Okay, so from what I understand.. It is possible to predict the TX Hash. However, that is only possible if we have lot of time and resource. Am I on the right track?
No, sorry if I mislead you in that regard. It is possible to change the TX hash, but its impossible (in terms of a human livespan and resources) to change it to something specific. Its "possible" as its "possible" creating a private key that has already been created by someone else or that all air molecules in your room spontaneously move into the corner and you die. Even though only 9 digits of the hash count, the transaction is not created by the participants, but by a third party. Hmm.. Thanks for clearing my doubt. To determine winning ticket #1, I use A-ads transaction ID - yes, that's from third party. To determine winning ticket #2, I use transaction from my wallet to winning ticket #1 wallet. So.. it is not from third party. Anyway, I'm feeling better as you said: its impossible (in terms of a human livespan and resources)
The other thing you could do if you are worried about someone predicting your lottery draw would be to use some nonce from /dev/urandom or something like that and add it to the end of the transaction you were hashing. |
|
|
|
I think the difference is when you are buying a forum account you buy all the forum account (so also the positive, negative and neutral trust // with all his history). The problem is the "practice", and it is obviously that is not so intelligent buy directly trust when you can buy a "green forum account".
I don't understand. You seem to be emphsazing the point that there's no real difference in principle. The question is this: why would it be okay to purchase a new account in order to subvert the trust system but it's not okay to simple purchase trust to subvert the trust system. They are both ways to subvert the trust system but one is okay whereas the other isn't. |
|
|
|
Not a single address, but how about the "longest shared prefix"?  18eXmgR5Svoqqa6PaYVrKvbH6hvrp5xe3A18eXmgR5Svoqqa6JXSMmbNaD4Cs5ThcV1P(15 chars) The hash160 shares 83bits: 53e1f4f491509f9012bd901be5147447f770018b53e1f4f491509f9012bd825ce1e9599b253188efover half of the address. The addresses are on the blockchain. Proof of ownership: " This address is controlled by basil00." H3l9fTn8FRRMvBdiF0Wx/hV/aKQ+OsTjmzrF6/3X9KwlWmxbeb12KzkMHqG4AvJPj5PJUErLTkksnf+JbQEmd6E= (address #1) H5fp1+mGX8D9ImzapYG1MC/V86N9RbDbYSfbLpyWaUH1ptnfbR+OP9Mt+fnC5UgyziuP6BHsDNUtb9c5jcTqBes= (address #2) I am personally not a fan of shared prefixes, when I send stuff I check the first 8 or so digits, and if they are the same, I send it. Theres a VERY small chance the address I forgot to copy has the same first 8 digits as the address copied by mistake, so this practice works very well for me. I also see no reason to have address pairs unless to trick people. This is experimentation. I doubt you will see too many addresses like this in use and even if you do, they will belong to the same person anyway so the odds of your payment going to some scammer are very, very low. Indeed, since you have to generate these as a pair, it'd be really unlikely that one person should have one half of the pair and a scammer would have the other half. They'd essentially have to vanitygen on the other half and that would take crazy long for some of these prefixes. |
|
|
|
I think you guys may be confusing some things like block hash with transaction hash. A block hash cannot be predicted, a transaction hash entirely can.
One can simply assemble the transaction in their wallet and not submit it to the network to know its hash, use one of the available tools and libraries, or calculate it manually. It CANNOT however be forced, in that you cannot take a desired hash outcome and produce a valid transaction from it or make two different data transactions have the same hash. Brute forcing it to produce any valid transaction is not computationally possible. Betting sites use either the block hash, or a combination of the block hash and transaction hash, but never just the transaction hash...
