Bitcoin Forum
February 19, 2020, 10:45:46 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.0.1 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 [81] 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 ... 158 »
1601  Other / Off-topic / Re: A1BitcoinPool Compensation on: May 11, 2012, 04:47:21 PM
After thinking about this, I don't think A1 should have the scammers tag if he did pay the rest back. I'm sure something will work out.
It's policy that we have to deal with at this point. Even if you pay the 4.5 BTC off entirely for him for free, we can't remove the tag. You can come to some settlement that's lower than that to remove the tag, but it must still be reasonable. That's why I want you to go through Raize, since he has the ability to bundle this in with the previous agreement.
1602  Other / Off-topic / Re: A1BitcoinPool Compensation on: May 11, 2012, 04:22:27 PM
I think the correct spelling is actually "sveetsnelda", who has an account on this forum.
Thanks to this, we were able to find the last user that was owed bitcoins. We are currently in the process of dispersing those bitcoins. Goat, contact Raize if you still want to help. I don't know yet if Raize will cover this or not.

I can cover it but I thought A1 wanted to pay it back? What happened?
This is separate from what A1 already paid.

Okay I will cover it as long as A1 keeps the scammers tag. Send me the amount of BTC to pay and an address. Thanks.
You're confused. I'm just letting you know that you should contact Raize and find out if he will cover it or not.

A1 will, of course, keep the scammer tag until this last issue is resolved.
1603  Other / Off-topic / Re: A1BitcoinPool Compensation on: May 11, 2012, 04:09:29 PM
I think the correct spelling is actually "sveetsnelda", who has an account on this forum.
Thanks to this, we were able to find the last user that was owed bitcoins. We are currently in the process of dispersing those bitcoins. Goat, contact Raize if you still want to help. I don't know yet if Raize will cover this or not.

I can cover it but I thought A1 wanted to pay it back? What happened?
This is separate from what A1 already paid.
1604  Other / Off-topic / Re: A1BitcoinPool Compensation on: May 11, 2012, 03:37:45 PM
I think the correct spelling is actually "sveetsnelda", who has an account on this forum.
Thanks to this, we were able to find the last user that was owed bitcoins. We are currently in the process of dispersing those bitcoins. Goat, contact Raize if you still want to help. I don't know yet if Raize will cover this or not.
1605  Other / Off-topic / Re: A1BitcoinPool Compensation on: May 10, 2012, 09:58:23 PM
As far as I am aware, there are no other outstanding claims.

I have not heard from A1B user 'Sweetsnelda'.
All other miner's were paid.
Even though there were others willing to help, no one else was needed.

Anything remaining I did keep, as allowed by Raize.


Thanks again to all involved for the help in aiding the miners, resolving the issue, and the like.
I think the correct spelling is actually "sveetsnelda", who has an account on this forum.
Oh shit! That's actually extremely helpful. Thanks!
1606  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: A Treaty on: May 10, 2012, 06:37:55 AM
Hell, he doxed himself, if I recall.
1607  Other / Meta / Re: klamm.us on: May 10, 2012, 05:21:08 AM
Not to do anything illegal, but if you are capable of, say, having multiple "orders" come from all over the world in a distributed manner...

I didn't say anything, though.
1608  Other / Off-topic / Re: A1BitcoinPool Compensation on: May 10, 2012, 04:18:12 AM
So Raize had the only claim against A1BITCOINPOOL? (I've forgotten the details of this case.)
Yeah, he bought everyone else out. At 100% of how much they were owed, no less.
1609  Other / Meta / Re: Forum Slamming & I just got Famous on: May 10, 2012, 03:32:49 AM
Wait... we banned him? Huh. I'll have to ask theymos about that...

Oh, I also laughed when he said he got booted out of #bitcoin. Honestly, this is his own fault.
1610  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: A Treaty on: May 10, 2012, 03:19:47 AM
There has always been more than one Atlas from the very start. lol

I can't believe no one has noticed this.
Dude, you should really see a therapist. Otherwise, I'm sure that Matthew would be happy to talk with you on the phone again.
1611  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: A Treaty on: May 10, 2012, 02:59:25 AM
Hmm...
1612  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: Someone said EasyMiner had a virus - so I scanned it with 41 programs... on: May 10, 2012, 02:31:06 AM
Means absolutely nothing. Virus scanners only pick up viruses that are widely distributed, not ones tailored to a specific niche.
1613  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Re: SECURITY ISSUES - anyone interested in a manhunt? on: May 09, 2012, 05:01:48 PM
Passwords at mining pools seem to get leaked on a daily basis. Few of these guys are any good at security.
1614  Other / Meta / Re: How does the klamm.us scammer spammer get out of newbie gaol? on: May 09, 2012, 04:40:48 PM
Well, just keep reporting these posts. We'll get to them as fast as we can.

That being said, if one of us is online, a PM may result in a faster response. This is true of at least me (I only check for reported posts about every 10 minutes when I'm online, but I get PMs instantly), but maybe not all of the moderators.
1615  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: So I was checking my referral logs ... on: May 09, 2012, 05:17:40 AM
Speaking of evangelism, has anyone gathered a collection of tips on how it should and shouldn't be done? That might be very useful. I did a quick search, but I couldn't find much more than "tell them how awesome it is and include a link to weusecoins".

