could we be looking at a hard fork soon? next block size wants to be >1Mb? or am i just impatient.  The time to 'find' a block and the block size are two very different parts of the bitcoin protocol and do not affect each other. The next bitcoin difficulty will likely go down by ~1.3% in ~1 day. It is expected that luck will sometimes cause it to take a long time between when two blocks are found (the same way that luck can sometimes 'cause' blocks to be found in quick succession). |
|
|
|
|
It is because the difficulty is decreasing while there has been a record number of transactions recently. This results in less supply of block space (as blocks are being found somewhat less often) and more demand for block space (higher transaction volume). This will result in the overall time to confirm transactions (measured in terms of number of blocks found since a TX was pushed to the network) to increase and the average TX fee required to get a transaction to confirm quickly to increase as well
|
|
|
|
If a wallet is not sync with blockchain how can i trust that my assets is not somehow corrupt in the future?
You either trust your wallet to properly generate private keys and the correct address for each private key, or you don't. If you trust the wallet to properly generate private keys and the correct address for each private key, then you can use any block explorer or any "watch only" wallet to calculate the total sum that you control. Therefore, there is no benefit to having the wallet sync. If you don't trust the wallet to properly generate private keys or the correct address for each private key, then it won't matter if the wallet it hot, cold, sync, or not sync. If you sync a wallet that is generating the wrong addresses, then how can you trust that your assets are not somehow corrupt? Therefore, there is no benefit to having the wallet sync. Is not danger to have a wallet that is not even sync with the blockchain?
What danger are you afraid of? Please describe the specific danger that you think might happen to your offline wallet. Then perhaps we can help you figure out how to protect against that danger. Dude, thanks dude.. Now you scared me: what if my cold storage doesn't have the correct private key.. I'm gonna have to make a small transaction to verify! Your public key (aka your address) is calculated from your private key. As long as whatever you used to generate your private key properly calculated your address, then this is not an issue. |
|
|
|
If the court rules that the money belongs to Ross then it will go to the bank of his choosing. If the court rules that it is the government's money then I believe it will go to the US treasury.
Seems a bit weird how anxious they are to sell it when they haven't determined who gets it. Ross and the government actually agreed to sell the coins shortly after he was arrested (and the price was much higher), it has just taken this long to hash out the details. Both the government and Ross agree that it would be better for both parties to sell the bitcoin and whoever is determined to own them will get the proceeds, because of the volatile nature of the price of bitcoin and the possibility they could get stolen |
|
|
|
I keep about 80% of my bitcoins in my Coinbase (US company) online vault, and about 20% online in my BTC-E (foreign company) account. I always have a teeny tiny worry in the back of mind that I'll wake up one day and the headlines will read "US Government bans Bitcoin, freezes all Bitcoin assets" and I will be unable to access my Coinbase coins. Am I paranoid?
You keep 100% of your coins on online exchanges where you do not control the private keys....... punch yourself hard in the face. Although I somewhat doubt the OP is using this feature, however coinbase does offer multisig vault where they control one key, one key is stored in your browser via your account and you control the 3rd key (for a 2 of 3 mulsig). |
|
|
|
|
I get this same message when trying to connect while I am connected to my VPN. It is usually resolved by changing the VPN gateway.
I would think they would just make you solve a cloudflare puzzle if traffic from your IP address looks like you are trying to launch some kind of attack
|
|
|
|
You cannot legitimately claim self defense if you start an encounter by violating civil rights under color of authority and implicit threat of death or great bodily harm. It's like charging your innocent victim with assault for bleeding on you as you tried to beat them to death - something only LEOs have ever been able to do without any real consequences. Neither this incident nor the Michael Brown incident has anything to do with the police violating anyone's rights. In this case the police were called because someone was waiving what appeared to be a gun around. The child was acting in a threatening way. IMO if a private citizen has shot the kid instead of a police officer the private citizen would not have been charged |
|
|
|
I wish I had the balls to invest all my money into Bitcoin but im still concerned about the price how it is and isnt going high enough for me at the moment im just about breaking even give or take a few dollars.
You will find people who have invested their college money/ money from sale of house into bitcoin when the price was at $600-$1000 and regret it now. Better not to invest more than what you can lose. They should be thinking in a 3-10 year time frame. Anyone who put in a big blob expecting a vast payday a handful of months down the line is being naive. Well to be fair this is what happened to the price of bitcoin in recent years. Up until early this year the price of bitcoin went almost exclusively up. The price also went up by ~15x last November when it crashed to less then $100 then spiked to over $1,200 in well under a month |
|
|
|
|
I have read that if both users delete a PM within a certain time of it being sent then it will be permanently deleted from the forum servers (and will not get backed up).
