Lol of course blockchain safer than xapo. besides blockchain have an older age.
No, it doesn't matter how 'old' they are. Generally, online wallets should be avoided. If you have to use online wallet,try both with smaller amounts and find which one is easier for you to use and more convenient.
Use a desktop SPV wallet, they're equally convenient and easy to use. A good example of that would be Electrum. if you want to use online wallet, use coinbase, i am using it more then 2 year and i never had any problem
This is horrible advice. Coinbase should be avoided at all costs. i think blockchain is more safe, i have been using it for really long time now and i never was scammed and never heard anything bad about this bitcoin wallet
Besides the fact that you should not be using online wallets in the first place? |
|
|
|
That process needs to be more streamlined and a better guide needs to be made (one that is less complex). Keep in mind that it may very well be difficult for non tech savy users to follow it. Additionally, errors/problems during the process are also not uncommon. If the headlines in 6 months are "NSA attacks BTC, BTC wins, NSA cries" - then Moon, super confidence..
-snip-
If we do assume that this is the case, what makes you think that the NSA would admit this/leave traces of it? Additionally, what makes you think that the major media would run a story like this?
Bumping this up for visibility due to its importance. It's being pushed down by spam. |
|
|
|
If OgNasty doesn't confirm what I'm assuming in good faith then this is much more than bad behavior and he must be tagged.
They didn't confirm it so far. Lauda even contacted me on Slack asking about getting my advertiser to sponsor his new signature campaign group, so I'm not sure when it was labeled as evil.
I don't have any memory of contacting you regarding Betcoin sponsoring ACE. I highly doubt that ACE would advertise them (2 members dropped them anyways) anyways. I have contacted you regarding moneypot and your own rates (prior and current), that's it. Please keep me out of this as I have nothing to do with it. -snip-
It seems like you've missed the point of this thread. |
|
|
|
@Lutpin: I really think you should just drop it. To be honest I'd say it's not worth it.
They did drop it. AFAIK this was attempted to be solved privately, but they can't control the actions of the other party. From what I do understand, Lutpin is just concerned about their safety at this time as the other party does have their full DOX. And I really don't think "Really should kill himself" must be taken literally.
Considering the messages that they've exchanged privately, I'm not sure what to think of this. Is OGNasty going to get tagged for this? It seems like it's bad behavior at the least.
This is what we call "bad behavior" now? The situation is a mess. |
|
|
|
Hey guys. I raised some objection regarding the subject matter on some other section of this forum which was being viewed by Benson and many others. to my surprise, my post was DELETED.
Your post was off-topic and reported by someone (I've seen the report, but didn't act upon it). Your post was not deleted by Benson Samuel. Moderators usually tend to stay away from threads/posts regarding them and let other moderators make decisions to remain impartial. If you have proof of any misdoing (e.g. unfair moderation), then you should post it here. Otherwise this thread is just a waste of time. i think it is morally and ethically correct for Benson to resign for moderation.
There's no reason for them to do so. |
|
|
|
I've posted here to watch how the situation unfolds/resolves. (Everyone being around that night, aswell as further others, can confirm that this is a 100% authentic log of the channel and things happened like this. OgNasty wishes me to die.)
After quickly skimming through it, this log should be authentic. I've read it from my IRC history some time after it had happened. |
|
|
|
fwiw i dont click links in general either, i am super paranoid of anything. If i had a higher technical knowledge then i would trust myself more. One thing for sure the last time i got hacked for anything was back in 2008.
It's definitely better to be cautious than to end up paying the price. It doesn't cost one much to check whether the website seems safe or not. and the short answer is YES.
Exactly. This is why one should scan links posted by random users here (preferably open them in a sandbox or VM environment if you have a lot of coins on your system). I don't think this is relevant with Bitcoin, but I'm not a law expert.
I'd say it's in the grey area in most countries as the regulation is lacking at the moment. I think the most surprising twist in this story, where the reaction of people on Reddit, and how they tried to justify their greed.  I wouldn't be surprised if this article was paid for though. Unfortunately, a lot of the people fail to admit their own faults and tend to get 'insulted' if you point them out. You can observe the effect of greed in some of the sections around the forum. |
|
|
|
Maybe you should sticky this?
There's a stickied thread regarding verification in Begginers & Help. I'm not sure about making this one sticky as well. I guess putting in on temporarily wouldn't harm. Potential drama or is this something really serious?
General rule: Better safe than sorry. I am not sure why no one suggested this before, but maybe the best option is to forget about 0.13 ver and don't upgrade Bitcoin Core at all?
This isn't a solution of any sort. You're mitigating the upgrade process; there's nothing that prevents this from happening from the next major release. to my knowledge since they are uploading the binaries on https://bitcoin.org unless their ssl keys are not compromised there is no way of messing with the uploaded files. right?
