I don't have an idea about VPNs and Tor network. I thought they are used by hackers who do not want to be found. <…>
Not really. The vast amount of user are likely legit, and do it due to privacy concerns. Bear in mind that you connect to a ton of sites each day, and that IPs can be ultimately used to geolocate you. You don’t necessarily want sites to know where you are from. In some instances, ISPs may be required to provide information on you (due to court orders where the procedure is respected, if not skipped by some direct government requirement in loose countries). I recall a case of torrent users receiving lawyer letters claiming a certain amount of money to avoid being sue for downloading episodes from a certain pay-per-view tv series. The layers went through court, and obtained data from ISPs for bags of given IPs. Granted that technically, the series should not have been downloaded, but even so. Now take this example a step further and assume other ungreateful examples that once could potentially device. The idea is to shield yourself, even if strictly because you are 100% legit type person (hey, who's not?), but want your privacy respected (i.e. not Facebook/Instagram type profiles). |
|
|
|
He visto referenciado un hilo (en inglés) que tenía visto, pero olvidado, al respecto: Units of Evil, copper membership & list of copper members. En el hilo, podemos ver una captura del mensaje que ve una cuenta recién creada, al toparse con el problema de Evil en su IP: La cantidad solicitada como penalización es variable, tal y como indicaba en el OP. En el caso mostrado, se solicitaban 327 satoshis, que a fecha de hoy son 11 céntimos de USD, y en el momento de la captura de la imagen aún menos. La cantidad es tan insignificante, que parece aún más absurdo. Máxime si tenemos en cuenta que las cuentas novatas posiblemente no tengan aún BTCs … |
|
|
|
<…> What I'm concerned about is them ending up as cheap imitation of filliponne and not growing into being the best version of themselves.
Not really likely to happen though (the imitation thingy). There are profiles here that have their own imprint that is not something people can mimic, let alone the time and savoir-faire that they put behind. Generally speaking though, what one should take away is the characteristics such as perseverance, depth and broadness of the explanations provided by profiles such as the one been deal with here. These being qualities that can be technically mimicked from an abstract point of view, even if on a different scale. The specific profile style is then like a fingerprint in some instances. Some accounts could open an Alt account, and you’d easily recognize them providing they post in the same manner, because of their style fingerprint. Others, you would not be able to tell apart from a large pool of similar type accounts, being their fingerprint faint. |
|
|
|
<…>
Perhaps a warning for the first found offence could go a long(ish) way, but one of the drawbacks would be that plagiarism isn’t detected on-the-fly, meaning that a given account could incur in plagiarism over time, but may not be reported until way later down the road when he’s already accumulated multiple such offences. I’d still favour a clear, easy to implement, warning above the text box when creating a post (just below the emojics). |
|
|
|
<…>
Technically, the OP opened the thread in 2018, so he should know how to rank-up by now, … were it not for the fact that he was banned (presumably ages ago) …  The thread bumper (4 posts up from your post) would nevertheless be the intended beneficiary right now (plus any other reader who is oblivious on the ranking-up requirements), but so far no move in the recommended direction (180º swerve from bounties, or at least fork posts between bounties and forum engagement). |
|
|
|
<…>
As mentioned, at least one of those screenshots is displaying the trust scores using a Customized Trust List, or having modified the Trust depth. What happens with a Customized list is that Trusted Feedback is conceptually moved between the "Trusted feedback" and the "Untrusted feedback", and since the counters display the scores according to the "Trusted feedback", these display different numbers depending on who is viewing the data. Bear in mind, nevertheless, that 99,9% of the forum profiles use the DT2 depth 2 view, which is the default setting, so they all share a common visualization. In case you've got a Customized List, you can see the default view by adding ";dt" to the profile you are viewing on its URL (without adding the quotation marks). |
|
|
|
|
A mí me recuerda épocas donde imágenes similares las veíamos con las armas de comisionadas a los grupos terroristas. El objetivo es similar: crear cierto impacto visual duradero, que luego cada cual tendrá presente, aunque con fines y contextos diferentes.
No me imagino ver este tipo de imágenes con ASICs en España, aunque imposible, lo que es imposible, tampoco …
|
|
|
|
|
Por la época el OP de Gavin Andresen, y los posts de las primeras páginas, las Altcoins eran esencialmente derivados del código del bitcoin (si no me equivoco). Quizás el término Alt derivase de estos inicios, donde lo alternativo realmente era un pseudo-alternativo, sin ser en su mayoría blockchains que difiriesen mucho de la de bitcoin.
