Hi, I'm interested in selling a Reddit account with 12.1k karma (as of June 2023). The only reason why I'm selling is because I'm disappointed with the Reddit administration and intend to dedicate all of my efforts towards creating a decentralized, censorship-resistant, and user-centric Web3 replacement and really wish Reddit will become the next Digg. How much would something like this account be worth? It was created in 2022. Escrow is fine as long as it is established (either an established service or a BT member with good reputation).

I keep getting the following message despite not having logged into my account in ages:


What's the new withdrawal limit for unverified accounts? I remember it was something like 1 BTC a few months back.

EDIT: Hmm... According to their support page, it looks like it's 0 BTC. Obviously this is far too low. Looks like I'll have to go through their verification process. :/

EDIT 2: Got a "No public record match" after attempting basic verification:


The enhanced verification withdrawal limit of 100 BTC per day is overkill for me IMO since I don't need to withdraw that much. Oh well, here it goes...

Perhaps, but if you have hundreds of bank accounts at your disposal and you have an empty bank account which you don't intend to keep more than several dollars worth of BTC in then what's the harm in exposing that bank account's PIN?

Now that I agree with, especially since most people would need to open their client to obtain their private key anyway. I guess they could use a brainwallet passphrase or something like Vanitygen instead to generate private keys but even so, they would still need to fire up their client to make transactions.


This would be the best approach to take if OP just wants to prove that he controls the coins in that address. On the other hand, if OP wants to prove that he owns the actual address in question (e.g. perhaps he is the owner of an account linked to that address which has since been compromised and he needs to prove that it's actually him) then it wouldn't work. His only option then would be to ask C-CEX for the private key and I seriously doubt they would grant such a request.

You're not giving the private key to someone else. The code is open source and it's all client-side JS. It's probably safe, but if you want to be even more sure that the website hasn't been tampered with, you can download the script yourself and run it locally using an offline computer.


This is a good idea, although it would depend on why you need to sign a message from an address in the first place. The deposit address that C-CEX gives you isn't yours because it belongs to and is controlled by them. And you can't use it to sign a message since you can't sign a message from an address that you don't control.

Why do you want to sign a message OP? Is it to prove that you have control of the coins in that address? If so, then it would probably be best to transfer the coins on the exchange over to an Electrum address and sign a message from that instead.

That only works if you have the private key for the address, which most exchanges won't give you. What exchange are you using OP?

Hmm... You're right. I remembered seeing that 10 years figure on a blog/forum somewhere and never bothered to check it. It seems that curing cancer would only increase the average lifespan by slightly over three years while a cure for cardiovascular disease would increase it by just under seven years.

I wonder if curing both at the same time would yield a far better result, however. The reason why a cure for cancer only results in a three year increase in life expectancy is because of Taeuber's Paradox which states that those who would have died from cancer but didn't would have died from cardiovascular disease or some other age-related condition shortly afterwards anyway (and vice versa).

According to this article, it's likely to be a mix of different factors at play - including food and medical care:

http://www.agewatch.org.uk/secrets-of-longevity/japanese-longevity/

Quote from another article which gives pretty much the same reasons as above:


Link: http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/407445/What-is-the-Japanese-secret-of-living-to-100

Also notice how virtually all of those who live past 110 are thin. Japan happens to be the thinnest country in the developed world and calorie restriction (with optimal nutrition) has been proven to extend lifespan across a range of different species so perhaps there is a link somewhere there as well.

Chart showing the percentage of obese people in 34 developed countries:



People with obesity have a much greater risk of developing cancer, cardiovascular disease, stroke, and diabetes which probably affects the average life expectancy quite a bit in countries where obesity is more common. According to this link, Japan has an average BMI of 22.5 while the United States' average is 26-29 (depending on what source you're using). Another study shows that BMI and life expectancy has a very strong correlation.

