Neat. Wait... It's not just you! http://www.cognitivenutrition.com looks down from here. The site was up a few minutes ago. Fatal error: Allowed memory size of 12582912 bytes exhausted (tried to allocate 71 bytes) in /home/uniquen/public_html/core/fn_common.php on line 1728 Too many visitors?
|
|
|
*depressed life has me beat and I'm about to give up, break up, moving back to my parents, pay child support.
Try telling the missus how you feel?
|
|
|
Well, I think it's still open because we're not on the BFL forums, where this annoying thread would be long gone by now. I couldn't get past the laughable bolded part...
|
|
|
And the rhetorical question asked was also answered... so again I ask, why is this thread still open? And again I ask, is this another difficult concept for you, as well?
Well, I think it's still open because we're not on the BFL forums, where this annoying thread would be long gone by now.
|
|
|
Remind me again what the topic of this thread is? Oh... that's right, it's a question: "Are the BFL forums in F****** China?"
The answer is "no". It was answered pages ago. Why is this thread still open then? Or is this another difficult concept for you?
Josh, the topic of this thread is not whether or not the BFL forums are hosted in the People's Republic of China. Rather, it is a rhetorical question, where the state of the BFL forums is compared to the suppression of dissent by censorship in China. Was this helpful, or is it still a difficult concept?
|
|
|
@Charlie, I agree with keeping the thread, but the title SHOULD be changed. I think everyone here agrees that blockchain.info is, once again, safe for usage. The title would likely scare newbies away from using the service (which is the best Bitcoin wallet a person can point a new user to). Without a good alternative, they may download QT (NOOOOO!) or try one of the other less user-friendly options, and be turned away from using Bitcoin entirely. Many of the things discussed in this thread may not be understood by newbies, and certainly, they are not likely to read through 5 pages of discussions to find out that the issue has been resolved.
Yes. The title, "Blockchain.info is NOT SAFE" is both dishonest and misleading. "Your personal data is not safe with Blockchain.info" was apparently true up until today. Pretty bad in itself. The thread should be kept, but the false and misleading title should be changed. If not by OP, then by a mod.
|
|
|
What has been changed
Solid response. Extremely impressive response time. Any email address, skype username or google talk username you enter will be stored on blockchain.info's servers. We will never share this information with any third parties. Does this still apply when third parties show up at your door with guns and a warrant? (I don't have a blockchain.info wallet yet btw.)
|
|
|
If a wallet is found the results are shown as follows: [Wallet {email=' zootreeves@gmail.com' , guid='abf66471-fe0a-6820-8977-55d7e8c1f6b2' , shared_key='XXX-XXX-XXX-XXX' , secret_phrase='My Secret' , alias='piuk' , created=Tue Jan 03 12:52:07 GMT 2012 , updated=Tue Dec 18 19:47:40 GMT 2012 , created_ip='81.187.238.52' , updated_ip='127.0.0.1' , sms_number='+44 7525431876' , country='GBP'} ] I am going to change notifications to store SHA256(bitcoin_address) rather than the plain bitcoin address which will remove the ability to lookup a wallet by address entirely.You absolutely need to go into urgent damage control mode on this. The wallet-query information (e-mail, phone# and IP-addresses) could, for example, be a used to make an example of some random Silk Road customers.
|
|
|
Since Godwin's Law has already been invoked: In the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods.
It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.
I'll show myself out.
|
|
|
Hilarious. The very first sentence had me laughing.
|
|
|
Good idea. Would be nice to have a checkbox selectable option for this in Bitcoincharts.
|
|
|
I'm more interested in why anyone in authority at BFL would allow a company officer to post attack after attack on the most important forum that's relevant to their business.
Ok, now say that with a straight face. You know how the Nigerians specifically prepare their 419 scams to be as outrageously absurd and stupid as possible in the attempt to appeal only to the very naive and to not waste time with people calling out their scam.
Indeed, good Sir Greyhawk, you may be on to something there.
Seeing as Josh's role is Public Relations / Investor Relations and not head of slicing and packaging I find it hard to believe that he was left out of the loop on that one. Seems in his role at BFL he should be made aware of all those pesky little details....
