Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 3,899 results by PrimeNumber7
Re: Banned members should be indicated on their profile summary
I'm curious as to why what you wrote above is true. Do you have any idea, or is that in itself a closely-held secret?
I don't know. I don't think it makes much sense, as recent bans are continuously published in modlog anyway.IIRC, the fact that someone is banned is not public because theymos doens't want people potentially trying to impersonate banned users to make it look like they are evading a ban.
Also, banned users can still log in (to my knowledge), and read the forum, but they cannot post.
This is a good biography of you in the bitcointalk. We didn't start the journey with you so we can only see what others have said.
Thank you. It is nice getting impartial feedback as opposed to the constant trolling that typically happens here when you become successful. It can be hard to know who is full of it and who is telling the truth. I think for those of us who are honest and do good, AI will continue to be a blessing.
Re: After the epochtalk failure, should BitcoinTalk be open sourced as compensation?
According to the report made by theymos post the 2013 hack, SMF 1.x prohibits the publishing of the source code. So it looks like this is not going to be an option. (in addition to the reasons I mentioned previously)
Re: After the epochtalk failure, should BitcoinTalk be open sourced as compensation?
⭐ Merited by EFS (5)
BitcoinTalk is using a modified version of SMF, which is open-source. Theymos (and others, at his direction) have made modifications to the code, mostly that are specific to the forum, the merit system for example. I suspect that theymos is weary of releasing the full source code of the forum out of fear that security issues will be found, and exploited (that might otherwise not be found).
Re: AI post , Can you All OG members can prove it's not Human written.Open challenge
Re the topic, I agree with Mitchell, the words in the OP do not sound natural.
If this was written by AI, you either used a very bad one, or used a really strange prompt, or perhaps a unique prompt with the goal of hiding your AI use. You also may have changed some words in the response in order to "fool" AI detectors. I will even go as far as to speculate that the text in the OP will pass many AI detectors.
Regardless, the text in the OP is not of high value. I have advocated before that normal forum rules should apply when dealing with AI-created posts. I think the OP is probably a good example as to why..
If this was written by AI, you either used a very bad one, or used a really strange prompt, or perhaps a unique prompt with the goal of hiding your AI use. You also may have changed some words in the response in order to "fool" AI detectors. I will even go as far as to speculate that the text in the OP will pass many AI detectors.
Regardless, the text in the OP is not of high value. I have advocated before that normal forum rules should apply when dealing with AI-created posts. I think the OP is probably a good example as to why..
I generally think that tariffs are not a positive thing to implement. Tariffs hinder trade by taxing trade between two countries.
With that being said, many other countries impose tariffs and non-tariff barriers to import trade from the US to their countries. Theft of IP and a mandate that a JV with 51% Chinese ownership are two of the worst non-tariff barriers that I can think of. But other countries are also guilty. Excessive regulation against US companies and government subsidies for domestic industries comes to mind for what many European countries engage in. So the status quo is not really free trade, it is an uneven playing field with many non-tariff trading barriers imposed on the US, and few imposed by the US on other countries.
There is also the issue of national security. In a war, or a time of national emergency, countries will prioritize the defense of their own country ahead of others when it comes to allocating supplies produced by its own domestic industry. This was somewhat highlighted by covid in 2020 especially. So you really want your own domestic industry to exist and have the ability to ramp up production for things you will need in a war.
With that being said, many other countries impose tariffs and non-tariff barriers to import trade from the US to their countries. Theft of IP and a mandate that a JV with 51% Chinese ownership are two of the worst non-tariff barriers that I can think of. But other countries are also guilty. Excessive regulation against US companies and government subsidies for domestic industries comes to mind for what many European countries engage in. So the status quo is not really free trade, it is an uneven playing field with many non-tariff trading barriers imposed on the US, and few imposed by the US on other countries.
