As a result, I received this PM: REMOVE YOUR POST Some more DT-red would be good. I have added an additional negative trust comment. Good work OP for bringing this to the community's attention. Hope no one falls for this. |
|
|
|
|
QuestionAuthority got canned as a merit source for running a similar giveaway to Rambotnic. There is nothing wrong with asking to give away merit for substantial posts. However, giving away merit just because people ask for it goes against the spirit of giving merit. I think such threads that encourage people to just beg for merit and get it should be treated similar to altcoin giveaway threads. If a merit source is running one, they need to be canned as well.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not comfortable with automatically deleting trust comments if an account gets nuked. Although the probability is probably high that a nuked account's feedback is mostly horse shit, there is still a chance that some may be valid.
Perhaps it would be better if each account was restricted to leaving only 1 trust comment per other account per 24 hours. Along with this, a feature allowing people to edit a trust comment rather than just deleting should be added. Is there a reason why trust comments cannot be edited, only deleted?
|
|
|
|
|
@AlphaCoin mining. It is not professional or acceptable to read something, copy it word for word, and then incorporate it into your whitepaper without citing your sources. Either remove the copied content, cite the sources, or come up with the proper definitions in your own words.(Don't paraphrase either. Let your potential investors be certain that you know your stuff, and come up with your own words.) You should probably cite references, anyway. Satoshi did in his whitepaper, and he didn't copy/paste or paraphrase anything.
|
|
|
|
If you don't like the forum just leave... no point in sticking around and wasting time on something you don't like lmao  They actually do like the forum. Most of them would rather argue than eat. (Although I am guilty of this indulgence as well TBH.) Since there are plenty of people here, they will always find someone to feed them. |
|
|
|
I’d be willing to put money on The-One-Above-All being one of cryptohunters alts. It’s the same typing style, same use of grammar & walls of text being argumentative.
Edit - Looking at the post history he puts his points into numbered bullst points too, that’s what CH does.
Well, if it is CH, at least the walls of text seem to be half the size now, or less. I can actually read through a whole post without my eyes glazing over. I should just spare my eyes entirely and actually use the ignore function. However, I'm sure if too many people do that, they'll just spawn another troll account. Maybe we should just require that all new accounts have to pay for a copper membership. |
|
|
|
I don't particularly like the mass newbies complaining, but I would suggest reading the content of what they are saying, instead of looking at who is making the statement. I find the use of mass newbies manipulative, but I also suspect the OP either fears for his "main" accounts reputation, or that he will be the subject of ad-hominem attacks (and his arguments will be ignored), or more likely, both.
I did read what the op had to say and it was much to my disliking. Here I am, reading upteen posts a day for over a year and giving merit to what I find merit worthy. Then I get the pleasure to read yet another conspiracy theory that merit sources are some kind of evil overlords, ranking up their "friends." Then when Jet Cash chimes in to state that he's basically doing the best that he can, this OP cherry picks Jet Cash's merit history and finds an outlier. Then the OP uses it to imply that Jet Cash is involved in "merit abuse." When people pointed out that Jet Cash posted the day it happened that it was a connection error, the OP implied that he was a liar. All I have to say is that it is getting rather wearisome having some people imply that us merit sources are directly involved in some kind oppressive power hungry plot. I for one am doing the best that I can and am trying to be as fair as I can. |
|
|
|
|
User_Name: bones261
Post Count: 4927
BTC Address (must be SegWit): 394Bi5bUphJ3WJrwFQxsXxX97PSBsS5G8N
Will change signature if accepted.
|
|
|
|
Why does it have to be "default" trust. Why not just trust based on actual trading activity.
I'm not certain how you go about confirming actual trading activity occurred and that it occurred in a satisfactory fashion. The only way to confirm this would be to have Bitcointalk.org itself act as an escrow for these trades, or to designate certain people to act as escrows and report valid trades to the system. |
|
|
|
I have no alt account, so stop making false accusations. I will not ask you again before I make another reputation thread asking why persons are permitted to continue accusing persons, casting them in a negative light with no proof at all. I hope persons realize this is unfair and ridiculous.
So you have been lurking around Bitcointalk for quite sometime, becoming quite familiar with the current forum politics and just a couple of days ago decided to create an account? I suppose that is possible, but doesn't pass the occam's razor test. Perhaps you are not a CH alt; especially since a moderator already confirmed that if CH was banned, it's already over. However, it's quite likely you are someone's alt here. |
|
|
|
You aren't allowed to question Lauda's associates here or point out their wrongdoings without receiving negative trust. I suspect things will remain this way until theymos shakes up DT with something new again.
