I've thought about this for a while and the hard part would be to hide the private key.

You need some way to generate a private key AND store it in a way that you or anyone else can't access, but at the same time, make it only available if the price is above the limit you want.

If you can answer this question I can code it for you for free But so far I couldn't think of anything that isn't reversible.

I tried to be the devil's advocate and side with OP, but I just couldn't find a way to remove the trust factor from the utxo set.

To reformulate it in simpler words for OP, because you have the full bockchain, you can effectively verify every transaction from day 1, starting from the genesis block. You don't need to trust anyone to figure out where every single bitcoin ended up through years of transactions.

Once you chop off a few blocks, you can no longer do that. Let's say in the 2nd block satoshi sent money to your address, who's going to prove it? There's definitely going to be chaos because you no longer can re-create the full utxo set, and people will try to abuse this in a heartbeat.

I genuinely cannot come up with any kind of workaround because verifying every single transaction from day 1, beats by miles having to trust another source. Even if a lot of wallets only use the utxo now, at any moment it can be verified, bitcoin is truly beautiful.

You could scan your whole drive for bitcoin core wallets. (Bitcoin core was one of the very few wallets back in the day, so there is a huge change it's the one you had)

I made this a few months ago : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5071775

I bumped it so you/other future people could see it, since this problem seems to be recurring every month.

The latest version also dumps your private keys in a text file wherever it found the wallet, so you can easily import them in a new wallet if you prefer, instead of downloading the full blockchain again / upgrading bitcoin core.

bump

I was more saddened by arsenal loss. I left the café after first 2 goals, I really had high hopes on them, but eh, football is football.

Who knows maybe our 5 spins will roll over to some nice btc (Who am I kidding, that never happens :p)

bump

Oof. I can't say I haven't seen those kind of recycled arguments around, I just didn't think it was considered spam by the majority. I wholeheartedly agree. Cheers.

To address such spam is also not the easiest, because even manually campaign managers would have a hard time figuring it out, since a recycled comment looks legit on its own, but in the context of 10 other comments, it's most definitely spam.

If I can come up with something I'll comment here, otherwise thank you oeleo.

But all those bounty managers are just newbies and brand new accounts... I don't understand why they'd be considered as real users if their raison d'être is to spam. They never even comment outside of their own bounty section, let alone make rational, meritable comments. If the bounty section were to close overnight half the forum wouldn't notice.

If we're suggesting sig campaign improvements, I'm sure those would be the last people to benefit from it. Everyone here knows that the altcoin bounty section is a spamfest, you can't just quote me on that and send me examples of spam from there, because it's ALL spam.



What is it with people quoting half messages around this forum? Even so, improving quality of life for signature users ==> Direct implication to improving the signature experience for the advertising business.  

From all the comments where everyone complains about shitposting and spam, I want to know who are these people everyone is arguing about?

Can you guys post link to posts that are made from users that are :

1. At least Members (This is the minimum rank needed for a signature campaign -1, right?)
2. Have at least 2 Merit points (Almost all sig campaigns ask you to have 10 merits though, right?)
3. Make shitposts or spam.
4. Has a signature under him. (No bounty campaigns, I don't consider those signatures. This post was made to suggest improvements to signature users, and signature campaign managers. A bounty campaign manager USES spam to bump his own thread. Let alone give a shit about users spamming other people's threads. Those altcoins usually end up dead with 0 value and nothing but a promoted scam. I don't understand how people keep wasting time and effort to promote them, but hey, when you think about it, it's probably because they just can't get into any REAL sig campaigns.)

Please, if you have too many of the people that fit this criteria, I genuinely want to see you spam my PMs with them.

Is spam really an issue on the forums BECAUSE of signature campaigns? Sig campaigns have been harder and harder to get into. As more people get higher ranks, and the more people get higher merits, the managers themselves will add criteria to filter out the bad. This is a perfect example :


But hey, maybe I'm wrong and completely oblivious to the massive flood of "spam", so please show me where it all is. Thanks.

1sMerit = 2 Merits.

I doubt Hhampuz would make that error because of a typo, but I'm pretty sure he means 30 Merit, which will net you 15 sMerit in your account.

Not a chance my friend :p I reached this part and I told you that this was case sensitive.. I thought the 6 pastebin link letters were 4 + Z + A + A + 6 + the hex of one of the shebang chars, 23 or 21.

I was never going to figure this one out, but hey I've learned something this time, good puzzle!

I kinda agree. Merit and trust are probably the least correlated things on the forums.

1. When you merit someone, most people do it because of what they read, not because of the person's trust. This is especially true because Trust is not displayed in the majority of the forums.

2. Trust already existed, the only change you would see on user trust ratings would be minimal compared to the first iterations. So if people merited trusted people more, or vice versa, (which is assuming there is a correlation) you're already not going to see anything change, because only a few people were removed and others added to DT.

Open-source software updates usually aren't some sort of notification initiated from the source. The software itself pings the repository for any new releases. So as long as you're 100% sure it's pinging the right link, a.k.a the software installed was downloaded from the original repo with no modification, there are very few attack vectors.

The latest electrum breach was NOT through messages initiated by the software. It was a feature already existing in Electrum, electrum nodes always had the ability to send messages to clients, just recently they're trying to push a version that slightly changes that, not disabling it, but removing rich-text features, and maybe explaining that the message doesn't come from the software but from the node.

