Watching an image (or a film) is not the same as "making it" (this does not mean I am condoning that).

The serious issue here is not at all associated with the selling of images or videos but with the making of them.
(as bad as such things are you can't claim that 1K people watching such a thing hurt the child more than 1 person watching it)

And I think everyone here knows that the vast majority of such material has been paid for in USD (so ban that first please).

It is possible to use the OP_RETURN method to add up to 80 arbitrary bytes to a transaction although I'm not sure if any wallets let you easily use this yet.

Firstly - use the "Watchlist" feature (and once you've got used to doing that never bother clicking on "Show new replies to your posts" ever again - as you can't control that unless you delete all your posts from the topics you don't want to bother with any longer).

By using the Watchlist feature you can later just "unwatch" any topic that is starting to be trolled and annoy you (the link is in the same group as the reply link is at the top right or bottom right of the list of posts).

Secondly - use "self-moderated topics" (like I've done with this one). The trolls actually don't want to waste their time making posts that they know you'll just delete (so they generally don't - and it's easy enough to delete their rubbish as quickly as they post it).

Thirdly (and I'll be doing this shortly) - lock your topic if you're going to bed (you can unlock it the next day if you want the topic to continue). This way you don't need to wake up to a bunch of troll posts that you need to delete (a much more pleasant experience).

Also - even if you forgot to make your topic "self-moderated" you can still lock it (link is at the bottom left of the screen).

This forum is thoroughly infested with trolls (more so than any other forum I've ever used since the 1990's) so I hope these three points can help to make your experience less annoying/frustrating.

Also around 95% of all posts on this forum are now just plain rubbish (so don't be disappointed if you get zero intelligent posts from any topic that you create - that is now the norm - the point of this forum is seemingly just for nonsense posters to earn pennies with ad sigs or for scammers to fool greedy idiots to fund ICOs rather than to support any intelligent discussion about anything).

Oh - and when you've got to my level of success you'll find that the trolls will actually try and parody your topic (so you might expect to see another topic just like this one created by someone trying to troll me). Take that as a form of flattery that obviously you must matter so much to such idiots that they feel the need to try and parody you.

Assuming we are talking about the CF AT all the funds are returned to the senders (minus a small fee per sender for AT processing which goes to the block minter).

Being a "smart contract" (and one that hasn't been found to be able to be hacked unlike the DAO issue with Ethereum) the funds can't be stolen.

I would agree that the amount of effort required in order to get such things written and working "as expected" is far from trivial (even with such a tiny program such as the Crowdfund example I posted).

However it really isn't that much different to writing critical code for other things (such as medical equipment or software for spaceships) so I don't think it is without precedent (but is perhaps quite alien to the vast majority of programmers).

Rushing into writing complex "smart contracts" (and putting them in charge of millions of dollars worth of tokens) is not a good idea. This is a new and emerging field that is most likely only going to improve through a lot of unfortunate mistakes.

It's not "data" but "code" and numerous instances of this code has been running on the Qora and Burst blockchains for well over a year (it is how much of the development funds have been raised).

Details of AT itself can be found here: http://ciyam.org/at/
(it is highly technical documentation)

Yup - a racist bigot as I thought.

(now have we have finished "trading" insults?)

Whilst this probably won't be understood by nearly anyone on this forum the AT CF code is as follows:


This is AT machine code (there is no high-level language for AT at the moment and after the DAO bungle we aren't in any hurry to add one), however, it has been in production for well over a year (without a single issue being reported from two separate blockchains that are using it).

It is *minimal* and incredibly efficient (it doesn't even basically do any executing until the CF expiry time is reached).

I don't think that Turing complete smart contracts are impossible to do right but they are extremely difficult to do right and so should IMO at this stage be limited to very small things like the example above (and tested for every feasibly possible scenario).

Not sure why on earth you are talking about an "inconvient truth" - you do realise that I am a white Australian don't you?

