Show Posts
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 »
|
1
|
Other / Serious discussion / Re: 51% attack vulnerability could be more possible than ever, here's why.
|
on: December 10, 2018, 11:09:23 PM
|
What people forget is there is far too many wealthy people invested in Bitcoin for the 51% to be viable. Anyone who is invested in Bitcoin would fight back if it became a problem. Its true that we've already had one entity with more than 50% computing power but it wasn't a problem because they didn't use it for malicious purpose. However if they did it would be quickly obvious and the balance would change very quickly as those invested in Bitcoin turn their computing power on to combat it. 51% isn't viable with a small investment it would probably cost millions to sustain control of the network. You would literally be taking on the whole network and everyone invested in it. Multiple pools combining their computing power to be a vast majority of the network would be a concern and would cost both sides millions to combat. I know it would be bad for the network and would cause instability in the price but it would be interesting to see the both sides battle it out. What could be a problem is when quantum computers come along and the network is attacked.
|
|
|
2
|
Other / Serious discussion / Re: Genisis block and hidden messages
|
on: December 10, 2018, 11:03:34 PM
|
It read: "sknab roftuoliab dnoces fo knirb no rollecnahC 9002/naJ/30 semiT ehT”.
Complete gibberish right? Well someone eventually cracked it. However I have tried to do some research on who this was but I haven't yielded any results. The general consensus is that this message translated into:
“The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks”.
It took roughly 10 years for this to be unscrambled and made sense of with several experts said to be on the case. I'm unsure when the message was first discovered and when work commenced. As you can imagine this took a very long time but probably didn't take as long as 10 years. It probably went unnoticed for a few years.
Interesting, so for 10 years we don't know that we only have to read the code backward to find the message. I don't think it was a difficulty thing but rather the message existed. I'm not sure when the message was first discoered because the forum doesn't yield any results when I search for it. But I think a few people were talking about it back in 2013. I think the OP is wrong and the code was cracked at a earlier time than 10 years. Bitcoin was created in 2009 and therefore the date would have to be 2019 so I am 100% sure that the code wasn't discovered recently. I think it did take a few years for someone to notice though.
|
|
|
3
|
Other / Serious discussion / Re: What if? Satoshi Nakamoto's identity was public information
|
on: December 10, 2018, 10:59:55 PM
|
It's possible that Satoshi's identity was public information some time ago but got deleted. This quote is from topic number 5 ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5), it's now the first one in this forum after topics 1, 2, 3 and 4 were archived or deleted: 1, 2, and 4 exist in the staff forum. 3 was permanently deleted at some point (it must have contained Satoshi's real name and address). But it's only about configuration and testing of the new forum. This is complete speculation on theymos part and yours though. There is no real reason for us to think that posts contained his real name or address. That doesn't sound like Satoshi at all and its much more likely that the posts contained test posts such as "test" or "hello world" to test the forum software. I know people like to jump to exciting conclusions and discuss conspiracy theories but lets have a look at the facts here. Satoshi started the forum with the name Satoshi which he intended on keeping as his identity. Google search results show no usernames on other sites that are even close to it. We know this because experts in the field have already researched into this. Do you really think someone as privacy conscious as Satoshi would put his identity on the forum? I don't think so not even for a minute. It was far more probable that the first posts of the forum were of low content and for testing purposes. The current first post (number 4) makes sense as a introductory to the forum because current members will always be interested in the first post of the forum. Just look at the merit received by the first post and you will see that people do check these things.
|
|
|
5
|
Other / Off-topic / Re: Ways to earn free BitCoins
|
on: November 16, 2017, 01:27:00 PM
|
Faucets are normally legit but really you don't get a lot from them it's literally nothing and in a few years it's still not going to be worth anything.
|
|
|
6
|
Other / Politics & Society / Re: Why do people kill for religion?
|
on: November 02, 2017, 09:49:13 AM
|
I don't understand religion. Religion doesn't tell you to go and kill anything person or animal in fact it tells you the opposite in that you should not do any harm to anyone. Yet they kill in the name of religion.
|
|
|
7
|
Other / Meta / Re: Buying or selling bitcointalk account give you negative trust, agree ?
|
on: November 02, 2017, 09:45:32 AM
|
Administrator can check their IP and compare it with mine, I bet I'm the only one who have bitcointalk.org account in my country. I could deny that those accounts are mine, because he have no proof I'm their owner, but I didn't because the admin can easily check from which IP their created with. I'm challenging him to give me any proof that I control those accounts.
Ips can be spoofed and you know that. It's very easy to create an account on your original IP and then start using Tor or a VPN later down the line. Your right you probably don't own a lot of them anymore because you've sold them. If they were hacked and you were obviously making money on them why wouldn't you try and recover them?
|
|
|
13
|
Other / Meta / Re: Buying or selling bitcointalk account give you negative trust, agree ?
|
on: November 02, 2017, 09:34:28 AM
|
All those accounts got hacked, I don't control them. By the way I didn't use them in anything illegal
Do you realize how you just contradicted yourself?  I created those accounts at 2015, this thread describing that farming accounts is legal in 2016 I replied to him, I didn't do anything illegal, I stopped working on them 2015, they all have same password and someone hacked them. Anyway I don't mine except my current account now. Source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1597201.0;allWhy are you asking about this in the first place then? Just out of pure interest? Obliviously you're either annoyed that someone left you negative on one of your accounts or somebody who has purchased your accounts is complaining about it. You're saying this based on your own imaginations. I only have my word, and I said I don't control any account except this one. All those accounts was just a test that I run for nothing more. It wasn't a test at all you used the accounts to abuse the system and then got caught so you made up the excuse of them being hacked.
|
|
|
17
|
Economy / Services / Re: Trading Software
|
on: November 02, 2017, 08:36:21 AM
|
Escrow is unlikely to test the program out though and you should consider giving vouch copies to trustworthy members.
|
|
|
18
|
Other / Meta / Re: Stake your Bitcoin address here
|
on: November 02, 2017, 08:34:35 AM
|
Here's mine new BTC address - 1NSgZEvTyVx13VbsnpXmx2o41Amonh469A
Please quote this BTC address, Thank you !
Quoted. Try signing a message. ~snip~
Signing a message is the standard and accepted proof of ownership of your account. Others might be a littble bit tricky. Hi dillpicklechips, thanks for the reply. I am aware of that and would like to sign a message, was just wondering if there is a solution for people like me who have all their bitcoins at blockchain.info and never used imported addresses. Cheers. Get the private key from blockchain.info and import it into bitcoin core and sign a message.
|
|
|
|