There is also the issue of national security. In a war, or a time of national emergency, countries will prioritize the defense of their own country ahead of others when it comes to allocating supplies produced by its own domestic industry. This was somewhat highlighted by covid in 2020 especially. So you really want your own domestic industry to exist and have the ability to ramp up production for things you will need in a war.
anyone can make a vanity address.
yes, "but given that
All of the information required to reconstruct the private key is published on the blockchain.
It is logical to think that it could be a steganography puzzle, so all the small details should be considered.
[...]
If you believe that Lauda did something wrong (no one is above reproach, and I think that is a generally fair argument against anyone), and her new alts should be tagged, that is another topic of discussion, however, I would say that existing issues were more or less resolved when the OP was created, and I am not aware of any *new* issues that have come up since the OP was created, which was ~4.5 years ago.
So the main question that remains unanswered is why the funding was kept up for so long.
Ultimately, the money theymos spent on this project was his own. The money he received from donations were reasonably his when he received them. However, even if this was not the case, he only received approximately $70k in donations, denominated in BTC. He made the decision to not convert the BTC to fiat, and as a result, saw massive capital gains. So I guess the answer to your question is that theymos is a millionaire who has wayyy more money than he knows what to do with.
I also don't think $400k for a developer is unreasonable. Especially considering the potential for the project to end at any time, even if it lasted for 10+ years. Slickage obviously needed to make a profit, so not all of that money went to the developers, but most of it probably did.
The project failed, which, unfortunately, is not uncommon in software development. Could things have been handled differently? Yes, hindsight is 20/20. Meta spent billions on the "metaverse" in about 20% of the time, and that has been pretty much abandoned.
Thinking of the two "voter" criteria...
Also, I've increasingly been feeling that something should be done about inactive voters. Currently, a user can be inactive for years, but still contribute toward those two criteria. The specific way I'm leaning toward addressing this is to require that voters must have received merit from at least 2 distinct users in the last 3 years.
I did a pretend reshuffle, and compared to the 136 users who were eligible for DT1 last time, with the above 2 changes, these users were no longer eligible: bavicrypto, be.open, Best_Change, comit, digicoinuser, ekiller, ezeminer, finaleshot2016, Gunthar, Harkorede, Heisenberg_Hunter, hybridsole, joniboini, Koal-84, Lachrymose, mandown, and witcher_sense. (Some of these users may have become ineligible for reasons other than the above two changes; I just compared the output today after the changes to the output on Feb 1.)
If instead it was "voters must have received merit from at least 3 distinct users in the last 3 years", then these users would also become ineligible: Baofeng, MinoRaiola, and Russlenat. I'm leaning toward 2, mainly just on the principle of preferring a larger list generally.
What do people think of these two changes?
Receiving merit means that you are making high quality posts (according to the intentions of the merit system), while being included in someone's trust list means that you give accurate trust ratings (according to the intentions of the trust system). The two will generally contain the same people, however, they might not always. An old user might come online occasionally to trade, while not make any posts. - You must have at least 10 people directly trusting you each with an earned merit of at least 10, not including merit you yourself sent. These "votes" are limited.
- You must have at least 2 people directly trusting you with an earned merit of at least 250, not including merit you yourself sent. These "votes" are limited.
Somebody PMed me pointing out an example of someone included in DT1 only because they were trusted by a permabanned member. I was aware that permabanned members were allowed to be voters, but I thought it'd be too rare to matter. But now I'm leaning toward excluding them.- You must have at least 2 people directly trusting you with an earned merit of at least 250, not including merit you yourself sent. These "votes" are limited.
Also, I've increasingly been feeling that something should be done about inactive voters. Currently, a user can be inactive for years, but still contribute toward those two criteria. The specific way I'm leaning toward addressing this is to require that voters must have received merit from at least 2 distinct users in the last 3 years.
I did a pretend reshuffle, and compared to the 136 users who were eligible for DT1 last time, with the above 2 changes, these users were no longer eligible: bavicrypto, be.open, Best_Change, comit, digicoinuser, ekiller, ezeminer, finaleshot2016, Gunthar, Harkorede, Heisenberg_Hunter, hybridsole, joniboini, Koal-84, Lachrymose, mandown, and witcher_sense. (Some of these users may have become ineligible for reasons other than the above two changes; I just compared the output today after the changes to the output on Feb 1.)
