Cuando he mirado la Landing de Ledger BlackFriday hace un rato, no se veían los precios con el descuento aplicado, salvo en el Backup Pack. Unos minutos más tarde estaba corregido. Creo que han aplicado el 30% a cada Ledger individual, sin tocar el precio del Backup Pack (que ya de por sí está bastante rebajado respecto del coste individual de cada ítem). En una captura del día 06/10/2019, los datos que figuraban eran éstos: https://web.archive.org/web/20191006114212/https://shop.ledger.com/Porque ya tengo varios, que si no me compro el Backup Pack ...
|
|
|
Hablando de purgas … Twitter va a realizar una purga masiva de millones de cuentas a partir del 11/12/2019. Específicamente, eliminará todas aquellas cuentas que lleven 6 meses inactivas. Esto afectará potencialmente el cómputo de followers que una pueda tener, pero también los testimonios históricos de personas que ya no se conectan o han fallecido. En muchos casos, esto será bueno, pero en otros más excepcionales, sería conveniente conservar los posts por cuestiones históricas. Tal es el caso por ejemplo de Hal Finney, con 14,4 millones de seguidores, cuya cuenta está inactiva desde hace años por razones obvias (DEP). Ya hay voces moviéndose para evitar que se borren sus Tweets históricos (aunque sean tan solo 41 Tweets ) … Imáginémonos lo mismo en este foro ... Ver: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-50567751https://u.today/part-of-bitcoin-history-to-be-deleted-by-twitter-crypto-community-asks-jack-dorsey-to-memorialize
|
|
|
Hay algo más de información en un update posterior, que por ahora sólo está en inglés: https://cointelegraph.com/news/signs-point-to-inside-job-in-upbit-crypto-exchange-hack-says-commentator. Hay fuentes que apuntan a indicios de que fuese robo perpetrado desde dentro. Habrá que ver si han contado toda la verdad, o si hay otros activos robados, tal y como se rumorea en otros círculos. En principio, el Exchange va a cubrir con sus fondos los 342,000 ETH robados. Claro que cabe ver si realmente tienen esa capacidad, y que las fugas de clientes no impacten en este plan. Por eso hay que tener clara la estrategia de dónde uno guarda sus cripto-activos, atendiendo a la premisa de que, si no eres el custodio de tus propias claves, los activos realmente no son tuyos.
|
|
|
<…>
Nope. You have currently gained 8 Merits, which entitles you to 4 sMerits (sendable merits) to send. Merits and sMerits are two different counters. The former does not decrease (unless you’ve been naugty and @theymos reverses some TXs, which is pretty rare).
|
|
|
Hay una parte del artículo que explica dónde estaría el truco: El enfoque busca centrar el costo económico verificable de la prueba de trabajo en los gastos de capital (hardware de computación óptica) y no en los gastos operativos (electricidad).
Si bien minar BTC hoy en día requiere una elevada inversión, y las grandes granjas se asientan sobre todo donde la electricidad es más económica, este cambio de enfoque potencialmente podría modificar la constitución de los poderes fácticos de minado (ya me veo una huelga de mineros a la vieja usanza). También cambiaría sustancialmente el modelo de inversión, debiendo ser mucho más alto de base (o eso se entiende, de lo contrario no cuadra), para luego tener asociados unos costes operacionales mucho menores.
|
|
|
Que 100.000 personas ya tengan un chip afín instalado resulta sorprendente, aunque entiendo que el chip bio-implantable es multipropósito, y la cifra no se ciñe exclusivamente a almacenar claves privadas cripto. Tener algo así dentro del cuerpo, además de ser caro y tener que renovarse cada 10 años, puede dar pie a la postre, de extenderse mucho, a una delincuencia inspirada en Jack el Destripador. Poco apetecible.
No sé, prefiero ubicarlo en algún sitio físico que no sea en el cuerpo. Al fin y al cabo, normalmente uno no lleva sus wallets por la calle alegremente, sino que las deja a buen recaudo.
|
|
|
<…> I have seen users becoming Hero from 0 airdropped merits. Still no legendary though if I am not wrong. <…>
None yet (none from 0 merits): 30 Legendries (25 from Hero member, 3 from Sr. Member, 2 from Full Member) -> https://public.tableau.com/shared/BY86FGFXS?:display_count=y&:origin=viz_share_linkSome of them already have required merit but lacking in activities?
I had to modify some filters to make it easy to answer this one on the Merit Dashboard. There are 9 people that are now Hero Members and 1 Sr. Member, that started as Newbies with 0 merits, and now have over 1K Merits (thus lacking Activity to become Legendry): https://public.tableau.com/shared/KNBDT3DDP?:display_count=y&:origin=viz_share_link@RapTarX is maintaining Activity and Merits on par. If he keeps it up (which he likely will), he’ll make it to Legendry well enough (not without effort as is required under the Merit System).
|
|
|
If we want to get a measure of just how many accounts go around one of these procedures, we can take a look at the SecLog. It displays these circumstances nominally for the past 30 days (there are a few other circumstances for appearing on the Seclog, mostly related to the account recovery procedure and the related status queue). Surprisingly enough, whilst the average for the last month entails entries for 51 users/day, deploying the Newbies account link moves that figure to 410 user/day. That means that there are eight times more Newbie accounts doing these procedures that non-Newbie accounts … Some semantics: My main question is, what is the criteria for this to show up?
