I noticed that the real DannyHamilton recently red-tagged a bunch of merit-beggars. Such actions usually do raise the ire of spammers, scammers, and net.abusers of all kinds. @hilarious, thanks for the heads-up on this! |
|
|
|
Say if a bank patented some blockchain tweak that was awe inspiring, what would be the deal if an anonymous developer added it to the Bitcoin code and the majority chose to run it?
Who or what would the patent holder sue? If BTC was using patented code from elsewhere would anyone identifiable running it be gone after? Would Bitcoin itself be treated as some type of legal pariah by regulated businesses?
I don’t see the point of this question. FYI, Core developers are sensitive and cautious as to patent issues. I know of code within Core which is marked experimental and not compiled by default, due to using methods which may be possibly arguably allegeably patented in some jurisdictions. Those who are not in such jurisdictions or are doing R&D may enable this code (performance increase stuff). Moreover, I know of instances in which Core has decided against adding features which may incur patent problems in some places. The implication about anonymous or pseudonymous developers is improper. Speaking only for myself (and n.b. that I have not yet contributed anything to Core other than a small BIP patch): On a personal level, patents (and also copyrights) are nonexistent to me. This is based on my principles and my opinions, as applied to me only. Whereas I would never knowingly place people who rely on my code in the position of potentially getting blindsided with liabilities unforeseen by them. My responsibility is to them. That is also a matter of principle. It doesn’t matter if I’m “anonymous”: I know that my users aren’t, and they are trusting me. “Anonymous” developers are perhaps in some ways the most sensitive to such issues. “Anonymity” is often a sign that somebody realizes the brokenness of society, law, and just about everything else so fully as to take on the substantial burden of compartmenting one’s life. It’s not easy. Moreover: Every line of code in Core is reviewed by very smart people who are not anonymous at all. Good luck slipping something in on their watch. |
|
|
|
In addition to the aforementioned limitations of blockchain as enumerated by some contributors here on this forum,i would like to say that there are fears that that future development in cryptography may leave the blockchain vulnerable,ie hackable.That is why there is so much fear about the development of quantum computers,which may become commercially available 10-20 years time frame.Part of the solution to this future vulnerability is to use a bitcoin address only ONCE.Thanks to experts who already see the future.By the way,the world will have bigger problems to deal with when quantum computers become mainstay-sensitive military installations for example.
(Boldface is here added to question-begging. Smart, well-informed people don’t have “so much fear” about quantum computers; thus, there is no “why”. I have never beaten my wife; therefore, I have never stopped beating my wife.) This is new info to me. Forgive my ignorance about quantum computers, but how will it be a huge threat to blockchain? i mean, i just can't see the point why blockchain will be vulnerable. I thought people are aiming to improve it?
There are a lot of threads on Bitcointalk about the threat of quantum computers on bitcoin. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=quantum+site%3Abitcointalk.orgYes, so very many threads. Behold the power of Quantum FUD®, superposition of which is entangled across the forum! The gist of the matter is that quantum computers can break ECDSA which bitcoin uses for digital signatures and will be theoretically able to calculate private keys from public keys.
This is prevented by not reusing addresses because addresses are not public keys but a hash of them and quantum computing can't do anything with them. (An address's public keys are exposed whenever a transaction is made with that address)
Xynerise, you seem generally well-informed; but here, I think you are sorely mistaken in picking up an unfortunately popular meme. Quoting one of my better Jr. Member posts from way back when, in the context of a thread about Bitcoin and quantum computers (bracketed clarification added): As a general point, I will worry about disclosing Bitcoin public keys at the same time I start to worry about disclosing my long-term PGP public key. (For those in the peanut gallery: The latter would be entirely useless without public disclosure.)
There are excellent reasons to avoid address reuse; but this [QC resistance] is not one of them. I say this as a paranoid security nut: The security of publicly disclosed public keys is just fine. That is why they are called public keys. The only exception I would here make is if you have coins which you intend to potentially leave in cold storage for decades. Then, yes, you will want the extra security margin of the key being unpublished. That’s not only a concern about quantum computers: Unexpected cryptanalytic techniques could develop over the course of many years. For cryptography which really needs to stand the test of time, reducing your security requirements to a hash is simply good security hygiene.
Also apropos, in a distinct context (whereas FUD can only be distinct without difference): The security of exposed Bitcoin public keys is just fine for general usage. They cannot be hacked. [...] But there is a different, unrelated reason to avoid address reuse: Privacy. Avoiding address reuse gives you a modicum of privacy. That at least makes Chainalysis work for their pay. Re-using addresses makes transaction linkage trivial, child’s play.