If instead it was "voters must have received merit from at least 3 distinct users in the last 3 years", then these users would also become ineligible: Baofeng, MinoRaiola, and Russlenat. I'm leaning toward 2, mainly just on the principle of preferring a larger list generally.
What do people think of these two changes?
I do agree that with age, the DT system needs to be modified to prevent, for example, someone who is included by 50 inactive users from staying on DT after deciding to scam their trading partners after a history of honest trading.
Over time, people devote less and less time to the forum, and some are difficult to get in touch with.
One possible option would be to modify the trust system such that ratings decay over time. Users could have the option to specify a date of a transaction (with a blank date defaulting to the date of the rating), and older ratings could be semi-hidden and/or have a lessor effect on a user's trust score.
Re: No longer pursuing Epochtalk
Spending an outrageous sum of donated funds on an unknown company when everyone said it was a bad idea and would not work. I don't see it as a violation of being the Admin here, but it's... a bit tacky, I guess. I suppose an analogy would be like spending taxpayer money on DEI initiatives that nobody wanted, asked for, or thought would result in a positive outcome.
- Not asking the community (or Donators) how we wanted our funds spent was unprofessional.
- Spending money on an unknown company always has some amount of risk.
- Now we have to spend time on this drama.
The insane amount of BTC that was wasted is unimportant, and I'd feel exactly the same if the wasted amount was 100x more or 100x less. If I'd been holding the BTC, no BTC would've been wasted at all, and in fact it would have grown from airdrops as I respect the responsibility that comes with fiduciary duty.
At the time proposals to create the new forum software were solicited, there were issues with the software the forum was running on. Since, theymos (likely with the help of others) has improved the software such that these issues are no longer applicable. - Not asking the community (or Donators) how we wanted our funds spent was unprofessional.
- Spending money on an unknown company always has some amount of risk.
- Now we have to spend time on this drama.
The insane amount of BTC that was wasted is unimportant, and I'd feel exactly the same if the wasted amount was 100x more or 100x less. If I'd been holding the BTC, no BTC would've been wasted at all, and in fact it would have grown from airdrops as I respect the responsibility that comes with fiduciary duty.
For the reasons stated above, I don't think it is reasonable to say that new forum software was not needed in 2011, when the project started. Perhaps in the years after the project started, the new software was no longer needed, however, the overwhelming majority of the funds spent on the new forum software came from capital gains, not donations. So by the time the software was no longer needed, it was theymos spending his own money.
Re: Thread to discuss acceptable uses of AI in the forum
I think we should treat AI-generated posts the same as any other post. If the content of the post is on-topic, coherent, and adds to the conversation, it should be allowed, and if it does not, it should not.
I am a heavy user of AI at work, and use it to help generate content. If the output of the assistant from my prompt is exactly what I need, then I will use exactly what the AI assistant provided. However, most of the time, the AI assistant provides output that needs to be modified, and I will either make a follow-up prompt or will modify the output myself before using it as work product. This allows me to be more efficient at my job, which is what is currently expected of me, specifically because of AI.
Any output from AI is the result of whatever prompt the user created, and to my knowledge, according to the TOS, the user owns the output of any prompts they create.
I know that some are concerned about AI-generated "shit posts" however, existing rules already disallow these types of low-value/effort posts, and the fact that a post is generated by AI doesn't really change that.
As a side note, I think some are afraid that posts being made by AI will result in fewer eyeballs looking at those banners below everyone's posts, which makes them less valuable, although I don't think many will say that part outloud.
I am a heavy user of AI at work, and use it to help generate content. If the output of the assistant from my prompt is exactly what I need, then I will use exactly what the AI assistant provided. However, most of the time, the AI assistant provides output that needs to be modified, and I will either make a follow-up prompt or will modify the output myself before using it as work product. This allows me to be more efficient at my job, which is what is currently expected of me, specifically because of AI.
