Reddit User Account Overview


Redditor Since June 30, 2018 (815 days old)
Karma Posts: 2,828 Comments: 54,297 Combined: 57,125
Active in

Just unlocked the 6 million credit cap limit and once I upgrade 3x tradestations and a few 6mil research items, I plan to go full balls to the wall and go for the 8mil cap only upgrading planets with some minimal research along the way. Only notable stop along the way will be the 7.2mil battleship upgrade of course. That being said I took a look at the endgame options for handling shipments and for some reason I'm surprised to see the endgame options cannot be fully automated or cannot be automated any easier. My main belief up until checking recently was that you don't get enough warp lanes to connect to all planets... Here's the way I see it: - I'm a big believer in using Shipment Relay, since I can cast it once a day now, and only need to handle 3 trade stations once a day manually. I don't mind in missing out on bonuses from the various trade modules, especially since I don't need to micromanage shipments, check offlane/onlane for warplanes as well as other time consuming methods of handling shipments. Casting 14 shipment relays once a day and being done in 1 minute is very gratifying without having to know names or locations of shipments. The only "extra" work I have to do is about once a week I need to "bleed" all planets of their crystal shipments since those stack up. So I just collect all transports on the 2nd ice planet, "shipment beam" them over and use shipment computer to handle all of them + warp lane/drone combo. Not bad. Been doing this flow for over a year now. So here are my questions about endgame shipment handling: 1) Upgrading shipment relay from level 9 to level 10 @ 8million costs seems NOT worth it due to the total 85K gas cost. Sure I can relay 4 more sectors, therefore covering 100% of all sectors including the 3 trade stations but the gas cost seems detrimental. Currently relaying 14 sectors costs 55k and the extra 30k gas seems not worth it. - Can any endgame shipment relay users chime in on whether they regret maxing out shipment relay? - Do you cast once per day? level9 relay last 20hours, level10 last 24hours, so not a big difference? 2) For some reason I had always assumed once you unlock the 8 million credit cap limit you can buy as many warp lanes as you want until you can connect every planet and trade station as one big network, thereby allow ship. The reality is warp lanes will not be able to cover 5 planets shattering that dream. Additionally unlocking the last few warp lanes at 8million a piece and getting shipment drone bonuses seems moot. By that point credits don't seem to matter other than for some 8mil+ higher upgrades or researching stuff just for the hell of it. Mainly I'm annoyed that your planets will be generating shipments ot 5 planets that can't be automated and you will have to periodically grab those shipments from all on lane planets and handle them manually. - How does endgame with max warp lanes seem? How often must you handle shipments to off lane manually? - Any tips for max warp lane count in terms of more automated handling?

posted by /u/500239 in /r/HadesStar on September 8, 2020 10:15:12

Looking at mid to high level BLS games it's obvious bond is almost a requirement. Especially at higher levels having a level 5 bond is minimum and a must have for the extra range, otherwise your fights look like this: [Bond5 vs Bond1-4]( And then there's high level game play of Bond+Teleport+Timewarp, where it's just who casts first wins. For those that don't know about this abusive play it works like this: 1) Attacker initiates teleport to an asteroid near the red collapsing circle. 2) Attacker casts bond on the target battleship at the last second of teleport. This part is key, they need to cast bond last second before teleport triggers. 3) Attacker kills that battleship as he just bond+teleported them outside the arena. The issue here is that during teleport you cannot preemptively cast bond defensively on the attacking ship. However if they cast bond on you then you can counter cast bond even while they're still teleporting. The issue is of course the window to counterattack is super tiny as you need to wait for them to cast bond first. Fractions of a second if they're also using Timewarp8+ which they most likely are as OmegaShield+Timewarp is another meta. Solution: /u/andreasp79 Can we be allowed to cast bond on teleporting ships even if it literally does nothing just to be able to counter this broken mechanic? Current Solution: In addition to needing to run bond, you also need to run with teleport as well as that's the only way to escape this abusive braindead tactic. So that's 2 mandatory slots in this meta taken up.

posted by /u/500239 in /r/HadesStar on July 29, 2020 11:33:18

This should fit the sub /r/applesucks. Today I spotted some bad logic by no one less than /u/TBoneTheOriginal an /r/apple moderator. After 2 comments he deleted his comments, sent me an angry DM about being a poorboy for using an Android and then contacted the /r/android mods to delete my comment which had +80 upvotes. doesn't do it justice so I'll copy/paste the original comment that was censored: .............................................................................. Even better /r/apple mod /u/TBoneTheOriginal is defending Apple... after Apple made a statement where not paying the 30% is freeloading on the system. The cognitive dissonance is real. Sauce: > But it's not about the rules, it's about the ideoligies. Apple accuses Spotify of taking a "free ride" while they're literally doing the same thing on the play store. **edit1:** aaaand /u/TBoneTheOriginal an /r/apple moderator deleted this comments after failing to twist logic his way: **edit2:** /u/TBoneTheOriginal has sent me an angry DM telling me how naughty I am and to enjoy my poorboy phone lol **edit3:** For those that don't understand the logic: A) Apple said Spotify freerides when it doesn't pay a 30% cut. B) Apple doesn't pay Google's 30% cut. C) Then by Apple's own words, Apple is freeriding.

posted by /u/500239 in /r/applesucks on June 19, 2020 13:08:40

So i have 3 factories: One for iron+copper, one for steel/silicon and one for the Recycler for just making credits. At this moment all my items are full, ie I cannot claim anymore and there's no more space in transit. The only factory that is able to work is the Recycler as it just recycles silicon to credits and I collect the credits. Now here's the bug. Recyler is producing credits at 3credits per second and substance is at 0 since I'm net negative. Now despite the other 2 factories being backed up and cannot produce a single item if I turn of the 2 backup factories, I become substance positive, credit gain kicks up to 3.5+credits per second etc. - Why doesn't the game figure out that if I factories are backed up they shouldn't consume substance? Why do I have to turn of the factory to allow substance to be used for factories that aren't backed up in this case credits? - Similar bug but on a smaller level: In my iron factory I have 1 Synthesizer making all my iron which produces all the iron products. As some iron products back up the excess should flow down the line and allow further iron products to produce faster since now they're getting more resources. Instead everything is calculated on a global level and the furthest products on that assembly line are always statically producing at the same rate regardless. I understand this isn't Factorio were every single inserter action isn't calculated, but imo these are some big oversights and it would be cool to fix them. **Maybe start small and aim low and if an entire factory is backed up, then it should not consume substance, to allow other factories to use that substance.**

posted by /u/500239 in /r/Sandship on June 19, 2020 09:04:22

There's a trend that's been going around for a while comparing Apple's longer software support for iOS devices versus various Android manufacturer's shorter term software support. From what I've seen this topic is often brought up as a black and white deal and the only thing compared is support time while all other details pertaining to software updates are ignored. I'm here to compare software updates in detail and give a proper comparison, to show that updates bring both good and bad outcomes to devices. Lets discuss some general outcomes and impacts of a software update that many people don't seem to be aware of: 1) **Software updates will make your device slower:** Your hardware does not change, but each software update is more demanding on the hardware making your phone slower. That fancy snappy iPad you purchased on day 1 will look like an Android from 2010 which lags, skips and stutters after 5 years of updates. The hardware isn't able to keep up with the more demanding software and this affects Android, iOS, Windows, Macs. Ever try to install Windows 10 on a computer that came installed with Windows XP? It'll run, but it won't be pretty. This applies to both Android and iPhone and all computers. If you don't believe me dig up a 5 year old iPad and update it as far as it can go. Then take a look at the stutters, hiccups and other bugs. I'm 100% sure new iPads don't stutter or hiccup. 2) **When you perform an update there is a chance you may regress in features and even lose features altogether**, simply because the manufacturer decides what goes in the update. It's generally expected that a software update will bring new features and fixes, but it can and has brought negatives in the past as well. Take for example Apple crippling Facetime on older phones, [simply because Apple decided it's cheaper to settle with affected iPhone users than paying for a patent.]( Apple has literally decided to screw over the user because of surprise, surprise.. money! Samsung has done similar stuff to their features and Sony I think botched camera updates in the past making their camera worse. At times it's a gamble and you may want to have other users download updates and get feedback on changes before blindly updating on your phone. Another example is Apple's throttling of older phones due to battery issues where users weren't aware why their phone was acting slow all of a sudden. There's many examples of phones losing features, functions breaking as well as purposely being crippled. At the end of the day when you download an update you're giving the manufacturer consent to do anything on your phone, good or bad. 3) **iOS has more frequent updates because they have to.** iOS's design issue is that many system apps are bundled with the entire operating system, so in order to update a single app, an entire OS update has to be applied. Take for example Apple Music which can be installed on both iOS and Android, on iOS, this app can only be updated via a system update, while on Android you update a single app via the Playstore. There are dozens of system apps that Apple can only update from software updates which is why they more frequent updates. In return Apple fanboys think they're getting more attention and this plays into Apple's marketing. There's no advantage to Apple's method and in fact they are moving away from this model as a result as some apps are being delivered as standalone apps. However as a side effect to the layperson it appears as if Apple is more software update conscious when in fact the same apps on Android are receiving regular updates via the Playstore. 4) **Software updates are forced onto iOS users** so despite knowing these possible downfalls of software updates iOS users are helpless to do anything about them. From what I've seen on iOS, you receive regular popup nags to update to the latest iOS update. Sure there's a "Not Now" button, but when it nags you everyday, eventually you'll just give in for the sake of being annoyed at the nagging. On Android Android manufacturers give you an option to disable update checking in the Developers Option section and it just works.

