The question, when does bitcoin become useless for us? when do we dump because the fee will become higher than our holdings?
I think when you can't even move 1 BTC per coin because the fee is higher than 1 BTC, the price must be super high or it will collapse.
But you're one of the core shills who wants these high fees - yet is still planning their dump? This post just shows the stupidity of the core roadmap, and complete lack of understanding by many vocal accounts here. |
|
|
|
So now all can see, yet can do nothing. The numbers are too vast for members to log/avoid/be wary of, and will clearly overrun the forum should they not be locked by default. It should be clear by now how easy it is to identify these accounts, and locking could easily be automated. Does anyone else think admin should let us know their plan of action, if they have a plan of action. Or is it up to members to log and tag 100,000 accounts one by one, which is basically impossible without admin assistance. It just feels like too little too late. I'm sure there are days with way more than 237 accounts that are waking up (aka: hacked) so how the hell are we ever supposed to catch up to them and tag 200+ accounts a day with no automation? It's impossible for us. I don't know about you but I can't go through the seclog and manually tag thousands of accounts a day to catch up to a never ending stream of hacked accounts. You just know the hackers squeal with glee when they hack a high ranked account or better yet an account with green trust so they can scam. I highly doubt all of these accounts would be used to spam, Maybe some to shill but I'd have to assume you'd just create thousands of accounts rather than try to hack thousands of accounts for that. What's going to happen when bitcointalk reaches it's 1 million member? Congratulations on 950,000 hacked accounts + 50,000 legit ones. Seems a lot like how the Chinese were trading bitcoins and fiat back and forth with no fees to show a huge volume on their exchanges. What to do now... In my post on last page i exampled accounts logging-in in rota on Feb 19. I assume this was their "wake up" If you take my random samples as an average, around 3000 accounts "woke up" on that day, all between u=0 and u=10,000. i have previously posted instructions on how admin can preserve all necessary evidence for all time, or prove themselves negligent. so admin should know the real figures and dates. What other internet site would not even respond to "concerned" members on such a relevant topic. What to do now? Like you said, not much we can do unaided. Am i supposed to just STFU, again? Chris, you seem like a genuine, seemingly rational individual. Why would admin not even respond, yet have time to start a thread about how many hits their farmed/hacked accounts are shilling on their list of scam coins? |
|
|
|
I laugh to all those who say banning is not the solution.
Banning is indeed the right solution to prevent scams happening. Take a look at the meta forum and see how many are crying out for unbans. Banning accounts hurt scammers. Don't even think the otherwise.
On the other hand, i also think that everyone should have a common sense in the first place so they won't get scammed so easily. Trust system is there for us to see whos a scammer and whos not, but it's got out of hand now because scammers farming hundreds of accounts and giving each other fake trust reviews.
You can fight back these kind of organized scams just by banning the accounts.
Have you noticed how it is usually mods who lead those saying "banning is not the solution"? This forum has developed into a place where scammer/farmer/hacker accounts now rule, by clear majority, untroubled by mods/admin. (and DT) Why is that? I have shown how mass farmed accounts, and now mass hacked accounts, can easily and accurately be identified. Admin could do the same thing, much easier than i can, but don't. (i'm deliberately not finding/publishing members with "a few alts" - that is a bit different, not "mass") The scam situation could be changed overnight if admin wanted that, without needing members to ban each other, but they don't. Clearly someone is making a lot of btc from farming/hacking this forum. I cannot see why admin would allow such blatant farming/hacking leading to scamming/shilling/sig spamming/selling.... unless they were behind all this, or otherwise profit from it, imo. (i have had to draw this conclusion based on my 7 months "hobby" publishing 1000 farmed accounts, and now finding 10's of thousands of hacked accounts without admin even bothering to respond on either subject, and with mods telling me to get a new hobby - this was not my thinking when i started researching this, i thought mods/admin would want to know!) |
|
|
|
So now all can see, yet can do nothing. The numbers are too vast for members to log/avoid/be wary of, and will clearly overrun the forum should they not be locked by default. It should be clear by now how easy it is to identify these accounts, and locking could easily be automated. Does anyone else think admin should let us know their plan of action, if they have a plan of action. Or is it up to members to log and tag 100,000 accounts one by one, which is basically impossible without admin assistance. |
|
|
|
possibly a hacked account taking advantage of the VIP status. Last post was made on August 16, 2015 until recently.
