My girlfriend sent me Bitcoin she received email I got nothing no email no money and Bitcoin has nothing to do with email. no help from Coinbase, they said person who got $700 received and spent it... Can you give the complete story, with as much details as possible? It now sounds like an internal Coinbase transaction that was sent to the wrong user. |
|
|
|
Which part is slower? Profiles, for instance. But it seems okay again. On my profile, 1 out of 6 badges is on the next row. Should that be on the same row? Yes. Unless you have a tiny screen. Or too many badges. My screen is big enough, and all badges are now on the same row. Forever is a long time. How about lifetime redirect? I can work with that  Trust List: Error: File not found. C:\Sites\bpip-razor\wwwroot Hmmm... I may have inadvertently fixed that. Where was it occurring? It was on the profile pages, but it works again.
I think it has picked back up after I did a full re-upload...
Anyhow, should be good now.
Corrected. Thanks
On the profile page, it now shows: Last Parsed: 7/22/2020 8:01:57 AM (Planned for 7/23/2020 8:01:56 AM from now) This used to say something like "Planned for 7 minutes from now". Now the planned time is one second before it was last parsed. I stand corrected: Twenty-four hours minus one second. |
|
|
|
which will hopefully benefit the overall performance At the moment, it's quite a lot slower than I'm used to. On my profile, 1 out of 6 badges is on the next row. Should that be on the same row? Important: Redirects are setup for the old links/pages mentioned above, but you should update any profile links to use /Profile?p=username or /Profile?id=00000 (instead of profile.aspx?p= I've adjusted my scripts for the next update, although I've probably forgotten a few. And I have about 4.5 million HTML pages linking to the old URL, so I'd appreciate if you can keep the redirect forever There's this: Trust List: Error: File not found. C:\Sites\bpip-razor\wwwroot |
|
|
|
It would be that bad as 2028 will have much bigger issue of 1.5625 sized reward. Why would that be an issue? It's exactly as Satoshi planned. I see 3 options: - Bitcoin is worth a lot more, and miners still earn a lot.
- Fees are very high, and miners still earn a lot.
- Miner earnings aren't worth the electricity they consume, some of them quit, difficulty goes down a bit (or goes up less fast), the remaining miners make a good living again, and the Bitcoin network consumes less energy.
|
|
|
|
I read and hoped we will eventually get to a better compression/decompression method I don't expect much from this, and if it takes off only a few percent, it's not significant compared to the expected increase in disk space. |
|
|
|
It seems to be a bug from forum. Once a user changes the password, changes the email address, wakes up, etc, it should be shown on Security log. Email changes aren't reported in seclog. It only shows "password reset via email". I have all unedited (or deleted) posts made by BobLawblaw, but I started collecting this data only a year ago. I also have most older posts by now, but it's going to take me a while to sort it per user. Deleting posts, especially from OP, is quite disruptive to a forum, but it's just one of the many freedoms this forum offers. |
|
|
|
All chips should refer to the general function, 2048 m BTC: change to 2btc. 4096 m BTC: change to 4btc. Bt8192. Let's choose more general functions. To continue this list, let's see how many addresses hold such amounts: 1000 m BTC: 88063 addresses 1024 m BTC: 338 addresses 2000 m BTC: 17472 addresses 2048 m BTC: 114 addresses 4000 m BTC: 4332 addresses 4096 m BTC: 145 addresses 8000 m BTC: 1318 addresses 8192 m BTC: 57 addresses 16000 mBTC: 317 addresses
16384 mBTC: 2 addresses
32000 mBTC: 112 addresses
32768 mBTC: 0 addressesMy guess is not many people would use the option to convert 8192 m BTC into 8000 m BTC, while it requires a large amount of Bitcoin to be held in those chips. |
|
|
|
I just tried to send a small amount to this DOGE address DGkdJh3SwPJjMMEJm7bQfxUfhvcgj8WdYT and it got converted to this 1CcXmS6odyQSpM3i2Xbr8CK4pntPRE3yvF. I didn't want to waste BTC fees, so I tried with BCH. When pasting the Doge addy, it instantly says: " Please check the address". I tried all other Bitcoin forks in Atomic Wallet, and (even without balance) they all give the same error. Except for when I try the real Bitcoin: there is no error! So if they claim this: "This is a responsibility of the user to carefully check if the address is correct and the funds are sent correctly." Then why do they even bother to check the address for all other coins?
May I suggest to keep the Ledger Nano price discussion out of this thread? |
|
|
|
If the OP Has the private keys of D7ZDkK9RNyKDiDE7GobhKWNsTt3rHKGm3e , he must have the private key for 13R8D4Cn5ZQwBD3WYDc8mkDGakKYxZcpwb, if the wallet makes any sense at all at their conversion. I don't think that's possible. I've just installed Atomic Wallet (in a VM). During installation, system load went up to 54. I've never seen that before from a single program. After installation, seeing so many different altcoins supported, it made me realize they may have just messed up something internally. Say they check addresses for validity, but they check them against all supported coins instead of only against the one you're actually sending.Update: see my next post |
|
|
|
Also this was their latest reply about me asking for a refund.