A public key is called a “public key”, because it is secure when exposed in public. I publish my PGP public keys (and if I didn’t, PGP would be useless). I am not worried about that. Each and every time you connect to an https website secured by TLS, the server’s public key is exposed to you—and your symmetric session key is derived from a key-agreement process based on the hardness of the same DLP as is the fundamental basis of most widely-used public-key cryptography other than RSA. I am not worried about that, either! Likewise, I am not worried about the security of my Bitcoin public keys.
Evidently, I am not the only one to be of the opinion that “hash public keys for quantum resistance” is a regrettable meme. Quoting from discussion of Taproot on bitcoin-dev, 2018-01-23: Considering the considerable level of address reuse -- I recall prior stats that a majority of circulating funds are on addresses that had previously been used, on top of the general race limitations-- I am now dubious to the idea that hashing provides any kind of meaningful quantum resistance and somewhat regret introducing that meme to the space in the first place. If we considered quantum resistance a meaningful concern we should address that specifically. --- so I don't think that should be a factor that drives a decision here.
As a general point about the strength of Bitcoin’s cryptographic security, from an adapted self-quote, I hereby formally posit the Nullian Flying Fire Hydrant Rule:You had better be worried about being killed by a flying fire hydrant than about [the security] of Bitcoin’s cryptographic keys. It has happened at least once somewhere that a man was killed by a flying fire hydrant. Please. You don’t worry about being killed by a flying fire hydrant. Whereas to be killed by a flying fire hydrant is not only possible, but astronomically more probable than any cryptographic break of Bitcoin security. At some point, after the size of 2 128 is explained for the 2 127th time, anti-Botcoin FUDsters realize that FUDding Bitcoin security in the present just makes them look absurd. So, they upgrade to Quantum FUD® technology: Point to an uncertain future, oversimplify complex technological questions much debated by experts, and then beg the question of “why there is so much fear about the development of quantum computers”.Practical, usable quantum computers do not exist. Their present is fantasy, and their future is unknown. Some experts are of the opinion that a practical quantum computer capable of useful computation may be impossible—scientifically, physically, mathematically impossible. E.g., quoting from one of my Newbie-rank posts, q.v.; see also the ensuing discussion between myself and haltingprobability: A quantum computer is not a sure thing! I should preface this by saying, I’m not endorsing the opinions of Scott Aaronson. I’m only citing him as someone who is not a moron, and wrote a book on quantum computing (which I have not read). I seem to recall some wager on his blog over the (im)possibility of quantum computing, but I can’t find it right now; anyway, D-Wave has a long history (2013) of drawing his ire (2017), to say the least. See how he discusses skepticism of quantum computers: What I did is to write out every skeptical argument against the possibility of quantum computing that I could think of. We'll just go through them, and make commentary along the way. Let me just start by saying that my point of view has always been rather simple: it's entirely conceivable that quantum computing is impossible for some fundamental reason. If so, then that's by far the most exciting thing that could happen for us. That would be much more interesting than if quantum computing were possible, because it changes our understanding of physics. To have a quantum computer capable of factoring 10000-digit integers is the relatively boring outcome -- the outcome that we'd expect based on the theories we already have.
[...] As for myself, I account myself moderately skeptical of quantum computing; I’ll believe it when I see it, but meanwhile I think it’s a good idea to move to PQ crypto. I would be more surprised if quantum cryptography can deliver on its promises. I don’t like the hype around any of it, especially when it’s sometimes used to FUD Bitcoin. On that note, in closing, I will repeat in this Quantum FUD® context what I said more generally about Bitcoin’s public-key security: I strongly recommend that anybody not deeply involved in developing Bitcoin’s long-term security should absolutely not worry about the strength of Bitcoin’s public-key security. It’s worse than useless worry: It is a distraction from real problems. Worry instead about your computer security, your operational security, and your financial privacy. (Nobody can target you for theft or coercion if nobody knows you have anything significant to take.)
It is as if many people are keeping their coins in a safe with an unbreakable door (the cryptography—all of it) and walls made of tissue paper (the malware-infested PC, privacy leaks which may allow thieves to identify you and know what money you have, etc., etc.). Then, they obsessively worry about the security of the door! Don’t do that.
