Bitcoin Forum
January 20, 2019, 08:29:41 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.17.1 [Torrent]
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 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 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 ... 374 »
1601  Other / Meta / Re: Please give another section to ponzis... on: January 13, 2015, 10:12:07 AM
What does bear thinking about is if you create a "Ponzi" section then you run the risk of passively implying that if it's not in there then it's not a ponzi.

Yeah, that's part of why I want to create a section with very clearly defined and objective criteria.
1602  Other / Meta / Re: Please give another section to ponzis... on: January 13, 2015, 08:46:23 AM
This has come up before. The main issue is that ponzis are very similar to both other gambling sites and real investment sites, so it's difficult to create a category that includes exactly the right things. How about this:

Investor-based games
Games where the main factor is whether or not new "investors" join the game. Also any Bitcoin-denominated investment product with an APR of 15% or more, which are similarly risky even if they're not actually paying interest using investor deposits.

Would this description cover any real investments or non-ponzi gambling sites? Would it fail to cover any ponzis that have existed in the Bitcoin ecosystem?

Also, are any actual users of the Gambling section irritated by this, or are people just trying to hide this kind of game? Is anyone against the creation of this section?
1603  Other / Meta / Re: Forum HTTPS problems on: January 12, 2015, 12:42:24 AM
This topic is weird because it seems to have some SSL problem. I logged in to the forums from this link and later discovered that it didn't actually use https although it should have used it. Is it a security threat? Other bitcointalk topics seem to be OK but this one is different. Is it some bug in Firefox?

The problem was that the ICQ/YIM "user online" images were gotten from unencrypted sources. I've known about this for some time, but seeing your comment reminded me, and I fixed it. That's why it went away.
1604  Economy / Auctions / Advertise on this forum - Round 142 on: January 11, 2015, 04:09:50 AM
The forum sells ad space in the area beneath the first post of every topic page. About 25% of ad income goes to the forum moderators as thanks for all of their work. (There are many moderators, so each moderator gets only a small amount -- moderators should be seen as volunteers, not employees.) The rest is stored in the forum's treasury (verifiably), where it sits until the forum needs it.

Ads are allowed to contain any non-annoying HTML/CSS style. No images, JavaScript, or animation (no marquee or blinking). Ads must appear 3 or fewer lines tall in my browser (Firefox, 700px wide). Ad text may not contain lies, misrepresentation, or inappropriate language. Ads may not link directly to any NSFW page. Ads may be rejected for other reasons, and I may remove ads even after they are accepted.

There are 10 total ad slots which are randomly rotated. So one ad slot has a one in ten chance of appearing. Eight of the slots are for sale here. Ads appear only on topic pages with more than one post, and only for people using the default theme.

The ad lasts at least 7 days starting from when I put it up. (However, if you look at the ad history you'll see that ads usually get at least 8 days, and sometimes as many as 10, but this is random and definitely not guaranteed.)


Exact historical impression counts per slot:

Info about the current ad slots:

Ad blocking

Hero members, Donators, VIPs, and moderators have the ability to disable ads. I don't expect many people to use this option. These people don't increase the impression counts for your ads.

I try to bypass Adblock Plus filters as much as possible, though this is not guaranteed. It is difficult or impossible for ABP filters to block the ad space itself without blocking posts. However, filters can match against the URLs in your links, your CSS classes and style attributes, and the HTML structure of your ads.

To prevent matches against URLs: I have some JavaScript which fixes links blocked by ABP. You must tell me if you want this for your ads. When someone with ABP and JavaScript enabled views your ads, your links are changed to a special randomized URL which redirects to your site when visited. People without ABP are unaffected, even if they don't have JavaScript enabled. The downsides are:
- ABP users will see the redirection link when they hover over the link, even if they disable ABP for the forum.
- Getting referral stats might become even more difficult.
- Some users might get a warning when redirecting from https to http.

To prevent matching on CSS classes/styles: Don't use inline CSS. I can give your ad a CSS class that is randomized on each pageload, but you must request this.

To prevent matching against your HTML structure: Use only one <a> and no other tags if possible. If your ads get blocked because of matching done on something inside of your ad, you are responsible for noticing this and giving me new ad HTML.

Auction rules

Post your bids in this thread. Prices must be stated in BTC per slot. You must state the max number of slots you want. When the auction ends, the highest bidders will have their slots filled until all eight slots are filled.

