Bitcoin Forum
December 13, 2019, 04:15:49 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: [Torrent]
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 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 ... 158 »
661  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: Why am I still a newbie? on: April 20, 2013, 03:09:34 AM
It takes up to 10 minutes for you to be promoted automatically once you meet the requirements.
662  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: Why the newbie restriction is dumb... [BTC-E Question included] on: April 20, 2013, 02:50:39 AM
If it was to avoid spamming i could understand, perhaps to cut-down on the trolling, id understand but lets get real here this isn't doing any of that instead it is driving away the traffic that actually has something to contribute and/or have legitimate BTC related topics/questions to discuss.
Yeah, that's the unfortunate downside. We try to keep that to a minimum, though, through our whitelist program

I don't see why it is necessary for one to surf the site for 4+ hours in order to be able to open an topic outside of this area, If someones goal was seriously to troll, Couldn't they easily create and script that surfs the site continuously for 4-hours
It is surprisingly effective against trolls. Apparently, they don't like putting in too much effort to continue trolling after we ban them. (Note: some trolling is acceptable; we only ban excessive trolling) Also, the 4 hour restriction reduces the number of repeated topics that contribute nothing new to the conversation. Finally, it acts as a floodgate, allowing us to more easily maintain our forum culture. It's not a perfect system, but it's one of the most effective I've ever seen.
663  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: Whitelist Requests (Want out of here?) on: April 20, 2013, 02:23:12 AM
I would like to be allowed into the forums, im delevoping a new escrow site hence my username, and would like to be able to ask for user input to help develop my site
Honestly, until/unless you already have a good reputation backing you, you're going to have to work your way up anyway. So, I'm afraid that I will have to deny this request for preemptive whitelisting.
664  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: Whitelist Requests (Want out of here?) on: April 20, 2013, 02:19:27 AM
I meet the requirements, but I'm still newbie...  Embarrassed
It can take up to 10 minutes for your status to automatically change.
665  Economy / Service Discussion / Re: Has bitinstant stopped "scamming"? on: April 20, 2013, 02:18:01 AM
From what I've read, most payments are going through right away, but there is a medium chance that you'll experience problems. If you do experience problems, you typically will have to wait over two weeks for a resolution if your problem is an issue that can't be handled by tier 1 support.
666  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: Whitelist Requests (Want out of here?) on: April 20, 2013, 12:11:46 AM
I have used bitcoin for almost 2 years now and am now joining the forum to contribute/refine altcoin ideas particular towards building a distributed exchange mechanism. Please let me leave the newbie area without having to make 4 more silly posts Smiley

Here's my 1 year and 11month old address, which I am signing this message with.


Message signature: G0alpKJP6s+sRA7pkEhi/dkfVToQayz/UC1Uco4meT0S2M5C8rOIIAx9CMxQmeYRvreGrOHbtf8Ad0WxPA+Gr60=
It was hard to figure out what you signed, but I got it eventually.
667  Other / Meta / Re: Is Bitcointalk forum compromised? on: April 19, 2013, 11:52:30 PM
please some administator contact me.
Susana tryed to talk with theymos a few days but he hasn't answer. She sent PM.

I also requested the ripple giveaway, and I'm sure in the same IP that some of these guys (already received)

If you run a simple TRACE on the IP you understand why we have the same is from our UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, and I think I don't need to explain why the out IP is the same.

One of the guys told us to reactivate the accounts to ask the ripple giveaway, so we did it... we are all in the same campus, and created during the time of BTC, but were never active. Now that we had the chance to get some free ripples to exchange (what some have already made with BTC), we activated again... nothing illegal I think :\

Please some moderator give me a contact, you can contact each and any of the persons that they will answer you.
we can send ID on all of us to a admin, just tell what you need.

Sorry for the long text.

No, all of those accounts were used by the same person. I personally checked each account to prevent this exact problem from happening. For example, please tell me how this account wasn't compromised:;u=31850;sa=showPosts

And yes, I'm sure you have plenty of fake IDs. You probably got them from the same place you got these accounts. Now, you could argue that you bought these accounts legitimately (since we allow that here), but since they all posted in the Ripple thread and were owned by a single person, that still qualifies for a scammer tag.
668  Other / Meta / Re: Better PM system is needed! on: April 19, 2013, 04:26:44 AM
What about the pop-up you get when you first load a new page after getting a PM?
I got in the habit a long time ago of automatically saying "cancel" to that pop-up because it was broken in some way on my browser. I think it was missing the scroll bars or something.
Me too, but I then immediately check my inbox.
669  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: bitinstant major problems on: April 19, 2013, 03:19:35 AM
did a sizeable 254 dollar cash to bitcoin address on 4/16/2013 and my money never got to me i have sent many emails and have tried to contact bitinstant several times but no response. what the hell is going on with this company I have no idea how long it will take to even get a response let alone my money and advice?
This influx of new people to Bitcoin has overwhelmed their support staff, so they're having a hard time keeping up with the support requests. Luckily, most orders go through instantly without issue and those that don't do get resolved, eventually. I notice that you posted in the support thread, so you should be fine.