Theymos has already indicated that if he does another shake up, it will be to require that people set up their own custom trust lists. Many of the people that you are complaining about already have a certain amount of recognition and notoriety around here. I suspect that this move may dilute their influence a tad bit. However, I suspect the end results will still not be to your satisfaction. |
|
|
|
I'm not certain exactly which members you are eluding to; however, if it is who I suspect then it appears that they are not part of the signature campaign Hhampuz is running, but have some kind of independent arrangement. You can see who is currently enrolled under the campaign HHampuz is running on his spreadsheet, here. Also, you will notice that a couple members have the FortuneJack signature but not the avatar. I believe that the campaign that Hhampuz is running require participants to sport the avatar, too. Also, one of the campaigns that he is currently running is the one that I am involved in. HHampuz has graciously accepted Quickseller as well. So it appears that he is willing to give people with negative trust a chance. |
|
|
|
ONE MORE SOCKPUPPET : (similar to mentioned in the OP) SophieIsla
QUOTED POST: Every Sr member said why this forum gives red trust, How secure my account for red trust
With the latest thread they opened in the Meta section, I think this is a legit noob.  (I reported the thread to moderator to move to off topic board.) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5131323 |
|
|
|
Jet Cash explained why he gave OP those 10 merits. ...I've given him 5 merits for starting the thread, and I'll watch it to see if we can get some helpful and constructive comments to help all of us who are beginners in the world of mining,
[edit]
You got lucky - McDonalds disconnected me, switched channels, and then reconnected me. This was when I was awarding the merits, so you got a double quota.
...
Oh, he made an excuse, so there is no chance he might be lying, right? [/sarcasm] I'm not certain what stick got in your craw, but you just happened to pick a sweet gentleman in his golden years to take out your indignation on. If you actually reviewed Jet Cash's recent merit history, you will find that he normally gives posts between 1 to 5 merits. If you research his merit history, you will find that he gave this particular post 5 merits twice within 2 minutes of each other. The story given by Jet Cash is quite plausible. Regarding the post itself, I agree that it is far from being Nobel Prize worthy. However, when theymos made it so an account had to have 1 merit to be a jr member, he gave many of us merit sources these instructions.
I recommend:
- If a newbie posts something that could be even called good, then give them 1 merit. It doesn't need to be a great post.
- It's best to use all of your source merit. If you don't naturally do so, try giving people more merit per post on average. If you don't send your source merit, then nobody gets it, but if you do send it, then the recipient can pass half of it on.
Thanks!
I am certain that Jet Cash is doing the best job that he can being a merit source. |
|
|
|
O.k. Delist bcash SV would also suggest delisting bcash ABC... .. so again seems to be a matter of degree here rather than kind ... and is there something specific about bcash SV's attempt to present itself as the real bitcoin that differs from bcash ABC?
Two sides of the same coin, right?
And where do you stop with this kind of delisting coordination attempts... that would thereafter justify delisting a lot of other scam/shitcoins that are proclaiming to be something that they are not. Then only bitcoin is left... That is not going to happen.. exchanges are way too far down the road of involving themselves in a variety of shit listings to make money (or to make BTC, perhaps).
What makes BSV distinctive is that it is the creation of Craig Wright. BCH ABC is mainly backed by Bitmain. Although Bitmain is not the most loved company, at least Jihan Wu (Is he still part of the company? I'm a bit behind on this.) never claimed to be satoshi. BCH ABC is also backed by Roger Ver, and although many would agree that he is a complete asshole, he's an OK guy compared to faketoshi. |
|
|
|
I think one solution could be that some percentage of merit required for ranking upto Jr. Member and Member should come from a Verified Merit Source. Verified Merit source should fulfill the following requirements:
1.) Belong to the set of people comprising DT1 member and people who have shown enough commitment towards the forum by earning, say, 250 merits.
1.) Be randomly selected from this group
2.) Anonymous in Merit History
3.) Change cyclically
A thread could be started where these members simply grant merit to new accounts. That source shouldn't show up in the merit history to ensure that people don't get bugged or start getting bribe offers.
Its fairly complicated but so is the problem. Maybe i should think of a more elegant solution..Hmm..Thinking Hat on..
As one of the people who would currently qualify to be a "verified merit source," I'm not sure that I want the added responsibility of only meriting newbies. However, I believe that my current allocation of source merit allocation is probably in the top 10, if not top 5, so it would be much more work for me than many other merit sources. I could end up giving a handful of newbie posts an insane amount of merit; however, people tend to notice when the amount of merits given is a two digit number, and I am sure the "merit abuse" allegations would crop up (although only the administrators would know who the merit source is, people could figure it out by noticng that such and so merit source isn't giving out any merits anymore.) When you say "anonymous" do you mean the merit score goes up with no other record or do you mean it will have a label like "anonymous" or "Verified Merit Source?" |
|
|
|
Another sock puppet with 2 posts.
