$1900 at Finex again, $8 short of ATH  Another day, another ATH. Meanwhile, true Bitcoin holders be like: 
On the other side of the Spectrum, "altcoin bagholders", "propagandists", and "paid shills" are like: "Look at the mempool!!! Bitcoin is dead!". 
I'll get a little excited if we break $2k on Bitstamp and stay there. |
|
|
|
PS: I don't have time to reply false accusation from those but-heart who got denied or blacklisted from bounties due to their own rule breaking and now creating newbie accounts and start spread shit.
If you have failed to inform your participants of said change, you are also partially to blame. I don't see any "false accusation". Please Taas team update the community about this accusation. Trust is everything in crypto and bounty are serious matter in this world.
They are refusing to post here. They have PM'd me, but their PM's aren't exactly useful. Even negative trust would harm Taas investors not their team. I leave it to Lauda if he wants to give negative trust or not.
Letting such shady behavior slip harms the whole ecosystem by setting a bad precedence. It is perfectly clear that, as per what was written in the thread, they were to pay 2% of the sold tokens (with a 100k minimum) for said bounties. I'm utmost confident that almost all, if not all, participants of said bounties have participated with this number in mind. |
|
|
|
Really, increasing the block size seems to have no drawbacks to me.
Then you do not understand anything. Let's start with the crucial one: 1) DoS attack vector due to quadratic validation time O(n^2) at 2 MB. You are able to construct a transaction/block that takes longer than 10 minutes to validate, essentially preventing others from catching-up to you. 2) Increased orphan rates. 3) Increased node centralization/decreased node count. 4) Increased mining centralization (direct effect of the 2 above). 5) Risk of chain-split.
There's probably more, but these are the first ones that come into mind. Just keep the blocksize the same.
Explain. You can scale Bitcoin to a fair extent without modifying the block size. Segwit -> Schnorr + Signature aggregation -> LN/sidechains/TumbleBit/Mimblewimble.
I just noticed this wall at Bitstamp:  |
|
|
|
-snip-
This is no longer relevant to the campaign. Do not create any more posts of said type as they will be removed right away. If you have evidence that someone is abusing signature campaigns, open a thread in the Reputation section. If your evidence is adequate, then said person and his/her alt account will get negative ratings. |
|
|
|
Lauda I know I touched your soft spot, it's okay
I am still waiting for the details. When are you going to post them?
I wanted to post another image, but that may be seen as *touching my second soft spot*. |
|
|
|
My internet is slow today and I have double posted in one thread and quickly deleted it. If it still counts as one post kindly disregard the payment for that.
I think it should get discounted as the bot also uses your ending post-count. In either case, it's a non-issue. 1: You are banning many people in the forum and Added SMAS list. Who has ban for your posts in repeated which has been created likely same 50 page in Bitcoin discussion, Economics and etc..
That sentence does not make sense. What do my posts have to do with anything? 2: Why did you added me in campaign blocked list. I didn't spam, I didn't do irrelevant post, I followed everything.
Your posts are sub-average. I clearly stated that you should not be posting about personal bans in this thread. 3: I know the campaign manager who has many alt accounts, If you are ready block, I have Skype and PM reference. I will white wash everyone.
What does some other campaign manager with alt accounts have to do with me and my campaign? Open a thread about them in the relevant section. 4: I request first you have follow the rules you have been created. I have reference for that as well.
I am not tied by Bitmixer campaign rules. I am not a participant of this campaign. Last, Being a good role in the forum, but you are having kind of words "bitch" in your personal text. Therefore, maintain decent behavior in the forum.
I am free to post and act in any way that I feel fit (as long as I obey the forum rules et. al.). |
|
|
|
There's only one thing in my mind when I see you post:  |
|
|
|
A total 2%, but not less 100,000 (equal of 100,000$), of the TaaS Tokens sold during ICO are reserved for the whole Bounty Program (the Bounty Pool can be increased if we cross the limited target ) read : " IF" LIMITED = Maximum cap $101.000.000 or 9000 BTC. but at the end of ICO, TaaS fund just raised $8M.also its already expalined on whitepaper. see below..  http://taas.fund/media/whitepaper.pdfread : " UP TO" Those two descriptions are completely opposite. "Up to 100 000" and "not less 100 000" are on two opposite sides. This seems like a sneaky deception worthy of a negative rating. |
|
|
|
|
Unless the screenshot is fake, then Jamal isn't at fault here. He is merely incompetent for letting the team do this and not informing everyone affected by it on time (unless I've missed such a post?).
From what I understood, the plan was to use 2% of the sold tokens for the bounties with a minimum of 100 000 tokens (regardless of how much was sold). After the 2% ended up being more than 100k, the team suddenly changed this number by cutting it down to a fixed 100k. I see these "other expenses" only as some excuse. If someone compiles a list of accounts owned by TaaS team, I'll probably tag them all until this is made just.
|
|
|
|
Yup, i asked him to send back btc but he says to wait for tx to get confirmed
It may take up to ~14 days before the network "drops" this transaction. In that case, the money will be returned to the sender.
This is really irresponsible use of Bitcoin, i.e. setting such an absurd fee-rate. |
|
|
|
No, Satoshi thought about increasing the block size few months after end of 2010, but now Core devs and Bitfury are blocking this.
