wow just wow....
been in comunity for 3min and got randomly trolled.
I am rather in shock.
I am too. I kid you not, this is not a regular occurrence here, especially from our older members. It's okay to be skeptical, it's not okay to outright troll people. Matthew crossed that line today. |
|
|
|
|
Despite the fact that people are asking me to delete this thread, I'm afraid that I can't do that. Sorry.
Bans might be handed out, though. (Don't worry, vual, you're fine) Some of you guys need some time to cool down.
|
|
|
|
So I was thinking about this today, and I realized a flaw. Does the public key have to be in the blockchain before you can verify a message signed by an address not in your wallet?
No, it doesn't necessarily need to be in the blockchain, but if the public key has never been used, it would need to provided along with the signed message. (although I don't know if the client accepts a public key to check against...) |
|
|
|
|
It appears that this is an issue of mistaken identity. I was just informed that the person who did these things is not actually connected to you. I apologize for that.
I have edited my earlier statement to reflect this.
|
|
|
|
And so it goes on...
You heard from someone who heard from someone that I was an internet pimp? And because I supposedly did not give over the I.D. this person was a child. Hmm... Maxwell's hypothetical bitcoin child porn market does exist?? Maged is involved with it to?? I will not speculate further on this. I just wanted to point out that there is a reasonable justification for Maxwell's statement. Right... You people must really get bored in IRC, I understand trolling but this is slander. I merely provided facts. It is up to you to dispute them. If you say that you weren't pimping a child, then that's all we really need to know. Having said that, I consider the matter closed. |
|
|
|
Full disclosure: With regards to the CP, I was made aware of a situation on 12/21. X today brought up how Goat had told him that he had someone who would be one of his cam girls. When X brought up the documents he needs to be in compliance, i guess he stoped talking about it I am under the understanding that the authorities are currently investigating the matter. Edit: It appears that this is an issue of mistaken identity, I apologize. |
|
|
|
Stop spreading FUD. You've already received answers to this issue. You lied and changed your story. They shouldn't give you your account back. For context, in case you are reading this and haven't read cuz0882's other thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=61997.0 |
|
|
|
|
That's why you've got to stand your ground. If someone refuses to send first to a higher-reputation person, either refuse to do business with them or use an escrow.
|
|
|
|
Is it a promise to reject any block contains a different transaction with the same inputs? That might leave the miner off the real chain forever no? But otherwise what does it matter? They'll mine the tx unless another gets in first? Not much help really.
its not a promise to reject, but a promise not to mine a conflicting transaction. and to include your transaction in a mined block (so even if a block is orphaned due to other reasons, the transaction will still be included later) so if you got a signed reply from 40-50% of the hashpower - you can be quite safe that a competing transaction won't end up in the longest blockchain. it's not 100% safe, but it's a good indicator. It can be made into a promise to reject. Of course, no miner would make that promise on their own. However, if you get the initial promise not to mine conflicting transactions, you could then use that promise from 50%+ to prove to the miners that it is safe to reject, although I suspect that a decent fee would be involved in that. However, it could work to make 0 confirmation transactions completely safe after a few seconds (after you contact the miners and get enough support to have them to reject conflicting blocks) |
|
|
|
The paperwork that I have to fill out to get someone marked as a scammer is quite intensive. It sucks to do it. For some people, it has required an hour to fill out. Luckily, I was able to do the abbreviated version for this guy.
Yeah, i imagine there was plenty of proof on the forums. If not, I can throw in the PMs sent back and forth from my loan if it helps. If you notice, he's already marked as a scammer, which is why I was glad to just do the abbreviated paperwork. If you need me to disclose personal information, that will be much harder. I can do it, but I'd prefer if you guys figured it out on your own. |
|
|
|
Could we have this re-reviewed by a moderator/admin, please. I'm not sure "SCAMMER" is really appropriate in this situation.
No, it is entirely appropriate. He can have us remove the tag at any time by issuing refunds, but that would be pretty hard now... Really? How come? We'd have to find everyone... |
|
|
|
What sucks is, iirc, the poster can unlock the thread, bump to the top with some inane shit, then lock the thread again. Wee, how lame.
Depending on how they do it, that might be against forum guidelines. If they bump it, they must say something worthwhile and on-topic. |
|
|
|
|
The paperwork that I have to fill out to get someone marked as a scammer is quite intensive. It sucks to do it. For some people, it has required an hour to fill out. Luckily, I was able to do the abbreviated version for this guy.
|
|
|
|
Instead of creating a transaction container and then sending it to the receiver COD, you could simply create a "pay another transaction's fee" transaction type. There's no need to cryptographically guarantee that the postage is only paid by the recipient, so let anyone throw in some extra tx fee.
Like I said, that would be the long term goal. However, that requires the same work we have to go through for P2SH, and you know how well that's turning out. The short-term solution I detailed could be added to all of the miners today, if the code existed. |
|
|
|
Could we have this re-reviewed by a moderator/admin, please. I'm not sure "SCAMMER" is really appropriate in this situation.
No, it is entirely appropriate. He can have us remove the tag at any time by issuing refunds, but that would be pretty hard now... |
|
|
|
|
As long as the sender pays enough to get their transaction relayed (in the long-term, transactions should be sent to the receiver directly), the easiest short-term solution is to update the priority code to consider all transactions dependent on an unconfirmed transaction to be part of the same transaction. Thus, the receiver just has to send the transaction to themselves, but including a good fee this time, and the first transaction would benefit from this.
Long-term, it needs to be possible to pay for another transaction's transaction fee without using the dependency (either through the Bitcoin network itself, or through some out-of-band system). This is why Mike is against P2SH (BIP 12,16,17): the benefits of P2SH are completely null and void if you need to create a dependency on the first transaction. It's a protocol change that's just going to require another protocol change.
|
|
|
|
If any mod or admin is following this, I fear kujoking7 deserves a SCAMMER tag now.
Give him a bit. If you see him trying to pull a last minute scam, though, let us know. This guy is gone, along with all the BTC he "borrowed." *sigh* I'll start the paperwork... |
|
|
|
It's a discussion forum (though the fact that he makes threads and locks them so there can be no discussion seems rather stupid and I'm surprised that the mods are so damn timid about that)
Don't look at me, I just follow the rules... |
|
|
|
Is this actually something to worry about?
No. It's hard as hell to get banned here. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