I think Xynerise concludes correctly: However this is not a significant threat as quantum computing isn't that advanced yet, there are better easier targets than bitcoins (or other cryptocurrencies), and bitcoin can always move to a quantum resistant algorithm.
|
|
|
|
At 11:05:49 today, 23 February 2018, I permanently surpassed #1076869 “pitipawn” on the list of Top-merited users, all-time. pitiprawn had been #4. He was ahead of me for all of about twelve days. And I did it the honest way.Now, the “pitiprawn” account is forever stuck at 478 merit. That’s not even the threshold for Hero Membership. In time, others will also surpass him. He will drift down the all-time top-merited list, until he drops off the bottom. Eventually, every new account who reaches Hero Member will exceed him; at that, going from zero to Hero is now every new user’s chance to beat pitiprawn. In time, pitiprawn will sink down to the level of a footnote in the annals of forum abuse handling. Lauda will be remembered not for stopping pitiprawn, but for squashing him together with so very many worms just like him; pitiprawn himself is no more significant in that story than dirt swept into a dustpan. pitiprawn himself shall be all but forgotten, fallen to the implicit damnatio memoriae of the utterly worthless. Infamous last words (translated by Betfair): do not underestimate my power anymore...
Did you know pitipawn has sent death threats to some people? He is lucky that he is not perma banned yet. It is also possible that he is alt-account of an already perma banned member. People do not change you know.
Criminal scum. There is a reason why I said, “ crime doesn’t pay.” Someone who dovetailed the “pump” part of pump-and-dump with a merit abuse racket is of criminal character. I would never be surprised to find such a character doing de jure crimes, such as escalating to death threats when he doesn’t get his way. People do not change, I know. |
|
|
|
There is no burden of proof in the court of public opinion. This is just a smear campaign although I do suspect there may be some small truths to some of it.
It is a principle well-known to both expert liars and expert lie-detectors that a big bald-faced lie, said with a straight face, will always leave behind this poisonous residue. Most people are a tiny bit corrupt, in some small way; they themselves can comprehend, sometimes even identify with the telling of small lies. Thus, they know that small lies happen. Whereas no ordinary person can really believe deep in his heart that somebody could tell a huge lie. The mind may know of such things, in the manner of book-learning; but emotions and conscience refuse to grasp the existence of such a monstrosity. The understanding of big lies is a thing unto the opposing realms of philosophers, hardened criminals, and forensic psychologists. Protip: If you want to really smear someone, tell a lie so bold that nobody can believe you just made it up. Repeat it over and again. Then repeat the whole process tomorrow, with a new lie. Quickseller explained in three sentences.
When I look around I see people making claims, blatantly lying about things but as long as you have enough sheep believing you it becomes the "truth", at least for a certain portion of the population. I did say "smear campaign" did I not? i.e. "a plan to discredit a public figure by making false or dubious accusations". Don't need any proof when that's your plan.
Bingo.
It should not be difficult to find evidence yourself though. Just pick one person who has added lauda to their trust list; there is a ~1 in 9 chance of it being a clearly purchased account, and from there it should not be difficult to find the rest.
The burden of proof is on the accuser. No, not under the inquisitorial system. The accusatorial system has an accuser. The inquisitorial system has a _______. You make a pretty shitty case if you can't provide such, and instead tell people to find it themselves.
In the quote of Quickseller to which you replied, he wasn’t even telling people to find proof. He was telling people to start with what he alleges to be a randomized “~1 in 9 chance” of an account upon whom to throw suspicion. This is followed by, “...and from there it should not be difficult to find the rest.” Otherwise stated: “it should not be difficult to find what you are looking for.” Neat psych-out of idiots who will happily stare at the clouds until they see faces in them.
This is how you present proof. /thread
|
|
|
|
A most appropriate response to the allegation: “Somewhere in this trust dump are some accounts I claim are alts, without saying which or why. Obviously, you are responsible for this. Do you deny it?” Definitely busted.  /sNow that you have confessed to putting the alt voices in Quickseller’s head, it is time for you to BURN.
I emphasize: So, a known account dealer with expertise in alt accounts has conveniently alleged that some mysterious alt accounts added Lauda to their trust lists. ’Tis a mystery how that happened, if it happened at all. |
|
|
|
What a fair and even-handed beginning. Shows good faith (and good orthography). And surely, the judiciousness of this post will only improve. A total of 53 people have Lauda on this trust list (which is roughly 1/2 of the number of people who have excluded Lauda from their trust list).
My trust list currently contains (exactly) the following two entries. Do you wish to suggest that gmaxwell could potentially hold some responsibility for my putting him there? (Other than by demonstrating great evidence of trustworthiness, that is to say.) What is most concerning is that of the 53 accounts who have Lauda on their trust list, 6 accounts are part of a farm of purchased accounts that are owned by the same person. I am wanting to know why over 11% of those who have lauda on their trust list are all owned by the same person.
