|
721
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [NLG] Guldencoin.com/pay-here — Meet our awesome community
|
on: October 21, 2014, 04:52:37 PM
|
To ilustrate the behaviour we experience look at the blocks below. At 137136 we had a diff of 412 and because the block preceding this took two hours the diff dropped to 118. But the max drop is 1/3 so it should have dropped to 138 and not 118. The dif lowers and despite blocktimes of tens of seconds it lowers and lowers. Till 137159 then the calculation says hoooo fellas this is too fast and it raises the diff from 29.8 to 162.1 not exactly the max three times that was in the DGW design... So why does is diff adjusted more than the DGW design? And second it can behave much better if it is a weighted average instead of a plain one.
+1 for the detailed info, mate. I'm with you 100%. I really do believe either looking at less blocks for the average, or creating a weighted average is the way to go. Additionally, there needs to be a limit in the amount of difficulty increase/decrease so we're not throwing the difficulty all over the place. Again- less extreme changes that happen more often. -Fuse |
|
|
|
|
722
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [NLG] Guldencoin.com/pay-here — Meet our awesome community
|
on: October 21, 2014, 04:45:36 PM
|
Fuse, are those numbers of 24 in comparison with the other digishield coins and their target blocktimes? We have a target blocktime of 2,5 minutes. Those numbers should match up with the target blocktime, I think. I don't know if it was originally 24. So, I let it to Geert-Johan to react further, because I am not a programmer. But wanted to react as it seems plausible what you say. Additionally, you could use a weighted average where the last 6 blocks carry more weight than the last 18. So essentially you could still focus on the 24 blocks, but with more emphasis on the last 6.
That would be nice as well, if needed. Digishield doesn't calculate the difficulty based on block averages, but rather the individual time between blocks. At least that's the way I interpret the digishield code from POT: unsigned int static GetNextWorkRequired_V3(const CBlockIndex* pindexLast, const CBlockHeader *pblock){
unsigned int nProofOfWorkLimit = bnProofOfWorkLimit.GetCompact();
int nHeight = pindexLast->nHeight + 1;
int64 retargetTimespan = nTargetTimespan;
int64 retargetSpacing = nTargetSpacing;
int64 retargetInterval = nInterval;
retargetInterval = nTargetTimespanNEW / nTargetSpacing;
retargetTimespan = nTargetTimespanNEW;
// Genesis block
if (pindexLast == NULL)
return nProofOfWorkLimit;
// Only change once per interval
if ((pindexLast->nHeight+1) % retargetInterval != 0)
{
// Special difficulty rule for testnet:
if (fTestNet)
{
// If the new block's timestamp is more than 2* nTargetSpacing minutes
// then allow mining of a min-difficulty block.
if (pblock->nTime > pindexLast->nTime + retargetSpacing*2)
return nProofOfWorkLimit;
else
{
// Return the last non-special-min-difficulty-rules-block
const CBlockIndex* pindex = pindexLast;
while (pindex->pprev && pindex->nHeight % retargetInterval != 0 && pindex->nBits == nProofOfWorkLimit)
pindex = pindex->pprev;
return pindex->nBits;
}
}
return pindexLast->nBits;
}
// Dogecoin: This fixes an issue where a 51% attack can change difficulty at will.
