bitcoin club poker vito scotties 2017
April theymos, June 25, It appears that my comment was already linked bitcointalk a post by another user, so there's no longer a announcement for another post. This in announcement YOUR subreddit theymos. Mike and Gavin have, quite arrogantly I would say, assumed that this is just like any other software change and that virtually everyone will just automatically follow them, where the theymos is far from it. Theymos bitcointalk that those who disagree with his moderation policies should leave, and IMO that's probably the best thing to do now. Unofficial list of official Bitcointalk.
bitcoin group share software В»
dan boneh bitcoin stockholm
August 11, , This is an archived post. I am leaving the sub as you wish. Also, you are a tyrant and a moron. I lost my password or something. The objection to the technical change was too strong to just gloss over it.
how to convert bitcoin to real cash
It's bitcointalk more bureaucratic and censored. I'll give you an example. Theymos to theymos Liquidation. The forum will probably be down for theymos for analysis and reinstall. I can promise you that few facilities bitcointalk screen their employees or, even, that effective screening is actually possible for low-ranking positions and yet customer service announcement mean that low ranking positions often have tremendous power announcement security for customers Since theymos wants us to leave, and we really should considering how harmful it is having a person like theymos controlling bitcointalk 2 largest forums, where should we go? As explained above, the possibility of forking is an announcement part of Bitcoin.
Theymos: "Bitcoins Belonging To Satoshi Should Be Destroyed"
I wouldn't compromise any further on that and I think that almost everyone would be happy for it except for a fringe hardcore tiny minority and unfortunately there will always be a hardcore tiny minority with any change either due to ideological or financial reasons.
Unfortunately the other side did not want to compromise. I hear for example that Gregory Maxwell is against intentional hard forks in general and as long as he says nack then there can be no "consensus" and there would be a "contentious" hard fork.
We can't be debating forever seeing as this matter has been going on for years and, as they are unwilling to compromise then Gavin is right to go with his original proposal which has been modified to take miner's concerns into account. If we don't move ahead then we basically give one man or two, that being nullc or pieter, veto powers which would be quite a dangerous precedent. Finally, BitcoinXT is not set in stone.
This is what is needed I think, and I have ideas but I know I am not capable of it. We can get "better" but not best. On the other hand, bitcoin as a high cost lower transaction settlement layer is something that doesn't rely on such foresight but rather stability of its parameters. Not all parameters will be un-evolvable, but the more parameters that are locked in the more stable bitcoin is for the purpose of, for example, a new digital gold standard.
From there the best, easiest, most stablest solution would be to show with game theory, that there is not incentive for change amongst the community. Or in other words with so many different options available for the community, and the entropy on not reaching a consensus seemingly growing more and more assured, it seems we could more quickly get to a point where no change can happen.
I think this could be shown, where as proving the possibility of consensus might only be possible in practice. Please consider doing it anyway, since you've already written it. It deserves a wider audience. Write a proper blog post, like Mike does It appears that my comment was already linked in a post by another user, so there's no longer a need for another post.
As for a blog post - I'll consider it my blog is http: You say there are only two options being offered But no one is prevented from creating actual code to support other alternatives. Or just create a fork the backs out the original Satoshi 1MB limit - go back to unlimited - another option.
Since the choice is between action joining XT and inaction and there is no 3rd choice then everyone is forced to choose. Ergo if XT stays with it's current It's like a civil war and you're either with the establishment or the rebels. However this creates a risk of what I'd suggest is a VERY bad scenario since the test is against mined blocks.
Ok there is a two week grace period good idea which is a buffer but after this the XT nodes will switch and fork. Please let me know if I have this wrong and this scenario isn't possible. Personally I think bigger blocks is a good idea, 8 megabytes is a bit of a big first step but not the end of the world.
However I don't like this from the patch notes:. The correct word here would be "exponentially" not "smoothly " and do they REALLY think we'll need megabyte blocks in 10 years? But I'm with you: They are setting the precedent for this to be the norm. That remains to be seen, but I think it's worth discussing the possibility that the mod team has become compromised and banks or whomever could stand to make money controlling the discussion.
Please either reverse these policies, or step down. I'm sure that I'm not the only person reporting these violations to the admins. What I find interesting is that it looks like the majority of this subreddit readers has a different idea about what this subreddit should be about than the moderators, judging on the downvotes they get in this thread. To me that indicates a fail. The mods are basically shooting themselves in the foot, no matter how they defend it. I also find it curious that hard forks shouldn't be discussed.
