Ethereum is a joke. Forget about the censorship and Proof-of-Stake. Over 70% of ETH was premined. That's all the information I need to argue it's less decentralized centralized. Bitcoin has 18,215 nodes, while Ethereum has only 6,347 nodes. So BTC has more validators than ETH, the real validator is the one who run full node, not someone who stake their tokens to earn interest. "Full nodes" play an unimportant role in decentralization, and it'd be my last resort as an argument. Mining is what keeps things decentralized. It's not perfect when miner have full right to decide which transaction to be included on their mined block. Why not? They have right over which transactions they include on their block, not on other miners' blocks. |
|
|
|
I loved these factoids during the time I was a newbie. They seem like tips from old school games, but with the history of Bitcoin and Bitcointalk. However, they have vanished from my account, and I'm not entirely certain why. It could be the uBlock Origin or the ad disabling setting (which was impossible prior to Hero members). This page includes them all: https://bitcointalk.org/adrotate.php?adinfo.
BTW, OP, sent you 10 merits, I hope they suffice for your Senior rank.  |
|
|
|
If they were to come up with mathematical theory and proofs, then I would be convinced but I don't think we are anywhere near that yet. At the moment, no, they can't come up with new theories and proofs. But, they're quite good at analyzing and producing conclusions based on current knowledge (at least the good ones). They're already capable of solving math tests with ten out of ten, and we reached that point in quite small time span. It wouldn't surprise me if they were capable of the former as well within this or the next decade. |
|
|
|
wooden SeedSigner case! That's my taste, right there! Better than both plastic and aluminum. I neither knew about the wooden fiber; I don't have a 3D printer, but I like the aesthetics.  No it's not because there are to many ''random stickers'' for something that is not really random and can be reproduced. My point is that you wouldn't call such a thing "random". You would call it unfair or biased. If you know that heads comes more frequently than tails, then you can predict the final output. If both heads and tails have the same probability, then you wouldn't call it "truly random", just "random" would do fine. I agree that it mustn't be binary, but where do we draw the line between random and non-random? It just seems to me that we don't care if the dice is completely fair-- ergo, random. What matters to us is if it is rolled enough times-- ergo, the entropy generated is sufficient. Therefore, we don't care about being "truly random" or not, we care about minimizing the predictability (maximizing the entropy). |
|
|
|
The macro level is that if everyone has less sMerits and there were far fewer merit sources, the result of having less merit to go around would be that the responsibility on spotting and rewarding good posts increases. And in that case, I'd be more careful with how much I spend. Maybe I stopped sending 4 merits to newbies for just sharing an interesting thought, and so would other merit sources. The result would rather be that high quality posters would just rank up more slowly. Precisely because there's a lack of new users with good posts I believe that we don't need new merit sources. How do you know we lack new users with good posts? I believe we had quite a lot new users who made their entrance in 2022-23, and ranked up pretty fast, as they were worth it. Shitposters, on the other hand, still find it difficult to rank up, as they should. |
|
|
|
I respectfully disagree. If merit sources had too many posts to pick from and less merit they'd be more pressure on them to focus on actually good posts by good members so they can reward their efforts by making them rank up.
I'll speak for myself. If I had less sMerits, I'd simply do what I had been doing before I become a merit source; merit the same posts, but with less merits. I don't feel like I have more pressure on meriting "good posts" now that I'm merit source. Whenever I find an interesting post, I simply merit it. That's all, and I'd say I'm biased to an extent to newbie posts, because I want to encourage them continue their journey and rank up. But on the contrary, for the last few years we've had an oversupply of merit. But now that we have too much of it, nearly no one cares. The whole point of the merit system is mainly to discourage shitposts. Even with an oversupply of merits, it still fits that purpose. It's just that high-quality posters get merited more generously and/or regularly. New users just find hacked accounts to rank their own accounts through local boards and it gets lost in the merit circlejerks of users that have already reached legendary rank. I certainly wouldn't rather to help a user who sees the forum as a milking cow instead of an Internet board, rank up. Why am I the one to blame and not them for being incapable to produce somewhat medium quality content? |
|
|
|
But right now I know that there's an oversupply of merit. Better have an oversupply than an undersupply. I think we have less merit sources comparably to last year, so if someone's going to replace this lack, be it icopress. So it doesn't make much sense at this moment to have even more merit sources in my opinion, especially when there's years worth of backlog for local board merit sources. It doesn't make sense to grant the merit source position randomly, but as far as my experience goes, icopress wouldn't merit uninteresting / minimum value posts. For one, our local Greek board hasn't had even a moderator in months, let alone merit source applications from Greek speakers pending for years! I'm a merit source. And the Greek board is quite dead, I hope we all acknowledge that. I agree that it needs moderation, but this is another discussion.
