When you see blood coming out the ear of a fighter and they seem to be very unstable on there feet I am surprised the corner didn't pull there fighter over health concerns it was a good stoppage by the ref he obviously saw the Wilder was struggling to clear his head and needed some medical attention.
Even if you knew nothing about nothing that's a pretty alarming signal. I've never seen that before. You'd think someone would have a root around in there before sending him back out. It might turn out to be harmless enough but it makes you wonder about how diligent they are. I wonder whether Fury will have another post triumph dive of his spirits or whether it'll spur him on to keep busy. I think it was 2 or 3 rounds he went out without having the ear looked at by a doctor during the breaks, I felt his corner let him down and didn't really give too much attention to the risk's it could have posed there fighter. But again they we're probably focused on the $$$ rather then the well being of there fighter which is very sad to see. It was a good call by the ref to stop when he did if the fight had gone on much longer I fear a few more hit's to the already bleeding ear could have resulted in something far far worse for him. |
|
|
|
It's repeated exactly 64 times. The number would be 2134373941424350546368757683859091929310811111411812612812916416616823626627529 2293295298331334335337343345357368369396417427464468485499555579596621649671703 722788812839853963 But it can't be it 4. The next step involves converting some words from the portrait, without I/O, into a 27-digit number We would completely skip the step. Could it be we need the two numbers one above and the 2nd one to combine them to get the big int I have a feeling those number will be part of it the repetitions and values are no-coincidence in my view. Lets say we have to take this large BIG and the Small from the next part and create the key that would point to some logic towards the puzzle. 64 repetitions is indeed an interesting coincidence. I'm unsure what we could do with so many digits. There's already 178 in that number. I imagined we could Base58Check, but there's plenty of numbers over 58, so that's not an option. I think this puzzle has something to do with a brain wallet but not depending on words but rather numbers seem more likely I did notice someone has created a github with some tool for the puzzle https://github.com/olalonde/phemex-puzzleI have not tested this yet so if you use it make sure its in a VM or VPS setting as I cannot verify the authenticity of the code yet but from what I see it seems to have a lot of the stuff people are talking about in the topic. I do believe that the above number or one of the numbers from the table I posted is going to be relevant I don't have much time at the moment to really get stuck into this one but I will keep on posting anything I find along the way. I think the next step is to look into the possibly of brianwallet's with numbers and maybe words I think my guess about it being elliptic curve's on finite fields may be off course after seeing this post in the git.. https://github.com/olalonde/phemex-puzzle/issues/6 |
|
|
|
It's repeated exactly 64 times. The number would be 2134373941424350546368757683859091929310811111411812612812916416616823626627529 2293295298331334335337343345357368369396417427464468485499555579596621649671703 722788812839853963 But it can't be it 4. The next step involves converting some words from the portrait, without I/O, into a 27-digit number We would completely skip the step. Could it be we need the two numbers one above and the 2nd one to combine them to get the big int I have a feeling those number will be part of it the repetitions and values are no-coincidence in my view. Lets say we have to take this large BIG and the Small from the next part and create the key that would point to some logic towards the puzzle. |
|
|
|
|
Wilder got pounded I don't know if his poor performance was after the ear shot it was rather concerning to see his corner fail to work on him round after round or even give him direction to cover up more and protect his head after the savage ear bleed shot from fury.
When you see blood coming out the ear of a fighter and they seem to be very unstable on there feet I am surprised the corner didn't pull there fighter over health concerns it was a good stoppage by the ref he obviously saw the Wilder was struggling to clear his head and needed some medical attention.
I would also credit fury for his performance in the fight he made good advances around the ring and kept Wilder on the back foot for the majority of the fight he landed some good punches both from distance and from inside the clinch all in all it was a good fight with a deserved outcome by fury.
