Well that sounds clever to me. "Things are the way I believe they are and no surprises will ever happen", right? - Jyri -- Altcoin.Center if intercontinental Internet connections were lost That's a big if. Besides, all it would take is a few radio or satellite links to patch the blockchain when cables were cut. The blockchain and its watchdogs would still recognize the work. This could result in a larger percentage of orphaned blocks as there tends to be more latency when dealing with satellites then fiber optic transmission lines. This however would not affect the network hashrate (some miners may decide to stop mining because of the lower EV of the result of the higher percentage of orphaned blocks, but not enough to make a major difference) Yes. If (hehe;) there would be such backup links available at all (i.e. satellites would be working), if the traffic could be rerouted over those satellite links (despite the limitations in the bandwidth satellites can provide), and so forth. The block chain system itself is rather tolerant and adaptive, but only as long as the underlying network has at least decent amount of functionality. Should something as disruptive as a massive CME or, say, an underwater volcanic eruption happen that would disconnect whole continents from each other for prolonged periods of time, then it's virtually unavoidable that forking would occur. There certainly are lots of ifs in this game. However, ignoring them and assuming things will just stroll along nicely is not what would be considered "wise" by anyone who has any understanding of risk assessment. It's a known fact (not a possibility) that scenarios like Carrington's event will play out eventually. What we do not yet know is how the modern infrastructure will be able to cope with that. Informed individuals and specialists have a clear consensus that it is most likely that there will be big disruptions in both delivery of electricity and functionality of the communications networks. Satellites are particularly vulnerable to anything that creates chaos such as high ionization in the atmosphere. - Jyri -- Altcoin.Center Well thinking about it a little bit, I would say that the undersea internet cables would probably go down well after satellites go down. Sure there could be some kind of underwater volcanic activity however this would probably not knock out all of the underwater communications lines, it would probably make the remaining internet infrastructure more strained and potentially increase latency. They are however, to my understanding build to withstand a lot |
|
|
|
|
I would be careful with these kinds of sites as there is a very high chance that these kinds of websites could direct you to send bitcoin to a address/site that is not connected to the actual charity.
|
|
|
|
unless the person you're paying is part of the default trust network, none of the negative feedback will affect his trust score. you do realize that, right?
Right, the person giving the trust needs to be on default trust for this to matter. This is a surefire way to get people to never want to trade with you in the future. Previously people could look at your trust and take it with a grain of salt but now people will know that it is best not to trade with you as the risks are too great |
|
|
|
Making threats online is a crime, one way or another. Before this threat post, has the op actually tried to negotiate with vod to get negative removed?
I don't think the threats are specific enough. KOS just says things like "you will be sorry" or "you will regret it" but never actually says that he will do physical harm. KoS didn't even have any trust left for him by Vod. |
|
|
|
LOL this is a very interesting scam. I haven't seen this one before. Generate 10k private keys, claim you bought them from someone and try to sell them to a sucker who is hoping that one is of someone who has a lot of money in the address |
|
|
|
They are using their expertise to attempt to track down the missing bitcoin. Their participation in the gox case should not affect their normal operations
The hard drives from the Mt. Gox servers that will be delivered to Kraken, as part of this deal, will first be erased/reformatted. That is covered in court papers. I'm curious to know how Kraken plans to apply their expertise without ever being given unfettered access to the original data on those servers. Are we merely supposed to take on faith that Kobayashi will tell Kraken everything they need to know; that is, should the results of the investigation essentially be a fait accompli--all you have to do is ask this lawyer what happened--then, why even bother having an investigation? That makes no sense. What is the point of Gox even giving up their servers if they are going to erase everything before they are handed over? |
|
|
|
Well that sounds clever to me. "Things are the way I believe they are and no surprises will ever happen", right? - Jyri -- Altcoin.Center if intercontinental Internet connections were lost That's a big if. Besides, all it would take is a few radio or satellite links to patch the blockchain when cables were cut. The blockchain and its watchdogs would still recognize the work. This could result in a larger percentage of orphaned blocks as there tends to be more latency when dealing with satellites then fiber optic transmission lines. This however would not affect the network hashrate (some miners may decide to stop mining because of the lower EV of the result of the higher percentage of orphaned blocks, but not enough to make a major difference) |
|
|
|
thats why i tend to look for cloud mining that offers lifetime contracts or at the least 5 years plus. I dont do that 6 month 1 year or 2 years cause i dont see profit period.
That could be a mistake. 99% of the income will be received in the first year (the actual time depends on the rise in difficulty). And if you are paying a maintenance fee, it could exceed your income in just a few months. If you are paying extra for those additional 4 years, you are throwing away money. Right. But some cloud mining providers will force you to prepay the maintenance fees for the entire contract up front. This allows you to receive all of the mining revenue earned by your contract. However the longer term contracts can potentially result in a larger profit in the event that difficulty rises very slowly or actually declines. |
|
|
|
#thisescalatedquickly
On the other hand, I'm pretty sure threats to do harm is off-limits to the forum as it's a crime.
