Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 97 results by ruthless09
Satoshi is doing a good job staying hidden and his probably one of the most hunted people on the net at the moment. It's not easy but it's possible as he has showed us.
The difference between satoshi and defcon is that defcon was active in the community he was participating in while satoshi left the community long before he was someone that people would want to dox I want to join this, but this is a short-term ponzi
You should pay use every few days directly to our bitcoin address
They apparently will pay you every day to your account and you can withdraw to your bitcoin address every day. I don't think this is much different then your proposal (except that they are paying more often then you are proposing)You should pay use every few days directly to our bitcoin address
Candy, you really handled this very immaturely. It reminds me of you when you spammed the Moneypot chat to get a 300 dollar loan because you got scammed and defaulted by many members here. I don't think I would have been able to trust you with that amount due to lack of maturity as well as professionalism and not knowing who to trust with your money. I could have easily lost that bitcoin had i given you the loan.
You are saying that candystripes was spamming? I would need pics or I will not believe it! [/scarcasm]They are already running underwater, mined coins does not cover the electricity cost, so they decided to have a fireworks 
Is this confirmed? The news reports implied that the miners were still somewhat profitable. Also the miners would have some level of resale value I have never thought about this before.. but it's possible. Only because of how Tor works, sending data through different nodes before reaching to the actuall server.. and vice-versa.
So someone could have manipulated the data transfer between the user and the server as a "middle man" of some kind.
The middle man can only be the exit node as this is when the data eventually gets decrypted and the exit node is the only node that can see the data that is being transferred from the tor network to the rest of the internet. The middle nodes and the entry guards cannot see the traffic in decrypted formatSo someone could have manipulated the data transfer between the user and the server as a "middle man" of some kind.
It is things like this is what is going to give bitcoin a higher level of legitimacy to larger investors that hesitate to invest in bitcoin because of it's negative association with illegal activities
It will be interesting to see how many merchants go to MIT trying to get them to sell their coins
Might spread from there anyways interesting experiment
Hope for its success
Apparently the MIT bookstore started accepting bitcoin shortly after the project was announcedMight spread from there anyways interesting experiment
Hope for its success
I guess naive first year students will fall for that trap and use it for a book discount (sort of)
I'm assuming they have a used bookstore and the normal bookstore offers at a premium so if they were going to save some money they would buy used with cash unless they couldn't find it then use BTC at the main store.
1 - convert your private key into your public key and copy your public key onto something that will transfer your public key to an "online computer"
2 - use an online computer to view transactions of the public address/key and to be able to see the unspent inputs of the public key/address
3 - use one of a number of programs/services that can create an unsigned transaction for you
4 - copy the unsigned transaction from step 3 onto a device used in step 1 and copy it back to your offline computer
5 - use your offline computer to sign the transaction in step 4
6 - transfer the now-signed transaction back to your online computer and push it to the network
2 - use an online computer to view transactions of the public address/key and to be able to see the unspent inputs of the public key/address
3 - use one of a number of programs/services that can create an unsigned transaction for you
4 - copy the unsigned transaction from step 3 onto a device used in step 1 and copy it back to your offline computer
5 - use your offline computer to sign the transaction in step 4
6 - transfer the now-signed transaction back to your online computer and push it to the network
Yeah, noticed that as well, very possible 
(though obviously there's nothing wrong with that). The user stats, especially the posting activity, are very helpful for discovering alts, and usually when both users go absent at the same time or for the same time periods and come back at the same time it's a very good indication of your suspicions.
IMO both users are very reputable (for different reasons) and the person behind both accounts probably has each of the accounts for different reasons. (though obviously there's nothing wrong with that). The user stats, especially the posting activity, are very helpful for discovering alts, and usually when both users go absent at the same time or for the same time periods and come back at the same time it's a very good indication of your suspicions. Last time when i saw bitcoin 380 it was related to china rumour banning bitcoin or something.
any similar this time?
I would say that the price decline (or lack of price appreciation) has something to do with how much "defcon" of SR2 was spending on his living expenses. He had sold in excess of $270,000 of bitcoin on exchanges, $25,000 on (what appears to be LBC) and purchased a $90,000 car with bitcoin, and this is all the government was sure of....it is very likely an incomplete listany similar this time?
What's the average cost to mine a coin now, kindly tell me, guys.
assuming you are running this hardware https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=735982.0
assuming you dont pay cooling costs.
assuming you pay $0.07 CAD for electricity
assuming your dont have any interest or amortization costs on your hardware.
assuming you dont have any space rental or employment overhead.
amusing you mining for a shitty pool with bad luck but they pay anyway.
the average bitcoin costs $123.33 CAD to make today.
this cost changes every 2 weeks, at the moment it will become 7.5% less efficient to mine 1 coin in 5 days. that percentage is historically low - should be average around 10-15% and is expected to increase exponentially ever 2 weeks.
in 3-5 months things should get interesting as something will have to give, mining hasrate will fall or price will go up, as the cost of production = market price.
So in 13*10 = 130 days, with difficulty increase of 10% each 13 days, the cost of mining is $319 CAD. It is still lower than current price.
Yes I agree but lets say your capital investment is a sunk cost, when do you power down and call it quits? If your operating costs are lower than the cost of Bitcoin you can keep going. You may never ROI but it's more profitable than quitting.