Some/many of his posts from Aug 2015 were in support of XT, so it is reasonable to say that this guy supports larger blocks. Some of his posts have also claimed censorship on these forums, and if it was his belief that these forums are censored, then it would be logical for him to not be active here. From looking at post history, i concluded the same as QS. Not proven, but quite likely not hacked. (and if future posting habit/stance continues) I would like to think a VIP account could provide proof of ownership if "needed", for their personal account security? (sorry, gone a bit off topic here Lauda. Just wanted to comment on the hacked account issue here) |
|
|
|
I'm all in.
As long as there is a clause that states you can bailout anytime, just like loaded? In any situation where there are BTCs and BTUs to swap, I will swap everything into BTC. Is that clear? Thanks, yes, that look's pretty clear to me. Loaded seem's to be saying something different, he want's to be able to review his position pre-swap, as i read it. |
|
|
|
I'm all in.
As long as there is a clause that states you can bailout anytime, just like loaded? If there is a fork to Unlimited with ~80% hash power, leaving 20% mining Core, are you still all in? If there was an immediate block size increase activation with an Unlimited fork, then there would be no loss of confirmed tx's per second No noticeable change to the network usability. Difficulty adjustment will occur within about 17 days. If Core continue with 20%, blocks will take 5 times longer to find, about 50 minutes each block. Still on 1mb, tx confirmation will be about 20% of now. Fees will skyrocket, many tx's will never confirm. Difficulty adjustment will occur within about two and a half months. Just because you are a Core supporter, doesn't change these facts. Will you (and all the other's saying they will swap their Unlimited bitcoin for Roger's Core bitcoin) commit to swapping under these circumstances? This is after all how Bitcoin was always meant to work. ------ vvv Give it up Banks vvv Anyone Who know anything about bitcoin knows difficulty is king. Changing difficulty is admitting defeat. Off topic here. Difficulty gives Bitcoin security, which give it value. Good luck with that "easily attacked" coin. |
|
|
|
With that kind of money, why would you not simply cash out, retire, and enjoy everything the world has to offer? Instead, you leverage your millions to prove a point? I don't get it.
The answer to this question lies in your reply itself,he can choose what he wants with his assets and so is the reason he chooses to leverage his millions to prove a point ,there wont be a substantial response from Roger and he wont accept the challenge because he knows he will loose in the end,but will talk his way out for sure.  I thought the bet was simply "my bitcoin unlimited for your btc in a chain split - at least $60M" But now seem's "as long as no more development happens that enables safe activation" Looking like an opt out for loaded? (like hayek say's above - "my BTU for BTC 1:1 if there is a fork.", no mention of no more development, just a fork?) Who would have expected Roger to even entertain this $60m "bet"? I didn't. But he has said he is. A $60m+ Core Bluff being called? If i was at the poker table at this point, i would either fold or raise, not call. Knowing i will turn my hand into the nuts if bitcoin unlimited activated with *enough hash power (*explained in above posts) , and a split pot if never activated below that threshold, a raise is on the cards. Loaded (core) supporters already calling Roger out for backing down, (while changing their terms?), before Roger even returns - after stating his interest? Give a little respect? I await Rogers response. Loaded's clarification on this (added?) "BU as is now" clause would also be nice? |
|
|
|
The only way Roger can "lose" in this chain split swap is if BU forks with too low hash power.
Well , not exactly. OP believes Core will have economic majority even if the miners disagree. Roger presumably thinks otherwise. That maybe what Loaded thinks, but is not true. As i have shown in my example situation of 99% / 1% hash power. Does Loaded still think he can win? (i know it wont happen like that) If Loaded is correct, then we don't need miners anymore? I guess they would need to define what constitutes a network split. Conceivably 1% could keep mining, fork their own PoW to adjust difficult and and create some kind of peon coin. But even then, who knows, it could get popular later. I assume a "split" occurring simply because no split would mean no bet would mean no point discussing. They could do that, and roger has also threatened to fork Bitcoin with a low hash rate. But the whole security principle of Bitcoin is the hash rate. 1% hash security cannot split away from the 99% hash security, and hold a higher valuation. Hash power is what makes bitcoin secure and believable and valuable. That is the entire foundation of Bitcoin. Roger could just buy into that peon coin cheaply, anytime. |
|
|
|
The only way Roger can "lose" in this chain split swap is if BU forks with too low hash power.