Considering this in the hypothetical, that would be a most excellent means for somebody with a long-term vendetta to try to set Lauda up in public as having done something fishy. I say “considering this in the hypothetical”, because you don’t seem to have bothered with identifying these alleged accounts—much less with providing evidence that they be alts. I would also like to know why neither any of these 6 accounts nor the account seller have any kind of negative trust from Lauda.
Again, taking this hypothetically: Perhaps nobody brought those accounts plus appropriate evidence to Lauda’s attention. I see you have done nothing to correct this deficiency. One of these accounts was last active as of late May 2017, and most were last active as of June 2017, so I can rule out someone recently adding Lauda to their trust lists.
So?
So you are saying that you have absolutely nothing to do with all these accounts adding you to their trust list? I want to be very clear on this.
I don't even know what accounts you are talking about[1]. Thus I can absolutely not be clear about anything.
[1] Relatively easy to create a trap this way; somewhat predictable. It’s what he does. It’s all he does.
A most appropriate response to the allegation: “Somewhere in this trust dump are some accounts I claim are alts, without saying which or why. Obviously, you are responsible for this. Do you deny it?” |
|
|
|
There seems to be a general thing in the forum, among the most generous merit givers that
if you talk about altcoins instead of bitcoin, you will not get merit.
The forum is called Bitcointalk. You’re racist against altcoins. If you use any other language than English (stated as: a language I don't speak!) in some of your posts, you won't get merit. That is just racist.
How are people supposed to rate a post they do not understand? You’re racist against words you do not understand. If you comment on bounty posts you will not get merit AND you are an idiot.
That is usually true. You’re racist against idiots. I think the admins should take a look at this and do something about it be happy.
You’re racist against people who wish that the forum be run for their own personal benefit, everyone else be damned. |
|
|
|
I think I'm an outlier. If I have 100 merit in 30 days, I'll eat all my words and post a vid of me masturbating to a merit infographic
Hello, Alia, you sly meretrix.... Alas, you’ve been slacking off. Though you made an earnest start, your rate of earning merit has dropped off sharply; and the days now fly by as we approach the 30-day deadline of 2018-03-01 00:52:43 UTC. Bad girl. | The Famous Post | 2018-01-30 00:52:43 | | 100th Merit | 2018-02-23 04:57:08 |
3 weeks, 3 days, 4 hours, 4 minutes, 25 seconds. $ bc
24*86400 + 4*3600 + 4*60 + 25
2088265
Congratulations, Alia. An outlier you are, indeed. (Good girl.) |
|
|
|
(Actually, nothing changed. One post got through without problems, for some reason.) Edit: In the time it took to write this, something seems to have changed. I’m not yet sure; but this is my first post in some hours which was not quasi-eaten, etc.
If theymos twiddled some knobs—thank you. If not—then for future reference, I want it somehow known that occasionally, if Cloudflare is busy valiantly stopping a DDoS attack, I might become unavailable on the forum due to denial of service.
Cloudflare is an anti-user D.o.S., Denial of Service! It is currently making the forum unusable through Tor. “Unusuable” meaning, to a reasonable person; I am sometimes unreasonably stubborn. It repeatedly hits my browser with Javascript checks, re-checks, Rapiscans porno-scans, X-rays, and cavity searches which spin my CPU, eat up my RAM, and do who-knows-what else. It does this so frequently that because I spend significant time on posts, I am regularly directed to a blank form which even forgets which thread I’m trying to reply in. My posts would be eaten, and lost forever if I didn’t have a copy set aside outside the browser.If I weren’t so fond of this forum and already quite invested in it, I would have given up three hours ago. Please do something about this! I suggest starting by immersing DDoS attackers in boiling oil. I am fantasizing about that right now. But really, if you’re going to get DDoSed, DoSing your users is not the solution.
No, vmware is not open source, but over my 10 years of using it (like in enterprise envs), I have never had any issue or security problem.
How do you know that? The type of attacks which break out of VMs are not typically used by the authors of popular widespread malware. OFC,Nothing is completely secure in this day and age as you know I'm sure.  You may be assured, I would not allege “open source” to be a security panacea! The magical security of open source is a pernicious and contemptible myth. Availability of source code is only a prerequisite which facilitates auditing. When actual people (as opposed to hypothetical eyeballs) are auditing the source, the next step is reproducible builds, as Core does. But the availability of source code provides the potential. Intentionally opaque blobs do not.
vmware is not open-source but there are open-source hypervisors... like linux kvm or whatever-the-fuck it's called nowadays.
