Can I ask why Date Registered is not shown next to the username?
I have been involved in Bitcoin and a member of this forum since mid-2011 and just because I'm not very talkative I'm still considered a "newbie". It doesn't really bother me that much personally, but when I read certain threads I often have to click the username to see when a poster first registered on the forum.
With time and experience comes perspective, at least in some discussions that keep coming back again and again, more so than with post count IMO...
No offense, but yours could be the perfect example of bought account (not saying it is). I think the activity parameters is working pretty well and mitigated the spam problem. |
|
|
|
"Listening for N seconds" won't work, I had ALL my transactions mutated since the bot started spamming and most of them were mutated +4 minutes after the original was broadcasted, and still ALL the mutated transactions made it into blocks invalidating the original ones I broadcasted.
The attacker must have nodes very well connected with pools.
I'd like to understand how that worked. In 4 minutes, your TX should have propogated across the whole network. I don't see how a mutated TX could have beat yours to the pools unless the attacker mined the block himself. The mutated TX must have been transmitted before the 4 minutes. Well, the mutated transactions beat the original ones, even tough they were broadcasted 2,3 or 4 minutes later - not only one time, but multiple times. I guess mine is a poorly connected node (its not even a full node, 8 connections only), while the attacker has nodes very well connected to pools. Furthermore, I run Bitcoin via Tor (as I think everybody should do) - I don't know if that could make my transactions "slower" than those of the attacker. |
|
|
|
It might be a good idea to patch this before some enterprising person with excess time on their hands (cough) makes a cloned transaction echobot.
Yep, that might have been a good idea  |
|
|
|
|
Because LTC is a clone of BTC?
|
|
|
|
gotta give credit to the stamp hodlers. showing us 644 in the midst of this turmoil is impressive.
You are welcome  I just sent some fiat to gox am I insane?  You did well. It's an acceptable risk IMO. |
|
|
|
|
It's official: 50% spread between Gox and Bitstamp.
Absolute record.
If Gox resumes withdrawals with no problem, the sellers will have had HUGE losses, and the buyers HUGE gains.
Interesting times.
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin is fantastic for a whole lot of things, but Point-of-Sale doesn't seem to be one of them.
I disagree.This is a very popular use case, and there's no reason that it can't work "well enough" in the real world. Consider this typical scenario of a pub selling beer for bitcoin: * we have a well connected node * we receive a ZC txn for the beer composed entirely of confirmed UTXO as its inputs (even just 1 block deep) * we listen for N seconds and do not observe other txns that double spend our ZC txn's inputs * our ZC txn pays the appropriate fee to be included in a block quickly Should we give the beer to this bloke right away, or wait for his txn to make it into a block? I'd argue we're pretty safe just giving him his beer. It's worth all of $5.50, and the chance of a double spend invalidating that txn, given the above observations, is vanishingly small. Yes, he might: * have a node connected to hashpower we're not aware of / well connected to * be able to broadcast his double spend txn to that part of the network without us noticing it * be lucky and get it into a block * be really fast at drinking his beer and running out the doorBut it's not bloody likely :-) Honest customers will always outnumber this guy 1000:1. No, the chance of an invalid transaction is not vanoshingly small if the buyer has used unconfirmed change. "Listening for N seconds" won't work, I had ALL my transactions mutated since the bot started spamming and most of them were mutated +4 minutes after the original was broadcasted, and still ALL the mutated transactions made it into blocks invalidating the original ones I broadcasted. The attacker must have nodes very well connected with pools. |
|
|
|
It's one of those things, that makes me feel like the empirical reliability of zero-conf tx allowed too many businesses to build services around them, which can't be supported now. Technically, you could do an ETF from your bank to pay for your doughnut, or pay with gold flakes, but we don't because the timelines and convenience make it infeasible. I would argue that Bitcoin should be treated somewhat the same way, and it was only a matter of time before the illusion fell apart.
Bitcoin is fantastic for a whole lot of things, but Point-of-Sale doesn't seem to be one of them.
Quite true - but it doesn't change the fact this will be quite a hit for some people that assumed that 0-conf could work in certain - and useful - circumstances. I sense that a clone of Bitcoin that just fixes the malleability issue by not allowing txid to be mutated could get a lot of publicity ATM. |
|
|
|
in the meanwhile, fiat is vanishing from Gox's order book  |
|
|
|
I will quote it for you: I summed the balances of all the addresses given and the total is 4083 BTC. Note that the bulk of the addresses have not respent the coins. They're still sitting there.
