|
DO NOT BUY A OLD USED COMPUTER, there can be trojans in the firmware, or exist a SMM backdoor. also do not use any closed source(Windows, Chrome, ...) use linux or bsd. do not use proprietary/binary driver for your GPU, there can exist a backdoor there too.
your level of paranoia is up to you, but i always have "nc -e sh -p 9090 -l" running.
|
|
|
|
Don't you think that a dog(with signs like beware of the dog) are just as efficient?
Signs like "no trespassing, trespassers will be shot, survivors will be prosecuted" work well too. Door locks that can't be lock picked in less than 10 seconds are even more effective. And windows you can't throw a chair or brick through  bunkers... just saying... |
|
|
|
Why would you keep scoped rifle under your bed?
if i had a rifel, it would be where i would put it. its long and fit-under-bed sized. |
|
|
|
it must be really nice to live in a NAP based world, having gun races with one's neighbors like it was the cold war, or spending all time when you are awake at the gun range, so that your shooting skills is not average but slightly above, and not sleeping at night in case you neighbor decides that mutual destruction is the only way to 'win'. And after that getting cancer from all the pollution and shit put in the air, which you are perfectly fine with, the air is owned by no one right? and then not have money to pay for your really expensive hospital trip, because you felt some sense of guilt of using(stealing!!!!) someone else's money that he is too rich to be able to spend himself.
Yeah, i really wanna live there.
Not gonna lie; I have no fucking clue what you're on about But if that's the world you want, by God, go for it, kokjo. I feel it's necessary to say, I'm not a gun-person. In fact, I spend most of my free time writing, painting, on the piano and playing video games--and on this forum, too. Simply because I know how to handle a weapon does not mean I actively go forth and seek people to shoot and kill; the last thing I ever want to happen to me is to be in a position to use a weapon against a person, but on the gigantic list of priorities I keep, being alive outranks not shooting my attacker. no i believe that the person is smart enough to do it when im a sleep, or otherwise surprise me.
So you are pro-shooting-people-person.
That's ideal. But murderers aren't necessarily the brightest bunch, otherwise they'd figure out how to take from you without having to kill you (unless it's your life they want, in which case, good luck either way.) And no, I'd rather not shoot a person unless I have to, but I'm not going to wait until the moment after I'll say, "Damn, I should've shot earlier!" Lets just agree that you not enter my home uninvited, and I'll not enter yours; do you not prefer peace over violence? The gun is just a promise of violence if violence is used against me; as mdude points out, the more this promise is made, the less violence ensues. The less this promise is made, the easier it is for violence to happen; nobody wants to attack the armed man, but the criminal flocks to a disarmed people. You still sleeps with a gun under your pillow. People was unhappy and afraid under the cold war, and the gun under the pillow(the bomb) did not help, it was what they feared. |
|
|
|
No, the point of a gun is to shoot someone. If someone breaks into your house, do you honestly believe that person has only the best intentions for you?
no i believe that the person is smart enough to do it when im a sleep, or otherwise surprise me. So you are pro-shooting-people-person. it must be really nice to live in a NAP based world, having gun races with one's neighbors like it was the cold war, or spending all time when you are awake at the gun range, so that your shooting skills is not average but slightly above, and not sleeping at night in case you neighbor decides that mutual destruction is the only way to 'win'. And after that getting cancer from all the pollution and shit put in the air, which you are perfectly fine with, the air is owned by no one right? and then not have money to pay for your really expensive hospital trip, because you felt some sense of guilt of using(stealing!!!!) someone else's money that he is too rich to be able to spend himself. Yeah, i really wanna live there. |
|
|
|
In other words: Bob have to be really determined to kill George.
Any enough-dertermined person can kill another person with whatever tools available(spoon), but there is not no reason for making it easy for them(gun).
Precisely; there is absolutely no reason to make killing another man easy. Since he was determined enough to kill George with guns illegal, he would've been determined enough to kill George with guns legal; the difference being, George would've been able to protect himself in the event of someone breaking into his house without facing criminal charges himself. No, you are assuming that George is better with a gun then Bob. Its only in the movies are the heros does not get shot, even with a little army shooting at him. the only reason for having a gun is to be able to point it at another person, and that is a bad reason. |
|
|
|
Lets say future-murderer Bob wants a gun to shoot his neighbor with. Lets say, all gun sales and ownership is now illegal. So, Bob goes to his good friend he met over the deepnet, Jane, who is selling guns under the table at a markup for the risk involved. Bob acquires his gun through breaking the law, and goes to his neighbor's house. His neighbor, George, is not armed, because guns are illegal, and George is a good law-abiding citizen. Bob breaks into George's house, and meets the unarmed George. Because George is unarmed, and Bob can kill him at any moment with his own gun, Bob then rapes George, and after, shoots him dead.
