My little con? You mean selling low priced items that no other highly trusted user wants to waste the time on because of higher workload and minimal to no profits so new users can have a comfortable introduction to trading on the forum and in Bitcoin? You mean that con?
If that's how you prefer to phrase it, ok. You re-sold BTW - you didn't introduce anything new to the marketplace. Then you lost your ability to give users positive DT, and you decided to stop helping new users, right? Who said I introduced anything new to the marketplace? Oh right you. You know what I change my mind Vod, you aren't a clown. You are the sad party magician that only has a handful of tricks and just keeps recycling them over and over again, no one buying any of them, so you get resentful of everyone not buying your bullshit and just become an even sadder more bitter party magician. You do carpool in the community clown car though. @Techshare, are you going to admit that you are wrong about this and unlock thread so we can have nice conversation on how wrong you are?
Hah!Here we are. What is stopping you? |
|
|
|
I think it is very interesting that they are making the insinuation that someone on the Monero development team executed the vulnerability to profit.  I wonder how much proof they actually have to bring up this allegation. It's disconcerting that they will freeze one of their users accounts for spreading "disinformation" about them, but then turn around and make an unfounded allegation against an established and trusted team. Monero is listed on several exchanges. I am not aware of any other exchange insisting that Monero return the lost funds. Weren't other exchanges hit with the same vulnerability? Or do hacker know to go to Livecoin for their exploiting endeavors? I may be mistaken on the technical details here, but from my initial observation of these circumstances, it seems as if some type of node attack was used. Essentially the attack consists of an attacker setting up more nodes than the target, thus creating consensus on its chain with a double spend TX faster than the target can. This basically creates a temporary localized fork and depends on a relatively weak network. The exchange server(s) recognize the attacker's transaction just long enough to get in and out of the exchange, then the network eventually invalidates the transaction as the attacking nodes are shut down. This is a combination of running a poorly managed exchange with too few active nodes to run its own transactions through, incompetent security management, and too few confirmations for deposit. I am sure I am explaining it clumsily, but that is the general mode of attack. The problem is from the outside it is hard to tell what happened which makes it easy to blame the dev team. However as others have pointed out, if it was a protocol issue, other exchanges would have been affected the same way. This is a very well known attack vector, and there is a good chance Livecoin is insolvent. |
|
|
|
I love the "Make America Grateful  Again" hat. Being a fan of the Grateful Dead, Trump, and being a self-described patriotic, gun-totin' hippie myself I find that really cool. I really had no exposure to Patrick Byrne, and have never used OverStock.com. I'm quite empathetic to his plight, he genuinely seems scared and concerned for his own safety. I hope he doesn't become a statistic in #clintonbodycount. We need more business leaders with this guy's moral compass. No, we need more business leaders to shut the fuck up and run their businesses. I don't care if you are on the Left running Ben & Jerry's or on the right running Snapper. Your job is to run your company and make it money. Every word that comes out of your mouth and every email that you send you should think long and hard about. It sucks to be you making millions of dollars but have to walk on eggshells about what you say. Tough shit, deal with it. You want to be Mr. or Mrs. nobody in middle management, fine talk your head off. You are running a big company, does not matter what side you are on left or right. You know what. There are other big companies that are run by people WHO ARE ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE THAT YOU ARE ON. And you have to consider how they may or may not react. That's your fucking job as CEO. Don't like it. Quit and go flip burgers. When he stepped down Overstock stock went up and was looking much better (until this entire tariff thing). Why because guess what, big institutional investors like CEOs and boards that shut the fuck up and run the business. -Dave Sorry, this is just one of those things that annoys the crap out of me. In case you could not tell from the number of fucks in the above post. Read more into the story. Apparently the FBI was involved and was basically instructing his involvement in some cases. I am not saying that absolves him of all responsibility, but they definitely have the ability to coerce people in addition to a track record of using informants, insane, and legally retarded people to craft criminal plots in order to bust them and increase their own budget and profile. |
|
|
|
I just hope some day they both accidentally meet each others in a pub or somewhere and have a drink together.
