|
1341
|
Other / Politics & Society / Re: Why do islam hates people?
|
on: June 07, 2015, 02:39:47 PM
|
Rape and sex at will is different. Also the exact age is unknown, however, it is said to be between 9 amd 12. It is also known that sex was after she reached puberty. Please don't mix rape here.
Now you're just being an apologist and you are also ignoring the commonly accepted fact in Islam that he married Aisha when she was 6 years old and had sex with her at 9. That it has to be said he waited until she was 9 years old before he 'consummated' the marriage, as though that somehow makes it any less repugnant, is still a tacit acknowledgement that he is a child rapist. An adult having sex with a child is raping them because a child is incapable of informed consent, even if a child has been conditioned to believe that it is something they want to happen it is still an adult abusing their position of trust to care for and nurture a child in order to satisfy their own selfish and grotesque sexual urges. Child rape is about power and control and no sexual act by an adult to a child can be described as anything else other than a gross abuse of the significant power the adult has over a child. Stop trying to down-play the reality that your religion celebrates a middle-aged man who had sex with a little girl who was 9 years old. Stop trying to down-play the reality that your religion celebrates a middle-aged man who had sex with a little girl who was 9 years old. There, I have written it twice so you know not to simply ignore what I am saying to you. A hand-wavy, "yeah, well, she was probably at least 11 or 12 so, you know, totallyokbecausehewastheultimateprophetright? You are missing two points - Sex is not rape if it both is willing to do. - A human is a child when he/she is under the age puberty. Once a female child is mature, she can give birth to a child. I understand you are talking in general but it is not a fact. You are missing one point here: You cannot consent to sex if you do not have the mental capacity to do so, and if you cannot consent, it is rape. It seems the only people who believe that a 12 year old (and I'm using the highest age range to give you the maximum benefit of the doubt) can consent are Muslims. It has nothing to do with physical characteristics, so puberty is irrelevant. Knowing what we know now about cognitive development, nobody today can make a credible case that a 12 year old has the mental capacity to consent to sex. You cannot defend this, the more you try the more Islam looks like a backwards religion. You're unwilling to admit that 1500 years ago, your prophet did things that are unacceptable today. You're stuck trying to justify it, and you're only point (that she reached puberty) is irrelevant. The longer Islam tries to justify child rape, the longer it will be rightly viewed as being stuck in the dark ages. What I am saying is that *all* girls who reached puberty aren't the same. Some girls' can mature at that time and some don't. It doesn't mean *all*. 'Aisha has shown characteristics of a matured girl and prophet won't be a pedophile because of many reasons. I would clarify, attitudes toward children have changed over the millennia. Just one example, consider ancient Greeks and young boys and sex. But we're not going to go and defend ancient wrong ideas today. That's just plain stupid.
What about same-sex marriage? Is not that stupid? |
|
|
|
|
1342
|
Other / Beginners & Help / Re: How to send a fake bitcoin transaction ?
|
on: June 07, 2015, 02:33:33 PM
|
my idea is to create a software that verify automatically transactions without waiting for miners or nodes to do (not confirm the transaction), so i need to send a wrong transaction (every valid transaction should respect 20 rules ...) so my software should say "no it's not valid " ....
That's not how bitcoin works. The system doesn't trust what you say. EVERY node on the network, and nearly every wallet verifies EVERY transaction before accepting or propagating it. So even if your software says that the transaction is "verified", the system won't believe you. Every node that you send the transaction to will immediately see that it is fake and will reject the transaction. If they receive too many fake transactions from you, they will drop their connection to you and refuse to let you reconnect. you need to wait about 10min to 1hour for every transaction to be confirmed,so : my application don't confirm the transaction. just check if it respect the rules of a trasaction. so you don't need to wait 10min to be confirmed. If you just want to 'validate' the transaction and not 'confirm' it on block chain, do you reallyt need to broadcast it to Bitcoin block chain? Can't you run a copy of block chain on your local system and try to create a test transaction? I am not an expert on this, I'm just making a wild guess. He want to confirm the transactions just like miners do but in a different way, I assume. Even though he said he don't want to confirm transactions, it looks like he want confirm transactions. |
|
|
|
|
1343
|
Economy / Service Discussion / Re: chinese exchanges reject 20mb block size increase
|
on: June 07, 2015, 12:15:06 PM
|
You keep bringing up "decentralization" while arguing about spam txs.... lol
To make it to two, I splitted those into two paras. Sorry if it wasn't clear. Do you know off-chain tx will bring centralized models?