The OP does not seem to be making direct physical threats to the OP so I don't think he would get convected for making threats. I don't even understand what his beef with Vod is as Vod had not even given negative trust prior to him making this post. |
|
|
|
I am asking 1BTC, quantities will likely be big for that price. I may do homework, a translation, 2 speeches, or even more for 1 BTC. It all depends on what the employer proposes. I may refuse the offer if the amount of work needed would be astounding. I can work 10h a week, and will most likely take 2 1BTC jobs per month if an employer is interested.
You will likely have better success doing more smaller jobs then trying to do few large jobs. It will also result in you potentially losing money due to you getting scammed if someone doesn't pay you (you would lose less if one employer on a small job does not pay verses an employer on a large job does not pay) |
|
|
|
Anybody know of any companies willing to offer internet services (with static IP) for some BTC? Needs to be at least better than 256K UP/Down. Am I asking too early for the US?  I don't think any ISP provider accepts bitcoin as a payment. I doubt, there will be any accepting soon. The major ones do not currently. Even if one did start accepting bitcoin you wouldn't be able to sign up unless they serve the area that you live (or wish to connect from). Plus the trend seems to be (at least in the US) is that companies like google are providing free internet access to people in certain cities. It has been for a long time that you can buy VPN (and VPS) access with bitcoin from a large number of providers |
|
|
|
Rules like that are horrible for spam, I wouldn't take part in a sig campaign that forces people to post that much, some are fantastic, like the one I'm in (  ) so I don't think it would be fair to ban all of them, just the ones that are deliberately trying to encourage spamming. The best thing people can do is instead of getting the mods involved don't even bother going for these campaigns so these marketers learn, they're only doing it because they know some people will go for it. I agree. The rule in the OP was replaced with a rule saying that participants must post at least 10 posts in the bitcoin discussion and 10 posts in beginners and help sections. I think the majority of posts are in bitcoin discussion (at least the most posts end up there) so this should be expected if someone is making 75-100 posts per month. I don't think there are enough qualified people to be posting in beginners and help (they will probably give out bad information) and even when they do give out good information, there are not enough questions asked in beginners and help to warrant 650 replies per month without answering the same question multiple times. I think this rule is encouraging ad spam in the beginners section and is hoping to get people to sign up for their exchange when they are new to the forum. Flat fees and low post requirements are the way to go, people will post more naturally then rather than feeling pressured to make a post quota, I have seen people actually turn around a few campaign organisers on their original requirements including the one I'm in so it does work to just talk to them.
I am not sure about this. This is certainly beneficial for the advertisers (eg the users) but it may not be as effective from a cost standpoint, especially when dealing with a large advertising budget. I think campaigns should have a simple no spam rule (and possibly a no negative trust rule) and that is it. Anything else will cause people to post just for posting. Meh, whatever. Stuff like this will just garner more support to bring an end to sig campaigns sooner rather than later. It's inevitable really, just a question of when. It's a shame, because they aren't all bad, it's just the ones that don't care about anything other than their profits that will ruin it for everyone. Kind of a shame because they aren't all bad.
Sadly this is probably true. Signature campaigns are a great way for users to earn their first bitcoin and does give people incentives to discuss bitcoin and things related to bitcoin in a non-spammy way (in a perfect world). I am not entirely sure what happened that caused the spam to get so much worse in recent months (yes it was signature spam, but signature campaigns have been around a long time before we had such large issues with signature spam at these levels) |
|
|
|
Because many are. If they can't prove they have the active mining equipment and are a new company I'd assume they're either a scam or a ponzi.
It seems u dint understand the question. Lol, I'm not exactly sure what op is getting at so I think I also misunderstand the question, but what I don't understand about these cloud mining companies is why they don't just mine themselves instead of giving their profits away? That's why they look like ponzis to people because people think they don't even have any miners and are just paying out of the money put in. If I accept your logic, then no ASIC manufacturer should have shipped their product. They built and mined for themselves. p.s. There is an initial cost for everything that needs to be covered. That is why businesses go to public. There is risk involved whenever you buy a miner (cloud of physical). The companies that do not wish to bear the risks of mining will end up selling their miners (via the cloud or via shipping). When a company decides the risk is worth the potential losses they will mine for their own "wallet".....just look at what KnC recently did, they have effectively stopped selling to the public and are only building miners for their own farm |
|
|
|
|
[quote author=picolo link=topic=860400.msg9693424#msg9693424 date=1417298955
Nice list but why 4/ for cex.io?
They only sell the hash rate they have from their new equipement, don't they? You can buy a lot of hash rate to existing customers that want to sell but in that case you are buying existing equipment too.
Hopefully some cloudmining companies like cloudminr will prove to be legit.
[/quote]The 4 is for the open ended "IPO" of mining capacity. It was likely given because it is unclear as to how much additional mining capacity they are selling.