I don't think it's a bad idea to implement automatic version updates for all wallets, but it might not be an easy task. Maybe for UNIX based systems, it's super easy to add a repo source and apt-update every time there's something new, but for windows operating systems you'd need to code the whole thing and integrate it into the software.

Technically speaking what you say means you're paying taxes on the fiat, not the crypto you hold.

It's a grey area in my country too, once they see <<<<<real>>>>> money in your account, "where does this come from" questions start to be raised.

But this also means that if you can use your crypto instead, you're probably going to be just fine. That's why the OP is technically correct, you'll never have to pay taxes on crypto. Or in case you really need real life cash, try to use routes that won't be monitored by institutions.

I wasn't talking about leaving feedback, I was talking about including/excluding people in lists. Here's an example of two users telling another user to change his list because it includes people they don't agree with :


You could just scroll through page 43 and below to see a lot more example of this, I just remembered the message above because it was the one that caused me to comment the first time about this issue.

What I'm saying is that Lauda and any other user judging each user's list, and forcing their completely biased opinions is just wrong.. Like, if he wants to include someone that didn't leave a lot of feedback, and another that left local feedback, and you think that's wrong, it's YOUR BIASED opinion. Those people aren't scammers or objectively bad people, so telling another user to change his list based on your personal views is just going to centralize the system, and all lists are going to become copies of Lauda's utopia.

This is my one and only point that I'm going to stand for. It's because it affects everyone on the forums, because it changes the default trust list. Anything else I couldn't give half a fuck about, you guys can leave red or positive feedback to each other all you want, because it's just interpersonal drama, and it doesn't affect every user on the forums.

This is your second post on this thread so you're obviously not included. To understand who I mean, you can just scroll backwards past the pages of this thread to see a complete mess of micro-adjustments and judgements, not just from Lauda, but from another handful of users.

You explained who and why you include/exclude in your list, that's great, but a lot of other people here got fingers pointed on, contacted through PM and quoted, in a never-ending spam of "why did you include this and why did you exclude that". I almost regret commenting on this thread in the first place, which I did in an attempt to further understand, improve and help the new trust system; but this thread now just turned into a never-ending spam of a few users judging another handful of users based on who they included in their lists.

My last comments were not strictly directed to Lauda, but he/she just so happens to get their nose into the trust list of every other user, judge it, and actively push them to change it through PMs or public shaming. That is something I feel goes completely against the point of this new system.

In my opinion I just would love to see this thread discuss the trust system itself, and its implementation, maybe propose further suggestions, rather than this mindless witch hunt, which will obviously never end. Even theymos who was actively commenting in the first few pages; when people were actually trying to brainstorm improvements to the system; stopped commenting here for almost 2 weeks now.

They make it look like there's nothing to say anymore on this thread. It became just pointless spam of list judgements that go nowhere, and benefit only the centralized people handing out those judgements, be it Lauda, or anyone else. For all I care go make your own thread and start judging and calling people out on it based on your subjective opinions, because for me, you've totally missed AND ruined the point of this one.

Thanks for all the info! I already found out about the different ports for different difficulty and nicehash compatibility, but I honestly don't understand how their UI works.



What does the minimum hashrate mean? Where do I set the duration? I understood from their FAQ that I just put my order and let it fill. I can understand how this could work for a classic pool, where you buy an amount of hash, burn it all on pool shares, and that's that.

It's just that for a pool like solo ckpool, mining for 1 hour with 100 PH/s or mining for 100 hours with 1 PH/s is not the same..

Do you even read what you write? You're accusing me of the exact thing you do.

Look, like you said, you're free to say whatever you want. Just as I am.

I'm trying to explain to people how wrong it is for them to listen to every opinion you (and others) write here. You also need to know that you could always be one iteration away from being off the list, in case they all agree that you're more of a nuisance rather than a helpful trust node.

I honestly can't see how you think what you're doing is okay. Just imagine you're a single node of 20 bitcoin nodes and one of them chooses to include or orphan a block, it doesn't matter right? Because the majority won't.

But now look at you forcing 3 more nodes to exclude it, and 2 other nodes doing the same, the whole network basically consists of 2 opinions then. That's exactly how this whole ordeal looks to me. Is it really hard to mind your own business and fix your own list? There's a HUGE difference between "I excluded x user because I think xxxx", and "You can't include x user in your list. Change it."

Not to even mention the pointless spam and post count that "include this and exclude that" creates.

I re-quote my own message (minus a few typos because I typed it from mobile) :


It's honestly scary how some members are already exercising some sort of peer pressure on each other. I'm not going to call out any specific names, but people need to start realising how much power they have and how much power they don't. For anyone that belongs to either DT1 or DT2, stop giving individual opinions too much attention.

When you include or exclude someone, stand by it. If the MAJORITY of the network calls you out on it, then maybe you should reconsider. Actually, even if you don't, everyone else is going to exclude him, proving my next point ->

Regardless of the opinion of the minority, that is what they are, a minority. ALL DT1 nodes are equal in this system, so are all DT2 nodes. When someone calls out some shit on your list, you need to know that they have the exact same influence you have. We're trying to decentralize trust for this exact reason.

Each opinion counts.

If this line somehow changes from "Each", to "5 people and their proxies" (because if you modify your list according to these 5 people, then you're a proxy to their own judgement), then the whole system falls back to what it was before.

A few people really need to re-assess how much influence they think they have, and a lot of other people need to start losing the inferiority complex if they're an active node of the trust list.