TradeFortress is back. He is posting a lot of messages lately. What's the status on this? How much did he return and how much he kept for himself?
More than 2000 BTC were returned, and 0 BTC belonging to Inputs users was kept by myself. How about very little amounts? Also, I noticed that the domain has expired and has been acquired by other guy? Now I noticed TF is back with new name and trying to built some good again but who is going to give chance now with his money  Hopefully no one is that stupid. I guess we'll see who falls for it, but I'm going to have a hard time feeling sorry for anyone who lets him steal their money. It's not actually TradeFortress. Nobody in their right mind would reuse a "tainted" forum nickname to scam more people, instead opting for a brand new $0.00 nickname with no prior history. The "Free hugs! ♥" account is probably a hacker, as it's just a renamed version of the old TradeFortress account (VIPs can rename their accounts). |
|
|
|
|
This ETF has been inching closer and closer every month for more than a year. I have a feeling that it'll take a few more years before it finally becomes a reality.
|
|
|
|
I'm sure it's just to get his foot in the door with the expectation of being rewarded for it later... or if not I'm sure he'll regret it later haha.
I'd say you're wrong on the former. If he's like me, it's not entirely selfless, but for a different reason: running it ourselves can ensure that everything stays above the board. Spending a week in a campaign and it paying zero due to crashing is worthless. Spending a few minutes a day keeping things running (and being paid when we're supposed to be) is well worth the investment of time. Managing a campaign like this will take much longer than a "few minutes a day". Every week, one must: - Process new sign-ups and users who no longer display the signature.
- Process complaints and feedback from users.
- Ensure posts made were constructive.
- Count posts made for each user.
- Process payments to each user.
This can easily be several hours of work every week. I highly doubt it is worth the time investment. |
|
|
|
Nice to see that Bitpay has got another valuable customer.  They have scored another important point in their competition with Coinbase. BTW... 50 cent is not the first rapper to accept Bitcoin. The honor goes to Snoop Dogg. http://www.coindesk.com/snoop-dogg-sell-record-bitcoinCorrect me if I'm wrong, but Snoop Dogg has yet to actually sell an album for Bitcoin, right? He has just claimed (perhaps jokingly) that he's interested in selling the next one for Bitcoin. Note that he also decided it would be delivered by drone. |
|
|
|
|
One problem I have with the image proxy is how it breaks images without an extension. If an image is served with the right MIME type, such as image/png, it should be proxied even if it has no extension or the wrong extension. Extensions are a very bad way to describe file types over the Internet. MIME types exist for a reason...
This bug breaks useful services such as Google Docs's chart API, which provides the easiest means to include LATEX in posts.
|
|
|
|
Please don't mention the trust thing because it's ridiculous. Click on it to see who gave us this and what was our reaction. As for your comments - open blockchain.info and see how we actually double bitcoin, it's there for everybody to see.
Anyone actually thinking about this "offer": please rather go to some dice/roulette game and just bet on red Our operation is much more subtle than that, there is no reason for us to stop paying since we're making a good business. Here's how your "operation" works, more or less: - Post on BitcoinTalk about a novel means to double Bitcoin risk-free.
- Send to your own address several times and "double" it.
- Claim that your business has been honest and has doubled the fake transactions.
- Once a single real transaction occurs, shut down and take the money.
A blockchain.info link proves nothing about how legitimate your "business" is. Sending retaliatory trust ratings to people calling you out shows how desperate you are. Scams like yours are a stain on the Bitcoin community, so for the sake of us all, please stop. |
|
|
|
There are 33 votes for any option other than "Bits" (such as Microbitcoin, Microbit, Mike, or Micro).
there is no single option saying: 'any option other than Bits' that has 33 votes.. stop trying to manipulate votes. this is like saying this: candidate 1: 10 votes candidate 2: 8 votes candidate 3: 2 votes normal people will say candidate 1 wins due to most votes.. but you will twist it to say an equal number of people disagree that candidate 1 should win simply by combining other votes. leave the votes as they are.. No, it's more like saying: Candidate 1: 18 votes Candidate 2: 16 votes Candidate 3: 17 votes Normal people will say nobody wins, due to no majority. But you twist it to say candidate 1 should win because of more votes than either of the other 2 candidates. Meanwhile, if you held the same poll with ONLY Candidate 1 and ONE of the other two candidates, you might find that most of the people who originally voted for the eliminated candidate would not vote for candidate 1, and instead would place their vote for the remaining candidate. In that case, the MAJORITY don't want candidate 1. This is one of many reasons why this poll is not useful. There were a total of 68 voters. 38 of them (55.8%) chose NOT to vote for "bits" as a replacement word for MicroBitcoin. Clearly, the majority do not accept that new usage that the vocal minority are trying to ram through. I just want to note that the poll is approval voting, not first-past-the-post. So the poll's results do not change if an option is eliminated. A consequence is that options should be compared with the total votes instead of with other bins, so the number of votes for other options is irrelevant to how well a particular option is approved. |
|
|
|
|
Like many who have already posted here, I was paid with the old rates for last week. It seems everyone was affected rather than this being an isolated incident.