// Go back the full period unless it's the first retarget after genesis. Code courtesy of Art Forz
int blockstogoback = retargetInterval-1;
if ((pindexLast->nHeight+1) != retargetInterval)
blockstogoback = retargetInterval;
// Go back by what we want to be 14 days worth of blocks
const CBlockIndex* pindexFirst = pindexLast;
for (int i = 0; pindexFirst && i < blockstogoback; i++)
pindexFirst = pindexFirst->pprev;
assert(pindexFirst);
// Limit adjustment step
int64 nActualTimespan = pindexLast->GetBlockTime() - pindexFirst->GetBlockTime();
printf(" nActualTimespan = %"PRI64d" before bounds\n", nActualTimespan);
CBigNum bnNew;
bnNew.SetCompact(pindexLast->nBits);
//DigiShield implementation - thanks to RealSolid & WDC for this code
// amplitude filter - thanks to daft27 for this code
nActualTimespan = retargetTimespan + (nActualTimespan - retargetTimespan)/8;
printf("DIGISHIELD RETARGET\n");
if (nActualTimespan < (retargetTimespan - (retargetTimespan/4)) ) nActualTimespan = (retargetTimespan - (retargetTimespan/4));
if (nActualTimespan > (retargetTimespan + (retargetTimespan/2)) ) nActualTimespan = (retargetTimespan + (retargetTimespan/2));
// Retarget
bnNew *= nActualTimespan;
bnNew /= retargetTimespan;
if (bnNew > bnProofOfWorkLimit)
bnNew = bnProofOfWorkLimit;
/// debug print
printf("GetNextWorkRequired RETARGET\n");
printf("nTargetTimespan = %"PRI64d" nActualTimespan = %"PRI64d"\n", retargetTimespan, nActualTimespan);
printf("Before: %08x %s\n", pindexLast->nBits, CBigNum().SetCompact(pindexLast->nBits).getuint256().ToString().c_str());
printf("After: %08x %s\n", bnNew.GetCompact(), bnNew.getuint256().ToString().c_str());
return bnNew.GetCompact();
}To clarify, although I believed digishield was the solution we needed to go with originally, I stand by my opinion that we should try to tweak DGW3 to get the result we want. I am not advocating for digishield at this time. This may change in the future, but for now lets try to fix DGW3. -Fuse |
|
|
|
|
723
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [NLG] Guldencoin.com/pay-here — Meet our awesome community
|
on: October 21, 2014, 04:22:48 PM
|
Then drop it even further to 6 blocks. You need the retarget to happen faster than it's happening now, but not as severe. With our current 3x jump, lets say that we go from 250 difficulty to 750 in a jump. This knocks the multi off the chain until it drops back down. But what's to say that a difficulty of 300 wouldn't have done the same? And then if it isn't sufficient, it ramps up again, until it is.
Lesser changes that happen faster. That's the way digishield works, as evident by almost any difficulty graph for digishield coins. We just need to emulate that.
-Fuse
I think you are correct on this. Sounds very plausible. But I am not a programmer. Hope it can be that easy to adjust the script  Additionally, you could use a weighted average where the last 6 blocks carry more weight than the last 18. So essentially you could still focus on the 24 blocks, but with more emphasis on the last 6. -Fuse |
|
|
|
|
724
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [NLG] Guldencoin.com/pay-here — Meet our awesome community
|
on: October 21, 2014, 03:45:21 PM
|
@ny2cafuse
The idea is good, but it's not a complete fix. Multipools could still mine up to 11 blocks directly after a high diff block was mined (which probably took some hours).
This is because the actualTimespan is several hours, while the targetTimespan is 12*2.5=30 minutes. With this changes that would cause a diff x2 directly when the high diff block is >12 blocks ago in the chain (and not taken into calculation anymore). Because at that point, only blocks with a timespan of several seconds are in the DGW3 calculation, so the diff factor maxes out to 2.0
I think this is a step in the right direction, but there's more required for a full fix.
Then drop it even further to 6 blocks. You need the retarget to happen faster than it's happening now, but not as severe. With our current 3x jump, lets say that we go from 250 difficulty to 750 in a jump. This knocks the multi off the chain until it drops back down. But what's to say that a difficulty of 300 wouldn't have done the same? And then if it isn't sufficient, it ramps up again, until it is. Lesser changes that happen faster. That's the way digishield works, as evident by almost any difficulty graph for digishield coins. We just need to emulate that. -Fuse |
|
|
|
|
725
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [NLG] Guldencoin.com/pay-here — Meet our awesome community
|
on: October 21, 2014, 02:39:37 PM
|
