You keep talking about facts of which none are ever presented. Can you please list your facts below as to why SegWit is necessary?
Have you ever heard the phrase "If it ain't broke don't fix it?"
1) It is broken. TX malleability is a existing vulnerability. I don't expect you to be aware of this though. 2) If we follow that 'phrase', the same can be said for increasing the block size limit. 2.1) The same can be said for anything proposed by Classic (FlexTrans) & BU (random 'improvements'). |
|
|
|
I'm curious when peeps will finally stop contriving arguments for justifying the introduction of the Banned rank? Is there really anyone interested if some user got a permaban a month ago? What would be the purpose of that if that user is no longer able to post thanks to the ban anyway?
The idea is to save time and avoid uncertainty. I could say that a fair % of reports that I get via PM have already been handled (i.e. banned). Not only does this waste my own time, but also the time of the person that wrote up the report (unless they are the first one to catch the violator). I'm certain that this happens to other moderators as well. The main argument in favor of adding this ugly rank seems to help catch copy-pasters, but if an alleged scofflaw hasn't been posting for a week or longer, aren't we already there?
It applies for different kinds of violations. There are plenty of people who are contributing (specifically reporting) to the forum and in favor of this. I don't see why we should listen to the non contributors (does this include you?), since it doesn't really affect them. It would be easier to find ban evading alts for the people looking into that, but that's another story. In respect to making longer logs, what prevents the agents of justice and masters of destinies from copying this log daily?
Nothing. This is a question for botany, as I don't have a stance on the log. |
|
|
|
I believe that this is pretty decent proof. Whether or not you're ban evading is an entirely different question, and it also comes down to the reasoning behind your ban (you had 3 accounts IIRC, 1 of which is banned).
Could you also stop breaking the forum rules by creating several posts in a row? Group them up. and paid winnings after 1 confirmation. no need wait long time!
Which has nothing to do with being 'provably fair'. |
|
|
|
Proxies and VPNs (especially public and free ones) have a high chance of being marked and can earn you a unit of evil for your troubles.
I wouldn't call it quite 'high'. Just click report and you will ban? Sometimes many were reported but they still can spam.  There are only two active staff members that can issue bans right now: Cyrus and hilariousandco. It's solely up to them whether someone will be banned or not. |
|
|
|
The last 7 days' activity can be found there. I had raised a question of whether the full (or a slightly longer) log can be made available. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1209243.0If this is done, it would list out all the permabans..... I guess increasing the length of the log is another option. However, that would not work for older bans (unless it was made permanently viewable) and it would be inefficient in comparison to just having the user have the rank. |
|
|
|
Copy and pasting has always been a permaban IIRC, and permabanned accounts' signatures are removed.
Correct. However, keep in mind that it still does not help if: 1) Member in question had no signature or relevant information in the first place. 2) You encounter the member in question after they've been banned. You can't know whether they had been wearing a signature prior unless you do some digging or report it to a moderator (hence this being time wasteful). |
|
|
|
|
This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Insubstantial introductory post.
|
|
|
|
That will convice people. Some random throw away account, telling them they must do something.
The account has changed hands at least once, and we know who is likely going to be trolling me. Anyhow, #off-topic.
I disagree with it doing more harm than good. Let's take a look at 2016 [...]
-snip-
I admit I have no numbers to back my argument which makes it pretty weak. Neither do I. That's why I explicitly stated "I don't recall any (although I may have not been looking hard enough).", as I may be wrong. However, if we were to thoroughly examine the sold accounts that got marked over time (regardless of neutral or negative) you would be able to see that a very fair number of them were used to facilitate scams, spam and whatnot (not to mention *genuinely* looking manipulation, vote brigading, et al.). At least *some* of these could have been prevented/suppressed with negative ratings. Even if we were to play the devil's advocate, I'd still strongly advise neg. rating at least Hero and Legendary accounts that have been sold. Some people tend to trust them more based on their rank, even though this is wrong by all means. |
|
|
|
So that guy will be banned for what he has done? If so, too bad for him new year is coming.