Later, the police arrive (who are allowed to have guns, btw), called by the neighbors only after they heard gunshots, and arrest Bob, who was sobbing in the corner. Thankfully, due to the law against guns, Bob got extra time in prison for gun ownership, and George...well, George is dead, so that really doesn't matter to him. Thankfully, however, the law against gun ownership was there, and this crime did not go unpunished--I mean, Bob is already getting life for raping and murdering a person, and he would've been dead even after the gun law charges were put into place...
In other words: Bob have to be really determined to kill George. Any enough-dertermined person can kill another person with whatever tools available(spoon), but there is not no reason for making it easy for them(gun). |
|
|
|
nej, dit dansk virker ikke.
hjælp venligst, hvis du kan
Tak for at det (was: thanks for seeing, now: thnks for it)
Sorry, I only speak English and was using google translate  maybe you could help with a bit translation  no thanks, and your intentions was also not clear, you posted a link and 4 very bad translations of "thank you". Do a better job next time, or don't do it at all. |
|
|
|
society is sick of debt money.
no, the society is built on it. and you thinks its sick. another point, if you live in the states, just look at ever increasing national debt - does anyone sane think it's healthy?!
unfair question, as must of this forum thinks that the definition of sanity depends on ones standpoint on macro economics. which makes the answer to the question no, as any sane person by this forums collectively unwritten definitions does thinks its unhealty. @OP: i don't hate fiat money, there are many pros and cons in the bitcoin vs. fiat debate, i use and like both. But this forum is filled with screaming libertards wanting to go back to the good old days of the gold standard, and feels unfairly treated by most of the society as they live under an evil regime called democracy. |
|
|
|
|
nej, dit dansk virker ikke.
hjælp venligst, hvis du kan
Tak for at det (was: thanks for seeing, now: thnks for it)
|
|
|
|
|
Vladimir - manipulating the price since 2009.
Remember people: this is all speculation until it's history.
|
|
|
|
The fact is that people against checkpoints can cry all you like , the community has decided , checkpoints are accepted politically because they secure the individual investors investment .
And the arguments against are vauge retarded like statments about hostile takeovers , and images of crack teams storming server complexes or possible drone attack .
Points for creativity , but the retarded statments against centralized checkpoints are vacant as the community clearly has decided , Nova is trading number 2 and PPC could be called a successful endeavor , so ...
Look at the scoreboard.
FTC has clawed back credibilty in my books , for protecting investors or taking action to do so at least .
if checkpoints secure ftc, it does not deserve to call it self a cryptocurrency, as its no longer decentralized. also think of it this way: if checkpoints was secure there would be no need for a block chain. and the invention of satoshi would be a very very small one(and i think we agree thats its not.). if checkpointing was a good solution bitcoin and any other cryptocurency would have been possible for over 60 years. |
|
|
|
we have now 2 more checkpoints b and c, checkpoint b confirms block 2a, and checkpoint c confirms 2b. both signed by the uber master key.
both checkpoints is then introduced to the network. half of the network gets ckp a, and the rest ckp b.
hmm but checkpoints can't be replaced you said, well then now 50% of the network is mining on top of block 2a, and the rest on 2b. and thus creating 3a and 3b, and the network is finally split.
In the fantasy universe maybe. But in the real world developers are not stupid. Every client will switch into safe mode and "invalid checkpoint found" / "invalid chain found" warning will be displayed in such case before the big split will happen. so you say solution is no better then any other solution... except you have control. good for you. you seems to be so sure of that your solution is right(hint: it's not). so this will be my last reply. and the warning again, with a little extra added: THIS SOLUTION IS _NOT_ SECURE, AND IS MOST LIKELY A SCAM MADE BY THE CREATOR. |
|
|
|
THIS SOLUTION IS _NOT_ SECURE. Caps, underline, red color and another formatting proves nothing except your emotional condition. We are not monkeys, we shouldn't care about emotions while trying to talk about the IT related issues. Turn your emotions off, please. a compromised checkpoint key can lead to a 1% attack, else the security that the checkpoints provide would be useless.
