Centralization of Bitcoin control is Now in the hands of ONLY the Top 3 Mining Pool Operators. https://www.blockchain.com/en/poolsTop 3 are now at ~56%. and # 1 is unknown, so it might be only 2."Unknown" means mining pools or single users which haven't identified themselves. So it might be 100, but definitely not 2.
|
|
|
BREAKING NEWS FROM BITCOINTALK It would appear that the Bitcoin SV thread was written and is moderated by a banned troll! https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4985868.msg53092612#msg53092612I was wondering who in their right mind at SV (not that there's many) would have sanctioned this idiot to compose and run their Bitcointalk thread for them. Turns out they most likely never did at all, and they probably had no intention of ever having a presence here. Here's an archive of recent posts in case they get deleted by the banned troll in question.
|
|
|
I can't make you understand that hearsay is only bad when applied to court room trials.
Absolutely. Because it is not true. You accused a person of nefarious behavior without evidence of such. Kicking s person when they are down is playground bully behavior, and should be discouraged. Period. The definition of "hearsay" isn't something that "is not true"; its something that isn't adequately substantiated. I provided you a chain of links with substantiating evidence, but if that's not adequate for you, again, that's out of my control. Also, who did I kick when they were down? You or the guy who "lost" their coins? If them, I assure you they didn't feel it.
|
|
|
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/bankrollbankroll noun [ C ] FINANCE
the money that a person or organization possesses
You know right that words are important and have different meanings? ... One thing is a bankroll, another is the total funds in management.
Do you have 800 BTC or not?
If you are interested on the funds currently managed by Arakne, is a little above 60k usd What a stupid asshole. Nothing left to be said here.
|
|
|
Creating or supporting a scammer flag is actively affirming a set of pretty clear fact-statements. If someone knowingly supports a flag containing incorrect fact-statements, then that is crystal-clear abuse, and I will seek to have such people removed from DT ASAP. People who are habitually wrong, even not knowingly, should also be removed. Right, and like I said in the other thread, if theymos supported you and not our decision to render your email to h4ns a written contract, then we would have heard about it by now.
|
|
|
So strange .. all wearing gambling platforms signatures . Maybe you can organize a fund rising and all together reach 3 BTC to accept my challange
How about you show us 800 BTC instead of deflecting? No one needs to prove anything to you, but you may want to starting proving that you're not lying if you want your service to succeed. Did you go to the park today lady ? ducks are hungry. K, so you again lied in order to make your "service" seem greater than it actually is. Nobody with 2 brain cells to rub together is going to take you seriously. Never lied even once(data, api keys, member's screenshots talk for my business), while you are a well known liar and scammer around bitcointalk, promoting casinos all day long then faking interest in protecting the users from high risk services. I pity your existence Now you're lying about not lying. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/bankrollbankroll noun [ C ] FINANCE
the money that a person or organization possesses
I asked you if you had 800 BTC, in reference to your stated bankroll. Your response was this: If you are interested on the funds currently managed by Arakne, is a little above 60k usd
60,000 / 8458 = ~ 7.1 BTC So, you lied. Go fuck yourself, scammer.
|
|
|
Why do you abuse the trust system and knowingly support a flag containing the incorrect fact-statement that a written contract was violated around July 2019? h4ns alleges: game-protect violated a written contract, resulting in damages, in the specific act referenced here. game-protect did not make the victims of this act roughly whole, AND it is not the case that all of the victims forgave the act. It is not grossly inaccurate to say that the act occurred around July 2019. No previously-created flag covers this same act, unless the flag was created with inaccurate data preventing its acceptance.
