Unfortunately selling accounts can result in accounts being used for evil. Scammers like bought accounts because it gives them more instant trust than a newbie account. Scammers are the exact people we are trying to get rid of. The problem with selling an account as recognizable as that having belonged to Bruno is that a lot of people trust him and like him.

Financial hardship puts people in awkward moral dilemmas and good people sometimes do stupid things. I hope he gets a financial windfall and cranks up the old humor mill. He has a legend to live up to.


I have seen neither Bruno Mars nor you in the same room at the same time. Only have your word for it that you are not him. Only "If I knew".

Not prejudiced against newbies. It is their own fault - they should have signed up to this forum earlier. You had 73 years to sign up.  Why didn't you buy bitcoin in 2009 ? I don't have an adequate excuse for that either.

I usually note down the name of the thread OP when I see others bump the thread. It can be potential evidence that the OP is using alts. I then keep a close eye on the OP for messages that are the same as the Bots or alts and report them for plagiarism if it turns out the case.

I also take specific note of the  senior accounts that appear to bump or shill scams or spammed threads. Sometimes they are the senior accounts of bot operators and a lot of intel can be gained from their previous posting history.  I then keep a close eye on the senior account for messages that are the same as the Bots or alts and report them for plagiarism if it turns out the case.

Banning senior accounts and copper members that start the ANN hurts the spammers more than reporting their newbie bot accounts.

I'm not advocating NOT reporting the newbie accounts and if your are reporting masses of newbie accounts - you have my respect - I'm just saying: "keep an eye out for opportunity to hurt them hard by banning senior accounts and copper members that start the ANN"

The spammers spam so frequently that they occasionally slip up and spam using the wrong account.

Being a hobby miner, cloud miner and mining enthusiast I've been thinking about how to utilize the waste heat better and control the noise pollution.

There are multiple issues facing miners.

1) Miners become inefficient for generating profit quite quickly - making them obsolete.
2) Most miners are noisy.
3) Miners generate a lot of heat.

Innovation using immersion cooling is becoming more popular to reduce the noise but it also has the additional benefit in reducing running costs from fans.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iykkSo75yDo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J38GhUPGpKE

Dielectric coolants:
https://www.engineeredfluids.com/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI3_K0kPmp3QIVRqmWCh21xQ7rEAAYASAAEgJmAvD_BwE
https://www.3m.com/3M/en_US/novec-us/applications/immersion-cooling/

(Non flammable coolants)

With the noise eliminated there is still heat  - (much reduced by the efficiency of immersion cooling) - and there is still rapid obsolescence.

By utilizing the wasted heat energy in industry - some of the cost savings can be offset against the cost of running the miners.

Just some thoughts:

Heating homes and offices (Radiators or underfloor) Temperature of water in under floor heating system is 122.0 - 95 °F   (35 - 50 °C)
Heating water used in hydroponics in cold climates  65 - 80  °F (  18  - 27 °C )
Swimming pool heating   77 – 82  °F (25 – 28°C)
Heat for brewing. 68 to 72 °F (20 to 22 °C)

Bitcoin bitter, Dogecoin Draft, Ethereum Dark...



Even if the mining by itself becomes inefficient - the cost savings of having the byproduct would make it efficient to remain mining.

Temperature could be controlled by over and under clocking.

That unfortunate fall from grace was discussed here.



The could be something to that.

Bruno wasn't confident of that either.





I'm not confident that these are all his alts.

Was already answered here:


AND


Regarding:


You're entitled to your opinion. I don't understand your reasoning. This is not a working model so I'm not quite sure how a theoretical discussion could be a "scam" or even be accused of possibly being a scam.  I'm clearly not selling anything or promoting the use of a working system. We are discussing a theoretical model.

The only way it would work is if it was entirely open source and transparent with the code.

The keys would be generated by using encryption generated from both the wallet that initiates the creation and a key generated and stored by the network. So neither the user key nor the network key would be able to access the private key on its own until outcome of the transaction is accepted by both the network and the user.

The whole idea is not much different to keeping your crypto on an online wallet - except in this case you hold part of the encryption that unlocks the key - making the wallet more secure than your average online wallet,

Making it work and secure could be a challenge but not impossible. If it was an outright stupid idea I'm sure the people that I discussed this with privately before posting it here would have said so already.





