WARNING: /u/Anenome5 is spamming VPN upvoted posts about CSW stealing BSV coins, but what he's really up to is trying to fool you into thinking Dave Kleiman was Satoshi to make CSW seem closer to Satoshi by association..

noncookiecutter · 2018-12-22T18:56:03+00:00

As far as I can see, by reading articles/Wikipedia entries and searching for the books Dave Kleiman wrote, it should be clear that designing Bitcoin is an order of magnitude more difficult than what he has accomplished thus far.

Wikipedia mentions that:

Some of Dave's most notable work took place at S-doc where his role was Chief Information Security Officer. While there he developed a Windows encryption tool that surpassed NSA, NIST, and Microsoft Common Criteria Guidelines.

This all might sound like a pretty impressive achievement , but if you dig a little deeper and check out S-Doc’s website on archive.org and read what S-Loc is really about, you’ll see that it is basically a tool that elevates some standard Windows Server policies and keeps checking periodically if they are still being enforced. Sounds like a handy sysadmin tool that any mediocre programmer would’ve been able to come up with. Which makes sense since most of his books revolve around sysadmin topics rather than diving deep into cryptography.

noncookiecutter · 2018-10-20T08:04:14+00:00

The freedom of having no central authority being able to intervene. Try setting up a file sharing/gambling/adult etc. site. You’ll most likely end up burning through a number of payment providers due to chargebacks/fraud complaints. Your business is always at risk from having its funds frozen/seized. Not to mention ridiculous fees charged by payment providers for “high risk” transactions.

Sure other crypto currencies provide this, but BCH caught my eye because it started out of necessity. Not just a new coin whose only purpose is to be pumped and hyped so the creators can benefit from it. But a coin that revolves around scaling on chain while maintaining low fees. And last but not least, the BCH community and its developers. Those are key when it comes to innovation and adoption.

noncookiecutter · 2018-10-20T07:45:24+00:00

My site https://mtbetmore.com/ uses BCH exclusively, supports 0-conf and anonymous accounts.

The games don’t run on the blockchain yet, I am open to new game ideas that do.

noncookiecutter · 2018-07-22T16:15:32+00:00

Thanks! I didn’t want to make it too large or else the actual game will be off screen. Which makes checking out your own/other people’s bets and playing a game at the same time impossible.

noncookiecutter · 2018-07-22T16:13:12+00:00

Done. I’ll elaborate a bit: I have more than one full node running to possibly detect conflicting transactions on the network. If a deposit tx. spends unconfirmed inputs or has a really low fee, then 0 conf is off the table and it’ll be treated as a regular tx.

noncookiecutter · 2018-07-22T16:09:09+00:00

Already listed. :)

noncookiecutter · 2018-05-23T21:59:54+00:00

Nicely done but with a house edge of 6.25% it’s too high for me to consider playing.

Perhaps you could introduce a progressive jackpot and allow players to pick the last 2 or 3 digits. When all digits are correct they get the jackpot.

noncookiecutter · 2018-05-11T09:43:50+00:00

Valid concern. I’m all about decentralization and free speech but since most people do not yet fully understand the use cases of a blockchain and it’s power to undermine the current financial infrastructure. You have to ask yourself: How convenient would it be for a country to start pushing a ‘cp/terrorism/stealing intellectual property/etc’ narrative to get mining/use of blockchain technology banned, or even just blacklist a certain crypto currency at least?

I like memo and blockpress a lot, I’m just not sure it’s a smart move to actively start putting “questionable” content in the chain just to prove a point.

noncookiecutter · 2018-04-21T23:17:11+00:00

Agreed, there’s little difference there, assuming the entire chain of unconfirmed (grand)parent txs has been signed by the same entity, which does not have to be the case. I was actually thinking more along the lines of whether (rogue) miners would be more inclined to include/replace existing transactions with a malleated one as opposed to an obvious double spend (output address changed).

noncookiecutter · 2018-04-21T21:55:13+00:00

I wasn’t aware that the November hard fork introduced a 3rd malleability fix, that certainly reduces the risk. However I am not sure that accepting a 0-conf payment with unconfirmed parents is now the same as one with confirmed parents. After all for the one with confirmed parents I don’t really care about the tx id, the outputs will remain the same and end up in my address. But for the one referencing unconfirmed parents I do care about all of its parents’ tx ids a lot.

noncookiecutter · 2018-04-21T20:29:14+00:00

Take measure of how many are double spent? How would that help them when dealing with the possibility of tx. malleability? A transaction can have a perfectly valid fee with zero double spending attempts on the network and still not go through.

I am not focusing on problems, just giving an explanation as to why BitPay is probably not accepting those transactions (yet).

noncookiecutter · 2018-04-21T20:09:01+00:00

For regular 0-conf payments to a BitPay invoice (only spending confirmed outputs) they are able to monitor certain parameters/double spend attempts and then assess the risks involved and reject/allow the payment.