Support: nutildah Creating or supporting a scammer flag is actively affirming a set of pretty clear fact-statements. If someone knowingly supports a flag containing incorrect fact-statements, then that is crystal-clear abuse, and I will seek to have such people removed from DT ASAP. People who are habitually wrong, even not knowingly, should also be removed. You violated a written contract, and theymos is not on your side here. We as a community have decided that your email to h4ns in which you promised to refund his money constitutes a written contract, even if it is not a legally enforceable one. I'm sure you've sent theymos a hundred PMs. If he agreed with you and not us, we would have heard about it by now.
|
|
|
So strange .. all wearing gambling platforms signatures . Maybe you can organize a fund rising and all together reach 3 BTC to accept my challange
How about you show us 800 BTC instead of deflecting? No one needs to prove anything to you, but you may want to starting proving that you're not lying if you want your service to succeed. Did you go to the park today lady ? ducks are hungry. K, so you again lied in order to make your "service" seem greater than it actually is. Nobody with 2 brain cells to rub together is going to take you seriously.
|
|
|
Kasi may mga kakilala ako na kahit di naman madalas ang cashout, nakatanggap pa rin ng video interview request. Nag-start muna sa top ang coins.ph then dahan-dahan pababa. Lahat ng users for sure magkakaroon ng interview. Pwede rin dahil sa mas pinahigpit na terms ni BSP.
Di agad nila ibaba ang limits. May certain period. Sa case ko 2 months ko di pinansin iyong request kasi nga nag-undergo na ako ng interview last 2018,2017 kaya tanong ko bakit mayroon na naman. Hassel e. Then di ko ulit pinansin hanggang naging ZERO na ang limit ko. Yes, I can't cashout pero puwede ako mag-send ng funds to other accounts for cashout purposes. So yan ang alternative ko that time pag nag-wiwithdraw.
My average cashout per year is almost the same kaya siguro ganyan. Nabwisit pa ako dyan kasi full ang mga schedule so nung time na yan, no choice but to wait for long para lang bumalik sa normal account limit ko.
I've posted that on this thread way back February or March this year IIRC.
Hey guys, nakakuha ako ng isang kahilingan upang makilala ang aking mapagkukunan ng mga pondo sa isang linggo nakaraan, sa kauna-unahang pagkakataon, at habang wala akong problema sa paggawa nito (freelance writer ako), wala akong dokumentasyon upang patunayan ito. Kaya nang makarating ako sa pagtatapos ng talatanungan ay hindi ko maisubmit dahil wala akong nakakabit. Mayroon akong 2 katanungan: - Gaano katagal maaari akong magsagawa ng cashout hanggang sa mas mababa dahil ang aking limitasyon sa 0? - Kung maaari gusto kong mayroon video interview sa halip na mag-submit ng mga dokumento, o para sa iba pa? Also, my account is level 3 -- no need for level 4.
|
|
|
LOL. This is great. I am going to post it to the BSV thread.
|
|
|
A user named Gregi1 accused CEX.io of being a scam Is the scam accusation proven and true? Did Gregi1 create a red flag causing Warning: One or more bitcointalk.org users have reported that they strongly believe that the creator of this topic is a scammer. (Check their trust page to see the detailed trust ratings.) While the bitcointalk.org administration does not verify such claims, you should proceed with extreme caution.shown above all CEX.io threads and causing Warning: Trade with exteme caution! shown at the public profile? You're missing the point. The point is that acting professionally pays off. If a business maintains professionalism when dealing with criticism, they are far more likely to be successful in the future than if they act like you, which is anything but professional. You destroyed your own reputation by conducting your business like a vengefully insane person and now there's nobody to blame but yourself.
|
|
|
Is bitcointalk.org a legal-free zone where everyone can abuse the trust system?
Seeing as how you, one of the worst trust abusers on the forum, is still here, there's obviously not much "legality" associated with the trust system. What are you even doing here? Every chance you've had to salvage your reputation you just doubled down with your crazy antics. You should not be in charge of any kind of business whatsoever, and certainly nobody should trust you with their money (or confidence, or personal information, or time for that matter).
|
|
|
It was a "yes" or "no" question, but let's just go with your answer here: If you are interested on the funds currently managed by Arakne, is a little above 60k usd- but don't worry, is growing fast ![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif) You know right that words are important and have different meanings? ... One thing is a bankroll, another is the total funds in management.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/bankrollbankroll noun [ C ] FINANCE
the money that a person or organization possesses So, you don't actually possess 800 BTC, so why would you say they are in your "bankroll"? ![](https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F6qDrb74.png&t=665&c=yP8ma_kb9dRSYw)
|
|
|
You've never once directly answered the question. Do you have 800 BTC or not?
|
|
|
Ducks the question again
Do you have 800 BTC or not?
|
|
|
Wow.. Now Coinsbit shills are posting in a scam accusation thread. Tagged all of them.
