Bitcoin Forum
August 21, 2018, 12:55:02 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.16.2  [Torrent].
 
  Home Help Search Donate Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 [77] 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 ... 362 »
1521  Other / Meta / Forum finances on: September 13, 2014, 02:00:14 AM
I finally got the forum's 2013 taxes finished (after an extension).

Here's the final accounting summary for 2011-2013. All values are USD at transaction time because this makes the numbers more easy to understand, though the forum only holds BTC.

Code:
Income
      Donations     Ads
2011       3081    1545
2012      13291   21014
2013      42174  243233

Expenses
      Infrastructure  Development   Mods  Grants    Tax
2011             213            0      0       0    109
2012              11          276      0       0   3973
2013             194       185751  81027    2802  15841

Here are the totals for 2014 up to now. These numbers are in BTC.
- Income: 522
- Expenses: 1505 (1257 Slickage, the rest mostly mods)

Also, 250 BTC was probably lost when treasurer paraipan died, unfortunately. Recovering that BTC is maybe still possible, but it's probably unlikely.

The forum currently has about 5568 BTC in reserve.
1522  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: satoshin@gmx.com is compromised on: September 10, 2014, 02:38:42 AM
Theymos should be the one to do it and forward that email he got

I'm probably not going to do that. Responding to a clearly fake threat with violence (via police/government) strikes me as wrong and excessive, especially when it's just some stupid kid.

He hasn't caused much harm as of yet. He didn't steal any bitcoins or release any sensitive info. (The screenshots didn't contain any useful info.) The worst he's done is convince some people to send him a little money. I advise restraint, especially since we don't know for sure whether this kid actually is the hacker. I haven't seen much evidence of that.
1523  Other / Meta / Re: Workaround for Firefox-AdBlock: clickable PMs on: September 09, 2014, 11:46:52 PM
The people who maintain EasyList are idiots. They regularly add filters that break this forum, and they don't even succeed at blocking most ads. (Well-designed forum ads are impossible to block using ABP.)
1524  Other / Meta / Re: Can I use Coin icons for my own forum for an Altcoin? Staff needed! on: September 09, 2014, 10:39:12 PM
They were created by Satoshi. They can be considered public domain as far as I'm concerned.
1525  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: satoshin@gmx.com is compromised on: September 09, 2014, 01:16:24 AM
The fact they called Theymos "Michael" hints to me that they are either active in the community or have access to previous emails.

I never used my real name in emails to Satoshi, and Satoshi never called be my my real name.

Finally something interesting happens in bitcoinland... The paypal news were a bit *yawn*... Nothing like the next chapter of the Satoshi drama movie for spicing up the week..  Grin

Everyone knows that Bitcoin runs on drama, so this should do wonders for the recent price slump!
1526  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: satoshin@gmx.com is compromised on: September 08, 2014, 11:12:28 PM
Does not Theymos or Gavin have control to this sourceforge repository ? Its now pointing to an insane website buttcoin.org !!! Its good if it can be restored fast and care taken to secure the Github repository.

"Satoshi" removed the other maintainers. The SourceForge administrators will need to fix it.

There's no particular risk to the Github repository. Satoshi doesn't have any special access there.
1527  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: satoshin@gmx.com is compromised on: September 08, 2014, 10:35:38 PM
This is big news

Not really. This is very likely just a single troll. He probably got the idea of using satoshin@gmx.com to post to p2pfoundation.ning.com from my post here. The dox stuff is probably fake.

I for one am disappointed in the level of trolling displayed here. He could have done something amazing and hilarious with Satoshi's email address, but instead he made a couple of lame jokes, and now everyone knows that the email address is compromised.
1528  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: satoshin@gmx.com is compromised on: September 08, 2014, 09:29:04 PM
The email said:
Quote from: satoshin@gmx.com
Michael, send me some coins before I hitman you.

Not exactly Satoshi's normal style. Wink

@theymos does an email get expired on gmx.com ?

I don't know.

Have u received previous mails from him ? Did he use to sign those ?

I did receive emails from him in 2010. He didn't sign them.
1529  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / satoshin@gmx.com is compromised on: September 08, 2014, 09:06:34 PM
Today I received an email from satoshin@gmx.com (Satoshi's old email address), the contents of which make me almost certain that the email account is compromised. The email was not spoofed in any way. It seems very likely that either Satoshi's email account in particular or gmx.com in general was compromised, and the email account is now under the control of someone else. Perhaps satoshin@gmx.com expired and then someone else registered it.

Don't trust any email sent from satoshin@gmx.com unless it is signed by Satoshi. (Everyone should have done this even without my warning, of course.)

I wonder when the email was compromised, and whether it could have been used to make the post on p2pfoundation.ning.com. (Edit: I was referring here to the Dorian Nakamoto post. After I posted this, there was another p2pfoundation.ning.com post.)
1530  Other / Meta / Re: Security bounties on: September 08, 2014, 08:54:54 PM
Does changing your display name, or registering a new username with prohibited strings (e.g. Satoshi) count as something that would receive a bounty?

It's not covered in this bounty, but I'd probably pay a little for info about some bugs of that sort. Some things (like various ways to visually defeat prohibited strings) are known bugs that aren't likely to be fixed.
1531  Other / Meta / Re: URGENT: Black Arrow is currently in the process of deleting it's entire thread! on: September 08, 2014, 04:35:39 AM
Okay now I'm confused as a moderator, for other manufacturers slowly but surely deleted just as many posts as this, even though it was done progressively instead of in one fell swoop and it was deemed within the forum rules.