I believe this is the solution: unsigned int static DarkGravityWave3(const CBlockIndex* pindexLast, const CBlockHeader *pblock) { /* current difficulty formula, darkcoin - DarkGravity v3, written by Evan Duffield - evan@darkcoin.io */ const CBlockIndex *BlockLastSolved = pindexLast; const CBlockIndex *BlockReading = pindexLast; const CBlockHeader *BlockCreating = pblock; BlockCreating = BlockCreating; int64 nActualTimespan = 0; int64 LastBlockTime = 0; int64 PastBlocksMin = 12;
int64 PastBlocksMax = 12; int64 CountBlocks = 0; CBigNum PastDifficultyAverage; CBigNum PastDifficultyAveragePrev; if (BlockLastSolved == NULL || BlockLastSolved->nHeight == 0 || BlockLastSolved->nHeight < PastBlocksMin) { // This is the first block or the height is < PastBlocksMin // Return minimal required work. (1e0fffff) return bnProofOfWorkLimit.GetCompact(); } // loop over the past n blocks, where n == PastBlocksMax for (unsigned int i = 1; BlockReading && BlockReading->nHeight > 0; i++) { if (PastBlocksMax > 0 && i > PastBlocksMax) { break; } CountBlocks++; // Calculate average difficulty based on the blocks we iterate over in this for loop if(CountBlocks <= PastBlocksMin) { if (CountBlocks == 1) { PastDifficultyAverage.SetCompact(BlockReading->nBits); } else { PastDifficultyAverage = ((PastDifficultyAveragePrev * CountBlocks)+(CBigNum().SetCompact(BlockReading->nBits))) / (CountBlocks+1); } PastDifficultyAveragePrev = PastDifficultyAverage; } // If this is the second iteration (LastBlockTime was set) if(LastBlockTime > 0){ // Calculate time difference between previous block and current block int64 Diff = (LastBlockTime - BlockReading->GetBlockTime()); // Increment the actual timespan nActualTimespan += Diff; } // Set LasBlockTime to the block time for the block in current iteration LastBlockTime = BlockReading->GetBlockTime(); if (BlockReading->pprev == NULL) { assert(BlockReading); break; } BlockReading = BlockReading->pprev; } // bnNew is the difficulty CBigNum bnNew(PastDifficultyAverage); // nTargetTimespan is the time that the CountBlocks should have taken to be generated. int64 nTargetTimespan = CountBlocks*nTargetSpacing; // Limit the re-adjustment to 2x or 0.5x
// We don't want to increase/decrease diff too much.
if (nActualTimespan < nTargetTimespan/2)
nActualTimespan = nTargetTimespan/2;
if (nActualTimespan > nTargetTimespan*2)
nActualTimespan = nTargetTimespan*2; // Calculate the new difficulty based on actual and target timespan. bnNew *= nActualTimespan; bnNew /= nTargetTimespan; // If calculated difficulty is lower than the minimal diff, set the new difficulty to be the minimal diff. if (bnNew > bnProofOfWorkLimit){ bnNew = bnProofOfWorkLimit; } // Some logging. // TODO: only display these log messages for a certain debug option. printf("Difficulty Retarget - Dark Gravity Wave 3\n"); printf("Before: %08x %s\n", BlockLastSolved->nBits, CBigNum().SetCompact(BlockLastSolved->nBits).getuint256().ToString().c_str()); printf("After: %08x %s\n", bnNew.GetCompact(), bnNew.getuint256().ToString().c_str()); // Return the new diff. return bnNew.GetCompact(); } Essentially we need the difficulty change to happen faster, but it would be a lesser change. Calculating the difficulty on 24 blocks would mean at least 2 HIGH difficulty blocks. That jacks up the moving average. The difficulty on average would be higher, but it should even out a little bit better. At least in my mind that's how it would work. -Fuse |
|
|
|
|
726
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [NLG] Guldencoin.com/pay-here — Meet our awesome community
|
on: October 20, 2014, 09:59:39 PM
|
Different diff readjusment
I agree with thsminer: changing the diff readjustment is not a complete solution. I should've been more verbose in my earlier post. I think we can change the diff readjustment more so it fits better with Guldencoin's specs and performs better. But it won't be a complete solution. The scale and speed of the multipools is simply too large relative to our dedicated miners.
I'm still in under the opinion that DGW3 would work with tweaked values. What needs to happen is the difficulty spikes up almost instantly when clever hits the chain. Going 10 or so blocks at 10 seconds or less a block is no bueno. It should pick up on the second, or even third, block and jump the difficulty immediately. The post I made here explains what I mean visually via the difficulty charts of NLG and POT: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=554412.msg8992812#msg8992812. POT uses digishield, but I suspect you could tweak DGW3 to emulate it's behavior. -Fuse |
|
|
|
|
728
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [NLG] Guldencoin.com/pay-here — Meet our awesome community
|
on: October 20, 2014, 06:43:34 PM
|
Ask Terk to totally stop this mulipoolmining on NLG. It is in best interest for cryptoland in general to support NLG and leave NLG with dedicated miners. There are other shitcoins to profit from. I really don't understand why Clevermining is doing this.