It shows up if a user has logged in with their last login time being at least 6 months ago.
|
|
|
Si queréis ver un video escueto, pero elocuente (y divertido) sobre cómo Andreas responde a la siguiente pregunta: "… ¿ tienes alguna preocupación acerca de si una gran nación/estado, que tenga interés activo en destruir Bitcoin, pudiese crear sus super-rigs (de máquinas de minado), diseñar sus chips, y meter cientos de millones o billones de dórales a fin de disrumpir el blockchain (de Bitcoin) intencionadamente ?" Ver: https://twitter.com/bitcoinmagazine/status/1197161029832265729 (el video es de poco más de dos minutos).
|
|
|
<…>
I figure you mean post (not thread). The cool down time is set at 1 minute as indicated by @ Steamtyme, and it seems fine to avoid the most recurring case of refreshing the page after remeriting. Making the cool down remeriting interval any longer may work against real intent to remerit, even in a larger proportion to accidently remeriting after refreshing a page. A few days ago I had the opposite issue: I merited @masulum with a quantity less that I has intended, and had to wait out the minute to sent the remaining sMerits I intended to send. Determining error from intent on a larger time interval seems an impossible mission, unless you are queried (i.e. popup) on whether you really want to remerit the post.
|
|
|
<…> not sure if the accuracy rating is based on only good and bad reports?
It is, unless something changed over the last few years, unhandled reports are not used when calculating the accuracy: <…> "Unhandled" means that every moderator with jurisdiction over the post was unsure about the correct thing to do with the post and so left it for other mods to deal with, but no mod ever decided to act on it. I suppose it can be thought of as a "weak bad", though it's ignored for your accuracy percentage <…>
|
|
|
Neither case had the source link initially, and were probably saved just in time from being banned by being quick to add it after seeing some of the comments on the threads. Generally, I find these sort of posts upsetting, since they do not add anything of their own such as a summary, a versed opinion, or a rebuttal of any of the points within. It may or may not start a debate, that could lead somewhere, but it does show no will to dissect the article nor to place any effort behind. They probably already fall under rule number 1; 1. No zero or low value, pointless or uninteresting posts or threads. [1][e]
I recall reporting posts of a kind and them being deleted (but it may also depend on how much activity has been developed in the thread after the OP). <…>
Yep. I figure that, as is being discussed laterally in another thread (see Cancel reports?), the time of events may be taken into consideration when dealing with a case (i.e. post was edited to add a link, but reports for plagiarism were already there in the queue, before the link was added). Edit: I reported one of those yesterday, 20 minutes before they added the reference link. This morning it was marked as unhandled, and now it is marked as bad, despite the person being banned for plagiarism.. Oh well …
|
|
|
<…>
Puedes tanto usar el sistema de encuestas propio del foro (que es muy limitado, y se ciñe a una pregunta con múltiples respuestas), o a una web externa para que la gente participe. En este segundo caso, cuanto más estándar sea la web de la encuesta, mejor. Es decir, tendrá más posibilidades de ser respondida en una web de encuestas, que en una web tuya propia (por aquello de la traza de la IP y demás). Adicionalmente comentar que, desafortunadamente, nuestro foro local es poco activo y, en volumen de personas, es para mí insuficiente para recabar datos a modo de encuesta que sean luego estadísticamente significativos. Ya en el foro inglés cuesta llegar a volúmenes decentes de respuestas, por lo que si precisas volumen, considera también cuanto menos publicarlo en el foro en inglés.
|
|
|
@theymos ya ha repartido los premios en BTC. El post completo con los datos de reparto es éste: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5193860.msg52793373#msg52793373, aunque hay más explicación al respecto aquí: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5193860.msg53181101#msg53181101Hay 100 agraciados, con importes que oscilan entre los 0, 07562500 BTCs y los 0.00256034. A su vez, se ha abierto el periodo de votación para elegir aquellas personas que llevarán un badge especial en su perfil, conforme es un artista. Puedes votar hasta el 03/12/2019 (03:56:06 AM, aunque no especifica la zona horaria), eligiendo de entre una lista de 53 personas (puedes votar a la vez por hasta 52 personas): https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5204528.0Edit (modificado): Para que contabilice el voto, has de tener como mínimo el rango de Member, y haber posteado algo en el último año. Actualmente pueden votar las personas que incumplen estas condiciones, pero no serán tenido en cuenta para el recuento final.
|
|
|
<…> Unfortunately, there doesn't appear to be anything done with blockchain by IBM over the last 2 years. <…>
Not quite so really. IBM has been doing things (as have many other large Consultancy firms and corporations) over these past few years. For example, Nestlé and Carrefour (supermarket chain) recently announced that they are implementing traceability of infant milk using IBM Food Trust. (See: https://beincrypto.com/nestle-is-putting-baby-formula-on-the-blockchain). I took a look at IBM Food Trust recently (see https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/ibm-food-trust-trace-products for example) and there are some interesting things to it. Besides allowing for traceability of food, it also allows one to see alerts on inventory for perishable goods, trace the whereabouts of specific lots, and so forth. That is to say, the traceability is not only aimed at the end-consumer, but at the production and distribution layers. Now the key question here is deciphering whether blockchain is really necessary, or whether it is just some fancy nice to have, with a publicity edge to it (trendy, alleged transparency with end-consumers, etc.). The software implementation for traceability here could just as well have been implemented on conventional software (tailored ERP for example). So where is the added value and need? (this is the dual core question to ask for any blockchain implementation). You could argue here that the value is in the inherent principal of blockchain: being transparent over system that provides trust in essence through the inmutability and traceability of the data. That, taken on to the traceability of the food industry is a potential value from a corporate point of view, and, if properly exploited, can position a brand as both trendy and transparent. It’s at least exploitable marketing-wise (whether it comes along with a desired ROI is to be seen on a case by case basis).
|
|
|
<...>
I really doubt that the telegram channel you are looking at is really connected to Bitcoinist at all. Likely, the group is trying to look legit by pointing at a real site (which by the ways seems far from being related to loans). The premise alone, of 10% collateral for the loan, seems pretty much aimed at gullible people.
|
|
|
|