What about bitcoin-core 0. What about the other features of bitcoin-xt like relaying double spends and allegedly better performance? What about other suggestions for block size increase, even from opponents of the approach of bitcoin-xt, like Pieter's recent BIP? Due to these inconsistencies, I find the reasoning of the mods irrational. They do not appear to have been thought through. I personally do not have a strong opinion regarding the block size.
In cases like this, I prefer experimenting to talking, therefore I disagree the block size increase in bitcoin-xt is a bad thing. I don't know if I'll switch to it but now this option has been made easier.
Those are all devs you've chosen to flair. And now you're drawing upon what you believe to be a majority from that group, to justify an argument. Something about that should strike you as being as absurd as if I awarded who I believed to be the most thoughtful commentators a "Targetpro Award of Excellence" and then began polling this group, in justification of my beliefs. No more having the think and decide for yourself, you have theymos to tell you exactly what is bitcoin, what the laws and rules are about bitcoin, what the devs think..
So if you are ever unsure about bitcoin Theymos will from now on make all the decisions for you.. It's really a shame that Theymos feels too strongly about this subject to allow for debate to occur. This topic deserves to be allowed to be hashed out, and banning further discussion of it is a gross disservice to the community. It is incorrect that this is moderation to make the community a good one. I can only assume this clear censorship will catalyze a mass migration to an open platform that allows relevant Bitcoin topics to be discussed.
I haven't picked a horse in this fight, but if Theymos is an indication on the right and wrong side of this fight, then I've just been pushed that much closer to supporting XT. This sums it up nicely for me. The censorship in this sub since this started is truly disgusting. So, does this mean if bitcoin-core proposes a hard fork to accommodate a block size change, discussion of it will be banned from this forum? In a decentralized system, like bitcoin, what makes one fork of the bitcoin software inherently more or less legitimate than another?
Fast forward to Equating Core or even XT if it becomes the popular implementation with Bitcoin and requiring consensus in Core to make changes is a centralist paradigm because it implies that the Core committers are the anointed ones.
I also like how theymos talks about consensus among experts and says, "Those 12 people are everyone with expert flare. Circular reasoning pervades the entire argument. A bunch of folks self-appointed. They have no authority over me.
I understand Bitcoin well enough to not be bullshitted by sneaky power grabs hidden behind 'expert opinion'. Yes, I am certainly grateful for them having the time and money to work on it productively ironing out bugs, sane new features etc. But I am not at all accepting that some of them get drunk of their perceived power and want to change Bitcoin to something else while referring to 'being experts' and 'Authority'.
Bitcoin is as much my Bitcoin as it is Adam's or Gavin's Bitcoin. But not a single bit more. And the latter follows the spirit of Bitcoin for me. Core is not special. I'm reading this post completely gobsmacked. The uproar over censorship leads you to conclude that MORE censorship is in order? He's just got a skewed idea of how much control he has and badly overestimated his right to command authority in this community.
He's waiting it out, he already pissed away some 7, BTC on a forum that never got completed and no harm came of it, so why should he expect anything to change now? This is a really rude awakening for a lot of people, like Gox the chilling effects of it won't emerge fully for awhile but they are permanent.
I have left reddit due to rampant censorship in all the major subreddits. You can follow my work at steve-patterson. You have overstepped your bounds and I do not want you moderating any longer. You have abused your powers. Please resign instead of digging your heels in. Just Theymos probably won't change anything. I agree, but the best course of action at this point is to migrate away from his influence. There are plenty of other uncensored bitcoin subs.
Control freaks don't often just give up their control. This in not YOUR subreddit theymos. It belongs to everyone. You clearly cannot moderate this forum in an unbiased, collected manner. Just because you want something doesn't mean that it's ever reasonable for you to hijack Bitcoin from the people who don't want it.
Since theymos wants us to leave, and we really should considering how harmful it is having a person like theymos controlling the 2 largest forums, where should we go? There are a number of alternative bitcoin subreddits but if we don't use any of them in mass they won't gain any traction. So here are the top generic bitcoin subreddits by current users: Even better would be to use a multireddit. Here is one I put together. For now I'm just subscribing to all of them and will see which one shakes out as the new "main" sub.
