Are they official sites which host exactly the same contents as bitcointalk.org,

or they are scam sites?

WTF? You don't know value of money?

Now he's giving everyone who commented in this thread negative feedback through his new alt.

vafelcz email on his profile : jakubdalik@yahoo.com
fattyponzi used same email address, nano-btc and fattyponzi used same btc address. Dalyb and favelcz used same twitter address. All account connected to each other.




* Corrected a typo.

Scammers may not use the same IP but I guess it's possible to detect a member who has created an account using a proxy.

@bold: Then really it is impossible to stop scammers from scamming members here {...}

DT members too keep changing their negative trust to neutral when they are under pressure to maintain their DT status which means they are abusing their power.

One DT member admitted to leaving ratings that are not accurate and 50% of his ratings are an abuse. Do we really need such members to track scammers when their ratings cannot be trusted? What's the point?

and it makes no sense for DT members to do that job which is not their responsibility.

 -snip-

If common members of a forum are given a moderating job to track scammers when it should be a job of the admin/real mods, that's when we can see that the forum is not functioning properly and there is no proper law and order.

Members analyse taints and link alts(if any) with it. They already doing it and leaving negative trust feedback. All staffs in this forum may not know how to analyse taints {...}
 -snip-

In most wallets you set the fee per kb, not per byte, and then the calculations are being made from there whether the fee is rounded up to kb or set per byte.

I highly doubt OP meant he was setting 500 satoshis per byte. I'm pretty sure he was setting it per kb and that's way to low. I insist that he should set it to 0.0001 per kb (or the equivalent per byte but I really don't think his wallet is asking per byte). Anyway as I said it would help if OP mentions the wallet he's using.

I you meant something else with your high-priority TX link I didn't understand you.

I don't want to watch lengthy videos of this lunatic. Just tell me whether these facts are wrong or not:

1. Zakir Naik favors death sentence for apostates from Islam.

2. Zakir Naik does not believe in evolution.

3. Zakir Naik supports Osama bin Laden.

4. Zakir Naik demanded Shariah law in India, despite Muslims comprising only 15% of the population there.

5. Zakir Naik supports a ban on the construction of non-Muslim places of worship in Muslim lands.

6. Zakir Naik supported the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas.

7. Zakir Naik's disciples (such as Kafeel Ahmed, Najibullah Zazi, and Rahil Sheikh) have indulged in terrorist acts across the world, which resulted in the deaths of many innocent people.

Loan Amount : 0.05
Reason          : trading
BTC Address  : 1FNKfCd8kWEHphCf51CysHnPc9ys8pThH3
Term Length   : 3 days

I was in the middle of writing a breakdown of what went wrong, but you've beat me to it.

Basically, they have a LinuxSecureRandom class that's supposed to override the standard SecureRandom. This class reads from /dev/urandom and should provide cryptographically secure random values.

They also seed the generator using SecureRandom#setSeed with data pulled from random.org. With their custom SecureRandom, this is safe because it mixes the entropy using XOR, so even if the random.org data is dodgy it won't reduce security. It's just an added bonus.

BUT! On some devices under some circumstances, the LinuxSecureRandom class doesn't get registered. This is likely because /dev/urandom doesn't exist or can't be accessed for some reason. Instead of screaming bloody murder like any sensible implementation would, they just ignore that and fall back to using the standard SecureRandom.

If the above happens, there's a problem because the default implementation of SecureRandom#setSeed doesn't mix. If you set the seed, it replaces the entropy entirely. So now the entropy is coming solely from random.org.
And the final mistake: They were using HTTP instead of HTTPS to make the webservice call to random.org. On Jan 4, random.org started enforcing HTTPS and returning a 301 Permanently Moved error for HTTP - see https://www.random.org/news/. So since that date, the entropy has actually been the error message (turned into bytes) instead of the expected 256-bit number. Using that seed, SecureRandom will generate the private key for address 1Bn9ReEocMG1WEW1qYjuDrdFzEFFDCq43F 100% of the time. Ouch. This is around the time that address first appears, so the timeline matches.

I haven't had a thorough look at what they've replaced it with in the latest version, but initial impressions are that it's not ideal. Not disastrous, but not good.

you mean the transition too slow, it's occasional but very normal.

-snip-


Um...  how many posts does someone have to make for that? That would translate to a fulltime income (on the lower end of incomes) even in most developed countries. I thought cloudthink pays best, though its most likely scam, followed after dadice...

Repaid. *whew*

https://blockchain.info/tx/d8d7df60993c51bbea1376cdf4b62d086530e1c46635fb3ffc5eb4c2f74c88eb

thanks, MZ. 

Loan Amount : 0.1
Reason           : trading VTC
BTC Address  : 1FNKfCd8kWEHphCf51CysHnPc9ys8pThH3
Term Length  : max of 7 days

need faster n fast repay. thank's.

Loan Amount : 0.5
Reason          : Investment in Mining
BTC Address  : 1A7EWrfkQWbBiz9b4TE6HUs3Xyrrn7cnk8
Term Length   : max of 24 days

-- Daily Income about 0.03

Loan Amount : 0.01 btc
Reason           : private
BTC Address  : 1HRmKQgqjNqqWdgrUSJXVQwK9sxefvXMZM
Term Length  : 3 days (probably only 2)

Or You can simply use XAPO

they have no fees !

And transactions are also done pretty quick .

Nope, you're wrong.
Bitcoin transaction fee now is per byte, not per kilobyte.
https://blockchain.info/tx/a40793e7c4eddea9474f9378143e7208cbcac8d4e3ec7d1eb72948e7ba47f591

65  /** Fees smaller than this (in satoshi) are considered zero fee (for relaying) */
66  int64_t CTransaction::nMinRelayTxFee = 1000;

Thank you for your answer. That's what i tried, but electrum just disappeared like gentarkin told.
Unfortunately I'm a totally phyton noob, but I'll try now to install the libs.

I share your frustration. Same problem on windows. No problem on linux

-snip-

This one failed as well.

So your logic applies to spammers but suddenly with scammers not, so if you ban spammers they can create a new account but they will be banned again yet if you ban scammers they will create a new account and wont be banned? or whats the deal because i really dont see your point, scammers can create new accounts without being banned, probably most of them do so why not just ban their main account directly? What do they bring to the forum?

There are indeed a lot of different options but the moderators and admins always seem to use the same excuse that its hard to moderate scams, i mean thats a super silly excuse. Imagine if that happened in real life, everyone could be stealing anything and they would never go to jail because it is not 100% sure if they did it or not -.-

I always said scammers should be moderated, why are spammers moderated then? How do the mods and admins know when a spammer is really a spammer? Doesnt that create problems? Yes it does, every 5 posts here 1 is about a ban so i dont see why that cant happen with scammers, are spammers more important and harmful than spammers?

-snip-
Avoid detection? How do scammers get tracked by DT members then? If legitimate users want to leave the forum, their wish. No legitimate user would get scared unless they wanted to scam and couldn't do so.

You contradict your own statements that what job DT members are doing, the forum admin/mods cannot do it when the case is that the forum mods/admins don't want to do it.

I do agree with him, though, in that by such violent acts they redefine Islam for OTHERS, essentially hijacking it.  He suggests that at some point, following some latest atrocity, nobody will listen to you or people of your persuasion - they'll have simply had enough.

Thusly, "Islam" becomes the "New Islam" and guys like you basically own it.

But do not fear, you will be welcome in the groups of atheists and those of secular orientation.

islam doesnt hates people! you should ask to jewish why they hates people? (muslim,christian,budhism,hiduism even atheis) jewsh assumed that people except their religion is not human.
 -snip-