That's a common misconception. SSL is secure if all of the 'pre-conditions' are set (e.g. server key is not stolen). Look up the term "dSniff" - this was the first public implementation of MITM vs. SSL (IIRC). for example, if the devs upload the file to Google Drive, wouldn't it be safer?
If we are talking about state-sponsored attacks, what makes you think that Google would be safer? |
|
|
|
|
This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Ref. spam.
|
|
|
|
Generally, I don't click these kinds of links before I analyze them. Here's the Virustotal scan.This story is as legit as the giveaway was. You ended up being a fraud as suspected (regardless of whether we assume that this article is correct or not).
Update: Lol why would you be paranoid of such a link?
I've never used this website in particular. Actually, this is the first time that I've heard of it. Not that this is really the primary subject of this thread. |
|
|
|
|
This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Insubstantial duplicate. Take a look in the Beginners & Help Section and use the search function in the future.
|
|
|
|
Those people are ignorant fools. "Looking for a problem"? E.g., infinitely printing out money out of thin air, increasing the gap between the middle and the high class (etc.) is definitely not a problem. Right? Whenever you encounter such people tell them to watch the following documentaries: Inside Job (2010) Bitcoin: The End of Money as We Know It (2015)
I've only recently watched the first one and was surprised about how little (even I) was known regarding those events. For me bitcoin isn`t a solution,bitcoin is an alternative.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Bitcoin does solve a lot of these issues. |
|
|
|
|
This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Insubstantial necro.
|
|
|
|
Planning to buy a polished brass coin or a polished silver coin but not yet decided on what number.
How much will it cost to ship it over to the Philippines?
IIRC the shipping cost for international purchases (US sale) should be around 0.015-0.02 BTC. I will update the post once I verify the number. |
|
|
|
Sounds like laying the groundwork for a disinfo campaign when Chinese miners fork to a larger max blocksize. Sowing the seeds now to favor an adversarial mindset when it comes to plans coming from China.
Stop trolling. Nah, I’m probably just wish thinking… More likely that “cobra” is just acting like a petty tyrant again, similar to the last time he showed up, wanting to edit satoshi’s whitepaper.
There's nothing tyrannic about this nor his suggestion to add an updated version of the whitepaper. Also Lauda your the CEO of BTCE arnt you?
I may or may not be. Please refrain from creating consecutive posts. Can you explain this MIM attack more precisely, are you saying that data will be forged for a long time, would they need to attack both sender and receiver at the same time
A simple Google search would give you the required information (changing data in between the two of them). is this attack going after transactions or miners confirming transactions, and what kinds of alerts will be prompted if the Binaries aren't correct,
No alert will be prompted, that's the problem. Is the attacking of the binaries a new angle to take control of the network, or just a attempt to steal a bunch of coins and to discredit the security of a decentralized network? If this succeeded, we would have been in serious problems.
Generally, it is unfortunate that only a handful of people compile and build their own binaries (which is recommended). |
|
|
|
|
This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Duplicate.
|
|
|
|
They say they have a "reason to suspect" do we know what that reason is?
From what I know so far, the person who applied the change to the website has not provided (at least not public) an explanation. "State sponsored attacks"... From my understanding that would be implying that the bitcoin.org has info that a government has the intention to maliciously attack bitcoin, or are funding hackers?
No. We are talking about stuff in the lines of MITM attacks; there are a different number of approaches that could be attempted here (someone mentioned SSL MITM with rogue certificates). |
|
|
|
Because of this, should I not download the next version of qt until this problem is solved?
You shouldn't download the next version from the website until this resolves just to be sure. However, Bitcoin Core 0.13.0 is not ready yet (currently RC3). Or should I download from github and compile it myself?
That's always the preferred option. |
|
|
|
Not sure I have heard of those characters, with the possible exception of harding (if it's the harding from this forum, I haven't seen that user here in a while).
Well, they generally are only involved in website related work. As far as Cobra is concerned, they're anonymous (i.e. nobody really knows who they are - I don't remember who gave them commit access). I've added a Github link for the contributors. Interesting. Sipa is way too involved to be unaware of such issues, so I smell potential drama.
From what I can gather on the public communication channels, nobody really knows what the reason behind this is. You can see the commit was pushed here: 
Interesting information that may be relevant: https://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-announce/2016q3/000395.htmlThe GnuPG Project is pleased to announce the availability of new Libgcrypt and GnuPG versions to fix a critical security problem. Felix Dörre and Vladimir Klebanov from the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology found a bug in the mixing functions of Libgcrypt's random number generator: An attacker who obtains 4640 bits from the RNG can trivially predict the next 160 bits of output. This bug exists since 1998 in all GnuPG and Libgcrypt versions.
Impact: All Libgcrypt and GnuPG versions released before 2016-08-17 are affected on all platforms. A first analysis on the impact of this bug in GnuPG shows that existing RSA keys are not weakened. For DSA and Elgamal keys it is also unlikely that the private key can be predicted from other public information. This needs more research and I would suggest not to overhasty revoke keys.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
