|
TrueCrypt uses the system's random number generation facility, so on Linux you can just write to /dev/random.
|
|
|
|
|
If a "serious discussion" section was ever created, image macros (and possibly all embedded images) would be forbidden. However, they are sometimes funny and relevant in less serious threads.
The OP of a topic can forbid image macros in the topic, and off-topic posts should always be removed.
|
|
|
|
|
If the topic post of a topic gives very specific rules for the topic, I will use those rules in addition to the global board policies for that topic. The starter of the topic may not change rules after posting their topic (not even by editing the topic post). Local rules can't specify punishments, though people may be banned for breaking local rules too much.
The rules must be specific enough that it takes less than a few seconds to decide whether a post breaks them. When you report posts like these, you must quote the local rule that was broken. Rules will be ignored if they are not specific enough, or if it takes too much work to enforce them.
It is possible for someone to create a "ruleset" that others can quickly apply to their topics by clearly linking to the ruleset.
(It has always been my policy to enforce local rules, though not many people have created topics with such rules.)
|
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure the wiki is wrong here. The code says: PushMessage("version", VERSION, nLocalServices, nTime, addrYou, addrMe,
nLocalHostNonce, string(pszSubVer), nBestHeight);addrYou comes first. |
|
|
|
|
It's not required by the network for change the go to a new address. The client just does it to improve anonymity.
Whenever an address is removed from the pool, the pool is re-filled to 100. So if you take 10 addresses from the pool, 10 more will be generated to bring the pool back to 100.
There's no way to generate more than one address per transaction with the default client
|
|
|
|
|
Looks like your block database might have been corrupted. Try deleting everything in your data directory except wallet.dat.
|
|
|
|
|
It's a bug if it still does that.
It used to do that because sending yourself sub-cent change would cause the entire transaction to be rejected.
|
|
|
|
|
Kookiekrak has a high degree of fault for any damage done with his compromised account, in my opinion. It's your responsibility to keep your passwords safe.
|
|
|
|
|
His story is strongly backed up by the IP log, so I have given him the account.
The attacker was using IP 96.250.171.11.
|
|
|
|
|
SMF 1.1.13
Prevent Adding Signature Images And Links 1.3
SMF File Manager 2.1.3
Ignore Boards 2.0.1
There are also a small number of custom changes.
|
|
|
|
If someone would write a SMF mod that exempts certain membergroups from certain bans, I would use it... I don't have time to deal with it. If you don't like the current ban behavior, you can write the mod. |
|
|
|
|
Me too. I don't know how to fix it.
|
|
|
|
|
There is a fundamental disagreement about what the purpose of the forum should be. Jgarzik and others want the forum to simply support the "official project". They would, I'd guess, be irritated by any real "community" on the forum.
I see the forum as existing for its own sake. People should come here to participate in the community. It is not my intention to promote (or discourage) coming here just to solve a problem or work on projects.
If you don't like participating in forum communities, or you are annoyed by some of the viewpoints expressed here, then you can go to some other forum/mailing list/newsgroup. You are not "locked in" unless you incorrectly view this forum as an "official arm of the project".
It's probably already settled that forum.bitcoin.org will move to bitcointalk.org, but I'll post my argument against the move anyway. Bitcoin.org has no claim to being "official" other than it being the only Bitcoin domain that Satoshi ever owned. The client doesn't link to bitcoin.org anywhere, and no resources are actually stored at bitcoin.org. It's not even the first Bitcoin forum: the sourceforge.net forum used to be used by Satoshi. Therefore, I see no reason why the developers should take bitcoin.org from the community that has been located here for over a year. The main bitcoin.org page can be treated like a "fan site", or it can have its forum links removed, or it can disappear entirely for all I care.
There exists an unrelated problem with post quality. I've been thinking recently that this is mostly a categorization problem: some people like jokes/chaos, and others like very high-quality posts. So it might be a good idea to create a more highly-moderated forum section. Then we'll have three quality grades: "newbies", the rest of the forum, and "serious discussion". I'm not sure whether the highly-moderated section(s) should be subforums of certain categories that already exist, or a top-level section with possible subcategories.
|
|
|
|
|
IP bans are always temporary, so Tor will become usable again later as long as more people are not banned while using those IPs.
If someone would write a SMF mod that exempts certain membergroups from certain bans, I would use it...
|
|
|
|
|
You can lose cash, too. If you don't want to worry about this, put your money in a bank.
|
|
|
|
|
Don't post topics in the wrong section, for one...
These are some things I look for in a moderator:
- A long history of many accurate reports
- Been around for a long time
- Has many posts that I agree with and consider good quality
- Is respected by the community
|
|
|
|
|
There's no way to enforce a real minimum block size, since miners would just send transactions to themselves, and there'd be no way to detect it.
Adding transactions to blocks has a small one-time cost. It does not increase the cost of every hash attempt. Nowadays you'll make enough from fees for the extra cost to be worth it. Allowing free transactions might increase BTC adoption enough to warrant the tiny cost, though some miners do reject all free transactions.
|
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin will automatically rebroadcast it every 30 minutes or so until it gets into a block.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