17SzZX9rH1iXASraKC1yPxMZZN6utdmdEU 65
1LgdR7EdjuUyBkSgLXS7K5Viur4gPbcMMq 50
12HujhGQqPMvb9Jeip5uSEzcUtuLKf31wd 20
17SzZX9rH1iXASraKC1yPxMZZN6utdmdEU 65
16unhdR3bctU2b5zTcek1dT4iiaWDKPHkE 20
13NizDxGnt44bhvMJpttqB7ghfkerb9WUQ 40
18HBFs5b5RapzPsuHTXD8cGKkwKDpQDhjm 40
14UKFvvSH7i1mWdV5yh1Qke9iTVw5LyGfL 5
15k24ojcgUyZUWYP47ZSLn9UiUpmBmCiE1 9
1C2qqRaDHGbTHeEa29p3QruyUKusYDMCb9 40
18ozftq32S4ppV5tPLtg7Eb12GJt8j2B34 105 1CiP8nogPqGGg9e3sG2pGFYW8VP1ZYS7Rg 15
16MrSPHa7VyijtLzGR4hW5u36gEeM3MvY3 80
1BddfHQ5Cpbj8qJbCSG7QbGWCcPwsnCb7c 50
12ch7R9XfVHqNKgfZquKh9op6jX6roJEpq 100 1C8g81dNnr3hB2oNrndVqr3S7MT4WEA6QW 20
1ParuUdUSA8d67gbEB4Kg3KRKkAhaCSvJL 60
1EJsQd9UkxhZgFe1VK7BrRaK5xkdpcA87Z 120 1DkLC5Mx1kURm85z8x6mEBgy1n2qdtVZYJ 20
16AX4seGVjNnWacnJ8AZsUursiYSyiwtgw 140 1JsovjjKmnaHTfTrpfVxDb6Yh2xy9gEj8a 40
1HCioA4BHa145HRfaDQWc6LeoffPAec7SS 50
1LGacK7gWXTs5ArU7M6iJcKFS7gVWRKjHc 50
1Kvu4DdcP1D3jUjWRVGqkkfqmxo5XxdwP7 50
1ArQnUQ2AELxGsbsxUL5nyJR3bDHUQ5wGG 100 1J1SsZhNYpkAXQASQvMtXn2pNZemMTLcyg 50
12hvgXTp3DUmAgXaTTxUdo3HBDkm6YseLa 100 1JZQUweCPZ7GiHJEeubM8QN4KeEc1YaHx6 100 1LuqpcnHjPiqXfuup3Va2BaME62XmJ4YrG 50
18NiWUntmeENHwj4ob7qkzJmmYGibgSiXk 150 14Xvk4SGhuMgA9uKXT7ZquZn3ZCC5MxKTQ 50
177nm9GfFkAJaH2vCyELBCR6LqhT7xLw2y 50
13e7UWTS9HxRhJAnqLSr2tjonv3oLpH7Sa 50
1EG7ZnAWMBo7cAFyUj2UcDQTfUbtMY5KvN 50
1B7k666iHqk97PuLfPDGs9FjQsEXrCLWHw 150 1PcbSbXVjTvMp4x8ygR8cYqyYYeJq3GUio 50
1Eh4C3HAH59znaHpXMVe78yE8bmRVYjgiY 100 17jZ4PhDRKhjwApAufHGLHuuLhnCGgvjq 150 16sS6bZsWradvU6xAPUo4yLQpwny9M1DaY 50
13L1oDCkX6gxWJSb22eVCNzQtqUvhTLRoJ 20
135uPmygCVpg3ZmfjcR6j2jVAXdzsPqQdX 20
1N8KzExU1ED7FiCH9jrxCWZqKq2HVKfCGo 20
16MKh4ddiFW4rSTkUHS5KcfiXMaZYQoXxQ 20
1Nmnf1Ts3Vt2KQGyrk1bRfPYm1ynGBY51k 20
1EHDktYWndYD28par5UkcaX1NTLWyriqMd 20
1GoYtgUYvjrzGZ2E2kfDhGKWU4zuudAeiT 40
1G4V55pbrXoMCtLf397R7jRfVQMQY2hfji 20
1LoUgHwUdBAVQ7wM6bWEC45gvKKBJiAWvZ 20
1Ft6y8G12Jxm9CRrC3i2K52LNXUrtDnQ1h 40
13mqPJfyLr12oppTw8MsJCFCFTYQtTRv5S 20
17QjCEe684QstCiPwEAbCXJZXugTGgDq3z 60
14PCxnkLYJuuBcB4wBEN9TMLuSEiPswhya 20
1DWqiF4EfR7e41zpn1bNFpYkAR7GXkLwNY 20
1AUUU3SvmfhkgG5kJ8WBGHAAqu1FjVxWmo 20
16QANrRBgnPS6Rxn3Hv6TM9hcqQfDfBiRx 20
1gb86NwHy59hHk4JHAjViWnm3XJY7kLEh 20
17SZF9Lubvf4DqfbDSLff9MjjDMsjovqoB 20
1LtztZqdopyCjHbKFmU5crTHZdzYGoGYtp 40
18wjbhmiP2qRcWpUJpHgzoX2rU97HmdZ1g 20
1DE3fdxtyKddcLq2Axzvj5AcY6VvackdTW 20
1BM3PegVERdzizHxtfejjQQjdLjGbzw2a4 20
1FWeK4Pnf8v6mHyuHzvitNGUpndppt5prx 20