Off-chain transactions are low. Do you want Coinbase to purely facilitate off-chain txs?
I have no problem but most users have problem because they ban users who receive Bitcoins from sites they blacklisted. Now what decentralization issue do we have with 20MB blocksize limit?
Please dont tell me the great firewall BS, as i already said its politics.
If Gavin & Mike settle their control over the project in this way firmly, they will be able to do whatever they want. Storage is not a big issue but if storage, internet etc... are considered, I think many nodes will have to drop and hence, less nodes which will lead to more crntralization. I actually see the opposite if mining can be anywhere with low electrical cost. Bitcoin mining cost should have more variables. Didnt i already bring this up?
|
|
|
|
|
1346
|
Other / Beginners & Help / Re: if I disconnect my pc will my BTC be safe
|
on: June 07, 2015, 11:37:10 AM
|
depends on where u are storing your btc, if its on a pc - wallet , it will be safe as long as u reconnect ur pc,
I think you meant "safe as long as u don't reconnect ur pc". It can be safe even if he connects internet as long as he knows how to secure his computer from malware. otherwise I Suggest u use an online wallet to store your cash and email encrypt it for extra protection! now days can even get mobile verification
Storing Bitcoins on an online wallet is worse than storing it in a local wallet. |
|
|
|
|
1347
|
Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: What are the best criticisms of blockchain technology?
|
on: June 07, 2015, 11:31:54 AM
|
And what about the HUGE blockchain size?
As time passes, it becomes more and more difficult to handle the blockchain.
Bitcoin have been up and running since 2009.
That is more than five years!
It is currently 34.5 gb, and it was 10 gb less 6 months ago!
This is a 25-30% increase in six months!
Disks space has been increasing ever since that time. Satoshi had the same question in 2009 and he wrote that disk space will increase over the next decades. I do agree that a system which would not require this amount of disk space would be beneficial, but how would you implement that? You can use pruning mode to save disk space. |
|
|
|
|
1348
|
Economy / Service Discussion / Re: chinese exchanges reject 20mb block size increase
|
on: June 07, 2015, 11:30:45 AM
|
Also without the Chinese miner, the network is still world wide and available in china only that mining is not possible because their own government policy of censorship and restriction.
As Bitcoin cannot be used for anything in China other than speculation (via the exchanges) or by selling Bitcoin from mining if you take out the mining then my guess is that Bitcoin would quickly disappear from China (but maybe that is the agenda that some are seeking).