I doubt they will have a re-match after this one unless it's in the contract somewhere.
|
|
|
|
You are correct in saying that it is noted in the original paper but only as a reference. A block header with no transactions would be about 80 bytes. If we suppose blocks are generated every 10 minutes, 80 bytes * 6 * 24 * 365 = 4.2MB per year. With computer systems typically selling with 2GB of RAM as of 2008, and Moore’s Law predicting current growth of 1.2GB per year, storage should not be a problem even if the block headers must be kept in memory. In my view it was done as a way to limit the amount of wastage as the block time increases you would see wastage drop there could also be a number of other factors that could point to why the 10 min time was included. Such as if many nodes were to be generating the same block at the same time it could lead to more frequent forks this in turn would lower the strength of the network and push the times for conformations up. For example if everyone is to be mining block 999,999 and miner A solves the block first and pushes it to the network all the other miners who would be at { t0 + t } t= time taken by miner A to mine and submit block 999,999. Lets say miner B finds miner A's block at {(t0 + t)+ 1} with taking into account network latency miner B and all other miners who finish mining the same block where (t0 + t)< (t0 +t) + (delta_t)i < (t0 + t) + 1 All are successful in mining but they would have wasted there energy in doing so this shows the total wastage of the network resulting in a orphan block would need to be. sum of { (t+ (delta_t)i ) * (hr)i } for every i I'm sure there are other reason behind this that I have missed out on but it is an interesting topic to look over even just as a thought experiment. |
|
|
|
I was thinking along these lines or maybe we look for a big int in the list that has the desired number included I also checked on the keys.lol with some of the numbers from the clue but no luck. I then thought about a brain wallet but with the use of the numbers rather than words as an idea. If your looking on the OEIS database you will find the number "957496696762772407663" seem to replicate in this sequence over and over  It may be well off the mark but could it be possible we are looking for one of the larger numbers with the "957496696762772407663" included ? |
|
|
|
Crazy!!! I have had my s3+'s here for years without being even close and boom someone solves one with a S3.. Well done to the miner like I always say every hash has the equal chance let's hope for another one in quick succession.  |
|
|
|
First: the auction terms were terrible ( see unedited post): :Auction Terms:
Starting Price: 0.01 BTC PER BAR
:Starting Bid:
Bid Increments: +0.002 BTC on *Bar 1,2 or 3* My first impression was reading: "Starting Bid 0.002". What MagicByt3 wrote can easily be misinterpreted. And that could easily have been prevented: :Auction Terms:
:Starting Bid:
Starting Price: 0.01 BTC PER BAR
:Bid Increments:
Bid Increments: +0.002 BTC on *Bar 1,2 or 3* My terms were clear. No, not really, as explained above. The open price shown is 0.01BTC
Bids should have been 0.002 BTC How can you not see this is far from intuitive? We have all been here for years and know how things run. 2. The bar is to be directly send to the buyer not to the escrow. ~ How is this escrow if I have to send directly to the buyer escrow is to protect BOTH party's not just the buyer. I did ask to send it direct to MJ escrow but he said no the buyer has requested direct send. I've never used escrow, so I'm not familiar with "how things run", but I would have had the same expectation as MagicByt3. What's the point of using an escrow if the escrow doesn't check both parts of the trade? I have consistently through my time here used various different escrows across the forum and never once have shipped my item to the escrow. It is always direct send. I have been the buyer and the seller for many high priced items.
