|
SMF bug: split topics are sticky if their origin topic was sticky. I fixed it.
|
|
|
|
|
More categorization never hurts. Many people (such as myself) are not interested in speculation, but are interested in the other things discussed in "Bitcoin discussion".
|
|
|
|
|
Transaction IDs are SHA-256 hashes of transactions. It's very safe to use them as unique IDs, and it's a waste of time to try to detect collisions.
It is possible (though very rare) for the exact same transaction to appear twice in the block chain, however.
|
|
|
|
None of Jessy Kang's posts have been individually deleted. A few of her posts were unfortunately caught in a poorly-advised merge of an ex-moderator of the newbies section. (Moderators no longer have the ability to merge topics due to incidents like this.) I've said myself many times that the newbies section is not optimal, but I believe it to be better than nothing and better than any existing SMF mod. The point of moderators is to remove viagra adds, not shape the discussion, or to have an opinion about someone supporting their arguments (good or bad) with references to their offline qualifications.
The criticism of the newbie section is on topic and salient. A better system has been implemented by many hugely successful open forums such as /., hacker news and others. You needn't heed the well intended advice about the boards organization, but actually moving and locking threads, or expressing *any* subjective opinion by mod-ding is a big no no in anyone's book.
I'll express my opinions freely, and I expect other moderators (and other members) to do the same. |
|
|
|
Even if the thread is literally about people with Bitcoin tattoos?
Yes. No embedded NSFW images, even with a disclaimer. NSFW links are OK if they have a disclaimer. |
|
|
|
|
Well, at least it's out of the other sections.
|
|
|
|
|
Regardless of any laws, potentially-NSFW images should never be embedded on the forum.
|
|
|
|
I believe this is not true. Why did she put the following text in her signature? Why does Atlas keep censoring my threads? Why are Theymos and Maged protecting him?
Those posts were not deleted, though they were merged in a confusing way. (This merge was not something I advocated or was happy about. Atlas is no longer a moderator.) |
|
|
|
Sigh. It sucks it would have to come to that. I already notice the mass amount of hand on modding going on, it will be sad if there is a forum set up just so people can act rude and childish to each other  Great idea. This place isn't enough of a cesspool, let's make it even more like 4chan.
Anonymity does not necessitate a lack of moderation. Those sections of 4chan that are actually moderated are excellent places for discussion. I found out about Bitcoin from a 4chan post. Please post evidence of her 'Trollish' posts.
She strongly advocates an uncensored board... The advantages of having an open forum with censorship limited to true spam, IMHO overrides the inconvenience of some posters having to scroll down the page a little bit.
...and then she wants to get rid of the politics forum. This kind of inflammatory language is very trollish: What side are you on? Are you TRYING to sink Bitcoin?
Excessively criticizing the board as Jessy Kang does is a big red flag, as is constantly using your own offline "qualifications" to back up your arguments. Like I said, though, while she sounds trollish, I don't believe she is a troll. None of her posts have ever been individually deleted. |
|
|
|
|
Jessy Kang has posted some very trollish posts in the past, so I don't blame people for taking her words with a grain of salt. In this case, though, she does make many good points.
This is why serious exchanges of ideas are best done on anonymous boards: neither reputation nor authority get in the way of ideas. Maybe in the future I'll add an anonymous section to the forum.
|
|
|
|
|
I really dislike the idea of showing scores that are universal across the board, as it discourages controversial viewpoints and creates a need for more moderation. A true web of trust would be good, though it could not be a replacement for fixing the moderation system.
|
|
|
|
Specifically?
There are many problems: - Namecoin fixes the cost of registration according to a formula for a long period of time. Price fixing is always a bad idea. - When the price fixing ends, generators will be able to generate all of the good domain names at almost no cost. (This is better than the ICANN DNS, but it should be avoided if it can be.) - Generators will intercept registration transactions and register the domains themselves, holding them hostage to get more money. - Even ignoring the above two problems, domain registration will probably be too cheap. Miners don't care about how cheaply domain squatters can register domains. - To resolve domain names by yourself, you need to download all new blocks. Blocks will grow in size, and eventually the network will become semi-centralized (as Bitcoin will). This can be avoided for resolvers if you're building a separate system, and it's one of the only reasons I see for not building onto the Bitcoin block chain. DNS needs a lot more thought. |
|
|
|
|
Certain configurations of the characters are much less likely than others. It would be better to randomize each character individually.
For my master passwords, I roll physical dice to get the randomness. Less secure passwords can use /dev/random. Additional hashing isn't necessary: /dev/random is already mixed using hashing.
|
|
|
|
|
The Namecoin economic system is broken, so it'll die sooner or later...
|
|
|
|
$t=pack("H*" , $t);
$t=strrev(hex2bin(hash("sha256",hash("sha256",$t,true)))) |
|
|
|
You do concatenate them. Hash this: 010000001d8f4ec0443e1f19f305e488c1085c95de7cc3fd25e0d2c5bb5d0000000000009762547903d36881a86751f3f5049e23050113f779735ef82734ebf0b4450081d8c8c84db3936a1a334b035b If you get a different first hash than I posted, then you're doing the hashing wrong. Maybe you forgot to convert this hexadecimal to binary... |
|
|
|
|
On testnet, mainnet addresses are basically "aliases" of their equivalent testnet addresses. Sending to 1KNHQ7513gVwJv5fG4ucsPgkdb5Ub9UzR6 is exactly the same as sending to mytEhA9yrhwC62ZGydszhJu5VagBZj2z7t. The only difference between these two addresses is the version and checksum: the public key hash is the same.
If you copy your wallet.dat from mainnet to testnet, your receiving addresses will all still be there: they will just have been changed to their "testnet" aliases. The associated mainnet versions will still work for transactions on testnet.
On testnet, there are actually 111 valid ways of expressing of every address. These are all the same:
1KNHQ7513gVwJv5fG4ucsPgkdb5Ub9UzR6
ihtPDNHkrxp8MDkHVEwMWxYG6LRMEvGhC
283VNKfaU3RgwnMqJuaFqeEKtbbN1Q5KFY
2XP6MRxsBDtZmDVvLKuaKmW7X6rJiSaZ9Z
2vihLYG9tQMSaee1MkEtotmu9c7FSBxg9a
3L4JKeZSbapKQ5n6PAaDJ23gn7NCD2x9V1
...
|
|
|
|
The numbers are little-endian and the hashes have their endianness reversed in relation to the hash endianness on Bitcoin Block Explorer. Here's a block that I converted previously: 01000000 version
1d8f4ec0443e1f19f305e488c1085c95de7cc3fd25e0d2c5bb5d000000000000 previous block
9762547903d36881a86751f3f5049e23050113f779735ef82734ebf0b4450081 Merkle root
d8c8c84d timestamp
b3936a1a bits
334b035b nonce First hash is: 0cdb93c3412d2f30eb7d8dfd13d3142eaa8738c0de2337ac8a80c623715d9c07 Second hash is: 1195e67a7a6d0674bbd28ae096d602e1f038c8254b49dfe79d47000000000000 Reverse the endianness and you get: http://blockexplorer.com/block/000000000000479de7df494b25c838f0e102d696e08ad2bb74066d7a7ae69511 |
|
|
|
|
To run Firstbits, you need a complete copy of the block chain. Most nodes will not have a full copy in the future, so you'd have to rely on a central service.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
