If the person sent a donation to you, shouldn't he be asking you to create a wallet beforehand? Any wallet address that isn't created by you should never be trusted, assuming you are the end user.
There's nothing wrong with accepting payments as a private key, assuming you immediately swipe the amount into your wallet as described by nc50lc and Pamoldar. It's true that similar angles get used for scams though. |
|
|
|
I'm afraid you've been scammed and someone is trying to get even more from you. Apart from most cloud mining services being scams and those that aren't being unprofitable, searching for Zkong leads to a "company" website that has been registered just one month ago. So that company is most likely fake and an attempt to scam additional money from you. Searching for iswift card leads to what appears to be a legit company, however the first website I find is less than half a year old, which is an additional red flag that you are not looking at a real company website. Moreso if they "recommended" Zkong for delivery. That is assuming you posted the wrong link for iswift card: Because that site is gone. |
|
|
|
it may take time, it may resist death, you may still see new ones pop up (like the ICOs these days) but the death is inevitable. what you see on both bitcointalk and coinmarketcap is the death of altcoins and mainly ICO scams.
Still I wonder what the "next big thing" is going to be. In 2013 it was simple Bitcoin clones and centralized securities / mining contracts. In 2017 it was spezialized / innovative alt coins, Bitcoin hard forks and ICOs. Short of a complete and utter death of crypto 20xx should be interesting, if even more or less a variation of what we've already seen before. I don't think alts will die that easily though. Even DOGE got pumped during the last hype cycle, regardless of it lacking active development and being little more than a meme. That's the beauty of crypto though. Easy to conceive, hard to kill. I doubt that this will hold true for abandoned ICO tokens though. |
|
|
|
To be fair, Reddit's Bitcoin community has also largely stagnated compared to 2017. Its subscriber base grew by the thousands every week during 2017. Now it's been "stuck" at just a bit above 1 million for the last year. Which is still pretty good compared to the 100-200k of early 2017.
And it's kept alive more by the spammers trying to promote their yt channels and cypto "news" websites. Discussions have died there also, posts with more than 20 comments are becoming scarce. Very true, but seeing how abysmal r/bitcoin submissions have become it's no wonder that discussions have died down. And is it just me or is r/bitcoin in a worse shape than it was pre-2017? Maybe it's the rose-tinted glasses of nostalgia, but I remember much more focus on upcoming Bitcoin tech being discussed. Right now even the memes are r/comedycemetery material at best. |
|
|
|
It's almost as if a lot of people entering the market during the 2017 bull market / hype cycle have been only following cryptocurrencies for a quick buck, rather than actual interest. So... It's just a function of the hype cycle, and the subsequent crash followed by the price collapse. It's sad, but it's the harsh reality of an unregulated speculative asset. This level, believe it or not, is the baseline. At least it's a higher baseline than say 3 years ago.
...pretty much this. Maybe, just maybe, there are other bitcoin/cryptocurrency communities outside of bitcointalk.org. Ever heard of Reddit and Twitter? They're decent websites!
To be fair, Reddit's Bitcoin community has also largely stagnated compared to 2017. Its subscriber base grew by the thousands every week during 2017. Now it's been "stuck" at just a bit above 1 million for the last year. Which is still pretty good compared to the 100-200k of early 2017. Still, there's nothing surprising about this recent decline in community activity. It wasn't much different during 2013 vs the crypto winter that followed. It's simply part of crypto's hype cycle. |
|
|
|
Why not just run it (or compile it) on a virtual Windows machine? I've never made use of it myself, but AFAIK Microsoft overs free time-limited images for virtual machine set ups. For example here's a bunch of Windows 7 images primarily used for IE testing, but they should support other basic Windows functionalities as well: https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/tools/vms/ |
|
|
|
I didn't even realized you could have a USDT wallet at all, I believed USDT was something that only exchanges have so people could go back to dollar for a while when they think bitcoin would go down as a way of protection for them without actually withdrawing their money and cashing out their bitcoin to fiat and wait, USDT was just suppose to be a way of doing that quickly.
USDT is a token that runs on top of the Bitcoin blockchain via the OMNI protocol layer. While regular Bitcoin wallets won't recognize it, there are some clients that do. You can think of it as something like an ERC20 token. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin will never see any sharding proposal implemented. Not especially a proposal that allows a part of the blockchain to be less secure for micro-transactions.