"DOGE is a BTC-like coin and has the same address format as BTC. The address format is the same, but the blockchains are different." So according to them, this: D7ZDkK9RNyKDiDE7GobhKWNsTt3rHKGm3e Is the same format as this: 13R8D4Cn5ZQwBD3WYDc8mkDGakKYxZcpwb Are they trolling you or do they really don't understand that an address starting with a "D" is different than an address starting with a "1"? how does it convert the doge address to a btc address I'd like to know this too. Since they will fix the issue, they should know exactly how (and why) their software made this conversion. |
|
|
|
-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I am LeonardoDiCrypto and today is July 20 2020,
I am here proving ownership of my Bitcoin address: 14wduh8s1yL2eojuFH3ANFsT48PpRvnXh1
-----BEGIN SIGNATURE-----
14wduh8s1yL2eojuFH3ANFsT48PpRvnXh1
H0PmS/ESSW4zABv6O50Nij225WRXtWGzeARUVTKNpf8SSRByJGsD5Dcgv+mLGaGdU2U5SSqaEQ96yFhGAdnXK1g=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE----- Quoted and verified! Note: This user recently woke up from a long period of inactivity. |
|
|
|
Do you mean the more addresses the chips are, the more anonymous they are？ In general: yes! Having more potential matches makes it less likely to find the one you're looking for. I hate something,
Why not use the generic model and allow people to switch to the chips they like
2048 m BTC: change to 2btc
4096 m BTC: change to 4 BTCs
8192 m BTC: change to 8 BTCs You can go a step further: 10 BTC sounds better than 8 too! But it doesn't fit the "split" and "merge" options. |
|
|
|
Since the thread is not locked yet does that mean everyone can still edit their posts even though almost 1 hours passed since the 24 hours deadline? It means it's vacation time and Hhampuz is enjoying his time offline  |
|
|
|
I confirm this PM (in vareole's inbox) is authentic: elmanchez confirms ownership of fantom196 and Webcelerator. Archived (in case imgur.com gets edited). I confirm these PMs (in vareole's outbox) are authentic. Archived (in case imgur.com gets edited). @vareole: you should change your password and captcha code again |
|
|
|
I'm ashamed to admit I usually pay them in BCH, because they accept it with zero confirmations (unlike BTC), so it only takes about a minute to activate. Boo. Also, that makes no sense. Given that BCH's hash rate is only around 2% of bitcoin's hash rate, it takes significantly longer for a BCH transaction to be as secure or "final" as a BTC one. What is their rationale behind this? I don't know, but if I'd have to guess: BCH gets confirmed quite quickly with a low fee, while BTC can remain unconfirmed for a very long time. I don't think they worry much about a 51% attack, which is unlikely to happen because of paying $5 for a VPN. |
|
|
|
I think you have something personal with us, you said you don't want to waste your time anymore with us, but you still made a new negative trust feedback and you are refusing to take them down. You've been proven wrong before, and you can't expect someone to keep wasting time when you try your next scheme. The system was inspired from primedice, does that mean they are not pf? I don't think Primedice does this: Your system is asking people to commit to a client seed before you commit to a server-seed. How much do you get for making those defamation posts about us? I'm pretty sure RHavar doesn't need any money, can't be bribed (or at least not by amounts available to mortals), and he's not the one who makes you look bad. You do. You can get max 10 loses in a row on 1.10x, the last one having a 0.00000001% chance to hit. Stuff like this just makes me wonder if you have no idea what you're talking about, malicious, or both. If you're in the casino business, you should completely understand statistics. I've seen many BS claims, and they usually come from either dumb people, or from scammers. If you're running a casino you shouldn't be either one of those, so the red tag is a good warning. |
|
|
|
I do apologize, i am a bit of a noob at this, but is there any place you think i could submit a complaint and ask for that btc back from them, or is this a lost cause? It's probably a lost cause. Most (if not all) wallets have a condition like "use at your own risk" in their Terms. This is what Atomic wallet shows: 5. Specifically Disclaimed Risks
Using Virtual Currency software necessarily entails many risks. Atomic specifically disclaims and shall have no liability to You for the following risks:
operating system failures (mobile or desktop); and,
interactions between Your hardware, software, and the Atomic; and,
cloud backup software (e.g. certain Android distributions) may upload your private information to third party services; and,
malware, viruses or other malicious software on Your device that is able to take control of or interfere with Atomic; and,
communication delays between Your Atomic Desktop and Mobile Light Wallet Application and a node or relay service for a virtual currency (and vice versa); and,
failure to achieve a certain market value/price for a virtual currency token, whether through a third-party service or any other kind of transaction; and, theft of virtual currency tokens. I'm not a lawyer, but my guess is this part covers them: "interactions between Your hardware, software, and the Atomic". |
|
|
|
Why would a scammer invite you to send money to an address where the private key is known by multiple people? I had a different interpretation of what you meant. This is nothing to do with scamming - it's about preventing mistakes. Like people sending to the brainwallet "password", or software having a brain fart and sending to the hash of a blank string. Still, that's going to be a very long list. Brainwallets must be brute-forced by many different attackers who check billions of addresses. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
