It's curious that all the people who claim to have all the answers refuse to share them. It wasn't like this pre-segwit.
This is why people are still arguing. Two years of insults and obfuscation does not constitute debate.
I never claimed to have all the answers, so I can't refuse to share them. The debate is over and there's no going back. Just switch coins if you're upset about it. The solution is that simple. |
|
|
|
Why is that functionality even there?
It's there so uneducated people like you can spread FUD. Even a child would understand that anyone-can-spend bullshit attack isn't possible after 2 years of Segwit-related talk. That's not an answer. Why is it there? What useful function does it serve? If you own a fair amount of bitcoin, you should definitely educate yourself on the matter. There's loads of information on it out there. |
|
|
|
|
I sent you my last merit. Could you potentially do this for the entire history of the merit system? I'd like to compile my own database in a single Excel file. I know DdmrDdmr and LoyceV have done similar things but I do appreciate being able to import the data directly into Excel.
|
|
|
|
More people to enjoy their bitcoin transactions much faster and also little bit of reduction in their transaction fee. What other benefit could we get from adopting to segwit? Any techies.  Well there is also an increased risk of suddenly losing all your coins. No, there's not. Its never happened. No one has carried out an "anyone can spend" attack because it can't be done. Mishaps in the past were due to an improper implementation of Segwit by an exchange or wallet, not Segwit itself. The risk now is zero unless you are using deprecated software. For more on why there's no such thing as an "anyone can spend" attack: The claim goes roughly like this:
There would be a growing incentive for a 51 % attack as the number of SegWit outputs accumulates. The attack would be to “disable” SegWit, reinterpret SegWit scripts as “anyone-can-spend”, and then steal all SegWit coins.
This was repeated numerous times on Reddit and rehashed by parties like nChain or Bitcoin.com.
A transaction is valid, if nothing in the combined script triggers a failure and the top stack item is non-zero. Scripts are considered as “anyone-can-spend”, if there is no condition attached to be fulfilled for the script execution.
Segregated Witness uses empty scriptSigs (when not using P2SH) and scriptPubKeys that consists of a 1-byte push opcode for 0 to 16, indicating the witness program version, followed by a data push between 2 and 40 bytes for the witness program. The witness program is then interpreted, executed and enforced by Segregated Witness aware software.
Any miner that stops enforcing Segregated Witness rules and starts to create invalid blocks, namely blocks falsely spending coins that require a witness program to be executed, would be partitioned off the network by other miners and users.
But let’s assume the worst case for a moment: 51 % or more of all miners go rogue and start to create invalid blocks by not enforcing Segregated Witness rules. Honest miners would still consider these blocks as invalid and build their own valid chain, but given that they are a minority, at some point they end up as shorter chain.
There would then be two separate chains, one from the rogue miners, and one from the honest miners. They have hard forked and the chains are no longer compatible.
Other participants in the network, in particular full nodes, do not follow the longest chain per se, but the longest chain they consider as valid. Full node users would then also consider the chain from the rogue miners as invalid, and follow the chain of the honest miners, which enforce Segregated Witness rules. Segregated Witness scripts are not vulnerable.
It may be worth to note that nodes running old software, namely software that isn’t Segregated Witness aware, would indeed follow the rogue chain in this scenario. This is expected and inherently the case, given that Segregated Witness is a soft fork. |
|
|
|
The Ukranian brought up Giuliani, not Trump.
That's correct but I don't understand why Giuliani is involved at all... If you're doing something for the sake of national interest, why involve your personal lawyer? Obviously Giuliani was previously talking to the Ukraine president... why? Just doesn't make sense to me... RE "looking for information that will put Biden in a good light" etc, the firing of the prosecutor stopped the finding and assessment of information, period. Good or bad. That's what Biden did. I have to say here that I couldn't care less if the findings were good or bad. They are related to the conduct of Biden's son, who is not a political figure. But it matters to Biden.
Why doesn't that sound "horrible?"