Yes- private key is generated by the blockchain and is stored encrypted on the blockchain.

Once the transaction is accepted by the network and both parties the key is provided to the relevant party.

Both the user application and the blockchain use encryption to ensure that the private key is securely generated and stored on the blockchain until required.

Neither the user application nor the blockchain have the capacity to unlock or decrypt the private key without the other. A bit like multisig.

If a successful trade is made the private key is provided to the other party - the party that generated the wallet will have never seen the private key. If a user cancels a listing or wallet the wallet is no longer able to be used for trades and the private key is provided to the user to withdraw.

The wallets are once use only. Once the private key is disclosed to the relevant party the wallet address no longer is able to be used to fund a trade.

Both parties use an X app to communicate via encryption to the X network. Once released by the A the AY private key is provided to B by the X network directly to B's X ap in an encrypted format that only the BX key can read.




Example:

User A uses their X wallet (of which they have the public and private key) to send an encrypted "create"  message to the X network.
This message together with a key from the network is used to encrypt the generated AY private key.

The X network only discloses the AY public key/ wallet address to A

The X network then retains the AY private key securely. A can control it by sending a "confirm trade" message in which case it is disclosed to B or a "cancel" message in which case it is disclosed to A.

I'm not advocating using such system for permanent storage - it is a single use wallet to complete a trustless trade.

Surely a system that holds your funds in a wallet that you have have the encryption solution to is safer than:

A large exchange wallet that you don't have the keys to and is a big prize for hackers.
A dex that tokenises your crypto and you have to hope you can exchange the tokens back to BTC (or other major crypto)
Wallets that have APIs that contain the key that are permanently connected to the internet.

Individual wallets will always be a smaller target for hackers. Every wallet will have its own unique keys which are not controlled by a single one person and only used for a the shortest time necessary.

I don't pretend to hold all the answers nor is this a format that has to be followed - this is one of the reasons to discuss it.  It is a concept that I believe could work and may serve a niche purpose in the crypto community.

The Theymos is Satoshi theory has been fairly much debunked. There are other more likely candidates. Theymos made the first block explorer which makes him a legend in his own right.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4359615.0

If the market picks up like it did in December last year I would be in a position to fund a project (It would have good tax advantages for me too) .  Currently I am reluctant to make moves beyond HODL in the crypto market.

I've never seen it as a project that I would necessarily have to develop myself for personal gain but rather to throw it out in the wild and assist others that see it for its potential.  Many good ideas die because people keep it to themselves.

There have been some limited discussions with others about creating a working prototype as a means to take it forward from a theoretical model to something that would be marketable. A couple of the people I approached said - publish it on bitcointalk.  There was some commercial interest in it about half a year ago in a similar design (slightly different vendor machine model)  but it never eventuated into anything because the company is busy with other projects.

In this day and age when dealing with people on the internet often friendships can be formed based on a username, real name or alt without actually meeting those people. Often due to geographical distances.

There are numerous people that I consider friends - good friends - that I have never met. Some of whom I don't really know their identity other than their username.

Of course there are people out there that "catfish". But in privacy oriented fields of discussion there are really good reasons to remain anonymous.

Something I have become more aware of since venturing into the world of bitcoin.

Phil Zimmermann was subjected to a two year criminal investigation for allegedly violating the Arms Export Control Act by disclosing PGP protocol.

I think Satoshi was careful not to disclose his identity.  I think people close to him suspect who he is but are not certain.

They can never be forced to disclose his identity because they are not certain.








 

It has a lot to do with demographics - education, profession, occupation, race, ethnicity, gender, age, political leanings, income level, sex, sexual preference and marital status all influence humor.

It is not surprising that the type of humor on bitcointalk that is popular  is quite bold type humor.

Not being on the list doesn't make someone "not entertaining" but more of a niche entertainment. There are a few people that could have easily made it on the list that were not nominated. It just happened that their fans did not see the nomination thread or their names failed to be mentioned.  The likes of "theyoungmillionaire" are clearly entertaining. Like with any competition - not everyone that would be eligible (had they been nominated)  has been entered. But rather than having the entire list of members on bitcointalk to choose from a nomination process was held. Apart from a couple of surprises (members I hadn't heard of)  I knew which members were going to be in the lead.

