My question seems pretty trivial but why doesn't ChipMixer adopt Segwit yet? It was activated such a long time ago and even if they had planned to use Legacy from a long time ago, it seems like it would be better to have some mix of bc1 and p2pwsh addresses in the chips? The last thing I read about it: last few days some of low size chips were preloaded with Segwit (segwit over p2sh) instead of non-segwit (p2pkh). Out of all withdrawn Segwit chips - none were sweeped by our users. If you were affected - please contact our support - we will help you get your coins.
ChipMixer Segwit rollout will be delayed. I haven't imported SegWit private keys in a long time, but last time I did it was a bit more complicated than native addresses: For P2SH-P2WPKH addresses (Addresses starting with "3")Just add p2wpkh-p2sh: directly in front of your private key. For example p2wpkh-p2sh:5BitcoinPrivateKey This should generate the corresponding p2wpkh-p2sh bitcoin address. For P2WPKH addresses (Bech32, starting with 'bc1')This time we'll add p2wpkh: in front of the private key. For example This should generate the corresponding Bech32 address Segwit addresses are still a minority: 33,075,249 funded Bitcoin addresses on December 17, 2020
24,519,978 of those start with 1
6,447,377 of those start with 3
2,107,877 of those start with bc1q ( source) |
|
|
|
Please check my preliminary calculations tomorrow so that there are no mistakes I found the same results: 77 and 66  |
|
|
|
It's just a 5-digit number like any other... wake me up when we add a digit or two.
j/k One more digit at the next ATH before the next drop to $30k would be nice Just opened a bottle I had stashed for this very occasion. Cheers. I'll join with a lockdown bottle. I'm off for the day! |
|
|
|
Thanks again! After this flawless “paid”-“thank you” iteration That's not true, once in a while Foxpup's time machine is a second off. Anyway, bored here again, our first real hard lockdown. Of course, everyone's still going wherever they want, people are still going on vacation, and many shops are just opening their doors pretending to sell necessities  But they closed schools, so work from home just got more difficult. |
|
|
|
Which VPN is that one ? Mullvad.net They take BTC and BCH. Until they accept LN, I use ShitFork BCH (small payments, low fees, and accepted with zero confirmations) to pay them. They also accept cash by mail for full privacy, but I haven't tried that. Let me know from where i can get a VPS for 4$ per year ? Gullo's Hosting (when ordering, click "Use a coupon code". Note: no support, so you're on your own at this price). There's a howto on how to install a OpenVPN no a NAT-VPS. There's also this, but I haven't tried it. Again: you're on your own  |
|
|
|
In times like these (when it doesn't make me sad) I like to look at bitcoinaverage.com's graph on a logarithmic scale:  I always notice that every ATH is preceded by a very steep increase in price. Currently, we're at another ATH, but the graph is much less steep than all the other peaks. If I add some wishfull thinking to my interpretation, I can only conclude the peak is going to be several times higher than the current price. |
|
|
|
The guy I was in contact with said, it would be safest if I am going to fly into his country (Eastern Europe) to do the deal (he would also pay the flight tickets for $400). Warning! This should ring enough alarm bells. You are getting robbed! Nobody pays Bitcoin above market value. What you should do, is create an account at a legitimate exchange, go through KYC, and sell your Bitcoins there. The impartial Escrow Service should not pay out the bitcoins until the consideration has been met or no dispute has been filed. It will be very difficult for both parties to provide complete evidence, so it will be virtually impossible for the escrow to know what really happened. There's not even a point of an escrow to get involved: this won't happen! The other side will never pay, don't waste your time and don't make mistakes due to the dollar signs in your eyes  |
|
|
|
A free or cheap VPN service might not be the best solution if you are a privacy oriented individual. Most VPN providers are required by law to keep logs of their clients and their internet activity. I assume that varies per country, mine is from Sweden and can be paid per any time you want (minutes to years) using crypto. As far as I know they don't keep logs, and as far as I know Swedish law allows that. Alternative: how about setting up your own OpenVPN server on a VPS? I've recently tested it and got it to work, just $4 per year is enough to get a VPS with 250 GB monthly bandwidth (counted in both directions for VPN-usage). The VPN-software itself won't keep logs for sure. Those very cheap VPS servers share an IP, but I don't know how much can be tracked there. |