Any output from AI is the result of whatever prompt the user created, and to my knowledge, according to the TOS, the user owns the output of any prompts they create.
I know that some are concerned about AI-generated "shit posts" however, existing rules already disallow these types of low-value/effort posts, and the fact that a post is generated by AI doesn't really change that.
As a side note, I think some are afraid that posts being made by AI will result in fewer eyeballs looking at those banners below everyone's posts, which makes them less valuable, although I don't think many will say that part outloud.
Seems like funds were received, balance is up to .01BTC
Just spent a solid couple hours trying to decode the OP_RETURN and figure out how it might relate to piecing together a private key... Came up with bumpkis. However, I did notice that a transaction previous to the one that funded the address also has a OP_RETURN in it:
https://learnmeabitcoin.com/explorer/tx/40fca7f95058864b1457fb8f626fd02a97aba7f502386ad30f7ca184f5ee81c4
So that's potentially a clue for someone looking to solve the puzzle. Good luck, I'm out.
I don't know if you've noticed in the original https://mempool.space/tx/000000000fdf0c619cd8e0d512c7e2c0da5a5808e60f12f1e0d01522d2986a51.
The input with the address bc1qjvm9jkrjw9uvsn8905dwa6eau0guyc9laau03a seems to be a vanity address:
"0guyc9laau03a" :
- "0 guy c 9 lauda"
- "zero guy change 9 lauda"
Or is it just a coincidence and I've become paranoid.
This is a *discussion* forum. Not all threads are related to financial transactions, which is what trust ratings are intended to help users deal with. If someone is a risky trading partner, they are not necessarily making bad points about whether the topic of the conversation
Also, since altoid directly posted a link to the Silk Road, I would guess (not sure) that Ulbricht argued in his court case that it wasn't actually his account. Maybe he wouldn't want to contradict his past testimony?
Ulricht declined to testify in his defense. His lawyer may have argued that point in court, but that is not the same as his own testimony. I am guessing that he probably wants to move on from the Silk Road chapter of his life. I doubt he has much interest in posting from an account that he spent very little time using.
At the end of Trump's first term, he was about to get impeached, and a controversial pardon could have gotten him convicted.
He was impeached during office - twice - and the reasons had nothing to do with Snowden... not even remotely:
- abuse of power & obstruction of office (#1)
- incitement of insurrection (#2)
Could Edward Snowden be next on the list for release?
Hard to say, but doubtful. At one point Trump referred to Snowden as a traitor. Then as president (the first time around) he mulled the prospects of a pardon, but of course never went through with it.
https://san.com/cc/support-of-edward-snowden-pardon-grows-as-2nd-trump-term-nears/
Its actually a much bigger can of worms than Ross to deal with as a politician, given the implications of what such a pardon could mean (whether or not its OK to expose government secrets in certain instances).
If Trump gives Snowden a pardon, he will do so towards the end of his term, close to inauguration day.
Thank you for posting this.
Thankfully I do not take everything posted online as an automatic fact or at face value. I suspected there was something not quite right about the alleged wallet belonging to Ulbricht. That sort of misinformation does not help the situation especially when related to young man sentenced for life term imprisonment that has just received a presidential pardon.
you’re welcome. Thankfully I do not take everything posted online as an automatic fact or at face value. I suspected there was something not quite right about the alleged wallet belonging to Ulbricht. That sort of misinformation does not help the situation especially when related to young man sentenced for life term imprisonment that has just received a presidential pardon.