Charging fees to yourself is identical to having no fees in terms of bot trading (and if you can't grasp that then I can't help you).

Because of bot trading and lack of any credible oversight pretty much *all* Bitcoin exchange volume figures should be taken with a grain of salt (perhaps the Winklevoss one being an exception).

No serious trader (professional or otherwise) would put much faith in any of the figures coming out of such exchanges (whatever country they are being hosted in).

Am surprised you didn't know this (as this is the reason why the Chinese exchanges are "bashed" all the time about "fakery").

I don't have any inside information but what I can say for sure is that I know someone that had "Asks" on BTCC a couple of days ago when it very briefly hit over 5K RMB (maybe only for some minutes with the Asks having been set up many hours before).

If the exchange was not legit then how would someone I know manage to have got the "top selling price" of the day (or near enough to) without being part of the scam (and no - they are not working for the exchange)?

The big story about a mobile (or cell if you prefer) phone creating an explosive event at a gas/petrol station originated from Indonesia but no actual evidence of any such event was ever found (just circle-jerk reports).

Just like stories about the Aussie con-man being Satoshi the media just fed of its own bullshit and now in every single petrol station in Australia there is a sticker with a mobile phone surrounded by a circle with a slash (i.e. just like a no smoking sign).

Mythbusters put the bullshit idea that a mobile phone could cause such an event to the test and unless you throw the thing hard enough to create a spark then that is simply not possible (and even then almost impossible if your phone has a plastic casing or covering).

Yet - still in every single petrol station in Australia they have that same sticker (ten years after been exposed as complete rubbish).

So this FUD won't stop and the people "raising the flags" will keep on doing so no matter what is actually real or not.

I wouldn't describe it is as being better but it can serve well as a "secondary" blockchain (and IMO that is a sensible thing to have).

Although the only main difference is the use of Scrypt vs. SHA256 software glitches such as the one that led to the 2013 forking issue might be avoided if such changes were live tested on the smaller (but still economically significant) alternative.

That being said if it diverges too much from the Bitcoin code then such testing might become either impossible or much less useful.

As western exchanges aren't audited all of their trading can be spoofed "fakery" as well (so these constant accusations about Chinese exchanges comes across as being basically racist).

Why don't western exchanges simply offer zero percent trading fees like the Chinese ones?

(instead of getting shills to post whiny comments about "fake" trading everywhere)

Oh - I know why - too dumb/lazy to work out another way to make money.

Of course Electrum would be another approach instead of using a 3rd party service (and I think it can do addresses also for "watch only").

Assuming that you are happy to use a 3rd party service (such as blockchain.info) then you could skip the rescan (i.e. just dump the wallet addresses to search using the 3rd party service).

That should at least making doing the balance checks quicker (although it still requires you to replace the wallet.dat before each restart).

What would you say to code on github (i.e. would it be considered legit as an authority of publication)?

Whilst I do believe that Bitcoin (and blockchain technology) is going to change the world (in many ways) I don't see that it is going to "replace" fiat any time soon (as that's almost like asking a military to give up its guns).

In the long term it may be that property is the only way governments will be able to get revenue (so I also wouldn't be too quick to sell all your BTC to buy a bunch of properties assuming you have that many).

By definition a "hard fork" would require every node to upgrade their software.

(that didn't happen back then - what happened was that some pools decided to downgrade their software because of an issue with the DB that was being used at the time to store blocks)

It was when Bitcoin had the DB issue that caused a temporary fork that I came to the conclusion it is good that we have Litecoin (something extremely similar but different enough to perhaps be safe from such a problem if such an incident occurs again).

Putting "all your eggs in one basket" has never been a very good idea (which is why NASA has redundant systems in case of failure - in space you don't get a second chance).

What's the bet that Craig went and found an old computer he had lying around dating back to say 2005 and has been creating his patent documentation on that (since last month) and will say "look patent guys this document was written using Office 2000 so it *most* be legit".

(he did manage to fool Gavin it seems - so it might just work)