I don't think it's work perfectly to report as spam or low value post because in this case if you can look stated profile post history then you can find his all posts more than 90 percent are just one word for bumping their bounty thread. And it's just too hard keep reporting each of their post as a spam. I am looking for best solution that in this case what is the best way to reporting so this user can be banned or taking appropriate action by moderator.
Report to Moderator -> write "Check this user's post history. All of his posts are spammy one liners. He deservers a ban for spamming" |
|
|
|
I had electrum 3.0.6 and try to send bitcoin and there was no response. I had to restart my wallet a few times. Finally, I was able to but after I clicked send, a message pop up says my vision is a bit old I need to upgrade to newer vision. I trusted the links because it comes from electrum wallet (3.0.6). I wasn't any other website to download anything. But after I upgrade to 4.0 all my bitcoin was gone.  Except that there is no Electrum 4.0 You got scammed because you downloaded a fake version of Electrum. That was an exploit that let some servers send fake messages to clients connected to them. You should ONLY download electrum from ELECTRUM.ORG (the ONLY legit website) and always verify the electrum files to make sure they are legit. That was basically a social engineering attack. With Bitcoin, we don't trust. We verify. |
|
|
|
If you ever need a big amount of testnet coins, you can try asking this user. I've seen him giving 5 tBTC at once and even offering to get 50-150 BTC to another user. Never pay for them tho. |
|
|
|
Todo santo dia um "hack" diferente.  Imagina se o Bitcoin Banco fosse um banco de verdade... Infelizmente o "hacker" parece já ter recebido algumas transações.
Quote pra ver a foto. |
|
|
|
What we have to do when an account get compromised??
Shall we only tag it or create a flag? If we create a flag want type of flag is suitable??
Always type 1 when it's just a warning and the user didn't break a contract with you. I believe you could do both when there is enough evidence that the user was hacked.
Good point by Lafu bellow. Flags can't be removed, and while they can be withdrew, they will still be there. |
|
|
|
Indiferente da história do @ShooterXD ser verdadeira ou não, estou pensando agora em como é fácil F0d&r com o perfil de alguém no BTT.
É só o cara criar uma alt, supostamente se inscrever em alguma campanha copiando a wallet, deixar rolar um tempo e depois acusar de multi-conta.
Tá certo isso?
Na maioria das vezes o usuário não vai ganhar um neg trust só por causa disso. Já aconteceram várias vezes de alguém colocar informações de outros nessa bounties e não ter sido prova suficiente pra ser acusado de algo. |
|
|
|
I asked for a refund as another member here of the topic oriented me more nor did they even answer me they answered, is there any place to resort to it? or simply lost my money and other people can lose the same way.
All you could do is create a Scam Accusation thread with this format. Then, if they have an account here, they can get tagged by a DT member. But that's all. If they simply don't care about their reputation or just decide to ignore this, then there is nothing anyone can do. |
|
|
|
Realmente... dar acesso completo ao repo do Bitcoin Core ao Craig é algo extremamente perigoso. O cara ia transformar o Bitcoin em sua própria moeda, dividindo toda a comunidade (mais do que já houve com o BTC/BCH) - afinal, ele estaria fazendo isso diretamente da repo do maior client node. Sabia que ele tinha sido "kikado", mas nunca tinha lido o motivo. Muito interessante. |
|
|
|
Comentário na notícia: O Cláudio já respondeu um contato que o motivo foi o fim do prazo contratual. E já foram contratados 70 advogados para dar celeridade ao andamentos dos acordos, até pq no princípio o Nelson Wllians servia para dar a solução e não de proceder com os acordos. Se é verdade eu já não sei. |
|
|
|
[...] one moment of inattention and you have a scam. [...]
[...] after what I've read about this scams, in my opinion electrum is not safe.