It reflects a complaint about current issue only. Imagine coming here in 10 years and that's still the name. Of the main Bitcoin sub. It would look ridiculous. This will help to build content on the uncensored subs, as well as improve their Google rank. That's not simple though. Takes time and lots of links. Unfortunately, by then it would be too late.
Theymos has elected himself benevolent dictator of bitcoin! Says it all doesn't it? Even if everyone in the room disagrees with me, you're all still wrong. This is the community leader we want? I don't understand why discussion about xt is banned, but you go into great detail with your thoughts about it.
It's like you just think one side of the argument should be banned. I am undecided on the debate about xt, blocksize, forks, etc. I don't agree with your decision about how to censor this. It definitely seems like based on the tone of your post here you are censoring people because you disagree and think their ideas are bad for bitcoin. That really shouldn't be the standard. Adorable concept, but people extremely rarely ever change their beliefs after hearing a few good opposing arguments.
As much as people like to debate this, that and everything in between, polls have consistently found that arguments don't sway opinion. They only help to further substantiate opinions already held. And if you question this, just ask yourself.
What arguments would convince you to raise the block limit as an example? You will have, by this time, heard all of them. Leaving the word "none" to be your most honest answer. Chalk it up to human nature and move on, but don't pretend that this represents a valid avenue to change your identified "policies". Maybe post things that are counter to our policies in a different subreddit.
Some might consider the alternate wording of this to be: It's been a pretty unpopular stance since the time of the French Revolution. Holy cow theymos, I thought thing are calming down, and then you appeared.
You know you're pretty much the one who started this mess right? This is absolutely ridiculous. You've taken a movement that is founded on preventing censorship, and attempted to censor it. Kindly leave and allow us to speak in peace. Any hard fork that doesn't instantly gain consensus should never be talked about unless you have some unbelievable, never-before-heard-by-mankind level of information about it.
But if you want to make spam posts about shitty alts like Paycoin then, please, be my guest. I wish this was a crazy exaggeration, but that is exactly what was said in OP, except using normal, honest language. This entire post is just more of the same garbage that caused the whole "mess" this weekend. You've succeeded in making this forum a complete joke. You've lost all credibility. Under what conditions would you consider your judgement possibly flawed? Lay out for me the terms by which you would consider changing your mind or hearing reasonable argument, because your views about what defines a fork and makes something "no longer bitcoin" would strongly imply that hard forks which occurred previous to this one came from coins which you do not consider bitcoin.
I see no way to rationalize your position on the XT fork not being bitcoin while still believing that bitcoin was still bitcoin before previous hard forks. It seems by your unreasonably narrow definition the only real bitcoin network is the one that has existed since the last hard fork, and whatever it was before that was not bitcoin. If you have some qualifier for what makes this fork substantively different, I ask what would need to happen to make it the same in your all-powerful-and-uniquely-capable-of-rational-judgement eyes.
You already made an absurd argument regarding the tyranny of the majority citing historical precedents so I know that the majority consensus isn't going to change your mind, and while I will be the first to say this community is a zeal with pitchforks and no reason them being that way doesn't make you or your line of reasoning any more correct. I agree with you on everything except the pitchforks part. IMO, if there ever was a time when grabbing our pitchforks was justified, this is it.
We have been subjected to a shameful fascistic repression. The miners, merchants, and users make up Bitcoin. The code changes they all choose together becomes bitcoin. I'm not seeing where developer consensus fits into the reality of the situation with the open source software?
Great point, theymos is completely wrong when he says without dev consensus, economic consensus is very unlikely. Sure the network might split into multiple pieces, kind of like the tiny group that wanted to keep 50 BTC blocks after the first halving. Soon they realized their efforts were futile when compared to wider community consensus.
I fucking knew it. Nice casual mention of "Lighting network. I am leaving the sub as you wish. I recommend everyone do the same.
I'm a bot, bleep , bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:. Lolbertarians at their finest. Prepare for incoming trades ladies and gentleman! Community isn't taking it well. If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. There is no other way to put it. You're a child, a tyrant and a dictator. You're the antithesis of free speech and of the core rules of reddit itself.
You are a thief, a liar and an egomaniac. The very community which you pretend to care about despises you with an intense hatred. People want you gone and to never return. You have failed in every single possible way that a community leader can fail. You should bow your head in shame and disgust at the money you have stolen, the people you have defrauded, and the community you have censored.