posted by /u/500239 in /r/applesucks on June 15, 2020 13:44:06

I had a discussion with /u/nullc aka Greg Maxwell former CTO from Blockstream and Bitcoin Core developer. In the discussion with him he refused to continue the discussion unless you agreed to some "Boston agreement". Don't ask me what it is, I googled it and have no clue wtf a Boston agreement is. I told him to just dump the data and be done with it. Just for reference the argument was back and forth for a while and about 20 comments deep so most redditors don't dig that deep and the conversation would not be visible to most users unless you followed that thread to the end. **This is a key detail.** The other key detail is that all 3 of these sock puppet accounts along with Maxwell understood what a Boston agreement is, and acted as "witnesses". Kind of odd since Google doesn't even have a definition for it. So either they've been notified to play along or are just are in sync with Maxwell's trolling. Long story short, 3 separate accounts all "witnessed" Greg Maxwell's agreement as well as harassed me about the agreement **despite being inactive for 3-7 days prior.** - /u/midmagic replied [here]( but his last activity was over 3 days ago [here]( > \o I agree to commit to 500239 deleting his account when he inevitably loses. - /u/cannedcaveman replied [here]( and yet his last activity was 3 days ago [here]( > You already lost this argument many posts ago, give it up dude. You’ve been obliterated and now it is time to delete your account like nullc has deleted your credibility. > F. - /u/trilli0nn replied [here]( but his previous activity was 2 days ago [here]( > Herewith my support for the Boston Agreement. I feel deeply concerned for the mental health of Bitmain shill u/500239 having to endure your relentless public humiliation. > It would be in his own interest to urgently delete his account and stop being an easy target to your ass-handing ways. > (I will miss the entertainment though so part of me hopes u/500239 weasels their way out and given their post history that is the expected outcome). The explanation is simple: 1) Either these 3 accounts have been stalking me to be able to jump on a thread that was 20 comments deep. or 2) Greg Maxwell notified these accounts to jump and brigade on your conversation within minutes that it was happening Looks like Greg Maxwell is back to manipulating forums much like he had a history of manipulating Wikipedia and other information mediums. **edit1:** Another minor detail. I've never been called a "Bitmain shill" ever. This week 2 people to call me a Bitmain shill have been Greg Maxwell and /u/trilli0nn . Pretty specific if you ask me. **edit2:** Last person to request I delete my account was /u/BeardedCake, who is now banned from this subreddit for continued user harassment.... Coincidentally ever since his ban his account has been inactive so it's possible he rotated to another bought account. I've been asked by 3 users in no less than 1 month to delete my account, and attempting to guilt, harass and threaten me until I do so. It's another attempt to censor outside of /r/bitcoin where normally the moderators there would just delete information they didn't approve of.

posted by /u/500239 in /r/btc on June 9, 2020 11:26:09

I upgraded my desktop computer to something newer and decided to use the old desktop for an Unraid server, since I had a stash of many disks with different sizes. Over the last 10 years the older desktop had many disks shuffled around as sometimes I needed a disk for another project, or I upgraded the disk size etc. I didn't think much of my behavior of moving disks around until this week. So I powered on my desktop with Unraid and immediately Unraid starting throwing notifications of Bad CRC's, read errors, even disabling entire disks in the UI. 1st it was one disk, then another, then a 3rd disk, all on 3 different sata ports. Some of these disks had SMART logs saying 7 years of run time, so I chalked it up to a failing disk. I did have 1 frayed sata cable so I replaced it an interestingly enough the same disk started working fine with no smart errors. Other cables were not frayed or pressed in sharp angles so I didn't think much of them. I purchased 6 new Sata Cables this week and replaced all the sata cables in that PC. 0 problems with any disk in that PC and Unraid hasn't reported and disk errors, CRC errors, or read errors. Who knew Sata cables were that fragile? **edit**: 10 original drives total, 2 parity all are fine. Parity completed without issues. Bad Sata cables confirmed. took slightly over 1 day to complete.

posted by /u/500239 in /r/unRAID on June 8, 2020 11:48:37

Tried the game for a week, spent $10 total on gems, here are my thoughts and why I won't be playing this game anymore: **The good:** - Yes it's a Factorio rip off for mobile. Has belts, inserters, smelters, splitters etc. However it's a pro because their execution of putting Factorio on Mobile is A+ at worst B+. I especially love the idea of multiple sectioned factories so you can control what you make. - Graphics are very nice and fluid for the most part **The Bad**: - **Heavy paywalled.** I mean super heavy. And this is from a guy who's played Clash of Clans, Clash Royale and a few other triple A p2w games. For reference I've put around $400 in Clash of Clans, $500 in Clash Royale and a few hundred in other p2w games. I'm no cheapo but it's pretty clear the "value" that you get from gems is horrible. And I used to think Supercells' Clash Royale had shitty offers that only got worse every year and THAT's saying something. - To expand your factory you need to essentially play casino and gamble for exotic parts that you yourself cannot produce just to unlock sections of the factory. Applies to quests, factory floor unlock and research, ie all 3 major parts of the game. It doesn't matter how efficient or fast your factory is at making parts, the casino gambling aspect of needing exotic parts that you can't make is your bottleneck anyway. So basically progress is capped to how much you pay. Factory setup can't change this. - You can only do 1 quest at a time, meaning you need to log into the game every 4 hours assuming you're level8 or so. Tedious. - Based on some napkin math the best use for gems is to buy the speedups for quest. It boosts quests 60x for 12 hours or 1 day depending on how many gems you spent. However it's annoying that you must baby the quests all day every 20 minutes to 1 hour to make sure you get all the value from that boost? It's a really unreasonable and leaves a bad taste in your mouth. You spend 250 gems for a speed up and then must be tied to the game like a slave to open and keep queueing quests for the day rather than the game just auto opening the quests or something similar. - The game has some bugs and occasionally crashes, but imo I'm not taking any points of for this. It's playable and only released last month so give it some time. - Game really eats through battery. Like really power hungry. No settings to turn down graphics options or anything else to help alleviate the battery drain. It's a shame because the game is 5 star in every other area but the paywall which is rammed down your throat.

posted by /u/500239 in /r/Sandship on June 2, 2020 11:06:55

I was recommended to try OpenMediaVault for my Nas needs and so I tried it. It looked like a promising solution but ended up struggling and failing just to get basics to work. Here's my summary: 1) Burning the ISO to boot from USB "works" but no matter what when it comes time to partition the host drive it will fail. For both HDD's and SDD's. It does however recognize them. Burned it via Rufus. 2) Googling recommended actually burning a physical CD instead... Yeah I know. So I dug up a DVD sata drive from my basement and got to work. Guess what... OMV only recognizes some HDD's, 0 SSD's at all.... 3) Naturally I want to install the system on an SSD so it's more reponsive, so I installed OMV from a DVD onto an HDD and then use DiskDestroy (dd) to clone the HDD install to and same size SDD. Yes I got it to boot from the SSD. 4) Now one would think the bugs and horror stories are over. Nope. After letting OMV boot from the SSD and doing some updates for OMV, it does not recognize half my HDD's. One 3TB disk it sees, another 3TB it doesn't, both connected via SATA. Several other disks it also doesn't notice including some older 500GB HDD's. I threw in the towel. How can this nas solution be so incompetent? Can anyone share similar horror stories with OMV? Any alternatives? Thinking of looking at Xpenology next.

