~10-12 USD/EUR is a relativly normal price for a VPS to run a full node on. Calculating the price at home would be more difficult, because - as franky1 said - its complex to avoid made up costs. I would argue a full node at home costs almost nothing as it only increases the energy need for an already existing machine very slightly. Disk space should be sufficient unless you only have a laptop w/ ssd. You might have to add more for electricity if you want the node to run 24/7 but your machine usually is not running all the time. 400 Watts however is overkill as this would assume the machine is running under full load (including GPU). |
|
|
|
-snip- You should review this post. Lauda admitted to attempt to extort someone under the guise of collecting information about criminal activity. Yeah I did. Lauda made a self certified statement that he will not profit from the extortion if it is successful, however this statement is worthless and irrelevant (and obviously unenforceable).
Its actually common to do these things for a certain set of people. Whether or not Lauda can be considered something similar for this forum I dont know. E.g. a doctor is not charged with assault when they give you a shot. Members of the german bundestag can be except from law enforcement entirely when they take similar precautions (notary statement) and have a good reason (investigating a crime). I assume this is similar for other countries. A crime requires not only an unlawful act but also what is called "mens rea"[1] an intent to do something criminal. The written, signed and timestamped statement in advance clearly shows that mens rea is not given in Laudas case. Whether or not this should be a right DT or Staff should have when investigating I have no opinion on yet. My frist gut instict tells me it would not be a good idea to make this common practice. I think it is fairly obvious that this thread is about this exact incident.
I wasnt aware of the latest drama at the time of my last posting that is true. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea |
|
|
|
-snip-
ok if you are so smart , give me other options .
Just go away for a few months, its not like this is the only place where you can sell digital items for bitcoin. IIRC you are allowed to resend PMs and other requests to theymos once a week. If you have no answer after 6 months, you will probably never get one. |
|
|
|
-snip-
Yeah that is the entire point, of the attack.
Anyway, my questions surrounding this attack are:
* Why does the paper call for making an even split between 2 groups of miners, as it's starting point? Wouldn't any division 10%/90% work just as well if you were able to isolate a merchant to the 10%?
Because a 50% split is enough. The idea is that you join the 50% side to make it stronger. Any bigger split would only improve your chances to pull this off. * Does this paper highlight anything new? (it seems obvious that comm disruption between groups will cause chain separation and removing disruption will cause one chain to get orphaned).
I have not read it, but it does not sound like anything new. To me this sounds like a sybil attack on miners. * For blockchains like Ethereum with short times between blocks I guess the term "delay" is appropriate, but really we are causing a complete comm disruption, for the time under which the attack takes place, between the groups, no?
No thats not needed and might cause the attack to get revealed. The delay must just be long enough for the victim to notice the confirmation(s), the attacker taking advantage of that fact and the block(s) getting orphaned.
I find it quite impossible in practice, to "split the miners into 2 equal groups by causing a communications delay between them".
It's probably even harder than splitting the internet in half.
If you look at this hashrate chart, you can see that by just targeting the 4 largest pools you could split the hashrate into 2 equal groups. So much easier than splitting internet in half. Now still there is the requirement of isolating a merchant node, so that it is only seeing blocks from one side. But problem seems halfway solved with 4 pool attack.  Still sounds like a difficult attack as you would need in depth knowledge how the miners are contected to the network and how those providing the actual hashing power are connected to the central node. There might also be fail saves in place. Even if you just kick them of the relay network and there is no fail save (which I doubt considering the potential losses) you need to make sure no one gets a "something is wrong"-mail and notices the attack. |
|
|
|
-snip-
Thanks for posting that !
that`s perfect , ban that account , why do you banned the others accounts , we are talking about : steamproject , dorkslayz and tberty .
when did you recently clean my mess with that 3 accounts ?
Is not the end of story because i asked theymos to came here ... i never argue for a correct decission ...
Its always the person that is banned, never just the account. Otherwise there would be no such thing as ban evasion. |
|
|
|
I think it depends on how severe it is. At the very least it would warrant negative ratings from DT and repeating the same threats should fall under the no-spam rule.
In that case feel free to give Lauda and all of his/her/it's puppets/helpers a negative for their "attempted"/"fake" extortion "attempt." Sounds like you are trying to derail this conversation. Im working on something in regards to trust ratings as mod crutches, but I dont see it as extortion. |
|
|
|
I'd like to suggest that there should a module or plugin installed here that will notify or alert us whenever someone quotes our post, there are plugins like that for MyBB but I don't know about smf or the new forum software you guys are building but this feature is quite useful.
As threads on bitcoin have many many replies, it would be useful to go to only the replied you're concerned about like the ones which include your post quoted.
What you guys think?
