655700+ entries in 0.466s
mircea_popescu: kakobrekla: why are you such a dick and just
tell em you wont pay? <<
that's like -ev neh ?
mircea_popescu: fluffypony: "Me siento con suerte" sounds like
the
title of a poem, doesn't have
the same ring
to it as "I'm feeling lucky" << srsly. most shit in spanish sounds poetic.
mircea_popescu: pankkake: eheh. outrage-driven is clearly
the right qualifier << i like
the girl, she's got word propriety.
this is a rare skill, as it requires a lot more in depth knowledge
than your average internet
tard can possibly muster.
mircea_popescu: punkman: what happens when Diageo buys
the old family distillery? does
the product change or do
they make sure it doesn't? << you're new, right ?
mircea_popescu: course one'd hope
teh sec would prosecute
that sorta fraud, but hey.
mircea_popescu: if you buy 1mn worth of
their 10mn
total,
then
they issue another 90 and make it senior,
then
they ipo for 115mn
mircea_popescu: it's
there so people can correctly evaluate
the risks involved.
this is one.
mircea_popescu: mike_c
they become public when
they ipo cause
they have
to file.
mike_c: "Should BitPay make dilutive issuances after June 19, 2014, D.BPAY will be diluted proportionally." <<
these
terms usually aren't public. how are you going
to orchestrate
this?
los_pantalones: The Facebook URL was also pretty convincing – why would someone be stating a Facebook page
that wasn’t
their own ?
mircea_popescu: but anyway,
there's not a shadow of a doubt in my mind
that
this is exactly coindesk.
mircea_popescu: i wish
there was some way
to make a bitbet about
this.
kakobrekla: anyway i
think we jumped
the gun on
this, fortunate no harm done in either case.
BigBitz: but
that other email is clearly phishing.
mircea_popescu: <BigBitz>
that is... insane. << spamworld isn't known for sanity. if
the people involved could
think clearly
they'd do something else with
their
time.
mircea_popescu: ow shit, no, actulaly, i linked
the logs in my response
mike_c: someone should string
them along a bit.
that should make it obvious.
kakobrekla: option c: start phishing and
then publish warning about attack on your site.
this does not remove most potential victims but does remove guilt.
mircea_popescu: not like coindesk actually asking for money
to publish is new or anything.
mircea_popescu: "let's spam and if anyone claims say we didn't do it, but if anyone buys all
the better".
this passes for business strategy,
there.
mircea_popescu: mike_c i have a lot of experience with wanna-be spammer kids.
this is simply "plausible denial", as
they understand it.
mike_c: well, "phishing".
they will ask for btc.
mike_c: Top one is exact copy kako got. i
think it's phishers.
assbot: Alert: Phishing Attempts
Targeting CoinDesk
BigBitz: That 190.115.24.198 is nothing
to do with CoinDesk or CloudFlare.
mircea_popescu: it does not. it reads exactly at
the level where coindesk articles read.
mircea_popescu: <BigBitz> and I doubt coindesk use @gmail.com lol << obviously
they use gmail.com.
mircea_popescu: for office@polimedia.us;
Tue, 29 Jul 2014 20:39:49 +0400
mircea_popescu: for office@polimedia.us;
Tue, 29 Jul 2014 12:39:58 -0400
assbot: The pseudo-Bitcoinsphere feels just as squishy-poo as
the Romanian pseudo-blogosphere felt five years or so ago. pe
Trilema - Un blog de Mircea Popescu.
assbot: Signal brings painless encrypted calling
to iOS |
The Verge
kakobrekla: so in
that case, i guess not
that amazing.
gribble: Error: User doesn't exist in
the Rating or GPG databases. User must be GPG-registered
to receive ratings.
kakobrekla: it is indeed possible i was
talking
to phisher now
that BigBitz pointed it out
mike_c: i'm surprised
they had
the balls for
that.
mike_c: lol. well good
trolling.
mike_c: you actually got
them
to call you a faggot?
kakobrekla: a follow up: >So I
take
that back and just give you a plain fuck you.
mircea_popescu: it ain't no phishing, it routes straight
to
their servers.
kakobrekla: i will send aplologies
to
the phisher.
mircea_popescu: basically coindesk is about
to go out of business i
take it.
gribble: Bitstamp BTCUSD
ticker | Best bid: 580.02, Best ask: 582.13, Bid-ask spread: 2.11000, Last
trade: 580.01, 24 hour volume: 6002.33350681, 24 hour low: 578.0, 24 hour high: 596.0, 24 hour vwap: 585.523552373
assbot: [HAVELOCK] [ROCK] [PAID] 4.55446000 BTC
to 455`446 shares, 1000 satoshi per share
kakobrekla: >In fact,
there are more searches now for crowdfunding platform Kickstarter
than "buy a stock," according
to
the Google
Trends data researched by ConvergEx.
pankkake: re iOS blockchain wallet, it's just a feature, it's
the Apple price
mike_c: underscores are
the new rage
assbot: [HAVELOCK] [PETA] [PAID] 16.28383008 BTC
to 1`149`988 shares, 1416 satoshi per share
assbot: [HAVELOCK] [B.MINE] [PAID] 1.69615380 BTC
to 12`639 shares, 13420 satoshi per share
ben_vulpes: <mircea_popescu> benkay: fuck all of my different clipboards <<< aaaahahahaahah. penisfooted wolf, srsly ? << you're not familiar with
the dickwolves incident?
assbot: PSA: Don't change
the new Blockchain iOS wallet denomination
to "Bits". When you click Bitpay/Coinbase payment links it will send
the wrong amount of BTC
to
the payment address. : Bitcoin
chetty: Dolar Paralelo: $12,90// looks like market here is leaning
towards argentina default
rithm: heh /me runs off
to github
rithm: where
this stuff is written down
rithm: i need
to get in on
that op channel with
the special
topic
nanotube: if you have l1+l2 from me
that is <0, you cannot rate.
rithm: his L1 is pretty
tight
tho iirc
rithm: good solution
to a problem
punkman: right "Only people who already have a
trust rating in
the system can rate other users. "
danielpbarron: in order
to build up such an army, you'd have
to convince other users
to rate
them; otherwise
they all get cut off with your main account
rithm: let
the ops figure it out
BigBitz: You can STOP people by negrating if nano is in your L1
though.
BigBitz: You don't /have/
to be in nano L2
to rate.
artifexd: nanotube: Can you confirm
that one has
to be in your L2 in order
to rate others?
Blazedout419: new users can not rate now unless
they have a rating
rithm: or it is news
to me
danielpbarron: well each account would need
to have a unique address associated with it; you can't share an address between acounts..
that would defeat
the purpose
punkman: still need
to get first account in nanotube's L2,
then if you rate a dozen, you are kinda obvious
rithm: maybe i've just seen it done so much and all
the exploits and loopholes are closed now
rithm: and rated all
those
rithm: does it punkman? because you used
to be able
to rate one with another
artifexd: There was an anti-sockpuppet scheme
that revolved around committing bitcoin for a certain amount of
time. I'm having
trouble finding
the details right now.
punkman: rithm,
takes a lot of
time
to build up shill accounts as it is
rithm: back
to identity verification
rithm: making it cost prohibitive
to shill ratings is
the key i
think
danielpbarron: you don't have
to charge for entry
to make it cost prohibitive for scammers; just require
they associate with a Bitcoin address
that has a positive balance; kinda like a proof-of-stake
ThickAsThieves: the only way
to make it have a cost is
to do it like namecoin