If your card information is stolen by a criminal via whatever means, the end-user is not going to pay for any unauthorized transactions. So if your card is skimmed/shimmed, you can complete some paperwork, wont be able to use your card for a number of days while the bank sends you a replacement card, and you will not be on the hook for unauthorized transactions.

What are you saying is the loss to the end-user beyond an inconvenience? If you use a card at a restaurant for example, it will be out of your possession, and the staff can do whatever they want with it, but this will not affect the end user.

They are sorted by UID.

The data is only updated once a week, so it isn’t really easy to sort by date added considering it is possible to add and delete someone in the same week and add someone the following week.

According to someone who claimed to know him personally, he died from a stroke last year.

He also has a custom title, In memoriam that hopefully tells people like the OP that he is deceased.

Here is a reasonable description (here is a second) of what a site administrator does.

I would expect theymos' role as an admin to be somewhat similar to either of the above descriptions. Although theymos is also the de-facto owner of the forum, so anything about getting specifications, business requirements, or making recommendations from/to the client would not apply. Basically, he has the responsibility to maintain the forum, implement upgraded/new features as he sees fit, and ensures the forum stays online (for example by protecting it from DDoS attacks). He will also research, and fix (when appropriate) issues involving the forum codebase, and database. I believe the other admins' roles are limited to issues involving the forum database, for example, checking old IP addresses.

Theymos (and the other admin(s)) also serve as a moderator that is a higher rank than global moderator. Part of this is implementing policy, and part of this is settling disputes.

I understand that theymos pays out a percentage of forum revenue to moderators that is based on a confidential formula that tasks various moderation actions into consideration, and theymos is paid for his moderation actions. I have no idea what factors the formula takes into consideration, but I don't think it pays theymos for his administrator duties, but does pay him for his moderator duties, or at least this is my speculation.

My understanding is the forum is a separate legal entity from theymos, and theymos does not take profits out of the forum.

Card skimming, or card shimming does not affect the end-user of a credit card, beyond a fairly minor inconvenience. While the law says that consumers have no more than $50 in liability when their credit card is stolen, most credit card issuers have "$0 liability" policies, and consumers are not liable when their credit card number is used due to a data breach. This is something that was pointed out on the first page.

Unless and until a third party is willing to insulate consumers from losses from "unauthorized" bitcoin transactions, the OP's proposal is moot. The only reason why a third party might be willing to cover these types of losses would be if the third party maintained exclusive control over the private keys controlling the coin. It should go without saying that this type of setup creates more problems than it solves.

I have seen other people engage in similar behavior recently. I appreciate Larry's desire to improve upon bitcoin, even if his specific proposal is not something that should be implemented. I encourage Larry and others to come up with ways to improve bitcoin. I somewhat suspect that some people propose flawed ideas with the hope of having their idea implanted, and being able to write this on their resume.

It is generally not a good idea to keep coin in a casino account when you are not actively gambling, or do not plan on immediately gambling the coin. There is little to no benefit to not withdrawing, and there is the risk that your account will get hacked, or the casino itselt will get hacked (or "hacked").

If you listed to what he said immediately after that statement, you would have heard that he blamed the situation on the deal that Trump stuck with the Taliban, that the Taliban broke, which if Trump was in charge, would not have resulted in the US withdrawing.

There is always the potential for terrorists and enemy attacks against US troops. If we were to pull out our troops every time they are at risk of attack, we would lose every war.

The attack is entirely the fault of Biden. The attack was carried out by people who were freed from the prison at Bagram airbase that was abandoned by Biden last month. The US should expand its presence so it can increase security in Afghanistan.

There were 14 US troops killed.

Biden is blaming Trump on the deaths.

---

edit:
Biden just admitted we had won the war in Afghanistan, even though he had surrendered less than two weeks ago.

My guess is that Biden's disapproval rating will look like Bush's approval rating of his 1st term. At least to the extent that Biden is still in office.

Biden has the blood of the thousands of Afghans who the Taliban has killed, and who they will kill. Biden now has the blood of American troops and the Americans in Afghanistan that will almost certainly get left behind once Biden withdraws troops from the Kabul airport in order to adhere to an arbitrary deadline. All in order to try to score cheap political points, and is due to decisions that were contrary to the advice of military and intelligence experts.

---

Trump wanted to fully withdraw from Afghanistan, however, once he was given advice from the various Generals, he kept troops in Afghanistan after he listened to the experts.

There are reports that Biden does not tolerate dissent in his administration, and as such most of his advisors are "yes men"

If you look at what time an action was taken, you can look at what time each mod was last active, and you should have a good idea as to which mod took an action.

If you trust the operators of BPIP, you can check the banned account's profile on BPIP. You can also periodically scrape the modlog, and keep track of when each action appears on the modlog.

If you are wanting to check if someone was banned and subsequently created a new account, chances are the timeline would be something along the lines of:
*account is banned
*person accessed account to see the account is banned
*person abandons account and never accesses account again
*person creates a new account

So if the account was created after an account was last active, there is a good chance it was created after the other account was banned. Unless the person is monitoring his account(s) externally, it is very unlikely he will realize the account is banned unless he accessed bitcointalk while logged into the account.