Seriously, because this just isn't going to end with the back and forth jabs. My intuition tells me that this needn't have gotten this far between the two of them. In the United States we have the right to face our accuser.
Yeah in court that's certainly true, but no accusation has gone that far. All this is right now is an internet feud, not a legal case. It is going to end with Vod in a rubber room. |
|
|
|
|
Great design. Very minimalist. I would suggest selling some kind of locking system as well, I think some people might enjoy another layer of physical security.
|
|
|
|
You’re talking shit about the GLBSE platform that theymos co-owned. When it was shut down, I was the only person who didn’t run away with the funds and still donate money to those users to this very day. In fact, I’m the only person out of possibly thousands on that platform that did the right thing. You weren’t in Bitcoin yet, so you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about, but everyone involved is quite impressed and grateful for how I handled things. Don’t let that stop you from attacking the one person with proven integrity though. God forbid you spout anything resembling an honest thought.
Exchange went down = talking shit? are you that fucking mental? you have no integrity, you raised funds illegally and then raised further funds through loans that you did not repay in full. Theymos protected you by having you on DT1 and being treasurer. funny how you are on and off DT1 now like a whore drops her fucking nickers - the people are speaking - OG is a SKAMMAN I was around for those days, he is right. Too bad turd burglers like you who showed up during the Dogecoin free lunch wave were not ahead of the curve with technology enough to have legislation made imposed on your work after the fact. You didn't help create this infrastructure, you just showed up and went "FREE MONEY - MUCH WOW!" as you shit all over the people who literally helped create the infrastructure you now enjoy. Most of those fund managers basically said "its not my problem" and bolted. You are simply relying on the fact that so few users that were around for those days are left to say different. |
|
|
|
Oh but you did
That's called projection retard, you might think I "flew off the handle" but in reality I am laughing at you like everyone else is! Meanwhile you are still an irrelevant troll (with a bunch of votes in the OFFICIAL troll poll to prove it!). Everyone knows Flying Hellfish is a liberal nut job that unfairly moderates P&S
Everyone = OG and TESCHARE You two cunts have been crying about me for about a year and yet theymos hasn't done anything... Careful now cupcake. You are now getting your employer involved directly in your little pie flinging fest. He didn't restore OG Nasty's post and say "It was incorrect for OgNasty's post in that thread about the California shooting to be deleted; I restored it."Seems like that is something. The really funny part is you think because "he hasn't done anything" he won't. I get the feeling he shares my sense of humor on giving people enough rope to hang themselves with. |
|
|
|
You tell me.
OK. You are a hypocrite for saying one thing and doing another. You ran your little con, reselling garbage in exchange for positive DT feedback. But that was years ago - since your opinion was deemed unimportant you have done nothing but chase after those who still have what you want. I am more than proud that you have lumped me with the likes of FH.  My little con? You mean selling low priced items that no other highly trusted user wants to waste the time on because of higher workload and minimal to no profits so new users can have a comfortable introduction to trading on the forum and in Bitcoin? You mean that con? What a sneak I am using the trust system exactly as it was intended and not just pretending to be internet police like you all! I would have got away with it too if it weren't for you meddling Canukistani psychopaths. Remind me, what does any of this have to do with the op? Oh right nothing. The op was just a pathetic excuse to round up all of the featured clowns here in the clown car to throw pies in retribution for speaking up about your collective bad behavior. You sure proved me wrong! |
|
|
|
So yeah, without a doubt some voters will think that this shows a strong woman who cares about her family as they're unable to see through the fact that this is a publicity stunt. Reading through the article felt surreal, like watching an old Onion vid. The world is going crazier by the day. Well yes, do you know how we all know that people are stupid enough to think that this is genuine. It's been posted here and OP is calling it "an example for all" So yeah, without a doubt some voters will think that this shows a strong woman who cares about her family as they're unable to see through the fact that this is a publicity stunt. They know most people probably will see through it, but the key is anyone who speaks out about it will easily be labeled as being sexist, against women's and mothers rights, anti-baby, etc. Of course being pro abortion is not anti-baby, but this would be... It is a lot like people using the child porn excuse to crack down on free speech. When the conversation is framed in such a way defending free speech is easily equivocated with defending child porn. The same goes for gun rights. If you support gun rights you don't care about shootings, and so on and so on. This is a key tenet in Marxist Postmodernist subversion. That's totally like them. We know what they are doing but the question is, how can they be stopped? Is it enough to simply call their bullshit? Is it possible to subvert a subversion and turn it on itself? It seems to me one of the few tools left to battle this is to speak out against it. It will result in certain people hating you and possibly trying to destroy your life depending on how you go about it, but that is how these fascists operate, via threats and fear. Just keep in mind what comes next after these little training sessions are over and they have acclimated the population to keep its mouth shut over much more horrible things. This is why leftists can not tolerate open discussion, because this dynamic would be exposed. |
|
|
|
if it has no impact how can it be retaliatory?
