As the OP says, Citation Needed

What I learned the hard way: With a bicycle it is possible to have a single-vehicle crash with the ground.
steps to reproduce:

• Learn the counter steering techinque.
• Take a turn a high speed with your inside pedal low to the ground.
• When you find yourself upright again (after a pedal strike), use counter-steering to force the bike back into a lean instead of braking.
• When you pedal strikes the ground a second time, the front wheel and fork will fold.
• I escaped major injury by letting go of the bike, doing a summersault (with a half twist?), landing on my feet and catching the bike before it hit me in the face. YMMV.

If I am correct, Maria may not even believe that.

Guilty. I don't like password proliferation. I don't make cyber-stalking too difficult.


At least one person did take offence (not me). As I have said, I can't know their exact thought process. Random women checking out the forums may not know Maria's posting history. In response to your specific comment, I said that Maria would be strongly offended if she was trans. It was a direct personal attack, so you are setting up a bit of a straw-man here.

Of course not. Most people in this thread don't seem to accept that "Maria" is a woman. If is hard to be misogynistic if you don't believe the target of your ridicule is a woman.

I think transphobia may better describe the gender-specific comments in this thread.

I will accept that maybe most people don't find "Maria" very credible. That does not fully explain why the thread turned nasty so quickly.

I singled out your comment because it best articulated the general sentiment of this thread, not because it was particularly sexist. I stand by my statement that your comment would be very offensive to transgendered persons.

I can't speak for the poster in the other thread, but I suspect the general feeling is that a poster identifying as male would not have been treated that way.

I don't think I have ever seen an odd-ball thread topic created by a poster identifying as male where the first post is "2BTC says you're a woman." The second post asks for proof that she really was mining since 2009. I doubt that a poster identifying themselves as male would face the same scrutiny.

I am not trying to imply that posters identifying as female deserve a free pass. As you can tell from my posting history, I have found Maria untrustworthy ever since her "make money fast" thread. However, I have always been respectful in my criticism. This is in part because I know that the Internet has a long memory.

You may be closer to the truth than you realise. If so, your statements are likely very hurtful. Some people are born with the "wrong" parts. You are claiming that they are less of a person until such time as they get the "right" parts.

Assuming that everybody is correct that "Maria" has a penis: staying in character may be a sign that she really does see herself as more of a woman than a man.

BTW, this thread was cited as an example of misogeny on the forums.

Now this is interesting. Their reasoning for the endorsement is:

I sense an opportunity here: Bitcoin payment processors should agree to follow Stripe's lead, and bring this up with the EFF, without specifically mentioning that they process Bitcoin. I feel this should force the EFF to clarify their position on Bitcoin.

As an asside, "Chilling effects" never responded to my e-mail about what happens when the notices themselves are the subject of take-down notices.

You all missed the obvious hole in the whole story: most miners will be hooked up to low-pass filters anyway. The surge suppressor in most power-bars will block radio frequencies. This can be a problem if you want to do things like powerline networking.

New Scale:

• Very Big: >=10% of network hash rate
• Big: >=1% of network hash rate
• Medium: >=1/1000 of the network hash rate
• Small: >=1/10,000 of the network hash rate
• Tiny: >= 1/100,000 of the network hash rate
• Very Tiny >=1/1,000,000 of the network hash rate
• Null: < 1/1,000,000 of the network hash rate

At the current network hash rate of 21.3 TH/s, that corresponds to:

• Very big: over 2.13TH/s
  
• Big: over 213GH/s
  
• Medium: over 21.3GH/s
  
• Small: over 2.13GH/s
  
• Tiny: over 213MH/s
  
• Very Tiny: over 21.3MH/s
  

Edit:
yes.

Null miner < 10MH/s

Block relay and verification. Like the CPU miner I was running over the week-end.

That is how mining is supposed to work. It was broght up in one of the butterfly labs threads that during the gold rush, most the miners didn't make any money. It was the people selling supplies to the miners that made the most reliable returns.

If you think 0.0005 BTC is too low for a transaction fee, refuse to process transactions with such a small fee.

BTW, If I start mining (with ASICs presumably), I am projecting a loss of about 80%, based on being able to mine only one 25BTC block in the next year (at current prices). If I mine, I plan on using the/a P2P pool, just to make the network more resiliant. I am getting commercial Internet access just so that I am allowed to host "servers".

My temporary CPU miner is at 2.4 MH/s. About 1 10  millionth of the network.

I agree with gmaxwell in that the activity from 82.130.102.160 is interesting whether they are mining blocks or not.

As the last person to post in the thread before it was locked, I am not sure if I agree with the actual locking

Snoopy is up to something. I supsect they are trying to match transactions to IP addresses.