What evidence do you have that they are related to the conduct of Biden's son? It would appear that the investigation started prior to Hunter Biden's involvement with Burisma. The National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) said an investigation was ongoing into permits granted by officials at the Ministry of Ecology for the use of natural resources to a string of companies managed by Burisma.
But it said the period under investigation was 2010-2012, and noted that this was before the company hired Hunter Biden.
“Changes to the board of Burisma Limited, which are currently the object of international attention, took place only in May 2014, and therefore are not and never were the subject of (the anti-corruption bureau’s) investigation,” the bureau’s statement said.
Hunter Biden was a director on Burisma’s board from 2014-2018, according to documents filed by the company in Cyprus, where it is registered. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-whistleblower-ukraine-buris/ukraine-agency-says-allegations-against-burisma-cover-period-before-biden-joined-idUSKBN1WC1LVActually, this is a great article that tackles the other side, but the author concludes that it requires a much deeper investigation into the matter before any conclusions can be drawn: Today, two questions remain.
One is whether it was ethically improper or even illegal for Biden to intervene to fire the prosecutor handling Burisma’s case, given his son’s interests. That is one that requires more investigation and the expertise of lawyers.
The second is whether Biden has given the American people an honest accounting of what happened. The new documents I obtained raise serious doubts about his story’s credibility. And that’s an issue that needs to be resolved by voters. |
|
|
|
I just watched the video where Biden boasts about coercing them to fire the prosecutor, though.
Looks pretty damning.
The video's been out for a while though, and nobody cared about it before this whole Trump Ukraine phone call stuff came to light. I could be mistaken but it sounds like part of the condition for release of the loan was that they fire this particular prosecutor guy. We don't know if it had anything to do with Biden's son -- asserting that it did (at this phase) is pure conjecture. What we do know for sure is that Trump asked a foreign leader for the favor of digging up dirt on a political opponent. I suppose one good thing that happened is the whole affair shed light on how rampant political cronyism and nepotism is... Seems like Hunter Biden had no qualifications to have his particular job there whatsoever, and that he was just there because his last name is "Biden." Still not a crime, but it is the most unattractive thing about Biden in my eyes thus far (other than him already being pretty milquetoast and uninspiring as a politician). |
|
|
|
Impartially relaying a further reply. (Pure lunacy.)
What a fucking nutcase. Why do you all continue to cater to the insatiable ego of this narcissistic sociopath? THX 1138, it would appear the last time you had an original thought of your own was in October of last year. Perhaps you should consider attempting to grow your own personality instead of continuing to be a gimpy mouthpiece for a certifiable lunatic, year after year. Shelby BTW I read as much as I could stand of your long-winded shitposty rants you left in my Politics & Society thread about leaving America to move to the Philippines over being disgusted with American politics. You sound like an insufferable primadonna who absolutely objects to attempting assimilation with other cultures and cannot stand to have anything other than their own way 100% of the time. This explains your neverending collection of complaints about the Philippines. The problem is you, not them. PS: Nothing you've ever predicted about anything has ever come to fruition, ever! You've got to be the wrongest person to have ever inhabited the forum, which is saying quite a lot. |
|
|
|
The sad thing is I'm fated to end in the big leftmost orange circle with all the other boring people; that is unless I start taking some sort of statin and blood pressure medications. In which case I'll end up in the nice red cancer circle instead. Still boring. How do people die from mental health illnesses if its not suicide? Guess there's still time to walk into an industrial-size meat grinder believing its the arms of god. |
|
|
|
For people interested in spam hunting: I found this account on top of http://loyce.club/active/1h.html (which means he made the largest number of posts in the past hour). Dang Loyce, this is a great tool for spotting plagiarists. I just found this guy from the 24 hours list and reported his last 5 posts for plagiarism. Oops, he has already been autobanned. Have to remember to check for that first. |
|
|
|
So those are concrete evidence of us being scammers? Are you serious ?  No, its evidence that anyone dealing with you as at high risk of losing money. They owe to the vps provider 10$, not to me.
