|
Merry Christmas, happy holidays and happy new year.
|
|
|
|
As others have said, you will need to PM theymos. I would also suggest that you sign a message from bc1qxqlelgec66g5sp9qleqrfkqp3gmumyu7rw92cu with today's date to confirm you are actually the person who sent the above transaction.
I don't think this is a case of someone using faulty software, or being infected with malware. This is likely a case of someone intentionally having an address in their clipboard, then falsely thinking they copied another address into their clipboard. |
|
|
|
Where I am located right now in Albania,you pay 100 USD in local currency here and you get a real vaccination document.Many persons don't like what the government is doing trying to force vaccine on many professions or they will be fired from the work place so people have found a way around it.Corruption here has always been in huge quantities so this is not something new here but already people are buying real vaccination documents.
Plenty of examples here too, in Greece. People were even bribing doctors to not vaccinate them but update their social security number to show that they've completed the vaccination. There are even instances of medical staff purposely faking vaccinations on patients, who were unaware of the situation. Fortunately, those instances are extremely limited. It's astonishing to see such drastic measures taken from anti-vaxxers. They recently caught a drug abuser, who would get vaccinated for you, by providing your details (ID, SSN etc.) at the vaccination site. He had received more than 15 doses of Johnson and more than 12 doses of Pfizer. I don't think most of these people are anti-vaxxers. Most of them are probably uncomfortable being forced to be injected with a drug, rather than being given the relevant data/information, and being given the opportunity to make the decision on their own. I would be willing to bet that most people who are resisting getting the vaccine would be willing to get it if they were shown the relevant data and given the opportunity to make the decision on their own. |
|
|
|
Heard about all the recent discussion. Someone take my spot: I can't post more than 100 characters.
I'll take your spot. I'm sorry but your campaign is a campaign of spammers. Weirdly there is no public spreadsheet available where we can check who belong to your campaign, but every time I see any guy from this campaign he's spamming long garbage shitposts and he got red feedbacks or neutral feedbacks saying he is a spammer... I am not sure if you are referring to the campaign DS is running (ChipMixer), or if you were responding to Stunna who posted in another thread...two years ago. FYI, the spreadsheet for all participants can be found in the OP.
In other news, my guess is that since signatures are no longer shown on the WO thread, they will no longer be paid. |
|
|
|
I got him part of the way there. Unfortunately, I am limited as to how many merit I can send. I sent him the balance of my source merit, and most of my personal sMerit. Hopefully others will help him get over the edge soon. I’ve been trying to help people who are close to ranking up recently and hope this will encourage everyone to try to make more good posts! |
|
|
|
Interesting thing happened after that, topic was locked, and then magically unlocked just so that butthurt thin skin member could use his alt account (or his buddy) naim027 to make a post and seconds after that to lock this topic all over again. So he enabled his alt-account (buddy) to reply to my post not allowing me to answer anything, and not only that that Poker Player even merited this post. As others have mentioned, naim027 may have asked PP to unlock the thread so he could add to it. I have done this in the past when I wanted to add a point to a thread locked by the OP of the thread, and most of the time they let me make the post. I do however think it is poor etiquette to re lock a thread immidiately after allowing someone to make a post in a previously locked thread. I think if you are going to allow a post to be made, you should generally allow others to respond to the thread, and add their own comments. This is especially true if the post is asking questions about (and/or accusing) someone else who was participating in the thread. |
|
|
|
There have been people wearing the signature of their casinos for weeks waiting for the campaigns to restart.
If a campaign is suspended or otherwise stopped, former participants are free to wear the signature if they so choose, but they shouldn’t expect anything out of doing so. If LL chooses to not continue his advertising, he is free to do so. If someone posted that advertisers shouldn’t expect payment unless/until LL takes an affirmative action and he has not taken such action, there is no reason for LL to have to make a statement. The above might be a shitty way of doing business, but it is not indicative of a scam, or a potential scammer. LL has consistently paid very little for advertising, so I guess he is probably not getting a very good ROI on his advertising. He could be taking this situation as an opportunity to stop advertising. |
|
|
|
A personal message is sent directly to a specific person, while a personal message is sent and is intended to be private. I assume this is a typo and you wanted to say that " a private message is sent and is intended to be private." They are both sent to a specific person unless you include additional users. They are both a private means of communication up to the point that someone makes them public. There is no expectation of privacy for a personal message. It would be similar to tagging a particular person in a message. The forum will not proactively disclose the message, but either party could potentially disclose the content.