I literally asked to stop all together when when we first did the DGW3 implementation. He said he "has an obligation to his miners", and that the devs would need to fix the issue instead of him stopping mining. He ramped down mining, and you can see the result of that over the last month with his 70-90% network ownership. Keep an eye on the numbers. I'm sure you'll see the same after this decrease in hashrate. IMO, whatever solution is put in place needs to be a solution to completely cut multipools out of the game. We shouldn't be trying to cater to the multipools needs. Cut clever out of the game and say "we have an obligation to our community". -Fuse |
|
|
|
|
729
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [NLG] Guldencoin.com/pay-here — Meet our awesome community
|
on: October 20, 2014, 03:52:03 PM
|
I know this might sound like a crazy idea but why don't we let the price fall to around 300 and then the ratio between dedicated miners and multipools will decrease. Then after it's fixed we can start buying again? This would require a lot of collaboration I know but if everyone just removes there buy orders and let the price drop, the multipools will sell out at any price.
This isn't a fix. Price drops, miners drop, difficulty drops. Difficulty vs price ratio would be the same and the multis would continue to mine. Then the price goes back up and the multis continue to mine. Price manipulation will never fix a coin. In fact, price should be the last thing people think about in terms of working coin dynamics. -Fuse |
|
|
|
|
731
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [NLG] Guldencoin.com/pay-here — Meet our awesome community
|
on: October 20, 2014, 03:21:51 PM
|
From the ANN of BTM: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=660544.msg9253396#msg9253396: Quote from: johndec2 on October 19, 2014, 11:58:36 AM Buck. It's not xhash's fault. The coins take 720 blocks to confirm and this current round of 720 has taken a few weeks. Everybody is in the same boat. In a day or so we will move to the next round of 720, the diff will drop and the whales and multipools will move in and 720 blocks will disappear in a few hours... Then everyone will sit back and wait for the painful process to repeat. Johndec2 is a member of the Criptoe team. I'll catch him in chat and get some insight into this. I can see the disparity though, as the difficulty algorithm there isn't doing what it needs to do. BTM isn't a difficulty algorithm, and can't handle highs and lows. DGW3 can when properly tuned. Using a straight difficulty algo like LTC/BTC with BTM = no bueno. Using it with a more advanced difficulty algo would most likely be just fine. -Fuse |
|
|
|
|
732
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [NLG] Guldencoin.com/pay-here — Meet our awesome community
|
on: October 20, 2014, 03:00:38 PM
|
At first there are more than two solutions so there is some preselection done.
Readjustments wont work, there is no clever way, because they always come late. How smart you design the algo when it rises and the hashrate drops dramaticaly your stuck with a high diff. Nothing can be done about that. Thats why Sathoshi took a lot of blocks to calculate the diff anyway... If you want to act fast, rejection is the only way so that would have a chance but probably other problems. Another way more elegant would be lowering the diff midstream but that would be a huge change in protocol.
Blocktime based reward looks promising to me but don't put a limit on either side. The coin is designed for 1000 NLG every 150 secs avg. So putting a limit on hard blocks would decrease the supply and those hard blocks are compensated with fast low reward blocks anyway. It also would be an incentive for miners to stay at high diff because the jackpot is rising.
I'm with thsminer on this one. Block limits would be an effective approach. Setting a limit on the number of blocks that can be mined in X amount of time would throw the high hashing multis of the chain. The BTM solution is probably the easiest change to the code and coin. I'm pretty sure that would literally be one line of code. As far as the drawback mentioned earlier with getting stuck with periods where the hoppers drop, I don't think it would be an issue. You're not changing the difficulty scheme, so the coin should essentially work the way it worked before. It just takes longer for the block to mature. That increase in time may be enough to keep the multis off the chain, and keep the chain running smooth. As far as the coin reduction per block, I'm not sure I'm all on board with that. What happens when the difficulty drops, and a small pool like mine pegs a block, and then gets lucky with another block almost immediately. Reducing the block reward vs time would essentially take away the benefit of being lucky, wouldn't it? I guess I would need to see the algorithm to make an educated decision, but in my mind I don't think it would be an ideal fix. Either BTM or block rejection. BTM would be an easier implementation. Block rejection would be a more aggressive/effective fix. -Fuse |
|
|
|
|
733
|
Economy / Services / Re: CUSTOM metal fabrication requests
|
on: October 19, 2014, 10:17:25 PM
|
Got a buddy who wants to utilize his fab skill for a introduction to bitcoin. I've been a 09 bitcoiner and he still kicks his ass when I told him in 2010 to throw $100 at bitcoin and forget about them for a few years.