Why are you adding the cost of inflation to bitcoin transactions? The cost of inflation is generally not included in credit card transactions. If you are spending coin, you are going to be unaffected by any inflation. You might argue you are affected via any coin you don’t spend, but this is also true for USD based transactions.

If you are going to compare CC to BTC transactions, you need to make apples to apples comparison.

Unless I am reading the block explorer incorrectly, there are 4 NFTs available.

Ignoring the above, any purchaser would need to trust that you will actually honor any redemption of the NFT. I am not sure this is a foregone conclusion for any counterparty and trust would be required.

I believe the timestamps are intentionally omitted in order to make it difficult to conclude which moderator took action against a particular user. This is supposed to prevent mods from getting harassed.

If you monitor /modlog.php periodically, you can conclude a new action that was not previously on the modlog happened between when you last accessed the modlog and the current time.

It looks like there are 4 copies for sale. Do you actually have 4 copies of the newspaper?

Being that anyone can download an image of the newspaper, what would stop someone from selling an identical image as a NFT, and how would it be different than what you are selling?

There will be a primary election for both Democrats and Republicans in 2024. Normally, when a sitting president is running for reelection, the party will not have any meaningful candidates run for the nomination. For example, in 2020, there were Republican primary elections, even though Trump was all but certain to win the nomination.
Harris is incompetent and very unlikeable. If she becomes President, she will hurt down-ballot Democrats because she is so bad. She said she was the last person in the room when Biden made the decision to pull out of Afghanistan, so this disaster is partly on her.
Biden wanted to have no troops in Afghanistan for the 20th anniversary of 9/11. I would not be surprised if the Taliban were to slow the evacuation enough so they can attack the Kabul airport on the 20th anniversary of 9/11. I have read that if the Taliban were to bomb the runway at the Kabul airport, there would be basically no way out of the country, including for the thousands of troops currently on the ground at the airport.

The above is why abandoning the Bagram Air Base was such a bad idea.

The post you cited is only how the private key is displayed, not how it was generated. There could be a number of reasons why the private key is displayed the way it is, however, this has nothing to do with the bitcoin being stolen from snarfbag's physical coin. In snarfbag's case, either the private key in question was generated in a flawed way, the manufacturing process is flawed in a way that allows an employee (or vender) acting maliciously to access the private key, the creator of the physical coin retained the private key, or the private key was somehow otherwise compromised.

Collectable physical coins are exactly this way. When someone buys a physical coin, they are trusting the manufacturer with their bitcoin the same way a trader trusts an exchange with their bitcoin. It would be prudent to require a similar amount of trust in a manufacturer before trusting them with your bitcoin.

The number of unspent outputs you have should not be considered when deciding if you want to consolidate. You should consider:

• the value of your unspent outputs
• how high you anticipate transaction fees being when you need to spend your unspent outputs
• the value of the transactions you anticipate spending when fees are higher (including the cost of the tx fee)

For example, if you have a bunch of unspent outputs valued at 0.002, but never anticipate spending more than 0.001 in a single transaction (inclusive of anticipated fees), you should not consolidate any of your unspent outputs, and should not consolidate anything until you have unspent outputs totaling 0.001 (including tx fees to consolidate), but once you have enough to consolidate into at least 0.001, you should not consolidate additional unspent outputs, unless you have enough to consolidate into an additional multiple of 0.001, in which case your new outputs will each be 0.001.

If you anticipate spending varying amounts, you can use a similar principle. For example, if for every three 0.002 transactions you will have, you will have one transaction valued at 0.005, you can consolidate into new outputs valued at 0.002 three times and 0.005 one time (in any order).

When deciding if it is economical to consolidate, you should add the cost to create a consolidation transaction to the cost of a transaction with one input and one output (plus change if applicable) at the fee rate you believe fees will rise to when you have to actually spend your coin. You should compare this cost to the cost of creating a transaction with however many inputs you are consolidating, and one output (plus change, if applicable). If consolidating results in a lower total fee paid, you should consolidate, otherwise, you should not.

The above ignores any privacy implications to consolidating, which you should also consider. 

It is not a common practice now, but this is primarily because miners have no reason to engage in this practice currently, other than to help the less technically inclined get their low-fee transactions confirmed. If engaging in this practice would lead to potentially higher total fees, I can guarantee miners will make this practice much more common, or potentially will not even consider transactions that don't have their fees paid this way.

What I describe is an edge case, and for something like bitcoin, it will need to be considered. You should really always consider edge cases, and corner cases (a situation in which multiple edge cases are combined into one) in production code, however with something with bitcoin, where there is literally billions of dollars potentially available if problems can be exploited, it is especially important to address, even perceived unlikely, or unusual scenarios.

Biden says that we are keeping a close watch on the terrorists that we just released from prison in Afghanistan.

The ridiculousness of the above is just crazy.

I think this situation makes clear that Biden is not fit to be president.

Link shorteners are allowed. What is disallowed is link shorteners that require you to view an ad in order to visit the linked website.