posted by /u/500239 in /r/DataHoarder on May 28, 2020 10:11:52

This recent patch gave us the rich asteroid which spawns once per day in a red star until you get it. It's quite a chunk of money so no doubt it will cause players to change their gameplay to pursue this chunk of change. 1) What outcome do you think the dev's were going for by adding this item? - I think the dev's wanted players to play Red stars more regularly by forcing them to enter a red star daily. This might help smooth out the playing times evenly across the week so that players have a higher chance of finding other players in red stars and an easier time working together, versus lets say just weekend players. 2) What are some unintended consequences of the asteroid? - Personally I run RS7, soon RS8, but since my red star scanner can go to RS9, I do RS9 runs to grab the highest level of this asteroid that I can. I think we'll witness some games were red star players join games just to grab this roid and not contribute to the red star game mode. It might disrupt some games when some players are not contributing. 3) This asteroid is quite a big chunk of change? Why do you think the dev's were so generous? - My theory is that with each update, older players get a significant leg up since they've already researched tech that now increases in cost. By giving new players this chunk of change it might make the sour taste a bit sweeter. - I think they want to reward daily players more than players who log in every few days. Any other views and impacts of this new daily item?

posted by /u/500239 in /r/HadesStar on May 20, 2020 09:00:42

We know high fees is what caused big merchants like Steam and Microsoft to stop using Bitcoin as well as many smaller merchants. Bitcoin Maxi's attempt to spin the argument but these merchants have explicitly stated that **high fees and uncertain confirmation times due to a clogged blockchain were the reason for dropping Bitcoin** as a payment option. Sauce: But the other important part that most don't realize, and this is key, is that by pushing p2p electronic cash to a 2nd layer, ie Lightning, they've also nullified all the existing adoption for Bitcoin that was supported up until now. This is because merchants that accepted Bitcoin don't necessarily accept Lightning by default and more importantly Lightning still isn't production ready. Bitcoin is still in a limbo where the p2p electronic cash function is not ready for production use. Hell we still have the Lightning developers themselves warning users: **"Don't put more money on Lightning than you're willing to lose!"** So not only did Blockstream scaling plan for Bitcoin halt Bitcoin adoption, it also nullified all adoption at this point because merchants now need to adopt Lightning which is forever 18 months away for the last 6 years now with no end in sight. Who wants to use a blockchain that costs whole dollars in fees, or risk getting stuck in the blockchain for over 2 weeks:

posted by /u/500239 in /r/btc on May 19, 2020 09:24:36

Today I'm debating regular troll /u/BeardedCake here who makes this statement: > [Are you really this naive to assume that majority of BCH hashrate does not come from Bitmain? If Btimain flips a switch, 90%+ of BCH hashrate disappears and similar is true for around 60-70% of BTC's hashrate.]( - /u/BeardedCake In a nutshell /u/BeardedCake claims the following: - 90% of Bitcoin Cash's hashrate comes from Bitmain - 60%-70% of Bitcoin's hashrate comes from Bitmain ...His own words. For the sake of the conversation I'm not even going to argue against his statement, instead just use it against him because he just cornered himself. After several attempts of his to put words in my mouth, I asked him to quote me, which he was unable to. *Shocking I know.* Mostly because he realized his logic and reading comprehension skills are stunted to a 3rd grade level. Instead he decides to rush and reach a unique conclusion of his own: > [OK good now we can agree that BCH is centralized shitcoin just like 99% of all other altcoins. Everything else does not matter.]( - /u/BeardedCake *The illogical and conflicting views of troll BeardedCake should be glaringly obvious by now.* Let me make it very easy for even the least technical person in this forum to understand: **Q: How much hashrate does it take to centralize a coin?** **A: Hashrate over 50%** And he just claimed Bitmain controls **90% of BCH's hashrate** and **60%-70% of Bitcoin's hashrate** both which are over 50%. Yet he claims only BCH is centralized, not Bitcoin despite in his own words saying Bitmain controls 60%-70% of Bitcoin's hashrate. By his own words and views he should have also mentioned that Bitcoin is a centralized shitcoin just like 99% of all other altcoins. Ladies and Gentlemen this is the average intelligence of trolls around here. They reach conclusions that conflict with their own views and statements.

posted by /u/500239 in /r/btc on April 17, 2020 14:06:32

It's known that /r/bitcoin heavily censors any topics critical of Blockstream or Core. As a result /r/btc was formed and looks to avoid censorship by giving people benefit of the doubt and a [public mod log]( which /r/bitcoin removed. The obvious result of /r/btc relaxed moderation policy is that trolls spend a lot of time here gaslighting their users and often times won't be banned until it gets out of hand. *This week we're going to take a look at /u/aviathor and his method of gaslighting users.* 1) If you aren't aware /u/aviathor is on a several month spree telling users the correct names for Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash. You can see many of his comments are the same copy paste comment with lots of bold use: > **Calling Bitcoin "Bitcoin Core" is equivalent to calling Bitcoin Cash "Bcash"** And yet here he is using 6+ names for Bitcoin Cash, including the Bcash name he was advocating against. > What is [Bcash]( > What is [BcashABC]( > What is [Bcrash]( > What is [Bitcoin Clashic]( > What is ["Bitcoin (ABC real BCH)"]( > What is ["Bitcoin Cash ABC Cool"]( 2) Yet he has no problem gaslightning users that the usage of "Bcash" is fine, because wikipedia was brigaded to include it and former Blockstream employees like Greg Maxwell were caught abusing and editing wikipedia until they were banned. Another excuse of his is that Amaury used it once in /r/bitcoin: 3) OK fine, let him have it, but then when you point out that /u/aviathor has used 6 other terms for Bitcoin Cash, NOT included in wikipedia **he goes silent every time:** > How come you didn't get this upset when you used up to 6 different names for Bitcoin Cash? > What is [Bcash]( > What is [BcashABC]( > What is [Bcrash]( > What is [Bitcoin Clashic]( > What is ["Bitcoin (ABC real BCH)"]( > What is ["Bitcoin Cash ABC Cool"]( > It was a pleasure to call out your hypocrisy. > Are all of these in wikipedia too? The lesson here is don't let the Core/Blockstream trolls gaslight you. They act like they're on a mission to correct users, but when you post proof of them doing the same exact thing that they're crying about, there's never any response, they just dip. They only get upset when users flip the Blockstream propaganda campaign against them. Their hypocrisy knows no bounds.

posted by /u/500239 in /r/btc on April 16, 2020 10:00:51

Had a discussion with /u/dugg and he made a bold claim that BTC halving will only decrease block reward by 36%. Comment here: > [Also last little tidbit from myself, BCH dropped 50% in rewards where as BTC would only drop 36% if it was to halve today. This is due to Bitcoins fees. BCH is forever getting further and further away from Bitcoin in value and security.]( A quick look at will tell you every 10 minutes a Bitcoin block gives miners $92k in the Coinbase reward and an additional $1k-$2k in Bitcoin fees. A quick glance would tell you BTC transctions fees are around 1-2% of the total block reward. When pressed further check out the math a Blockstream/Core supporter uses. Seriously. > [I'm a stronger character than you by being able to admit when I'm wrong, but I tell you what, just for you I will show you how your community claim of 50$ fees are even better than 36% I calculated wrong.]( > [92k + 93k = 182k, 46k + 93k = 139k, 139k / 182k = 76%, 100% - 76% = 24% drop in fees]( Seriously did /r/bitcoin censorship drive down the intelligence down this low?

posted by /u/500239 in /r/btc on April 10, 2020 11:05:41

I'm a long time OpenVPN user and I'm looking to make the switch to Wireguard as I hear it has some notable benefits over OpenVPN which include: - twice as fast connection speeds. - no initial handshake - Can run on Android 24/7 without draining more battery. I hear it doesn't need to ping the server periodically to maintain a persistent connection. Over the last few weeks I've been reading these forums and google's results on how to's and tried 1 attempt with a manual setup using this guide: It ultimately failed because the Android client was complaining about not being able to find the server address. As well as the guide not describing how to place a domain name instead of a public IP for the server. The guide felt too minimal. After some further reading I'm starting to learn that the setup+benefits of Wireguard are not 1-to-1 with OpenVPN and I'm fuzzy on what's correct and isn't and how to set it up so that it'll work like OpenVPN did. In the past I setup an OpenVPN server on Ubuntu in VMWare on a Synology box and all was OK. I could connect from my Android phone to my home server and access my SMB share, entire lan as well as continue using apps on Android without any traffic being blocked. Strictly speaking the OpenVPN connection was used to access my home network, NOT to tunnel all traffic over it. I'd like to do the same using Wireguard instead. Here are my questions about Wireguard: 1) Is there an easy GUI installer? So far I've found this and will try it this week: I tried the manual way found here: But ended up having the Android client fail to connect, despite all ports forwarded, therefore I'm leaning on a GUI installer next attempt to catch these mistakes and avoid mismatching configs or allowed IP's w/e. 2) If I setup a Wireguard connection will my Android phone be able to see the home network lan by default or is there some config settings I need to add? 3) I'd like the Wireguard connection to allow access to my lan but NOT force all traffic through it. Which way is Wireguard configured by default and how do I set it as expected? 4) I've heard that for mobile clients to save on battery the periodic ping must be set to 0 somewhere. Is this setting found in the official Wireguard app, or some internal setting in Android via ADB? anyone have experience with this?