Merit sources have a responsibility to give merits in an unbiased manner but can we really state as a matter of fact that has been the case throughout? Merit sources are supposed to merit whatever they like. Be it a high quality post, a joke, or a newbie question. That's why we have more than a hundred merit sources; simply because there's no "universal unbiased standard". |
|
|
|
It seems your humorous nature needs a more aggressive avatar! Plot twist jokes are my favorite jokes!  is the tag on the hat that NeuroticFish has now grabbed supposed to mean 'icopress'? That's a captcha right there. |
|
|
|
is there a way to do a rescan so that it can detect the balance, according to the mb limit that you stipulated in prunning? The MB limit (AKA, the max size of block files) has nothing to do with the need for re-scan or the "balance detection", unless you meant something else. When you import a new private key in a Bitcoin client that does not index transactions (with txindex=1), then you need to re-scan the blocks. If, however, you're running pruned node, then re-scanning requires re-syncing, because you don't have all the blocks to perform transaction indexing. So you need to re-download them. |
|
|
|
This:  |
|
|
|
Some people mention pruned mode as solution of storage requirement. While it's true, take note you still need to store at least 550MB of most recent blocks and all UTXO which currently has size about 10GB. Pruned mode generally considered less helpful since it only can share unconfirmed TX and recent blocks. Another thing that needs to be noted is that running pruned node is less flexible. You can't run Electrum server, much less lightning software supports it, and if you ever want to add another (old) wallet, you'll have to re-sync. What's the harm in that? Well, you may for some reason be in a country prohibited from using Bitcoin and authorities run bitcoin nodes just to identify how many are using and equipped with cryptocurrency address tracking software and come after you... If you run Bitcoin Core with onlynet=onion, your Internet provider can't know if you're running Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
I tried it, and it mysteriously works. I have both YT and Spotify premium, let's see for how long. They have probably found a loophole in the services' terms of use, but I'm not entirely confident it's allowed.
|
|
|
|
|
Am I noticing a bit of a hatred on signature campaign managers lately? Some people keep talking about "conflict of interest" between icopress and its hired participants, whereas it's just not true. Usually, merits are counted as a unit to encourage managers hire you. Merits sent by other people, and it's just an indication; managers (or at least, good managers) look on more than that. If the manager likes your posts and overall presence and influence, they'll hire you regardless them being merit source or not.
|
|
|
|
But I find one idea quite compelling to think about, do you think that publicly available artificial intelligence will come to a point where it can be asked for vulnerabilities in the most secure (or rather most pervasively used) algorithms or could it intentionally be fed an information a la garbage-in-garbage-out such that it always provides an answer pleasing the public? This opens up entire conversations that can't be compressed in just a post, but I'd say that as AI models become more sophisticated, they can be utilized for identifying vulnerabilities in cryptographic domains. I'm not entirely sure about the considerations that need to be taken, but I know that we can't rely exclusively on a creation that holds no responsibility for what it produces. (That under the hypothesis that we can't blame the AI developers for an AI false output) I don’t fully understand what is been said here but, my closest deduction is that, models to traceability happens to have changed over the years and one hardly finds a need to wish eliminate traces in fiat or banknotes except when it’s sure to be subject to questioning, laundered money and it’s related means to handling money that raises an eyelid. Even if true, you can't forbid it by invading their privacy preemptively. Everyone is not guilty until proven innocent. |
|
|
|
You can engage in as much appeal to emotion as you want. The fact remains that Craig can't tell what's an unsigned integer[1][2]. If you neither know what these keywords mean, then it might start making some sense as to why you're seemingly treating it as a "small detail". But, for the people with a slight technical competence, that makes a splash. If he can't explain such a simple line of code, then he can't explain the source code, and definitely hasn't ever written it. Copa's and core lawyers don't even dispute that he was the one that provided firewalls and other solutions for big companies in australia , how a fraud can do that ? Did you know that ? I guess not , because then you might had a slightly different opinion if he is a cybersecurity expert How can a cybersecurity expert not know how to code? Oh, and by the way, a better question. How can the Bitcoin creator not know how to code? [1] https://youtu.be/jJ3CoTfili4?t=1863[2] https://youtu.be/jJ3CoTfili4?t=1762 |
|
|
|
Wright probably told his followers they used to work together and that Wright is actually the co-inventor of C++. LMFAO. You're kidding, right? Please tell me that you do. Usually, I'd take this as a joke, but considering the fraudster involved, there is nothing too outrageous to be considered merely a joke. Was his definition wrong or different than what someone would expect ? Umm... Excuse me, but what definition? The guy argues he is an expert in cybersecurity and the person behind Bitcoin, and yet he fails to tell what's an unsigned integer. I really want to know what makes it so difficult for you to connect the dots. My previous link shows what kind of low level ignorant p***e of s**t you are Nobody offended you though. If someone is called to be "low level ignorant", it's you, who's ignoring all the evidence (or completely misinterpreting them). |
|
|
|
That means that if csw is a cybersecurity expert he propably has c++ knowledge .
He doesn't understand what's a static const unsigned int, which is considered basic knowledge for beginners in C++. In fact, you can find the definition of these keywords on probably every programming book there is, beyond C++. Yet, he's a "cybersecurity expert" and has written Bitcoin in above-average C++ code. They add up, don't they?  Lol! Just lol! We will see more about this when c++ creator will be on the stand .
Why would Bjarne Stroustrup, the creator of C++, be called in this trial? |
|
|
|
If BitcoinGirl.Club didn't come first, who did? Was it really a girl this time? Rumors suggest that she came first, if you know what I mean. |
|
|
|
I just applaud for your contributions in this place. Your account is less than two years old, and yet you've radically improved the user experience of bitcointalk, from SMF patches like this one to convincing theymos for a 2FA addition and responsibly disclosing forum security flaws. And all that, voluntarily. You're simply a user example to follow for everyone. It surprises me that copying the code doesn't already exist. In phpbb, there is a similar "Select All" which does the same job for me.
And yes, I just learned something more important than automatically selecting and copying text. Thanks, PowerGlove. [code][/code] [nobbc][code][/code][/nobbc] |
|
|
|
I abruptly feel the need to make a proposal. How about we increase the total Miss Bitcointalk places from next year?  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