I'm sorry, I do not seem to be able to find any kind of value within your post. You seem to be demonstrating clearly the type of behavior referenced in the initial post. This type of allegation without accompanying evidence seems to be way too prevalent on this forum. There should be clear rules with regard making false allegations or unsubstantiated accusations. Are you claiming that I have an alternative account here and that you can prove this? How is this on topic or any kind of response to my previous post? These low value and quite ugly accusations should be reported and deleted. Back on topic. I strongly agree with the initial poster, in that the admin or even the board owner should intervene if there are instances where red trust is given out in a frivolous or vindictive manner. Posts on this forum are not supposed to be deleted based on whether they are true or not. Otherwise, there would be even a bigger outcry that the moderators are censoring posts. (We already get complaints, but if moderators could delete merely on whether something is true or not, the complaints would go through the roof.) It is not the moderator's responsibility to determine if a allegation is true or not. However, you could report a post as being insubstantial or off topic and it may be deleted. |
|
|
|
Hi bones261,
We are not trying to smear other wallets. These cold storage tools were initially created to prevent online hacking. For many people this is adequate. But its important to understand what your wallet can and cannot do. And after you understand it all, you may very well conclude that you don't need a tool like Bitfi. Also, the reason Bitfi technology is this way has to do with our beliefs about society, freedom, and privacy. We believe that no government should be able to seize your money any more than your water or oxygen. We think the government exercises abuse of power and that most governments are corrupt. In addition, surely Satoshi himself intended for Bitcoin to be unseizable and so we created an unseizable wallet which is congruent with the philosophy of Bitcoin and blockchain in general.
Wouldn't the government's courts be able to compel you to give up your passpharse as a condition of your plea deal? I suppose that this only protects you if you are exonerated or are willing to go to trial and risk a more harsh sentence.
Now regarding counterfeiting. The reason that it is easy to counterfeit cold storage wallets like the one you have is because their software is completely open source and so anyone can just make an identical looking device and install this software and then you have a Trezor. The counterfeits are so good that sometimes the manufacturer themselves can't tell them apart from their genuine inventory. So lets say you want to counterfeit 10,000 units. You make 10,000 devices and then install the open source software on all of them and you are done.
With Bitfi however, each device is running a different package. To understand this, we have attached an image of two Bitfi devices side by side:
As you can see, each Bitfi has a unique Device ID. This means no two Bitfi's are the same. The Device ID is generated from devices internal private key which is stored in TEE. If someone managed to somehow obtain this private key (this private key has nothing to do with any of your funds, its strictly a private key assigned to the device itself), and decided to make 10,000 units (which they could because our code is also completely open source) they would then produce 10,000 Bitfi's which would all have the same Device ID. You are not going to be able to sell those and this is the last thing that a counterfeiter would want to do because all units are going to be returned by a swarm of angry customers.
Does the device not function properly without a valid device ID? I thought that you assured me earlier that I could still access my coins if your company went defunct and my device is on the fritz. Also, if my device is no longer functioning, am I going to not be able to access my coins until I get a replacement? Furthermore, what is to prevent the counterfeiter from simply making their own user ids and providing instructions to go to their similar looking web page? Also, why would this counterfeiter care about angry customers? If they sold 10000 units, I'm sure they would get a few suckers to steal from and then make a proper exit scam. Furthermore, when I am going to buy a hardware wallet or similar device, I'd prefer to buy this straight from the manufacturer. Buying from anyone else is just asking for trouble. |
|
|
|
@Bitfi Did you actually read the reddit thread you cite? From the reddit thread the title is this. These guys just demonstrated key extraction of @trezor. #35c3 Using a passphrase only way to prevent this attack. As I posted earlier, if you use a passphrase, the attack can't happen. Also, it appears that the extraction of private keys while the device is calculating them has been corrected over a year ago. Now the device doesn't start the calculation until after the PIN is entered. Furthermore, this wouldn't happen if you used a passphrase anyway, since the calculation of the private keys for the wallet you are using will not begin until after you entered the passphrase. Now, please advise us exactly how your device is counterfeit proof. |
|
|
|
|
@Bitfi, I'm not sure about Ledger, but the Trezor doesn't store your private keys. It only stores the seed. If you enable the passphrase function on a Trezor, they may be able to get the seed, but they need the correct password to generate the correct wallet. This passphrase is not stored on the Trezor. In fact, you can have multiple wallets with various amounts of coins. Therefore, your product doesn't have much of an advantage in this situation compared to your competitor. However, enabling a passphrase is only an opt-in only option on Trezor. I suspect many users don't bother with it.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