A private message on the other hand has the expectation of privacy. An expectation is just you believing that something will or will not happen. You expect and believe that a privately/personally sent message is supposed to stay private. They don't have to. They are private and personnel until someone makes them public. Private or personnel message is just a name for the forum messaging feature. I would agree with you if the forum had both private and personnel messages. In that case, we would need a way to distinguish those two. What if the on-forum messages were called Bitcointalk forum messages without mentioning the terms private or personnel? How are we supposed to look at them then? Yes, that was a typo -- I fixed it. Perhaps I should have written that there is no *reasonable* expectation of privacy for a personal message. The current implementation of the PM system makes this clear. For example, it is trivial to Blind Carbon Copy a third party any PMs that you send, including when you include a quote of a PM you previously received. I would say, in general if you need to use some kind of encryption key (such as your GPG key) to read a message, there is an expectation the message will stay private. If the message can be read without using any kind of encryption key, there is no (reasonable) expectation of privacy. Exceptions to the above would be if the parties agree ahead of time. When you encrypt (or decrypt) a message with GPG, you know exactly who can read a particular message. |
|
|
|
A personal message is a way for you to send a message to a specific person. It is in no way a private message. This means the content can potentially be disclosed to anyone that is interested in the message. Potato - potatoe. Whether it's private or personnel, it's still not a public message. If I send you a PM, it means that the content is something I didn't want to post for the general public to see. That's why I sent it to you and you only. Private/personnel messages that can identify a Bitcointalk user should not be made public. If the message contains something that is against the rules, you can report it, the admins will be able to see the content, and they will take the necessary steps. If the message contains something worthy of a tag, it can be made public as proof that an individual is doing something that is frowned upon. Again, personally identifiable information should no be displayed even in that case. A personal message is sent directly to a specific person, while a private message is sent and is intended to be private. There is no expectation of privacy for a personal message. It would be similar to tagging a particular person in a message. The forum will not proactively disclose the message, but either party could potentially disclose the content. A private message on the other hand has the expectation of privacy. edit: fixed typo |
|
|
|
It looks like Parodium is claiming you defaulted on a $100 loan from him. Is this what you are buying the BTC for? |
|
|
|
you can write a script to scrape the person's post history and save it somewhere My one-liner: userID=2627711; pages=430; mkdir $userID; echo "Downloading $pages post history pages for user $userID"; i=1; while [ $i -le $pages ]; do wget -qO $userID/$i.html "https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=$userID;sa=showPosts;start=$((i*20-20))"; echo -n "."; sleep 1; ((i++)); done # Add browser cookie to include Investigations If the OP's goal is to save the person's post history, my guess is he probably wants to be able to quickly find a particular post, or particular content. Your script might be good if the OP believes someone is about to edit their post history so he can quickly save it, however at one point, the post history will need to be processed and stored in a more searchable format. |
|
|
|
A mining cartel could potentially confirm their own transactions to themselves that contain very high transaction fees. This could potentially lead to higher tx fees for real users if the remaining block space is not enough to confirm all *real* users' transactions. To the casual observer, these blocks would be full, but in reality only xx% of block space is being utilized after the "fake" transactions (that serve no economic purpose) are removed.
But it's not that simple to perform such attack, there are few consideration such as, 1. If they don't broadcast "fake" transaction to Bitcoin network, it's trivial to find out block mined by specific pool contain "fake" transaction by observing mempool. 2. If they broadcast "fake" transaction, they'll lose their money since the transaction could be picked by other pool. 3. Is it more profitable compared with simply including transaction starting from highest fee rate? The pools could claim they received the "fake" transactions "privately" and could even offer a service to privately confirm transactions without them being broadcast. Or they could argue the transactions were broadcast, and it would be difficult to prove them wrong unless someone is actively watching their node's mempool. These pools would probably not be the types of pools that are common today. It would be likely that they compromise of private entities holding a large amount of hashpower. |
|
|
|
|
A personal message is a way for you to send a message to a specific person. It is in no way a private message. This means the content can potentially be disclosed to anyone that is interested in the message.
The new forum has a specific requirement that the end user have the ability to share the contents of a PM with other forum users via a link. Only one user would need to consent in order for the M to be disclosed.
|
|
|
|
A list of customers is going to do very little for law enforcement because the overwhelming majority of crypto users are law abiding, even if they tend to go to great lengths to maintain their privacy.
IMO, someone buying a HW wallet is insufficient evidence to suggest that someone has committed a crime and as such any warrant based on this will be invalid.
Oh sure; there's a really low likeliness of the data being used by law enforcement in a bad way due to lack of data. But it doesn't change the fact that HW sellers are a honeypot for data of people that are at least slightly interested in cryptocurrencies. Right, it might serve as a honeypot for crypto users in locations that are authoritarian, such as China. On the other hand, HW suppliers are less likely to be subject to the authority of authoritarian governments. To the extent that you believe your government will not become authoritarian, I think buying a HW wallet should be safe. |
|
|
|
As for hardware wallet manufacturers, the only thing law enforcement can do is to ask for the complete list of their customers(full names, addresses, contact numbers, etc). Which in itself isn't a good thing either; though a lot less worse than exchanges since there's no way for them to know how much crypto you have.
A list of customers is going to do very little for law enforcement because the overwhelming majority of crypto users are law abiding, even if they tend to go to great lengths to maintain their privacy. IMO, someone buying a HW wallet is insufficient evidence to suggest that someone has committed a crime and as such any warrant based on this will be invalid. |
|
|
|
In the US Capital Gains Tax applies to ALL forms of trading, not just crypto.
