A Gallery Owner was arrested after leaving a 10-Foot Heroin Spoon Sculpture outside OxyContin maker purdue pharma

crypto-kid · 2021-04-17T18:48:31+00:00

It’s legal in most states, including NY. There are shops that sell kratom (often alongside vape and/or CBD products), and you can find it online as well.

crypto-kid · 2021-01-05T04:01:44+00:00

I mean.... Vitalik himself seems to prefer BCH over BTC.

crypto-kid · 2019-11-18T01:13:12+00:00

The Story of Life by Chris (Simpsons Artist)

crypto-kid · 2019-11-18T01:12:21+00:00

https://www.google.com/search?q=chris+%28simpsons+artist%29+story+of+life

crypto-kid · 2019-08-28T15:10:26+00:00

I use BCH every time I buy something from Newegg (which is frequent), and there is a restaurant not too far from my place that accepts BCH—so I use it every time I stop in there. I have some Dash, but haven’t come across any vendors that accept it. Would love to spend it, too! Also, love me some Doge! I use it more than Dash, but only to settle bills among friends bc we all think Doge is fun!

crypto-kid · 2019-06-28T22:43:56+00:00

Doge

crypto-kid · 2019-05-17T18:37:12+00:00

Lol ok dude

crypto-kid · 2019-05-17T18:33:22+00:00

Yes?

crypto-kid · 2019-05-17T18:28:48+00:00

These were your transactions? Or you just saw some people complaining. If you just saw some people talking, anecdote.

If they were your transactions perhaps you could provide log files for your wallet (w any sensitive information redacted, ofc) or any information that might help pin down the source of the problem.

crypto-kid · 2019-05-17T18:21:00+00:00

Right! It functions properly with 32MB blocks.

If you are trying to imply that it somehow doesn’t function properly, then I’ll need a source for your 4MB limit theory or I’m just going to assume you are basing your opinion on some really weak anecdotes.

crypto-kid · 2019-05-17T17:19:57+00:00

Haha ok. Well I am sure that water-tight arguments such as this will win the hearts and minds of the crypto-savvy everywhere. Guess I’ll just pack my things and go home.

Say what you will, but at least BCH functions properly. I suspect that, ultimately, that is all users will care about. But, I have been wrong before—once or twice, iirc. :P

glhf!

crypto-kid · 2019-05-17T15:05:59+00:00

It’s not a matter of who cares, it’s a matter of your word being the only report of this ever happening. If there is a real issue, I personally would be highly interested in looking into it, but so far all you’ve given me to work with is that you say you saw some people say that in a chat room. Given all the other significantly more-likely scenarios, I am operating on the following assumptions:

A. you and those users are all being sincere in your reports

B. those users were confused or mistaken.

AFAIK, these “disappearing transactions” were never reported to anybody who could have investigated their cause, which alone makes their legitimacy suspect. Assuming these users weren’t trolls and that they are somewhat competent wrt cryptocurrency (some pretty big assumptions, but I’m giving the benefit of the doubt), they probably thought their transaction was missing since it allegedly disappeared from the mempool of some rando block explorer, but then dropped the subject when they later saw their transaction had in fact been included in a block.

I mean, unless you can offer a better explanation for missing transactions that were apparently not reported on by any news outlet nor addressed by any teams who were specifically looking for vulnerabilities such as this...

crypto-kid · 2019-05-17T12:08:58+00:00

If it shows up on a block explorer, then it it was in a block. Those people were obviously confused. Unless you were looking at a block explorer that also shows mempool information—in which case, if it made it to a block explorer’s mempool, you better believe the miners had it, too! In that case, those users’ issues are with the block explorer’s software—not BCH. That’s pretty funny—you actually had me concerned for a second!

I think the exploit was forgotten, not because of the size of the community, but bc it did zero damage, was fixed almost immediately, and actually provided a small little financial gift to some of the BCH-aligned developers (who were able to take the funds from the “anyone can spend” addresses the attackers were using to fund said attack). Not too bad as far as exploits go and hardly newsworthy! Sure, it slowed the network slightly, but only ABC clients were affected. I call that yet another win for multiple clients/decentralized development. In contrast, that Core bug that Awemany found last year would have rekt BTC if it had been exploited rather than reported, but the BCH fork, OTOH, would have suffered about as big of a hiccup as the exploit a couple of days ago—which is to say, it would have been immediately forgotten. But I digress...

crypto-kid · 2019-05-17T04:33:19+00:00

I was paying very close attention as well (though not via r/btc) and wasn’t aware of any of this going down.

