Copyleaks: AI Content Detected Hivemoderation: 100% likely to contain AI Generated Text Sapling.ai: 100% Fake Post #2 Our contrarian perspective raises valid concerns that warrant careful consideration. The scrutiny brought about by a Bitcoin ETF and its positioning alongside traditional investments indeed sheds a new light on the cryptocurrency. The exposure to mainstream investors introduces the possibility of Bitcoin being assessed through a different lens.
It's crucial to acknowledge that Bitcoin's appeal has often thrived in the decentralized and enthusiast-driven ecosystem. The transition to the mainstream may prompt questions about its practical utility as a currency. The myth of decentralization might be put to the test when faced with the reality that a significant portion of Bitcoin usage leans towards investment rather than daily transactions.
As Bitcoin steps into the realm of 'serious' investments, it is essential to address concerns about its intrinsic value beyond its name. If investors perceive Bitcoin primarily as a volatile asset with questionable long-term viability, it could impact the market sentiment.
It's a nuanced discussion that involves evaluating Bitcoin beyond the ideological motivations of its early adopters. Understanding the potential impact on mainstream perceptions requires a comprehensive analysis of the fundamental aspects of Bitcoin's functionality and its role in the broader financial landscape. This scrutiny could either reinforce the narrative of Bitcoin as a valuable asset or prompt a reevaluation of its place in the investment spectrum.
Copyleaks: AI Content Detected (when first paragraph is removed) Hivemoderation: 99.9% likely to contain AI Generated Text Sapling.ai: 100% Fake Post #3 We understand the desire for privacy in the crypto space, it's crucial to approach the topic with caution. Privacy features are indeed important, but it's equally important to adhere to legal and ethical standards. The use of mixers or tumblers has its risks, and users should be aware of potential legal implications.
It's worth noting that promoting anonymity should not be synonymous with engaging in activities that may violate the terms of service of various platforms or local regulations. Always stay informed about the legal aspects and potential consequences of your actions within the cryptocurrency ecosystem.
If privacy is a significant concern, users might explore privacy-focused cryptocurrencies like Monero. However, it's essential to research thoroughly and understand the implications of using such technologies. Remember, responsible use of cryptocurrencies helps contribute to the positive growth and acceptance of this innovative financial technology.
Copyleaks: AI Content Detected Hivemoderation: 100% likely to contain AI Generated Text Sapling.ai: 100% Fake Other posts that Hivemoderation has reported 100% likely to contain AI generated text: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5483345.msg63578331#msg63578331https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5481253.msg63554307#msg63554307https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5481940.msg63554102#msg63554102https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5482476.msg63554027#msg63554027https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5482089.msg63523397#msg63523397https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5482145.msg63523371#msg63523371https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5481240.msg63517826#msg63517826https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5481432.msg63517799#msg63517799https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5478405.msg63512323#msg63512323https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5481240.msg63512233#msg63512233Based on the fact that several of his posts have already been deleted as spam, these posts should be deleted as well, and he should probably be banned. |
|
|
|
The topic is extremely important because the damage he inflicted on the reputations of these non custodial open source privacy projects remains even after he stops using the forum. By alerting everyone that o_e_l_e_o was intentionally sabotaging Bitcoin by lying about the innocent, we can finally move the conversation of privacy forward using honest premises.
Except the thing is nobody here believes that at all. He came across as a rational human being that explained his position using logic. You come across as a petulant child. Nobody has done more damage to Wasabi here than you, and you have no one to blame but yourself for that. |
|
|
|
Damn, lost my bet. I would have appreciated it if the Lions just went for a FG in their final drive, but noooo, they had to go for the TD. Anyway, this is what we get for the Super Bowl: Chiefs/Niners: 26.7%
Any given Sunday...  FUCK YEAH!
 No but really, well done by the Niners to come back in the second half. |
|
|
|
With each new post here you just solidify the general perception that you are a despicable human being. If you cared at all about the reputation of Wasabi, you'd leave and never look back. Same goes for you TBH, minus the Wasabi part. |
|
|
|
Funds from our hot addresses are automatically consolidated to our main addresses, as funds are sent from us only from our main addresses. Thus, law enforcement agencies see that the funds have been transferred to the addresses of our service. The funds remain frozen at our addresses, and when the frozen funds are seized by the authorities, they are also sent from our addresses.
- In this case, the OP is not the sender of the funds for the order. According to our rules, the sender of funds must provide information about the source of funds.
...
- Since the OP is not the sender of the funds, he has nothing to do with the funds sent to us. If the user had received funds for any service, we would have requested details of the transaction.
At the moment, the funds are frozen, and no operations are being carried out with them. If we receive a request from law enforcement agencies, they will see that these funds are located at a FixedFloat address. We have all the evidence base that confirms that the funds received by the sender are related to criminal activity. We value our reputation and do not want to be complicit in crimes, because of ignoring which our service may be blocked. We emphasize that we are very loyal to our users, but if we receive information confirming that the funds we received were clearly related to criminal activity, we are obliged to verify this information by requesting the source of the funds.
OK, so based on this information I come to two conclusions: 1. Absolutely nobody should be using FixedFloat. The BTC taint analysis should be conducted before they send funds to the "main address." This way, the funds can simply be refunded to the sender if they are found to be unacceptable according to their standards. What FixedFloat is doing is a bad business practice. 2. OP's employers are still on the hook for paying him the owed amount. |
|
|
|
Line is up to -7.5 for SF, expectations of Deebo's return are factoring in I think. I could see the Chiefs beating the Ravens, but I just can't see the Niners losing to the Lions. We will see how the game script goes lol. Now way America want's the Lions in the SB. I mean beside and underdog story and what not, they are clearly the least popular team of whos left.
We can calculate the likelihood of a Chiefs / Lions Super Bowl based on the current odds: Chiefs beat Ravens: 36% chance Lions beat 49ers: 26% chance 36% x 26% = ~9.4% chance of a Chiefs / Lions Super Bowl In case you're wondering about the other possibilities: Ravens/Lions: 16.4% Chiefs/Niners: 26.7% Ravens/Niners: 47.4% |
|
|
|
|
Alright so I ended up getting 3/4 picks... Should have gone with the Lions instead of the Bucs. Damn, already blew it. Anyway, let's plow ahead:
This weekend we have two terrific contests, Chiefs (+3.5) vs. Ravens (-3.5) and Lions (+7) vs. 49ers (-7).
Despite the Chiefs clear advantage in terms of playoffs experience, I think the Ravens are clearly the better team, and this will be an easy win for them.
An even easier win will be the 49ers over the Lions, as the spread dictates. I also think the spread is too low and the Niners will win by >7 pts. It is the singular bet I am taking this weekend. Let's see how she goes!
|
|
|
|
That is what this thread has been about since the first post.
Not exactly from the first post, but rather from your first replies that insist on talking about how bad that forum is and how cool this one is. You referenced it in your first post, and several respondents pointed out why that forum is bad to rebut your premise of there being a "danger of traffic transfer". Nobody is going to stop posting here because of that forum. Will discussion about specific mixers move from here to there? Possibly, but that's kind of the whole point of the mixer ban -- to discourage advertisement of mixers, whether it is direct, indirect or even accidental advertisement. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