Xen: Bare-metal hypervisor, but more or less married to Linux for dom0 (last I checked) KVM: Linux thing Bhyve: FreeBSD thing VirtualBox: Mostly open-source thing. qemu: Not a VMM per se; but I feel it deserves mention here. Am I forgetting any popular ones? I don't quite get the issue with fingerprinting. You can fake nearly everything about your environment in a VM. Screen resolution, browser type/version, OS type, VPN endpoints, not sure what else is there that JavaScript could potentially disclose?
Zeroth of all, do you fake all these things separately each time you hit the “New Identity” button? And how many combinations thereof could you reasonably make? The most urgent concern is not preventing identification of your computer: It is preventing linkability of your browsing sessions. And first of all, some things can reveal quite hardware-specific information. Reading from <canvas>. webgl. Many others, because browser makers are idiots who add stupid new features willy-nilly ( or may want things this way). Some of these are disabled or limited in Tor Browser. But you said VPN—actually, if you use an ordinary browser with a VPN, you are pretty much toast anyway for fingerprinting. How about CPU timing? The Javascript language provides sufficient resolution to make this a fingerprinting issue. (Tor Browser limits the resolution, but not enough IMO.) How about the fact that—well, correct me if I’m wrong, but I doubt that VMware lets you conceal the fact that you are running in VMware. It probably leaks the version, too! ESXi, did you say? Is my brain half-melted by the heat of Cloudflare spinning my CPU, or is ESXi some kind of server stuff which is very rare for end-users? Ooh, 23.8 bits of suchmoon identification! (In a related matter: When I started searching for privacy leaks, I found some very unpleasant surprises in my kernel. Don’t get me started. It is astonishing how much uniquely identifying hardware info can be easily scooped up by heavily sandboxed unprivileged processes. How do you do your Tor daemon?) Note: I am not even up right now on all the latest research. I have seen some tantalizing discussions of fingerprint attacks which will turn your whole browser into a supercookie to link your sessions. From there, the concept is simple: suchmoon on bitcointalk.org = xyz on abc = [your so-called “real name”] who lives at [address], according to that non-Bitcoin online shopping you just did. Oopsie! Re drafts - e.g. if I open a VM for Bitcointalk I will probably use it for a few days so good enough for me although TBH I'm not into long essays. Sometimes when I need to save it for longer I send it in a PM to myself.
PMs here are a disaster, in my opinion. Feature suggestion for a “crypto” forum: An opt-in remailer, which would let me send mail to suchmoon@users.bitcointalk.org—or maybe 234771@, since usernames here can contain charcters which are problematic. (Problematic, despite being allowed by the original RFC 822.) Spam could be curtailed by requiring SMTP envelope FROM the registered e-mail address, and obeying SPF records, etc. That way, I could use the very convenient PGP functionality of my mail client. Plus its drafts box.I should start a new Meta topic. Watch for it. |
|
|
|
This afternoon I have read a paper telling Bulletproofs are better than SNARK...
Link, please? By the way: …An adversary that can break the binding property of the commitment scheme or the soundness of the proof system can generate coins out of thin air and thus create uncontrolled but undetectable inflation rendering the currency useless…
…While the discrete logarithm assumption is believed to hold for classical computers, it does not hold against a quantum adversary. Even without context, that simply sounds like part of how cryptographers reduce the security of their work to a few security assumptions, and then of course should explain what happens if those assumptions were to fail. The part about the commitment scheme and proof system sounds like this quote pertains to SNARKs. FYI, if the discrete logarithm assumption were to fail, a great number of things would be shattered—from your web browser’s DH-based key agreements, to Bitcoin’s public-key security. Also, almost no cryptosystems in widespread use today are PQ safe; however, quantum computers do not exist—not yet, and maybe never. |
|
|
|
Point taken. I'd still argue that starting with a top level language and working your way down is an equally valid approach, alas I can't claim this to be more than my own personal opinion.
Well, maybe it matters less how a person starts learning and more how dedicated and passionate they are. Also, how able. Innately. People are pressured to shy away from that fact, nowadays. I gave the analogy upthread: No matter how dedicated and passionate I may be, I will never in this life become an Olympic gymnast. So as for most people and programming, electrical engineering, theoretical physics... No, not everybody can be a rocket scientist. I hope my posts are not drifting too far away from the topic, as I want to add one more advice based on personal experience.