|
|
|
This is great If only a few active users remain, I can also do much more frequent updates again. I found another problem that severely impacts performance (loading all topic titles for each update), but I need a bit more time to fix that. |
|
|
|
List of participants:
0. safar1980
1. dkbit98
2. Csmiami
3. slackovic
4. lovesmayfamilis
5. Smartprofit
6. skarais
7. icopress
8. fillippone
9. BlackHatCoiner
10. o_solo_miner
11. LoyceV
12. Woodie
13. allyouracid
14. bullrun2020bro
15. Royse777
16. Little Mouse
17. BTCLiz
18. vapourminer
19. Marvelman
20. Yogee
21. webtricks
22. qwertyup23
23. notblox1
24. 20kevin20
25. Lordhermes
26. crwth
27. GeorgeJohn
28. DroomieChikito
29. janggernaut
30. Coolcryptovator
31. tranthidung
32. Charles-Tim
33. Swordsoffreedom
34. SFR10
35. babo
36. Karartma1
37. taikuri13
38. V4n3ss4
39. palle11
40. lienfaye
41. davis196
42. Porfirii
43. Jawhead999
44. cryptofrka
45. posi
46. BIT-BENDER
47. Pmalek
48. SiNeReiNZzz
49. onecall123
50. ranochigo
51. babygun
52. numanoid
53. suzanne5223
54. $crypto$
55. Cadaver20
56. cabalism13
57. Cryptomiles1
58. mediaBuzz
59. NeuroticFish
60. GazetaBitcoin
61. acquafredda
62. qwk
63. Cornia
64. creep_o
65. Text
66. Christabel247
67. marlboroza
68. casperBGD
69. Trofo
70. Vispilio
71. hulla
72. Captain-Cryptory
73. duesoldi
74. sbogovac
75. sheenshane
76. lukax8
77. IlVeroNico
78. -doubleU-
79. wwzsocki
80. DarkStar_
81. Coin-1
82. julerz12
83. FP91G
84. Yabes
85. sky999
86. xandry
87. Coyster
88. Becky666
89. CryptocurencyKing
90. malevolent
91. Mpamaegbu
92. tvplus006
93. Smartvirus
94. TalkStar
95. serveria.com
96. ReiMomo
97. Crptomagma
98. mak013
99. Stalker22
100. johhnyUA
101. abdulodoi
102. Rikafip
103. Traderbtcc
104. decodx
105. bitcoinermatt
106. Ale88
107. Alucard1
108. NotATether
109. Gozie51
110. bitmover
111. -Lemming-
112. adamvp
113. Ryker1
114. CryptopreneurBrainboss
115. xenon131
116. Saint-loup
117. CryptoPravda
118. mole0815
119. Jemzx00
120. sabotag3x
121. Unsoldier
122. btcltcdigger
123. khaled0111
124. Fivestar4everMVP
125. 1miau Quoting so it won't get edited anymore The hash of the first mined block from December 17, 2020 will be used. Which time zone do you use? Blockchair.com's default? |
|
|
|
Hey OgNasty, this message was signed from an address that's being use by Brainwallet for demo purposes. I ~ don't really feel your comment is relevant (LoyceV seems to, but that's no surprise as he's pretty clueless). You seem to enjoy trying to smear my reputation in several topics lately. Is that because I called you out on - as theymos calls it - your tacky behaviour when you profited 7 BTC from holding Bitcointalk forum funds? Yogee's comment is relevant: I care if the user can post a signed message with their username Just last week you Merited someone who not only can't sign a message, but also pretends to own an address that received over 59BTC. Let's try to keep this thread on topic. Lol. Look who's talking! Since you love going off-topic I'll take this post of yours here too: Your lack of experience on this forum is showing again. You seem to live in your past glory days, looking down on forum users from your high tower. Meanwhile, and back on-topic, you're the 2 nd Top Merit sender to permabanned users, last 180 days, even though you only rank 25th Most generous merit sender. So welcome to the present |
|
|
|
Update:~ Rmcdermott927Left negative feedback for an opinion, then left the forum. I'll remove my exclusion when they come back and remove the feedback. I think this one deserves more of an explanation. A week ago, they left this feedback:  The Reference link doesn't provide any evidence for this opinion. Even if this would be true, it goes directly against what I consider correct use of the Trust system and it's a clear violation of theymos' guidelines: The system is for handling trade risk, not for flagging people for good/bad posts/personalities/ideas. (click the quote for the full text) On the same day Rmcdermott927 left negative feedback, he posted this: Leaving the forum until some of the trash is cleaned up, if I ever return, which is unlikely I will sign a message. Rmcdermott927 was on DT1 with Strength (0), my exclusion removed them from DT1. I will remove my exclusion if they come back and remove the negative feedback for suchmoon's opinion.