But they say the trasnsaction id of your bet transfer! Isn't that transaction hash?  I don't know what site you mean but the transaction id is also the hash. The example I mentioned above links to the genesis block transaction https://blockchain.info/tx/4a5e1e4baab89f3a32518a88c31bc87f618f76673e2cc77ab2127b7afdeda33bBlocks have a different hashing algorithm https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_hashing_algorithm. Block hashes cannot be predicted as mentioned, transaction hashes can be created outside of the bitcoin network. Wana bet? I predice the next bitcoin block has a hash lower than the current target value. Mining is nothing but brute forcing the hash until it meets the requirements. Maybe brute forcing is the wrong word in this sense, but its the same with a transaction. You alter the transaction and check the hash until you have the hash you want. There are many ways to alter the TX even if you use the same inputs (see the link on TX malleability), there are even more ways if you have a big set of inputs you could use. If you are saying @altcoinex that this is not "forcing" the hash to be a certain value than please give me a better word for it. Both blocks and transactions are hashed with SHA256. What different algorithm are you refering to? Predicting what it will be less than is not predicting it, it is knowing the network rules... Predicting is to know what hash It would be, or any reasonable assumption about that hash OTHER Than those assumeable by network and protocol enforced rules. If I tell you a TX hash, you can have all the inputs in the world, change every value possible within the protocol, and your not going to come up with a TX that matches that hash. It is not 'Forcing' the hash, because you are just changing the hash to another, not forcing it to any specific one. This would be an unacceptable weakness in bitcoin if it were possible. If your playing an online casino game, that persay takes the tx hex, converts it to a number, and turns that into a shuffle pattern for cards, or a dice number outcome, then you could modify the tx until you got one that would produce that result, as where N is the amount of possible game outcomes every N tx's would average 1 of N matching your goal -- which is why betting sites dont use JUST the tx hash. That example would be 'forcing an outcome' in the game, but you are not forcing a specific hash -- just exploiting how the buggy game is utilizing the hash. To be correct, both blocks and transactions are double hashed with SHA256. Calling them different algorithms is a bit of a far stretch, but they are created with very different inputs. And all the transactions in a block are hashed together into a merkle tree of hashes. Whereas a transaction hash is merely sha256 of the transaction bytes, the block hash is a much more complicated procedure. So I think it's fair to say these are seperate procedures. |
|
|
|
No reason to get upset.
We're not dealing with legacy trust systems of yesteryear, Vod. No! This paradigm-shifting, game-changing disruptive technology is on the tipping point of turning into a Black Swan. Revolutionary stuff, Vod, not to be rushed.
As soon as our legal team irons out the last few kinks and gives us the go-ahead, it's ON, it's Showtime!
Now then...
Will you be purchasing this Trust for your personal use, or as a gift for A Special Someone?
I'm not upset. I'm just calling you a bullshitter.  And I'm done feeding the troll. Vod, this isn't just any troll. And this is satire worthy of Jonathan Swift. Why am I the only one to see it?! Am I wrong? Exactly. The satire here is quite clever. Personally, I really think that the meaning behind the OP's suggestion ought to be addressed. How is it okay to purchase an account with positive trust but not okay to just directly purchase the trust? What's the principled difference there? |
|
|
|
As long as BadBear trusts him nothing can be done.
Not true. If 2 other people on the default trust list exclude him, then he will no longer be in the default trust network. Just saw this (somehow I missed it in an earlier read of this thread). If I understand this correctly it means that if any two people on default trust write ~Quickseller then he is excluded? Is that actually correct? |
|
|
|
Read it somewhere , "when you create too many accounts from a single IP , the IP is considered as a TOR Node or a public proxy and it is banned and thus you can not make anymore accounts though you can still use the one's already made and they won't be banned"So it's better you use some proxy to make the accounts , account trading is really so much atm , i see Digital Goods Section full oF BCT account , it should stop though sadly i don't think it's possible  I doubt this is true. If you have your accounts banned for spam and create to new accounts that in turn get banned for spam your IP and network gets "evil points". This will allow you to create further accounts, but you have to pay a few btc in order to use them. What you wrote sounds like the board would be banning Tor nodes. Also, I'm pretty sure that TOR exit nodes are easily identifiable as TOR exit nodes so there's no reason to have a heuristic like "accounts created from IP" in order to guess what's TOR and what's not. |
|
|
|
I don't know the situation with TF.
Thanks for admitting this. Like I said, I would have to take a closer look at what happened. A cursory look at the thread seemed to show that you admitted to using bots which is why I said you defrauded. Again, I don't know the full details which is why I haven't left any trust.
Well, as was stated in that very thread, and elsewhere, what I admitted to was working on a question answering by with TF's approval and help. I did not admit to defrauding or any other thing along those lines. Talking to TF about it was crazy, he merely said "you stole, give X back" and the X varied each time he said it so it was basically blackmail as far as I could tell. There were global moderators in that thread who did not leave me negative trust either and it's clear that this was because they saw that it was a case of he-said-she-said and everyone moved on. Then, later, history revealed TF as one of the most untrustworthy people ever to appear on this forum and I've basically had several years of chatting and talking and 0 problems with anyone until QS comes along with a vengance mission. I didn't look at any trolling threads. If there is serious trolling and harrassment, the proof should be submitted to whoever has Quickseller on their trust list. The links are there in the thread where I call out QS and his alt for doing this. He mainly trolled with an alt account "ACCTSeller" and at the time he played coy about whether this was an alt. But later he admitted in another context that that was his alt and the trolling is quite clear. The evidence has been submitted to BadBear but he is only back as of today and I don't expect that looking into this is at the top of his priority list. Nevertheless, I'm confident he'll sort it out soon. I'm a sock puppet? I've been consistently active and posting for close to two years. Don't get all conspiracy theory now.