I don't think that Blockchain.info is innaccurate per se, just easy to mis-interpret.

Does you home machine password have more or less than 60 bits of information (10 character, letters, numbers ,symbols)?

You may want to check the logs for failed login attempts.

I think the lesson here (which I did not know) is that you are going to move to key-based authentication, you should do it everywhere at the same time. Do you log into you home machine from Public computers? is that why you were not using Key based authentication?

Note: until recently, I was using password authentication with about 17 bits of information. Half my security was obscurity (two logins required with different usernames and passwords).

I believe those cost $30,000x20=$600,000.

I brought up a temporary CPU miner, but it has yet to catch up to the block-chain.

You don't need a Linux Bootable CD; that is simply the easiest method. You can use Microsoft Windows, and still be reasonably secure with an isolated computer.

• First, select hardware without a 3G modem Edit: it appears it only supports remote lock via SMS, not remote wipe/control.
  
• Install version of Windows of your choice. It is a judgement call if you want to patch with the latest updates. If installing from read-only media, you can use phone activation.
• Disable autorun.  Wipe any new USB keys before using them. Edit: disable previews, not matter the OS (image handling and PDF libraries have a poor security history).
  
• Install Bitcoin wallet generating software of your choice. Keep in mind you are trusting it not to generate addresses predictable to any attacker. For the JavaScript wallet generator, you can store the file locally, which will protect you  in the event the website is compromized.
• Consider buying a cheap printer for exclusive use of your bitcoin computer.
• Spending is still tricky, since your "secure" computer never connects to a network and avoids USB keys as much a possible. In theory, it should be possible to sign a transaction, and have another computer send it (keeping in mind the USB key wipe precautions). I am not aware how/which any existing client support this. Without the block-chain, your "secure" computer would be spending blind. It should be OK if you only sign wallets generated by that computer, or generated prior to the version of the block-chain stored on that computer (and not spent by another computer).

Edit: Armory aims to do what I describe.

There are no easy answers. The easy answer was called "mybitcoin". Look it up.

I personally think that computers are too insecure to handle Bitcoin, and will be for my lifetime. Bitcoin allows you to store hard money on just about any recordable medium. The difficulty is that anyone with access to the private key can spend that money. The advantage is that you can take advantage of that to actually back-up your money in case the fixation upon which it is stored is destroyed.

A secure wallet is never spent, and  is stored in multiple locations. Data loss is a real security concern. If you are encrypting the copies, you may want distribute  a series of keys such that a subset are needed to reconstruct the master decryption key.

A secure wallet is generated on a comptuer with no access to the Internet. Removing wireless cards and unplugging network cables is a sensible precaution. As is booting from a live CD (that you have to find some way of trusting). The Live CD should never write to the hard-disk if the machine is going to be connected back up to a network. Printing the wallet on a printer is a sensible precaution. Keep in mind, you can't trust the printer either. I would strongly suggest avoiding network printers. It would also be helpful to know just how much data your printer is capable of storing (and for how long). For example, fancy photocopiers will keep the last 1500 pages or so on the hard-drive (so you can re-print).

Security updates are always a security risk. This means you can not use an anti-virus on a machine storing lots of Bitcoin, which means you have to have some other way of keeping the machine virus-free. You have to trust your OS provider not to  tamper with their software updates either. However, leaving the system unpatched leaves you vulnerable to security exploits that you hope were not deliberately set.

That does not even get into my thesis that PCs are no longer general-purpose computers. /tinfoil

For spending, you have to move the keys to an insecure computer. To facilitate this, you may want a series of small wallets, such as the Casascius model. Remember though, if you are trusting no one, you can't just buy a pile of those and call it a day. How much do you trust "Mike Caldwel", really?

TL;DR: James Bond skills yes, but you can use BSD instead of Linux

PS: With this level of paranoia, I have not lost a single bitcoin. Neither have I ever had any Bitcoins to my name either. I think a safe-deposit box and very old printer will suffice for "cold storage" for now. I plan on signing the seal of the envelope so I an have some indication if tampering has occurred.

I like the theory that Satoshi is actually a group of people working for a shadowy organization wanting plausible deniability. It is possible that Gavin went to the CIA to meet Satoshi,  but is not allowed to talk about it.

My guess would be vaporize: gold has less resistance, implying higher start-up current.

I assume you are joking, but there are two obvious indications it is a deliberate scam:

• The colour is all wrong. As is the hardness. People on the manufacturing floor would catch such an error.
• Making a brick out of composite materials instead of a single material takes at least one more pour. You can't do that by accident.