|
Why would you pay that much for just a collectors item? Its not spendable.
|
|
|
|
Don't feel bad, I made the same mistake when I first started playing around with bitcoin. My no fee transaction of 0.0001 took about a month and a half to finally get a confirmation  Didnt we all?  @OP congratulation on your double spend[1], may it be the last time you have to do this. [1] https://blockchain.info/address/1Q7oKMukDDFh4u3pQfsRT82j63qnK6GMpm |
|
|
|
-snip- Could just be a place perhaps to hang around and congratulate ourselves. Strato Yay, Hero circlejerking. -snip-
is not the case of satoshi...
obiouvsly...
but there are a lot of users farmed with 0 posts/activity....
do you think if they stay 45, 90 or 180 days without accesing/posting,
they will become active in one or two years?
i think not...
In fact, I have seen it. People starting posting again after 1 year of absence and why not? I can perfectly imagine that this board is no longer interesting / appealing to a person, they focus on something else and return after a long break. -snip- I agree there are honest newbies because everyone was a newbie once , even satoshi. But honest newbies would never run a Ponzi would they? SO that's of no use for them  That's why I think its fair enough to prevent newbies to post in the investor-based games I had people argue that there is such a thing as a honest ponzi. Apparently everything is a matter of perspective and from some perspective ponzis that openly say they are one are considered some form of legit gambling. I have problems with this view, but who am I to tell the world what to see. To repeat myself somewhat shorter. This forum is very open in many ways and restricting access here would IMHO destroy that. |
|
|
|
Might be due to the fact that they generate a lot of low value posts, just like giveaways in Games and rounds. It is possible. I reported it one or two times but report was probably ignored or marked as bad. So want to know the reason. Thank you! Also, when new faucets and faucet rotators are released, they spam in Beginners and Help. It doesn't look right IMHO. Any reason why no action is taken? Many things fit into beginners and help, faucets included. I recently saw MiningBuddy clean the section though. I would still report it, regardless if it gets moved or not. We dont know how most reports are handled anyway. The rare exception is when you report a post and a mod takes action a few seconds later. Makes me want to hi5 them sometimes. |
|
|
|
I am considering making both full avatar and add-on rates the same, so that participants will be more encouraged to wear the add-on. Rate will be around 8% then. What do you think? Actually I dont think that is a good idea. Are you willing to drop the avatar campaign to be add on campaign instead? Because if you are going to make the rate for both the campaign the same then there will be no more reason for someone to give up his own personal avatar spot anymore isnt it? all participants who wish to participate will be wearing the add ons instead since they got the same rate. I think that's the point, so people do not make their entire avatar the company but the option is still there for those doing it out of goodwill. That is correct, that is why Im asking if ndnhc will be dropping the avatar campaign to be add on campaign instead since there will be no different in payment rates then of course people will not be willing to use the full avatar . Well, the point was to encourage people to pick up dadice add-ons instead of giving up full avatars. Point taken. Im personally not a big fan of avatar campaigns, but this is probably because I got used to identifying posters by their avatar. Now that changing them is possible, it happens regularly and its harder to identify someone by their avatar. Besides that I would still offer both versions. If you want to see more add-ons offer the same rates as it discourages using the full version. On the other hand offering the full version regardless gives those have no avatar they want to uses an option to just select one from a list. If you want to encourage full avatars offer a higher rate for them. |
|
|
|
This is getting weird.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eacxC3D4uoNeed some definitions of spam or insubstantial posts.
I hope opinions are fine as well. Should a campaign kick out members who do:
1. Forced posting? (i.e. making constructive posts for the campaign alone)
I wonder how you would detect that. This would imply that you could somehow reveal the intentions someone has when posting. I dont think this is possible and wild assumption would only get people pissed of. 2. Make posts that he usually do but are not exactly constructive.
I would not force someone to change their posting habits. Maybe talk to them about those cases and discuss a different pay rate. This would certainly require more work unless you could settle for a general terms, e.g. -10% off on all posts, but the unconstructive ones still count. 3. Somewhere in between constructive and not constructive.
Since there is no fine line I would give them the benefit of the doubt and allow them to improve. Tell the participant openly what you think could be improve or what should be avoided in the future. 4. Kicked by another campaign for spamming. But does not seem to be spamming as per the views of this manager?
