You told me you had 6 BTC on hand. Send that now.

Current state:
Slots BTC Person
2 3 Nejc Kodric
3 2.5 Goat
3 2 wm-center.com

During registration you were required to check a box labeled "I understand that I will initially be unable to post to most forum sections, as explained above." Maybe I should change it to "I promise to give bitcointalk.org 1000 BTC and my first-born child" and see how many people agree to it...

Sure, I'll do it about once a week. Post your address here.

Confirmed.

Someone tell me if he stops paying regularly and I'll release his personal info. I'll disperse the funds when he stops paying or when he finishes paying the 258.75 BTC. I'm using BurtWagner's list in the OP to determine who kujoking7 owes and how much.

The Chicago Manual of Style recommends "e-mail". Maybe Satoshi follows a style guide like CMoS.

More serious issues might be possible when there is a reorg. For example, when one coinbase is disconnected, all of its duplicates will also be disconnected.

Ah, you're right. I miscounted the bytes.

Bitcoin does use TCP.


What did you change to fix it?

Right. This has happened a few times on the main network, actually. Not sure if anyone realized until recently that it was possible to spend both, though.

I think you're sending an empty vector as the checksum, but there should be no checksum field at all. (For 10 more days, at least.)

Technical explanation:

When you create a block, the coinbase transaction which generates 50 BTC can easily be made to exactly equal a past coinbase transaction: it just needs to pay out to the same address and have the same (arbitrary) scriptSig. Unfortunately, this transaction will then have the exact same hash as another transaction in the chain. Satoshi did not anticipate this, so it's allowed by the protocol and it confuses the Bitcoin code.

In this case, roconnor:
- Generated a block containing a normal coinbase transaction.
- Spend the BTC generated in the coinbase transaction. Bitcoin nodes mark the coinbase transaction's output as spent.
- Created a block containing a duplicate of the first coinbase transaction. Bitcoin nodes will now overwrite the first coinbase transaction in the transaction database. The output of the coinbase transaction is marked as unspent. The transaction spending the original coinbase output is not affected and is still considered valid.
- Spent the BTC generated in the second coinbase. There are now two transactions spending the "same" output.

Notice that tx 0018417e23... and fae8bfd6a2... on that address ledger spend the exact same output. It looks like a double-spend, but it's actually a less severe bug in the protocol that probably doesn't allow for any easy attacks. (Because the bug causes very strange behavior, though, it might allow for attacks that have not been thought of yet.)

These transactions actually broke Bitcoin Block Explorer when they first appeared because there was a database constraint preventing double-spends from being inserted into the database. I "fixed" it by removing the constraint, but this causes BBE to display these transactions strangely. A lot of code would need to be changed, but I might fix it fully some day.

They said that things like that contributed to their decision to shut it down.

You seem to be very confused about the philosophy of moderation here. Anyway...

The usage of that word is subjective and a very minor thing that no one should care much about. When I read the OP, I don't expect the replies to be filled with comments about this one word. I'd expect the topic to contain this kind of stuff:

- Bids.
- Substantial, reasonable comments/questions about the item (not "Isn't it sad when you have to tell your potential customers that the domain they supposedly would want to buy is expensive? ")
- Substantial, reasonable comments/questions about the reputation of the seller (not "Lawl. You must be new here.")

Other things are probably off-topic.


Sure, bittenbob can disagree. But on bitcointalk.org he will be wrong. His posts there are blatantly off-topic according to all moderation precedence on this forum.

There are a few on-topic sentences from Matthew's posts that were deleted along with the larger posts. If you were arguing that I should not have deleted these, then you'd have some chance of convincing me (the topic is now locked, though, so I wouldn't really care). But bittenbob's posts absolutely should have been deleted; they were 100% useless. There's almost no chance that I will change my mind about that.

I don't care about Vual's opinion in this matter. His posts were as off-topic as Matthew's, and it is against forum policy to try to buy violence. But Matthew ruined vual's topic first, so I empathized with vual and I decided not to ban him. Those incorrect posts of Vual's that I saw were still deleted. Whether he was banned is not really important.


I don't read reports regularly.

There is no legal issue that wasn't handled. I deleted Vual's original attempt to buy violence (in his auction thread) immediately. I didn't know about the one mentioned in the OP until this thread. I deleted it shortly after my first reply in this topic.


Why?

All of the buying-violence ones that I know about were deleted. If there are more, report them.

Regarding your ban: That doesn't matter. When writing a reply, you must ignore posts that will be deleted. Otherwise you make a bigger mess.

You were banned for 2 days instead of 1 because your last ban was also for off-topic posts.

Regarding vual's lack of a ban: Matthew was being very confrontational before vual posted that. Reason enough to cut vual some slack. It would have only been a 1-day ban anyway, so it's not a big deal.


Clearly false. Your post was opposed to the spirit of the topic, and no one would possibly accept your "offer". You were only being disruptive.


Commenting about little advertising words like this is somewhat off-topic. "Premium" is subjective. You could complain about price in a normal selling thread, but this doesn't make any sense in an auction thread, since the price is not predetermined.

Comments/arguments about trade safety and reputation are OK (when they are substantial).

I'm still looking through the submitted bids (a lot of material was sent to me privately, and I've been busy). I'll continue to accept bids until I've put a significant amount of time into writing the forum core in anticipation of that alternative development method I mentioned. To be safe, anyone interested in doing the whole job should send me at least a basic bid ASAP.

This kind of thing is obviously off-topic in an auction thread:

I usually give warnings in the form of short bans...

I cut vual some slack on that post because he had a right to be angry about the trolling and off-topic posts in his topic.

I've been using btjunkie.org for years. Very sad to see them to shut down. I'm using https://kat.ph/ now, and maybe I'll try http://torrentz.eu/ later. Neither is nearly as good as btjunkie.

All of these copyright-related site shutdowns are irritating me. I might start running a couple of darknet nodes again.