PS - My job is not PR or investor relations, which is why I don't coddle idiots like Frizz and PuertoLibre when they display their stupidity over and over. If I were the PR guy, I'd have to tell them warm fuzzies and make them feel good about themselves. Thankfully, my job is much different and it involves firing "customers" like Frizz et al because they cost far more than they generate in revenue and we do not want them as customers. Ever. That does make sense. If you don't intend to deliver, ever. Since gullibility is unobservable, the best strategy is to get those who possess this quality to self-identify. An email with tales of fabulous amounts of money and West African corruption will strike all but the most gullible as bizarre. It will be recognized and ignored by anyone who has been using the Internet long enough to have seen it several times. It will be figured out by anyone savvy enough to use a search engine and follow up on the auto-complete suggestions such as shown in Figure 8. It won’t be pursued by anyone who consults sensible family or fiends, or who reads any of the advice banks and money transfer agencies make available. Those who remain are the scammers ideal targets. They represent a tiny subset of the overall population. In the language of our analysis the density of viable victims, d, is very low: perhaps 1-in-10,000 or 1-in-100,00 or fewer will fall for this scam. As we’ve seen, in Section 3.3, at low victim densi- ties the attack/don’t attack decisions must be extremely conservative. If only 0.00001% of the population is vi- able then mistakenly attacking even a small portion of the 99.999% of the population that is non-viable de- stroys profit. The initial email is effectively the at- tacker’s classifier: it determines who responds, and thus who the scammer attacks (i.e., enters into email con- versation with). The goal of the email is not so much to attract viable users as to repel the non-viable ones, who greatly outnumber them. Failure to repel all but a tiny fraction of non-viable users will make the scheme unprofitable. The mirth which the fabulous tales of Nigerian scam emails provoke suggests that it is mostly successful in this regard. A less outlandish wording that did not mention Nigeria would almost certainly gather more total responses and more viable responses, but would yield lower overall profit. Recall, that viability requires that the scammer actually extract money from the victim: those who are fooled for a while, but then figure it out, or who balk at the last hurdle are precisely the expensive false positives that the scammer must deter. In choosing a wording to dissuade all but the likeliest prospects the scammer reveals a great sensitivity to false positives. ... http://research.microsoft.com/apps/pubs/?id=167719http://research.microsoft.com/pubs/167719/WhyFromNigeria.pdf
|
|
|
I have restored the vandalized deletion of Wikipedia there.
This page is important because people like to know what the highest-valued currency is, to the point of asking Google via voice on their Android phones that very question.
To any Wikipedia editors reading this: Stay alert and revert any vandalism removing that information from the page.
Aaaand... It's gone. Again. Predictably. 10:49, 15 December 2012 Petomaatti (talk | contribs) . . (5,941 bytes) (-823) . . (Reverting underhanded POV push to FishMech's last revision)
10:16, 15 December 2012 Rudd-O (talk | contribs) m . . (6,764 bytes) (+823) . . (while the vandals -- a crew of Something Awful goons who provoked an edit war here -- are (rightfully) blocked, I will add back properly-cited removed facts they censored) See my previous comment: I think the better tactical move would be to create a new paragraph discussing "Other Currencies", including Bitcoin, along with well sourced references.
Bitcoin has - as a matter of fact - been the highest valued currency in the world for about 12 months or so. However, adding Bitcoin to the top of the list (with no references) without justifying it is pretty much begging for deletion.
Disclaimer: I am not a Wikipedian
|
|
|
Seeing as Josh's role is Public Relations / Investor Relations and not head of slicing and packaging I find it hard to believe that he was left out of the loop on that one. Seems in his role at BFL he should be made aware of all those pesky little details....