Es curioso como los primeros posts entran a hablar sobre la seguridad enseguida, contemplando estos desarrollos alternativos como potenciales entradas de malware para robar los bitcoins. Y eso que tenían poco valor (aunque minaban a mansalva, y eso suma) …
|
|
|
|
He mirado, y la normativa aparentemente entró en vigor el 25/03/2021, con 6 meses de periodo de adaptación (hasta el 24/09/2021). A mí me recuerda a lo que se tiene en los fogones en España, y que parece va a ser un paquete de medidas que se van a extender por muchos países. No veo cómo van a operar sobre los " VASP extranjeros que realizan actividades fuera de Corea pero tienen consecuencias nacionales dentro de Corea". Suena a deseo poco realizable, salvo para los paises donde residan los VASP y el gobierno de Corea de Sur pueda tener influencia mediante algún tratado que lo facilite. Ver: https://blog.scorechain.com/south-korea-updated-crypto-law-enters-into-force/ |
|
|
|
Data as of 23/07/2021Updated the lists in the OP (and subsequent post) to reflect the forum members that still qualify in each of those lists. Currently, on those lists there are, lacking <= 20% merits to rank-up (activity may not be met though): - 39 Heroes (on their way to Legendries) - 74 Sr. Members (on their way to Heroes) - 52 Full Members (on their way to Sr. Members) - 44 Members (on their way to Full Members) - 205 Jr. Members (on their way to Members) Added this week (9): user_id name Status posts activity activity_Met merit rank ProbableInitialRank trust url
849090 tomahawk9 Active 4890 1596 Y* 800 Hero Member Sr. Member =+2 / =0 / -0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=849090
809633 aysg76 Active 1513 1064 Y 405 Sr. Member Sr. Member =+0 / =0 / -0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=809633
822364 Saidasun Active 186 186 N 238 Full Member Member =+0 / =0 / -0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=822364
939152 Farmer Bill Active 108 108 N 85 Member Old Era Newbie =+0 / =0 / -0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=939152
12336 elliottflz65 Active 117 117 N 80 Member Member =+0 / =0 / -0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=12336
3331680 kaggie Active 102 70 N 80 Member New Era Newbie =+0 / =0 / -0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3331680
2999204 Efarilino Active 31 31 N 9 Jr. Member New Era Newbie =+0 / =0 / -0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2999204
274 limikael Active 56 56 N 8 Jr. Member New Era Newbie =+0 / =0 / -0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=274
1229145 Guandam Inactive 339 126 Y 8 Jr. Member Old Era Newbie =+0 / =0 / -0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1229145
(*) this week (9): user_id name Status posts activity activity_Met merit rank ProbableInitialRank trust url
1166480 Julien_Olynpic Active 5536 1414 - 1028 Legendary Full Member =+2 / =0 / -0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1166480
1118642 Cnut237 Active 3830 1442 - 1001 Legendary Full Member =+0 / =0 / -0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1118642
134226 Nestade Active 1574 938 Y* 503 Hero Member Member =+1 / =0 / -0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=134226
2886678 W Jr. Active 742 252 N 269 Sr. Member New Era Newbie =+0 / =0 / -0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2886678
2807282 Cadaver20 Active 1261 420 N 251 Sr. Member New Era Newbie =+0 / =1 / -0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2807282
1038114 gagux123 Active 1046 560 Y 250 Sr. Member New Era Newbie =+0 / =0 / -0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1038114
1362086 conilmionome Active 137 137 N 102 Full Member New Era Newbie =+0 / =0 / -0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1362086
2925824 MK-74 Active 828 224 N 101 Full Member New Era Newbie =+0 / =0 / -0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2925824
3311013 Ronzybloch Active 112 98 N 11 Member New Era Newbie =+0 / =0 / -0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3311013
(*) Due to enough merits for the next rank, or being banned.
|
|
|
|
Update 23/07/2021:The dashboard gives you access to anyone’s complete merit history in the TX tab, surpassing the 120 day limit. Link: BitcoinTalk Merit Dashboard. Updated the Merit Dashboard to reflect the most recent sMerit available data: Total sMerit: 937.522 Total TXs: 508.355 From Users: 23.604 To Users: 39.865 minDate: 2018-01-24 22:12:21 maxDate: 2021-07-23 02:26:45 Aggregate awarded sMerit for the last complete week (12/07/2021 .. 18/07/2021) is 6.758, which is down 2,20% from the previous week. In addition, there are 2 new Legendary and 1 new Hero Members this week. Cnut237 -> Legendary from Full Member during Merit System kick-off. Julien_Olynpic -> Legendary from Full Member during Merit System kick-off. Nestade -> Hero Member from Member during Merit System kick-off. Note:
-Copper Members and non-native ranks (staff, etc) are displayed as real (regular) ranks.
|
|
|
|
A veces le echo un vistazo a las correlaciones en CoinMetrics, jugando con los parámetros del algoritmo y la escala temporal. En todo caso, mirando la grágica por defecto (Pearson y 60d), la correlación está esencialmente entre el 0,7 y el 0,9 desde principios del 2018. La correlación si era más floja en los años precedentes, incluso siendo inversa durante el primer semestre del 2016, pero no veo cómo se puede proclamar su desacople en la actualidad, a pesar de las pequeñas turbulencias recientes en la escala gráfica. Ver (similar a la gráfica del OP): https://charts.coinmetrics.io/correlations/ |
|
|
|
This data includes data that allows fraudsters to steal the funds of these traders?