I hope you dont take that too seriously. But given that QS deals in farmed and bought and sold accounts and he loves to play games with them, it's never really clear whether you're talking to one of his sock-puppets. I'm not saying this is your case, I just think it's important to talk about the principle of it. |
|
|
|
Thanks a lot for putting your software out there for us to use! Can't wait to get home to try this out Thanks from me as well. I read about the birthday attack and I think I understand it pretty well. I'm looking forward to browsing your code to see the implementation you came up with. |
|
|
|
fixed
Indeed! Thanks. Topic locked |
|
|
|
dig this thread back in time, last two pages have a lot of useful info
If you have ideas about how to put it to use, please be more forthcoming about them. |
|
|
|
[...]Quickseller is [...] only doing it to that extent because of his personal grudge.
Not against the forum rules. Quickseller is doing exactly what you're all doing, scraping out some change from this forum. He's just better at it  Its not, but he is in the default trust list. It won't be justified if someone like badbear or theymos goes about giving negative trust just because they want to. Being in the default trust list, has to make him take some responsibility. To be clear, he's in "default trust" because badbear currently trusts him. Badbear is away at the moment so we can't expect him to answer this until he returns and has a chance to see what's been happening. The way the trust system works is that because QS is intransigent and doesn't answer for his actions, the responsibility goes upstream to badbear. If, in an outlandishly surprising turn of events, badbear is okay with this, it would eventually go up to Theymos, who trusts badbear. If, in a nonsensical turn of events, Theymos didn't care then the only recourse would be to live with the abuse or go off to another forum. In the end, this forum is a privately run benevolent dictatorship, the buck eventually stops with Theymos. But there are a couple of levels between Theymos and Quickseller. |
|
|
|
|
Just FYI, I can't seem to access the bitcoin wiki. I keep getting a "cloudflare error page" which says 523 "connection timed out", then reloading and saying "unreachable" en.bitcoin.it, then it reloads itself and repeats.
|
|
|
|
The only thing I forsee happening is more argueing and fighting. I do not see a reasonable end to this no time soon unfortunately.
Well that is not true. Negative trusts can be explained and usually happen for a reason. It is pretty evident that worhipper had no extent of scamming , and Quickseller is treating him like a scammer, and even going to the degree of contacting you and getting information of his alt accounts. Quickseller is not doing this to keep the community safe. He is only doing it to that extent because of his personal grudge. Twipple, while I don't think that you're wrong, I do think you're treading on dangerous ground. Calling out quickseller for this kind of behavior is essentially why he went after me. On the other hand, it's usually better to be on the right side of history because in the long-run, he won't be getting away with this stuff forever. |
|
|
|
Lovely looking site. Will probably sign up soon, trying to keep my gambling under control atm though  It is a nice site Given PD's position in the dice-gambling market I'm really surprised you've never signed up. Even if you don't deposit you can pop in and have some fun in the chat (or use the faucet to roll for nano-stakes). |
|
|
|
Because he's not wrong. Quickseller asked me about Worhiper a long time ago when this started, because he had seen that I had sold him a account. Quickseller said that he didn't know if he was attempting to scam or not, that he was gathering more information about it. Now this was right when Quickseller had given Worhiper the negative feedback. Maybe 2 or 3 days after. Quickseller also said that I did not have to give him the info he requested. That he was not 100% sure that Worhiper was going to use the account to scam, but wanted the info just to keep a eye on it. Of course I give it to him. You got Quickseller in one corner, a highly trusted member of the community, and the other a senior member with neutral trust with a questionable trade practice against him. http://imgur.com/05CPWhzBut with what you say and the information you gave, or posted here, it doesn't mean that worhipper scammed someone. People are not unhappy that worhipper has an alt revealed, but unhappy because firstly he got a negative trust for backing out of an escrow, and secondly despite backing out, he really didn't deserve a negative trust on all his alts or rather his main account itself. Did worhipper not end up paying you ? You also realize that by posting this info you let your other alts be compromised from the post history of gio3442 ? If compromised means that they know it was mine? Then let it be compromised. I have never hid anything from the community nor will I. Now the post history of the account has absolutely zero to do with me. I bought the accounts, they sat in some random email til I could get rid of them. Worhipper did pay me for the account. No escrow was used. Since it was such a low amount, I did give him the benefit of doubt and sent the info to him before any type of escrow details could be worked out. He did send the btc promptly to me after he had the info for it. Sounds like you trusted worhiper_-_ and he came through. Maybe you should leave positive feedback on his accounts as a trustworthy person who you sent first to and he paid with no issue. Then again, that would put you on the wrong side of Quickseller and you'd be risking negative feedback from him because I'm sure he wouldn't have an issue with using your "support" of a "scammer" to say that you were a scammer. |
|
|
|
Well I like your thread title about the article more than the other thread's. Argentina is a great combination of educated citizenry and computer infrastructure with fiscal malpractice where bitcoin could really help the people out. Ha, yes, "disruption" is the term used by NYT. I didn't see that other thread but many of the folks in there are using the wrong definition of "disrupt". There's disrupt as in what a loud noise does to people at a library, but then there's disrupt meaning a change of paradigm, where the disruption is leading to new ways of doing things. I think it's this latter usage which NYT is meaning. |
|
|
|
If the OP wants to publicly deny that he is an alt of worhipper as I claimed in my trust report then I will post proof on the condition that he agrees to drop/lock all threads he has opened against me once I post proof.