Dicebitco.in offered exactly that but it still ended up making its investors lose money. It offered proof of funds and the size of the bankroll was always shown on the upper left corner of the site:



Quote from an article on the site's demise:


Link: http://cointelegraph.com/news/112470/dicebitcoin-accused-of-cheating-players

I have some knowledge and training in biochemistry so I'd probably open my own lab and conduct scientific experiments. Having a billion dollars or even a few million dollars would free me from having to submit grant proposals and relieve me of any teaching responsibilities that usually come with becoming a researcher at a college or university.

If anything good comes out of my research, I'd probably put it into the public domain just like the way Jonas Salk did with his polio vaccine.

Only those signatures that advertise gambling sites encourage posts in the gambling section.

Your signature is that of a gambling site (777coin) so it makes sense to encourage members who are displaying it to post more often in the gambling section. Someone who is browsing and posting in the gambling section is more likely to click on your signature and play at 777coin vs. someone who is browsing and posting in the development & technical discussion section or the politics & society section, for example.

My signature is that of an altcoin exchange, so there is no such encouragement. Only those posts in the off-topic section are not counted. The Bitmixer campaign discourages its members from posting in the alternate cryptocurrencies section by not counting these posts since they don't deal with altcoins (whereas mine does).

Which signature campaigns pay for only those posts made in the gambling section? I'm not aware of any that do this although I've seen a few that either have a higher rate for posts made there (such as yours) or enforce a minimum number of posts to be made in that section per payment cycle (e.g. CoinRoyale). In any case, I'm sure it's far from common.

Coinomat is using the bot hosted by marcotheminer so this bug probably isn't unique to their campaign. The bot shouldn't be counting spaces over two characters in length. Unless the bot is customizable so that Coinomat can choose unique strings of characters to ignore (a quick look at the bot's official thread here suggests that no such feature exists but I could be wrong), it's probably best to contact marcotheminer directly via a PM and ask him to update his bot or submit a feature request on his thread:

http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=147773

None of the signature programs for newbies are really worth it, in my opinion. The highest paying one is the 64blocks one which pays 0.00005 BTC per post with a maximum of 50 posts per week. A very prolific poster might reach this limit and make 0.00005*50 BTC which equals 0.0025 BTC. Yet that amount of BTC is only worth 60 cents.

If someone decides to join a signature campaign as a newbie, they shouldn't view it as a serious way to earn BTC. Instead, they should think of it as an educational experience similar to faucets. After all, the amounts involved are pretty much the same.

It's not because of electricity costs that mining Bitcoin using general purpose hardware is a bad idea. It's because of ASICs. A single ASIC is equivalent to an entire warehouse full of computers. If a coin has ASICs developed for it, then these ASICs are competing with your single computer for the same block reward and because of this, your single computer always inevitably loses. Even tiny SHA-256 coins like Betacoin and Terracoin can't really be mined using CPUs or GPUs anymore in any reasonable sense because the existence of a single ASIC mining on the network is enough to outclass hundreds of CPU and GPU miners.

Although cheap, that's not actually the cheapest way to mine.

The cheapest way to mine would be to head over to eBay and buy something like a Block Erupter/Ice Fury/Antminer U-series or any other obsolete stick miner for $5 and mine with that. It wouldn't be profitable of course and you might not be able to reach the pool's minimum payout threshold (you could always opt to solo mine instead however) but at least you would still get the full mining experience, if that's what you're after.

Anyway OP, if you're still interested in mining with your computer then you could try mining altcoins and converting these to bitcoins using an altcoin exchange like Cryptsy. There are many altcoins out there which can still be mined using CPUs or GPUs. The only ones which have ASICs built for them are SHA-256 based coins like Bitcoin and Peercoin, and scrypt-based coins like Litecoin and Dogecoin.

Here is a list of CPU-mineable coins:

http://www.cpucoinlist.com/

(Note: It hasn't been updated in a while though so some coins might have transitioned over to GPU mining since the list was written. To the best of my knowledge, no ASICs have been developed for any other algorithm besides SHA-256 or scrypt however.)