For me, there is no rush, but a clarification on whether this was intentional and whether this will be rectified would be helpful. Thanks for understanding!
|
|
|
|
|
It seems voting is slowing down. If we don't get to 100 votes by this weekend, I'll close this poll.
|
|
|
|
No longer possible to vote? I agree with bitcoin, bits and satoshis... The new bitcoin logo could be used for bits and the old one for bitcoins. Satoshis have no logo because he's hidden.
It should still be possible to vote. I'll close the poll when we reach ~100 votes, but if that's too high, I might close it earlier. |
|
|
|
I think that this project is dead. Sadly  Can someone else continue the script ? I could, but his code is quite confusing and I am currently busy with other projects. Are you sure the code is open-source in the first place? I don't see any indication of that in the OP. Greasemonkey projects tend to be notoriously messy because they're supposed to be simple, so the file format lends for single-file spaghetti code. A solution is to compile organized JS code into .user.js files with a custom compiler, but it doesn't seem jackjack did this. In addition, part of the project is server-side and I don't think that code has been released either. |
|
|
|
I am also concerned about the lack of communication. I was told there was a bug that affected investments, and am wondering if it affected the PPC investments. Like other PPC investors, over 98% of the invested amount was lost. For this to be a legitimate win seems implausible, so it would be good if it was investigated and fixed for the future.
Where did you hear about the bug from? I haven't seen anything at all regarding issues. Keep in mind that if there are 1k coins invested and someone bets 500 on a double-up, they can clear the entire investment just by hitting it right on that 50% chance. Right, and I'm pretty sure that's what happened (though max bet should be made a %age, which I think has been done). I'm not complaining if that's the case since there would have been just as much chance of winning big. But there are rumours on Peerbet chat that some other issue was plaguing investments, so it would be good to have a clarification on whether that's the case. |
|
|
|
Hmm. If I had a way to double my bitcoins I sure wouldn't open it to others. It is not logical. It would make more sense for the op to buy a bitcoin then double it. In a mounth he would have 128+ coins. Within a year he'll have over 70K BTC, that's over $40million. So why does he need my money when he can do all this with just 1BTC?
Like every other thread in here, it's an obvious Ponzi. It's extremely likely the "doubled" transactions are all operator transactions. Very few people are stupid enough to fall for things like this. |
|
|
|
|
If you try to time your buys, you're effectively speculating. That's something that one can easily lose money at if not experienced. Randomly or blindly buying and selling guarantees you a zero expectation on average. Doing anything else will get you positive or negative expectation depending on your skill, and if your skill is below the market mean that's likely to be negative.
|
|
|
|
|
I am also concerned about the lack of communication. I was told there was a bug that affected investments, and am wondering if it affected the PPC investments. Like other PPC investors, over 98% of the invested amount was lost. For this to be a legitimate win seems implausible, so it would be good if it was investigated and fixed for the future.
|
|
|
|
|
I think a better idea of this would be a "suggested edit" feature like on StackExchange-type websites. The author will receive a notification when an edit is suggested, can read over it, and then approve the suggestion. This is more powerful than the Grammar Nazi mode because the edits are permanent and used by default.
|
|
|
|
|
Money's a means to living a better life. It shouldn't take precedence over living a good life. What's the value of money when there are no friends to enjoy life with?
|
|
|
|
Good and useful results so far. A lot of insight into what people really feel about units, since there is so much debate about this. I'll let this poll run for a few more days before posting a reflection.
minus 1 not alot of insight.. only 37 voters so far!!!!! That's enough for statistically significant results. We can say with 99.9% certainty, for example, that Bitcoin-bong is a widely undesired unit. Obviously more voters is better, but it's pointless to dismiss these results entirely. |
|
|
|
Hello, I am trying to understand nLockTime. I believe it is an optional attribute, normally not set, on transactions. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Protocol_specificationIf all TxIn inputs have final (0xffffffff) sequence numbers then lock_time is irrelevant. Otherwise, the transaction may not be added to a block until after lock_time (see NLockTime). Were NLockTime points to https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/NLockTimenLockTime is a parameter that can be attached to a transaction, that mandates a minimal time (specified in either unix time or block height), that before this time, the transaction cannot be accepted into a block. I thought I understood, but then I read discussions here, however then I read the following from https://greenaddress.it/en/faq/: But! We have solved this issue by providing nLockTime transactions which essentially make deposits 'expire' after some time, which allows redeeming them without our intervention after this pre-set period of time. It is enabled by default when you have email notifications and two factor enabled.
This allows you to keep your ease of mind even in case GreenAddress.it disappears with its keys.
It also means that every time the funds expire the user has to re-transfer them. This can be automated on login and notified in advance via email or manually done.
Which rather confuses me. Just how does this work? Thanks Basically, GreenAddressIt will send a transaction with nLockTime whenever someone makes a deposit. This transaction sends the funds back to the depositor. The nLockTime transaction effectively acts as a deposit expiry: after this time, it will be included in a block and the depositer will get the funds back. GreenAddressIt works by using multi-factor transactions. Both the user and GreenAddressIt must sign for a transaction to be made from deposited funds. This allows the recipient to disregard the possibility of a double spend since GreenAddressIt has to authorize a double spend, which it won't do if the site is honest. To prevent a database loss or owner disappearance from destroying the funds, the nLockTime transactions are made returning funds to the depositor's address. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