Well , not exactly. OP believes Core will have economic majority even if the miners disagree. Roger presumably thinks otherwise. That maybe what Loaded thinks, but is not true. As i have shown in my example situation of 99% / 1% hash power. Does Loaded still think he can win? (i know it wont happen like that) If Loaded is correct, then we don't need miners anymore? |
|
|
|
The only way Roger can "lose" in this chain split swap is if BU forks with too low hash power. (Roger must be sure that BU will not activate before "hash power is high enough", and will not be "activated" by rogue actors with ill intent) To illustrate, if a chain split occurred with BU having 99% hash power support at activation, Core 1%, there is no conceivable way Roger can "lose". A 1% chain is insecure and untrustworthy, right, that is how Bitcoin works? Now, a 99% / 1% split is "unrealistic" IRL for any consensus mechanism, so Roger may well assess hash % with achievability IRL, and decide 80% hash power supporting BU is both achievable and workable consensus. (and in a fight, 80% hash power should beat 20% hash power, no?) If BU never achieve 80% and therefore never activate, no split will occur, bet is void. I guess loaded wants to test if ver puts the money where is mouth is  verry simple notting more notthing less. Yes maybe, but is now putting in "no further development" opt out clauses? BU as it exists today Is Loaded now saying BU must launch "as it exists today" seemingly because "today SegWit + LN appears to be ready to go". Shouldn't it be "BU must split the chain before segwit adoption" as "SegWit + LN appears to be ready to go"? That is fair consensus timescale. I thought this bet was about whenever BU split the chain, Core btc would still be more valuable? All bitcoiners have to trust the miners to not activate dodgy code, weather that be BU or Segwit. |
|
|
|
This sounds like a great deal for both of us. I look forward to ironing out the exact details and terms. I'm super busy for the next 48 hours, but would love to connect after that.
If you (and Jihan) forked below 75% consensus hash power, that would be a gamble (with or without this swap), and probably undesirable for Bitcoin. If you (and Jihan) ensure a genuine 75% consensus hash power (minimum - maybe higher) before activation, you have great odds. (no risky low activation - no bet) If this bet help you (and Jihan) focus on working towards such a clear goal, great. |
|
|
|
Looks like nobody really gives a damn about this forum nor the infestation of parasites.  I think the problem isn't that no one cares, it's that the people that do care aren't listened to/taken seriously/not important enough to listen to. So,the people that do care aren't listened to/taken seriously/not important enough to be listen to, (members) by those who are in position to act seriously, but don't care, and wont listen to or communicate with people less important than themselves. (admin) That is how i read Lauda's post too, between the lines. "nobody ( who can do anything about it) really gives a damn about this forum" (at some point my view will turn from admin not giving a damn to instigating or being complicit in this) |
|
|
|
FFS , your an illiterate bum looking for $1,000,000. Nuff said! Anyone needing to make their mind up need only read your thread linked above. Good work boy's. |
|
|
|
snip
Thanks for clarifying Nico. I don't have any real problem with your assessment. You have helped answer possibilities of who and why. I shall bear it in mind. I do see some evidence that accounts under u=100,000 are more affected than accounts over u=100,000. That does not mitigate admin from taking simple action's to counter this. (if they think mass hacked accounts is a bad thing) Let me try to show here how clear this is to detect, and therefore how easy to counter it could be. Let's just look at (some of) 1 day - Feb 19 2017. Lets look at the activity of the first 20 accounts from various round numbers as a sample, so u=1000 - u=1020 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1003 cookie 0 post March 07, 2017, 05:54:51 AM (was feb 19, 12.03pm) God damn, that was feb 19 last i looked, now mar 7 (1002, 1004, 1005, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, and 1020 "do not exist", so not much to hack there) u=2000 - u=2020 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2003 McKyle025 0 post March 07, 2017, 04:07:31 AM (was feb 19, 12.03pm) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2004 marktaylor142 0 post March 07, 2017, 09:16:18 AM (was feb 19, 12.05pm) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2005 kavindave26 0 post March 07, 2017, 08:01:11 AM (was feb 19, 12.58pm) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2008 celina111 0 post March 07, 2017, 06:55:41 AM (was feb 19, 12.18pm) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2011 reverselockup23 0 post March 07, 2017, 10:31:53 AM (was feb 19, 12.45pm) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2012 nadav001 0 post March 07, 2017, 07:48:42 AM (was feb 19, 12.07pm) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2017 aranaahmed1 0 post March 07, 2017, 08:21:32 AM (was feb 19, 12.05pm) Ok, these were all feb 19 as well, now all mar 7 also. This is exactly why admin need to save "snapshots" of activity of all accounts as i described. (2001, 2002, 6, 13, and 2014 "do not exist") u=3000 - u-3020 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3000 Rai 12 post February 19, 2017, 12:19:35 PM (last post 2011) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3003 v-tim 3 post February 19, 2017, 12:33:30 PM (last post 2011) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3011 tyler123 0 post February 19, 2017, 12:19:50 PM https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3019 ngatyeu87 0 post March 01, 2017, 02:43:47 AM (was feb 19, 12.30pm) So most of these are still feb 19. 