A bit of my own: As I was forced to admit when gmaxwell showed up in a thread, I have inadequate formal foundations. Quoting my reply to gmaxwell: I myself will not try implementing such things, even the “really easy” ones. I don’t have the CS background. After tinkering for years, I learned programming by reading FreeBSD kernel code until I thoroughly understood almost everything except the CS-heavy subsystems (vm, scheduler, etc.). I think you see that my code reflects the style you’d expect from that experience. Otherwise, as in all else, I take pride in knowing enough to know the limits of my own knowledge.
Many years ago, I started out as a self-described “power user”; though in retrospect, that seems a joke. I was the guy who could always make the computer work; non-technical people thought I had magic powers. Also, I always had a strong interest in cryptography. Read books about it. Used PGP, etc. Did cypherpunk stuff. I had some odd personality quirks; if I wanted to understand how e-mail worked, I would read some RFCs even though I wasn’t implementing anything, and didn’t know how to. I had always wanted to learn programming; but tutorials didn’t get me beyond what I would call an “advanced beginner” level. (That is to say: I could tinker with existing code, and write small programs which did not segfault. I always did like pointers.) As a related issue, I wanted to escape Gatesland to a realm with no Windows. My attempts at that also had the usual results. Finally, I did the equivalent of natural-language immersion: Built a new machine, installed FreeBSD on it, and left myself nowhere else to go. Thence ensued an intense time of pain and joy. manpages and /usr/src became my best friends. Also, some very old gems in /usr/share/doc; see the usd, psd, and papers subdirectories. For assistance in this strange new land, I also had a copy of the C standard, some good old-fashioned FAQs, etc. One would not learn a new tongue without a dictionary, either. But mostly, I just read—and read— and read—then experimented, then read some more. For about a year, one of my biggest passions was simply reading C code until I understood it. I’ve intended to write up a story of my “UNIX and C by immersion” experience, and post it in Off-Topic. The foregoing is the abbreviated version. Perhaps it may suffice... I’ve also tried to brush up on maths and CS. Either I need formal instruction for formal rigour, or I’m too lazy, or I lack the innate aptitude. I probably do know more about computer science concepts than many working “programmers” (a/k/a code monkeys). This scares me, because I only really know enough to semi-competently choose between algorithms and between implementations of algorithms. Apropos the topic: Learning to code is not where to start. For example: Before I ever wrote printf("Hello, world!\n");, I knew that I wanted to manage my own memory; and I had an adequate understanding of why this was an important issue. Learning to code is certainly not the place to start exercising a “passion for cryptos”, per OP. If passionate about “cryptos”, first learn the basics of applied cryptography. Most of all, learn generally about computing! And how do I know OP does not already know these things? Well, as I said: By the time you reach the point of picking a language, you should know enough to pick one yourself.
(Sorry this is rough. I am outside my usual forum access environment.) |
|
|
|
Edit to add PSA from someone who claims to know a few things about security: Disable Javascript!I have been disabling Javascript since the 90s. The habit has almost certainly saved me from being elitely h4x0r3d. The Web is almost useless, nowadays.
While I agree that Cloudflare is an abomination, I have long ago resorted to doing my Tor browsing in a VM... so at that point it doesn't really matter if there is JavaScript or not. I can restore a clean snapshot any time I get paranoid, I can run multiple instances in parallel, and the browsers are REALLY sandboxed.
Oh, I do this generally; and I did that when I first started posting here! But I made myself a dedicated Bitcoin Forum “thing” on the day that I was forced to try seventeen (17) different Tor circuits before Google deigned to grant me a login CAPTCHA. See “ Google is locking Tor users out of Bitcointalk.org!”. One of my Newbie rank posts! There and somewhere in the main reCAPTCHA thread, I also think aloud about how Google forcing users to rapidly cycle through circuits may help network adversaries deanonymize users. Now, Cloudflare + Google are hitting Tor users from both sides: Cloudflare sometimes requires Javascript to even read the site; and Google effectually forces Tor users to try to maintain a long-term login cookie. Ephemeral VM browser? Nope! Disable Javascript? Nope! And I disagree with you that a VM is good enough. I dislike and try to avoid Javascript, even in a VM. Do you follow the security bulletins for, say, Xen? Ouch. (I desire to not specify what I use, for obvious reasons.) Moreover, a VM does nothing to protect you against fingerprinting attacks which require Javascript. I would be amazed if Cloudflare was not somehow doing that with its forced-JS. Of course, the objective there is not to remotely compromise your system, but rather, to link together different secret identities. Browsers are some of the worst software on Earth; and nowadays we are all forced to either use them, or unplug from—everything. Then, we are forced to let them run network-loaded executable code. Not good.(Aside, an ephemeral VM also makes it difficult to use a text editor and a local drafts directory to produce high-quality posts of the long type. I would still do it for security; but it does make the writer miserable.)