Same here.

I transfered 500 USD with bitstamp code to bitcoin address, and had an error coupon code but they take the money !!!!

Order ID   34e7cb04-0bde-485b-9167-0e25f2c1fbd9

What the hell is going on with this service seriously ?
You really should have posted this in the support thread. I have gone and copied it over for you.

Have you put in a support request at
670  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: Official Newbie BitInstant Support Thread (Active Customer Support) on: April 19, 2013, 03:13:21 AM
Here's one that wasn't posted here:
Same here.

I transfered 500 USD with bitstamp code to bitcoin address, and had an error coupon code but they take the money !!!!

Order ID   34e7cb04-0bde-485b-9167-0e25f2c1fbd9

What the hell is going on with this service seriously ?
671  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Point of Attack: Miners can steal from retail on: April 19, 2013, 02:34:52 AM
Credit card reversals aren't such a big problem.  They affect your trust and you can only reverse so much until you lose your card and the ability to reverse.  A reversable transaction that is not tied to trust is completely different issue.
And that's why I said "determined attacker". A determined attacker would use stolen credit cards.

However, you're correct about casual attackers. Fortunately, since casual attackers wouldn't have a mining farm, they'd succeed so rarely that it's barely worth mentioning.
672  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Decoupling transactions and POW on: April 19, 2013, 01:24:12 AM
Not too bad. This would even allow us to quickly resolve attacks by minority attackers, such as a 49% attack.
673  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Reminder: zero-conf is not safe; $500USD reward posted for replace-by-fee patch on: April 18, 2013, 10:08:07 PM
Sorry, but I've got to stop this right here before this idea gets out of hand.

On the other hand, this makes changing fees after the fact trivial, and it lets us implement a limited 'undo' button for when people screw up.
You also can't implement an 'undo' function so users can fix accidental mistakes like cutting and pasting the wrong address.
Have you even thought through the implications of this? An "undo" button would train the users into thinking that:
1) Bitcoin transactions can be reversed for a few minutes after they send the transaction.
2) The reversal is guaranteed.

#1 isn't true at all, since any manner of variables can come into play that could ultimately make the undo button useless almost immediately. How would you explain to people that the undo button might work for anywhere between seconds and hours?
As for #2, if a merchant is making a great deal of profit off the transaction, they could secretly pay certain miners to choose the original transaction over the undo transaction.

It also allows for many of the applications transaction replacement was meant for in the first place anyway, and all the applications where it's actually secure.
Tell me, what applications would this allow that a more locked-down transaction replacement system doesn't?

We keep saying over and over again to stop accepting zero-conf transactions, but people do it anyway because it seems secure. It's a very dangerous situation because the security of zero-conf transactions can change overnight simply by some fraction of the hashing power implementing that exact change.
That's because it is somewhat secure! Consider the case where zero-confirmation transactions take the place of existing credit card transactions. A determined attacker can reverse 100% of their credit card transactions, but they would only be able to reverse a small percentage of their zero-confirmation transactions. This would allow casual attackers to reverse most of their zero-confirmation transactions, whereas they can't do that with credit cards as a casual attacker.

Like it or not, zero-conf is dangerous when you don't trust the other party. I wrote the above replace-by-fee idea because I really think we run a risk if we lull people into complacency.
We have the Bitcoin Foundation, don't we? One of their goals should be educating businesses about the responsible handling of zero-conf transactions.

The blockchain and the proof-of-work system is how Bitcoin comes to a consensus about which transactions are or are not valid; trusting anything else is dangerous.

When you accept a zero-conf transaction the method of determining consensus basically comes down to hoping that all miners implement the default "no-replacement" rules, rules that can fail due to a bunch of other reasons like propagation failures. Mining pools these days are run by individuals as a (serious) hobby, and are usually hosted on insecure VPS services. The security of zero-conf transactions can change overnight by one of those pools getting hacked, or anyone with hashing power deciding to change the relay policy they use; about 10% of all blocks have unknown origins.
Yes, but you're confusing absolute security with "good-enough" security. Hence why people still accept credit cards.