Even if your old PMs are saved PGP will still protect you as long as an attacker does not have the private PGP key. One way around having to worry about this, both you and the person you are talking with can generate a new PGP key for each conversation and delete your PGP key once the conversation is over.
Anyone using your site would need to trust you enough to not read what is being sent, and would be subject to potential MITM attacks.
|
|
|
|
I'd at least report it to the sig campaign to cut them off and provide his post history as evidence, not really worth it spamming the moderators if they're busy because they might get annoyed.
I really can't help but think this may be a partial solution to sig campaign related useless posts. Most signature sponsors are becoming a lot more discriminating in who posts for them and what counts. There is still an issue with people spamming with new accounts to get their level up, but reporting to a sig sponsor could also be very effective. So even if you don't want to report to the mods, report to their sig sponsor. This may help with spam over the long term - people will not spam if the are getting kicked out of campaigns. However I don't think it will stop a particular person from spamming the first time, as it will generally take several weeks for a operator to withhold payment to a spammer and kick them out of the campaign (it will take at least as long as the next time they are due to payout) |
|
|
|
|
It sounds like your site would be controlling the private encryption keys, which the security minded generally will not like.
I also don't get how your service will delete a message after three failed attempts. Is this essentially saying the message will be deleted after you try to login three times unsuccessfully?
I would think that people would be more willing to use simply PGP encryption (with the agreement that messages will be deleted after they are read).
|
|
|
|
49bc17f1c72ceb3a9ab5a3f55d3d955141c51ee513736af1a336d331fba4e7da Thank you  |
|
|
|
With the above being said, is it wise to invest in these contracts? No absolutely not, it is too risky for me, however others may have different risk tolerance.
I think that Mabsark's, puppets's and MrTeal's actions are likely violating securities laws by what I consider to be attempting to pump the price of AM1 on havelock.
So, do you have some kind of proof I'm violating a security law? Or to lower the bar even further, can you at least point me to the law I'm violating? Thanks much. 15 U.S. Code § 78i (a)(5) (4) If a dealer, broker, security-based swap dealer, major security-based swap participant, or other person selling or offering for sale or purchasing or offering to purchase the security, a security-based swap, or security-based swap agreement with respect to such security, to make, regarding any security registered on a national securities exchange, any security not so registered, any security-based swap, or any security-based swap agreement with respect to such security, for the purpose of inducing the purchase or sale of such security, such security-based swap, or such security-based swap agreement any statement which was at the time and in the light of the circumstances under which it was made, false or misleading with respect to any material fact, and which that person knew or had reasonable ground to believe was so false or misleading. and 15 U.S. Code § 78i (a)(5) (5) For a consideration, received directly or indirectly from a broker, dealer, security-based swap dealer, major security-based swap participant, or other person selling or offering for sale or purchasing or offering to purchase the security, a security-based swap, or security-based swap agreement with respect to such security, to induce the purchase of any security registered on a national securities exchange, any security not so registered, any security-based swap, or any security-based swap agreement with respect to such security by the circulation or dissemination of information to the effect that the price of any such security will or is likely to rise or fall because of the market operations of any 1 or more persons conducted for the purpose of raising or depressing the price of such security. These were found after a quick google search. A more through search and/or the use of a securities attorney would potentially reveal other/additional laws. Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/78i |
|
|
|
Those who want to continue, please post here with posts count and addy if changed.
Campaign continues from 8 Dec, not 11, so it's full be-week.
(change starting post to 150) This means that next payment is due on Dec 22, so you better not be exactly 3 days late with payments this time (2 days or 4 days late is fine with me) - I don't want you taking time away from your family on Christmas to pay us  |
|
|
|
Sorry guys, with those jet lags I completely forgot about it  I will add small tip to everyone for this mistake. I am not sure I want to know how long you were on a plane that would cause you to have such bad jet leg that you delayed payments this long! You must have been traveling halfway around the world I personally do not have a problem with the delay. The extra .01 I received amounted to an extra 20% for the payment only being a few days late, while traditionally "late fees" are only ~5% of the amount "late". I would like to continue 1N9kf7KMD8iihwRXXFqg5ugT7oE1XvPFyD 149 posts (one other thing, if you do not have time to run the campaign, Bitcoininformation might be willing to run it for you, and he could probably keep a closer eye on participants if you are short on time) |
|
|
|
-snip-
If I add someone to my trust list who is a jackwagon, its my responsibility. That sure is a pretty good motivator not to mess up the default trust list. If I add someone to my trust list who I don't have complete faith in, and they add someone who is a jerk, once again I'm held responsible. I'm not going to stake my own reputation so a friend of a friend of a friend can go on a perceived power trip. They get cut, and the system corrects itself.