Regardless of that and my own personal doubts about sharding as a scaling approach I'm looking forward to see it in the wild. It seems to be quite an enormous task though, seeing how Ethereum's roadmap is currently placing sharding support at 2021 [1], but that might be mostly due to the challenges of upgrading a running system. That is, it might be different for a currency starting with sharding from scratch. Anyone aware of any alts that use sharding? [1] https://www.mangoresearch.co/ethereum-roadmap-update/ |
|
|
|
I think the nice thing about LN is though that it improves scalability without making any sacrifices on the lower layer.
That is, it does leave room for alternative scalability approaches as well. So while there's a lot of focus on LN right now I don't think that in practice it detracts that much attention from possible alternatives. There will be dev teams dedicated to other approaches just like dev teams are dedicated to LN right now. Maybe these approaches will end up as part of Bitcoin, maybe they won't. Point being, while many people may see LN as the scaling solution to end all scaling problems, many people don't. And those will still keep working on other ways to improve crypto.
Thank you for sharing your invaluable opinion. But what's your opinion on aliashraf's proposal of a low-security shard for Bitcoin micro-payments? Plus in the context of that, wouldn't an off-chain layer for micro-payments be a more feasible solution? To be honest I haven't looked deep enough into blockchain sharding yet to give an educated opinion on aliashraf's proposal or any other sharding proposal for that matter. Additionally given the conservative nature of Bitcoin's development I have my doubts that Bitcoin will ever see a sharding implementation to begin with (for better or worse; except for hard forks by alternative dev teams, I suppose). In that regard I guess the closest that Bitcoin will ever come to a sharding-like approach is via sidechains. In general I believe that 2nd layer solutions stand to scale way better than sharding. Main reason being that everything else being equal sharding only scales linearly with the amount of shards (ie. to increase transaction throughput tenfold you need 10 shards, to increase transaction throughput by n you need n shards) while in theory LN is only limited by the respective nodes' underlying internet connection and the laws of physics. That being said, I also believe that on-chain transactions offer a better user experience than LN transactions due to the almost-always-online requirement of the latter. Whether on-chain transaction throughput can be sufficiently increased via sharding without significant sacrifices is a different matter however (and one where I still have a lot of reading to do). |
|
|
|
Also, I wonder now with lightning and possible sub-satoshi payments, what is the theoretical minimum value?
Since sub-satoshi payments are probabilistic [1] I guess this depends on the size of the integer being returned by the random function. So using 64 bit integers like currently in use for on-chain input / output amounts the smallest sub-satoshi amount transactable would be 1 / 2^64 (= 5.42 * 10^-20) satoshis. You probably could go even smaller by chaining multiple random conditionals. That's in theory though, not sure how it would look like in practice. [1] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Lightning_Network |
|
|
|
[...]
I understand LN now looks like an adventure but it is not bitcoin and it is very important to keep investigating onchain scalability solutions instead of saying:
"hey, LN solves everything why should we bother even thinking about improvements? Isn't it just more sensible to keep bitcoin safe and uncompromised and focus on LN?"
[...]
I think the nice thing about LN is though that it improves scalability without making any sacrifices on the lower layer. That is, it does leave room for alternative scalability approaches as well. So while there's a lot of focus on LN right now I don't think that in practice it detracts that much attention from possible alternatives. There will be dev teams dedicated to other approaches just like dev teams are dedicated to LN right now. Maybe these approaches will end up as part of Bitcoin, maybe they won't. Point being, while many people may see LN as the scaling solution to end all scaling problems, many people don't. And those will still keep working on other ways to improve crypto. |
|
|
|
Samsung still shared some details about its cryptograph on MWC. Galaxy S10 supports Bitcoin, Ethereum, Enjin and Cosmo Coin. The latter is a small Korean project for the purchase of cosmetics.
Those endorsements are plain weird. I'd love to know how all that came about. We've also yet to see much or any mention of this system in non Korean phones. Enjin and Cosmo are pure S Korea. Might it be Korea only? It kinda makes sense for a South Korean company such as Samsung to get in touch with South Korean cryptocurrency projects such as Enjin and Cosmo. That doesn't necessarily mean that they will release this function in Korea only. |
|
|
|
You can find the balance on the upper right corner, just above the account menu (my Bitcoin.de). If you click on the + it will expand and you'll see a list of your balances. A more detailed view is available after clicking "my Bitcoin.de" and selecting "Overview - my Bitcoin.de". If you use the site in German replace "balance" with "Guthaben", "my Bitcoin.de" with "mein Bitcoin.de" and "Overview" with "Übersicht"  From there you should be able to withdraw your coins to the wallet of your choice. Here's an overview of Bitcoin wallets: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1631151.0For desktop I'd personally recommend Electrum. If you want to store larger amounts I'd recommend getting a hardware wallet such as the Trezor (available on trezor.io) and Ledger (available on ledger.com), bought directly from the respective manufacturer. I personally highly advice you to switch from E-mail TAN to Google Authenticator:
[...]
