He posted the mechanics of how he comes up with credit ratings earlier in this thread.

• down, but see #6 since it's the same domain
• not listed
• down, but their check tool says I'm not listed
• ""
• ""
• listed in the "PBL"
• not listed

Um... the whole range
but it sounds like it's only for email, and litecoin is not an email
So I click 'remove me' or whatever and I get this:
Hmm... I'm not a designated mail server :/

So maybe it's one of those which is "down?" Can you give me the exact website, not just domain?

As for http://www.uceprotect.net/en/rblcheck.php, I'm not listed there either

CornedBeefHash:
While I have sold things for PayPal and gotten burned (one guy/gal claimed it was broken on arrival -- yeah, it and the bubble-wrap packaging ) I have yet to be burned while taking the risk as a buyer. I mailed cash out the other day (in exchange for BTC) and it just wouldn't make sense (for the merchant) to trash the merchant's perfect ratings by scamming me.
You listed examples like MyBitcoin/Bitcoinica etc, but those all fall under my previous statement that you let them hold your money. Don't do that. Have you ever been scammed as a buyer in a transaction when dealing with someone reputed?

Such a transaction, I believe, would have a priority of 0, since priority is the product of age and size. Thus, it would certainly need to carry a fee, unless it was produced by someone who had mined a block.

No, the merchant should not take the risk. The reason for that being that the merchant is generally more trusted. Here's my logic:

Imagine that you are in #bitcoin-otc selling ice cream coupons. You've been doing this for years.
Some new person joins the channel and asks you to send first. Do you? Of course not.
A helpful channel resident explains to the new person that you have a flawless rating, and thus the new person sends first.
(This actually happens very frequently, minus the "ice cream" part)

In this perfectly reasonable, oft-occuring example, the merchant did not take the risk; the buyer did. Had the merchant taken the risk, the new person would, with a high probability, have run off with the ice cream without paying. Given that this is the internet, "drive-offs" (pumping gas then driving off without paying) are hard to pursue / prosecute.

The problem seems to arise when the "poor broke bastard" leaves his money with the merchant. The merchant provides no evidence of collateral or any real reason for the poor bastard to leave the money with him. Keep your coins in your own (brain/paper/offline/etc)wallet, where they are actually safe. Take them out for transactions, and don't lend/deposit them with merchants without good reason. The merchants/deposit-takers are not FDIC-insured If people didn't use MtGox/etc as an e-wallet, then MtGox wouldn't be able to run off with nearly as much money.

If a Bitcoin user does decide to "deposit" his/her coins with any third party, for any reason (e-wallet, exchange, good interest rates) then he/she must consider it a "loan," not a "deposit." The user is loaning his/her bitcoins out, and must make sure that he/she can get them back later. Just because transactions are pseudonymous does not mean that the whole business needs to be; just because the gov't doesn't force KYC on every Bitcoin business doesn't mean that due diligence is prohibited.

It is just as easy to get scammed with PayPal as it is with Bitcoin. The only difference is that with PayPal, the merchant takes the risk. I know this from firsthand experience.

My IP is the same, I think. What would have put me on a blacklist? What list do you use?

Uhh... what database? This is a home computer running without a proxy. I did accidentally become a Tor exit node like 5 months ago, but that should be cleared from your database by now. I had no problem with the faucet last week

How about using Coinapult as an SMS wallet?

I would never sell everything, but I might sell half if:
-Pirate defaults
-A miner gets 50% of the total hashrate
-Extremely bad major news coverage (CNN claims "Bitcoin is a Ponzi Scheme")

I thought it meant "1 for BTC1"

Thanks, BitcoinTraderIE

One thing that applies to things like Bitcoin and, to a lesser extent, bitaddress.org is that someone will hopefully find flaws. For example, if Bitcoin-Qt contained code which allowed Gavin to access your coins from a remote server at will, don't you think someone would have found it by now? Wouldn't at least one of the thousands of users of Bitcoin have spoken up? Even if their claims were on Freenet or a Tor hidden service? It's been years, and I still have yet to hear such a claim. Thus, without doing more than a cursory review of the code, I feel safe trusting Bitcoin-Qt with large amounts of money (provided I do backups ). As more people look at Bitaddress.org and find nothing wrong with its source, the other users can become more assured that it is a safe tool to use.

Mining is slightly different than what you think it is. Basically, the miner takes a hash of the entire blockchain to-date (it's slightly more complicated than that, but that's irrelevant). Then, the miner adds a nonce -- random data -- to the previous hash, and performs double SHA256 on it. If the result is lower than a certain number (determined by difficulty), i.e. it starts with enough 0's, then it is a valid solution. The miner can then publish the "block," which is composed of a header, including proof that the miner actually found a solution, and transactions, which include a transaction which has no inputs and one 50 BTC (soon to be 25) output. The block, once published, is added to the "blockchain" and new miners build upon it by using it as part of new blocks.

(There is some technical stuff missing here, such as merkle trees and whatnot, but I don't think they pertain too much to the question)


Now, there is the possibility that I'm completely missing the question, in which case you need to rephrase it

Rofl, Zimbabwe certainly backed up its currency

free market and all that but I bet they charge more in fees

Dear bitcoinica hacker,
I will be happy to facilitate your laundering at a fee of 25K BTC

BUY BUY BUY!

Does Otoh have it yet? I'm sure if he ran off with the coins hashking could just return some of the coins Otoh has on deposit to the OP

Yes, the real reason to use bitaddress.org for brainwallets is how it transforms the private key into wallet import format and gives you the public key. Without it, have fun computing secp256k1 and RIPEMD-160 and base58 and all of that...

I haven't seen an answer to this yet.
We know that the bitaddress.org program is the code which is published because it is not compiled. Javascript is by nature a client-side scripting-language, so you can just "view source" to see what code it is using.