So... scams happen when the user has a moment of inattention, but electrum is the problem? Sure bud. It looks like you already have your opinion formed and don't want to look at the facts. But of course, it's always easier to blame the software than your own stupidity 1. Anyways, looks like we are just wasting your time in here. 1i'm not trying to offend you, just putting in words what exactly happens |
|
|
|
Da última vez que eu vi (e.g esse tweet) ele era um defensor do BCH. Hoje em dia não sei se ele ainda está mergulhado no mundo das criptos, mas lembro que ele não foi a favor de manter o blocksize do BTC e implementar o Segwit. Sobre esse blog post, não sei se realmente é dele, mas afirmar que o Wright é o satoshi? wtf. Alias, essa parte: Part of that time was spent on a careful cryptographic verification of messages signed with keys that only Satoshi should possess. But even before I witnessed the keys signed and then verified on a clean computer that could not have been tampered with, I was reasonably certain I was sitting next to the Father of Bitcoin. Por quê 'diaxos' o Craig não faz o mesmo publicamente pra mostar que é o satoshi? Por que até agora nada. Além do mais, todo dia que passa sai alguma coisa do processo dele que prova que ele é um mentiroso e que está longe de ser o satoshi. Esses dias mesmos ele falou no tribunal um monte de coisa que se contradiz e inclusive falou que o theymos (admin do fórum) ajudou a criar o Silk Road junto com o Ross Ulbricht. |
|
|
|
I'm saying you cannot realistically expect any automated system to be 100% accurate in detection of malicious activity. Apple is famous for their walled garden approach, but even they suffer occasional breaches. Android does say they check all apps being published according to this page, but that doesn't mean a couple (or a thousand) won't slip through the cracks, especially because of their more open approach. You could argue that they're being negligent, which they easily could be, but that's ultimately up to the courts to decide. Meanwhile, all users could really do is either GTFO or practice due diligence. To be clear, I'm not defending Google, just saying that litigation would be a weak option given the specified circumstances. I’ve never seen a fake wallet in the Apple Store. Meanwhile, I can remember at least 4 only this year at the play store. No one here is asking for automation or 100% detect rate. We are asking for some basic background check before allowing apps in the store It isn’t either 0% or 100%. |
|
|
|
They can be sued, but whether or not that will be successful is an entirely different discussion. They didn't develop or run the app, and malicious apps aren't allowed in the Play Store in the first place. Checking all apps with 100% accuracy is a literal impossibility as well, so you can't really hold that against them.
Apple does that. And not only check for “malwares”, but also see if the app matches their guidelines. Are you saying that an company worth ~$766 billions (Alphabet) can’t create a system and hire people to check their apps? |
|
|
|
ok this allowed me to enter my private key but it shows zero balance which is incorrect. It provided a receiving btc address that is not the one I use. I tried to do a sweep and it wont take the master key there though.
What is the first character for your addresses in both bitpay and the wallet you just got on Electrum? (3, 1 or btc1?) |
|
|
|
starts with xprv and when entered on the Import Bitcoin addresses or private keys screen on Electrum the "Next" button is grayed out.
the links from bitpay explaining how to get the private key are unnecessary as the app has a simple button to export the private key so there is no need to do that long drawn out process - that being said - I did it yesterday anyways and it just provided me the same private key that the app does. Again, I believe I stated this above.
If it starts with xprv, then that's basically your wallet's master private-key. You need to select Standard Wallet -> Use a master key; then paste it in there and click Next. That should work. |
|
|
|
Split key is optional - some people do not know how to use a split key, that was my initial concern.
Make a tutorial. It's not hard. Maybe put some images and you're done. Example: 1. Go to Bitaddress.org (optionally download its source code on https://github.com/pointbiz/bitaddress.org/archive/v3.3.0.zip) and open it; 2. Move your mouse around until 100%; 3. Click on the "Vanity Wallet" tab; 4. Click on "Generate" and don't close the tab; 5. Paste the "Step 1 Public Key" in the generator's split-key field and click "Generate Address"; 6. Meanwhile, go back to bitaddress and paste the "Step 1 Private Key" into bitaddress' first box; 7. When the service finds the address, paste the generator's "BTC Privkey part" into Bitaddress' second box; 8. Click "Calculate Vanity Wallet"; 9. It should show your vanity address private-key. I will not be forcing split key, because of usability and accessibility
Stop giving excuses. Make your service truly secure. Security > Usability. Otherwise, we should just use Coinbase. |
|
|
|
UPDATE: We now support split-key on our website!
Good job! May I ask you to make using the split-key feature OBLIGATORY? Like, only offer your services if the user does that?  You can link them to bitaddress.org to generate their key pair (there is a vanity address tab in there). |
|
|
|
Sir your assumptions are your own. If you don't trust it, don't use it, but that's unfair and physically impossible for you to make any claim to the services credibility if you've never used it.
Don't worry, I won't use it.  But I will also warn everybody else (specially the newbies who don't understand things) how unsafe and untrustworthy this is. Now, if you are legit, shutdown your service right now and only put it back when you implement a safe way of generating vanity addresses (split-key). |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