Out of the 40 names on the list there are going to be some clear winners that have entertainment appeal to the most users.

But as the voting shows - there are some clear favorites that are competing for the crown.

Interesting link:
http://www.vulture.com/2011/04/the-myth-of-universal-humor.html


The list of legends is here and you are on it at number 203:

https://bpip.org/report.aspx?r=mostrecognized

Just under casascius so you are in esteemed company.

Yes - you are on track.

They are use and forget wallets. It will generate a lot of one time use wallets. Each wallet costs to create by sending a set amount of X to the X network.

So the only disposable wallets that are created are paid for. The only wallets that are disposable are the ones used for the swap (AY and BZ). The AX and BX wallet can be reused.

The X fee will limit and discourage the number of junk wallets.

The use and forget wallets are for use on the Y and Z network so doesn't affect the X network.

It is already possible to create an infinite number of wallets for a network and it is already happening that trillions of keys are being generated.

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/nzpv8m/the-large-bitcoin-collider-is-generating-trillions-of-keys-and-breaking-into-wallets

Address re-use is not a recommended practice anyway. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Address_reuse

I agree- his trolling of trolls is superb.

You're initiative is great. I know it motivated a lot of people to join in that didn't know where to start.

If you take into account the number of people that are reporting due to your initiative then you are the Godfather of bans.

Entertaining providing amusement or enjoyment.



I held nominations in a pseudo scientific manner. Then I copy and pasted the names into the poll using a disorganized manner, still making spelling mistakes, including a couple of ineligibles and even listing a couple of people twice.

All to see who will get the coveted title of "most entertaining person on bitcointalk". I have left ample room for controversy, proof of my incompetence in making the poll, conspiracy, accusations and finger pointing.

But I am confident that:

1) It will be entertaining for most people. (As per internet dictionary definition - it is on the internet - I've supplied a picture of it - so it is true and correct)
2) The person chosen by the poll will be entertaining.
3) Some big egos will get hurt.
4) People will talk about it for some time.
5) Some people will complain for their own entertainment.
6) Some people will not be entertained.
7) Some people will still be confused
Some people will complain that they didn't get to vote after the poll closes.



You didn't nominate them when the nominations were held.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5003387.msg45195899#msg45195899

Banned and MIA users are ineligible - only current users are eligible - even though some inactive users accidentally managed to get on the list.

Money and age changes people. There are a lot of pressures on ideals. Especially when there is a balance between running a successful business employing many people and serving many customers - and some of those ideals - if applied to your business can shut it down and result in incarceration.

A lot of the early people involved in bitcoin started businesses involving bitcoin. The stick that legislation wields is a motive to compromise on ideals for some people.

I've seen active idealistic environmental lawyers turn into corporate raiders and investing in open cast gold mines.

But there are also still many that have retained their ideals. Usually they have not gained great wealth.

The sad part is that they are tightening copyright and patents rather than relaxing them.

If there were no patents or copyright then they would be forced to share or develop technology in secret.

Most patents never make it to the market or are used badly. https://www.eff.org/issues/resources-patent-troll-victims
https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/10/17222380/apple-virtnetx-patent-troll-litigation-500-million-imessage-facetime-case

If you ban patents and limit and discourage copyright then the business models would change to open source.

No - Party A and Party B have a special "wallet" that is created to communicate with the coin network.

So lets call the token on the blockchain that runs the wallet swap x
BTC we will call y
ETH we will call z

So party A wants to sell Y for Z

Party B wants to buy Y for Z

Party A creates a wallet for X and has a public and private key for X

Party B creates a wallet for X and has a public and private key for X

Party A uses the "create address" function from his X wallet app (it sends a small fee)

The X network creates the public and private key and give the AY public address to A but retains the AY private key on the X network

Party B uses the "create address" function from his X wallet app (it sends a small fee)

The X network creates the public and private key and give the BZ public address to B but retains the BZ private key on the X network

Party A funds the AY address and using the X wallet app sends a small fee to create a sale order.