Vmware FTW?  I love Vmware! Is it fully open-source? I don’t know for certain, nowadays; I’m asking. The last time I used VMware, it was a pile of inscrutable BLOBs; but that was a very long time ago. |
|
|
|
I also noticed it's been switched to cloudflare as well. I thought I saw a post about how this service sucked, but IDK. Too many meta threads lately.  theymos posted a notice about the move in on 2017-11-29: “ Moving to Cloudflare” |
|
|
|
[Edit: @mods, apologies for making this a new thread. I tried to post it in the Cloudflare thread. When Cloudflare ate my post and threw me back to a blank form as described below, I did not realize SMF’s reply info somehow got lost—thus resulting in a new thread. Meta won’t let me delete my own topic; I just tried.]@theymos, you’ve always been supportive of privacy and security. Please be aware that Cloudflare is blocking those who use Tor for the former, and disable Javascript for the latter: This is not the first time this has happened. Last time, you posted a note in some Meta thread indicating that there was a DDoS attack. Usually, the forced-Javascript screen has gone away if I waited an unpredictable time; however, insofar as I can gather, waiting will only work from fresh browsers without “cf_*” cookies.I observed 5xx Cloudflare errors, earlier. It’s not even keeping the site up! Unreliable, incompetent DDoS protection which decrypts all user traffic and forces users to let Cloudflare run unknown, unexplained code on their machines—this is not a very good deal.
Sorry this post is convoluted. Cloudflare is now requiring users to keep Javascript enabled; I have not seen this before on this forum! Cloudflare almost ate my post with its “examination” page; when I first tried to post, I was redirected to a blank forum. It is fortunate that I use an external text editor...
I used some weird ephemeral setup to get in here and post this. Since I am not inclined to run Cloudflare cavity-search code in the dedicated browser instance I use for the Bitcoin Forum, this is problematic. Not-yet-working suggested workaround for JS-disabling Tor users: Try moving cookies between a “weird ephemeral setup” and your usual browser. I got a new “cf_clearance” cookie (with expiry time just over a day), but I must have missed something else. (...such as the fact that it’s now continuously requiring Javascript.)
|
|
|
|
Hey, Alia, I am ready to send up to somewhere >0.01 BTC for you to gamble as I promised upthread. A thoroughly anonymized coin awaits your lucky touch. Camming is not requested—unless you wish to use an encrypted video chat program I want to show you; however, live video will be laggy/glitchy through Tor on my end. I do ask for a conservative stop-loss. If you lose, then you can make it up to me later when I drill you (so to speak) on proper PGP usage. Well—that makes no difference, does it? Play to win.
Don't care for the shitposters, could be that they don't have anything to gamble and thus they are jealous?
Some people are just jerks. Jealous jerks with no money for fun. Pathetic. Excepting scams and such, I myself simply stay out of threads for services I don’t want. Indeed, this hereby is the first time I’ve ever even read anything from the Gambling forum; for I myself don’t enjoy games of chance, although I oft wager on other things. Mostly, I place bets on people. Whereas if you wish to offer good odds, I will book bets against the kinds of people who take pleasure in dumping on the thread of a sexy girl and her titillating idea.
Either way, keep up the good work!
{Stripping_On_Cam && Gambling_Soemone's_Money !== "Good Work"} (my holy book says that,I don't.) I suppose you mean the book whereby prophets speak as such: . I believe by the Power of Love of our Almighty God who gave his only begotten SON to save US form our sins. Praise be to God!
God Almighty, the most powerful, the creator of the universe can do everything He watts. He could makes himself a male or female and even makes himself as many as He could.