Is there any problem with plain text reading? It's the second attempt to post this bullshit, maybe you should try to do something with your erudition? 1) you can create checkpoint, if it has no conflicts with existing checkpoints;
2) you can't replace existing checkpoint with the new one;
3) you can't create checkpoint for the block with height before existing checkpoint, if this block belongs to another chain;
4) you can't create checkpoint for non-existing block (actually you can submit checkpoint with the random block hash value, but this checkpoint will never mature). Dude, it's not funny. Don't be a preaching idiot, just read and try to understand how things really are. Otherwise there will be no differences between you and RealSolid. we have block 1,2a,2b,3a,3b. we have checkpoint a which comfirms block 1, signed by uber master key. we have now 2 more checkpoints b and c, checkpoint b confirms block 2a, and checkpoint c confirms 2b. both signed by the uber master key. both checkpoints is then introduced to the network. half of the network gets ckp a, and the rest ckp b. hmm but checkpoints can't be replaced you said, well then now 50% of the network is mining on top of block 2a, and the rest on 2b. and thus creating 3a and 3b, and the network is finally split. sorry dude you lose. and i will repeat my warning(now with big red warning letters): THIS SOLUTION IS _NOT_ SECURE. |
|
|
|
|
a compromised checkpoint key can lead to a 1% attack, else the security that the checkpoints provide would be useless.
also if the checkpoints are unremovable in the client, multiple conflicting checkpoints created with a cmpromised key, will lead to a network split.
THIS SOLUTION IS _NOT_ SECURE.
|
|
|
|
... so you decides which blocks are valid and which is not?
No, he didn't. He even can't reset own checkpoints. This all reminds me of SolidCoin.
There is nothing like SC, because there is no trusted nodes and checkpoints is not a necessary part of protocol. Actually, you can disable processing of sync checkpoints by applying the following patch: --- /root/FeatherCoin/src/main.cpp 2013-08-27 19:03:58.000000000 +0000
+++ /root/FeatherCoin_NoCP/src/main.cpp 2013-08-27 19:22:48.000000000 +0000
@@ -3012,6 +3012,7 @@
else if (strCommand == "checkpoint") // ppcoin synchronized checkpoint
{
+/*
CSyncCheckpoint checkpoint;
vRecv >> checkpoint;
@@ -3023,6 +3024,7 @@
BOOST_FOREACH(CNode* pnode, vNodes)
checkpoint.RelayTo(pnode);
}
+*/
} And you will operate on the main chain without any problem. oh, so he can only controle 99% of the network that have not applied the patch. makes sense. perfectly secure. |
|
|
|
|
... so you decides which blocks are valid and which is not?
Great! start mining at diff 1 and only make my blocks valid.
your solution is less secure then a 51%-attack.
|
|
|
|
I promise you, kokjo, we will find the cure for autism.
We are the future! |
|
|
|
and some people like to rule over people that don't like to be ruled, who are you to deny them happiness?
The guy whose happiness is being denied. Go live on you little way-out-in-the-ocean-island where no one can influence you through force, thread of force, suggestion of force, communication and free markets, only then you will be truly-free^tm. Stop telling the rest of us what is wrong and right, most of the world clearly have different opinions then you. You are shouting in the echo chambers of the anarchistic internet, afraid of the real world. |
|
|
|
the american dream, is not about happiness. its about acquiring wealth and "the package", for no other reason that's its a false symbol of happiness, same as freedom. Free people are not necessarily happy.
Right; if happiness were so simple, that merely existing without rulers was the key, life would be such a simple, dull passage. But in the very least, those who wish not to be ruled couldn't be made unhappy by it. Except for the people who want to be ruled, and I know people like that, and I think that's great. Just stop asking me to participate. A free society would allow the people who enjoy rulers to continue to enjoy that. A free society also allows the people who do not want rulers to enjoy their lives as well. Freedom, then, may not make us happier, but it'll make a lot less people unhappy; and we'll all have an easier time to pursue the things which would make us happy, whatever they may be. Except for those who will only be happy when everyone is ruled. But I don't mind them being the small percentage that die unhappy. and some people like to rule over people that don't like to be ruled, who are you to deny them happiness? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