Why not use the watchlist for threads you care about? But that shows the threads, don't take you to the replies your post is quoted, right? Correct, but considering that you are only rarely quoted outside of threads you posted in that should be fine. With a click on "new" you will end up on the first new reply since you last watched the thread. That is quite useful to have especially on threads that have like thousands of replies. As it is quite hard to look for replies that you're looking for in those threads.
Yeah probably. A crutch fow now is to use the print view and search within your browser (usually ctrl + f). |
|
|
|
So everybody understand that Segwit is inconceivably better, but some trolls on the forum, whose posts I've read, keep getting on the way.  Well it adds complexity, esp. as softfork. Its also not a blocksize solution per se, it just happens to have that as a side effect. It solves malleability though and allows and more easy introduction of new transaction types in the future. What possible reasons may they have, backing unlimited against Segwit?  I dont know what reasons other may or may not have, it often boils down to petty politics I dont really care about. Unlimited tries to give node operators more control over how large blocks can be. Whether or not that actually works or is just a placebo and miners are still in control I cant say.
Just leave this thread open for a bit and the comments about how this side or that side is evil and leads to damnation (centralization) will come. |
|
|
|
-snip-
you must post a proof.
No, actually he does not have to. If this is your 4th ban, you should consider yourself lucky you have been here this long and just be done with it. Reading your replies here makes it very clear that you have no idea how this forum works. Is not necessary to post the proof for me i want to post the proofs for others to see i am not lying about anything . If no one can see those proofs how can anyone know he`s right ? I have been around long enough to trust hilariousandco on this. I`v sent to theymos a pm to join this conversation because i am sure i didn`t make anything wrong.
Good luck. |
|
|
|
|
I think it depends on how severe it is. At the very least it would warrant negative ratings from DT and repeating the same threats should fall under the no-spam rule.
|
|
|
|
-snip-
you must post a proof.
No, actually he does not have to. If this is your 4th ban, you should consider yourself lucky you have been here this long and just be done with it. Reading your replies here makes it very clear that you have no idea how this forum works. |
|
|
|
SegWit is far more progressive solution and it solves several problems not just scalability. Besides SegWit is softfork and Unlimited is hardfork. Remember what happened with Etherium after hardfork?
What happened with Etherium was due to the DAO hack and then the hardfork ultimately divided the community. This won't be the case at all with Bitcoin unlimited, if it ever comes to fruition. In my opinion a hardfork will seriously damage bitcoins reputation and could send us back years to main adoption (if it dosnt kill the project) And it is a cert that some people will continue to mine the old chain which could create competing bitcoins. it would be a disaster, can we not just activate segwit and LN and then increase the block size over a defined period ? Every hardfork without overwhelming support can cause a network split. In order to increase the block size a hardfork is needed and it was (and might be again) on the core roadmap as well. As Carlton Banks said, the difference is who controls the code, both projects plan (or at least planned) to do a hardfork to X MB. |
|
|
|
I am senior member on the forum , what should i do ?
Not evade your ban (post outside of meta/this thread [1], or topics unrelated to your ban). This leads to an increase of your time banned and also can get your new account banned aswell. [1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1703896.msg17564723#msg17564723
Could always try the mail. Or make an appeal in here (you probably will have to mention the account you got banned with, you tried to avoid that in your OP). i just edited my post , sorry for my english but i am not an native speaker. ( i didn`t want to make my username public ) By your post history my best guess is either excessive bumping or unsolicited PMs. |
|
|
|
I suggest keeping scam accusation threads open in general. Someone might want to add something in the future.
@erikalui I am afraid I cant, I dont see Timelord2067 showing any connection between akash8871 and HatakeKakashi. The address you paid to is also not connected to any other address. Unless Timelord can update the post with a verifable connection a rating to akash8871 is all I can do.
I searched for Looks like that means sky in Sanskrit (india) -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akash_(missile) and found HatakeKakashi was someone I'd previously encountered.
is a naruto (jap. manga) character -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kakashi_HatakeI also searched and dropped the 0786 and found nicenationl u=879403 I also said that might warrant following up. You might wana make that cleared to avoid confusion in the future. |
|
|
|
also ich habe max. 2 oder 3 kleine transaktionen pro tag (ca. 0.005 bis 0.1 BTC pro transaktion) , da ist etwas faul, denke ich. die gebühr habe ich auf automatisch eingestellt.