Trying to bolt on a second consensus mechanism, like nodes rejecting blocks if there are transactions in them that they haven't seen before, or conflict with existing transactions, is dangerous. That second consensus mechanism becomes a way to attack Bitcoin, and it can be as simple as just broadcasting different transactions to different miners so they don't know what transaction was first.
I agree, but they may be other options that we haven't considered.

The problem is, since no outputs can be replaced, if you need to change the fee again the transaction gets bigger each time. (making it public knowledge which existing output is change would break privacy)
As you eluded to, they can increase the fee by adding a fee to a dependent transaction. As far a breaking privacy, here are a few ideas of preventing that. First, you have to consider the future where merchants would be the one adding the fee, as Mike Hearn has often suggested would happen. In that case, who added the fee? The user, or the merchant? If that's not good enough for you, we can add a third output that is fairly small and use that to add dependent fees.

It's been argued that miners have an incentive to not mine double-spends, but I'm unconvinced; each individual miner has nothing to lose by mining a double-spend, and an immediate gain from the fee they collect.
Not at all, and you have the invention of ASICs to thank for that. Mining now requires a large up-front investment that would be completely useless if Bitcoin were to collapse, unlike when we were in the age of GPU mining. Miners have an interest in having Bitcoin be used in as many use-cases as possible.

I also wrote on the email list how with 1MB blocks it's pretty safe to assume that broadcasting a transaction means all miners have a copy of it within a few seconds. On the other hand, if we raise the blocksize that assumption isn't going to be true anymore - transaction load will be high enough that nodes have to drop transactions some of the time, which means not all miners will have a copy of every transaction broadcast. Thus it becomes much easier to broadcast a second copy later, double-spending the first.
Again, thanks to ASICs, mining is a serious operation. Miners will hold onto as many transactions as possible, and they will use enterprise-grade equipment to do so.
674  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: Whitelist Requests (Want out of here?) on: April 18, 2013, 09:04:37 PM
Zadet: OK
jdillon: OK
Kalen: OK
marc000: OK
QDrum: OK
675  Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: [SCAMMERS] Bitinstant on: April 18, 2013, 07:15:27 PM
Honestly, just keep trying. They're overloaded, certainly, but they haven't shown any sign of actually scamming people.
676  Other / Meta / Re: Search before you post? f**k that on: April 18, 2013, 04:54:23 PM
theymos should setup another server where search queries can be ran on a daily mirror of the database. We take daily backups, so it could even just extract from that. Then, add a checkbox to the search page that defaults to off that allows you to query the live database (at the current limits) when the box is checked, and query the daily mirror (at little/no limits) when it's unchecked.
677  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Point of Attack: Miners can steal from retail on: April 18, 2013, 05:50:15 AM
Someone knowledgeable please tell me there is a solution to this.
First off, let me give you the name we call this attack. We call this attack the "Finney Attack". Feel free to Google it for more discussion of it.

How could retail trust bitcoin if miners could sometimes steal from them?
Well, let's start out with the simple answer: they just have to. However, that's not as big of a deal as you think, since most retail already accept a form of payment that can be reversed by a determined attacker 100% of the time: credit cards. Therefore, 0-confirmation transactions are, in many ways, actually safer than one of the most common ways people already transact.

As far as preventing it, once we are in a world with no block subsidy, merchants can chain the fees for currently unconfirmed transactions in such a way that the longer it takes the attacker to find a block, the more fees they would be forced to give up because the fees were dependent on the transaction that was double-spent.
678  Other / Meta / Re: Someone fishing me? on: April 18, 2013, 05:33:58 AM
Could you click the Report To Admin link in the PM to report the PM to the administrators? That would be very helpful.
679  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: forum rules? on: April 18, 2013, 05:19:05 AM
It is just fine to offer things for sale in the newbie forum, just be prepared to accept requests for using an escrow.
680  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: How do I become a Hero Member or even a Full Member? on: April 18, 2013, 05:12:09 AM
Here's a similar question, how do the moderators get their title? Do they work for the site or are they just extremely trusted users with reponsabilities?

Moderators are appointed by Administrators.

What's the difference between "working for the site", and having "responsibilites"?  Are you just asking if moderators get a paycheck?

I'm assuming the moderators don't get a paycheck, but by responsibilities i meant moderating topics for misplaced subjects and watching for rule breakers.

And by "working for the site" you meant?

Do they do this to get some sort of benefit, gain, or privilege, or just because they want to.

 or because they want to.

I don't know about the other mods, but I do it mostly because I am reading a bunch of posts each day regardless. More than that, I patrol Recent Unread Topics (in other words, the full stream of posts from all boards). Since I can be trusted to follow policy, I was given moderation power.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 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 ... 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!