"Retaliatory" is not about actual impact, just your intent of an impact.  I see. So why is it my rating is retaliatory and his is just by pure coincidence on the same day? Oh right standards only matter when you can apply them to me and your friends have no obligation to treat anyone as they wish to be treated, because reasons. ...After Flying Hellfish flew off the handle the last time I was instructed to post anything I found abusive in the appropriate meta subforum. This is what I am doing.
More lies... I didn't fly off the handle last time because I had no idea nor do I give a fuck you were instructed to do anything. Sorry buddy you just don't matter enough! Ironically I don't actually give any fucks about your little weird obsession with me locked thread, which is probably why I didn't open a REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE thread myself. But since you showed up shitting lies out all over the place I felt like stopping in and saying a piece. Oh but you did fly off the handle. More than once. No one asked if you give a fuck, and I certainly don't care. Yeah what a weirdo who wants to have open political discussion instead of only discussion you consider valid (IE only those that agree with you). |
|
|
|
It's truly amazing how this amoeba with zero reading comprehension and an ego the size of Mont Blanc was voted into DT1 and is just a few votes away from being an active member, despite having no knowledge of or interest in how the trust system actually works. The trust system is intended to help prevent theft and fraud, you are using it to fight your petty interpersonal disputes. You are certainly well within the rules to leave a neutral rating. Still it reflects poorly on you, as you feel the need to use the system designed to protect traders to serve as a tool for petty retribution for the crime of disagreeing when a discussion in an open forum fails you.
It's a neutral rating. The explanation literally says "other comments". Which you must be aware of since you had to click that option when you posted retaliatory ratings. So are you all just going to keep lining up and repeating each other one after another? I already responded to this. Why is my rating retaliatory and his isn't? Because he left it first? Funny how definitions of words and standards are always shifting with you people. If my rating is retaliatory then it has an impact, one he should not have utilized to settle his petty dispute, but if it has no impact how can it be retaliatory? Just more of the rules for thee but not for me standard you are used to. The trust system is intended to help prevent theft and fraud, you are using it to fight your petty interpersonal disputes. You are certainly well within the rules to leave a neutral rating. Still it reflects poorly on you, as you feel the need to use the system designed to protect traders to serve as a tool for petty retribution for the crime of disagreeing when a discussion in an open forum fails you.
So your feedback on my profile calling me mentally ill is to prevent me from stealing? It has nothing to do with your jealousy of me? You don't have a interpersonal dispute with me? lol You tell me. Is this going to be what, the 4th time you ignore me forever now? Poor Vod always minding his own business getting called out for his harassment and cowardly attempts to use the power of the state steam roller try to harass some one who dares disagree with him on a forum. Again, for literally the 4th time the rating was left for his abusive and doxing behavior, something Theymos himself said was reasonable. I wish I had no relationship to you whatsoever, but you seem obsessed with me and bounce between pretending to ignore me and following me around in the community clown car. |
|
|
|
Anyway, I have sent PM to TECSHARE to unlock thread so I can add something: When he reopens thread I will post some important data about this matter. This is an off topic conversation that belongs in the reputation subforum. It is not off topic. It is about post(s) from this thread which is related to locked thread. I will not be unlocking the thread.