In addition to being more secure using Google Authenticator also rids you of the waiting time for the confirmation Email. Just make sure to make a paper backup of the displayed 2FA key as well, in case you lose your phone. |
|
|
|
Trading bots are very risky to use, have a given task and cryptocurrencies are very dynamic so the bot is not able to speculate. When it comes to easy ways to earn money, it's cloudmining! For short-term investments there is no risk-free earnings.
Check [...] or other cloud mining platforms
For any newcomers reading this: Avoid cloud mining services like the plague, the only ones making a profit off cloud mining are the service providers themselves. For everyone else it's a losing proposition as you get overcharged for hashpower that is extremely unlikely to break even, let alone be profitable. |
|
|
|
Nice find. Also there doesn't seem to be any source code available for this wallet, so I wouldn't touch this wallet with a ten foot pole.
It's closed-source/propitiatory wallet and it's shown by the fact it have built-in exchange. Trezor also has an in-built exchange yet is fully open source, so having an in-built exchange does not necessitate being closed source But yes, I suppose the lines between being a wallet / being an exchange app are getting blurred in this case, especially with the use case of exchanging USDT for BTC in the background to allow for a cleaner user experience (ie. replacing the BTC mining fee with an USDT mining fee on the surface). |
|
|
|
Googling your question popped up this article as the first result, it's been published just yesterday too  Odd coincidence huh? [...] Anyways.. I googled [...], and while it's not really the most well-known wallet out there, I couldn't find a lot of people having issues with it, so it could be safe to use. I'm not willing to test it out for myself, so to any guests reading this in the future if this title gets some traction, caveat emptor. Nice find. Also there doesn't seem to be any source code available for this wallet, so I wouldn't touch this wallet with a ten foot pole. |
|
|
|
I've never heard of the coin or the wallet - are they intrinsically linked? Does the wallet use the coin for anything in particular? Enjin wallet appears to be the official reference wallet for Enjin Coin as both are developed by the same team. The way I understand it ENJ strives to tokenize digital ingame-assets so I assume that's what the wallet enables -- ie. exchanging ingame-assets between players and maybe even across games. Which is also why it makes sense to target the mobile market in particular. It sounds nice in theory but I'm honestly not quite sure what to make of it. Does Samsung using this wallet mean the coin is going to see more use, or is this pump all just "jumping on the bandwagon", as it were?
Now that's the 21 million Bitcoin question, isn't it? |
|
|
|
The market already reacted to this news, Enjin Coin just made a huge jump. Not bad for a vaguely known alt, if that's really happening it looks like they got a pretty good deal. Keep in mind that being able to back up private keys to cloud services implies that there's a way to access the stored private keys at the software level. Accordingly the private key storage may be exploitable regardless of whether a user opts-out of the cloud service backup or not. That's an attack vector that does not exist for the current generation of hardware wallets (at least the most popular ones).
It's very unlikely they're storing the plain private keys... Maybe the encrypted wallet file or such... But maybe you're right, and that's definitely going to get a lot of people to try and reverse engineer their way to get to them. But at this point it's just speculation until the phone is out. We can only wait and see. Which would put them at the security level of regular desktop and mobile wallets, but not hardware wallets. But yes, we'll see. Definitely worth keeping an eye on regardless. |
|
|
|
It might be an opt-in. It already is for all Cloud services available for Samsung. If some users feel too insecure or like having some backup for their own clumsiness, why not.. Keep in mind that being able to back up private keys to cloud services implies that there's a way to access the stored private keys at the software level. Accordingly the private key storage may be exploitable regardless of whether a user opts-out of the cloud service backup or not. That's an attack vector that does not exist for the current generation of hardware wallets (at least the most popular ones). Don't get me wrong, this is huge news for adoption. But assuming Samsung officially communicates a level of security akin to established hardware wallets we are looking at a potential security mess in the making. But we'll see, I guess. For all we know this might all be a dud with them merely supporting their own Samsung-ERC20-token. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
