Low interest and success obviously.
This has passed the realm of trolling now. Your stating to look desperate. Ryan has been profitable for months, everyone knows that 10 uninterrupted weeks in a row of profit. Name me two others who have done the same PUMPERS PICKS: Private Membership(1BTC Giveaway Sunday 09/21, see @Pumper_Ryan for details) Previous ReturnsNOVEMBERTotal Gains: 2,120% Week Beginning: 11/03 Week Ending: 11/09 Coins: PYRA, EXCL, DANK, VIA, TIT, SWIFT, UTIL, RZR, LXC Return: 1,127% Week Beginning: 10/27 Week Ending: 11/02 Coins: XCASH, SMBR, CLOAK, GLOW, MCL, MARYJ, NEOS Return: 993% OCTOBERTotal Gains: 5,582% Week Beginning: 10/20 Week Ending: 10/26 Coins: ENRG, MARYJ, SSD, GHOST, SYS, VOOT Return: 1,319% Week Beginning: 10/13 Week Ending: 10/19 Coins: HAL, GHOST, LKNX, NEOS, HAL, SEED, APEX, SLR, OPAL, GB, SFR Return: 1,717% Week Beginning: 10/06 Week Ending: 10/12 Coins: APEX, GHOST, COCO, SLR, SEED, MID, CLOAK, SLG, QTL, GML Return: 1,334% Week Beginning: 09/29 Week Ending: 10/05 Coins: CANN, BBR, NEOS, XBOT, EXCL, GLYPH, XCASH, THC Return: 1,212% SEPTEMBERTotal Gains: 4,760% Week Beginning: 09/22 Week Ending: 09/27 Coins: BTM, SLG, AR, XBOT, AERO, HAL, CANN, VLTY, SSD Return: 1,753% Week Beginning: 09/15 Week Ending: 09/20 Coins: CANN, SHADE, SSD, XBOT, APEX, LTCD, HAL, NLG Return: 945% Week Beginning: 09/08 Week Ending: 09/14 Coins: KORE, NEOS, SSV, XST, LXC, CANN Return: 523% Week Beginning: 09/01 Week Ending: 09/07 Coins: HAL, NLG, VIA, XST Return: 1,539% Trolls lie, numbers don't |
|
|
|
This is his latest )(Today picks)
We all received the same picks you scumbag. At least Ryan has a verifyable track record of profitability. Ryan will send you 8 coins and all of them will go up. These other groups give you one pick and a million excuses why their pick failed |
|
|
|
LOL You gonna post all the PMs weve had together Go on man do it!  Least im not a thief though  Troll. Why are you using a schill account? |
|
|
|
Goodbye to decentralisation and anonymity.
robocoin is far from decentralized as you need to create an "account" with them prior to buying/selling any bitcoin at any of their machines. I think they partially instituted the policy in order to standardize their customer experience as a user of a machine is suppose to be able to use any robocoin machine to buy or sell bitcoin with their account |
|
|
|
first mistake is using online wallet.
second is using tor with it and i am sure there were no 2FA
third mistake is keeping 633 BTC in one place, for god's sake by 13-10-2014 (time of tx) it was 250K worth of dollars
Sorry mate I'm actually looking to hear from people who know what they're talking about. 1. I don't store coins there. I was just using the service primarily for the shared coin feature. 2. I did use 2FA - read back. 3. Blockchain.info does not have access to one's private keys - they're generated locally so is not at risk to an MtGox-type hack. 4. Blockchain.info employs https. Given all of this info, I want to hear ideas (there have been some helpful suggestions already on this thread) on how I was exploited. I don't want to hear about what I supposedly did wrong, I want to hear what the attacker may have done. It's an investigation. It was likely some kind of MITM attack when the "S" of https was faked. Also 2FA does nothing once an attacker is able to log in to your wallet as they can simply download a backup of your wallet and import it into a new wallet that does not employ 2fa (2fa is not done at the wallet level, only the identifier level). EDIT: I think it would probably have been safer to use a trusted mixing service like bitmixer (I think they are trustworthy, but that is ultimately your decision), as when you are given an address to send to they will give you a signed message from their primary address (1bitmixer....) so you can verify the message and that the transaction will proceed according to your wishes |
|
|
|
|
bitaddress is marginally more secure as it will generate the entire private key for you via your browser. vanitygen on the other hand will generate part of the private key on the "server side" (it is actually generated by what are essentially miners however the net effect is that it is generated on the server side)
|
|
|
|
Wow, crazy....something tells me they don't have insurance.