1HK6nM9Mh5Snso7EtxTyhT3KqwaR3Xe4PF 60
15bRgN9M3oBxMG6ehFm55FZHGZxWwtHaqQ 40
16fb3jD6U43j4XvG5JFuBwPaiGDJ13SfvE 20
1L2itur2cWf3RxEBLcMiyfMPgpjT8x5eMq 20
1PsMooLuaRfbFDs3EdrMnvCGSaTwviLdzi 20
17EDU3Q7FFBPc5QkNpSX1BX8BUSzKMgSxA 20
1BBPbfWDrMNJ9gKEhThyejdPARzhPYbUAo 20
17avKh1xVuQ7agfWAgzPybgaRnidjC64gV 20
1K4S6mzPWfCDZnSVRQ7CQg4qedwpMnP7Rs 20
15DpDxAbogeRuX29Af2Gb3dSwx4BMPrJ7W 20
1P7XJhZrYSrwv1xfPjWS9nMe77hrWT2pDV 40
19Z5V8Xvx9QGFpcEArh19WpCNuUbRyzJ8U 40
1PxQGeVyjZAX9R9ZSP5C3i6cs2vWUE2Hgg 20
1DPPP9PS5ED2GfYEccvybaXWNZuQQH9L7s 20
1CsCFkUAzKkdr2dHRWZMwDRar5aKEx23aP 20
19AWRF2PBQJzMtvA9ZbuvH6hRRshdrVAsm 20
16ZZYJ1boaCGKK3ej2kZJJNEtA22t9bGrD 40
12oAaLTybszVcEH1FAibJ2qy7dthjdwwHy 20
1CKipZk8mhsPNpTCzmfkD3hgHczaWSCr1a 20
1BQwb68dMzukaTa9X19XmcSzjifwrygEfc 20
1FEP3aGSib3oHFYQk9pPCAXdyBAUnLqKse 20
1Fn3BwCbMjfJsnxKTuXu6R96W32YgBSHjT 20
1BkeGMVkTovRkq6MXmjUJTDYAWtUMN2gQc 20
1Mgc86sMy2xru5vYqzoYUNCwcqk6wYwa7Y 20
17JakmrmbasfizzchxBbu3wxqC2tkxsWtJ 20
1FSPU8s2jqn6pc5Gxx7Yvgq46EGfwb6uC2 100 1P2hyU3kDZurZC6XprrsWVoM95tjNP2gnD 20
1D9YhoGNZEoPAfKZ8weW9kz7W3ugsc315e 20
1JgZZSEsyZy6hGGUMopPoWfvKanh9vLyrn 20
14Nj1reU9t9fjhFiowrkuke6mzH2xQSPhg 20
12G2qaL8FvdBfLg4rySwSdWnCuxpFtTLvU 20
1C8NbELiwAt7ARqLhoBNDL3UV2Ak59RmQ1 20
1PvZXNXLxuk5FmEGbiSdDYu8NeEQ93jwRw 20
13rxE2hXuoEU7DzyrHJU15UgxHJG4k1vX5 5
12jgHhuceGTeayUrtc9pM3SYgS4FXbJUqi 5
1NF8yoLM39NFAZvDErzCQyA1ycy2YybA4L 10
1Ci42oM3RRD7xrETosGvNAx9mNyqog2f2p 0.002
1GYFhG6EJt6oY4T2QtLrHwnYKHDJ6Zd6aR 5
1QEsRuuifLAFbRtCkaaoetUjFSMLDBtqyV 20
13RDPyqMgm81KXkEoN7wZ89zQ5BgQY6oVv 20 spent 1J2CGwyMcpgmCHtq2qsR9sTskcvhGFm5S4 20 spent 1GSaUL3NqoPRXkfeLcDWYAADJMtP9mqfEa 15 spent 1JWHEnQP4YG4xFEiSTT5mBDLgUn849128H 10 spent 1EWPTduyZDYnbhg9EPN1GooegjQ1BWuhJ3 10 spent 1NJPLMzggPhCNfNW9BuKU1BH2HdhZGs7Kk 10 spent 1CPz9VtxWiiozUEJR1ampUWrJUD9EQTuWA 9 spent 12tAjfrsVKjhisKmFm8wHRDQQsbA5BwaLU 4.22388017 spent 1MEQJqUfBWrWTPEdEpQGdQVPUN9abeTYe5 0.19658503 spent 1Lm4C1VdGi2UgvYRjhTfMcbWPCKZUyQDX4 0.4082114 spent 1MJa5pFmcZV6hCSBXwZdUe2iaguHPnJvfS 4.62537481 spent 1GYFhG6EJt6oY4T2QtLrHwnYKHDJ6Zd6aR 0.62399438 spent 1Jy722KX7mAqqPp47a8WxN7NpUZvMoZur2 1.05715336 spent 1NPvYm1WMobdrKBrj7ETnRvNV6kHMABot8 1 spent 1Fkzww2b9RDSaUbpgDfGpmu2vGhrjWeJjL 5.67 spent 1KPn8KKzUaSV7mvQp55xWFvToXUeNdsanD 3.9 spent 1DGy63xb3urJBqqpxXHwziHdf5F6M7n5n6 0.37 spent 1JE4Sy7RY18Vv6j6zUdDiNigAo2D46Nqum 2.6 spent 13bZnPfcZAa97RvtQ7xDveE85PYsdXNnHT 0.01 spent