Another lie, unless you're saying they directly pay the VPS provider $10. Is that what's happening? Besides, why do you need to collect $10 from each client? Shouldn't the total VPS pool from all clients be about $10 for 1 month? Did we offer the service for free or not?
If you don't ask for $10 or a 30% cut of supposed profits for the first month, then yes, your 1 month free trial is indeed free. what guarantees you want in trading other than a long term backtested strategy with safe money management? 500% in 20 months is safe and slow.
No, its not. And you have no proof of this. Your "backtest data" is garbage as far as the real world is concerned. you may not understand why backtest are very important, but win after win, more concrete and bulletproof guarantees add to the stack. I understand you think everybody should take your word as 100% true. You don't understand why backtest matters because your jobs is not related to algorithmic trading. Again, I understand you think everybody should be taking your word at face value, which is hard to do given that you have a propensity to lie and exaggerate. Can you force yourself to understand that since we EARN ONLY ON PROFITS COMMISSION we have absolutely no interest in faking data and providing a fraud product ?
Another lie. Granted you have at least 2 clients a month, you are profiting by collecting your VPN fees. We can keep fighting about the 100% win rate definition as much you want. that doesn't change the fact that is 100%.
OMG. You are unable to admit your record has losing trades, despite the evidence being clearly there. Note that the negative PNLs of 0.0001 mBTC ( 0.001$ loss) are created by instant 1 contracts trades necessary to escape a bug in the bitmex websocket's position endpoint. After several days without trades, the position value restores and the endpoint returns error when trying to access it. This causes the bots to crash. What's the solution until bitmex fixes the problem? Make instant 1 contract trades to unlock the endpoint. That 0.001$ loss is the fee paid as taker(necessary to close the "unlock trade" in less than 1 second) and the mathematical loss that come from the 0.5$ of spread between the ask and the bid.
If its a "winning trade" then why does it yield a negative return? Nobody's saying its impossible to profit with a trading bot. UHM, SORRY? I had pages of fights about this. Here's a little extra:  There's a clear difference between "a profit" and "constant profits." You don't even know that you can generate constant profits. Whatever works for you this month might not even work the next. Like I told you, you can point to your backtest data all you want and people can decide for themselves if they want to trust your word or not. Regardless, it comes down to a matter of trust, and absolutely nothing more. Successful traders don't use bots. The best way to become a successful trader is, doing less trades.
The less you trade, the more successful you become.
That's why, the best traders are who do zero trades, hodlers.
Again, clearly not the same thing as saying "impossible." Like I tried to say earlier before TS derailed the conversation, come back when you have several months of verifiable trade history under your belt and then we'll talk again. Imagine someone, unfortunately, kills suchmoon. Police come and take you from your home, exposing you at family, co-workers, and media as the bloody spineless murderer. Even if you have a bulletproof alibi and there are no evidence that you have beaten suchmoon to death, the jury sends you to prison with a sentence: "Meanwhile go to prison, if we catch the real murderer we will get you out of there don't worry." This is what all the CryptoSparks' hunt looks like. This is an idiotic, overly dramatic and non-applicable comparison. Nobody put you in prison, jackass. We're just trying to warn others that you are exhibiting untrustworthy behavior that has more in common with scammers than people offering legitimate services. I'm thoroughly bored now of you arguing in circles with me and am not giving you any more free exposure. Have a terrific day. |
|
|
|
Here's a few "concrete red flags" for you that can be found just in your signature: CONNECT FOR FREE OUR BOT TO YOUR BITMEX ACCOUNT VIA API KEY It might be free to connect but you are also charging people a $10 fee and 30% of all profits. If they make net losses for the month, they still owe you $10, and you lose nothing. SAFE AND SLOW PASSIVE INCOME! You have no guarantee that its "safe" other than your word. "Passive income" is also a term meant to attract a certain audience, mainly those who attempt to profit off Ponzis and MLM schemes. ROI: +495%🔥 This is based on nothing other than your word, and again you are just throwing out a big number in hopes of attracting a special kind of moron. Its a tactic we've seen employed by scammers