They didn't break any rules, but I've chosen to restore the posts and put them in a different topic. The difference in this case is that people are complaining about it. If there are other selfmod posts that people really want restored to a different topic, I can do it. (But it's a fair amount of work, so I'm not going to do it for every little thing).
1532  Other / Meta / Re: URGENT: Black Arrow is currently in the process of deleting it's entire thread! on: September 08, 2014, 04:26:47 AM
I restored all posts that were ever deleted from that thread:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=774278.0

Unfortunately, I just realized that I don't have any way of distinguishing between posts that were deleted by the OP and posts that were deleted by posters. If you deleted your own post in that thread, you'll have to delete it again. Sorry if this is inconvenient for anyone. I'll think of some way of fixing this for the future. I also restored all posts deleted by moderators from that thread, but I can distinguish those, and I might clean them up if I have time later.
1533  Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: Please remove Chaang Noi (Goat) or BadBear from default trust list on: September 07, 2014, 03:26:58 AM
Little off topic.. but... who reckons the default trust list should be changed from 2 deep to 1 Huh
Would solve a lot of issues..

The people listed on DefaultTrust are something like moderators in charge of maintaining the default trust network (because I don't want to do it myself). A default trust depth of 2 is necessary to make that work:
- Depth 0: DefaultTrust
- Depth 1: "trust moderators"
- Depth 2: people in the default trust network

If you significantly modify your trust list, then a depth of 1 would probably be most appropriate. Depth 2 trusts people who are trusted by people who are trusted by people you trust, which in practice tends to be too much if you have your own trust list.

Some of the problems with the Trust system are caused by it not being a real web of trust. Trust spreads too far and too quickly. I know how to fix this, but it's difficult to implement, especially in an efficient way. This is on the requirements for the new forum software.

I agree that having things centralized like this is imperfect, but I don't know of any better solution. Making the default trust list blank would make the whole system nearly useless because it would take months for new users to notice that the feature exists and figure out how to use it. Perhaps after users reach a certain activity level the forum should make them define a trust list if they've ever posted in the sections that use Trust.

The main problem I think is people making other people go 'red' for personal reasons. Not sure if Goat had the power to do it, think he did... he would fit perfectly in this scenario. i.e He doesn't like you due to some stupid personal issue, maybe you didn't roll the red carpet out for him, or you looked at him the wrong way, then bam... 'red'.
In certain threads you can't reply or give opinion in fear of some tard who is a few levels deep from giving you neg rating... generally to protect some one or them selves from people commenting.... 

If you use DefaultTrust with depth 2, then ratings like those are bugs in the default trust network and you should post about it in Meta. Someone will be removed from the default trust network to fix it.
1534  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Reddit Blocked Our Pro-Bitcoin, Anti-Banking Site BanksWorstFear.com - entirely on: September 07, 2014, 02:31:41 AM
Sites usually don't get completely banned from Reddit. Submissions from soft-banned domains end up in the moderation queue and moderators can manually approve them. Most Reddit moderators never approve stuff like this, but /r/Bitcoin mods do. If you submit interesting articles to /r/Bitcoin, they might get approved by the moderators. I'm not sure why that "traditional banking is so annoying" article wasn't approved. Maybe your domain was actually hard-banned, though I've never seen that before. I'll look into it.

I agree that Reddit is often too heavy on banning users and domains. I think that this has a lot to do with the Reddit voting/moderation system just not working very well in general, and so the admins and moderators have to do all kinds of crazy/unfair/heavy-handed things just to make the site halfway usable. We've had to make a few concessions even in /r/Bitcoin, though I think that /r/Bitcoin is still one of the freest large subreddits.
1535  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: PHP - Bidcoind check for new transactions. on: September 07, 2014, 01:51:22 AM
You could check that the block is in the main chain by using getblock and ensuring that the number of confirmations is non-zero. You need to do something to handle reorgs, though; probably something like bitcoind's CBlockLocator.

walletnotify is also good.
1536  Other / Meta / Re: Chinese username accepted? on: September 06, 2014, 09:56:44 PM
His username is different. That's his display name, which has more relaxed rules. In 2011 you could change your display name freely.
1537  Other / Meta / Re: A reply has been posted to a topic you are watching by (anonymous). on: September 06, 2014, 09:52:23 PM
Whoops. I fixed it.
1538  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: PHP - Bidcoind check for new transactions. on: September 06, 2014, 05:06:55 PM
New transactions will either be in new blocks or there will be a reorg and the block hash you give to listsinceblock will be outside of the main chain, causing listsinceblock to dump all of your transactions.
1539  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: PHP - Bidcoind check for new transactions. on: September 06, 2014, 04:21:19 PM
I could make the "listtransactions" loop scalable by using the "[count=10] [from=0]" parameters.

listtransactions loops through all wallet transactions (internally, in the implementation) no matter what arguments you give it.
1540  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: PHP - Bidcoind check for new transactions. on: September 06, 2014, 03:34:59 PM
Doesn't anyone know if new transactions are added to the list at random places.
Or are they always added on top.

Transactions aren't reordered within a single wallet, and new transactions are always added to the top, though transactions could be reordered if you move keys between wallets or use -zapwallettxes.

Quote
I want to have a scalable way of getting all the new "receive" transactions.

listtransactions loops through every transaction in your wallet, so it isn't very fast or scalable. It's better to use one of these:
- getreceivedbyaccount or getreceivedbyaddress
- -walletnotify + gettransaction
- listsinceblock

Keep in mind that the chain can reorg, which can cause confirmed transactions to have a different number of confirmations or even become invalid. You need to handle this, especially if you use walletnotify or listsinceblock. I know that they're limited and a bit confusing, but I usually recommend bitcoind accounts for small- to medium-size sites because it's very easy to do things correctly with them.
Pages: « 1 ... 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 [77] 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 ... 362 »
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!