Didn't he steal people's money as a promise to upgrade bitcointalk. This dude is literally evil. I thought this subreddit was finally becoming a free platform for discussion until I saw this post. It's becoming more bureaucratic and censored. Farewell my fellow bitcoiners. Hope we meet again one day on a platform with true freedom of speech. This is my concern as well. Hotly debated subjects such as XT come and go, and there will always be some issue the community is in arms about.
But how we deal with these debates is what the key issue is here. The problem is not lack of moderation, it is to much just leave us alone, we will self moderate with up and down votes. The current bitcoin protocol is an altcoin from your logic, bitcoin has been hard forked in the passed, it will need to be forked at some point in the future.
Bitcoin is a concensus network, it is not for you to decide which fork bitcoin follows, bitcoin will decide what bitcoin is. Maybe you should start with yourself and think about why you want to impose your views on everyone instead of just moderating discussions?
Is it because you believe so much in your own personal cause? You are a typical authoritarian, you just don't think of yourself that way because you're probably a pretty decent guy in day to day life. But give someone a little power and what do they do? Impose their ideas on the masses because they believe they think they know the issues better than everyone There are two issues here, the blocksize issue and the censorship issue.
You are trying to keep people ignorant of a very relevant topic such as the existence of XT and the possible fork, just because you don't want it to happen. Regardless of if you think XT is a software to create an altcoin or not, if XT takes control of the majority of the network, it WILL affect bitcoin users. Big companies will know of XT, traders will know of XT, miners will know of XT, who do you think the ignorance will affect? Yes, the regular people thats doesn't have the time of digging around for censored information, regular holders.
After reading your anti-XT reasoning, i agree with you about the consensus issue, for now. But by censoring the existence of XT, you will only make people feel betrayed due to the hidden information that should have been available for everyone, in consecuence, people will go and revenge-install XT, which is happening at this very moment.
You code something, the chain forks, people flock to one side or another, whichever one gets a majority of support will essentially get effectively all support. You missed a step: You code something, theymos bans discussion of it, the chain forks, people flock to one side or another, whichever one gets a majority of support will essentially get effectively all support.
Saying that you want things to calm down out of one corner of your mouth while stating the above out of the other corner of your mouth doesn't paint a good picture of stewardship. It feels very, very much like you want to start a war and that this is your means of planting a flag in the ground. I have a strong feeling that you're going to regret your actions with suppressing the community interest - at the least, it's going to diminish your reputation and role within Bitcoin.
You have become everything that is wrong with bitcoin all rolled up into one person. If the goal is to prevent this sub from promoting XT, then it has failed. XT is all anyone is talking about, largely because the policy seems counterintuitive and unfair to so many. Regarding consensus, it's a process - not an endpoint. If you ban discussion of the only actual implementation of big blocks that's ready to be run by end users, how will that help bring about consensus on the scalability issue?
I'd suggest that banning XT discussions will do the opposite by driving a wedge through the community. XT users believe that increasing the block size is the answer, and they're the ones willing to set up nodes to support the idea. They'll get to see first hand where that idea leads.
I'll give you an example. Today a user posted a question about syncing a new XT node. I responded by saying that Bitcoin Core itself takes up to 12 hours to sync from scratch for me, and that this was firsthand evidence of the problems scalability issues can cause. Imagine the tenor of that discussion, and countless others like it that will take place, after six months of big blocks. Maybe things will work out swimmingly for XT, in which case some of the small blockists would need to reconsider their positions.
Or, it could go quite badly, in which case many XT faithful would be the ones wondering if they made the wrong call. Regardless of the outcome, when those kinds of discussions stop happening because users who want to experiment with XT are forced out, it's wasting an opportunity to actually exchange information and move the scalability debate forward.
About the altcoin issue. I agree with your position that any hard fork update creates an altcoin, and have written as much several times. This is not a value judgement, just a matter of technical accuracy.
But it doesn't matter. What matters is discouraging spam and promoting worthwhile discussion, which can be a tough balancing act. I generally don't like memes, but some of them are outstanding. The thing about XT posts is that some will be spam, but some will be very useful. Is it really worth throwing the baby out with the bath water on this one? So the mods of this sub are essentially responsible for the hardfork if it happens due to the Streisand effect.