Well, that explains at least half the jerks here. (Also—some of them are freaked out by vaginas, a phenomenon which is not mutually exclusive.) P.S.—good work, Alia. |
|
|
|
Having already characterized this case upthread as the the single worst case of merit abuse anywhere on the forum, I want to emphasize this: Thank you, Betfair, for reporting this—and most of all (+5), for translating the Turkish for a sufficient proof. I’ve had my eye on pitiprawn for awhile. It was obvious that he was doing something questionable, at best; just the post titles alone show(ed) that he was openly soliciting merit in some fashion, even without being able to read Turkish. But it would have been difficult to get the evidence, or even understand what his ploy was, whereas Turkish is not one of the languages in which I have sufficient facility to at least do what I call “human-guided machine translation”. Surely, I am far from alone in having noticed that something was amiss. I myself noticed pitiprawn sometime before 11 February; but due to the language barrier, I was then only able to adduce that pitiprawn was “running Turkish threads soliciting merit in some fashion”: Before reading this post, I was already thinking I would like a "Merit-subscription" to your posts. Basically, (almost) anything that you write is worth reading. You're the second Top-merited Member, only second to deeperx (who has red trust and got all his Merit for DeepOnion posts in his self-moderated (censored) ANN-thread). I really appreciate how well the Merit system works for good posters (and I ignore deeperx in my list of good posters). Thanks. In the time since you wrote that, I handily blew past “deeperx”. Also past “RichDaniel”, the “Hero” Member so incredibly meritorious that he got +283 in the span of an hour ( then got red-tagged for his trouble). Unfortunately, within the past 24 hours, I’ve fallen behind “pitipawn”, a Full Member who seems to be running Turkish threads soliciting merit in some fashion. I’d better work harder! This is an instructive example for those who want to clean up some of the abuse which is effectually protected by language barriers. Most of all, it is an admirable precedent for users who frequent the “local” forums. If you see something awful, don’t just ignore it!
Nothing will give Lauda a right to put that negative trust to my profile. So don't push further and stop wasting my time.
Just relax and put your tongue back in your mouth. You guys are just talking trash.
Lauda is not here for now so, go find someone else's ass to lick. I can pm you when he answers to this bs.
(Note that that last line was deleted by talatk while I was writing this post; I noticed this just before posting. I have added the red emphasis.) BREAKING NEWS: #476302 “talatk” has become king of the world and emperor of the universe. He now issues peremptory edicts defining Lauda’s rights, and calling Lauda to answer. Also, telling me what to do. I’ll grab popcorn. NOTICE: talatk, please be advised that based on your behaviour here, any PMs, e-mails, or other communications you send to me may be published at my sole discretion. This is a special new policy.
Edit, P.S.— #476302 “talatk” was caught participating in the single worst case of merit abuse yet seen (#1076869 “pitipawn”). Having received negative trust feedback, he publicly declared for his own part that he “sent those merits to support pitipawn on the race”. Assuming the veracity of this statement *arguendo*, this amounts to professing oneself to have committed a crime—by way of defending oneself on charges of a slightly different version of the same crime. It is a distinction without a difference.
Aggravating the matter, “talatk” then proceeded to evince not only a self-entitled attitude, but a self-righteous conceit (!) and the presumptuousness of dictating limitations on Lauda’s “right” of action (!!). Not only is it outrageous for one caught red-handed in wrongdoing to behave in such manner: It also demonstrates the polar opposite of remorse.
As things stand, “talatk” was last seen hurling some vapid vulgarity at me and Lauda both (then deleting it).
Based on such publicly demonstrated *wanton and willful self-righteousness about wrongdoing*, plus other bad behaviour, I would not trust this user to scoop a cat litter box. |
|
|
|
Its just fun dude like you said about that troll  dont worry about lauda s neg trust he did for fun hehehe Ughh... What a great answer. This forum needs more time absorbers like you. Betfair, alas: Sarcasm and satire do not work with fools on the Internet. I will now start spamming, scamming, punching old people on the street at random, and selling merit in exchange for BCH. Just for fun! Hahah. So very funny, I am laughing myself to death. |
|
|
|
Lovely to see you here.. another impartial intelingent person looking at facts, you are guaranteed to come to the same conclusion as I..
he is a snakeoil salesman with the worst business acumen known to man.
So... Why do people not call him out on that? Oh, right. I know. But really—people are scared of that guy? Seriously? As you know, I am exceedingly careful with evidence as to serious accusations. I have much reading to do before I can state my own conclusions about—well, some of these things. The “charity” quote, I can call right now: Outrageous. Scam. What next, will he find Xenu or something? Edit: ...or does he expressly advertise somewhere that the purpose of NastyFans is not-for-profit? Reputable nonprofit clubs do exist. They do not advertise themselves as investments or profit-making devices. — This is a question. I am asking. |
|
|
|
If you ask me, NastyFans is more closely aligned with a charity than an illegal security, but calling it a fan club is accurate.
Wait a minute: This big man is living off the charity of his fans? My apologies; I do not wish to make light of a grave matter. I am simply aghast at a statement which is a sick joke on its face. Being new here, I am not yet familiar with the facts in re NastyFans. At this point in time, my only certain knowledge of the matter is that only an imbecile with ill taste would ever invest even a satoshi in anything named “NastyFans”. Thanks for the info. Time to start examining this matter seriously. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