LOL. Maybe the posted here by mistake. What morons. I think Coinsbit themselves are even dumber for continuing to hire them as they are no longer bumping their main thread. Their thread just looks like 104 pages of scammy garbage now.
|
|
|
Because IS the bankroll growth graph of an initial 100 btc capital managed by Arakne. Bankroll and Funds are very different words with different meanings.
So according to you, you have over 800 BTC under your control and make 35% profits on it monthly. What do you need the forum for? Don't just say "no, the 800 BTC is my bankroll." Do you have 800 BTC or not?
|
|
|
You keep trying to harp on penalty claims, when over and over again I point out that penalty claims are not the exclusive means for losing funds in LN. Ergo, irrelevant.
The whole thing was in response to your question, which was lost somewhere along the way: But tell me - why is it assumed that there were penalty claims?
So I told you. (meaningless ego-based banter snipped out) For the record, I'm ambivalent on the matter. I don't know, (and I don't much care) whether or not the described event occurred as described (although I know it to be possible within the design of LN, which may or may not give the passerby pause). But I am not willing to propagate hearsay as fact -- something which you are demonstrably altogether happy to do.
I can't make you understand that hearsay is only bad when applied to court room trials. Without doing that, almost every single news article that contains a rephrasing of another's words could be considered "hearsay." If you are interested in the actual findings, here's where things currently stand: guggero 4:39 PM
Hi. I did write the tool to figure out what's going on with your channels. This is what it looks from the file (listchannels-guggero.txt from Oct. 23): - Channels still open (funding-TX not spent): 115 (101342555 sats) - Channels that were closed (funding-TX spent): 295 - Funds in outputs that belong to your node: 268829394 sats - Of those funds, 139479289 sats are in normal on-chain outputs that should be salvageable just with the seed. So I guess there's still around 3.7 BTC that should in theory be claimable. In an earlier post, he determined that he only had 3.73452874 BTC missing after the dust settled... 3.7345 - 3.7 = 0.0345 still missing, if not accounted for by 1 - rounding done by guggero 2 - penalty transactions 3 - "unjust enrichment" So basically, the entire thing actually was FUD, even if unintentional on the part of the guy who "lost" his coins. Basically my hunch was correct, and yours wasn't. You can point to whatever you consider to be a logical inconsistency in previous iterations of the argument but it doesn't change the outcome of me being right.
|
|
|
You are now confusing a judicial subpoena with a congressional subpoena. They are entirely different entities.
Starting to see a pattern... Cover letters include a description of contents, usually including page numbers, that is the purpose of a cover letter.
You're confusing a cover letter with a table of contents. I am not confusing anything. Be prepared for him to shift the argument to something else at this point. That's what he does after he's been caught not knowing what he's talking about. You'd think that the guy who said this wouldn't let himself be proven wrong so easily: As I explained before I have invested way more time into informing myself on these subjects over a period of decades than most people, and certainly more than you. I have gone to the gym every day and built my muscles while you sat on the couch and picked your ass, and you wonder why I treat you like an insect. I am not infallible, but compared to you I might as well be. I am very sorry you haven't invested more time into educating yourself, but your feels and boo boos ren't my concern.
Really all it takes is about 15 minutes of research to thoroughly understand the difference between judicial and congressional subpoenas.
|
|
|
Since you edited out my addressing of this point, let me re-insert it for you: A penalty transaction has distinct characteristics: LN channel = multisig UTXO.