|
|
|
|
It's hilarious. They are pretty much admitting they stole the coins. From this point forward DO NOT trust markets with centralized escrow. |
|
|
|
Attack? This is uber-bullish. If JP Morgan had to write a detailed report in order to shit on BTC it means they are pooping their pants. They are seriously concerned. Great. |
|
|
|
In your scenario though the bad news is not BitPay needs to figure out a way to return your coins. You can't undo it and eventually it will confirm (unless a duplicate of the prior output is what confirms). So you are now out the donut and coins.
Oh yes of course, stupid of me, the customer loses out there. But it still always comes back to the same thing for me: wallets should not attempt to spend unconfirmed change. Yes, I know there are some practical difficulties there with the way wallets are designed, but it doesn't look insurmountable - at worst it just causes a few inconveniences. Do you realize how confusing and frustrating can be for users to disallow spending of unconfirmed change? Imagine you received 100 BTC and you spend 1 BTC - suddenly 99 BTC become unspendable for 5,10, 30 minutes... That's very counter intuitive and will confuse a lot many users who do not understand how the protocol works. Not allowing to spend unconfirmed change is an important steps backwards, and I think that we shouldn't downplay it's effect. I'd probably have it as an optional feature on the client, but if possible I wouldn't make it the default behaviour. About 0-conf: for small, day by day payments they were absolutely safe. The cost to perform a double spend was simply not worth the cost of a coffee. Now, that changes, 0-conf are not safe even if the buyer is 100% honest and the cost of the product is negligible: again we cannot downplay the effect of that, it's quite serious. |
|
|
|
Sorry guys, I haven't been seeing notifications on these threads, and I've been on travel so I hadn't noticed it..
Armory does not have any problems with transaction malleability.
There are no security issues with this. Armory does not rely on transaction IDs for anything except transaction comments. If the transaction ID changes out from under you, Armory will silently replace the transaction in the list, and the only thing that will be different will be TxID you see when you double-click on it.