It's okay not to like someone! It's not okay to leave negative feedback for it!To quote myself: Be the bigger man!With great power comes great responsibility ( source unknown). Especially when you're on DefaultTrust (or if you want to be on DefaultTrust in the future), you shouldn't (ab)use that power by leaving (negative) feedback when someone does something you don't like. Your Sent feedback is what others use to judge your judgement. If someone on the internet is mean to you: boo fucking hoo! Use the Ignore button, and forget about them.
Update:I don't consider this correct use of the Trust system, and neither does theymos judging by his quote a bit higher in this post. I would like to post his PM, but this is generally considered not done so I won't. Update: OgNasty didn't take long to retaliate, which is quite funny considering he had me included up to 5 days ago. Just like most of his Trust exclusions are mutual. Funny how stating facts makes him not like my judgement.
|
|
|
|
Bump I'll use this opportunity to announce I've extended loyce.club's domain name until December 2024 Bump Bump |
|
|
|
Quote from this topic: Dear OgNasty, Dear Vod,
Please don't continue your long fight in my topic.
Thanks you very much,
Marcel Quote from another topic: Ok, fun as it is derailing LoyceV's threads and testing the limits of his Switzerlandness, it has to stop. I'll delete the drama starting now. |
|
|
|
|
NEW RULE:
[ code]stillusingthis:yes[/ code]
I started this project exactly one year ago today, and I'd like to reduce first CPU load and later scraping load. I have no idea how many people still use this, and I'd like to keep offering this service for active users, but I want to stop spending resources on people who don't use it. There are after all several alternatives by now.
If you still use it, please add the above tag to your code. I'll activate this check a few weeks from now, and anyone without it will be gone. I might also open a new topic on a board that allows self-moderation, so I can keep the topic compact ([urlhttps://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5268608.0]like this one[/url]).
|
|
|
|
You started this thread with the express hope that others would give the accused negative trust feedback Please don't make up things about me. I started this topic for 2 reasons: I'll use this topic for a neutral Reference tag.
If anyone wants to dig deeper (all four lines of "evidence" - ironically, you write: "There's no direct evidence" and yet these people gave the UID negative anyway on the basis there was no "evidence") Or maybe they based it on further posts in the topic. For instance: Yep, its Humbertin |
|
|
|
My honest asking to the community, is me trolling or she is trolling me? You were (a bit) when you opened this topic.
That being said: I'm going off-topic now. You know where to find the Delete button. I'd say you should ask yourself why you came back: it can't possibly be for the drama, right? That's literally the worst part of the forum, right under spam (at least that gets deleted)! Go read the tech boards if you're bored during lockdown Create something useful, like you did before. |
|
|
|
Show me an exchange that will do a withdraw for less then .0005 even when the mempool is empty. At the moment: https://www.coinplaza.it/: 0.00119815LN BTC gives 0.001 BTC on-chain. https://fixedfloat.com/: 0.00108384LN BTC gives 0.001 BTC on-chain. That's 8384 sat fee for the cheapest, including the 1% exchange fee. Just don't use big exchanges for this. I'm not sure if it's the intended result, but the fees on exchanges make me keep funds there for a long time in order to avoid paying the withdrawal fee. Amazingly, most exchanges don't charge a fee on small deposits, while those lead to higher consolidation costs. Most payment processors on the other hand add enough to make the user pay for their consolidation. I remember paying something small in 2017, and later saw my payment being consolidated together with many others at a $6k fee. That's huge, but for exchanges this cost is included in the withdrawal fees. |
|
|
|
At the risk of making 2 posts in a row: I've installed the wallet, entered the mnemonic, and it's asking for a PIN. I'd expect to set a new pin, but it keeps asking for one. Does that mean the PIN you were talking about isn't only for the local wallet, but verified by GreenAddress?
I've sent them an email: Subject: The curious case of 0.1 BTC in a blacklisted wallet - requesting your side of the story Howdy GreenAddress, I'd like to ask your input on this topic: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5299347.0Very short summary: Bitcointalk user RHavar has 0.1 BTC stuck in a multisig wallet, he lost 2FA years ago, tried to "guess" it, and you blacklisted his wallet. I haven't seen any reason ever not to trust RHavar, so this Scam Accusation topic makes your wallet look bad. Would you care to reply in that topic? Or if you don't have or want a Bitcointalk account: if you reply to me by email I can post your response on your behalf. I'm mainly curious about two things: I don't understand the logic behind locking the wallet. It makes sense to stop a brute force attacker, but it doesn't make sense to take away access from the real owner entirely. So you either know RHavar is the owner, and should give it, or you don't know he's the owner and shouldn't lock the wallet beyond recovery. Thank you very much for your time, Loyce Valenzuela, Bitcointalk user. PS I'm also posting this email in the topic. To prevent fake replies, please quote this random text in your response: *************** |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