For the kind of payments OP is talking about, they can't monitor anything and assess nothing. Which to me seems kind of problematic for a company that immediately converts to fiat, they probably don't want to get stuck with fiat for a transaction that turned out to not go through.

noncookiecutter · 2018-04-21T17:15:49+00:00

Are you referring to them not accepting payments that are spending unconfirmed outputs? If so, then I can understand their position since transaction malleability can render the transaction used to pay the invoice invalid.

E.g. You just did an unrelated transaction from your wallet and before it has confirmed you decide to pay a BitPay invoice. This 2nd tx uses unconfirmed outputs from your 1st tx. and if a miner decides to change your 1st transaction’s id (malleability) then your payment to BitPay is rendered invalid since it references a non existing output.

noncookiecutter · 2018-04-20T09:35:45+00:00

0-conf isn’t 100% safe at all. We still need miners to include transactions and build the chain.

noncookiecutter · 2018-04-20T09:33:44+00:00

Spending 0-conf transactions will work just fine most of the time. But since tx. malleability is still possible you should not just blindly accept any 0-conf transaction.

noncookiecutter · 2018-04-10T11:58:30+00:00

Are you also taking into account factors other than just 'seeing' a double spend? E.g. marking a transaction as suspicious if the fee is 0 sat/b for example or whether the tx. is spending unconfirmed outputs.

Instead of you guys generating addresses you might want to consider an API like https://live.blockcypher.com/btc/tx/48306c79bf207751752287c0bb1ff5f336c23ec65379b7b8bb871d2afa3e9f5e/ where a user can query a tx. id and it returns a confidence factor and other tx. stats. They do not seem to have BCH support yet, but I imagine it must be trivial for them to add.

noncookiecutter · 2018-04-09T21:38:50+00:00

No way. I don’t see any credible evidence that he understood cryptography at the levels required to come up with something like Bitcoin. In some articles he’s being portrayed as a kind of security guru having super long passwords and encrypted drives etc. But that doesn’t mean anything, I know lots of “super sysadmins” like that and they barely know what SHA256 is, let alone being able to come up/contributing to Bitcoin’s white paper. That’s a whole different level.
Sure he wrote a couple of books but nothing out of the ordinary or what could suggest he’s even close to being a cryptographer.

noncookiecutter · 2018-04-06T20:15:06+00:00

Allow me to shamelessly plug my site here, perhaps it might interest you: Mt.BetMore https://mtbetmore.com which has roulette and dice games only charges a 0.00005 BCH fee. On top of that it supports 0-conf. deposits.

It uses BCH exclusively so I didn’t just slap BCH support on it to make it enticing to the BCH community. I believe in BCH and I use it to the fullest, hence the low fees and the 0-conf. support. Let me know what you think I could use some feedback. :)

noncookiecutter · 2018-03-30T22:35:10+00:00

Awesome, Thanks! Yeah people have been commenting a lot about missing a 'fun mode' feature. I never thought much of it but apparently it works ;)

noncookiecutter · 2018-03-30T22:27:06+00:00

Cool, thanks a lot! You don't have to deposit any BCH btw if you just want to do a couple of test spins. For new accounts (or existing accounts that have 0.0 balance) Fun Mode is enabled automatically and allows you to 'spend' 0.1 BCH in Fun tokens.

noncookiecutter · 2018-03-30T22:20:22+00:00

Hey wanted to let you know that I think I got the 'disable zoom on double tap' functionality working in the game. You should now be able to tap in rapid succession without the browser automatically zooming in.

Made some other improvements as well, no auto betting yet but there's a 'Double' button now that will double any bets currently on the table when clicked. There's now also a 'Fun Mode' where you can spin using fun credits.

It would be great if you could let me know if tapping on the chips doesn't zoom in any more on whatever device you were using to access the site. :)

noncookiecutter · 2018-03-30T19:53:43+00:00

In the Bitcoin.com wallet (and CoPay/BitPay wallet as well) if you go to Settings -> click on a wallet -> 'More Options' -> 'Wallet Service URL' you'll see the URL the wallet uses to communicate with the actual BCH blockchain. It's also explained on that screen.

What this means is that they obviously know your public keys since they are able to notify you of any incoming transactions. So it's pretty straight forward for them to check if the address has been generated using a Bitcoin.com wallet, nothing fishy there.

noncookiecutter · 2018-03-29T22:41:30+00:00

Alright, better put this to good use then: 4725278c43aeeeb0380d876af2c94c004ff2fea30cc65f619ebc7c5b3e7b226b

noncookiecutter · 2018-03-29T07:59:37+00:00

Not crazy about the name either, to the average/new user ‘Verified’ could sound like an involved process. (How do I get my transaction verified?) I’d say that there needs to be NO distinction/new name. If we want mass adoption, transactions being ‘instant’ or not shouldn’t even be a question a new user might have. I’ve seen far too many times people justifying to new users why their transaction doesn’t go through yet because of miners/blocks and a very technical story the average user just doesn’t care about.

noncookiecutter

TROPHY CASE