The one problem someone might have is that if it's an outgoing transaction and you created a comment/label for it, that label will not show up on the mutated transaction. Note, that this already happens with offline transactions, because Armory doesn't know what the final comment/label will be until the signatures are added. I had actually thought about using the pre-broadcast ID to store comments to solve this problem for offline transactions. It would also solve it for mutated transactions.
When I first learned about malleability 1.5 years ago I did a review of the code and determined there was nothing to be done. When Armory sees a new transaction in the blockchain that conflicts with a zero-confirmation transaction in the memory pool, the blockchain tx wins and the conflicting mempool tx is removed. It all comes down to the fact that Armory only pays attention to TxIns and TxOuts for computing balances, etc, not TxID.
Well, that just means that Armory manages "mutated" transactions much better than Bitcoin-QT. Good job, Alan! |
|
|
|
Creo que nadie se opone a alternativas funcionales y seguras. Pero si a nxt por todo lo dicho antes, y seguro que si a Gavin le preguntan sobre las alternativas de Codigo cerrado no creo ni que las considere una alternativa aunque él es muy educado. Y eso incluye por ahora a Emunie que aunque no tiene tantos argumentos posibles en contra como nxt, sí que será muy negativo no liberar el código el día que se lance. Código cerrado? No sigo mucho Next aunque compré unos pocos en su día, pero no iban a publicar el código en Enero? El 3 de enero se liberó el código del cliente 0.4.8 según lo previsto. Hay varias funcionalidades en Nxt que siguen en desarrollo durante febrero y marzo, incluyendo las últimas capas de la forja transparente, el control de cuenta y el mercado de activos descentralizado (que desde ayer estamos probando en la testnet). El código completo incluyendo las funciones que siguen en desarrollo se libera en abril. Ah... Es difícil seguir el hilo de Nxt por la actividad frenética que tiene. Mi punto de vista: Lo cierto es que Nxt me parece interesante por un lado, y por otro totalmente sobrevalorado. Echarle unos pocos BTC al principio fue sin duda buena idea ya que en este mundillo hay tal fiebre por hacerse rico rápido que ser de los primerísimos en invertir en cualquier cosa que sea mínimamente interesante tiene un retorno cojonudo (ver Litecoin o Peercoin o más recientemente Nxt y Mastercoin), pero en mi opinión esto se debe a avaricia regada de estupidez y poco más. Fijaros en el 99% de los inversores, novatos a los que les mueve un sentimiento común: "he llegado tarde al BTC, pero puedo intentar ser un early adopter de X y hacerme rico como los que compraron bitcoin hace años". Patético y estúpido, pero tremendamente común. Otra cosa que me genera cierta desconfianza es el hecho de que una de las caras visibles del proyecto sea uno de los mayores trolls de este foro: sí, ese "que viene del más allá", y que vendió sus bitcoins durante el crash de 2011 y desde entonces no hace más que echar mierda y trollear el BTC con argumentos estúpidamente ridículos ya que le jodió equivocarse y desprenderse de los suyos tan pronto. Si ese tipo tiene el peso que parece en el proyecto, mal vamos. Por último, en este mundillo de las criptomonedas alternativas se cumplen las regla básicas del mercado libre y no regulado: se de los primeros en entrar y también en salir cuando todo el mundo esté eufórico haciendo que la demanda se dispare y la oferta se contraiga. El momento de vender los primeros Nxt en mi opinión ya llegó, y así lo hice a finales de Diciembre. Obviamente no me arrepiento y, sinceramente, a largo plazo no pienso quedarme más del 20% de los que me quedan ahora. La moneda a la que confiar la immensa mayoría del capital que destino a criptomoneda sigue siendo, sin duda alguna, el Bitcoin, y las inversiones en los varios Nxt o MSC o lo que sea son puramente instrumentales a la consecución de más BTC. |
|
|
|
Funny to hear from a authentic low-activity-noob.