Saying "you and I both know this isn't how escrow works" is completely wrong and shows your inexperience and stubbornness. Hypothetical: even with signed delivery, what happens if the seller ships a brick? It's still going to be the seller's word against the buyer's word, which negates the use of escrow. TECHSHARE won't give me the TXID... or allow signed.. Based on the PM, it's because of his privacy. I get that for the signed post, but the TXID will become obvious after the escrow forwards funds to the seller. Unless the escrow uses different funds and also acts as a mixer, but my assumption would be input > output (minus fees). But I think as it stands this situation stems more from inexperience and lacking communication skills than anything more sinister. Agreed! Honestly guys I think this is just getting way out of proportion. Agreed! What a shitshow.... round and round and round.... This sums it up nicely. I've read most of the topic, but this filled far more pages than needed. I'm glad this sorta came to an end already Thank you LoyceV, I just was not happy sending the bar direct to the buyer without signed for delivery as I would have had no leg to stand on if he claimed it didn't arrive or it was not as described this was the main issue. I accept my terms should and could have been much clearer I do accept that was my fault there was confusion over the bidding process but I never tried to do what Techshare is saying by trying to gain additional funds in my view the bids were correct and I have made a detailed post on this but again accept it may not have been a conventional way to sell here on the forum. I am only human and people make mistakes I am doing what the community asks of me by shipping now to the escrow. I have taken the advice and I will ship there's not really anything more to say on this matter. Thanks for the advice. Magic |
|
|
|
I am following this drama for quite a few days. Now that I am out of popcorn, and my hands are clear, I would like to quickly jump in and add my 2 cents satoshis. (just joking of course about the popcorn part, LOL ) I will only focus on the escrow/delivery aspect since the way that this auction was handled is another story. Tecshare does not need to provide you with any kind of proof of sending the funds to the escrow. They do not even need to inform you, or anyone else that they actually sent those funds. This is the reason for using an escrow (peace of mind). It is escrow's responsibility to confirm that they received payment from the buyer, and letting you know that those funds are now securely hodl, and you can now proceed with the dispatching of the item. Even the part of info that escrow received the funds is unnecessary. All you need to know is a CONFIRMATION from escrow that the $100 is waiting for you upon arrival of the parcel. From that point and onwards, you do not have to (if you feel like) interact again with the buyer. All the communication will be between you and the escrow. If you need real proof of funds existence, you may ask the escrow to sign a message from an addy that holds at least $100 in btc, as a proof of funds (not particularly the addy that the buyer sent the funds to, but any addy that the escrow has control). However, a reputable escrow might even refuse to provide you with such a request, since... well.... if you do not trust the escrow, then what is the point of using them? the second confirmation that you actually need, is from the escrow again, after receiving & examing the parcel. then you will receive the escrow funds. I clearly do not understand why you are making things very complicated. Why do you actually need Tecshare TxiD? as a confirmation that user actually sent the funds? As said, you do not need this. Even (in the extreme situation) that buyer did not send the funds to escrow, but escrow gives you a confirmation of funds being held in escrow, you will still receive your money. In that case, uppon parcel delivery, escrow will personally be responsible/liable to send you funds (even from own pocket money). You can clearly understand that you need to trust (more or less) the escrow, in order for the whole transaction to work out. Well thank you for your 2 cent's I do take on board your points but at the end of the day everyone says I have to trust trust trust... Did you not think maybe I would feel more comfortable sending out the product knowing the escrow was holding the funds? I do not see why I should feel comfortable knowing basically nothing other than a shipping address and being told by mob rule I should just trust without verifying not to someone who has never dealt with either the buyer or the escrow I thought it would be a reasonable request to have proof funds were send or are with the escrow. I was indeed send proof of payment to the other escrow by Last of the V8's so why should this bar be any different? The whole just trust and don't verify thing is beyond me but again I have agreed dew to pressure to just send to the escrow without proof even though I have made it clear I am uneasy with that situation.. Also another user here supports me saying that it's is normal practice for the seller to be furnished with the funding address. So mixed signals right across the forum are my reason for feeling uneasy with this matter. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5225031.msg53886116#msg53886116At the end of the day both party's should feel comfortable with the transaction not just the Buyer but again I will put my very valid concerns aside and ship the bar. I have taken the advice of the community and will be shipping the bar to Tecshare via MJ escrow without proof of funds so I look forward to being able to put this entire saga behind us. Thanks Magic |
|
|
|
Thanks for the advice I did say why not use wasabi or joinmarket and send a UTXO that was privacy orientated because as it stands if he sends a UTXO to MJ the MJ forwards it to me where is the "privacy" there? there's none I could still look back not that I am even interested in looking back.
Privacy tools are available if the buyer wanted to mask his UTXO to the escrow as it stands I see no privacy with him sending it to escrow then escrow forwarding it to me I still see the last transaction on chain.
Let's just move on bud. Don't take much stress. Once you get the postal address from MJ then just post the item. You will be fine. Thank you and also to everyone who gave me some advice on this matter. I look forward to Tecshare getting his bar and this saga being over. Two happy customers.. One to go.. Magic. |
|
|
|
Did you miss the part where he wanted me to send direct to him not the escrow? without proof of payment to the escrow?