Correct. I've already reported him. There are likely more cases of him/her copy-pasting but I don't have time to check for them right now. |
|
|
|
|
No. You will most likely get permanently banned.
|
|
|
|
eh those idiots rightly believe that segwits may introduce some unknown security hole to the bitcoin environment, because it was not fully tested yet and bug can also appear at some point
if some sort of bug/exploit will emerge then you are forced to hard fork anyway, it's a gamble, it's better to directly hard fork to 2MB anyway
This claim is false. Once the developers figured out how to deploy Segwit via a soft fork, they've started developing it for Bitcoin (it was already a Blockstream project, but required a HF prior to that). They've released a Segnet (specific testnet for it) around last New Years Eve. Over time, there have been 4 versions of Segnet (IIRC), after which it was deployed on the testnet and actively tested/developed around April/May. We're talking about 1 year of testing (up to today), 4-5 Months on a special testnet, and 7-8 Months on the Bitcoin testnet. That's as close as it gets to having it live on the main chain. hardware centralization imho ..same problem ..wearing a different coat.....
Similar, not 'same'.
I do believe that adopting Segwit or something similar that boosts TPS will have a positive impact on Bitcoin and it's price. |
|
|
|
Has it changed so much that your rebuttal points no linger have anything to do with the paper's content? I see nothing therein about Garzik, nor are your two quotes to be found anywhere therein.
Perhaps you meant to link elsewhere?
No. As I've outlined in the previous post, people are tired of refuting stuff like this over and over again (my points weren't directed at the article). I'm certain that this was written by Garzik (and/or Zander), even though there's no indication of an author. You can find some of the rebuttal here: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5ijtzv/flextransvssegwit_by_tom_zander_of_bitcoin_classic/If we ever fail to implement SegWit , does it mean that there is no chance for Lightning Network and TumbleBit[1] to be implemented as well or they don't need each other? [1] https://github.com/BUSEC/TumbleBitWhile I'm not entirely sure about Tumblebit, I'm fairly positive that LN can be implemented without Segwit. Segwit just makes LN easier and more efficient to implement. |
|
|
|
Just read through the recent article on the Bitcoin Classic (Segwit vs. Flexible Transactions)
I'd love to. Can you provide a link? Apologies for the late response. This time of the year there is a lot of work to be done in several aspects. Here's the article: https://bitcoinclassic.com/devel/FlexTrans-vs-SegWit.html . Keep in mind that it has been updated at least once to correct some obvious mistakes that it had. No problem if i have to missing out on bug fixes, do you know why the segwit is still not be activated yet? Because as you said just 40% of peoples moved to 0.13.1, and it is not enough.  Node support is not counted towards activation, but rather 95% of the last 2016 blocks (+1 more period). However, node support over a long time period is a decent metric. The current Segwit node support is over 43% (counting the 0.13.99 nodes as well)[1].
[1] - https://bitnodes.21.co/nodes/ |
|
|
|
.999 1oz Fine Silver Customizable Crypto Currency Storage Bars
-snip-
Silver: $85
Current price for 1oz of silver is: ~$16. I like the design and generally the concept of bars (which I find more favorable than coins in plenty of cases), but I can't justify this premium for myself.
Good luck with your sales though! |
|
|
|
Lauda must be taking an extended lunch break. He's been overworked lately. Someone buy the man a stimulating beverage.  _____ edit: Gone already, thanx Lauda. It's become a strong rally indicator. Indeed, as if we needed another. Just the fact that every time lately that they try to knock it down and cause a panic dump, it fails and the price bounces back up, is a strong rally indicator. I think that the user or group in question is actually panicking at this point. The spam frequency keeps increasing the closer Bitcoin gets to breaking $1000. We are trying our best, and you're welcome!
In the meantime, I'm still positive regarding the stability on Bitstamp above $960. I actually would prefer it to stabilize a bit before spiking again, but you never know with Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
If memory serves right, btcmasterZ was banned due to their extortion and other things that happened back then.
It appears the ban has been a permanent one (I'm currently checking that bit), which would make all actions by crazybtctrade ban evasion.
I can confirm that this is indeed correct. I haven't looked at the evidence presented here yet, but if it is solid then we are talking about a returning scammer that has also been ban-evading for quite some time. |
|
|
|
|
This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Account generators are illegal.
|
|
|
|
|
This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Begging.
|
|
|
|
if i post in the alt section the post simply will not be counted right? since i like that section i don't want to miss it only because i have a signature
Correct. You are allowed to post in the excluded sections, they just will not be counted. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