In this case its probably a good idea talk to the manager what exactly they thought was spammy. It might be possible that the spammy posts had been removed by mods or the user in question. Obvious spams are easily found and removed. But I am having trouble with the above ones. Thanks |
|
|
|
what are you trying to do by making ASICs obsolete (make everyone use a CPU?).
It seems like that wouldn't be fair to the people who can't afford to mine profitably with a CPU. Perhaps the AI should create algorithms that are CPU resistant. Then we can make everyone use pencil and paper! I dont think thats fair for those that cant afford pencils or paper. The algorithm should be solveable in human minds only. Its the only way to achieve true decentralization. This is mean to be sarcastic and fun. |
|
|
|
I created a wallet in blockchain.info android app. I bought 0.2830 BTC onto my new address. Then I made another address, tried to send 0.0001 BTC to that address (without a fee / 0 fee). Now it stays unconfirmed as you guessed. I just wanted to kind of test sending btc between addresses.
The problem is I want to send larger payments with a fee to another address but blockchain.info android client says "No free outputs to send". Why is it that if I have one unconfirmed transaction all of my btc address balance becomes unusable?
Because you only have the single input to spend. Think off it like you received a 0.2830 BTC bill and now you try to spend 0.0001. You have to use the entire 0.2830 BTC bill for that. Once the transaction is confirmed you will be able to use the change. I have now spent multiple hours reading and searching the internet for some quick solutions to this problem. But as I am relatively new to bitcoins (although I have IT and Computer Science background) I have not found a step by step guide.
There is no quick solution, there is no easy solution either, besides waiting. You can either try to export the private key from your wallet into another wallet and try to double spend the transaction or wait. Regarding the time you have to wait, it depends, but the rule of thumb would be 1 bitcoin needs to wait 1 day to go through without a fee, you try to spend 1/10,000 of that, thus the prediction is that you have to wait 10,000 days. Keep in mind that its a rough estimate and you might only take a week or month etc. I read that it may be possible to export my wallet from blockchain.info app to another wallet and try to send all of my account balance to some new address, which would invalidate the unconfirmed 0.0001 transaction, but as I have not found a step by step guide I do not feel confident doing that.
Nothing you can do will invalidate the transaction you created, you can only hope that the network forgets about your transaction. This indicates that most of the network forgot about your first transaction. Thus once bitcoin core is synced you should be able to double spend your TX. |
|
|
|
Hi, i have been advised that my trust is 0 when from my account i have a different view. This is what i see:  this is what other people see:  how can i fix this? Thanks in advance You can not influence how others modify their trust lists. E.g. if I put Alice on my trust list and Alice gave you a negative rating I would see you with a warning. Since not everyone uses the same list - most use DefaultTrust with depth 2 - its impossible that everyone will see the same rating unless you have no rating at all. tl;dr: there is nothing to fix. |
|
|
|
Well I was quite baffled as to how it is calculated, because in the past few days I reported posts that I think were unrelated to the OP itself, and after waiting for several hours, my accuracy is still at 0%. However, I checked it again when I reported another post that is unrelated to the original discussion, and there it is displayed that I am 100% accurate with regards to my reports. So far I have reported 5 posts (and it was an achievement for me, yes) with 100% accuracy.
It just takes some time for mods to actually handle your report. While the reports are not handled (some reports might never get handled) they do not influence the accuracy. |
|
|
|
-snip-
well my intention was not say that it could break sha256, but all i want to said, is that it could break 128 key, that's it, there is nothing flawed about my logic
But you are using the "QC can break[1] 128 bit asym-crypto" argument to say that any 256 bit key can be broken by a QC, which is nonsense. Firstly it only applies to asymmetric crypto. Secondly bitcoin is more than just pubkey and private key, it also involves hashes which are - for all we currently know - immune to QC as there is no known algorithm to reverse the calculation and a QC is not faster at calculating hashes either. [1] break as in brute force well it's true that you can retrieve a 256 key form a 128, i posted a link telling that, but it's not that easy to do anyway did you read this? "With a quantum computer, you could easily deduce the private key corresponding to a public key. If you only have an address, which is a hashed public key, the private key is safe. Anyway, to spend a transaction, you need to send the public key. At that point you are vulnerable, but the attack is not straightforward."unless he talking bullshit(i don't think so, because he made a tl;dr from many quotes, from users here on bitcointalk, and they seems to know what they are talking about) read this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=133425.0"I don't think you understand his point. Yes QC could (in theory) be used to determine the private key FROM the public key. However with Bitcoin the address isn't the public key it is a structured hash of the public key. The public key isn't known until the first time Bitcoins are spent from a given address.