So, you lied. The trust system is intended to help prevent theft and fraud, you are using it to fight your petty interpersonal disputes. You are certainly well within the rules to leave a neutral rating. Still it reflects poorly on you, as you feel the need to use the system designed to protect traders to serve as a tool for petty retribution for the crime of disagreeing when a discussion in an open forum fails you.
It seems that you think that I left you this comment because of this thread. If so, my feedback is very accurate I have no obligation to unlock my thread for you and made no such promises. You may feel entitled to post there but that doesn't make me a liar. More creative interpretations from the clown brigade in this sad little puppet show you are trying to run. |
|
|
|
 Reference link points to this post. Can someone please tell me what does this mean: " abuse the trust system in retribution for calling out the misbehavior of his buddies. See reference." I am looking at reference and I can't find trust abuse 
Anyway, I have sent PM to TECSHARE to unlock thread so I can add something: When he reopens thread I will post some important data about this matter. This is an off topic conversation that belongs in the reputation subforum. I will not be unlocking the thread. The trust system is intended to help prevent theft and fraud, you are using it to fight your petty interpersonal disputes. You are certainly well within the rules to leave a neutral rating. Still it reflects poorly on you, as you feel the need to use the system designed to protect traders to serve as a tool for petty retribution for the crime of disagreeing when a discussion in an open forum fails you.  Seems like a few people have trouble with people disagreeing with them. BTW, if you are going to call me names at least be creative, don't just repeat my words back to me. |
|
|
|
You could argue both sides of this debate from many angles. Is a pregnant woman drinking alcohol worse than abortion? Is it ok to tell someone else what they can or cannot put in their body based on their medical status? Are bartenders to assume that woman are pregnant if they look overweight? Should pregnant women be banned from purchasing alcohol with their groceries as well? Seems like a slippery slope to me. You aren't even allowed to assume someone's gender these days, but you think a minimum wage employee is going to make the call as to whether or not a patron is pregnant and refuse them service based on this assumption? Maybe we need to give urine tests to people before purchasing alcohol to make sure they are not a pregnant female? Where do you draw the line? Since we'd now be piss testing bar patrons, should they be refused alcohol if they're over the legal limit? If other drugs are detected in their system should they be arrested?
Bottom line to me is that people should be allowed to purchase whatever publicly available legal substances are out there, regardless of medical status. I also think that this is a social issue and not a political one. Bartenders and other patrons should be free to voice their opinion to the pregnant barfly and if they're willing to sit and be berated by the public for their actions, so be it. Trying to legally halt alcohol use of pregnant women is a level of control that cannot be legitimately obtained without also giving up other freedoms and I think it is a bad direction for society to be headed. Especially when you look at how healthcare is being socialized in the world today. How long before you need to have a certain cholesterol level to purchase junk food?
We get it. Smart people know what's best for others. Drinking while pregnant is idiotic. However, freedom of one's body and to not be targeted for your medical condition should be a bit of a concern here. I fully support pregnant women doing whatever they want. I also support people voicing their opinion to make pregnant women who drink or smoke be constantly reminded of the outcome of their decision and what a shit parent they already are.
I totally agree with your argument from an ideological standpoint. We don't need to baby proof the world (no pun intended). My point was that the situation inherently creates liability for the server and for them to do their job according to the law, it necessitates that they have the ability to make this call. It is not the same as if it were just a person working a register at a grocery store selling alcohol, they are serving an individual with express intent to consume it on the spot creating more liability. Furthermore many states have existing regulations regarding substance use during pregnancy, and obviously allowing criminal activity on their premises is grounds for legal trouble for the venue. |
|
|
|
|
I have spent a few years bar-tending. In order to do your job correctly and according to the law, you need to have the 100% unfettered ability to have discretion over who drinks and who does not drink. In most bars you also have the ability to eject people for any reason. Now these people may try to argue that they were denied services because of XYZ protected class, but this is something that would be difficult to prove short of you shouting racial slurs at them on the way out or something. While this woman might be able to sue, I would say the odds are she would end up with a lot of legal debts herself as she would likely end up paying the defense costs of such a frivolous suit.