hundreds of times. Just because you present "backtest data" of something, it does not mean that data was not altered to make things appear in your favor. You have a strong penchant for doing this as has already been demonstrated by you saying you've made 100% winning trades when the very data you've provided says otherwise. It might just be a little lie but it goes to show that you are willing to lie to promote your project. We don't even need to delve into your loan request to present enough evidence to warrant a type 1 flag. Nobody's saying its impossible to profit with a trading bot. What we are saying is the way you are going about promoting it is incredibly shady and you use several sales tactics that overlap with those used by scammers. Nobody needs an intricate knowledge of your business model or the trading process to recognize your behavioral pattern and understand how the crowd that you are appealing to here is the same as that of Ponzi and MLM scammers. You throw out big numbers while saying your service is "safe, free and easy", which is all bullshit backed by nothing other than your word and a handful of verifiable trades. That's what warrants suspicion about your project. Like I tried to say earlier before TS derailed the conversation, come back when you have several months of verifiable trade history under your belt and then we'll talk again. |
|
|
|
Of course it is observable. Objective proof of fraud it is not, just an assumption.
Objective proof of fraud isn't needed for a type 1 flag. I know for a fact others agree with me. Most won't speak up for fear of being the next one targeted arbitrarily in retribution for challenging the hive mind.
I'm open to dissenting opinion, and you're not the only one dissenting. You've just overlooked the others because their existence doesn't fit in with your narrative. And your dissenting isn't even based on an actual analysis of the situation at hand but rather your desire to troll the regular targets. You should probably add CryptoSparks to your trust list as your next move, if you haven't already. After all burning witches at the stake makes you look good and raises your profile. Defending people from the witch hunters is just work that will result in retribution, why would they speak up?
Suchmoon doesn't need to "raise their profile" (whatever that even means) as they - unlike you - have long been considered a voice of reason around here. Unlike you I don't measure my self worth based on the judgements of others
And that's the problem. You measure your self worth based on your own judgments of yourself, which is why you are so out of touch with reality and nobody takes you seriously. but hey maybe if you keep trying to marginalize me suddenly it will work.
You marginalize yourself every time you enter the fray with a bullheaded attitude that is based on little other than the desire to attack your "opponents." |
|
|
|
Did anyone else stop to consider........ this "whistleblower" reportedly got the info 2nd or third hand. Was someone in that chain of rumor a Trump plant ?, passing word of 'there's impeachable evidence over there' ? All with the intent to bait the Dems into their typical spastic feeding frenzy, which in the end, only really bought the spotlight back onto the Biden crimes committed there.
Look over here for bad Trump stuff.
Looks there and only finds Biden bad stuff. (That everyone forgot about)
I think Trump cat-fished the idiot Dems, knowing they'd trip over themselves for "evidence". (While forgetting that they buried the Biden crime), only to re-expose the Biden crimes.
Bad Biden stuff has been out for 3 years, and nothing ever became of it. If something could have, it would have by now. Bad Trump stuff (in the context of Ukraine) has been out for less than a week now and its already been the grounds for an impeachment inquiry. Perhaps one set of bad stuff is actually worse than the other... Just perhaps. |
|
|
|
I think flags disappear after, what was it? 90 or 180 days without support? I haven't read that before. I don't think Flags ever disappear, although type 2 expires after 3 years, and type 3 expires after 10 years. Type 1 is forever! Ah sorry, I must have brain cancer or something. Well, if you don't have at least 1 flag on your Trust page, then you aren't doing anything very interesting... Its kind of like a badge of honor. Unless its active. Then you might be a scammer. Who knows, maybe in the future modifications will be made that allow certain higher ranked members to remove certain types of flags.
I think the option for someone to erase their own flag should definitely be considered, but I'll save expanding on that point for a different thread... |
|
|
|
You would think at this point, these 'investigations' would be illegal. Sure you can investigate someone when there is suspicion of a crime but when does it become harrasment?