I reserve the right to reject bids, even days after the bid is made. In particular, bids from people with less than 15 activity points are likely to be rejected. I recommend not getting into a bidding war with someone who has less than 15 activity points, as their bids might not be accepted, but your latest bids will still stand. If you need to know right away whether someone's bids will be accepted, PM me.

So if someone bids for 8 slots @ 5 BTC and this is the highest bid, then he'll get all 8 slots. If the two highest bids are 8 slots @ 4 BTC and 1 slot @ 5 BTC, then the first person will get 7 slots and the second person will get 1 slot.

The notation "2 @ 5" means 2 slots for 5 BTC each. Not 2 slots for 5 BTC total.

- When you post a bid, the bids in your previous posts are considered to be automatically canceled. You can put multiple bids in one post, however.
- All bid prices must be evenly divisible by 0.05.
- The bidding starts at 0.50.
- I will end the auction at an arbitrary time no more than 12 days from now. (I will probably end the auction 1-3 days before the ads are scheduled to go up.)
- If two people bid at the same price, the person who bid first will have his slots filled first.
- Bids are considered invalid and will be ignored if they do not specify both a price and a max quantity, or if they could not possibly win any slots

If these rules are confusing, look at some of the past forum ad auctions to see how it's done.

You must pay for your slots within 24 hours of receiving the payment address. Otherwise your slots may be sold to someone else, and I might even give you a negative trust rating. I will send you the payment information via forum PM from this account ("theymos", user ID 35). You might receive false payment information from scammers pretending to be me. They might even have somewhat similar usernames. Be careful.
1605  Economy / Auctions / Re: Advertise on this forum - Round 141 on: January 11, 2015, 04:06:43 AM
Auction ended. Final result:
Slots BTC/Slot Person
3 2.70 FortuneJack
4 2.65 MariaQin
1 2.60 betcointm
1606  Other / Meta / Re: Akka - Default trust account no longer hacked! on: January 10, 2015, 11:07:09 PM
Spekulatius, could you get theymos to confirm this? That would help your case a lot.

1607  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Users of Bitcoin Core on Linux must not upgrade to the latest version of OpenSSL on: January 10, 2015, 07:33:39 PM
I use FreeBSD, is it affected?

Yes. I probably should have said "unix-like". The issue affects any system where you're dynamically linking Bitcoin Core against the system OpenSSL. This could even be done on Windows, though that'd be very unusual.

ubuntu 14.04


Is the issue having the new version of OpenSSL at compile-time, or at run-time? (My build of 0.10rc1 links dynamically to /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/, but I don't know about 0.9.3 or builds made on the PPA as part of a Debian build process).

It's an issue of what Bitcoin Core will use. If it's statically linking an OK version of OpenSSL, then updated your system OpenSSL is OK. If it's dynamically linking, then you'll have problems. The binaries on statically link OpenSSL. I think that almost all Linux distros distribute versions of bitcoind/bitcoin-qt that dynamically link.

If you're compiling Bitcoin Core using the normal configure+make, then it'll link dynamically. I'm not sure how to force this to link statically.
1608  Other / Meta / Re: Replacing DefaultTrust on: January 10, 2015, 06:20:32 AM
What do all the colors mean though?

The colors are the same as the colors on Who's Online:
- Admins = red
- Global mods = dark blue
- Donators = green
- VIPs = violet
- Staff = pink
- Regular users are various shades of grey, getting darker with seniority.
- Legendary = lightish blue
1609  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Users of Bitcoin Core on Linux must not upgrade to the latest version of OpenSSL on: January 10, 2015, 05:58:29 AM
Greg Maxwell's announcement:


There is a problem with the most recent release of OpenSSL which will cause issues for some users of Bitcoin Core on Linux. This is not a critical security issue, but everyone using Bitcoin Core on Linux should read the following information, especially if you're automatically processing Bitcoin payments. The worst-case scenario is that you might accept transactions as confirmed which are later reversed.

You are likely to be affected only if:

- You use Linux.
- You installed Bitcoin Core using your distro's package manager or you compiled Bitcoin Core yourself without using gitian. You are not affected if you use the binaries on
- You upgrade your system's OpenSSL to 1.0.0p or 1.0.1k. These were security-fix releases, so your package manager might have updated them automatically.

If you are affected, then your client might become stuck at a particular block, and you'll have to reindex the block chain to fix it. In some conceivable but unlikely scenarios, you might see incoming transactions as having 6+ confirmations when the transactions are actually invalid. If you are a pool operator, then you could conceivably start mining on a false chain, which would cause you to lose all of your future blocks until you fix this.

