> This report of someone spending 800k already might well even be part of the scam, the same way any con artist on the street will have stooges pretending to throw in cash in order to convince others that it's legit.
That's exactly what it is. This sale was to their "partner" company Polyient Games, and they're putting 10 more up for auction next week. This sale was to anchor the price.
Note for those surprised by the price tag and talking about whales: this is not like your typical in-game purchase like a special sword, unique mount, or even skins in CS:GO. These tokens implement core gameplay functionality that other players will have to pay to use -- think dungeons in Legend of Zelda, but if another player could own a dungeon and you had to pay them to go inside. So really, these people are buying a stake in the game with the expectation of profiting if the game is a success.
I expect the SEC will be all over this once they catch up. It took them long enough to take action against XRP though which is pretty open-and-shut, so this might take a while.
Assuming this is an honest question and not a lame attempt at a gotcha: as more people switch to a vegan diet we will gradually stop breeding them in the first place, so there are no animals for something to "happen to."
Followup question: how does a node coming online know not to trust China's (longer, censoring) chain? It wasn't online to have the transaction in its mempool, so it doesn't know to check for it in the longest chain.
I think it would need to check all candidate blocks with lower heights to see if their chains contain any transactions that aren't in a longer chain.
What happens if I mine off of a very old block and include my own transaction in it, and present it to you... how do you distinguish between what I just did vs the longer chain having censored the transaction this whole time?
>You know the transaction exists, and at some point (i.e. after a certain number of blocks), if the transaction isn't included in the chain, you can conclude with reasonable certainty that the transaction is being intentionally orphaned. This allows you to reject the chain that doesn't include the transaction as invalid, and choose the longest chain that does include it.
So you are going to reorg after many blocks (enough to be sure a transaction is being censored). This sounds extremely undesirable as it kills finality. Today you can very reasonably be sure that after say, 6 blocks, a transaction is irreversible. That's not the case with this new rule.
You are mostly correct. Except only your Bitcoin client sees the checksum/address, the raw transaction has just the pubkey hash encoded in the address. So there is no checksum for other nodes to check. If you accidentally crafted a transaction with the wrong hash in the scriptPubKey, the network would happily accept it.
This requires colluding with a miner, since nodes will reject a transaction that spends the same output as a transaction they've already seen. For a small payment like a coffee, it should be enough to check that the transaction has a reasonable fee and wait 1 second to see that it has propagated through the network.
Problem is even though Facebook was restricted to a very small set of people, each of them could interact with most/all of the people they wanted to (other college students). Same was not true for Google+, people didn't have enough invites to give to all of their friends.
You make it sound like ether can only be used to pay for gas. It can also be transferred to another account in a transaction, it's the native currency for making payments. It will also be required for staking.
His point is some of the cheapest energy in the world is renewable (like hydroelectric energy in China), which is what Bitcoin is using. Bitcoin mining can take place virtually anywhere in the world so it can be done where energy is already abundant.
If it was the same person who made all of the robberies (not Mr. Bah, but the person who stole his identity) then the facial recognition worked flawlessly.
Unfortunately "Stolen ID Blamed for False Arrest" doesn't make for a good story.
> I had created a Google Developer Account simply so I could pass on the login details to my app developers who uploaded and updated the app via my account each time.
Sounds like one of those developers was previously banned for violating ToS and Google suspects the author is the same person with a new account trying to evade the ban. Instead of sharing login details, the correct thing to do is add a user and give them permission to upload. Not let them pretend to be you.
The situation sucks but Google's action seems reasonable? Like they can't just let people create new accounts to evade bans.
A DFS would be you check your living room, you check under the cushions of the sofa, you tear open the cushions and comb through the insides... all before glancing at your bedroom when you didn't quickly see the keys in the living room.
That's exactly what it is. This sale was to their "partner" company Polyient Games, and they're putting 10 more up for auction next week. This sale was to anchor the price.