It looks to be just another Bitcointalk clone indexing topics/posts/users from this website. If it's a phishing site the admin is doing a very poor job, as it's fairly obvious it's not the real Bitcointalk + the threads shown are a few days out of sync from the real forum. However, it's very possible that it's a phishing site as the OP said they fell for it.

@OP if your account was hacked I'd recommend following these directions for recovering your account.

Good point about pruning, I forgot that it was recently implemented. However, I'm fairly sure that even with Bitcoin Core running a pruned blockchain, you'd be using more disk space than just running Electrum (plus you'd have to sync up the blockchain everytime you'd want to send a transaction if the computer isn't being used as a full node).

As for the extra load on the network, I meant that 30-40GB of bandwidth would be required to download the entire blockchain. I'm sure some full nodes are hosted on VPS' with limited bandwidth. Why use up bandwidth on these VPS full nodes if it isn't needed by using a wallet such as Electrum?

Regarding the full node argument, I agree that more full nodes on the network is always a good thing, but the OP hasn't specified what sort of uptime their computer has. I wouldn't assume that their computer on enough to be a full node (nodes need to be on for at least 6 hours or so to be considered a full node IIRC). Additionally, we don't know if the OP has any sort of bandwidth limitations. If they do, running a full node probably isn't the best idea.

If you're continuously running into that problem you can also access your Trezor through Electrum. To set it up, I suggest following this guide. I've found Electrum to be a much better piece of software to use with a Trezor compared to the MyTrezor web app.

I wouldn't recommend the OP download Bitcoin Core. Even if they have the HDD space, why waste 30 to 40GB of drive space when you don't need to? Additionally, why put that unnecessary extra load on the network to download the blockchain?

I agree with the Electrum recommendation though. It's an easy-to-use lightweight wallet (less than 75MB last I checked) with all the features of Bitcoin Core, plus it's being actively developed. Additionally, it also has hardware wallet support if you ever decide to purchase a hardware wallet.

I think that publishing his Facebook info was still legal. All one needed to do was create a free Facebook account and they could've seen the exact same thing as MrTeal did, so I'd consider that public information.

Well one way to handle that would be to remove doxes posted without a public information trail.

It probably wouldn't have made sense to use multisig when the funds were originally distributed (or more likely it wasn't even a thing then) but now that we have the technology it makes a lot more sense to use it. It seems that most of the treasures are legitimate, but don't forget about the CIYAM incident.. Although everything ended up alright, multisig would have prevented that incident.

Exactly. I think it's important to back up how you're getting your information so that it's transparent for others looking to verify themselves, as well as for others to confirm that you didn't find this information illegally. A prime example of a quick, effective and legal dox was Jason Boyko's (the guy who ran PBMining) done by MrTeal. It would be nice to see more dox's done like that because I'm not so sure that some of the doxes here on BTCT are completely legal (and of course I know a few doxes are probably incorrect too).

I agree, especially when 250 BTC of forum funds have already been lost. Even though it wasn't lost due to scamming (as far as people know), people die due to freak accidents all the time. 2-of-3 multisig would be an option, but the forum could also consider 3 or 4-of-5 multisig as well. That way a majority would be required to move coins but you could still be missing a few key owners to move coins (ex. 3-of-5 would work even if two key owners went MIA at the same time).

Although moderators do volunteer their time to support the website, they are paid for their work. IIRC 25% of the forum's income from ads is split among the moderators, and they're paid according to the work they do (so a mod of 15 sections would receive more than a mod of 3 sections).

That makes sense to me, and seems to be a fair way to protect people who may just have had bad luck and fallen victim to an incorrect dox. However, on the other hand I think it's also beneficial to have accurate dox information publicly accessible for everyone, especially potential employers of these scammers. With the Investigation board made private, this information won't be easily accessible and employers may be hiring people who have stolen millions of dollars in bitcoin without even knowing they've done things like that before. I realize that background checks for employers isn't Bitcointalk's responsibility, but the Investigation board will be removing valuable background information on scammers from people who aren't actively part of this community, such as potential employers.

I'm interested mainly in this part:


Would it be beneficial to report posts/threads that aren't in the Investigation section yet but should be located there?

I'm also curious about protecting the innocent when attempting to dox scammers. If a dox is made of the wrong person (for example, someone with the same name as the scammer, or living at the same address as the scammer) will this information be removed from the website if proof is given that the information is inaccurate?

If the OP is using something like Blockchain.info for a wallet you can set a default fee amount. If he has the amount set to "low" then I believe the default fee will be less than 0.0001 BTC per transaction.

Well, I don't run a pool and I haven't before so I don't have very much knowledge at all about setting one up, it would probably be better to ask someone like -ck about it, because they run their own pool (CK's solo mining pool). However, I'd think a good starting point would be learning about Bitcoin-Qt and it's capabilities. I suspect you'd be using Bitcoin-Qt on the backend of the pool to keep the blockchain updated, and then integrating that with PHP and a database management system (such as mySQL) to keep track of users, balances, etc. and report that information to users via the pool's website.

I think the OP was more interested in setting up a miming farm rather than a bitcoin pool.

I don't want to discourage you either, but one of the first rules when setting up a mining pool is that if you don't know what to do, you shouldn't be running a pool. A pool can have millions of dollars running through it via solving blocks and withdrawals. If you don't know where to start with setting up a pool, I can pretty much guarantee you your security won't be up to par to prevent potential hacks resulting in financial losses.

That's not completely true. You're only forced to pay a fee if you sign up through Tor, or on an IP address that an account has been banned from before. If my memory serves me right, you'll also be charged a fee if you sign up from an address similar to one that has been banned before. (ex. if someone has been banned on 1.1.1.1, and you sign up from 1.1.1.15, you'll need to pay a fee, but the fee will be smaller than that of signing up from 1.1.1.1)

OP, I put together a simple Tampermonkey script to hide all the user fields of ignored users. Here's a Pastebin link: http://pastebin.com/raw/YCZX3uEe

Here's an image showing what hidden posts look like after installing the script:



Is that kind of what you were interested in having the script do, or did I miss something?

The Trezor 2 release date was discussed just a few posts above:


I also wouldn't hold my breath on the Trezor 2 being cheaper than the original Trezor either, or at least not much cheaper than the original Trezor. People are buying Trezors at the $120 pricepoint so I don't see why they would lower it. For lots of people, a $120 hardware wallet is cheap enough insurance to prevent their coins from being stolen.

grue wrote a script to hide signatures with a certain complexity from pages (effectively hiding most paid signatures), but the OP is looking for a script to hide the "This user is currently ignored." text on posts from ignored users.

---

I haven't used Tampermonkey before, but it would be extremely easy to do this with jQuery. I'll have to look into Tampermonkey scripts, and see if I'd be able to put something together for you OP.

They probably won't do that. If funds for advertising were tight, I suspect they'd just open a small campaign that doesn't pay much per post. Some of the low-paying campaigns are only paying about seven cents per post, so it's pretty affordable to rent out a user's full signature at those rates.

I think it's safe to assume that he has stopped mining. It sounds like he was only mining for a couple of hours to mark the occasion. If he was still mining, he would have earned a grand total of about 0.00010013 BTC from the time of posting this thread until now - barely enough to cover a transaction fee.