I'm sure Washington Democrats would answer that there has been suspicion of crimes all along, and it is their duty to carry out such investigations. Unfortunately for them they are indeed stigmatized with a bit of "Boy who cried wolf" syndrome for constantly shitting their pants about everything Trump has done over the last 3 years. So if something actually damning did happen, nobody is going to believe them. I have yet to see anybody formally accuse Biden of a crime. |
|
|
|
They have found a rather creative solution instead of opening a self-moderated thread. It seems they have done the same thing in the Spectrocoin thread as well. Well, the good news is the shills won't be able to add anything to the conversation any more. They might come invade this thread eventually though. We've already done pretty much everything that there is to be done from a forum standpoint, aka flags & tags. Time to move on I suppose. |
|
|
|
Is there any action at all that be taken against the authors of these vexatious claims? I'd say Opposing the Flags by DT, and maybe excluding the users from their Trust list is enough. They're unimportant to the Trust system. Thank you Loyce. Great advice as usual. I made it clear in a post in a different thread I would not be posting in the Bankera scam and Spectrocoin scam threads again as they were being pushed up with every post however when the sock-puppets posted nothing happened, the thread was regularly languishing around pages 4-6 of the listing. I also sent a request to other users to not post in those scam threads again because of the unfortunate side-effect of pushing the scams to page 1 of the listings. On my part I added all the sock-puppets related to the Spectrocoin scam and the Bankera scam as well as several other scams on my IGNORE list because they were not worth engaging with. Fortunately, now when they post I only see the user name and do not have to read their trash. Sometimes they follow me around and post after me in various threads but at least I do not have to read anything they post. Unfortunately there's nothing you can do to stop someone from opening a flag on you, but as Loyce pointed out, the flags are of little to no importance thanks to the lack of status of the accounts supporting it. Not much more to be done about Bankera at this point anyway! I think flags disappear after, what was it? 90 or 180 days without support? But since the flags against us do technically have support, I don't think they're going anywhere, unfortunately... |
|
|
|
If the guy was fired because of pressure from the US former administration related to the VP's son's affairs, I would like to see him reinstated with full back pay.
This has been overlooked in the discussion, and yet the prosecutor does seem to be an innocent victim in these power plays.
Then again the situation may have been more complex than that and we don't have the whole story. For example Biden may have been confronted with a coercive demand and responded with a bigger coercive demand.
This is a fair and logical viewpoint. Yes, its true none of us know exactly what happened, and its easier to make assumptions and jump to conclusions based on our own political leanings. The way I read thing was the prosecutor was (supposed to be) fired for being corrupt and reasons wholly unrelated to Biden's son, and of course he would say otherwise in an official statement. But we just don't know the whole story at this point. Its going to be hard to find a non-partisan source that can put all the information together without introducing political bias; perhaps impossible. It was personally fun for me to watch Adam Schiff grill Joseph McGuire, from an entertainment standpoint, and I still believe Trump is going to come out of this a lot more battered than Biden, but we can only wait and see what happens next. |
|
|
|
Just watching the Trump whistleblower stuff on TV, watching the stock market fall, watching BTC fall, trying to understand how this isn't all related to Trump being a massive piece of shit.
It's just not. It's a technical move. That's fair, but it could be triggered by real-world events. Bitcoin is the most risky investment in a high-risk category of investments. (Actually altcoins are the very highest). Which means that in a broad market sell-off, BTC would be the first asset to go as far as institutions are concerned. But you're not wrong. So long as BTC remains above $4k we are still in a "bull market." |
|
|
|
Clowns, there will be no ATH, indeed this is the last time we see BTC under 10K, because it will never be above 10K ever again.
Aaaaah r0ach’s d*cks*cker joining the WO thread Or might be r0ach Legendary account In that case sorry for quoting the loser  That's alright. I've seen this guy around. All he ever does is talk shit about other coins; bitcoin included. I guess he really is like roach. But with even less earned merits. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