an authentic low activity noob who has kept his money...and actually made thousands on the way down also. ...whereas you chumps are all well underwater.Especially you Cyberlight, another reliable idiot, calling the bottom and predicting bullish break-outs all the way down from $1000. Do you now get embarrassed by being wrong all the time? Have you no shame? If I were you I would just shut the fuck up until the charts started to compliment your limited one dimensional take on Bitcoin again. When that happens, I will certainly change my tune, why can't you change yours? Are you sure? I'm 100% (of what I am willing to invest in total) in BTC at this moment. This can change within a moment of course, but I have been all-in for most of the time since the December peak. My total in BTC is now about 2.4 times as high as back then as the result of trading, which makes my holdings worth expressed in USD about 40% higher than at peak (using the intraday 1d median price on Bitstamp to calculate my portfolio worth). In other words, you can believe in those shiny little coins and not land, as you call it, "well underwater". Well, the fact is that everybody who bought and held BTC any time between its inception (2009) and October 2013 (just three months ago) is looking at a huge profit. Its quite delusional and stupid to say generally to this community "you chumps are well underwater" In his defense, that's kind of his argument: that those of us who (luckily) got in early enough are preaching buy & hold, and while the new entrants are the bagholders. Problem is, this response is typical for each post-ATH bear market... I hope he sticks around long enough to see that we'll see another ATH, and then another, and so on. Might take a year, though probably less, but BTC hasn't reached its final valuation yet -- not that there ever will be one, but perhaps we'll stay within an order of magnitude at least at some point  Of course its a typical response: do you remember the Wall Observer in May/June/July? And during the second half of 2011 there were dozens of posts about how the early adopters were milking the bagholders, how they were going to dump everything and bring the price to 0, etc. etc. etc. I guess MatTheCat didn't use the search function In his defense I will say that he has a sense of drama and I find his posts entertaining, some times he makes good points and some of his posts are hilarious |
|
|
|
Funny to hear from a authentic low-activity-noob.
an authentic low activity noob who has kept his money...and actually made thousands on the way down also. ...whereas you chumps are all well underwater.Especially you Cyberlight, another reliable idiot, calling the bottom and predicting bullish break-outs all the way down from $1000. Do you now get embarrassed by being wrong all the time? Have you no shame? If I were you I would just shut the fuck up until the charts started to compliment your limited one dimensional take on Bitcoin again. When that happens, I will certainly change my tune, why can't you change yours? Are you sure? I'm 100% (of what I am willing to invest in total) in BTC at this moment. This can change within a moment of course, but I have been all-in for most of the time since the December peak. My total in BTC is now about 2.4 times as high as back then as the result of trading, which makes my holdings worth expressed in USD about 40% higher than at peak (using the intraday 1d median price on Bitstamp to calculate my portfolio worth). In other words, you can believe in those shiny little coins and not land, as you call it, "well underwater". Well, the fact is that everybody who bought and held BTC any time between its inception (2009) and October 2013 (just three months ago) is looking at a huge profit. Its quite delusional and stupid to say generally to this community "you chumps are well underwater" |
|
|
|
Any educated guess on when Gox will allow withdraw of BTCs again (assuming it will happen)?
are we talking about days, weeks or months?
I don't like making guesses, so I'll let you all interpret this for yourselves: 04:05 <@MagicalTux> [12:05:05] <x> MagicalTux: would you consider a work around for manual bitcoin withdrawal if you can't get that consensus in a 'reasonable timeframe' ie, the next week <- establishing a standard shouldn't take that long, but if indeed it takes longer we might just go on with the proposal we included in the announcement we did monday
Other news which may influence how you plan your BTC purchases when the BTC withdrawal floodgates open: 11:57 <@SarahCoinBit> Diabolicus_Work I've had more requests to cancel fiat withdrawals in the last two days than i have in the last two months
I.e: The amount of fiat on MtGox is increasing rapidly. Think about this for a moment: If I made up a fake quote here where MagicalTux allegedly told me in private that MtGox would resume BTC withdrawals tomorrow morning, I could make a million by buying buckets of BTC on MtGox just before I posted it, and selling as soon as people start denouncing it as a fake. Just by abusing your trust in me. It will probably only work once, but that is all I need. I can retire afterwards. Always beware of market manipulation. And note that my quotes above, which are correct, may be carefully selected and placed in a different context to manipulate the market. Always be very critical to news and reports when you don't have the full story first hand, and take speculation for what it is: 100% made up, often for the purpose of manipulating the market. Reality check: You are overestimating the influence of this forum/thread on the market. If you made up a fake quote by MagicalTux most people would look for an official/more reliable confirmation, and in the meanwhile the price wouldn't do shit. |
|
|
|
So... This time is different? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