posted by /u/500239 in /r/WireGuard on March 30, 2020 15:07:55

I see a lot of players install teleport on transports in their 1 support slot especially in RS7+. My clan recommends it as well, but I'm not quite sold. Sell me on teleport or sanctuary or timewarp. Here are my views: - I like having sanctuary installed because it means I can be interrupted by real life events and I can forget to manage my ships in RS, return and have all my ships intact. Hades Star becomes a totally casual game. By definition other than losing too many credit battles in Blue Stars I can never "rollback" my progress, which is something I love in Hades Star. It's unlike Clash of Clans where I can get raided and rolled back in progress. I rarely go afk in RS events, but it happens once in a while when you have a kid. - I use 3 miners with 50 seconds of RSE each, which at RS7 seems to be plenty. I plan to upgrade RSE further. - Sell me on the time saving aspect of teleport. It seems marginal or niche. Transports teleport to planet and get a jump on loading artifacts but often times are landlocked and prevented from returning to gate until you clear some sectors. With a 5 minute cooldown, in theory you're able to use it 3 times with some RSE use. On average how much faster is loading arts with teleport over sanctuary? Assuming you enter a system with 6 transports, on average how many more loads are you getting? - RS6 teleport definitely isn't needed. I can solo RS6 no problem and collect all 4 planets usually with some light RSE use. RS7 has changed that and I assume RS8+ will as well. Is there an RS at which teleport changes from optional to must or becomes a clear difference in time saving?

posted by /u/500239 in /r/HadesStar on March 25, 2020 08:55:03

Last week there was a discussion on [benefits over Omega and Passive]( and ultimately the only benefit to passive shield was it's "hydro efficiency". However when asked for the break even point I was given estimates and nothing concrete, ultimately leaving the efficiency of passive shield questionable and unconfirmed. - Some users like /u/notafunhater estimated [break even point was 10-12 sectors moved.]( - While others users like /u/smithandjohnson only had a gut feeling about [break even point based on what their teammates complaints were.]( I did the math to figure out how many sectors must a battleship with passive shield move through to use the same amount of hydrogen as an Omega shield of the same level. 1) Passive shield provides hydrogen used per AU, but we don't know how many AU's is one sector across. So lets figure out how many AU's is one sector across. The easiest way to calculate sector size in AU units is to take a look at the Teleport module and it's range diagram found here: - - As you can see in a Yellow Star system a level 10 teleport can travel 3,000AU. Starting from the center of the circle and counting outwards I estimate 3,000AU is about 4.5 sectors total. 1/2 sector from center and 4 sector past that until we reach the lvl10 circle perimeter. **Therefore 3,000AU = 4.5 sectors, and 1 sector is 666.6AU/1sector. Of course we're comparing the shortest distance across a single sector and not the longest line able to be drawn across a sector, so this is actually more favorable to the passive shield with these values. 2) Passive shield hydrogen cost per sector. - Level 10 passive shield costs 66hydrogen/100AU, giving us 0.66hydrogen/1AU. Converting to hydrogen per sector we get 440hydrogen/1sector. - Level 12 passive shield costs 74hydrogen/100AU, giving us 0.74hydrogen/1AU. Converting to hydrogen per sector we get 493hydrogen/1sector. 3) Omega shield costs are static: - level 10 omega shield costs 3500 hydrogen per activation. - level 12 omega shield costs 4000 hydrogen per activation. 4) **At equal level shields** how many sectors must a battleship move to break even? - at level10 shields, passive shield ship must move 3500/440 = **7.95 sectors** to break even with omega shield use - at level 12 shields, passive shield ship must move 4000/493 = **8.11 sectors** to break even with omega shield use 5) **Bonus Round:** But wait we're not done yet. So for we compared break even at equal shield level, but as we know omega shields give us more shields at even levels or less per usage. **So lets now compare shields at equivalent shield amount:** I'll do 2 comparison again, a max shield comparison and somewhat typical/average seen shield comparison: - A level 12 passive shield has 19k shields and is comparable to a level 10 omega shield with 18.5k shields, only 500 shield difference versus a 1k difference at for an omega lvl 11. - A lvl 10 passive shield has 16k shields and is comparable to a level 8 omega at 15.5k shields, only 500 shield difference versus a 1k difference for an omega 9 shield. Therefore comparing these 2 sets we get: - lvl12 passive vs lvl10 omega. 3500/493 = **7.1 sectors** becomes the break even point - lvl10 passive vs lvl8 omega. 2500/440 = **5.68 sectors** becomes the break even point. 6) **Conclusion:** It seems the Omega shield break even movement count is much less than previously estimated. For a typical Red Star run, moving around 5-8 sectors depending on shield levels and breaking even and saving hydrogen seems more likely with Omega shield than passive shield. This is of course assuming you're sweeping 2-3+ planets in a single run red star run. With Red Star Extender being a common module used in higher levels it seems passive shield does not really provide a significant hydrogen advantage, in addition to all the numerous disadvantages it has to Omega shield, like versatility, better synergy with salvage, no recharge cooldown reset by attacks, etc. Quite surprising to be honest. I was expecting a bigger gap in efficiency like the user estimation of 10-12 sectors, versus the 5-8 sectors. Sources: The Hades star wiki:

posted by /u/500239 in /r/HadesStar on March 13, 2020 11:32:53

In b4 Linux/Ubuntu is open source if you want a feature you should code it. So I recently purchased a Synology NAS and setup an SMB share with a username/password. Windows 10 lists the network share and asks me to provide a username password when attempting to connect and it works after that. Ubuntu on the other hand will list the same network share via the file explorer but any attempts at providing the username/password fail. Synology's support page provides command line instructions on how to connect to a passworded network share. Additionally Ubuntu lists the same network share twice, one version asking for a username/domain/password and the other just plain username/password. Both fail to connect, even when attempting to prepend the WORKGROUP before the username. I've tried all permutations on both GUI options. What gives and why is connecting to technology(SMB/Network shares) that has existed for 2 decades still require command line and no GUI? Back in 2010 I remember plugging in a USB drive required typing out commands and specific to the file system on the drive, but even that works like a charm more or less in 2020. Do the Ubuntu dev's not use passworded smb shares that they have not thought to finally make a GUI that works? or am I missing something? We keep bringing up that Ubuntu/Linux and yeah XXXX is year of deskptop linux but then we have situations like this. For reference in the past I used an Unraid server and setup a passwordless smb share and Ubuntu file explorer and GUI handled that just fine. But going one step further and attempting to use a passworded share is a no go.

posted by /u/500239 in /r/Ubuntu on January 17, 2020 12:44:49

**Background:** - I have a lvl8 shipment relay so I can relay 11 planets. My usual routine is relaying 11 planets in the morning and dumping shipments from 3 trades+1 planet onto the nearest shipment relayed planets. 2 starting planets in the same sector are for artifact storage. At the end of the day I dump the 3 trades+1 planet once again with ~2-4 hours left on the shipment relay planet. This routine is very efficient timewise and action wise as I only have to check in twice a day. - However the downside is I get no bonuses on shipments from either ship comp or shipment drone, so I'd like to find a warp lane equivalent or similar time efficient method. - I also have enough warp lanes at this time to link a total of 8 planets on the warp lane network. This would also leave a total of 8 planets/trades outside the warp lane network. So at 50-50 split on in network and out of network. A lvl4 shipment drone equipped on all TS. lvl3 shipment beam, and a lvl2 shipment comp as I don't use that mod much. **Current plan:** If I decide to use warp lanes + shipment drone, statistically it should clear 50% of shipments on all in-lane planet assuming half shipments are destined for in network and half out. However I'd assume mid day I'd have to go to each planet and clear the rest manually or cast shipment relay mid day to clear the rest. Gas cost is not that big of an issue as I'm still hydro positive through the week. Optimizing for time, not hydro and ignoring stacking shipments for shipment comp, what's a time efficient or shipment destination agnostic way of handling shipments?