Aluminum, mild steel, and stainless. Any thickness If you got a idea or blueprint he can whip it up costs for labor is material *2
This is for bitcoiners only that want some metal fab work done within the US.
Kudos, mate! I'll keep this bookmarked. I've wanted custom metal fab done so many times over the years for various projects, and I never got around to it because I couldn't justify raiding the bank account. It doesn't hurt the wallet as much when it's BTC. -Fuse |
|
|
|
|
734
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [NLG] Guldencoin.com/pay-here — Meet our awesome community
|
on: October 19, 2014, 10:12:24 PM
|
The inability of NLG to be used for wallet to wallet transactions is starting to sour me on this coin. Yesterday the network was stuck at a diff of 777 for well over 2 hours, and again this morning the network was stuck for over an hour at a diff 497, during which time it is impossible to transfer NLG from wallet to wallet.
It is all fine and good that LiteBit? approves NLG transactions immediately regardless of network status, but for NLG to not be useable for wallet to wallet transactions is killing NLG.
The dev team must assess and address this immediately, there are plenty of coins that are using retargeting algos that are effective when dealing with network hashrate spikes. This is not rocket science, the dev team seems to burying their collective heads in the sand and hoping for the best.
DGW3 is not working, find a solution. Now!!!
I'd have to agree with 24Kilo on this one. I tried to make a deposit to Bittrex last night and the time it to confirm was 140 minutes or more. The price was 510 I finally gave up waiting and just went to bed. When I woke up, I sold at ~470 or so. That's a big hit just because of confirmation times. Sure I could have stayed up and waited it out, but with non-uniform block times, who knows what it would have taken. Truth of the matter is that Terk's pool is still hitting upwards of 70-90% of the blocks on any given day, which is a huge security concern to me still. That pool's influence on the chain is more than I would have accepted a long time ago. I would have IP banned them from the get-go, but I'm a bit more extreme sometimes. We keep saying that we will even out when there are more dedicated miners, but we won't get dedicated miners with the current dynamics. We need to knock multipools off the chain, and we need to do it sooner than later. -Fuse |
|
|
|
|
735
|
Economy / Collectibles / Re: UNMODERATED: Bitcoin Bucks,Banksy Bitcoin and Bullshit art on a Dollar.
|
on: October 19, 2014, 09:11:18 PM
|
You know what's funny to me, he apparently has some negative or anti views on the US government, but in the end seems to replicate their attitude and methods. Removing, changing or denying history which doesn't put them in a positive light, and deals in alternate identities.
Crap has the same smell regardless of whose it is.
My sentiments exactly. I just think it's funny that he challenges a response, I respond, and then he deletes it. And all that after he says he won't delete it. I don't get it. Dude isn't right in the head. -Fuse |
|
|
|
|
736
|
Economy / Collectibles / Re: UNMODERATED: Bitcoin Bucks,Banksy Bitcoin and Bullshit art on a Dollar.