Speak for yourself. Maybe because you're Chinese citizenship? You must have not liked freedoom. LOL nobody abandons China. If Mining in China isnt desirable, MOVE! Follow the money not your BS Guess what 1mb is already too big for Africa! I guess we should consider Africa first  We should try considering most countries not just developed and China was only an example. There are other countries where internet speed is slow such as India, Africa and other underdeveloped countries. 20MB maximum block size is not a great idea but I can agree with 8MB or close to it. You just can't tell accept or die. That is not at all a good idea. adapt or die =/= accept or die. Bitcoin mining is a competitive industry. It must be so to make it balanced. You cant have it all. Marginal miner will always be NOT profitable at some point. Having bandwidth limitation might just be the exact thing we will face in mining. This will balance out with the electrical rate. Having multiple variables in mining cost is a GOOD thing, not BAD. The fundamental point will always be: will there be enough fee+subsidy revenue to make it unprofitable for an attacker to buy or rent enough hashpower to double-spend. The answer is still YES with 20mb blocksize. Satoshi's original design was no blocksize limit at all. 20MB is already a compromise. What has changed since he determined that the 1 MB limit was necessary? The Bitcoin network is still pretty vulnerable to spam attacks, and many people running full nodes still couldn't handle consistent 20 MB blocks very well. The situation is basically the same. Also: - Satoshi is not God. I ended a few posts with Satoshi's words but not always and it should be the same others IMHO. Satoshi did create Bitcoin but that doesn't we should always end up with his words. He would be disappointed at how many people are using his words to end discussion rather than start it. Satoshi didn't create the world's first decentralized money so that we would all be forever bound by his own indomitable will. - He said that in a short comment 5 years ago. At that time, I believed the same thing he did. But things change and new info becomes available. I wouldn't be surprised if he changed his mind as I did. And he's not around to debate it anyway, so you should more-or-less ignore the few sentences he wrote about this so far in the past. - His first priority was obviously decentralization, not scaling. "... secured in a way that is physically impossible for others to access, no matter for what reason, no matter how good the excuse, no matter what. It's time we had the same thing for money." You pay too much attention to "Satoshi" I'm only pointing out that we already compromise the design. And the 10MB or 20MB is just a magic number because the issue is politics not technology. We dont know if in few yrs the speed through the Great Firewall will be up .... or..... down (heck the RPC even consider to fork the internet for better censorship). But we do know one thing for sure: technology will always move forward and thus bitcoin must carry on. Sorry for your loss, China. "I'm only pointing out that we already compromise the design." - This is exactly the reason I posted it. We didn't "compromise" the design. Bitcoin's design is decentralization, ".... secured in a way that is physically impossible for others to access, no matter for what reason, no matter how good the excuse, no matter what. It's time we had the same thing for money." Bitcoin must carry on but 20MB is not needed now. Bitcoin is still pretty vulnerable to spam attacks, and many people running full nodes still couldn't handle consistent 20 MB blocks very well. IMHO we should first observer what are the problems when blocks reaches 1MB and then we should consider increasing maximum block size but not to 20MB *yet*. We wont have 20MB overnight. Its the limit not minimum. I know. The size of the blocks earlier were not big like now and still a limit was put to prevent spam and DOS attacks. In fact, number of transactions were much lesser than it is today. You think this has changed now? NO! We should not only consider about scaling but stability and decentralization too. The current way of proposing by Gavin actually says about him asking miners and companies to adopt new fork which is essentially hurting decentralization. |
|
|
|
|
1349
|
Economy / Service Discussion / Re: chinese exchanges reject 20mb block size increase
|
on: June 07, 2015, 11:12:44 AM
|
Also without the Chinese miner, the network is still world wide and available in china only that mining is not possible because their own government policy of censorship and restriction.
As Bitcoin cannot be used for anything in China other than speculation (via the exchanges) or by selling Bitcoin from mining if you take out the mining then my guess is that Bitcoin would quickly disappear from China (but maybe that is the agenda that some are seeking).