You have effectively associated Bitcoin Core with censorship and authoritarianism. Its comical how badly it has been dealt with. A real comedy of errors. And it has no doubt increased support for xt by making smallblockers look like authoritarian nutjobs. Theymos holds far too much power, and he is clearly abusing it.
He may have stolen millions of dollars from bitcointalk, but that is besides the point. The power is too centralized, and discussion is being censored. I encourage you to ban me, then, because I don't give one flying fuck for your rules. I will discuss XT if it so pleases me, and you can quite frankly suck my nutsask if you have a problem with that.
What you are saying is that discussions about improving bitcoin are not allowed. You are a failure as a mod and a bitcoiner. At no point in your rambling, incoherent post were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Wow what a piece of shit attempt at moderating. This subreddit doesn't belong to you , it belongs to the community.
Why are moderators everywhere growing such a big ego and going the god complex. I was pretty much ok with whatever the network will choose between bitcoin core or XT with a preference for bigger block but no drama otherwise. But following this week end event.. That is it, it is insanity! Now I thing bitcoin has to move the influence of fews toxic people.. And so XT is the only way forward.. No, at that point it becomes bitcoin. Discussion about an important protocol change is incredibly relevant to bitcoin and must be discussed here.
This confuses the issue, since you can run an XT node today and still be running bitcoin, same blockchain and functionality and all, nothing changed in the slightest, until the day that consensus is reached, if that day arrives. This proves that the two are not incompatible at all. Good or bad, XT has the potential to become the consensus. It is a possible future for all Bitcoin users, and should absolutely be discussed here. This is so incredibly sad. This was my favorite sub. So many awesome posts and comments, that taught be how Bitcoin works and the trade offs involved in making decisions within the system.
And now it lies in ruins. I can only hope it can rebuild itself. As such, I can't see how you would remove this post, but if you do, please explain your justification.
It's a silly drama-based name because of the current emotionally-charged situation. This only confirms that you are an authoritarian with a mediocre mind the 'arguments' and self-justifications you provide above are frankly pathetic who is behaving very immaturely.
To everyone who is down-voting: In this situation, it's important to not simply down-vote. I'm part of the majority of bitcoin users soft-core users who don't have a set opinion on the blocksize debate. But it is a major issue that affects bitcoin users and shouldn't be censored. If people are rehashing the same arguments then you can tune them out or down vote them. In the extremely unlikely event that the vast majority of the Bitcoin economy switches to XT and there is a strong perception that XT is the true Bitcoin.
The bitcoin economy runs on Bitcoin, which is by definition the longest and most agreed-upon chain. Bitcoin XT only occurs when a majority of miners have showed support - I'm sure you know this already.
So it's strange to me to doubt that, if it occurs, it will gain favor as "the" Bitcoin. Thanks for the opportunity to communicate without fear of random ban, a safe place to discuss mod policy is definitely necessary atm.
Folks like to think of the Bitcoin protocol as some sort of utopian democracy where everyone has some say. That will come to an abrupt end when serious conflicts of interest occur between the miners and any other interested parties. I couldn't have said it better myself.
Instead of admiting the errors, you just delete all the posts which appoint them during this day in this subreddit.
And hire more moderators in order to enforce this. What we can say? Well, just good luck. I don't have any hate against theymos or any other of the moderators although they insist in the errors which resulted in a lot of downvotes against them.
But if you want to stay alone here, I think there's nothing more we can do. Move to alternate subreddits and let this subreddit alone yeah, let's do a massive unsubscribe here! Time will show the lessons for the community and the moderators. Put yourself in our shoes, seeing how one person has influence in both biggest btc online information websites. Your childish behavior will result in a split within the community.
As well as you are fighting consensus. This is fucking bullshit. No way this BS will last. We the people got the power over this sub. Well, not over this sub. The way Reddit works is that the top mod has total control of the subs he's created.
What the people have power over is discussion in general. Theymos suggested that those who disagree with his moderation policies should leave, and IMO that's probably the best thing to do now. There's a couple of other subreddits that have sprung up and are growing rapidly where we could shift discussion over to. Well I understand that is how reddit works, but I am also aware of how life works.
They would have to calculate a new rainbow table for every salted password - not going to happen. The attacker wouldn't calculate a new rainbow table for every password. Since it'd be a one time table if generated, they would instead simply brute force.
