|
Any particular reason why neither BCH or BSV has implemented replay protection? Do they really think that one of them is going to win this months long battle?
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder how many of these 78,000+ unconfirmed transactions are from people wanting to send their BTC to the exchange to dump. If it is a significant proportion, this downtrend may have quite a while to go. Let's hope the backlog is mainly exchanges moving their deposits from hot wallet to cold.
|
|
|
|
That is not a legitimate comparison. A more realistic comparison would be you meet some one on Craig's List because you think they are selling a stolen bike, then you run it over with your car so they can sell it. Engaging in deception to damage the value of the accounts is not excusable just because some one suspects they might be stolen. You all need to get lives and stop pretending you are on an internet version of "COPS".
Or perhaps we should dispense with the stupid analogies and generalizations and take the facts at their face value. You think account farming is a legitimate "business" here. I don't. It's a scam. In other words, you are okay with the OP getting scammed and are willing to protect the person who scammed the OP because you don’t like him. It's interesting that the word "scammed" is being used when bob123 wasn't enriched by even 1 satoshi for this. I don't see any evidence that bob123 used this acquired information to try and extort the OP. Also, punishing a whistle blower for revealing the truth with a red flag is a bit heavy handed, especially in this case. I also don't think buying and selling accounts, in most cases, is legitimate. Someone is basically paying money so that they can present a reputation that does not truly represent them. Even if they are only purchasing it to get into a signature campaign, they are using it to land a gig that they probably don't legitimately qualify for. |
|
|
|
Actually something good did come out of arguing with people of a mindset that I don't understand. I came to the realization, that if I (for the sake of example) sent someone malware and stole their Bitcoins off of their computer, they could not flag me. You don't enter into a contract to be one sidedly stolen from or financially damaged. There are currently loopholes for realistic scenarios that we should sure up.
If you sent someone a link to malware via PM or a message on the open forum, you will be permabanned if the victim reports it to staff. Issuing a flag to a permabanned account is a bit redundant. Also, issuing a red flag is rather punitive. Theymos set the bar high to issue this flag since it is very harsh. Please see the following thread for the full impact of a red flag. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5104698 We must ask ourselves if the infraction merits an account being subjected to the red flag for 3 years for level 2 and 7 years for level 1. Sometimes a yellow flag and/or a negative trust comment is more appropriate. |
|
|
|
All that I can recommend is that you try to submit your transactions to ViaBTC transaction accelerator. I believe both of your transactions paid the minimum fee to qualify for free service. The only downfall is that the accelerator only accepts 100 tx per hour. Then you have to wait until viaBTC actually mines a block. 100 FREE acceleration per hour
By order of submission, ViaBTC supports acceleration of 100 FREE transactions per hour.
Please resubmit your TXID at next new hour (e.g. 13:00 sharp) if it surpasses the hourly limit. |
|
|
|
Account selling isn't against the forum rules but it is discouraged. If it is discouraged, you can fight them in unethical ways.
I'm not even sure why the "account selling isn't against forum rules." is even brought up. Technically, most scamming isn't against the forum rules. You can get a loan for 1 BTC, with the intention of never paying it back, and your account will not even be temporarily banned. You can keep posting away. The only scamming that is against forum rules is to provide links to phishing or malware, which will get your account nuked, ASAP. |
|
|
|
I wonder what flag they can open against me since I have not scammed anyone nor have done anything abusive Spreading homophobia is abusive. If you want you can go flag, flog, or fapfap yourself for that. Fortunately, BitcoinSupremo's post about beating up gay people was either deleted by staff or he deleted it himself. |
|
|
|
You don’t know what you are talking about. Bob needs to raise the defense that the contract is invalid and as such unenforceable. See https://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/business-contracts-forms/will-your-contract-be-enforced-under-the-law.htmlIf there is a valid defense to a contract, it may be voidable, meaning the party to the contract who was the victim of the unfairness may be able to cancel or revoke the contract. In some instances, the unfairness is so extreme that the contract is considered void, in other words, a court will declare that no contract was ever formed First of all, when a flag is being raised, aren't we all being called to be jurors/judges? I have already presented my questions regarding this flag and will oppose at this time. I am suspicious that "trustedseller" may be selling hacked accounts, and therefore, I don't think any action to attempt to enforce his contracts are valid. There is also this to consider. In Bovard v. American Horse Enterprises (1988),[1] the California Court of Appeal for the Third District refused to enforce a contract for payment of promissory notes used for the purchase of a company that manufactured drug paraphernalia. Although the items sold were not actually illegal, the court refused to enforce the contract for public policy concerns. Sounds similar to "account sales are allowed, but discouraged." |
|
|
|
There is an allegation by Zackie that his account was hacked and he did not authorize sale of his account, nor access to it. Hacking into someone's account and offering it for sale is illegal. A contract is not binding if anything about it is illegal. Therefore, I am opposing this flag until the OP can establish that Zackie indeed authorized this sale of his account. The contract in question was not in regards to Zackie. It was in regards to the Green trusted hero account. No, here is the conversation the OP had with Bob. https://i.imgur.com/7lTjZxs.jpg The Hero account was brought up in a conversation with another person. The OP can only make a flag regarding any agreements that he went into with Bob. Which included the Zackie account. His friend is going to have to open up his own flag regarding that matter. The OP was acting as an agent of “trustedseller”. There is no reason why he cannot continue acting as an agent. Further, it is bobs burden to prove the account in question is hacked if he wants to invalidate the contract for being for something stolen. The mere allegation is insufficient and this has not been proven. 1st off Bob would be considered the defendant. The accuser has to establish that the contract was a valid contract. I think Zackie's allegation is substantiated enough to bring in doubt that this sale was authorized by the owner. Furthermore, since I have doubts that Zackie's sales attempt was valid, it brings into question the legitimacy of "trustedseller's" entire inventory. |
|
|
|
There is an allegation by Zackie that his account was hacked and he did not authorize sale of his account, nor access to it. Hacking into someone's account and offering it for sale is illegal. A contract is not binding if anything about it is illegal. Therefore, I am opposing this flag until the OP can establish that Zackie indeed authorized this sale of his account. The contract in question was not in regards to Zackie. It was in regards to the Green trusted hero account. No, here is the conversation the OP had with Bob. https://i.imgur.com/7lTjZxs.jpg The Hero account was brought up in a conversation with another person. The OP can only make a flag regarding any agreements that he went into with Bob. Which included the Zackie account. His friend is going to have to open up his own flag regarding that matter. |
|
|
|
There is an allegation by Zackie that his account was hacked and he did not authorize sale of his account, nor access to it. Hacking into someone's account and offering it for sale is illegal. A contract is not binding if anything about it is illegal. Therefore, I am opposing this flag until the OP can establish that Zackie indeed authorized this sale of his account. There could not be a more clear cut case of someone backing out of an agreement and the person suffering damages. Those opposing the flag are protecting a scammer.
The Zackie account was included in a package deal, during "negotiations" with the OP. I oppose this flag since there is credible evidence that the OP was perpetrating fraud by offering an account for sale that he was not authorized to do by the account owner. |
|
|
|
By looking at the overall situation I think the LFC guy had a pretty harsh judgement and do not follow the mantra of forgiveness which Theymos stated in some of his comments about usage of trust system.
I think there should be a manual blacklistment from DT here as this type of judgements would just bring more hatred and power abuse here rather than anything good.
From what I recall, "forgiveness" should come with time. The OP made his most recent loan request a little more than a week ago. In other words, this is still a fresh turd. |
|
|
|
What "abuse?" This particular account is not Lauda's alt account. I doubt she sold it to actmyname. Also, she is not a merit source, so she can distribute her smerit how she sees fit, provided it's not an her alt or selling it. Also, if this is somehow part of an "account farm," actmyname is doing a shitty job, since he announces that it is an alt account in the trust comments. |
|
|
|
Measurable facts are science dogma, even though they don't fit the dogma of formal religion. Why? Because they are things that can't be changed. Do a science experiment exactly the same way every time, and you get exactly the same results every time. Science dogma is even stronger than religious dogma. There are many science theories that are popular, but haven't been proven one way or another, yet remain theories. So, it is the decision of scientists whether or not they will drop a theory from being such.  No you don't necessarily get the same result every time. Schrodinger's cat can testify to this. Also, it is true that many science theories haven't been proven one way or the other. Although most theories have substantial evidence to back them up. (For instance, the predictions given by the Theory of General Relativity keep testing out as true.) That is why they are called "theories." |
|
|
|
If science were about the simple things - like electrolysis of water, or making graphene - it would be okay for use in this life. But science is fill with all kinds of theories, some of which will never be able to be proven. What are the theories for? Two things:
1. To help build a product that they can sell and make money;
2. To find the answer to life, the universe, and everything = religious (42?).
In its simple ways, science is a tool. In its complex ways, science is a religion.
Science is not a religion. There is no dogma in science. If a theory doesn't fit the measurable facts, it is eventually discarded. |
|
|
|
But religion might solve all your problems at the end of your life... if you have the right religion. Scientists aren't near capable enough to make science succeed for you.
That is the crux of the problem though. As you just acknowledged, it might solve your problems and it might not solve your problems at the end of your life. There is no way to confirm that your faith path is indeed the correct one, until it's too late. Even if supernatural being visits you personally, it could be a malevolent spirit leading down the wrong path...At least with science, we can always test and retests any ideas, and if we find some discrepancies, modify the ideas to conform to the measurements. |
|
|
|
But I thought we were supposed to be greedy when everyone is afraid and fearful when everyone is greedy. Or is that just something we tell ourselves in a bear market? |
|
|
|
Or maybe even if he does, the account could be set up in such way that any page he visits literally displays dick pics, and tiny ones....to describe him of course. I am pretty sure I read something somewhere saying that theymos blocked access to some scammer's account, and everytime they visited bitcointalk, they'd be redirected to some random black screen or something. Very delusional details, but I know I read it somewhere.
Also as a prank, the same could be applied to Roger Ver's account, wherein if he ever sees bitcointalk, the entire page just shows memes of how bitcoin cash is dead, and how bitcoin is the real bitcoin. Golly would that be an ebic gamer moment.
Craig Wright might like the dick pics though.....  |
|
|
|
Craig Wright should just log into his satoshi account and create a sub board for himself, but until he does that this isn't needed and almost certainly won't happen.
Wouldn't theymos have to unlock the satoshi account, first, before that could possible happen? I guess that means there is no chance at all for this subboard. If Craig Wright is indeed Satoshi, who created bitcoin,don't ya think it'd be fairly easy for him to get his account unlocked? If it was Craig Wright, I wouldn't unlock it for him no matter what he proved.  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