It was me who said no we use the middle man for both the bar and the funds..
he wanted the bar sent direct to him without signature. without proof of payment to escrow or anything..
That was the issues...
Yes I missed if I am being honest with you. May be I read but did not actually found it a point to be taken. Here is an incidence where how I felt in a seriation and I hope this will help you to understand what actually going on in their from physcholocsl points. A guy came to me for a collateral loan and it was around something 0.04 BTC or so but he was insisting of using an escrow for the alt he will put as colletaral. I really felt annoyed coz I know if anyone would see my history then they would not bother for a third party escrow to hold for only 0.04 BTC loan. If you see the trading history TECSHARE has then I am pretty sure no one will be much worried about sending him anything. I am sure asking for escrow and all this just annoyed TECSHARE and it's just a natural human reaction. Take it easy. I am sure end of the deal you will feel hsppy. Thanks for the advice I did say why not use wasabi or joinmarket and send a UTXO that was privacy orientated because as it stands if he sends a UTXO to MJ the MJ forwards it to me where is the "privacy" there? there's none I could still look back not that I am even interested in looking back. Privacy tools are available if the buyer wanted to mask his UTXO to the escrow as it stands I see no privacy with him sending it to escrow then escrow forwarding it to me I still see the last transaction on chain. |
|
|
|
|
Bar 2 will ship to MJ escrow on Monday 24th.
I will provide proof of postage to both MJ and Tecshare.
A signature will be required on delivery.
I will post update once the deal is completed.
Magic..
|
|
|
|
Did you miss the part where he wanted me to send direct to him not the escrow? without proof of payment to the escrow?
It was me who said no we use the middle man for both the bar and the funds..
he wanted the bar sent direct to him without signature. without proof of payment to escrow or anything..
That was the issues...
Water under the bridge. A compromise has been achieved, you're shipping to the escrow. Just focus on completing this deal - it's all in your hands now. Agreed.. Will post update once bar is in the post. |
|
|
|
He already agreed so fingers crossed it works out for all involved.
Finally something useful to see. I had to read all the posts made on this topic and all these were really unnecessary magic. Yes, some of your concerns looked valid (Sign on delivery) but when the escrow is holding both money and the item then it's not very necessary. And talking about MJ - I do not think a single user in the forum who knows MJ will ever doubt about his escrow service. Besides owlcatz gone extra mile. So smile and complete everything from your side that needed to close this deal. Cheers , Did you miss the part where he wanted me to send direct to him not the escrow? without proof of payment to the escrow? It was me who said no we use the middle man for both the bar and the funds.. he wanted the bar sent direct to him without signature. without proof of payment to escrow or anything.. That was the issues... |
|
|
|
Contract laws vary country to country. Exactly whose contract law are we supposed to follow over the internet?