How to be an idiot 101: Paraphrase statements that were made prior to 7 years worth of research and experience. I am about to go and check blockchain to see which pools are mining their own transactions and which ones care for users to include their txs all the time and if I see BU pools are doing it then every body supporting them should be punished by the majority before it's too late.
No matter what some "BU pools" are doing, the people paid to support them will continue. You seem to be under a misconception that there are a lot* of *real* users in the pool of BU supporters. Old and regular users are already frustrated with this and newbies are getting turned off waiting for confirmation.
Wrong. Whilst it can be a *pain* for new and relatively uneducated users, it has no effect on my way of transacting. |
|
|
|
If you consider this: Fee per byte 3.888 sat/B, it is likely that this transaction will never confirm. We had a deal, i asked him to pay first, but i've not received it, so how can i send him the goods for that?
Don't. |
|
|
|
I think bitcoin network just need more miners so it can sustain the network of bitcoin and to continue working. The only problem for the bitcoin is the volume of transactions that has been done by a lot of new users and the miners are struggling on how to confirm all of those so having a lot of extra miners will help the bitcoin network to be fine again.
Bullshit. You are a classic signature spammer. I'm not an Unlimited fan, but this just sounds horrible when I read it.
Bitcoin Unlimited is a disaster, and this has been proven with constant exploits being found in their *production ready* software. A functioning Lightning Network doesn't even exist yet, and there are still serious questions about the centralized nature of it, patents by Blockstream, and the outright corporate take-over of bitcoin.
Complete and utter bullshit. LN is already working and there have been several transactions on both test-nets and main-nets (see Litecoin). There are no patents of Blockstream related to it. And Segwit is a horrendous hack.
Again, bullshit. Segwit is not a "horrendous hack". This is propaganda made up by people with no technical knowledge, see Jonald as an example. Finally, bitcoin could function fine with a simple fork to a bigger block size, with a one-line code change.
No. DoS attack vector due to O(n^2) validation time (among other things). Or, we could wait around another 6 months for the mempool to become unmanageable, and let Unlimited hard fork the network, which could unleash total mayhem.
UASF to Segwit, then: 1) Schedule a minuscule block size increase HF. 2) Prepare Schnorr and signature aggregation. 3) LN, sidechains, et. al. |
|
|
|
Jamal Aezaz is the campaign manager of that ICO. A total 2%, but not less 100,000 (equal of 100,000$), of the TaaS Tokens sold during ICO are reserved for the whole Bounty Program (the Bounty Pool can be increased if we cross the limited target).
Total TaaS sold in ICO were around 8,000,000 . so bounty pool should be around 160,000 TaaS. Now here's what Campaign manager is saying now- only 100,000 TaaS tokens will be paid for bounties. 2% was reserved for all bounties, included press releases, icolisting sites.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1775766.msg18991230#msg18991230If the initial agreement was 2% of the total, which equals around to ~160k (as per the number sold) and now he (or they) suddenly reduce it to 100k, then they indeed did effectively scam you.
I'll see whether they will respond to this accusation soon. If not, I'll tag. |
|
|
|
Is there opening for me to join this campaign?
1) It clearly says "[OPEN] in the campaign thread. Is that so hard to read/understand? 2) You would likely get banned within 7 days of joining due to your post-quality. |
|
|
|
Banning Round 27: deathcode**
vs2014**
futureofbitcoin**
mnporter2001**
silverduck**
fitty
Krabby**
Dragonkiller**
BlackMarket**
apoorvlathey
hologram
pozmu
youdamushi
mimini0147
u9y42
AngelSky
btcforall777**
gordoh
['*] - A campaign rule has been broken. [**] - Permanently banned.
If you have questions regarding your ban (or other personal questions), then PM me. Do not post non campaign specific / personal issues here. Read the following before wasting my time: [Forum / Campaign] Why have I been banned? Posting guidelines. |
|
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Hello.
I am one of the escrows for the NVO-ICO. The 2-of-3 multi-signature address for this project will be:
3AiGej11G8jUXvEBPvQKPLiHXC7ruUCp1Z
Lauda,
17/05/2017
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJZHJdIAAoJEPTjrTxS+ZrbuQcH/ia4aFdQQe9+p6EnuuYed7gY
eubk16Pkzx21l8JcljJYadIDYW51TI76IukSFwYmoLfG3HoRTexwD02ZYa0bA4oO
cm4kaikbf3U9CU32uJ6jklthpc8HbrLs2H+BJMrcA/1dofQKhXntDHUqPQFuTqlR
JitQ3uzLlJ1OFyiRXOpO5kvSD1lGLUS2rXugULZrXZExT0xcA39j+du9QfdC/26N
lFl9y/HA+XSRgf618dSPmxpv6JtORtERvS4kklZvVFIjIxuNy/+kwE2t1qO1Xz1Q
x2UBkbGATrw3MYPbck5TLdcbLNOdX3321r2K8YY7K2CKNCe4zbP0td+gKTPQLEc=
=n++w
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Note: The previous address posted is not valid. |
|
|
|
-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
may 15 2017 minerjones address for bitcointalk.org staking
-----BEGIN SIGNATURE-----
13DXoSQN7UDuxx7kokCPQMyQmvyEyoa3YU
ICTL5pYcwmSHKZCD/TDkQ3DRig+0RyQlg6pEVB6//tJXXlRbztcbmtKCaq0NGKwTTTW1q6ZVr/ka3xJ0COjh9JI=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Verified with Bitcoin Core 0.14.0. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