Fact check: the author of the tweet has admitted it was a joke:
https://x.com/MatriXBT/status/1881980434382492099?t=RcLkPY8dwaVVZUaT4W9CRw&s=19
https://x.com/MatriXBT/status/1881980434382492099?t=RcLkPY8dwaVVZUaT4W9CRw&s=19
somehow ended up on the wrong audience's feed!
yes this is a JOKE
yes this is a JOKE
I looked at the tweet itself and there’s a community note that points out what I said. Unfortunately the forum doesn’t allow for tweets to be embedded
ross was not simply just a bitcoiner.. he done alot of other things too
allegedly hired hitmen, allegedly offered a market place for hitmen to others, drugs, illicit prostitution and other matters
so im sure trump is letting his legal team look deeper into ross's entire career and history before deciding, to see if he deserves to be released "coz bitcoin" or keep him in, if his legal team deem him a threat to others due to his other non-bitcoin antics/allegations
just remember, he didnt get 2 life sentences+40yr "coz bitcoin".. many people forget his other crimes and allegations made against him
for instance the alleged murder for hire stuff.. if trump releases him then it becomes hypocritical about the mexican cartels trump is against whom also deal with drugs, hitmen, false documentation and such.. which trump wants removed from america
The murder-for-hire allegations are what bothers me most about Ross. IIRC, one of them appeared to be a scam, and the other involved what may have been entrapment. He was never tried nor charged in relation to these crimes, so he never had the opportunity to defend himself, which is unfortunate, but they still make me very uncomfortable. allegedly hired hitmen, allegedly offered a market place for hitmen to others, drugs, illicit prostitution and other matters
so im sure trump is letting his legal team look deeper into ross's entire career and history before deciding, to see if he deserves to be released "coz bitcoin" or keep him in, if his legal team deem him a threat to others due to his other non-bitcoin antics/allegations
just remember, he didnt get 2 life sentences+40yr "coz bitcoin".. many people forget his other crimes and allegations made against him
for instance the alleged murder for hire stuff.. if trump releases him then it becomes hypocritical about the mexican cartels trump is against whom also deal with drugs, hitmen, false documentation and such.. which trump wants removed from america
I go back and forth about Ross actually running Silk Road. I get the libertarian argument that people should be able to put what they want into their bodies. I also believe that the typical violence related to drug dealing generally was not present among most deals on Silk Road, which is another point in Ross's favor. I am not exactly sure how the government was able to get around section 230 when convicting him.
Another concern about Silk Road is that, IIRC, when Silk Road was seized, it was insolvent. In other words, it did not have sufficient coin to cover all of its deposits. I believe this was because Ross (or more specifically, DPR) had to pay some ransom, and the operating costs may have exceeded income at one point because of DDoS attacks.
Re: SBF-Ross Ulbricht
According to various news reports, Ulbricht had approximately 144,000 Bitcoin back in 2013 and were worth around $28 million but what happened to those funds is unclear.
As it stands, I do not accept the story of the 6400 BTC as there was no source mentioned in the tweet. Which of these addresses supposedly belongs to Ulbricht: https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses.html
Fact check: the author of the tweet has admitted it was a joke:As it stands, I do not accept the story of the 6400 BTC as there was no source mentioned in the tweet. Which of these addresses supposedly belongs to Ulbricht: https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses.html
This might be the most fun part of the story.
Forced into a long-term hold because he was in prison, and that made him quite rich
https://x.com/MatriXBT/status/1881855240393400378
Forced into a long-term hold because he was in prison, and that made him quite rich
Quote
A dormant address containing 6400 #BTC (678,400,177 USD) has just been activated after 13.0 years!
https://x.com/MatriXBT/status/1881855240393400378
https://x.com/MatriXBT/status/1881980434382492099?t=RcLkPY8dwaVVZUaT4W9CRw&s=19
somehow ended up on the wrong audience's feed!
yes this is a JOKE
yes this is a JOKE
Ross Ulbricht may be about to taste freedom after a long 12-year prison sentence. Bitcoin Magazine saw a post on Twitter and shared the screenshot of that post here. But tomorrow the US President Donald Trump( 1st bitcoin president)is going to take his power. And if he takes the oath, it is expected that all the formalities of Ross Ulbricht's release will be completed.