If you are using an affected version of Bitcoin Core, you should either make sure that your system OpenSSL does not get updated or shut down Bitcoin Core until an update fixing this is released in a day or two. If Bitcoin Core is already stuck and showing the "We do not appear to fully agree with our peers!" message, shut it down until an update fixing this is released; when you run that version, you'll have to run it with the -reindex switch.
1610  Other / Meta / Re: Replacing DefaultTrust on: January 10, 2015, 04:27:52 AM

For the new system   Against the new system
Eal F. Skillz
Muhammed Zakir
Gleb Gamow
Keyser Soze

The vote is split fairly evenly, so this isn't very helpful. But I've decided to table this particular proposal for now.
1611  Other / Meta / Re: Replacing DefaultTrust on: January 10, 2015, 02:58:43 AM
If you stop this from happening once you notice it wouldn't this be moderating  the trust system?

It'd be very slightly moderating the suggested-trust-list-users system, which I think would be less centralized than managing DefaultTrust.
1612  Other / Meta / Re: philipma1957 and default trust on: January 09, 2015, 08:47:24 PM
Adding someone to your trust list makes it so that the ratings they give show up in the "trusted" section instead of the "untrusted" section. For everyone, the goal of creating a trust list should be to see many accurate ratings as trusted while excluding most/all inaccurate ratings.

Even for someone in the default trust list, it's OK to trust people who are not trust-with-your-life trustworthy. As long as they've given a handful of accurate trust ratings and you don't think that they are super likely to give inaccurate trust ratings, adding them will be beneficial. It is, however, extremely important for people on the default trust list to very quickly remove/exclude anyone who starts giving inaccurate ratings.

It seems that a lot of people think of adding someone to your trust list as being a far more weighty way of giving them a positive trust rating. But really it's a very different type of trust, which is why I separated it from trust ratings to begin with. You should add people to your trust list if you think that they have good ratings and trust people who give good ratings. It's reasonable to add people to your trust list who you wouldn't trust with much money, and it's reasonable to exclude people who you would trust with a lot of money.

I didn't investigate every user on his list, but I think that the previous version of philipma1957's list was probably fine.
1613  Other / Meta / Re: Akka - Default trust account hacked! - confirmed 2x on: January 08, 2015, 10:14:31 PM
Akka's account has been restored to the rightful owner.
1614  Other / Meta / Re: View threads by OP chronological order on: January 08, 2015, 03:44:08 AM

Oh, I guess you can. I didn't know that.
1615  Other / Meta / Re: View threads by OP chronological order on: January 08, 2015, 03:29:40 AM
What's the column to sort on if we want to sort by OP?

Sort by OP name? You can't do that.
1616  Other / Meta / Re: View threads by OP chronological order on: January 08, 2015, 02:59:33 AM
It's a hidden feature.;sort=first_post;desc
1617  Other / Meta / Re: Akka - Default trust account hacked! - confirmed 2x on: January 08, 2015, 02:29:47 AM
It email was probably hacked.

Yeah, I'll require a lot of extra proof.

You can't possibly remove the trust he left several people, can you? It is clearly invalid and was sent by a hacker.

1618  Other / Meta / Re: Nearly 10M posts - who will it be? on: January 08, 2015, 02:23:36 AM
If someone reminds me after about 600,000 more posts, I can tell you who has the ten millionth post not counting deleted posts. Then there will be three "ten millionth" posts, and we can pick the best one. Wink
1619  Other / Meta / Re: Akka - Default trust account hacked! - confirmed 2x on: January 08, 2015, 02:19:13 AM
I banned him and removed him from my trust list.

The real Akka should email me.
1620  Other / Meta / Re: Replacing DefaultTrust on: January 07, 2015, 08:58:43 PM
Moreover users would be forced to evaluate each option every time they wanted to view a new thread, and while I'm not speaking for everybody, I'm pretty damn lazy and would probably just end up clicking the 3 check boxes that happened to be closest to my mouse pointer, resulting in totally random Trust ratings displayed within that thread.

You're only redirected to this page one time, when you first try to view a trust-enabled topic as a new member. It's for setting up your initial trust list.
Pages: « 1 ... 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 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 ... 374 » is not available or authorized for sale. Do not believe any fake listings.
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!