Naja, wieviel du ausgezahlt bekommst hat ja was damit zu tun wieviel Leistung du lieferst. Ich würd mir keine 0.005 Kleckerbeträge auszahlen lassen. Wir können das ja mal hypothetisch durchrechnen. Du bekommst X mal am Tag 0.005 BTC und nach Y Tagen hast Du dann 1 BTC zusammen. Wenn Du die 1 BTC jetzt ausgeben willst, musst du dafür alle 200 Inputs die du bekommst hast verwenden. Ein Input benötigt ca. 148 byte[1], dazu einen Output[2] a 34 Byte. Nehmen wir weiter an du möchtest die Coins auch schnell bestätigt bekommen und zahlst nach heutigem Stand[3] ein bisschen was extra dafür, also 100 satoshi pro byte. Das macht dann: 148*200 + 34 = 29 634 byte bzw. 2 963 400 Satoshi (0,029 634 BTC) Gebühr. Dir gehen also 6 Auszahlungen durch die Gebühr flöten. Das ganze nochmal für 0.1 BTC Input, also 10 Inputs, aber 2 Outputs: 148*10 + 2*34 = 1 548 byte bzw. 154 800 Satoshi (0,001 548 BTC) Gebühr. Das entspricht ca. 5,2 % von der vorherigen Gebühr. stimmt es auch, dass wenn ich die gebühr "neu" einstelle, dass ich 24 std. warten muss bis die transaktionen wieder beginnen? denn jedes mal wenn ich die gebühr ändere (da ich am herum pröbeln bin), habe ich ca. + 24 std. keine transaktion.
Das liegt am Pool, kann ich mir aber gut vorstellen. Was meinst Du den hier mit "Gebühr", die Auszahlungsgrenze? [1] Wir nehmen komprimierte Schlüssel an http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/1195/how-to-calculate-transaction-size-before-sending[2] Bei den Inputs ist Wechselgeld unwahrscheinlich. [3] https://bitcoinfees.21.co/ |
|
|
|
ALWAYS tag them all by yourself too, dont wait for DT. You wont let them go around without people knowing what is going on I've tagged nial51 too that you missed. DT will do their job soon ~GUn EDIT: may i ask you why you waited 8 months to report this, leaving them able to scam eventually other people on forum? I meant, the police knocked at your door and you start to look around after 8 months? Also locked the scam accusation thread....? I suggest keeping scam accusation threads open in general. Someone might want to add something in the future. @erikalui I am afraid I cant, I dont see Timelord2067 showing any connection between akash8871 and HatakeKakashi. The address you paid to is also not connected to any other address. Unless Timelord can update the post with a verifable connection a rating to akash8871 is all I can do. |
|
|
|
|
Export the private key and encrypt it using BIP 38. This is not a build-in feature of bitcoin core. It uses AES.
|
|
|
|
-snip-
Yes this is true thats why they really require documents regarding for those people who bought or sell of huge amounts of bitcoin to prevent money laundering that is against on the law but there are people would really find ways on how to use it because of bitcoins anonymity feature money laundering is very possible indeed.
Bitcoin. Is. Not. Anonymous. There is no"anonymity feature". Money laudering is possible regardless and heavily regulating will not work. You dont combat money laundering with drift nets, but with foot work. |
|
|
|
Hallo Ihr Lieben,
jetzt hab ich noch eine Frage. Ich habe 3 Eingänge in meiner Wallet. Wenn ich mir die Eingänge in der Blockchain ansehe, dann hab ich interessanterweise bei allen 3 Eingängen jeweils in der Blockchain rechts unten einen Betrag stehen, wo ein rotes (S) dabeisteht "output is spent"...... ich habe aber keine Zahlungen getätigt und keine BTC versendet."output is spent" bedeutet für mich aber, dass ich BTC ausgegeben hätte, oder heißt es was anderes? Diese scheinbaren Ausgaben (falls es welche sind) betragen in einem Fall ungefähr ein Fünftel des eingegangenen Betrages, in einem Fall etwa ein Zehntel.
Klingt nach dem Wechselgeld. Wer auch immer dir Coins geschickt hat wird es kaum passend gehabt haben. Wallets senden was übrig ist in der Regel an eine neu erzeugte, eigene Adresse zurück. Das kannst du z.B: daran erkennen, dass die Transaktion zwei (oder mehr) Ausgänge (rechte Seite) hat und nur einer davon an eine deiner Adressen ging. Die "output spent" - BTC fehlen aber nach meinem Verständnis nicht in meiner Wallet. Denn wenn ich meine 3 Eingänge zusammenrechne, komme ich genau auf den Betrag, der mir in meiner Wallet als Guthaben angezeigt wird ... Kann da jemand Licht ins Dunkel bringen? Beste Grüße sango77 |
|
|
|
There are many ways to laundering money. Bitcoin records the payments made in a transparent manner. But Payments provide anonymity about who did it.
No it does not. All payments are tied to their respective inputs, which indirectly ties them to distinguishable addresses. Hence Bitcoin is pseudonymous. Once someone (e.g. a law enforcement agency raiding your home) learns which address belongs to whom, they can understand who did which payment. A fully anonymous system would not allow this. Can Bitcoin be used as a method of money laundering?
Sure. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