Party B "buys the order" (by sending a small fee and message on the X network)  and funds his BZ wallet accordingly.

The X network checks the balance of the AY and BZ wallets and sends a message to the X wallet app for the users to confirm manually.

Each user check the relevant blockchain and either accepts or rejects the sale. (small fee for the message)

The sale can be rejected by either party until both have accepted the sale.

Once accepted the X network disconnects the ability to trade on the AY and BZ wallets and the BZ key is provided to A and the AY key is provided to B


If at any stage a party cancels a offer or sale the party that cancels it is given the key to their wallet.

So if A cancels their sale of AY they send a small fee message to the X network. The network disconnects the ability to use the wallet and issues the AY key to A.

B can either cancel their wallet or list the BZ for sale for a small fee.

Every Message sent by the x wallet costs a small fee. So there are no % of trade fees - just communication fees.

The X network stores the keys to the other coin wallets and provides them to A or B depending on whether a trade takes place.

The AY and BZ key are encrypted on the X network by both the key of the owners wallet and by the network itself. So neither the owner of the funds - nor the network has access to.


So A who owns wallet AY has the private key generated and stored on the X network. Encrypted by both AX and XX.

So B who owns wallet BZ has the private key generated and stored on the X network. Encrypted by both BX and XX.

Only when a trade is completed the AX key is used to unlock the AY private key and released to B by the X network

If the trade is cancelled by A the  AX key is used to unlock the AY private key and released to A by the X network


While it may seem unusual to have a fee for each step - a micro fee would not affect users and can pay for the network miners.

Since the network only stores the private key in encrypted form and the fee is paid for the message rather than the size of the sale there is no record of buyer or seller. The size of the transfer will not be known. Because the buyer and seller are exchanging wallets the buyer and seller cannot be easily matched.

Since the buyer and the seller are able to import the private key into their wallet (or a wallet built into the X wallet app) any withdrawal will not match times of when the messages are sent to conduct the swap.


The transaction only provides the key to the correct recipient. It doesn't transfer any value. So block size is not relevant.

A sale on the X network will only transfer the ownership of the AY key to B and the BZ key to A

Neither party will have had access to the key but they will have had full control over the key.

Only the AX wallet can determine whether to swap or retrieve the AY private key - but it is safely stored on the X network by encrypting it with its own encryption XX and from the AX wallet.

Only the BX wallet can determine whether to swap or retrieve the BZ private key - but it is safely stored on the X network by encrypting it with its own encryption XX and from the BX wallet.


The X network - apart from transferring its own tokens - does not transfer coin values - it only stores, swaps or releases the private keys of the other coins.

B receives a AY wallet that is funded by A but the AY private key is securely generated and kept by the X network until the deal is completed.



This is a theoretical model - that could work with funded and unfunded Y and Z wallets.

Hedging using WalletSwap

A bond in X could be paid by A and B that if within a certain period of time the wallet is not funded the bond is released to the counterparty.

This would allow A to list 0.1 BTC (Y) for a certain price in ETH (Z) without yet funding the AY wallet in BTC but pay a bond in X that gets released to B if the sale does not take place withing a certain set time.

Likewise this would allow B to buy 0.1 BTC (Y) for a certain price in ETH (Z) without yet funding the BZ wallet in BTC but pay a bond in X that gets released to A if the sale does not take place withing a certain set time.

You might have the Poll lead and be considered funny by some - but you have the charm of a burning orphanage. 

A good bounty / airdrop manager excludes shitposters from their payouts.

There are clear rules on bitcointalk on what is acceptable posting practices.

Forum rules

1. No zero or low value, pointless or uninteresting posts or threads

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=703657.0

90% of the posts on here will get nuked along with some of the accounts. A ban = the person is banned. They cannot make another account or use an alt account.

Banned account IPs also get evil points. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1215937.0

You will soon run out of participants at this rate.



Some of them are getting bans as we speak. Good = rule breaker correctly reported = nuked, banned or deleted   Unhandled = not yet processed


Also none of this team was able to be verified. They are either ghosts with no social media accounts or don't exist.

If you want your ICO to be believable post a video of the "team" and provide some proof of their identities.