The law in any of the jurisdictions where either party resides, I believe. Perhaps it wouldn't be worth the time and expense to actually seek legal remedies. However, I think someone that has established a good reputation under one identity will have better luck than someone not honoring their deals and becoming fly-by-night newbies. I don't really know what you mean by this but I have send the escrow a message and await his reply. Also a contract is only valid if BOTH party's agree on the terms and it's clear I don't agree but i'm being forced to agree by mob rule.. Lets not make this into another long battle. I have agreed to send even though I have no proof the escrow holds the funds. You can't expect a new seller to blindly accept what is being said about some escrow I never even knew about till the other day without verification. I'm going by the laws of bitcoin here with don't trust verify but that no longer seems to be valid here... ** Edit ** PS I don't have any noob alt's to post with so if that's what your trying to say then you sir are very wrong. who ever that is posting is doing so of there own accord and nothing to do with me |
|
|
|
OK lets look over some of the clue's again.. 1. The first 21-digit prime found in consecutive digits of e is: 957496696762772407663 2. The private key you derive from Satoshi’s portrait is a big integer, not Wallet Import Format (WIF) 3. The filename of the picture is irrelevant 4. The next step involves converting some words from the portrait, without I/O, into a 27-digit number 5. Go back to step 4) again if you can’t figure it out Clue 2 After meeting the Phemex team, the Goddess Pheme repeated the words “little is big”, twice within three days. For clue 1, I have done some searching and found some reference materials in relation to the consecutive digits of e. If the "2" at the beginning of e is included, the only values for n <= 1000 that change are a(1) = 2, a(3) = 271 and a(85) = 2718281828459045235360287471352662497757247093699959574966967627724076630353547 594571 There are also quite a few other patterns that share the "957496696762772407663" number in the OEIS database : https://oeis.org/A137443/b137443.txtClue 2 says the key would be a Big Int which made me think about it could be something to do with elliptic curves over finite fields that may be something to look into? https://koclab.cs.ucsb.edu/teaching/ecc/eccPapers/Washington-ch04.pdfLet E be the curve y2 = x3 +x+ 1 over F5. To count points on E, we make a
list of the possible values of x, then of x3 + x + 1 (mod 5), then of the square
roots y of x3 + x + 1 (mod 5). This yields the points on E. Once I have looked into this some more I will post a further update. |
|
|
|
Are there rules I can read about these contracts and bids on the forum? I'd like to know where it says a seller can't cancel someone else's bid?
No there are no "official" rules other than the rules he and his other silver seller buddy's try impose on a new seller. Yes, there are. It is called contract law. Auctions also have their own set of legal obligations. This is the case on and off of the forum. This is not some magical place where laws cease to exist. Right now I have to take YOUR word that you send funds to some escrow I have had NO dealing with in the past.
No way to prove there was any transaction so I won't be sending out my product without being able to verify the payment.
No one would do this no one..
What are you talking about... many have used minerjones escrow, he's one of the most trusted here. You already agreed to use him as escrow. If this deal goes through, at one point he'd be holding BOTH the item and the funds so you have to trust him regardless of any TXIDs. Just drop this nonsense and ship it. No need to waste everyone's time on something so trivial. Sent to MJ escrow... I await a reply. Hello MJ.
What is you shipping address so I can have the bar send out on Monday.
It will require a signature on delivery to you.
I only wanted verification that escrow was holding payment nothing more.
You have been given good rep by a lot of people but I have had no dealing with you so I hope you can understand my concerns over being able to validate the payment to you..
Can you send me where the bar is to be shipped to and on Monday I will provide you with tracking and proof of postage.
Best regards
Magic.. Wonderful. Thank you. Let's just resolve this ASAP...I'm about done with the whole community at this point.. |
|
|
|
Are there rules I can read about these contracts and bids on the forum? I'd like to know where it says a seller can't cancel someone else's bid?
No there are no "official" rules other than the rules he and his other silver seller buddy's try impose on a new seller. |
|
|
|
4. Posted several of my PMs without permission.
So? Hypocrite. Very... He is good at manipulating situations with his rep from what I see too Vod. I have sent a message to the escrow lets leave this here until I get a reply and I aim to have the bar out on Monday to the escrow. What a horrible experience this has been It will be the last time I try do anything for this community again. |
|
|
|
Right now I have to take YOUR word that you send funds to some escrow I have had NO dealing with in the past.
No way to prove there was any transaction so I won't be sending out my product without being able to verify the payment.
No one would do this no one..
What are you talking about... many have used minerjones escrow, he's one of the most trusted here. You already agreed to use him as escrow. If this deal goes through, at one point he'd be holding BOTH the item and the funds so you have to trust him regardless of any TXIDs. Just drop this nonsense and ship it. No need to waste everyone's time on something so trivial. Sent to MJ escrow... I await a reply. Hello MJ.
What is you shipping address so I can have the bar send out on Monday.
It will require a signature on delivery to you.
I only wanted verification that escrow was holding payment nothing more.
You have been given good rep by a lot of people but I have had no dealing with you so I hope you can understand my concerns over being able to validate the payment to you..
Can you send me where the bar is to be shipped to and on Monday I will provide you with tracking and proof of postage.
Best regards
Magic.. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