I agree that they are most likely only selling actual miners that they have in their possession.
|
|
|
|
Here's definitive proof supporting Coinfire's claims: https://twitter.com/danielpalacio/status/537250571875790849@danielpalacio Hello, Daniel. Could you verify to me whether or not you told CoinSource that Authy does not release customer traffic data? @OnwardsImmortal Yes. We do not release data about our customers. I don't think this is "definitive proof" about coinfire's claims. It only confirms that one small fact is correct, but does not confirm the conclusion. It is my understanding that paycoin will be released soon speculators will be able to see if if gaw really does have any merchants lined up. I have no idea either way, but I certainly do know that it is not certain either way Josh is an expert at back tracking. When questioned about media blitz he said idk what slots they'll get into. I learned to only announce once it's confirmed. paycoins set to exceed $20!! Aka we only had paid pr articles. But his sheep suck his cock anyway. Okay so he backtracked. If he is scamming then he has already scammed for a lot of money (probably in the 7 or 8 digits worth of US dollars of bitcoin). I don't think he will do very much more damage in the few weeks (?) that it will be until paycoin actually launches. |
|
|
|
You can send dust with a public note in blockchain.info, viewable by all.
It appears my gmail was logged into on 22-Nov. Google was supposed to send me a security notification to my phone and email, yet I received neither?
Also, how is my gmail logged into when it has 2FA Google Auth activated???
I think your blockchain.info 2FA was based on gmail and gmail 2FA was based on SMS verification. Am i correct ? I'm still awaiting this answer from OP. It was not, unfortunately. it was setup based on email verification. I don't know if this is what happened, but there have been some suggestions that this may have been caused by a Tor exit node. Don't know precisely what this means, but I was using a VPN service at the time I believe functioned through Tor called IPVanish. Could this be the cause? How would I find out? http://www.btcfeed.net/news/rogue-tor-node-hijacked-blockchain-info-accounts/If your VPN was using tor to hide your identity then there is a good change that you were subject to a MITM attack when you tried to log into your blockchain wallet. However I would be somewhat surprised if a VPN was using tor as tor is very slow and I doubt they would get very much business with the speeds that tor can provide |
|
|
|
Here's definitive proof supporting Coinfire's claims: https://twitter.com/danielpalacio/status/537250571875790849@danielpalacio Hello, Daniel. Could you verify to me whether or not you told CoinSource that Authy does not release customer traffic data? @OnwardsImmortal Yes. We do not release data about our customers. I don't think this is "definitive proof" about coinfire's claims. It only confirms that one small fact is correct, but does not confirm the conclusion. It is my understanding that paycoin will be released soon speculators will be able to see if if gaw really does have any merchants lined up. I have no idea either way, but I certainly do know that it is not certain either way |
|
|
|
95% of miners are suddenly offline. Be it a new law or an EMP strike. What would happen to bitcoin?  For one it would take about x20 longer for transactions to confirm until the next difficulty adjustment. It would not be that long. As it is now blocks, on average, are much less then the 1 MB size limit, and pools will often broadcast blocks that are well under this limit to avoid risking their block getting orphaned. However this risk would be decreased with the new, temporarily longer block time plus the additional TX fees included in many transactions would result in the blocks generally being much closer to 1 MB, if they are not all filled to 1 MB exactly. |
|
|
|
My best advice for new users regarding cloud mining is to be very careful. Most, if not all, of these cloud mining sites are either scams or money losers.
Keep these in mind if you are considering cloud mining:
1. A cloud mining site is a prime opportunity for a Ponzi scheme. Customers pay a bunch of money up front and don't expect a profit for several months.
2. "Instant mining" sites don't make sense because the operator makes more money if they don't sell their hashing power to you.
3. The rising difficulty means your hash power will earn less and less over time.
4. Maintenance fees are usually more expensive than they seem. The maintenance fee could exceed your mining revenue in just a few months.
5. Cloud mining contracts that start in the future must be valued using the future difficulty, and not the current difficulty.
I would disagree on item 2. If you have peta-hashes of mining hardware, selling stock shares instead of selling hardware can make a good sense under certain circumstances. In order for number 2 to be invalid the cloud mining company would need to sell the mining contract at a price that is positive NPV for the cloud mining company. One thing that factors into something's NPV is the discount rate, which may be different for the customer and the company, so something can be positive NPV for both the customer and the company (at least in theory) i agree with what you saying to some extent, but then again you did say in theory so i guess we in the same pafe. I think we just have to wait and see what the future brings to this cloud mining services.  Well another way to look at it is that the two of you (the buyer and the cloud mining company) could have different viewpoints as to how much difficulty will rise over the term of the contract. If your estimate/assumption is lower then that of the cloud mining company then you both could calculate that the transaction will be profitable for both of you |
|
|
|
How much coin does Satoshi have?
Something around 1 million. That is a reasonable figure considering the old wallets from early in the project. However we don't really know if Satoshi owns any bitcoin. All we know is that very early in the project someone mined coins and just let them sit. It may have been experiments with the early code and the coins may have been thrown away. We are all just guessing. EDIT: Also, for all we know Satoshi may be poised to use his bitcoin to destroy the lives of poor people. Well there are certain similarities between the very early found blocks (that were all but certainly mined by Satoshi) and the other assumed to be found blocks by Satoshi when he was mining. It would be somewhat unlikely that the later blocks were found by someone else |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