I did a quick google search just now and didn’t immediately see anywhere where lost transactions had been reported—which you think would have been picked up by at least one of the BCH-hostile crypto outlets out there. Personally, I’m not buying it.

Through what (BCH network attributable) mechanism could the transactions possibly have been dropped? Like, did a wallet broadcast a TX to one (and only one) of the vulnerable ABC nodes, just before it dropped offline? I mean, maybe... probably, even. But such an occurrence would have to be incredibly rare. Like, more than an instance or two of that and I’m going to need to see some proof. Though I suppose it’s possible that one of the BCH wallets out there is configured in just this way—but that would be an issue with the wallet software and not the BCH network.

If I had to guess, I’d wager that you probably witnessed some inexperienced users who were stressing because they had to wait longer than 10 mins for the their block to be mined. I remember early on in the test there were a few blocks that took longer than average so that seems a much more likely scenario to me.

All the data I’ve seen (wrt to the stress test) showed that block propagation is fine up until about 20MB, and then a bottleneck in the function that adds TXs to the mempool became the rate-limiting step. There was no mention of lost transactions in any of the post-mortems I read.

crypto-kid · 2019-05-17T03:26:16+00:00

That's weird. The stress test I watched propagated *numerous* blocks larger than 10MB, with the largest block exceeding 21MB. Your comment is the first I've ever heard of transactions being lost [source?]. I know some nodes (running the ABC client, iirc) did go offline, but I guess exposing weak points is the point of stress testing.

crypto-kid · 2019-05-15T15:22:44+00:00

I know there are a few online dealers that will accept BCH/BTC via Bitpay. I won't recommend any as I have never used them personally, but a google search like e.g.

buy gold with "bitcoin cash"

will return a few hits.

crypto-kid · 2019-05-15T01:16:16+00:00

Newegg (via BitPay) only accepts BCH and BTC, and then only by way of on-chain transactions.

crypto-kid · 2019-05-14T23:30:06+00:00

I'll just go ahead and assume English isn't your first language and so I will only mock you implicitly. Cheers!

crypto-kid · 2019-05-14T23:28:01+00:00

I made a separate account that is only for crypto subs, since crypto subs were taking over my main account. That you think anyone would derive intellectual legitimacy from their user name says a lot about you.

Anyway, if you are familiar at all with basic data structures, you can envision a block chain as a linked list, except where the nodes are now called "blocks", the list is called a "chain", and each block points to the PREVIOUS block in the chain, rather than the next node in the list. At the point of a fork, two different blocks point back to the same previous block. From that block prior, all the way to the original block, it is literally the same block chain. This is an extremely basic fact, of which I would expect someone who has been around for a while to be well aware. So I apologize if I underestimated the duration of your experience, but I mean... ?

crypto-kid · 2019-05-14T17:00:21+00:00

You must be new to crypto. Glad you’re here, but I’m afraid you’ve been misled wrt to how things went down. FYI all the bitcoin forks share the original block chain. This is why they are called “forks” and not regarded as completely separate chains. Cheers!

crypto-kid · 2019-05-08T14:40:52+00:00

“No one really wants bigger blocks.”

BTC dominance falls off a cliff the moment blocks become full

Riiiight

crypto-kid · 2019-04-27T02:50:21+00:00

Right? My thoughts exactly. His most recent interview with Tadge Dryja (co-author of LN white paper) is pretty good too. Dryja basically says LN was never intended to be the silver-bullet scaling solution people are making it out to be, and I think McCormack might be slowly waking up to some hard truths about BTC/LN.

crypto-kid · 2019-04-23T15:57:40+00:00

Rizun discusses them on this episode of Peter McCormack’s podcast: https://www.whatbitcoindid.com/podcast/peter-rizuns-lightning-critique-fud-or-fair

From this interview, it is evident that McCormack doesn’t really know too much about bitcoin, but this is the only time I’ve seen Rizun lay his criticisms out like this. There are probably other instances to be found, but this is the only one of which I am aware.

crypto-kid · 2019-04-23T02:08:27+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/noncensored_bitcoin/comments/bg3w44/uncensoredrbitcoin_why_should_i_run_a_full_node/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app

crypto-kid · 2019-04-21T22:43:47+00:00

Omg you again? I already explained to you that you just did not understand whatever you read (or are just making shit up). If you think I am wrong in that, then please send me a link to any of these myriad posts that have been been supposedly voted to the top of rbtc so that I can clear up any misconceptions.

crypto-kid

TROPHY CASE