I've cleaned most of this up. There were a lot more accounts... A few still remain, either because they hadn't done anything yet, or had done something potentially useful.
Thanks for the heads-up. If nothing else, this provided a good opportunity to identify some deficiencies in my analysis tools. Also another good illustration of how conscientious ...
This has happened before, with a ring of users causing questions to hit the multicollider, reaching 200 rep, and then abusing the network bonus.
I suggest everyone flag the answers as spam. Not sure if this is the right course of action, but this is best stopped before they reach 200 rep.
I've already pinged a community team member.
If they are legitimate, original questions we should answer them. However, those "flag" words should be edited out of the title and body of the question. New users don't realize that they only distract from the question they are asking.
Most of these questions, however, tend to be duplicates of our canonical questions. In this case, marking them as a ...
Not at all. Not everyone knows enough to be able to answer other people's questions so its perfectly fine to not answer any questions. Of course if you can answer questions, then that's great, but if you don't know the answer, then it's fine to not answer.
If you do have a lot of questions though, you should first see if someone else has asked the same ...
In my opinion, if you're not exploiting any weaknesses that are unknown to Core Developers, questions on modifying the standard client for research purposes are perfectly fine. Bitcoin is secure and battle tested, and it only became battle tested by researchers like yourself trying to see how the protocol can be gamed. We need this kind of experimentation to ...
You're looking at the wrong account. This is the Bitcoin SE Twitter account:
I don't know what is behind the link you are using. Apparently, it was something started by a moderator in this thread: Promotional Ideas?
Welcome to Bitcoin.SE.
Reputation is a measure of your contribution to the website, and thus a measure of the community's trust in you.
You can earn reputation by generating useful content, i.e. asking good questions or providing good answers. You can also gain smaller amounts of reputation by suggesting improvements on existing posts. If you haven't ...
They should be merged into one tag. My suggestion would be transaction-malleability as, while it may be the transaction id that is changed, I haven't seen it called transaction id malleability so far.
txid-malleability, malleability have been merged into transaction-malleability.
txid-malleability has been added as synonym for transaction-...
For similar or related questions the following format should be used to edit in links at the bottom of the question:
> [title of question](url to question)
How should duplicate questions be handled?
"Not an answer" was created to address the issue of folks leaving commentary, or even additional questions as answers. It also applies when someone just typed an answer to another question in the wrong box in the wrong tab (that happens more than you'd think). You can also use it when something is completely out of left field and just bizarre in the context ...
Since you are doing research for your thesis, which is a commendable purpose, questions along that lines should be fine. I suggest you put an explanation in your posts and/or profile, that you are asking about selfish nodes for your research.
If somebody were truly interested in building a selfish node, I assume that they would be able to do so as well, on ...
My usual procedure would be to only tackle topics that I feel reasonably sure about. However, it is acceptable to take a question as a point to start your own research in order to answer it. A lot of questions can be answered to the asker's satisfaction when one has a bit of background knowledge and knows where to find the remaining bits and pieces.
The wording of your answer made it sound like you were talking about the OP of that question which thus sounds like commentary. The usage of "they" was a bit vague (generally I think it's clearer to refer specifically to a person rather than use a pronoun, e.g. "the poster") and I didn't quite catch what the answer actually meant.
Further review of the ...
Thank you for bringing this up. I voted to reopen the question, because I agree that the reason given does not apply to your question.
Bitcoin Stackexchange has been getting a lot of low-quality content lately especially with the price rally (we're flooded with questions about lost wallets). Perhaps, users are a bit too quick with close votes lately.
Following sites in the Stack Exchange network would be relevant to specific discussion on the distributed computing aspects such as Consensus, Fault Tolerance, Partial Synchrony, etc.
Theoretical Computer Science
thanks for raising awareness.
I'm going to add a warning to both of these answers. If you already have the privilege to do so, downvoting the answers would be proper, too. (I've done so already.)
Optimally, someone would post the correct answer.
Unfortunately, the Stackexchange format doesn't lend itself to evolving a topic in one post. So, if your update to the question changes it so much that answers already given would become obsolete by being wrong, off-topic, or severely incomplete you should rather ask a new question instead.
In this case, I think it could work out, but perhaps you should ...
I believe the answer to this is that what you flagged as "not an answer" can actually be seen as a somewhat convoluted and indirect answer phrased as a question of the rhetoric let-me-make-you-think-and-answer-it-yourself kind. I've tried to explain by adding a comment to it. Anyways, a certain number of people interpreting this grammatical question as a ...