posted by /u/500239 in /r/HadesStar on January 2, 2020 10:49:35

Been playing Blue star since day 1, got the blue star logo for being top 50 in a season and while I love playing this mode, there are quite a bit of faults with its matchmaking. I'm speaking from experience so while it may seem like I'm just complaining, I've been on both sides as both the abuser and abusee of the blue star match making. Here's my summary of its issues: 1) **Problem:** No idea why Red Star scanner level is factored into blue star match making but it is. Naturally I've abused this by keeping my RS scanner low and having a diplo parter feed me arts to compensate. At one point I had 3 support slot BS with a lvl4 RS scanner and I shit you not 4 out of 5 matches only gave me 3-4 AI ships and rarely 1 human. I could literally count on one hand how many matches I played in those 2 months were I had 2 people with it. Needless to say those daily credit wins were a breeze. **Solution:** Make matchmaking rely only on battleship level and mod levels. Don't factor in Red Star scanner level. The moment I upgraded RS scanner no more 4 AI ships per match. 2) **Problem**: Blue Star leaderboard is a complete joke. A few months ago #1 Blue star leader was a fresh new account with 1 support slot. I assume the easy early blue star levels made it a breeze for him compared to players in the harder blue stars. He had an obscene shard count compared to even player #2. **Solution**: Either have separate tiers of BLS leaderboards or set a minimum ship level before you can be placed on the leader board. 3) **Problem**: Sanctuary vs Non-Sanctuary ship matches need to be split up. The battleships with sanctuary at times go rabid and just go all out and attack non-sanc ships just to troll and destroy their ship even if they will place 5th. Again I've abused and been abused in this position. Since I play BLS many times a day I'm usually just sending in Sanc'ed ships to troll and harass the non-sanc ships to cripple their chances at winning, by either putting them in an awful position or chipping a lot of shields/hp from them to put them at a severe disadvantage. And again it costs the sanced ship players nothing. **Solution**: Matches should be split into 2 groups: Ships with Sanctuary and ships without. 4) **Problem:** Omega rocket fed players. Clearly some of these players have been fed max tetrahedrons to unlock lvl1 omega rocket. Puts other players at a severe disadvantage. **Solution:** Fine have your omega rocket, but be weighted into the higher rings by placing more matchmaking weight on high level modules such as these. To some extent Bond is also being gamed this way. There are some other issues with BLS and some dirty hacks but more or less these are the main issues that stand out in what otherwise is a very enjoyable game. If the matchmaking pool becomes thinned out simply increase the 1 min wait time to 2-3 minutes or so. Reasonable to me.

posted by /u/500239 in /r/HadesStar on December 2, 2019 16:27:17

In some recent comments [Bitcoin Core supporters are telling people Lightning is optional]( and I agree. However if you think Lightning is optional then you limit your options even further when using Bitcoin. Based on today's current state of Bitcoin here are your options when using Bitcoin to send cash: 1) onchain Bitcoin with a low fee: Security + Low fee = Slow confirmation time 2) onchain Bitcoin with a high fee: Security + High fee = Fast confirmation time (So long as no one outbids you out of the block during times of high volume) 3) Lightning: Low fee + Fast transaction time(no confirmation as Lightning transactions are not confirmed onchain until you close your channel) = No Security examples of each is: 1) Tony Vays sent a Bitcoin transaction with a **"low fee" of $0.25 that took 11 hours to confirm** and probably would have taken longer if [SlushPool didn't manually add his transaction]( I'm being liberal with "low" because anyone using cash today does not pay $0.25 extra for a transaction to buy coffee. 2) Exchange withdrawals: Usually exchanges raise the fee several levels higher to ensure the confirmation goes through sooner than later. You've probably heard of /r/bitcoin users complaining about this, but this is just the cost of good business. Exchanges don't want users complaining about waiting 11 hours and creating unnecessary support tickets because Bitcoin is congested. 3) Lightning has low fees and fast tx times, but until your close that Lightning channel that transaction is still unconfirmed onchain and anything can happen. This is why /r/bitcoin users recommend using watchtower services to secure your Lightning funds, as someone must always be watching over your funds to prevent them from being stolen. If you stay offline for too long your funds may be stolen. Until your close your LN channel your must check in on your Lightning funds periodically to defend against theft attempts as you become the security of your funds, not the Bitcoin blockchain. So this is the convoluted state of Bitcoin today. A Rube Goldberg vision of p2p digital cash where first you must decide on your priorities and only then then transfer funds between Bitcoin or Lightning as necessary before deciding to send someone cash. Not very frictionless cash is it... Or you can just use Bitcon Cash which has none of these complications and just works.

posted by /u/500239 in /r/btc on November 26, 2019 13:01:33

Hi I'm a Bitcoin Cash supporter, just being upfront about that. No I'm not here to shill BCH. Recently Vechain news was censored by /r/cryptocurrency so this might be of interest to you community. Today I have a topic that I think we can all agree on: /r/CryptoCurrency censorship and I think it applies to you community as well. Yesterday and today /r/btc found undeniable proof with sources that /r/cryptocurrency is delisting positive threads about coins they don't like, next day to prevent positive threads from being searched later on. They do this once people cool off. Yes it's about Bitcoin Cash, but I'm sure the VeChain community has experienced this as well, especially with the recent censoring of VeChain major alliance with China. Congratulations by the way! Feel free to discuss and of course be respectful to all sides. The point of this thread is to bring awareness to the underhanded tactics employed by head moderators like /u/jwinterm and it's not the 1st time he's been censoring coins he doesn't like: /r/cryptocurrency is the new /r/bitcoin of censorship now

posted by /u/500239 in /r/Vechain on November 21, 2019 11:58:46

> between too but they aren't very meaningful in the context (they are bound to happen statistically, even on Bitcoin). And yet every chance you get you bring up this re-org, but we finally have you admitting it's a moot point you just use for throwing mud. Thank you.

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/btc on September 22, 2020 13:37:51

braindead is you promoting your website that recommends exchanges use 285 confirmations for BCH. Have you found anyone that uses the website that you keep promoting? Anyone? I wonder why you refused to answer that question and dropped the conversation?

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/btc on September 20, 2020 20:17:38

oh snap send /u/zipatauontheripatang to the burn ward stat

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/btc on September 20, 2020 19:02:20

Why are you pushing for people to use your website?

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/btc on September 18, 2020 17:18:05

What is there to get? when I used Bitcoin in 2012 I did not have to watch over my money because the miners secured it via hashrate. in 2020 Lightning is disconnected from Bitcoin's massive hashrate therefore requiring users to run a node, or hire watchtowers to secure their money. They must also trust their hardware not to fail, or watchtowers to have 100% uptime. Did I get anything wrong here?

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/lightningnetwork on September 18, 2020 15:10:23

What does Bitcoin Cash have to do with Lightning? Nothing. I appreciate you slinging mud when confronted with reality. It's objective fact to say Lightning's p2p functionality is a regression of Bitcoin's p2p functionality. Can't send offline, capped send limits, disconnect from hashpower meaning you need to watchover your money, the list goes on. but if you want to bring BCH into the conversation than we can objectively say BCH has better security than offchain Lightning. Otherwise you wouldn't need to check in your funds to watch for theft attempts. Spin that around DJ.

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/lightningnetwork on September 18, 2020 14:52:09

> Oh no I have to make sure my node is online to protect my funds. What hell I live in. No kidding. Bitcoin didn't have this problem, so Bitcoin Core decided to regress this feature. They made theft possible. > Nope and as it should be. Increasing the block size will only make it harder to run a full node. Then Lightning will never scale. You did read the Lightning whitepaper right? It clearly says it requires at least 133MB size blocks. I'm sure you understand Bitcoin+Lightning better than the creators of Lightning themselves tho /s

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/lightningnetwork on September 18, 2020 13:16:28

> Look pal I can only do so much for you or anyone else for that matter. If you so choose or anyone chooses to use these services, you should verify it yourself. You know like the saying goes "don't trust, verify". I've been in Bitcoin since 2012. Back then we didn't have to verify and keep watching over our own money because we knew it was safe. No with Lightning all the hashrate in the world doesn't mean jack shit when you need to watch over your money to prevent theft. Bitcoin has fallen a long way, but then again you wouldn't know otherwise you'd see it the same way. > You should read up on how watchtowers work. I know exactly how watchtowers work. Instead it's you who are confusing node uptime with reliability. A downed watchtower can't prevent theft can it? > OK if you believe this I don't know what to tell you because you seem like the sort that is set in stone. Do you see any blocksize increases planned in the near future? I sure don't. Last time a small 2MB increase was proposed /r/bitcoin was censored by Theymos. Can't even mention a blocksize increase in /r/bitcoin let alone vote for it.