Speak for yourself. Maybe because you're Chinese citizenship? You must have not liked freedoom. LOL nobody abandons China. If Mining in China isnt desirable, MOVE! Follow the money not your BS Guess what 1mb is already too big for Africa! I guess we should consider Africa first We should try considering most countries not just developed and China was only an example. There are other countries where internet speed is slow such as India, Africa and other underdeveloped countries. 20MB maximum block size is not a great idea but I can agree with 8MB or close to it. You just can't tell accept or die. That is not at all a good idea. adapt or die =/= accept or die. Bitcoin mining is a competitive industry. It must be so to make it balanced. You cant have it all. Marginal miner will always be NOT profitable at some point. Having bandwidth limitation might just be the exact thing we will face in mining. This will balance out with the electrical rate. Having multiple variables in mining cost is a GOOD thing, not BAD. The fundamental point will always be: will there be enough fee+subsidy revenue to make it unprofitable for an attacker to buy or rent enough hashpower to double-spend. The answer is still YES with 20mb blocksize. Satoshi's original design was no blocksize limit at all. 20MB is already a compromise. What has changed since he determined that the 1 MB limit was necessary? The Bitcoin network is still pretty vulnerable to spam attacks, and many people running full nodes still couldn't handle consistent 20 MB blocks very well. The situation is basically the same. Also: - Satoshi is not God. I ended a few posts with Satoshi's words but not always and it should be the same others IMHO. Satoshi did create Bitcoin but that doesn't we should always end up with his words. He would be disappointed at how many people are using his words to end discussion rather than start it. Satoshi didn't create the world's first decentralized money so that we would all be forever bound by his own indomitable will. - He said that in a short comment 5 years ago. At that time, I believed the same thing he did. But things change and new info becomes available. I wouldn't be surprised if he changed his mind as I did. And he's not around to debate it anyway, so you should more-or-less ignore the few sentences he wrote about this so far in the past. - His first priority was obviously decentralization, not scaling. "... secured in a way that is physically impossible for others to access, no matter for what reason, no matter how good the excuse, no matter what. It's time we had the same thing for money." You pay too much attention to "Satoshi" I'm only pointing out that we already compromise the design. And the 10MB or 20MB is just a magic number because the issue is politics not technology. We dont know if in few yrs the speed through the Great Firewall will be up .... or..... down (heck the RPC even consider to fork the internet for better censorship). But we do know one thing for sure: technology will always move forward and thus bitcoin must carry on. Sorry for your loss, China. "I'm only pointing out that we already compromise the design." - This is exactly the reason I posted it. We didn't "compromise" the design. Bitcoin's design is decentralization, ".... secured in a way that is physically impossible for others to access, no matter for what reason, no matter how good the excuse, no matter what. It's time we had the same thing for money." Bitcoin must carry on but 20MB is not needed now. Bitcoin is still pretty vulnerable to spam attacks, and many people running full nodes still couldn't handle consistent 20 MB blocks very well. IMHO we should first observer what are the problems when blocks reaches 1MB and then we should consider increasing maximum block size but not to 20MB *yet*. |
|
|
|
|
1350
|
Other / Beginners & Help / Re: if I disconnect my pc will my BTC be safe
|
on: June 07, 2015, 11:02:20 AM
|
my ip is dynamic, i'm not worried about that, being a target or not, they still need to find a way to infect me, which mean that they need that i download something or click on something, almost impossible
i think if you are really careful and know what your are doing, you are the best antivirus of your desktop, but i agree that such thing isn't advisable, average joe don't have the patience for something like this, they can not manage their own security
if you have 0.0001 btc of course your safe cause no one will work hard to stole your money. but if it's 5 BTC even if your ip is dynamic or you have a cisco guard firewall. or DDos protection system or anything else. the problem is your post, this post got 500 views maybe anyone will try to get your ip address. if a hacker know that he will get 5 BTC (1100$). you know!! those 5 btc are here since bitcoin was 1000(so there isn't even the excuse of "you are just not a good target", hacker has stole a much lower amount than that), and none has ever stole them, like i said they can't simply attack your desktop without your "permission" It is not hard for a malware to get into your computer without your permission. i agree. of all the "my bitcoin was stolen" stories that i have heard so far, almost all of them was the person's fault. like clicking on a phishing email, opening a suspicious link like fake blockchain.info address, having keylogger, using Tor,...
all of these can be prevented by taking necessary precautions. like having a good and up to date antivirus or using offline wallets,...