1 changed, again showing how the evidence is slowly dispersed. (3002, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, and 2016 "do not exist") u=4000 - u=4020 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=4011 brynfrlin 0 post February 19, 2017, 12:28:49 PM https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=4014 aq8586 0 post February 19, 2017, 12:53:54 PM https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=4017 menoskedos 0 post February 19, 2017, 12:47:28 PM https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=4018 qaz22 0 post March 01, 2017, 08:05:16 AM (was feb 19, 12.46pm) Most still show feb 19. 1 change to march 1 same as above list. (4001, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 16, 19, 4020 "do not exist") Lets skip 5000 accounts to this list i quoted on previous page, u=9000 - u=9020 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=9003 Micro333 0 post February 19, 2017, 01:18:36 PM https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=9005 Qrr 2 post February 19, 2017, 01:28:59 PM https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=9009 Trance555 0 post February 19, 2017, 01:28:07 PM https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=9011 twadsworth 0 post February 19, 2017, 01:16:27 PM https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=9012 FictionWobbles333 0 post February 19, 2017, 01:27:05 PM https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=9013 MoodFool333 0 post February 19, 2017, 01:28:08 PM https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=9014 marish 0 post February 19, 2017, 01:38:06 PM https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=9015 BlackRunner111 0 post February 19, 2017, 01:15:55 PM https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=9016 jhallsworth 0 post February 19, 2017, 01:28:12 PM https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=9020 carter 0 post February 19, 2017, 01:20:13 PM I think these are still correct. And on to u=11000 - u=11020 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=11003 breakbank4 0 post March 01, 2017, 06:27:51 AM (was feb 19, 2.08pm) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=11007 yashrajskio 0 post February 28, 2017, 10:27:43 PM (was feb 19, 2.08pm) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=11008 ronanlepp 0 post February 19, 2017, 02:07:35 PM https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=11010 jacktralia 0 post February 19, 2017, 01:53:45 PM https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=11014 ameldajones 0 post February 19, 2017, 02:07:52 PM https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=11019 slotcar101 0 post February 19, 2017, 01:59:50 PM Couple changed. 1 mar 1st again. Dispersing the evidence. But as i had it recorded, it can never be lost - as theymos can easily do. See how the time frame goes from around 12pm - around 2pm over 11000 accounts, short work! theymos could confirm my "was feb 19" time and date is accurate, if he saved the correct info, and if he could be bothered. So regardless of weather it is 100,000 accounts or "just" 10's of thousands, i hope it is clear how easy it is to spot. This carries on on different dates, 27 January 2017 for example, u=25,000 - u= 25020 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=25005 inertiatic 0 post January 27, 2017, 05:50:53 AM https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=25007 Jepp 0 post January 27, 2017, 06:10:37 AM https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=25008 bottommaster 0 post January 27, 2017, 06:11:44 AM https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=25014 basseffekt 0 post January 27, 2017, 05:51:37 AM https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=25017 badinstincts 0 post January 27, 2017, 05:52:50 AM https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=25018 pero991 6 post January 27, 2017, 05:59:17 AM (last post 2011) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=25019 dragoon1001 0 post January 27, 2017, 05:42:25 AM https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=25020 MrMaple 1 post January 27, 2017, 05:58:58 AM (last post 2011) And the list goes on and on. The time rota being totally obvious. So after looking at 140 accounts, minus around 40accounts "do not exist", so 100 possible accounts to hack, 42 are hacked here. That equates to around 40% of all early accounts being hacked. (early accounts in this sample) All clear as day. No reason for mods to spout "there is nothing we can do". (i presume admin are saying the same to themselves) theymos must save the data as previously instructed by me (take him a few minutes) or forever be complicit in this. |