PS - My job is not PR or investor relations, which is why I don't coddle idiots like Frizz and PuertoLibre when they display their stupidity over and over. If I were the PR guy, I'd have to tell them warm fuzzies and make them feel good about themselves. Thankfully, my job is much different and it involves firing "customers" like Frizz et al because they cost far more than they generate in revenue and we do not want them as customers. Ever. That does make sense. If you don't intend to deliver, ever. Since gullibility is unobservable, the best strategy is to get those who possess this quality to self-identify. An email with tales of fabulous amounts of money and West African corruption will strike all but the most gullible as bizarre. It will be recognized and ignored by anyone who has been using the Internet long enough to have seen it several times. It will be figured out by anyone savvy enough to use a search engine and follow up on the auto-complete suggestions such as shown in Figure 8. It won’t be pursued by anyone who consults sensible family or fiends, or who reads any of the advice banks and money transfer agencies make available. Those who remain are the scammers ideal targets. They represent a tiny subset of the overall population. In the language of our analysis the density of viable victims, d, is very low: perhaps 1-in-10,000 or 1-in-100,00 or fewer will fall for this scam. As we’ve seen, in Section 3.3, at low victim densi- ties the attack/don’t attack decisions must be extremely conservative. If only 0.00001% of the population is vi- able then mistakenly attacking even a small portion of the 99.999% of the population that is non-viable de- stroys profit. The initial email is effectively the at- tacker’s classifier: it determines who responds, and thus who the scammer attacks (i.e., enters into email con- versation with). The goal of the email is not so much to attract viable users as to repel the non-viable ones, who greatly outnumber them. Failure to repel all but a tiny fraction of non-viable users will make the scheme unprofitable. The mirth which the fabulous tales of Nigerian scam emails provoke suggests that it is mostly successful in this regard. A less outlandish wording that did not mention Nigeria would almost certainly gather more total responses and more viable responses, but would yield lower overall profit. Recall, that viability requires that the scammer actually extract money from the victim: those who are fooled for a while, but then figure it out, or who balk at the last hurdle are precisely the expensive false positives that the scammer must deter. In choosing a wording to dissuade all but the likeliest prospects the scammer reveals a great sensitivity to false positives. ... http://research.microsoft.com/apps/pubs/?id=167719http://research.microsoft.com/pubs/167719/WhyFromNigeria.pdf
|
|
|
People who grow up believing certain things, even if they later stop believing them, may not quite realize how the beliefs sound to outsiders... (SCENE: A small cottage in Nazareth.) Joseph: Mary, my dearest fiancé, there's something I've been meaning to talk to you about. (Mary's shoulders slump. Slowly, as if under a heavy burden, she turns around to face Joseph.) Joseph: You seem to be getting fat around the waistline, and throwing up in the morning, and, er, not getting any periods. Which is odd, because it's sort of like - Mary: Yes! I'm pregnant! All right? I'm PREGNANT! Joseph: How is that possible? (Mary's shoulders slump further.) Mary: How do you think? Joseph: I don't know, that's why I'm asking you. I mean, you're still a virgin, right? (Mary looks up cautiously, and sees Joseph's face looking blankly puzzled.) Joseph: Well? Mary: God did it. Joseph: You had sex with - Mary: No! Haha. Of course not. I mean, God just snapped his fingers and did one of those miracle things and made me pregnant. Joseph: God made you pregnant. Mary: (Starts to sweat.) Yes. Joseph: Mary, that is just so... completely... (Mary's eyes squeeze shut.) Joseph: ...COOL! (Mary opens her eyes again, cautiously.) Mary: You think so? Joseph: Of course! Who wouldn't think so? Come on, we've got to tell everyone the news! Mary: Maybe we should keep this between just the two of us - Joseph: No, no, silly girl, this is way too important! Come on! (Joseph grabs Mary's wrist and drags her out of the house.) ... ... ... Read the whole thing at: http://lesswrong.com/lw/m8/the_amazing_virgin_pregnancy/
|
|
|
Yup. Check recent activity --> BTC (Fees) and USD (Fees).
|
|
|
Syke, that's because, at the time, they WERE close to shipping. Until the chips came in wrong, and they had to redo them, and now they're stuck waiting on the foundry to make the changes.
You're completely pulling this out of your ass, am I right? Ten bucks says I'm right. What does "the chips came in wrong" even mean? You believe they had actual chips, but were "unsatisfied with performance" and trashed them? That was Nasser's late November spin on the situation IIRC. Then the latest story: "The fucking foundry, man... Made our chips all wrong so that we have to redesign them." And let's not forget, they were "close to shipping" in October.
|
|
|
|