-snip-
I think what you are implying is what I will outright say. CanaryInTheMine has, by far more people on his trust list then anyone else on level 1 default trust. By my count he has 201 people on his trust list, compared to a combined 127 additional people on every one else's trust list on level 1 default trust. People that he has added to his trust list make up ~61% of people on default trust (level 2), yet he makes up only ~8% of level 1 default trust. I have also noticed that a very large amount of his "trusted" feedback is from people who have no trusted feedback (a "0" trust score); almost all of them said they risked BTC when trading with him. This leads me to believe that he commonly adds people to his trust list that participate in his group buys, or otherwise does business with him. One very good example of this is the user suchmoon. I do not know him personally, nor do I have anything against him, but I do know that I have seen him spamming over the summer while participating in a signature deal. On November 10th, suchmoon received trust feedback from him that says "got a prisma in a GB. thanks!!"; it is unclear when suchmoon was added to default trust. I would say that his actions are closer to a spammer then someone that should be on level 2 default trust. It appears (to me) that he was added to default trust because of his deal with CanaryInTheMine I think that CanaryInTheMine should either greatly refine his trust list or be removed from level 1 default trust. I believe that he is severely misappropriating his trust. From what I can tell he is an honest person to trade with and do not think he is intentionally doing anything wrong, however the way he appears to be adding people to default trust is allowing people to essentially buy their way onto default trust. If you ignore the controversies/disputes regarding Vod, then almost all of the disputes regarding trust involve someone who is on CanaryInTheMine's trust list. Using various assumptions for the cost of electricity (between .06 and .08) and increases in difficulty (between 5% and 10%), getting added to default trust will cost between nothing and ~.5 BTC when buying from his most recent group buy. Once a person is on default trust he can potentially give false feedback to other accounts that he controls which could then enable scams. You can forget about the pitfalls of the selling/trading of accounts, the way that people are being added to default trust, it would not be necessary to buy an account to try to scam.
The feedback left by Mabsark is inappropriate. It is clear (to me) that he gave such trust in order to cause the value of his AM1 shares to increase as potential investors will be scared from the trade with extreme caution rating and will eventually look to Havelock. There are legitimate potential reasons not to not prove their legitimacy, for example doing so may reveal that a particular ASIC manufacturer is giving them a favorable price and once this is public larger competitors could also seek similar prices, but in larger quantities, which would mean they may not be able to secure additional mining capacity in a timely manner. Providing a mining address is worthless as this can easily be faked. With the above being said, is it wise to invest in these contracts? No absolutely not, it is too risky for me, however others may have different risk tolerance.
I think that Mabsark's, puppets's and MrTeal's actions are likely violating securities laws by what I consider to be attempting to pump the price of AM1 on havelock.
@ puppet - you are not a scam buster. Having such label on your personal message is very misleading. It is similar to how `THEYM0S (with the apostrophe) has Administrator Hero Member on his personal text. |
|
|
|
The other option is offering weekly payments then at least they can prove they will pay out pretty quickly and if they do scam then you've only given them a weeks worth of advertising. However, some deals have paid out for the first couple/few weeks then eventually scammed so it's not a guarantee but I suppose any deal could eventually not pay for whatever reasons.
I have noticed that the deals that have moved from weekly to monthly deals that do not offer escrow almost always tend to scam. It seems like they tend to build up a reputation (as you mentioned above) then once people are comfortable with advertising without escrow they change to monthly payments and end up not paying after receiving a month of free advertising (which often happens to be less then what they have even paid for when they were paying out weekly) |
|
|
|
i saw a report on those printed guns. it's awesome. they already have little control over the gun market. soon they will have no control and everybody will have home made guns. that's both exciting and scary at the same time but i'm eagerly awaiting the day the people are fully armed and wondering how the government will react and what direction society will take.
I don't think it would be good for "everyone" to be armed, as much of the population is not equipped (eg does not have training) or is not capable (eg is not mentally competent to make appropriate decisions with a firearm) of owning a gun. |
|
|
|
I hope if an exchange is located in NY, it is regulated to protect users.
I hope any exchange I have anything to do with is not located in NY, since they would be regulating it just to flex their muscles, and clearly don't have any clue what they're doing. The fact they don't know what they're doing speaks for itself in that they are attempting to mis-classify Bitcoin as somehow generally falling under Congressional legislation that is very specific to money transmitters.[ I.e. it is blatantly unconstitutional under the commerce clause. Regulation by people who have no idea what they're doing rarely benefits anyone. It would probably not be unconstitutional under the commerce clause as NY has the right to regulate commerce that happens inside their own state. What may happen however is the house bill (I believe it is HR 5777) would override any regulations that is passed/adopted by NY |
|
|
|
I am not sure if this is a good idea or not. On one hand the numerous arrests have clearly not deterred this person from sharing/giving away his food to the homeless, however on the other hand it does disregard the rule of law as what he is doing is clearly against the law |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
