Have you seen an increase in Yobit Sig Holders posting dross?

I would like the community to review this thread from yesterday and this one today,
and give their opinion on whether this may be a serious sig abuse issue.

Not only does it degrade the forum overall, but it may be an abuse of the forum rules.


Gleb's Thread on February 23
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1375023.0

A Yobit Sig Holder Thread of today
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1375824.msg13996680#msg13996680



Have you noticed an increase in worthless Yobit Sig Holders comments?

There may need to be an investigation on all yobit sig holders and see if there are
connections (ips, btc addys) that show this is the work of a single person or a small handful.

It would not surprise me if it winds up that over 50% of yobits sig holders are the same individual.

I understand this may just be one small issue in regards to all the issues that exist here on bitcointalk.org,
but I think this may be getting out of hand now.

Edit: added/removed some words to clarify this is about the bct sig users, not the website.

Yes, at least you wrote a useful answer for them.

Would just like to point out the next two posts after mine were yobit sig posters, must be a coincidence, right?

Saved for the record:  https://web.archive.org/web/20160224175722/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1375824.msg13996680

You start by looking at all your posts and see that you post single sentence worthless comments
designed to increase your post count for your yobit signature campaign.

See this thread for your reference: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1375023.msg13988232#msg13988232

Bring those sons of bitches to justice!

It could be my imagination, I really don't know and haven't done any investigating,
but lately yobit sig members have really gone on a rampage of total worthless postings.

Sometimes I feel it is just a small handful of people with hundreds of accounts.

Whatever the reality, I never paid much attention or noticed them until the last few weeks.

Bitcoin was created as a Cryto-Currency. That is what it is currently doing.
Bitcoin "scarcity" is based upon economics and the well established historical record of mining for "precious metals".
In theory, Bitcoin should act and react in the manner that it was designed to be, a "digital-gold".

Ether Devs have stated they will fix the price of ETH to a small steady price (well below $10)
so that their contracting system doesn't become too expensive for users and companies to use.
They stated they will continue to dump more coins into the market to prevent rapid price increases.
They stated that ETH is just a token and should not be seen as a speculative device.

Buyer beware.

Hope you didn't buy too many ETH at too high of a price.  
Everyone who trades altcoins knows this to be true.
Sorry you didn't get the memo.

Please provide me the link what the max Ether coin limit is and
also where the Ether Devs say that ETH is a speculative device.

Attention all noobs:

Ether does not have a limited coin cap like bitcoin (which has 21 million).
The Ether Devs have stated that they can and will release more ETH coins into the market if users hoard too many.
Thus, Ether is not a speculative commodity. It is only a token to power their contract-system.
You are investing in a token that is not designed to increase in value over time.

Buy some if you wish to participate in the current pump & dump rallies.
But it will not over take Bitcoin/bitcoin. That is against common sense.

My guess, second ETH dump incoming around February 25th or the 26th.

This should be in the Altcoins section, as well.

You should move this thread to a more advanced section, to get the proper answers you seek.
In the meantime, I'll answer only what is my understanding.

It is not "flagged", I believe the transaction will be seen as a "non-standard" tx.
Merchant services will be able, in time, to implement something that will recognize it and allow the
business to decide what they wish to do in real time. Like a warning pop-up or the like.

A merchant can not "choose not to allow" a 0 conf RBF tx, because it could within seconds, be a 1 conf tx.
In that event, the RBF issue is resolved and non-existent.
Merchants should tell their clients/users to wait for 1 conf, if that client/user chooses to use Opt-In-RBF.
Merchants should advise their clients/users on their payment page that they do not "honor" 0-conf RBF txs.

In theory, many things can be implemented that can assist the merchants with RBF txs.
Merchants should contact their payment processors and request that they provide such feature.

The RBF feature only applies to the same outputs being sent a second time, to the same or another address.

If you performed another tx with a separate address which has different outputs from your original RBF tx,
it would be two different output txs, and would not effect you original RBF tx.

I don't know what is programmed in 0.12.0 for sure,
but my understanding is any increase would cause the miner to pick up that new tx, over the first tx.

In theory, you would increase your fee so that it would be picked up in the next found block.
If your bumped up fee is just a few satoshis or etc, you will probably continue to wait with your second tx, as well.
Opt-In-RBF is really intended to "bump" your way to the head of the line during congestion or spam attacks.

Anyone who has participated in such campaigns or has educated themselves
in the history and cases of PSYOps and BlackOps knows this is very likely.

Anyone who would disregard such a notion as paranoia or the like,
does not really know of, care for, or works for such a campaign.

Our community, which was founded around the cypherpunk community,
should question whether we wish to disregard those ideals and sell ourselves to Mammon.

Beware that you yourself are not being used by those who wish to control you.

Edit: spelling

I just checked the address Payza provided you as the address they sent the btc to.
Is that your address above?
If so, the funds were sent there and then you moved it to another address.

Overall, this would not be a problem with btc, but with Payza performing the withdrawal requests.

If you don't mind, please provide the transaction ID that Payza provides, that proves they sent it.
Something like that would usually be found in their withdrawal section.

Figuring out what happened is just speculation without their TX IDs to look at.

What you are arguing could be a possibility, but hopefully they have worked out those terms as well.

In your opinion, what could be added to the July 2016 HF proposal that would be a deal breaker or be seen as bad faith?

Some would argue that bitbitch was making a future Bitcoin/bitcoin prediction/comment based on a real world historical result.
Thus, my comment, would be in that context of future Bitcoin/bitcoin prediction/comment.

Sorry neither of us put any bitcoin signifiers in there for your approval and understanding.

Some would argue that the shit hit the fan because of that treaty.

I didn't think you were looking for a fight.
Usually when someone is mad about a thread being moved, there are some WTFs and OMGs!!!!

Near the end of the first post of this thread, the section titled : "Guidelines for Threads".
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=703657.msg7955645#msg7955645
This may help answer your question.

Your question was about Chrome, Java and Flash.
Technical section should be in reference to Bitcoin/bitcoin.
It seems you were asking about how to get Flash to work, for a gambling site.

You are not asking for assistance with Bitcoin/bitcoin, but with Flash Player.

The Off-topic section is probably the correct one, within this forum.

Yes. There is barely any information.
This quote may explain why there isn't much info online about it: http://www.abcoin.net/post/80113342936/wei-dai-ama-on-less-wrong
This link has his AMA answers: http://lesswrong.com/lw/jgz/aalwa_ask_any_lesswronger_anything/ap3c

I think it is Broadcast-Money or Bid-Money (not "Bit"), but those are just guesses.