It seems pretty clear to me that a server or bartender has a right to refuse alcohol at their discretion, but this should have been disclosed to the patron. Most people don't understand how much technical liability restaurants, bars, servers, bartenders, and even bouncers take on doing their jobs. If you have a few too many and t-bone a van full of kids, that could technically mean a life changing legal scenario for the people who served that customer as well. I do however understand the server taking this strategy however, as this is LITERALLY a strategy they train servers to use in many state mandated certification courses in the case of an intoxicated individual who insists on more alcohol. I could see this causing some problems for the state if not offering a solid defense if this state also has such instructions in its course.
|
|
|
|
These are all publicity bullshit. Are you people allowed to bring your babies into your offices? No? Yeah, work is not an extension of your home. And also, these are parliament members, they can afford a nanny if they want to. I don't see the reason for these babies to be sitting in front of parliament, it's a show and dance for the politicians to be able to further show that they are family oriented or some bullshit like that. Save it for the campaign trail, not where policy decisions should be debated and decided.
My exact same sentiment. Do they really think people are so stupid to not think about this properly? It's insulting to their electorate. Well yes, do you know how we all know that people are stupid enough to think that this is genuine. It's been posted here and OP is calling it "an example for all" So yeah, without a doubt some voters will think that this shows a strong woman who cares about her family as they're unable to see through the fact that this is a publicity stunt. They know most people probably will see through it, but the key is anyone who speaks out about it will easily be labeled as being sexist, against women's and mothers rights, anti-baby, etc. Of course being pro abortion is not anti-baby, but this would be... It is a lot like people using the child porn excuse to crack down on free speech. When the conversation is framed in such a way defending free speech is easily equivocated with defending child porn. The same goes for gun rights. If you support gun rights you don't care about shootings, and so on and so on. This is a key tenet in Marxist Postmodernist subversion. |
|
|
|
TECSHARE wetting the bed at night over his fears of liberal women?
More at 11.
More fantasy and projection. Tell me, what part of your cavernous anus did you pull this idea from this time? TECSHARE should apologize to flying hellfish and remove that post?
I didn't do anything wrong. You imagine I did, but maybe you can imagine me apologizing since it offends you so much. Oh wait no one is offended. Why is this thread here? Apologize for what? Asking a question? You people are the only ones who have any control over whether you get offended or not. I am not responsible for your fantasies and projections.
I'm not offended. FHF likely isn't particularly offended either - he already knows that you're a grade A douchenozzle. It's all about you and your leet debating skills, AKA making shit up as you go. Yes, I am sure it is just a total coincidence Nutilduhh always starts these threads in other parts of the forum after getting his precious and frail sensibilities upset by being exposed to ideas he does not agree with in Politics and Society and not just being allowed to brow beat people into submission into his views. Tell me, what did I make up here? My language and intent was 100% transparent start to finish. While you are at it, tell me, if no one is offended, why is this thread even here? |
|
|
|
Nothing, because it is a reply to the other question "why didn't I state it was his thread?" I tend to not engage in discussion of subjects of which I have little understanding. I know to some people this is a hard concept to grasp, being informed before having an opinion, but I do try.
You have little understanding of who is an OP of a thread? That would explain quite a few of your problems. No projection. Nutilduh is an emotionally driven stalker with the inability to argue points based in logic and is largely motivated by lack of emotional control. It is always the same thing, struggling to craft some wrongdoing in other parts of the forum because you can't argue your beliefs like an adult. It is much like yourself, only Nutilduhh just happens to be more far gone. You at least have some understanding of this dynamic by now whereas Nutilduhh doesn't even see the saddle on his back. Keep chasing that carrot.
Another bouquet of fallacies here. An average adult person would probably apologize and move on but thank internet gods you're not such a person and you'll keep entertaining us with this sanctimonious egotistical drivel. Apologize for what? Asking a question? You people are the only ones who have any control over whether you get offended or not. I am not responsible for your fantasies and projections. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