The case is nearly a year old, but since this thread has resurfaced, it’s worth mentioning that the breached data details don’t seem to be crystal clear, although we know that over 1k emails and 13k rows of information were obtained during the hack. I’ve been looking around for further detail of the involved data fields, but came out empty handed. It’s fair to assume that perhaps at least some specific crypto names and amounts were involved. Their software (see https[colon]//cryptotrader[dot]tax/cryptocurrency-tax-reports) also details information to generate the IRS Form 8949, which includes name and SS number, so this detail of information could have been compromised, although the claims say they weren’t: CryptoTrader.Tax users had to enter their billing information the payment processor Stripe to pay for their subscriptions. However, Stripe assured that, while its system is connected to the hacked CryptoTrader.Tax support center platform, the link does not reveal sensitive user info such as credit, debit, and banking information as well as the physical addresses of its clients. As such, only customer email addresses and the general location was exposed by the hack.
https://tokenpost.com/More-than-1000-users-affected-in-a-cryptocurrency-tax-reporting-service-hack-5712With the above, and assuming the limited scope, fraudsters/hackers should not have been able to directly obtain access to the crypto of those involved in the hack (it would have to involve credentials to custodial wallets, which is unlikely to be stored in this type of application; private keys are out of the question here). Nevertheless, they could have used social engineering to try to trick/scam/blackmail/phish a few of the 1K affected by the hack. It will also depend on the time it took between the events took place (April 2020) and when they were actually communicated to those involved (general public was made aware months later, but those affected were possibly told before). |
|
|
|
<...>
By moving away from being buried in bounties all day long in an act of self-interest, and shifting the focus on to posting decent (no any) content, engaging in conversations, answering questions, and so forth. Technically, you specifically need to receive 1 Merit to rank-up to Jr. Member (see the rest here: Merit & new rank requirements), which is trivial to manage really with a minimal effort and some search and reading capabilities. |
|
|
|
This kind of crap should by now be undoubtedly detected by everyone’s crypto scam radar, or default to being detected by the logic reasoning radar. They normally lure people with incredible ROIs in a short period of time, and very often conform part of a family of sites with very similar content, such as: https[colon]www.chainlinksinvest[dot]com
https[colon]www.indextradeltd[dot]com
https[colon]www.odeyinvestor[dot]com
https[colon]nastlatrades[dot]ltd
https[colon]www.sparkfxcapital[dot]com
https[colon]firetrading[dor]io
https[colon]www.paylotfx[dot]com
https[colon]www.globalnetcoin[dot]com
https[colon]www.tauriseassets[dot]com
For being the most reputable source of investment, it sure does have a lot of competitors (more like siblings). Divide and conquer … |
|
|
|
<…>
Plagiarism shouldn’t lead to getting red tagged, but rather banned. As to the question you’re asking, it’s always way better to prevent a post from being reported by adding the source, even if it is to a post made by the same person on another media. I do recall a case or two where the person being reported for plagiarism has actually copied it from the media (using a non-coincidental user name). Proving ownership is easy by editing the something in the original source to link it to the Bitcointalk account, and that is what I remember a couple of those cases doing. Nevertheless, it’s better to prevent incurring in needing to provide evidences and such, simply by placing the link (and perhaps even mentioning that it’s the same person). |
|
|
|
|
Reading one of those books once in a while is a decent way to obtain some linear information, and the variety let’s one hover from the more technical prone books to those more related to usage, trading or historical background.
Out of those listed in the OP, I’ve only gone through Mastering Bitcoin and Bitcoin Billionaires. I’ve also has a crack at Hard Money you can’t F*ck with (Jason A. Williams) and of course The Internet of Money (Andreas Antonopoulos), all of which I found enjoyable, and one in particular seemed to bring the hype into exceeding hyper mode after reading it (Hard Money …).
|
|
|
|
You can try out the methods described on this topic: A guide to quoting posts in locked topic. There are some further methods described within the thread, using forum-fan (member) created add-ons. I normally resort to quoting without the header and placing the reference link below the quote, simply because it’s quick and easy to do. |
|
|
|
Iba a pasar de puntillas sobre este caso, hasta que me fijé en el detalle de que se presume que la estafa alcanza a 40.000 personas, en una población de 120.000 (y eso que ésta cifra abarca todas las edades). Al parecer, una plataforma de ganancias deportivas (de origen Español) les ofrecía un 20% mensual pasivo si invertían y reinvertían las ganancias. El acceso a la plataforma era mediante invitación, pero cada persona debía abonar un equivalente de 107 € para darse de alta. Luego, utilizando criptomonedas, compraban los diversos paquetes de apuestas. Lógicamente hay más estafados por el país (se estima que hay 100k afectados), pero lo impactante es el grado de afectación en San Rafael, donde a buen seguro el boca-oreja ha hecho correr el chollo como la pólvora … Ver: https://es.beincrypto.com/policia-argentina-investiga-responsables-presunta-estafa-ponzi-criptomonedas/ |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