"if you reveal your public key there are chance that they can steal your coins again "Well, even that isn't entirely true with how Bitcoin uses public key encryption. Simply publishing a single bitcoin address doesn't actually publish the private key, it publishes a structured hash of the public key. The actual public key isn't published until the first time funds are spent from that address. If SHA-256 is subject to being brute forced into collisions by a quantum computer, a different hashing algo may not be, and that could be used instead. If you use a new address for each transaction, which is how bitcoin does it by default and really is a best practice, it would be very difficult for a quantum breaker to steal your coins.
"not impossible Yes, you would have a possible race condition and how well you are connection to the network would be very important. The attack you are talking about here assumes that Eve (attacker) gets the pubkey from Alice (user) before Bob (miner) confirms the transaction. Not only getting the public key, but also calculating the private key from it and creating a competing TX. Thus Eve would have to be in control of all peers Alice is connected to and all nodes Bob is connected to in order to make this a very likely success. If only a single node (of those connected to Alice) is not under Eves control the TX Alice creates will most likely reach Bob before Eve's. This is a big problem, but it does not mean bitcoin is broken. It makes every single transaction risky until the problem is fixed though. Depending on the costs to run a QC, this does not seems cost efficient even when possible. Once the first QC's are capable and start messing with TX I suspect[1] someone has a hardfork solution in some drawer. [1] actually I have no idea how realistic this is, but considering that we have at least a decade Im positive. |
|
|
|
Hello im a noob, I have downloaded Bitcoin-qt wallet and bootstrap.dat torrent. I have placed bootstrap.dat in %appdata$/Bitcoin. The wallet doesnt recognize the file.. what do ?
Why do you think it does not recognize the file? There is no "Im using the file now", it just starts syncing. |
|
|
|
-snip-
well my intention was not say that it could break sha256, but all i want to said, is that it could break 128 key, that's it, there is nothing flawed about my logic
But you are using the "QC can break[1] 128 bit asym-crypto" argument to say that any 256 bit key can be broken by a QC, which is nonsense. Firstly it only applies to asymmetric crypto. Secondly bitcoin is more than just pubkey and private key, it also involves hashes which are - for all we currently know - immune to QC as there is no known algorithm to reverse the calculation and a QC is not faster at calculating hashes either. [1] break as in brute force |
|
|
|
-snip-
It's ridiculous that it's constantly happening. If people constantly have to ask you have a serious design flaw, but I don't expect the fucking morons around here to understand that.
Well, its not like you are going to get blockchain explorers removed just because they are badly designed. They serve a purpose after all and I wouldnt want to miss them. I think your expectations towards them (the blockchain explorers not the users) are a bit high. |
|
|
|
-snip-
I think thats an interesting idea. Ill likely make Hero in 2.5 months, but back to the idea.
Having either a X Member Level or higher area OR giving members the option when creating original threads to only allow X Level or higher to access could be interesting.
Just an idea. But really this in and of itself stifles the concept of sharing information.
Perhaps just a "Hero's Lounge' would be nice.
Strato
I wonder what you would want to discuss with Hero Members that is not interesting for other members. I think the discussion would lack interesting inputs from those that do not post that much here. Some very smart people post from a Jr. Account. Why would you keep them out of your discussion? They are limited to a post every 360 seconds in case you forgot how awful long that is, create a new account and try to participate in a discussion. Even Jr. Members are still significantly limited.
...for as I see it, this limit could be incremented.... without problem... i mean for newbee and Jr. Membert too... I personally think its low enough already. and another thing...
why introduce something like this:
if account is inactive for 180days, this value could be optimized,
mods bann it.
this is my 2 satoshi...
What does that have to do with the topic at hand? How would someone that is only active occasionally be a spam problem? Why 180 days? You would ban satoshi, just because they have not been around for a while. I see no good reason to ban someone for taking a lengthy break. -snip-
Definitely, TOR is not the problem. As a lot of users said "the spammer or scammer" will not stop to make their action against the newbie users also if the registration through TOR will be disabled. It does not exist a real solution to this problem, because the problem itself cannot be resolved (only with the continuing ban of farmer accounts).