It would be important to add that this includes barter transactions. So if you pay $1 for each of 10 applies, but pay in the equivalent value of pears, and exchange those apples for $20 worth of oranges, you would owe capital gains taxes on the $10 of profit you realized from the sale of the apples (plus any additional gains you realized on the sale of the pears). You can replace the above asset classes with bitcoin and any altcoin, or fiat currency and the same concept will still apply. |
|
|
|
Theoretically you could try and setup 2 nodes that in geographically different locations to try and ensure they are not directly connected and then measure the time between one node broadcasting a transaction and the other node receiving it... but, as Danny pointed out, there will be no way to know exactly how many steps/nodes are between your 2 nodes. It could be 0, it could be 100.
If Bob has two nodes (Node "A" and Node "C") that are both connected to node "B" run by someone else, broadcasts the transaction from Node "A", and receives the transaction to Node "C" from Node "B", he will know the path of his transaction. Bob could potentially expand his network of nodes to be larger than two nodes. If Bob has many nodes, he could follow the path of propagation as long as there is exactly one hop between each node not controlled by him to another node controlled by him. He can also measure the exact time each of his nodes receive his transaction to get an idea as to how quickly his transaction is propagating.
I would also point out two things: 1- Nodes typically connect to a geographically diverse set of nodes. If I have a node in North Carolina connected to nodes in California, France, Illinois, New York, and Mexico City, if I broadcast a transaction, it may take longer to get to South Carolina than to California, even though South Carolina is geographically much closer. 2 - The time it takes a transaction to propagate throughout the network is very small compared to the time it takes for a transaction to get one confirmation. There is an approximately 0.1664% chance a block will be found at any given second, and I don't think it typically takes more than a second or two for most transactions to fully propagate. So in general, a transaction will have been fully propagated for a long time before it is confirmed. |
|
|
|
My query is very simple. If a law enforcement agency approached a wallet provider such as Coinbase, regarding acquiring information about the account holder, do they comply? I would understand why Coinbase would, but what ones specifically do not? If anyone knows, let me know.
Are you referring to the coinbase wallet? Or someone who has a coinbase custodial account (someone who has an account at coinbase.com)? The coinbase wallet is a software in which the end user has sole access to the private keys. If law enforcement were to approach coinbase about someone they believe is using the coinbase wallet, coinbase would have no way of knowing which person is even using their wallet. On the other hand, someone with an account at coinbase.com merely has a database entry on coinbase's servers indicating their balance. Someone with a coinbase.com account could potentially be under investigation, and coinbase would have various information about the account holder that could be turned over to law enforcement, given a legal process authorizing them to do so. |
|
|
|
So my concern would be a scenario as below:
Alice currently owns a 1BTC statecoin issued by a Mercury server
When Alice obtain her 1BTC statecoin, she also received a "blackout transaction" with an nLockTime expiration of block 710,000.
Alice and the Mercury server agree to collude with eachother to steal the statecoin, so they create a new "blackout transaction" with an nLockTime expiration of 709,050
Alice "sells" her 1BTC statecoin to Bob for 1BTC that is transferred on-chain.
As part of the above transfer, Alice uses her private key to sign the Statechain with Bob's public key, and with the help of the Mercury server, creates a "blackout transaction" payable to Bob's "blackout" address that is different and distinct from the public key she just signed. The "blackout transaction" payable to Bob has a nLockTime expiration of block 709,994 (710,000 minus 6).
Now Alice has a "blackout transaction" with a nLockTime expiration of 709,050 and Bob has a "blackout transaction" with a nLockTime expiration of 709,994.
If Alice were to broadcast her "blackout transaction" at block 709,065, based on the current protocol, there is no way for Bob to prove he had been scammed.
Using the same public key for both the "blackout transaction" output, and as documentation to be the "owner" of the statecoin would be one way to address the above issue. This issue could also be addressed by having the output address of the "blackout transaction" and the nLockTime expiration be "signed" and be part of the statechain.
The wallet does currently use the same public key for both the b lackout/backup transaction output and the statechain signature - and this is the intended rule - so that there should always be a statechain signature from the current owner corresponding to the address of every backout transaction that is co-signed (withdrawal txs require that the destination address is signed by the current owner for this exact reason). Perhaps I am misunderstanding something. I found this in the documentation, specifically under the "transfer" section, step 1: The receiver (Owner 2) generates a backup private key b2 and a statechain (proof) private key c2 (separate keys are used for privacy). They then compute the corresponding public keys B2 = b2.G and C2 = c2.G. My reading of the above makes me believe the statechain will be signed with one key and the "blackout" transaction will be sent to another key. Apologies the documentation is out of date. We realised there were no privacy issue here so are fine with the statechain using the same key as the blackout TX. Great! That is the last of my concerns. Obviously you will need to earn trust in order for people to be willing to use your service. With that change, I don't believe it would be possible for you to steal money without the end user being able to prove the theft. |
|
|
|
|
Do you need to be able to *prove* a post said something, or do you want to *know* (for yourself) that a post said something? If the former, you would have to use something like archive.md or the wayback machine. If it is the later, you can write a script to scrape the person's post history and save it somewhere for you. To my knowledge, no archival services offer API access that can be used to save a page.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