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/lightningnetwork on September 18, 2020 13:02:02

> Yup and there is a list of watchtowers they can choose from to watch their node the time it is down or they can drain their channels and move their funds on chain to protect them for the move. Can you verify that they will watch over your money? do they have 99% uptime? If they fail to catch a theft attempt to they reimburse you? > Then don't use lightning. No one is forcing you. Bitcoin Core devs are. They made Bitcoin expensive and slow to use by stagnating blocksize. Even the Lightning whitepaper states that it requires at least 133MB blocks. Bet you didn't even bother to read the Lightning whitepaper to know that part right?

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/lightningnetwork on September 18, 2020 12:00:54

Seems like a worse experience than Bitcoin. OP is telling you he's moving and will need to take his node offline, and you're telling him he can run his own watchtower. That doesn't solve his problem one bit because he'll need to take down the watchtower while moving as well > You don't have to trust this list. You can set up your own watchtower to watch your funds.

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/lightningnetwork on September 18, 2020 10:55:41

how does that solve OP's moving problem? or that Bitcoin was created to remove 3rd parties not add them. When I got into Bitcoin in 2012 never ever did I think I would need to run a node to keep my money safe. 2020 has been a weird year.

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/lightningnetwork on September 18, 2020 08:59:30

How do you go about vetting this list as trustworthy or having solid uptime? You're literally placing the fate of your money in a 3rd party to safeguard it.

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/lightningnetwork on September 18, 2020 08:42:55

It's supposed to prove you can't find a single person who uses your bogus website.

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/btc on September 18, 2020 07:53:04

so are you going to point to the specific paper proving your theorem since you're sure of it, or just throw words into a search engine lol let me one up you:

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/btc on September 17, 2020 21:39:24

> Wrong, as I said "Anyone who cares having the same level of immutability than you get from 6 confirmations on Bitcoin.", Which is no one. Can you find anyone, even just 1 person that applies your bogus website?

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/btc on September 17, 2020 21:38:42

> Anyone who cares having the same level of immutability than you get from 6 confirmations on Bitcoin. So basically no one. Not even exchanges handling billions in crypto assets apparently. No one uses your bogus website that you're shilling. Show me 1 merchant, exchange or service that uses 285 confirmations for BCH rofl rofling all day

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/btc on September 17, 2020 20:16:33

so are memes Just because it's on Google scholar doesn't make it science silly. Try harder.

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/btc on September 17, 2020 20:15:31

what's Bcash? Where is this Bcash coin listed?

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/btc on September 17, 2020 18:27:18

does anyone actually use the 285 confirmations from your source? If not it's a bogus website. Why do you spread bogus news?

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/btc on September 17, 2020 18:26:15

what's the "wrongness"? Also /u/Dugg no one said BCH was faster than Visa, just cheaper.

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/btc on September 17, 2020 18:25:21

if it was science you would have linked a proof or something. Instead you're linking pictures. I too can make a triangle.

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/btc on September 17, 2020 18:24:18

Lightning solved something? Sounds like Lightning crippled Bitcoin's p2p cash functionality and now offers a small subset of that same functionality all at the cost of Bitcoin's security. Sounds like a deal. /s - Lightning traded security for low fees. Since it's offchain all of Bitcoin's hashrate doesn't matter one bit, when a thief can steal your channel funds if you haven't logged on to contest it in due time. I hear Lightning Watchtowers are coming in 18 months to fix that minor problem. - Can't send money to someone who's offline in Lightning. No such thing as ability to receive offline. Bitcoin doesn't have that issue. You can send money to someone who's been offline for years. - Can't receive money if your LN channel inbound capacity isn't high enough. Lightning merchants will need to fund their side of the channel with as much as they want to receive and keep doing so if they want continue receiving payments. - Lightning send amount is limited based on channel capacity, routing and network nodes. Right now most channels offer of 99% of nodes offer $120 dollars in capacity while bigger players offer $1k. Which also causes centralization in Lightning via big hubs like who can afford to stake their money offering their capacity. Lightning didn't solve anything it just created more problems.

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/btc on September 17, 2020 17:17:50

rofl which exchange or any merchant for that matter waits for 285 confirmation? Coinbase and Binance requires 6 I believe for Bitcoin Cash, same as Bitcoin. Sounds like you're parroting bullshit that no merchant, exchange or really anyone uses.

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/btc on September 17, 2020 16:58:55

can Bitcoin be used as electronic p2p cash like the title of the whitepaper says or is it just for hodling?

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/btc on September 17, 2020 16:58:07

rofl an unsourced picture not backed by any science to prove your point. Care to cite a source for your theory? If not stop pasting pictures. Tell me more about permissionless blockchains and how I should use them.

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/btc on September 17, 2020 16:57:10

both credit cards and 0-conf have risk. do you have a point or are you backpeddling now? and your statement about a guarantee of receiving funds using chip and pin is also objectively false. It's like you don't understand the credit card system. In fact the rest of your comment is just full of falsehoods. You're just spraying all sorts of lies in hopes I give up. If you're indeed debating in good faith start with: > both credit cards and 0-conf have risk. And why one should be accepted and not the other. FYI both are used today by merchants.

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/btc on September 17, 2020 16:38:49

> I don't have to, practically nobody does and want to do this. Because of the high fees. And Bitcoin trolls telling people how to use a permissionless blockchain. Bitcoin used to be used for coffee.

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/btc on September 17, 2020 16:34:56

Some easy money for the competitive players here.

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/FortniteCompetitive on September 17, 2020 13:39:55

> Wrong, developers do plan according to the demand of users and miners while preserving crucial features of Bitcoin, not just based on current the fees, that would be stupid. It's easily verifiable, users have alternatives which go all out to have constant low fees and don't care about users being able to verify their money/transactions themselves, like BCH and BSV for example, but almost nobody uses them after years of existence. Declining usage and hashrare make this pretty clear. "Do you need a chart for this? rofl" Bitcoin Core developers plan to make Bitcoin only usable for the rich. Ask anyone today who wants to spend $2 for coffee in fees or wait days for a confirmation? No one. Also BCH has the same transaction count as BTC did at the same age, while Litecoin which existed for twice as long does not match the same tx count that Bitcoin had at that age. It seems you're cherry picking once again. The only failure here is Lightning which despite all the promotion and riding on the 1st mover Bitcoin has $12million locked into it, while BCH moves $220million of value per day onchain. It's very clear which currencies are not being adopted. Also I'm surprised you didn't hear about Greg Maxwell popping champaign to rising transaction fees. Try reading more dev mailing lists not Blockstream propaganda. lol @ Markov chain bot by the guy who didn't hear about this event.

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/btc on September 17, 2020 13:35:33

> CTRL-F "risk" - no results found... Can you show me where I was supposed to have said "no risk"... So why are purposefully dismissing 0-confirmations and telling us Bitcoin can't be used as cash? You defeat your own points once again.

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/btc on September 17, 2020 13:33:03

Your points have been clear in that no one agrees with your 7 years ago or today, that's it. Your other points that merchants require absolutely no risk also turned out to be not true, as with credit cards and 0-confirmations. What point did you make correctly backed by verifiable facts? Perhaps start with that. Also if Bitcoin Cash failed then Lightning has failed. Both were launched around the same time and BCH has had more adoption than Lightning by far. There's $12 million locked into Lightning right now right? BCH transfers $220million in value per day. rofl good luck calling that a failure. Both services were created around the same time, 1 year apart. You're just purposefully not looking at the numbers. Not to mention if you want to facetiously compare Bitcoin's usage to Bitcoin Cash despite one existing for 11 years and one for 3, then BCH has the same usage as Bitcoin in year 3. It's like you're not aware of what's going on. Meanwhile for reference Litecoin which has existed for double BCH's lifetime does NOT come close to Bitcon's tx count at the same age.

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/btc on September 17, 2020 13:02:39

> What's the point of mentioning $1 if it's not consistent or expected. Because it is expected and more importantly planned by the Bitcoin Core developers. Duh. Seriously are you clueless or just playing dumb? Greg Maxwell a Bitcoin Core developer literally popped fees over transactions growing due to a restricted blocksize. Basic economics check and basic logic check: If capacity stays the same, but demand keeps growing will Bitcoin congestion get better or worse over time? Congestion will get worse. The creation of Lightning certaintly has not helped with high fees. Not to mention basic data confirms the median Bitcoin transaction fee is about $1.50 in the last 3 months $1.50 is a better representative of Bitcoin fees, rofl not 1sat/byte. Don't be disingenuous. rofl

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/btc on September 17, 2020 12:55:27

The points you've made have either been false, inaccurate or working against you. That's why you're not making any sense in this debate. For example yourself linking to your own comment 7 years ago where even then no one agreed with you view points then, just like no one agrees with them now.