To change channel balance write new tx spending the UTXO. Both sign but dont broadcast. They all: - are V0_P2WPKH type transactions - are roughly the same size of 237-238 B, 121 vB, 483-484 WU - use SegWit addresses There is a way to filter through transaction data based on this criteria. Still absofuckinglutely irrelevant. Congratulations. How is filtering transaction data irrelevant to the identification of penalty claims? In case you missed it, another possibility is that penalty txs were never issued. For the THIRD FUCKING TIME, dickwad. If his counterparties were on the beneficial side of a stale closing tx, what is their incentive to issue a penalty? They stand to win more through just letting the mistaken stale tx broadcasts lie as is. Seems we need to at least consider that possibility before closing the case. As at least one scenario.
So far none of the 400 nodes connected to him reported receiving any funds. Hmm. None of the 400 unjustly-enriched parties reported unjust enrichment. Whodathunkit? Or, perhaps its because they never received jack shit. Not ONE in 400 nodes is honest enough to report receiving more funds than they should have? Just think about it for a moment before responding. Do you deny that it is possible? It is possible that not one of 400 nodes would have received "unjustified enrichment" without reporting it, but it is extremely unlikely and goes against common sense. You again edited out the link I provided to a discussion on the LN GitHub about the issue which as far as I can tell is comprised of the first and foremost members of the relevant COMMUNITY: https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd/issues/2468A couple of the "experts" indirectly referenced in the Bitcoinist article have been posting in that GitHub thread. That's why its not hearsay. Your third link was a news blurb containing allegations, totally devoid of links to evidence. It was -- again definitively -- hearsay. First of all, this isn't a courtroom. Second, the title of the article is "4 BITCOIN ‘LOSS’ ON LIGHTNING NETWORK IS FUD, SAYS COMMUNITY" --- the whole premise of the article is based on second-hand information. Third, the article does contain links to evidence, which contain links to more evidence. - Bitcoinist article contains this paragraph: A Twitter thread looking into the circumstances behind the loss and how it could be prevented in future, suggested that LN had been working as intended. The victim would have been fine if he had waited, but impatience caused him to “crash through multiple safety barriers,” as he was deemed “in over his head.” - The referenced Twitter thread says this: - The referenced Reddit thread says this: @guggero (LN developer) says this in the GitHub issue thread: I'm going to write a script that goes through all your 400 channels and looks at the TX outputs if there is still something to be claimed. This should also give us a final account of how much was actually lost because of justice transactions (if any). So if you are willing to DYOR you can see that nothing is unsubstantiated, and while the issue may not technically be "FUD", it sounds like the guy didn't actually lose any coins at all, in spite of what appears to be his best attempts to do so. OK I'm making a concession that he may have lost a maximum of 0.1 BTC (though its still more likely he lost nothing), but it still seems like it was all to make a bullshit point about "the dangers of Lightning." Making a concession is hardly "moving the goalposts."
I was originally stressing that his claims of losing 4 BTC were bullshit.
No, you jumped down my throat for merely asking to see some actual evidence supporting the claim that the entire incident was not made up from whole cloth. From 'case closed, he made the whole thing up' to 'I think he's exaggerating' is the motherfuckin canonical example of moving the goalposts. Stop being such a baby. If suggesting you verify information for yourself is the same thing as "jumping down your throat" then you're not cut out to talk on an internet forum and should probably go join a sewing circle. He still may have put himself in this situation on purpose, though now I believe he earnestly just made a major fuckup -- for whatever reason is beyond me. Its a one-of-a-kind issue though so its good for LN devs to iron this sort of thing out now rather than later. Admitting to changing my opinion on something after learning more about it is only "moving the goalposts" if you come from the viewpoint that you are trying to score a goal. Go fuck yourself. You're the one trying to twist things around to make it appear that you said something other than that which you did.
No, I didn't. I admitted that I changed my stance from "he's a liar" to "he may have accidentally fucked up." I still maintain that nowhere near 4 BTC was lost. Sounds like he lost nothing.
|
|
|
|