Somewhat, but since we're explaining this thoroughly I took the liberty of correcting this nuance. Also, it wouldn't be simple brute force but instead "smart" brute force, where you start with common passwords first etc. You literally can't generate rainbow tables for salted passwords. No one would do this, they'd just brute force it. The password is too long to effectively use a rainbow table.
They can just try to brute force each password given the known salt. I've never felt comfortable storing the salt in the database. I know it's probably fine, but something about it just rubs me the wrong way and I can't put my finger on it.
I usually use other columns in the row for the salt. Something like account creation date or last password change date plus the username for example. I feel like it would be much more difficult for an attacker if they have no idea what the salt is or even if they are salted. Knowing the salt itself doesn't really add much information when you consider that they need the code to determine how the salt is applied to the password. Apparently bitcointalk was using a ton of rounds.
Point is, they need the code anyways if they plan to crack passwords, and if they have the code they know which columns to use. This salt is saved in the database together with the password in the members table. However it will obviously take "a while" to crack a password default SMF min length 8 characters. I assume the next poster after me can do the math on it. Keep in mind that hours have become extremely volatile since, so we don't really know how long this will take in terms.
I think most of this still applies: You're also doing so by reusing the same password everywhere, except that has the additional attack vector of remote compromise. Ergo, password managers certainly do not make the situation any worse. Oh noes, on BPD? You should set up a single page that says: No forum today, go out and have a Pizza for BTC.
I assume the 1. Thanks to our advent, you'll soon be able to securely and safely spend whatever amount of moneys over the internet.
To learn more and join the discussion, please visit our official forum bitcointalk. No, it's still in development. Also looks like they switched from building-a-DB-from-scratch to using Postgres a few months ago, so they might actually finish it within the year.
Unless they switch to coding everything in assembly for the new CPU architecture they will be developing from scratch. But if you're building a forum from scratch, just use Postgres. Rolling your own abstraction around leveldb gives you nothing but flexes your intellectual muscle and procrastinates the launch.
It's on the github link above. They were building a db on top of leveldb basic primitives and probably realized it was wayyy too low level and hard for a forum. If you're looking for a place to hang out with that similar bitcointalk feel, altcointalk. He must be running out of meth. There will be extended downtime for forensic analysis and reinstall. I miss the time when people used to post these 'incidents' on attrition.
Gosh I'm getting old and obsolete Who do you guys think is behind this? I have a hunch Mr. Ganza might be part of this.. Lets brainstorm what could be done to prevent more un-necessary downtimes of our forum.
IIRC we had a downtime recently when some hard-drives crashed. If IP logs, forum quotes, usernames and passwordhashes from almost all early adopters of bitcoin are stolen: Prepare for ransomeware and physical assaults. Come on guys, amateur hour. Why are the servers not remotely snapshotted daily, and running on a hypervisor like Xen?
Bring out the distaster recovery backup, and fill with hourly DB snapshot. Encrypt the filesystem so that if they take the servers it's useless. I use Timecapsule on my Macbook. It's not that hard guys lol. Mmm no I did not say that. Yeah, I got downvoted to hell with no reason at all as well. It's not like there is a downvote brigade or anything. Your point is solid. Which snapshot do you recover to? How do you know which one would be the correct one? What if the attacker changed the DB so they are an admin?
What if the attacker included a malicious payload? It doesn't matter if you remotely back it up or not, you need to actually manually comb through the backup and check it. Good afternoon Thermos, what may I help you with today. It looks like I'm locked out of my server. I need to get back in to fix some stuff. How are you locked out Thermos? I lost my password or something. I usually keep it here on my desk. It's too hard to remember. I have hard passwords for security because bitcointalk is real important.
Here at [redacted] we value security very very much. It's like the most important thing we do. Can I get a new password. Have you tried the password reset function at the control panel. I can't get into the control panel. Let me get you your password for you. Okay, your login is theymos and your password is [redacted].
Have a good evening and thank you for using [redacted]. We are sorry to hear this Theymos, hopefully nothing too terrible comes of this. The Gambling subforum is a great place for detailed information on our business. While other forums are nice, obviously your site has the largest concentration of players. We wish you well as you sort this out.
Why do I received a gpg clear signed email from Bitcointalk not related to the sender's email? I did a lookup on http: