Dixie Cretin Seaman posted:

it occurs to me that repeatedly scamming people trying to obtain cp is a pretty good way to undermine those distribution channels. remember when the RIAA used to seed file sharing networks with mislabeled garbage? it was like the only thing they did that actually discouraged file sharing

of course asking them to run some sketchy software could be a good way to unmask anonymity if they're stupid enough to run it...

Clockwerk posted:

Amazon™ presents, the Prime® Police!

anthonypants posted:

sometimes they can be useful https://twitter.com/henrykrinkie/status/612229374096486400

TVarmy posted:

would that be legally problematic in the same way it's illegal to sell oregano as marijuana?

evilweasel posted:

they mine public records, they can be more effective than you'd think though they're a little brain-dead sometimes

like i searched for myself and a large number of the addresses i'd ever lived at showed up but the system thought those all might be separate people

but if you're looking for anything that wouldn't be on a public record somewhere you're not gonna get much

The Management posted:

if you use an amazon gift card that was purchased with a stolen card, and amazon has your name and address on the account you used to order the merchandise, do they send the cops after you? or a collection agency?

JamesieAB posted:

https://goatkcd.com/1553/sfw

TVarmy posted:

TVarmy posted:

TVarmy posted:

mashing random on that site never stops being fun.

https://goatkcd.com/428/sfw
https://goatkcd.com/600/sfw

theflyingexecutive posted:

it was so widespread on their forums that posting it is instantly bankable, so I say yeah it's a safe bet randall has been goatsed by his own comic

quote:

Let's start a new Ashley Madison site that is bitcoin only. I will put in 100 bitcoins right now. Anyone else good at coding, security, and building it? (self.Bitcoin)

submitted 3 hours ago * by dan_from_san_diego

Seriously. If we don't jump on this in the next few days then we will miss a really large opportunity to make new users buy bitcoins. I will GLADLY put up 100 bitcoins today into escrow until we have enough to build this company.

It has to be started right now. There has to be an investor consensus on when we stop receiving investors for this potentially wacky (and maybe hellbent if there does happen to be God and heaven...but whatever) idea. And....this is possibly the worst part of making it successful: we have to use the data from the hack to contact everyone about our site.

Anyone else interested? Also, if you think this is a horrible idea then just try to keep your insults really funny. It is a horrible idea. But I am still serious about doing this. I always knew Kickstarter would never allow something like this. But I was waiting for something like this to happen. Now it happened.

*Edit: People seem to be terrible at insulting. I would appreciate funnier insults. Also, more importantly, the focus of this opportunity is getting people to acquire bitcoins. Doesn't EVERYONE basically just bitch about there being no real apps for people to use bitcoin? Well....here's one. If we build it, and we build it correctly, then people may acquire bitcoins to use on this app. Maybe it will gain momentum. Maybe it won't. I wanna catalyze it by being involved, coding, securing, and offering an initial investment of 100 bitcoins....maybe up to 200 if it seemed worth it.

**Does ANYONE else have interest in this? Anyone.....at all? Or is it basically just me like it is for every business I start (basically just me starting it and then someone else buying it from me later for always an excellent profit for me)?

quote:

Lejitz 2 points 3 hours ago

It won't even be a festival, just a couple of sausages

quote:

[–]pb1x 4 points 3 hours ago

How would this 100 coins in escrow work exactly?

[–]dan_from_san_diego[S] -1 points 3 hours ago

Idk. Find someone to place it in escrow. Have my attorney set it up. Find an online service. Trust some guy here that lots of you trust. Something like that. Or someone may have a better idea. I just wanna try it. I feel that I am totally comfortable committing 100 to 200 bitcoins to this project. It has such a low probability of being successful. But this is the best time to try it, in my opinion. Seriously....just wait til these men and women have to deal with this. It is going to loving suck. At least some will escape without anyone knowing and still want to get laid without their wife or husband knowing. If we can provide them with a simple way to acquire bitcoin and then give those bitcoins to us for creating a site for them to all gently caress each other....then at least some of us who have bitcoins that they want to invest should do this. And do it now while this is happening right now....and people are flipping out right now...and lots of people have at least heard of bitcoin.

Anyhow, yeah...not much of that has to do with escrow. But I am pretty sure we could find a consensus on an escrow solution. How about this, if we can't come up with a better idea: I will pay up to 100 bitcoins for the firm to set up the escrow service for us if we reach some final investment amount (that we just came to through a consensus). But the group should pay me back those bitcoins if we were to ever achieve an unlikely profit.

Thoughts?

Sweevo posted:

who/what is ashley madison?

Sweevo posted:

who/what is ashley madison?

Sweevo posted:

who/what is ashley madison?

quote:

I was listening to the latest episode of let's talk bitcoin and they're still talking about how the block size debate isn't resolved. I was wondering if anyone has come up with a way to vote on this debate using bitcoin?

submitted 8 hours ago by BasketDragon

quote:

markjenkinswpg 1 point 53 minutes ago

I have an idea. First some background.

There are two key species in a symbiotic relationship. Both get their say.

Users of the currency tracked on the blockchain need the miners to secure the blockchain so as to avoid 51% attacks and double spends. Miners need the users of the currency to make the block rewards they mine valuable through their economic activity.

Adoption/rejection of a hard fork is a three step process:

1) Miners casts votes in the block chain on where they'd like to go

2) If and when the blockchain forks due to above, the users of the currency put their economic might behind their preferred chain.

3) Miners will mine where it makes economic sense, regardless of what votes they cast in 1

As such, the miners have the first vote, the economic users ratify or reject that decision, and the miners then fall in line where the mining income is to be found.

Allow me to elaborate on what economic might entails. Almost nobody wants there to be two chains that have economic life by way of economic actors existing on both. There's going to be a lot of pain if bitcoins market cap is diluted into two chains, the sum of the two will be less than the whole.

To avoid there being two chains with economic life, what you want to have happen is for economic actors who support the economic minority chain to face economic devastation for doing so.

This means, everyone with a strong opinion one way or another needs to pledge themselves to not hold coins on both chains. If you want to see one chain fail economically, as soon as both chains exist you should create new keys and make a transfer to yourself. In the case of a blocksize fork, co-ordinate with other users, do all your sends at the top of the hour or something so that the chain using small blocks ends up with full blocks.

Now verify, was your transaction included in the chain with big blocks but excluded on the chain with small blocks? If not, try again at the next timing point. If it worked, create a third keypair, send to yourself again from the original block chain to this new address. Include a hefty fee. Confirm this transaction is included and confirm that you now control your coins on each chain with different keypairs.

Long story short, do whatever it takes to double spend so that you can control your coins with different key pairs on each chain.

Now comes the fun part. Find the economic actors who are using the chain you don't like. Call their chain shitcoin. Take your shitcoins and dump them for goods, services, and other currencies (perhaps even your fav version of bitcoin) via those economic actors who are allowing shitcoin to have any breath of life.

If there is strong economic majority willing to push its coins around like this as economic warfare, the price of shitcoin will fall as supply exceeds demand. Miners on the shitcoin chain will switch for better mining profits. Economic actors will see the ship sinking and switch. The economically weak coin will spiral downward.

What we all need to know is, is there a strong economic majority willing to put this kind of weight behind an option.

My idea, set up a website where people can submit a standardized message signed by their bitcoin keys to signal "these coins will not sit neutral on both chains, I will turn them into new addresses on each chain and dump economically hard against the chain I'm against, and hold on the chain I support".

Such a website would make the respective public keys and signed messages available for download so people can verify for themselves that actual bitcoin holders have signed them and how much bitcoin those addresses have in hand, ready to dump on the chain opposed.

I don't know if I have the time to make this real. I got a little excited posting this and went for the sale Namecheap is having on .xyz domains and bought economymajority.xyz.

Aside from all the development required, such a site needs two things to take off.

First, there needs to be a clear two option question to vote on. Currently there are multiple blocksize proposals . For this to work, the community needs to get to the point where there are only two options. (the status quo need not be one of the options them, if pretty much everyone agrees the status quo is bad and some kind of hard fork required, there could be two competing hard forks that everyone gets behind)

When there is more than two options, finding a strong majority for one of them is harder. Collective preferences can be circular, e.g. A beats B, B beat C, C beats A. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_paradox http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~jheath/Oldch11.pdf

Second, for marketing someone with a lot of prominence and a lot bitcoin under their control is going to have to cast a strong vote one way or another. Should the plan for such a site be "build the site first and hope they come" / (beg them once available) or "find a whale ready to make a big signature and use their big vote as the reason to launch the site and collect some more".

Should this be its own post?

trucutru posted:

This means, everyone with a strong opinion one way or another needs to pledge themselves to not hold coins on both chains. If you want to see one chain fail economically, as soon as both chains exist you should create new keys and make a transfer to yourself. In the case of a blocksize fork, co-ordinate with other users, do all your sends at the top of the hour or something so that the chain using small blocks ends up with full blocks.

Now verify, was your transaction included in the chain with big blocks but excluded on the chain with small blocks? If not, try again at the next timing point. If it worked, create a third keypair, send to yourself again from the original block chain to this new address. Include a hefty fee. Confirm this transaction is included and confirm that you now control your coins on each chain with different keypairs.

goddamnedtwisto posted:

speaking of, what's logansryche up to these days?

http://prefundia.com/projects/view/aspiring-ewaster-seeks-location-and-tools/5635/

still loving that chicken, i see, but also he's branching out into video editing:

https://uk.fiverr.com/logansryche/p..._term=&view=gig

his results are, i'm sure you'll agree, stunning and well up to the level of all his other creative and business projects:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0ZlXePGciM

quote:

This means, everyone with a strong opinion one way or another needs to pledge themselves to not hold coins on both chains. If you want to see one chain fail economically, as soon as both chains exist you should create new keys and make a transfer to yourself. In the case of a blocksize fork, co-ordinate with other users, do all your sends at the top of the hour or something so that the chain using small blocks ends up with full blocks.

Now verify, was your transaction included in the chain with big blocks but excluded on the chain with small blocks? If not, try again at the next timing point. If it worked, create a third keypair, send to yourself again from the original block chain to this new address. Include a hefty fee. Confirm this transaction is included and confirm that you now control your coins on each chain with different keypairs.

TVarmy posted:

did they already forget that time they tried to do on-blockchain voting on who should be in charge of the bitcoin foundation?

and then that voting system was a buggy POS complete with terrible key-exchange policies and bad instructions?

so then they just broke down and used a centralized ballot system instead?

EorayMel posted:

I grappled with him for about half an hour not to buy one before he finally complied.

text editor posted:

AlbieQuirky posted:

the very worst jesus

Powerful Two-Hander posted:

remember that bit in the bible where jesus went to the temple and the money lenders said "no its not lending its a trustless peer to peer crypto investment let me tell you about bitcoin" and jesus flipped all their tables and screamed "no fees!"?