If the OP wants to admit that he is in fact an alt of worhipper then there is no point to this thread and he can lock it.
If the OP refuses to do either of the above then well, I guess that is that.
since I do not this person's RL identity, I labeled him as being an alt of his handle that I know to have attempted to scam.
Notice there's no choice in there in which QS admits that he might be wrong. This is his usual bullying style. We've seen it before. We'll continue to see it until he's no longer an authority. |
|
|
|
Incase you guys didn't notice https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1043592.0He gave another account on the basis of it being an alt of worshipper. I find that really misuse of trust. Even though someone like worshipper didn't deserve it for just backing out of an escrow, it really didn't make him a scammer. But giving it to his alt and other accounts seems foolish and quickseller just trying to take revenge right now. He took revenge on me for simply calling him out for his hot temper. I think it's his primary MO (modus operandi). |
|
|
|
Why is Quickseller the target of so many threads in the Meta section? Feeling like a Vod 2.0 situation up in here.
Tomatocage left his alt account positive trust and you don't see threads dedicated to it. Unless that person is showing inherently untrustworthy behavior, it isn't really a big deal in my eyes.
Until there is solid proof of dishonesty or actual scamming, these threads should be locked to prevent pointless arguing.
I can't speak to the facts concerning most of these threads. I, however, was the victim of a smear attack by quickseller in which he deployed an alt to troll me and then dug into my past until he found a false accusation by a known scammer (from years ago) and then used it as a reason to neg-rep me with his main account. He did this in a (failed) attempt to get me kicked out of the signature ad campaign I was a part of, presumably as vengence for crossing him in public (ie, calling him out for his hotheadedness and suggesting that calling people idiots is not called for). That's my experience with him, as to the rest of these threads, you'll have to take them on their merits, I think. I've disagreed with Vod in the past many times regarding his enforcement of Microsoft policies and intellectual properties. Three striking differences between Vod and Quickseller which I notice are that (1) Vod maintains his cool and doesn't resort to name-calling and mudslinging when people disagree with him; (2) Vod actually removes negative trust when people talk with him about it (ie, he doesn't try to hold people's pasts over their heads for all time); (3) Vod doesn't seem to go on vendetta missions in which he's going to give negative trust to anyone who disagrees with him (if this were the case, I'd have negative trust from him since I don't agree that Microsoft policies should be dictating trust ratings on this board). The other thing to keep in mind is that quickseller is a known account farmer/seller so in adding neg-reps to accounts, he's actually driving up the value of his non-neg-repped farmed accounts. It's a black and white case of conflict of interest. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interestAs far as I know, Vod has not been associated with any such behaviors. Negative trust for disagreements is against the limited trust rules. I looked at the thread in which you posted about receiving negative feedback and Quickseller posts no lies about you. You did fraud TF even though he is a known scammer. Nope, sure didn't. I'm surprised you seem to feel like you know what happened between me and TF over 2 years ago. Could it be that you're taking TF's unsubstantiated accusations as fact? Hard to see how you'd have some sort of access to TF's server logs or to my computer's history from so long ago. Surprising that you're not put off by the fact that TF is a known scammer and he accused me in that thread of taking 4 different amounts of money and then finally settles on "everything I ever withdrew". That seems right to you? Hmm. Well, you're opinions are for you to make. Did you also read through the threads where quickeseller uses and alt to troll me and threaten me? It's all good, facts are facts and at the end of the day, folks like quickseller don't end up with too much power for very long. Eventually the truth comes out (like it did with tradefortress). As far as buying/selling accounts, I'm sure Badbear knows about that and still has him under DefaultTrust so you probably won't get far with that argument.
It's all good. It's up to badbear to consider and stand behind who he considers as trustworthy. I can't speak for him. But the conflict of interest is in black-and-white. Another thing, please don't take this as a personal attack, but given quickseller's buying and selling and farming of accounts, how do we know you're not just a sockpuppet trying to deflect valid criticisms of him? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