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/btc on September 17, 2020 12:51:26

Agreed. I don't see a single miner pool support amaury and ABC. BCH will be fine.

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/btc on September 16, 2020 09:29:07

12 is good too, it would let people experience the high fees of Bitcoin and low fees of Bitcoin Cash and decide for themselves which is the better p2p electronic cash. /u/RavenOsprey knows this so he doesn't want Bitcoin advertised as p2p electronic cash only to buy and hold and dump onto newbies.

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/btc on September 16, 2020 09:27:14

When will Lightning support true offline payments? Or the ability to send someone money who has no money in their LN channel? Bitcoin has these features.

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/lightningnetwork on September 16, 2020 08:46:16

yeah /u/vegarde was contacting mods over the rules change knowing he was going to get banned for his over the top lying. It's funny because rather than message them directly, even in that moment he's trying to paint this rule change as bad, despite knowing /r/Bitcoin functions the same way.

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/btc on September 16, 2020 08:02:55

This. Before the new rule chance the chances a controversial comment was from a bad faith troll was high, now hopefully it's opposite so now it'll be worthwhile engaging and debating controversial topics. Big win for the community.

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/btc on September 15, 2020 17:39:17

yeah that's my thinking as well. you don't go from leading development of the uncrippled Bitcoin to then demanding rent in an authoritative way. Not to mention now the whole disinformation campaign much like Blockstream.

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/btc on September 15, 2020 15:42:55

I'd treat creative in it's own special case. Hell in one of the patches building broke in creative mode and you'd get stuck in builder mode while players killed you.

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/FortniteCompetitive on September 15, 2020 15:08:22

> What I am interested in is whether or not they have dumped their BSV coins yet. If they never move it, will CSW try to claim it as sunken treasure? How long must coins not be moved before CSW claims them?

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/btc on September 15, 2020 10:29:04

/u/Vincents_keyboard is a BSV shill who's asking about unclaimed coins... because CSW plans to recover unmoved coins like "sunken treasure".

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/btc on September 15, 2020 08:43:56

why is CSW planning to recover unmoved coins as his own?

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/btc on September 15, 2020 08:01:07

> but instead to manipulate 3rd party readers of the conversation towards something favorable to him. This style is never done in good faith. Yup all his conversations play out like that. It's so weird talking to him because it's so obvious and yet he does it like a script every time.

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/btc on September 15, 2020 07:58:18

nope no crashes yet. On DX11 it would crash but I had to play a lot of games. I think there might be a memory leak after playing that much time.

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/FortniteCompetitive on September 14, 2020 20:11:23

No idea. Seems like $10k is cheap advertising of Bitcoin Cash's ability to scale and keep fees low in a time when both Bitcoin and Ethereum fees are out of control.

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/btc on September 14, 2020 16:11:09

Were you finally banned after being given 3 years to act like a decent human being? Good riddens.

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/btc on September 14, 2020 15:16:56

When you do it on testnet trolls will obviously claim testnet was rigged for the stress test and not reflective of mainnet results.

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/btc on September 14, 2020 15:16:01

I'm confused 1) Why are you running 2x DL even if super high level over 2x barrage? Is 2x DL easier for cleaning an RS9 sector than 2x barrage? > It's mostly just an exercise in timing and positioning where you can catch the Storm and at least one or two other Capital Ships. Yes this is the strat I use. Teleport and emp on as many capital ships as you can while timing it so the Storm is within EMP range too. Catching the Storm in the EMP is a must. 2) How do you handle rockets while melting stuff with 2x DL? I run 2x Barrage + 1x Mass battery for the anti rockets.

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/HadesStar on September 14, 2020 14:27:32

/u/vegarde is in trouble with his negative several hundred karma.

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/btc on September 14, 2020 14:18:53

/u/vegarde ommits the mass censorship from Theymos then in the same breath claims "consensus" rofl. This guy pushes so much mis-information it makes the paid trolls look bad.

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/btc on September 14, 2020 12:42:04

I can't wait when this month you won't be able to post misinformation due to your negative karma.

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/btc on September 14, 2020 12:21:23

Idk what you're talking about but I disabled it on PC and definitely get higher and more stable FPS. When I turned that option off I finally got my min FPS to stay above 200 FPS, minus of course the occasional dips to 70FPS due to Fortnite just being bad. Prior to switching of "High Rez" my minimum FPS was hovering around 170-180 FPS

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/FortniteCompetitive on September 14, 2020 11:59:10

In the Epic Launcher you go into the game settings and there's an option to enter command line options to Fortnite. - The texture streaming loads all textures into the GPU's RAM so you'll no longer see buildings failing to load like this: Only requirement is that the GPU have enough RAM as the 6GB for the Super 1660 I recommend does. - The USEALLAVAILABLECORES option simply seems to give me a few more FPS during game play. Fortnite is heavy on CPU usage. There are a few more options for Fortnite but I didn't see any gains with them:

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/FortniteCompetitive on September 14, 2020 11:56:51

I can vouch that the 1660 Super 6gb overclocked version is a solid card and meets my expectations. I was primarily a PS4 Fortnite player for the longest time (3 years or so), but with each update for Fortnite the performance on PS4 was getting worse and ultimately FPS could even hold a stable 30FPS during fights. Since console players get mashed in with PC players anyway, might as well just play on PC with more fluid game play. I still play with controller on PC. At first I didn't see a difference, but now when I visit my friend and play on his PS4, it feels laggy and like playing like jelly. It feels so slow. The switch was definitely worth it. My PC graphics card was like 10 years old so that was one thing I needed to update and the 1660 is a great budget graphics card for ~$220. Not to mention this 6GB version lets Fortnite cache all the graphics on the map using the command line option (-NOTEXTURESTREAMING: Disable texture streaming. Highest quality textures are always loaded.) so you don't see any warped buildings and you can set textures to High. Also use command line option (-USEALLAVAILABLECORES: Force the use of all available cores on the target platform.) for even better performance on your multicore CPU. - The specific 1660 Super OC that I got was:

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/FortniteCompetitive on September 14, 2020 11:44:43

- CPU i5-9400 - DDR4 DRAM 3000MHz - Asus TUF Gaming GeForce GTX 1660 Super Overclocked 6GB Edition HDMI DP DVI Gaming Graphics Card (TUF-GTX1660S-O6G-GAMING)

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/FortniteCompetitive on September 14, 2020 11:29:54

Would you call the GTX 1660 super really a high end card? Switching to D12 really improved my FPS by about 40+ FPS on average. Used to however around 180-210 FPS and now I hit 210-240FPS

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/FortniteCompetitive on September 14, 2020 11:25:10

Some stuff that improved my FPS, some already mentioned here. - Disable High Rez textures. - Post processing to low/medium. - Switch to DirectX12. Default is 11. Just switched recently and it's a big performance increase at least for my GTX 1660 Super.

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/FortniteCompetitive on September 14, 2020 10:41:55

Trolls are not popping champaign today.

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/btc on September 12, 2020 21:58:49

cheers, glad to see you back and not letting trolls abuse the report function.

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/btc on September 12, 2020 15:13:37

False persecution is a common troll tactic used here. Hell trolls say downvoting them is censorship, compared to /r/bitcoin's no mod log.

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/btc on September 11, 2020 17:26:39

it's funny because /u/Contrarian__ recently got mad when he got downvoted for posting misinformation and it turns out he doesn't even follow his own advice and gets mad and reports people. The mask that he hides behind is him.

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/btc on September 11, 2020 16:25:27

Why do you report people if you disagree with them? That's so low for someone who claims to be on the moral highground.

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/btc on September 11, 2020 16:09:40

Excuse me, how the fuck is 8-10 percent draining overnight decent? My Huawei from 2016 drains 2-3 at best and the battery is over 3 years old now. My Note 3 when I used it drained 1-2 percent overnight.

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/Galaxy_S20 on September 11, 2020 15:51:54

How can I report you for running multiple alt accounts and claiming you block people to drop conversations only to return the next day? All you do is lie around here and avoid conversations that goes against the Bitcoin Core politics. I too have reported you for harassment. You add nothing of value here, just bait people into fights like you're doing now.

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/btc on September 11, 2020 14:49:55

> that you use multiple alts to manipulate this subreddit. Can confirm /u/Contrarian__ has multiple accounts followed me 20 comments deep and I get -4. Who would follow a comment thread that deep other than Contrarian running multiple alts.

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/btc on September 11, 2020 14:33:57

Do you still think LN transactions are a guarantee and not a promise? Do you still believe LN transactions are as secure as mempool UTXO's?