|
|
|
^^^What has that to do with Mining pools spamming the network with fake transactions?^^^ Just some religious proofless rant after only bitfury (segwit/core supporter) has so far been named here for sending "dodgy" tx's, not unlimited. ----- Perhaps it is what is encoded in the output script. It must have some purpose. https://blockchain.info/tx/b6d186f14ac6e33267d352f4762a42a73f7d88513dfddfa1e87d918c580b68f0?show_adv=trueBeyond my knowledge to be honest. But why would they create these transactions, collecting their own fee, and risking block orphanage creating a large block? If they where spamming the network, they would send out low fee transactions to bloat others mempools. They are only reducing there own fee collection by not including higher paying fees. Or they could mine emptier blocks just to push them out of the door and collect the block reward with reducing risk of orphanage. So my guess is, that this is some system which is storing immutable data onto the blockchain. I think that unlikely, though i don't know for sure either. Could be as simple as their software is rubbish at filling blocks. To avoid embarrassment they fill up the block with their own spam. Maybe they have a motive involving the segwit/blocksize debate. Bitfury could tell us. Someone should ask why 1% of the total Bitcoin network is dedicated to 1 address seemingly sending nothing but low fees. (there was a short discussion here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1799541.msg18068053#msg18068053 but nothing came of it) -------- vvv no worries Quanta. (hope we can show all miners who do this, core or unlimited supporters) Next bitfury block found, 600+ 3QQ tx's included, (23% of blockspace) no bitcoin moved (except low fees) https://blockchain.info/block-index/1470916 |
|
|
|
It seems that Jihan and part of Chinese miners affraid that with lighting network they will lost their fee market.
No, it is core's fee market, not Jihan's. Jihan is more likely worried about Bitcoin. The work of the miners is not to engage in politics and create their own Bitcoin clients. The task of the miners is only to confirm the transactions.
No, part of the miners job is to protect their business against attackers, thereby protecting the network. You expect them to just stand by even if they think core (or any other) will destroy them/Bitcoin. You need to think again. What makes a newbie like you think he know's better than Jihan? |
|
|
|
They cant cope with it, and trust them with money
spam DDoSing a website? has nothing to do with bitcoins function nor 'control of money' i think the OP has no concept of how bitcoin actually worksAnother first post illiterate newbie with zero credibility. A lot of them about at the moment, all thinking they know best. |
|
|
|
Maybe they are testing their own LN effects. What gets me is that these transactions are created at the exact same time of the block that they are included in. That is not normal network propagation.
That get's me too. Are they broadcast at the same time as the block? Do they even hit the mempool? Some bitfury blocks are 1/3 full of this address's tx's paying 0.0001btc fee each to send zero bitcoins. They would be losing out on higher network fees by including these transactions. It appears that they are creating them themselves and stuffing them straight into their own blocks. So possibly one way of creating their own reliable off-chain service? Example transaction: https://blockchain.info/tx/b6d186f14ac6e33267d352f4762a42a73f7d88513dfddfa1e87d918c580b68f0That is how it look's. But these tx's contain nothing but a (low) fee, how is that any service? ------ added Last 10 blocks mined by bitfury contain 1.147550mb of tx's from 3QQ address. That is 11.4% of their blockspace. (last 24 hour) bitfury have 10% of Bitcoin's total hashpower. 11.4% blockspace of 10% Bitcoin's total hashpower = 1.14% of Bitcoins total hashpower mining fake tx's from 1 address. 1 address sending zero bitcoin is using 1% of Bitcoin's total resource's At that rate Bitcoin could only serve 100 addresses! |
|
|
|
Have you any proof of this what so ever ? or are you just giving your opinion, and buy the way there is no such thing as a fake transactions, all transaction that pay a fee are legitimate transactions. you may just not agree with the transaction.
Err, the blockchain is proof? see my links. You think i just made this up? These tx's pay a low fee, sending no other bitcoin anywhere, and are included only in bitfury blocks by their hundreds. It's not my fault! Core support here usually say 0.0001 fee is spam,. Now you say any low fee is legit, and is not fake even though it sends no other bitcoin, and it is right for bitfury to include these in their blocks hundreds at a time, above many other higher fee paying, bitcoin sending tx's. Weird. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