Don't compare Blockchain.info. Bitcoins lost through Blockchain.info is very big and no, many of them were *not* due to users' faults. |
|
|
|
|
1351
|
Economy / Service Announcements / Re: CloudMining.website | Starting from 1 GHs @ 0.0008 BTC | Since November 2014
|
on: June 07, 2015, 10:54:25 AM
|
On November 1st you had 21 customers. Today you have 32 customers. That's an average of 1.5 customers per month. Impressive. Here's a tip: If you want more suckers I mean customers for your totally legit mining business, you might want to make your business look less like a blatant ponzi. So I just checked their weekly payout and now they are paying to 56 addresses. How amazing is it that immediately after being called out, they mysteriously acquire more customers in the next week than they had acquired over the past 7 months? This scam really is a joke. It almost seems like the ponzi operator isn't even trying. The shill accounts are so obvious, the ponzi is so transparent, and the excuses are so laughable that I'm starting to think this might just be a social experiment to see how naive/gullible some bitcoiners really are. We can't judge how many customers they have by looking counting payouts because they can fake payouts very easily. The amount of adresses they pay to differs weekly because they are paying out only to customers with an account balance greater than 0.01BTC. So as an example I have not been paid in several weeks because I have only 90GHs there and I'm never going to break even due to low payouts!! I didn't knew that, This is obviously for ensuring their ponzi lasts long. With 90 GHs, you could get payout in ~14 days. We still don't know whether they pays to their own addresses. So it is not wise to count output addresses as customers' addresses. |
|
|
|
|
1352
|
Economy / Service Announcements / Re: [ANN] BIT-X.com | Bitcoin Debit Card | Spend Your Bitcoins Anywhere!
|
on: June 07, 2015, 10:51:03 AM
|
Can we disable verification by phone?
Sometimes I forget to charge my phone and I have to wait until it charges to gain access to my account.
Also when I press enter and it sends the code to be, it never sends it on the first try and I have to press Resend Code a couple of times to get it too send.
When it sends the code to my phone, it sends it in this format:
0Z !Your confirmation code is: 360727Ęd
Can we just disable verification and include a password instead? You could provide an option of both ways.
You can use call if you don't receive code. Call is faster than message. Also 2FA is implemented now. Try using it. |
|
|
|
|
1353
|
Other / Meta / Re: A couple of old threads need to be removed/deleted to make better seo, thank you
|
on: June 07, 2015, 10:42:47 AM
|
This forum doesn't do things like these AFAIK. If topic starters report that topics to move it to Archival. Mods may do it and it might reduce the problem but I am not sure though. -snip-
Lets be honest, if you were in control of a bunch of webpages, and there was a page with negative stuff you didn't like, wouldn't you just delete it?
Of course, you would just delete it, therefore it makes sense to delete stuff that is of no use and negative to help out your fellow man with their investments.
-snip-
Lets be honest, why are you promoting an obvious scam in your signature? You should start cleaning from there first. |
|
|
|
|
1354
|
Other / Meta / Re: You should get Whitelisted if you have to pay the TOR tax
|
on: June 07, 2015, 10:32:43 AM
|
If a users first posts are high quality, he might get whitelisted fast. I do this in my local board since I became moderator.
My first posts are all high quality. The posts of my main account are high quality. I don't participate in any of the local subs from my main account though. You are a selling an account on DT, thats not high quality, thats just a regular ass trading thread. By that logic any trader that paid a few satoshi should be whitelisted. I paid ~.003 BTC which is no small amount if you ask people in third world countries. Yes, some people have to make a living off of 60 cents, but I dont see how this is applicable here. You try to sell an DT account for 1000 USD, I dont think you have a problem with a few cents. I highly doubt that my main account is on anyone's ignore list, at least not anyone reputable.
But you are not asking about your main account to be whitelisted. You said your posts are high quality, my response is: nope they are regular sale posts. Besides, "not beeing on someones ignore list" does not make your posts high(!) quality. It might make them not(!) low quality, but thats true for almost anyone here. So why do you deserve special treatment? Try to ingore the fact that I am trying to sell something that you probably don't want me selling. Also please try to ignore my asking price, I will most likely receive significiently less then my asking price. My point is that me paying the .003 BTC is an anti-spam measure. The 360 jail is also an anti-spam measure. Why should I have to be subject to 2 anti-spam measures (both the tax and the 360 second jail) when others are only subject to one anti-spam measures. I am paying to keep my identity anon, so I don't see why I should also have to wait a long time between my posts. If I end up breaking the forum rules then I will end up banned and the .003 BTC that I spent will go to waist (plus the various tx fees that I paid and the fees associated with mixing the coins) Waiting time : It's indeed an anti-spam measure for *all* users. Fee : It only applies for users who register accounts from evil associated IP addresses. If you didn't do this, you only have to face one anti-spam measure. It is your choice to whether to face two anti-spam measure or one. |
|
|
|
|
1356
|
Other / Meta / Re: BitcoIntalk phishing PM! Warning!
|
on: June 07, 2015, 10:20:50 AM
|
Thank you for the warning! Please remove "https" from url. People may click it accidentally. Thanks for the post. The link PM is pretty easy and seems genuine to hack a person's account as the "i" is replaced with "l". That's why I had asked for the option to disallow newbies from sending/posting links to make it safer.