See https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Public_relations

Dear mother of Gox, we've had that for almost a year now?!?
1616  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Dynamic block frequency on: May 08, 2012, 01:36:03 AM
Also, I'm pretty sure that your idea will create total chaos.  Not less forks, but more.  Lots more.  Like on nearly every block.  Not at first, necessarily, but as the subsidy shrinks relative to the transaction fees for sure.
Did I say it will create less forks? I predict that the equilibrium found will be less than 10 minutes, which means more forks.

I doubt it will be "on nearly every block". As I explained, if it comes to that, miners will choose a larger weight which decreases their invalid rate.

Actually, miners will choose the weight based on whether they got the last block or not, and whether they are getting paid kickbacks to support/override blocks from the previous miner.  For most miners, I think the best payoff would be prevDifficulty+1, except when they are working on extending their own block, in which case it would be the minimum, or close to it.  The exact game theory optimum would depend the acceptable range.
As I said, honest miners will build on the longest (most difficult) branch they know. This is a Nash equilibrium - a miner will want to build on the longest branch, as that improves the chances that their own block will be accepted. Increasing the weight decreases the probability that their block will be rejected in a conflict.

You sure about that?  No one will ever want to ignore an easy block and try to replace it with their own hard block?
Are you sure able that? If we assume that average block times are going to tend to be very quick, it'd be stupid to ignore any block. This assumes, of course, 2*minimum weight > 1*maximum weight. With that, if any weight block is added to the block you are ignoring, you lose. In fact, assuming that lower weight blocks put a portion of the fees from the block forward to the next block, it would be in every miner's benefit to mine on the low-weight block.

As for why this dynamic wouldn't just push people to mine on the lowest-weight block released, that's because, generally, people wouldn't want forks. Not to mention, we could have it so that when miners are able to spend their coins depends on weight, meaning that a building on a higher weight block would result in getting paid sooner.

Woah, multiple dynamics are going on there...
1617  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: SR $100k+ bitcoin scam on: May 07, 2012, 07:07:02 AM
Why didn't they just use the free escrow service?
Because sellers don't trust that new buyers will ever release the escrow. Really, that's a problem that SR should try resolving.
I haven't been there in ages, but doesn't it auto-release after thirty days, still?
I have no idea. I'm just working off of what I've heard, so I'm guessing that you're actually right. In that case, I don't really understand those people...
1618  Economy / Lending / Re: Bitcoin Savings and Trust is probably a Ponzi Scheme: A Petition on: May 07, 2012, 06:54:12 AM
MarketNeutral,

 Let just cut to the chase. Do you think Pirate is running a Ponzi?

Yes Or No because if the answer is 'I don't know' or 'maybe' then we will all know what is going on here.



I think it's very likely a Ponzi scheme.

If you put a gun to my head and asked for a yes or no answer, I'd say yes.

I could be wrong, but whatever it is, it's not what he says it is.

If not a Ponzi scheme, then it's something similarly risky.

The level of risk is not being properly conveyed to the investors.

I don't care if someone runs a pyramid or ponzi scheme, or a fund based on trafficking illicit goods, or whatever––as long as they're upfront about the risk.

Even in those very rare instances when genuine market growth can temporarily sustain such incredible returns, the growth is never sustainable. The risk is in the bubble.

Ponzi? Yeah, probably.

Now that we've established that, now what?  Grab the pitchforks and burn his house down?
Nah, I would settle pressuring Pirate to have his business audited by a trusted third party. It shocks me that people are investing in him without this.

Remember, it is not our position to prove that he is a Ponzi - it's his job to prove that he's not.

You do see my point though that publicly calling someone a criminal can have consequences. So would it not be prudent to not publicly call someone a criminal until you can prove it and not qualify the statement with 'probably'.
...unless you live in the US. In the US, as long as you can demonstrate that you had a good-faith reason to believe what you said, no one can do anything to you. This would most certainly qualify.
1619  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Dynamic block frequency on: May 07, 2012, 06:22:47 AM
@Maged - if I understand your objections correctly, they are solvable by imposing a lower bound in addition to the upper bound, and tightening it. For example, the weight of a block needs to be between 0.9 to 1.1 times the weight of the 500 most recent blocks. This way the attacker can't get much advantage by using a block weight significantly different than the rest of the network; but if the current time span is suboptimal, the network will slowly but surely drift towards a better value.
Interesting idea. At worst, a merchant would require one additional confirmation to know that they are safe from a Finney Attack, but because of the market dynamics this idea has, the market might just push average block time to less than half of our current system anyway. You could actually even widen the range of possible weights to .67 to 1.33 without hurting the merchants any more than .9 to 1.1 would. However, to allow it to stretch that far, you wouldn't want the range of weights to be calculated on a rolling basis, but that's fine. If you did want it recalculated every block, you would have to tighten the range just slightly.

It's also not true that pools don't care about variance. Good PPS pools charge 5% fee to compensate for their risk, and threads of normal pools are littered with discussions of good and bad luck, and complaints about maturity time. The big pools become bigger because they have less variance.
Fair enough. I guess we'd just have to see how this would play out.

P2Pool basically emulates a blockchain with a smaller timespan, and I agree if removes some of the need for an actually shorter span. I still believe it would be better for the timespan itself to be more optimal.
I do agree with you there. 10 minutes is really far too long, in my opinion.
1620  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: SR $100k+ bitcoin scam on: May 07, 2012, 05:56:14 AM
Why didn't they just use the free escrow service?
Because sellers don't trust that new buyers will ever release the escrow. Really, that's a problem that SR should try resolving.
Pages: « 1 ... 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 [81] 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 ... 158 »
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!