Exactly, banning Tor its not a solution as Tor is not the problem here. Its not even helping as cheap VPNs are easy to get. Even without that, one can just register accounts in bulk from a "clean" IP. |
|
|
|
-snip- actually I have reported *1706 posts  , I wanted to say "in these last months (february-march) I reported those 200 posts but my accuracy is still immovable at 86%". Sorry if I was not clear in my previous post. * You have reported 1706 posts with 86% accuracySince I already have a spreadsheet up, I did the calculation again. 1469 good vs. 239 bad turns out to be 0.8600702576% and thus barely over 86%. To reach 87% you need to get to 1600 good vs. 239 bad, or 131 more good ones without a single bad one. Again ignoring unhandled. |
|
|
|
If I reported a post which was against the forum rules and it gets removed, I should get an increase in my Report post accuracy, should I not? But I don't see it happening every-time. I report a post and check whether it was removed or not and when it does, I check my accuracy but it does not gets increased every-time?  It happened just now, reported a post, it got removed, no increase in accuracy? If you report posts rarely, your rating may increase immediately. If you report a lot of posts, it will take sometime. I don't know the fomula used to calculate this. I guess theymos hasn't posted it here. .... and what about me, reported +200 posts ans still 'blocked' to 86% ? The reports are marked good or bad, but in this case I do not know if my reports were ignored because my report accuracy is still immovable at 86%. I did the calculation in the past, but I could not find the post. So Ill just do it again with your numbers. 200 reports 86% good, thats 200*.86 = 172 good reports and 200-172 = 28 bad reports. We assume there are non unhandled. That happens and they dont count towards your percentage, but towards the number of total reports. In order to reach 87% you need to make a total of 188 good reports, or 16 more, without a single bad report. Edit: If we do those again with mine (3293 @ 95%) and take the same assumptions, I have 3128 good and 165 bad reports. In order to reach 96% I would need to make a total of 3960 good reports while still only having 165 bad reports, thats 832 good reports with a single fail. Edit2: Thus its prefectly normal for the percentage number to change almost never. It took me several months to go from 94% to 95% and I remember there was one bad report and I was down to 94% for a few months again. The moral of the story? Care less about those numbers as long as the one on the left increases and the one on the right does not drop drasticly. |
|
|
|
If I reported a post which was against the forum rules and it gets removed, I should get an increase in my Report post accuracy, should I not?
Nope. Depending on the number of reports you write, the number barely changes. But I don't see it happening every-time. I report a post and check whether it was removed or not and when it does, I check my accuracy but it does not gets increased every-time? It happened just now, reported a post, it got removed, no increase in accuracy? How many reports did you write in total? If I reported a post which was against the forum rules and it gets removed, I should get an increase in my Report post accuracy, should I not? But I don't see it happening every-time. I report a post and check whether it was removed or not and when it does, I check my accuracy but it does not gets increased every-time? It happened just now, reported a post, it got removed, no increase in accuracy? If you report posts rarely, your rating may increase immediately. If you report a lot of posts, it will take sometime. I don't know the fomula used to calculate this. I guess theymos hasn't posted it here. its (good reports / all reports).floor -snip-
I don't think there is a special formula used here as if you report 100 posts and 70 are considered valid, your accuracy is 70%.
Exactly, besides the number is rounded down, thus 70.999% is still 70% |
|
|
|
Seriously, all of these "my BTC was sent an address I don't know" posts are ridiculous. It's like at least once a week about change addresses.
Whats so ridiculous about those questions? Its a hard to grasp concept that bitcoin comes in lumps and is not just a balance where one can deduct a certain any amount. The questions only shows that most wallets do a very good job in hiding the details of the implementation from the user and that blockchain explorers are an unreliable tool when trying to assess a wallet. |
|
|
|
What is the difference between Tails, and using Ubunutu Live DVD?
Sorry I am not familiar with Tails at all, and Linux in general.. Aside from some old aircrack experiments a few years ago ;D
Edit - Hence why I chose Ubuntu, seemed like the like most user friendly form of Linux. Although I am not opposed to trying other ones.
More information about tails: https://tails.boum.org/Tails is a live operating system, that you can start on almost any computer from a DVD, USB stick, or SD card. It aims at preserving your privacy and anonymity, and helps you to: use the Internet anonymously and circumvent censorship; all connections to the Internet are forced to go through the Tor network; leave no trace on the computer you are using unless you ask it explicitly; use state-of-the-art cryptographic tools to encrypt your files, emails and instant messaging. ...and most importantly it comes with electrum (1.9.8)[1]. There is no extra step. Its based on debian same as ubuntu. [1] https://labs.riseup.net/code/issues/6739 |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