Compared withMtGox, BitStamp and coinbase, BitPlastic will NEVER ask you for documents or ID nor store any client personal information, so if the server gets hacked you are not vulnerable to identity theft (or even loss of coins, since they are stored OFFLINE). They don't even require your real name to use their service.
They are probably breaking the AML/KYC regulations if they are not confirming their users' identities. I would say they are likely at risk of having their fiat based money seized if they do not comply with aml/kyc laws which means customer money is not safeMaybe DeathAndTaxes and DannyHanilton are the same? They both have almost exactly the same posting activity if you check their user stats.
They both came back on the exact same day, so this would be very well possible. Re: 51 countries signed an agreement to “end tax evasion and money laundering.”
Pretty sure money laundering is already illegal lol
It is illegal however the countries that have sign the agreement have agreed to work together to make it more difficult to hide the fact they are laundering moneyThe neutral ratings is something that can be left is someone is acting suspicious but not acting like they are going to outright scam. Prior to trading with someone, you should check their trust rating, and if you share someone else's suspicions then you may want to trade with an elevated level of caution.
Another reason why a neutral rating may want to be used is if you are on default trust, but do not want to leave outright negative trust, for example if someone is requesting a scammy loan however appears to be doing so because they do not know any better. The neutral trust could be used as a "warning" to be used and if similar behavior is used in the future then an outright negative trust may be warranted
Another reason why a neutral rating may want to be used is if you are on default trust, but do not want to leave outright negative trust, for example if someone is requesting a scammy loan however appears to be doing so because they do not know any better. The neutral trust could be used as a "warning" to be used and if similar behavior is used in the future then an outright negative trust may be warranted
What about the guy who starts yet another Ponzi thread: "guaranteed 200% returns in 24 hours, no limit". He hasn't scammed me, but he's obviously trying to scam. There are noobs in the thread asking questions, and my negative rating could well help them not fall victim to his scam. But he didn't scam me, and won't, because I know it's a scam.
That doesn't seem like a "neutral" case to me.
The descriptions are really only guidelines as to when it is appropriate to leave various ratings. The trust system is still un-moderated and you still have the right to leave whatever trust ratings you feel appropriate. The added feature is to allow people to add in comments without leaving any actual trust. The use of this feature would only be appropriate in "moderate" events
I still think they could begin to pay off their debts by selling all their military equipment (that's where the borrowed money went, isn't it?). Lots of warships, stealth bombers, missles, etc that could go a long way to squaring America up. I'm sure there must be *some* Americans who feel like shit knowing they are not good for their word any more.
The world should treat America like a dead-beat nation, and start taking back equipment, land, and infrastructure. American's respect bounty hunters and collections agents, it'll be cool.
There's lots of land, the locals could be moved to reserves to free up the good land for the actual owners (the Chinese).
We can dream.
The military equipment would not be sufficient to pay off the debt of the US government, plus there is not sufficient demand for this equipment. Plus such sales would be a threat to both national and world security.The world should treat America like a dead-beat nation, and start taking back equipment, land, and infrastructure. American's respect bounty hunters and collections agents, it'll be cool.
There's lots of land, the locals could be moved to reserves to free up the good land for the actual owners (the Chinese).
We can dream.
A much more viable way to payoff the national debt is entitlement reform
I often leave negative trust feedback for scammers before they scam anyone, or after they scam others. I don't often get scammed myself.
Perhaps the wording next to "negative" should be changed from "I was scammed" to "this person isn't trustworthy".
Perhaps the wording next to "negative" should be changed from "I was scammed" to "this person isn't trustworthy".
Sounds like a fair suggestion in my opinion since its a good change in wording.
It's possible for people to be suspicious from the start and it doesn't hurt to be proactive in preventing fraud since it's not always "I was scammed" but I am preventing people from scamming / their intentions are suspicious to me.
If you flag them before they scam, potential victims are alerted by the "trade with caution" note next to their posts.
If you wait until after they've run off with all the coins, it's too late. By then they've made a new account and a new scam thread.
Seems daft to me to only allow us to leave negative feedback after the event, and only if we were personally scammed.
Another reason why a neutral rating may want to be used is if you are on default trust, but do not want to leave outright negative trust, for example if someone is requesting a scammy loan however appears to be doing so because they do not know any better. The neutral trust could be used as a "warning" to be used and if similar behavior is used in the future then an outright negative trust may be warranted
This looks like it will be a nightmare to check for the 50 posts, not including posts in this thread. Some could be short just for including the posts here, then what will happen? I await to see people paid out, and I wonder what results this campaign gave.
Almost everyone has exactly enough, which goes to show how many of these are not normal accounts. We will be paying out as promised for everyone, however this type of marketing is saturated by empty accounts who only become active when it's time to post their bare minimum. Only a small handful of users actually look like real posters. The rest of them post 3 word sentences in random threads until they reach their 50 post count. We won't be coming back here for another campaign -- It was a tough lesson for us.
Payouts will happen within the next 48 hours.
PS - thanks for the payment.
Doesn't even try hard to hide their tracks. It doesn't help when campaigns like gawminers blatantly encourage sign ups by multiple accounts.
Re: © Majestic Coins (majesticoins.com) - Signature campaign, earn daily! ©
A ponzi sig campaign with no escrow? Good luck to those who are joining the campaign
They provide daily payment directly into Majestic Coin account.
As long as campaigner keep their signature, you'll got paid
Just like Cryptominer did
That's why they do not need any escrow
and they rate has increase as same as Cryptominer's