No chance. bleeding-edge hardware - check high power consumption - check dense packaging - check time-critical installation - check possibly suboptimal cooling - check possibly hastily trained personnel - check I think no insurer in their right might would cover a bitcoin mining operation.  I think it would be possible to insure your bitcoin mining operation, however the insured amount would likely need to decline over time as the difficulty increases. The insurance rates would also likely move in ways similar to hazard insurance with houses - as more "safety" features are used, the premiums are lowered. |
|
|
|
I don't see this as something bad. I do wonder whether it'll affect Bitcoin at all. My guess is it won't since SR2 was not as big as the first one as far as I know.
SR2 was much bigger then SR1. It has a lot of free press and got a lot of attention that SR1 took a very long time to get. |
|
|
|
I don't believe that any anonymity network in existence today is safe enough to directly run an illegal website on, unfortunately.
You'd definitely need multiple layers of protection, and not just technological. If it were me, at the very least I would also like to have some passive eyes in the physical environment hosting the hidden services. E.g. an employee at the hosting provider in my payroll, preferably someone in security or compliance roles, whose task would be to discretely inform me if the feds came and started poking around. The problem with having "eyes" in the physical environment is that this will expose your identity somewhat as well as the fact that you are hosing something that is illegal when the hosing provider may not otherwise notice the illegality of what you are hosing. Plus you would need to trust the person you are using as your "eyes" |
|
|
|
Payment received. I am looking forward to your new sig deal. I am always looking for a fun competition  |
|
|
|
The internet isn't just one physical point on Earth, it's a centralized system of communication. You can't just "shut down the internet", unless in the case of some EMP or nuclear apocalypse, which will pose more problems than simply Bitcoin
If the internet was actually centralized then it could be disconnected by attacking the central authority that controls the internet. The internet however is not centralized and cannot be shut down as no one entity controls the internet. If a major provider of internet service (either an ISP or a service that provides the "backbone" of the internet) were to be shut down because of an attack or otherwise then other service providers would be able to pick up the slack That was a typo, I meant to say it's NOT a centralized system of communication. The rest of my statement supports that. I would say that even an EMP attack would not be able to shut down the entire internet (unless the attack spread throughout the entire world) as an EMP attack would simply shut down part of the internet but other parts would be able to pick up the slack. |
|
|
|
I don't understand people that keep buying US bonds... In the best scenario they get a very small return, negative in real terms.
US government bonds are purchased because they are essentially risk free. For all intensive purposes there is zero chance the US government will default on it's debt so investors can be certain they will receive principle + interest as agreed. The same cannot be said with any other investment. The US is no longer AAA rated, at least by S&P. No country has ever defaulted after 30 years of being downgraded from a AAA rating by any of the major credit ratings agencies. |
|
|
|
There's an alt called FastCoin. They do 12 second blocks. I haven't checked if that was the case though, just what I've read about them.
A very good example of why it is not good to have short confirmation times is on the ghash multipool. They have live updates as to how many confirmations each found block of each altcoin has. They often have very long chains of coins going from orphaned to confirmed and back again. The chains are often 10 or more blocks long Yeah, there's a sweet spot and 12 seconds with the current codebase is almost certainly much to fast. I'd guess 2 minutes is the sweet spot, but I'd like to see some data on that too. There's a limit of how many orphans should be acceptable and how much hash gets wasted in the name of user experience for sure. I do think that number is blow 10 minutes though. Two minutes is still too short. On average one in 120 blocks will, at minimum get orphaned, however it will be likely be much greater. I am not sure what the block time on he alts with the very long orphan chains however I am pretty sure it is more then one minute and that the orphan chains often last 30 minutes plus. |
|
|
|
Anything preventing merchants from directly dumping their bitcoin for fiat sounds good for bitcoin in the long run. We need more merchants to reuse bitcoins rather than dump for fiat.