|
on: October 19, 2014, 08:19:39 PM
|
Well, I guess he didn't like my reply. Deleted my posts even after he said in PM that he wouldn't. Typical. A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave. You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations. My Character,trust,integrity have been put into the spotlight with another thread here in the goods section. I have been Called an account seller an asshole,Douchebag and my trust and integrity have been put into Question by another user. I am Otrkid70 and have never sold my account. I first started here on Bitcointalk.org asking for a small loan of .025 to try to play the Exchanges to help my dog Richy because had had an infected Saliva Gland. A user by the name of GBattaglia stood up and took a chance in giviving me that loan. I repaid him with difficulty but none the less i paid him back. Another user here on BTT stepped up and offered 1.1 BTC at the time it was $1600. for the help with my dog Richy. His name was Bobsurplus. This guy has changed my life and the negative way i see mankind. A few others Donated to my dog and helped save his life and i'm forever Grateful. I have never put my trust here at risk ever since. a few users have stepped up and shown the kindness to help me with my dog's life. I have NEVER put my trust in Question but now i'm o the offensive with my Character and trust thanks to a user named ny2cafuse. In a sense i thank him for getting my focus back to what matters but in a sense i think he is wrong for making himself a star for pointing out my flaws in my posts. so here i am Defending myself. I Started www.bitcoinsforanimals.net after my dog was saved with the help of some users here on the forum namely bobsurplus. Now i am here after months of neglect for the charity more focused than ever thanks to ny2cafuse and his rantings about my Character and trust. Here we have an image that i asked devthedev a trusted member of BTT to create for the charity and he GLADLY accepted and gave me an image for BFA  So here i am Offering my art which has been criticized, insulted and my Character has been put in the spotlight Claiming i'm a bad person because i posts a few negative posts and my trust is in question because i wanted to sell an account i had.....Here is my Character......I got help with my Dog and i started a Charity to help Animals suffering out of my own pocket. I offer 10 pieces of art in my and Devthedev creation hand painted for the animals painted on the first 4 pieces of ERROR Dollar bills and the rest on normal bills.....Not a single penny will se my Hands. I have messaged devthedev creator of the image and i'm waiting for a response in his cooperation for the Escrow in this project. I will paint 10 Dollars for Charity in which devthedev will collect ALL funds and make out a Money order or check to a NO KILL shelter in my area (Massachusetts) and send to me for presentation to the charity. Here is the artwork i will offer......While i'm no proffesional my artwork is done with the best intentions.  These Bills will be presented in Auction format and i CHALLENGE ny2cafuse to Bid on them With his His GODLY character,trust and a fine standing member of this community. This is a challenge to see what a self righteous appointed who is free to criticize me and my integrity,trust and character is all about. Let the Bidding start...ny2cafuse First, I will not bid on your dollars because you challenge me to do so. That's just dumb. Plus I don't trust you enough to ever give you any coin, regardless of what you say it's going to. Secondly, my character isn't in question, yours is when you say the things you say and then delete your posts to hide it. Then you lie and tell people you don't delete comments. My posts are out there to read. My threads aren't moderated. I have nothing to hide, so why do you? You claim to do it so people don't profile you. Maybe if you tried to be less abrasive to the community you wouldn't have to worry about being profiled as an ass. Additionally, isn't it interesting how "after months of neglect" you pull this BFA charity back into light? Not for the good of the charity, but for your own ego. Maybe I should start a charity as well so I can challenge you. Is that what it takes? A charity that I neglect for months, only to bring it out as an ace up my sleeve when someone questions my integrity? So you want to see my character and integrity. I'll make a donation to a charity of your choosing that accepts bitcoin. I've found three animal related charities, if that's what you fancy. http://nycshibarescue.org/, http://www.primateeducationnetwork.org/, and http://www.donkeyrescue.org/... all three accept bitcoin donations. I'd guess you'd probably go with the later, as they save jackasses. Of course, if you can find another that you'd rather see the money go to, go ahead and post the link. I've already started the transfer of coin to the exchange to sell for bitcoin. I'll just wait for you to name the reputable charity. If you don't want to choose, I will donate to the United Way. They accept charitable donations through bitcoin. It's also an organization I grew up volunteering for when they did their annual Day of Caring projects around my county. A word of advice though. If you're having trouble paying back loans in the future, instead of scribbling on dollar bills, save them and take care of your obligations. -Fuse A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave. You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations. Still waiting on your response, kid.
-Fuse A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave. You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations. |
|
|
|
|
737
|
Economy / Collectibles / Re: UNMODERATED: Bitcoin Bucks,Banksy Bitcoin and Bullshit art on a Dollar.
|
on: October 19, 2014, 05:41:30 PM
|
Why all the drama over some painted dollar bills? So he deleted some posts...what is the big deal here?
It's not the bills. Honestly, I don't even care about the art. I've made it clear that this wasn't about the art from the get-go. It's the fact that he's a hypocrite and a liar. I just wanted to prove he lied in his thread, so I created this thread. He took it one step further and did the penis bill, which was just in poor taste. If he's going to attack me, attack me. My post history is there to read. His is hidden behind deleted posts. He had nothing on me, and he knew he was wrong so he did some silly shit to try to defend himself. He then tries to make himself look good with a charity that he admits he's neglected. He brings his focus back to it to prove his point, not to support the charity. Again, poor taste. Had he just done that from the beginning, this thread would have never happened. Hell, I might have even supported it. But he used the charity as a pawn in this game, which I just find feeble. It's just one shady move after another. This community doesn't need people like that. -Fuse |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
But hey, I do like conspiracy theories 