When measured in terms of implied value against the US dollar rather than the artificial "official" value, the Venezuelan bolivar has actually performed worse (60 VEF to 1 USD on December 2013 to 430 VEF to 1 USD on May 2015):




You're quoting a post from 2011. It's fairly common for links posted many years ago to no longer work. A copy of the article can be found here:

http://themonetaryfuture.blogspot.com/2011/06/bitcoin-is-economic-singularity.html

The author seems to have entered the Bitcoin world during the June 2011 bubble when prices were skyrocketing and "mainstream" people were beginning to hear about it for the first time. In the article, he predicts that the value of Bitcoin will explode tremendously in the next three years (a prediction which later turned out to be mostly correct) and also recommends putting nearly all of your assets into BTC.

Would someone who was once the Director of the Bitcoin Foundation really think that the two are even remotely comparable? Because the differences between the two proposals are enormous. Satoshi always intended for the block size limit to be increased at some point in the future. That was always part of Bitcoin's design and it was never a question of "if" but "when". That the majority of miners would someday support a hard fork that aims to increase the max block size is to be expected:


Link: http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@metzdowd.com/msg09964.html

Arbitrarily increasing the total number of coins changes a fundamental aspect of what Bitcoin is and Satoshi's comments make it clear that such a thing would be very undesirable. Even if there is no centralized party trying to enforce a fork, I find it unlikely that miners would accept the latter or even equate the two proposals as being anything remotely similar.


It would be a hard fork that involves a change in the coin emission algorithm. You're correct that there is nowhere in the code that specifically calls for a max cap of 21 million coins. However, this number can be deduced by looking at the emission rate (50 BTC blocks every 10 minutes with a halving every ~4 years). Changing the specifics of the emission algorithm would change the maximum number of coins but to do so would require a hard fork.

Acceptance of the hard fork can be measured by looking at the proportion of miners who switch to the new chain. Most likely the chain would bifurcate since any proposal to change the maximum number of coins would be very controversial (to put it lightly), and you would have two chains on either side that exist independently of the other.

Just-Dice is a fairly trustworthy site. More importantly, I made sure to withdraw coins from the address before entering my private key. Since then, I've only had a maximum of $10 stored in that address which should limit the damage in the event that JD is hacked or goes rogue (yeah, I know it's better to stop using it completely).

It is very cheap but there are some differences between that PC and the usual PCs that you might see on a store shelf. For example, it doesn't use a normal OEM version of Windows 8.1 but rather, it uses something called "Windows 8.1 with Bing". According to ZDNet, prices for this version are probably close to zero for OEMs (link). It also has a few minor restrictions compared to the normal version of Windows 8.1 and is supported by their Bing search engine.

Secondly, while the processor is an Intel, it is an Atom which is typically found in tablets and mini PCs and runs at a low clock speed (1.33 GHz). Its performance is similar to a high-end Pentium D from nine years ago although obviously it's far more energy efficient.

You can usually find brand-name tablets with Atom processors and running Windows 8.1 at around the same price point as well. For example, there is the HP Stream 7 at $99.99 and the Toshiba Encore Mini at $84.99. If you cracked one of these open, you would probably notice that their internals are very similar.

I'm not very familiar with hard drive mining coins but I know that with BURST, it's usually recommended to go with USB 3.0 if your hard drive is large (i.e. over 1 TB). I went over the specs of the mini PC posted by the OP but couldn't find any mention of whether the USB ports are 2.0 or 3.0.

It also depends on what is meant by "old days". For example, I first got into Bitcoin back in mid-2011 and back then, there were no lightweight wallet options that I was aware of. I remember trying to sync the blockchain over my crappy college Internet and giving up because it took too long. Perhaps if there were lightweight wallets back then, I would have paid more attention to Bitcoin and its future potential.

Both Electrum and MultiBit are the most popular lightweight wallets for PC right now and both were released in late 2011. Same with Blockchain.info which is currently the most popular online wallet. That one was released in August 2011. Mycelium's mobile wallet was released in late 2013.