And what can you do to prevent that from happening? You can either prohibit it (stupid) or give merchants incentives to keep their Bitcoins instead of dumping their for their local fiat (so far not very productive unless you want simply to hold and speculate with the price). If the merchants accepting bitcoin would pay their employees in bitcoins (in full, or partially) that would reduce the dumping to some degree. I think that's what he meant. Sure, the employees could convert to fiat on the same day, but it's more likely some of them would decide to hold, especially if they opted to be paid in bitcoins voluntarily. Even if they spend their bitcoins (and assuming the merchants don't convert it to fiat immediately), if would be good for the bitcoin economy. As long as those bitcoins don't land up in exchanges, the price will be supported. Any bitcoin that are paid to employees will ultimately need to be purchased on an exchange (likely from customers who paid in bitcoin to the company) so there would be a net effect of buying pressure on the bitcoin market |
|
|
|
We don't agree to pay taxes. We pay them because we would go to jail if we didn't.
And we have to pay taxes because the majority of voters are ignorant and just keep asking for more government intervention.
I would disagree with this. The government provides a certain amount of services to it's citizens and as a result citizens need to pay for these services via taxes. If you do not pay taxes then you are essentially stealing. It is not a perfect system however it is generally what is used throughout the world. |
|
|
|
The internet isn't just one physical point on Earth, it's a centralized system of communication. You can't just "shut down the internet", unless in the case of some EMP or nuclear apocalypse, which will pose more problems than simply Bitcoin
If the internet was actually centralized then it could be disconnected by attacking the central authority that controls the internet. The internet however is not centralized and cannot be shut down as no one entity controls the internet. If a major provider of internet service (either an ISP or a service that provides the "backbone" of the internet) were to be shut down because of an attack or otherwise then other service providers would be able to pick up the slack |
|
|
|
With the chinese economy slowly down substantially and US economy gradually picking up, it's inevitable that china will lag behind US.
Unless anyone wants to bring up that weak argument about PPP because it's so full of holes and corruption - there's a good reason why PPP is not considered a good measure of economic power especially since globalization.
Wow you truly understand nothing about global economics. China will surpass the U.S. in GDP within the next 20 years, its already a given. And you actually believe the US economy is picking up? Who are you, Ben Bernanke? I don't know what delusional land you are living in where America is always #1 in every way, but the entire reason that cryptocurrency exists is because the American economy and financial system have been hijacked by a bunch of spoiled criminals and does not serve the average citizen anymore. It cannot be said for sure that the Chinese economy will continue to grow at it's current rate. Investing in the Chinese economy is far from without risks. There is a lot of regulation in the Chinese economy (more so then in the US for non-chinese companies). The Chinese government is also spending a lot on infrastructure that is not being used (for example skyscrapers that are sitting vacant) and this is not sustainable. |
|
|
|
Whenever a user changes his own password or resets his account (via email or secret question), this action is now publicly logged here for 30 days: https://bitcointalk.org/seclog.phpAdditionally, these same actions will be listed on the person's Trust page. A reset will be shown for 30 days, while a password change will be shown for 3 days. This should make it easier to determine whether an account has been compromised. Would it be possible to not disclose how a password is reset (email verses secret question). If this is disclosed then the fact that someone has a secret question which would make their account more vulnerable to getting hacked. Removing the disclosure of what method was used to to reset a password would remove this vulnerability. |
|
|
|
All you would need to do to attack a PoS coin is buy up a lot of the shitcoin, transfer them to a lot of different wallets housed is various VPS that all have different IP addresses. You then attack the network, transfer the shitcoin back to an exchange, sell the shitcoin before anyone notices
It is good strategy to attack a shitcoin, but it'll be very expensive, and maybe impossible to buy considerable part of all the bitcoins. And if you have such considerable stake, you wouldn't destroy the value of them by attacking the system. If you were to buy up a large amount of a PoS coin you would launch an attack, then transfer the coins to an exchange an sell them before the network realizes it has been attacked. |
|
|
|
It does however open up the possibility of additional fraud as people could steal a iPhone, then use the passcode (not a fingerprint) to change the fingerprints that authorize a transaction.
I don't think this scenario is possible. I may be wrong. Now _I_ need to study more on Apple Pay. I can say that the process for changing the finger prints is to go to "Touch ID & Passcode" in settings then enter your 4 digit PIN (there is not even an option to enter your fingerprint) then there is an option to delete a fingerprint and add an additional fingerprint without any additional authentication. Both before and after a fingerprint was added the selection to use touch ID for "iTunes & App store" remained selected. Apple pay has not officially launched yet, however based on the above I would assume that this attack would be possible. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