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/btc on September 11, 2020 10:59:09

lol It's more like you don't understand the technicals of what you're talking about which is what I said earlier. How can you create fake Bitcoin on Lightning? By nodes not validating tx's in the channel. In 2019 it turned out a s/w bug affected c-Lightning nodes allowing fake Bitcoin's to be used in channels. Source: > A lightning node accepting a channel must check that the funding transaction output does indeed open the channel proposed. Otherwise an attacker can claim to open a channel but either not pay to the peer, or not pay the full amount. Once that transaction reaches the minimum depth, it can spend funds from the channel. The victim will only notice when it tries to close the channel and none of the commitment or mutual close transactions it has are valid. So it wasn't just 2 nodes colluding about extending credits... it was a much worse scenario, all nodes of that software were prone to accepting fake Bitcoin.

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/btc on September 11, 2020 09:35:45

right? Your maximalism blinded you to believe a mempool UTXO is as secure as an LN transaction. In fact you were so sure you said I "artificially" called LN transactions a promise. Do you even understand how Bitcoin's scaling works? > I think that your use of the word "promise" is very wrong in this context. You just inserted it artificially. It seems you dropped the conversation entirely were I proved mempool UTXO's CANNOT be tampered with an are a guarantee, while LN transactions are at best a promise:

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/btc on September 11, 2020 09:32:29

Agreed. BCH is kicking ass. LN has failed and dying a slow death. I was just comparing that despite the whole Bcash campaign and Bitcoin Core and Blockstream constantly attacking it but they leave all other 54 Bitcoin forks alone we know we're hitting the right spot. LN and BCH were created around the same time and due to BCH's ease of use and low fees with no rude-goldberg way of handling money like Lightning requires, BCH has 20x more usage than LN daily.

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/ethtrader on September 11, 2020 09:18:50

> Is your next argument going to be that LN transactions are private and the $12million locked into it LN is traded 20x to be $200million in value transfered daily? LN is a hard flop. You see $200mil here? because that's my quote. Don't be silly and think BCH is only doing 200 per day.

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/ethtrader on September 11, 2020 09:15:19

You can identify LN balances onchain when someone creates and closes their LN channel, which they will have to do eventually. Also:

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/lightningnetwork on September 11, 2020 09:12:35

> That bug was long fixed. Of course it was, but you lied and said it it wasn't possible and now we found out you did know about it > (This is quite theoretical, as I haven't heard it done, but theoretically I guess maybe it could be possible) - /u/vegarde I love calling your out for straight up lying, lying by omission or just plain not knowing what you're talking about. I can't wait where in a week troll accounts like yours with negative total karma won't be able to post here anymore. Literally your whole account just lies on reddit.

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/btc on September 11, 2020 09:10:20

/u/MrRGnome is ok with having his moderators regularly post paid stuff for money, but not anyone else. Just check his mod submissions, they're basically each regularly pushing the same source.

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/btc on September 11, 2020 09:07:26

Not with renBTC. 100% decentralized.

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/btc on September 11, 2020 09:06:22

You don't have a middle ground, you just make up facts and lie to make stories to fit your views. Last time you were so sure that Lightning was not able to produce fake Bitcoin and then when I called you out for it with sources that actually it happened last year, you dropped the conversation:

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/btc on September 11, 2020 09:03:33

Ethereum and Bitcoin have different blockchains. In Ethereum high fees make Ethereum less secure not more, because in Ethereum the miners will want to re-org blocks to sweep fees from themselves, something not likely to happen on Bitcoin. You're comparing Apple's to Oranges, in a desperate attempt to paint small blockers as not idiots. My God are you pushing misinformation.

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/btc on September 11, 2020 09:01:03

Totally agree. The trolls here that pretend to be moral by lying by omission and dropping topics because they're caught dancing around obvious technical facts are doing exactly that.

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/btc on September 11, 2020 08:38:04

Pulled from the blockchain itself This is onchain data.

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/ethtrader on September 11, 2020 08:36:30

> Just set the fee at 3 sats per byte and wait for a day Sure that works today, but if you aren't aware the fees are growing each year and your statement won't be true in 6 months. In 2017 Bitcoin fees were on average 50 cents or so, today average is $3-$4.

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/lightningnetwork on September 11, 2020 08:36:00

That's the point, to cripple Bitcoin in anyway possible while advertising it as a feature. They don't fix things, just break em.

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/btc on September 10, 2020 21:50:44

I was banned several times from /r/bitcoin. The last time I got banned was when Luke-jr was proposing a block change from 1MB to 300K. I simply stated that a smaller blocksize would decrease Bitcoin's throughput, and objectively true answer with no mention of BCH and was banned for altcoin shilling lol They simply look through your profile for a reason to ban you, when you go against their core beliefs.

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/btc on September 10, 2020 18:11:47

> BCH also wants you to store your money in UTXOs in order to spend it. So what? They have different levels of security, that's what. One is secured by the high hash rate, the other by the owner staying vigilant and checking in on his funds to avoid theft attempts. You've heard of Lightning watchtowers right? /u/Ilivedtherethrowaway is right to question why he has to substitute security for low fees.

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/btc on September 10, 2020 17:50:04

A UTXO in the mempool can only can yield you the exact amount and address specified in the UTXO making a mempool transaction a 100% guarantee. It cannot be tampered with or have any variation but the one submitted. Only you can create transactions with your money. With an LN HTLC any LN channel state can be submitted to a miner as valid, despite not being the most up to date one or honest, making any LN transaction a promise but not a guarantee. A channel partner can tamper with the amount at any time and submit the incorrect or version favorable to him. You've heard of Lightning watchtowers right? Sounds like you believe mempool UTXO's and LN transactions are at the same level of security which they are not. Not to mention the 2 also differ in potential Bitcoin owners.

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/btc on September 10, 2020 17:08:46

> I'm saying the data you show is nothing new, all pros already know about for map specific questions

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/FortniteCompetitive on September 10, 2020 16:10:55

How does it feel to know that in about a week your negative karma account won't be able to troll here anymore? Want to tell us the name of your new account?

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/btc on September 10, 2020 16:04:38

same info as on

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/FortniteCompetitive on September 10, 2020 16:00:11

is /u/calcc- the same dumb kid named yung calc

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/FortniteCompetitive on September 10, 2020 15:58:43

Yes any Bitcoin UTXO is Bitcoin. However a Bitcoin UTXO can be unlocked several ways: - using a private key - anyone can spend, no key required - hashlock - used in Lightning's HTLC's unlocked when a specific hash is met. Also used in Atomic swaps - timelock - also used in Lightning's HTLC's unlocked when a specific time has passed

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/ethtrader on September 10, 2020 15:55:41

reckless might be the wrong term, perhaps less secure. Yet LND is the future of Bitcoin scaling like it or not. All that Bitcoin hashrate gone to waste since offchain transactions don't benefit from it. I wonder when Bitcoin supporters will realize the irony.

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/ethtrader on September 10, 2020 15:29:38

If BTC can be offchain in LN, it can certainly be on another chain. IOU's can be stored offchain or onchain. You've heard of atomic swaps by now right?

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/ethtrader on September 10, 2020 15:13:27

lol how is my confidence restored knowing BCH and LN were created around the same time yet one only has $12million locked into LN while BCH does $220 in value transferred a day? Is your next argument going to be that LN transactions are private and the $12million locked into it LN is traded 20x to be $200million in value transfered daily? LN is a hard flop. And add insult to injury those who predicated that LN would centralize around big hubs were right. The sum of BTC in channels over # of channels has diverged as expected:

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/ethtrader on September 10, 2020 15:11:13

Lightning is a promise that upon closing the channel Bitcoin will be paid to the appropriate parties.

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/btc on September 10, 2020 13:48:19

Do explain the difference even if in your last attempt you flopped. Maybe someone can help you out.

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/btc on September 10, 2020 13:45:53

don't forget /u/null emailed CSW offering him assistance knowing he was a conman.

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/btc on September 10, 2020 12:56:16

What hell do you think Lightning is? It too is an IOU. /u/jonald_fyookball is comparing 2 IOU's.

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/btc on September 10, 2020 12:40:06

You speak about hashrate being of importance, but forget Bitcoin's scaling solution and future of money, Lightning is disconnected and doesn't benefit from it. All the hashrate in the world doesn't matter on Lightning when you need to periodically check in on your balance to prevent theft attempts. 3rd party watchtowers are coming to Lightning to make up for the disconnect from hashrate onchain. Bitcoin doesn't require watchtowers because hashrate secures payments. Lightning requires some party to check in on your funds regularly and without fail hence the development of watchtowers.

Commented by /u/500239 in /r/btc on September 10, 2020 12:37:40