Newbies do come here for legitimate reasons. PMs mustn't disabled for newbies. |
|
|
|
|
1358
|
Economy / Lending / Re: Requesting 0.025 Repayment 0.030 in 4 days MAX
|
on: June 07, 2015, 05:53:46 AM
|
do you have any collateral to offer for this loan, since your reputation is not enough to get a no collateral loan
Can I provide this account as collateral? Your account is not worth 0.025 BTC. Hello everyone, I'm in need of a quick loan.
My funds are currently reserved for giveaways and bounties in the next few days for
MiniDice, and I need 0.025 or $5 in Bitcoin to complete a payment for a developer I hired.
I will repay 0.030 in Bitcoin 3 or 4 days after the loan is fulfilled.
Loan Request: 0.025 BTC
Loan Repayment: 0.030 BTC
Loan Term: 3 - 4 days
Address: 1G9YGWB5ykrZFn9vbpVrD6ULqqjK8jy16t
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
1360
|
Economy / Service Discussion / Re: chinese exchanges reject 20mb block size increase
|
on: June 07, 2015, 05:47:58 AM
|
Also without the Chinese miner, the network is still world wide and available in china only that mining is not possible because their own government policy of censorship and restriction.
As Bitcoin cannot be used for anything in China other than speculation (via the exchanges) or by selling Bitcoin from mining if you take out the mining then my guess is that Bitcoin would quickly disappear from China (but maybe that is the agenda that some are seeking).
Speak for yourself. Maybe because you're Chinese citizenship? You must have not liked freedoom. LOL nobody abandons China. If Mining in China isnt desirable, MOVE! Follow the money not your BS Guess what 1mb is already too big for Africa! I guess we should consider Africa first We should try considering most countries not just developed and China was only an example. There are other countries where internet speed is slow such as India, Africa and other underdeveloped countries. 20MB maximum block size is not a great idea but I can agree with 8MB or close to it. You just can't tell accept or die. That is not at all a good idea. adapt or die =/= accept or die. Bitcoin mining is a competitive industry. It must be so to make it balanced. You cant have it all. Marginal miner will always be NOT profitable at some point. Having bandwidth limitation might just be the exact thing we will face in mining. This will balance out with the electrical rate. Having multiple variables in mining cost is a GOOD thing, not BAD. The fundamental point will always be: will there be enough fee+subsidy revenue to make it unprofitable for an attacker to buy or rent enough hashpower to double-spend. The answer is still YES with 20mb blocksize. Satoshi's original design was no blocksize limit at all. 20MB is already a compromise. What has changed since he determined that the 1 MB limit was necessary? The Bitcoin network is still pretty vulnerable to spam attacks, and many people running full nodes still couldn't handle consistent 20 MB blocks very well. The situation is basically the same. Also: - Satoshi is not God. I ended a few posts with Satoshi's words but not always and it should be the same others IMHO. Satoshi did create Bitcoin but that doesn't we should always end up with his words. He would be disappointed at how many people are using his words to end discussion rather than start it. Satoshi didn't create the world's first decentralized money so that we would all be forever bound by his own indomitable will. - He said that in a short comment 5 years ago. At that time, I believed the same thing he did. But things change and new info becomes available. I wouldn't be surprised if he changed his mind as I did. And he's not around to debate it anyway, so you should more-or-less ignore the few sentences he wrote about this so far in the past. - His first priority was obviously decentralization, not scaling. "... secured in a way that is physically impossible for others to access, no matter for what reason, no matter how good the excuse, no matter what. It's time we had the same thing for money." |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
