0.1BTC
Congratualations, this is the winning bid. Please send the 0.1 BTC to the address in the OP and send me a signature via PM. This is my post #9061, 250 guaranteed posts will be reached with #9311. |
|
|
|
-your rating is bad for my ponzi-
-I still cant explain my system-
-I plan to keep doing what Im doing-
I believe all is now said...and sorry if the word "investment" does not suit with my systems...I have not found better.
Yeah, let me know if you have anything new to say. |
|
|
|
Contact the one who left it (shorena) about it.
It would be best to sign once again a message, just to be sure.
Hello Lutpin, you're right, I was thinking about that too, here we go : -----BEGIN DIGIBYTE SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hello from the owner of "onepix" bitcointalk account.
By signed with the same private key as "onepix1" I prove that I'm the same person.
I also put my btc address here even if I'll "stake it" into the appropriate topic
1QKo4VhSXWZ1sG3Ad3NccyWXSmMSdRWpk5
-----BEGIN SIGNATURE-----
DSm1DEcFhBst59uBqVg3vhKEC61Y8YQovG
IDcSiJHXKixaXdiDQ4VMbfCOpopGvs2IPwFX3OrqHoSrxIBUNNXVBCN5J/I/UX1RC88tKKzw3B2oRiAowCsM5BY=
-----END DIGIBYTE SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In this way it's more clear I suppose  Sorry for the delay, verified; rating removed. -> https://i.imgur.com/mg4RhBP.png |
|
|
|
The biggest issue is these guys can go join another signature instantly, so they have multiple strikes. Once they become higher ranked more signatures open up for them.
If there was a master list for signature runners to check, it would cut a ton of spam. Sold accounts would also lose value if they where kicked from a campaign. Mention that because a lot of the spam is from guys with ten plus accounts.
They just need to read the post history to know someone is posting the same thing over and over again or just generally bad. The last few pages should be enough. Yobit is automatic and I find most kicked from this campaign end up in one of two other campaigns that do no background check. Bitmixer was one and the other one has a small signature that I always forget. Just think if there was a list they could run through each day for new members and flag those that where booted from another campaign. It would allow campaign managers to really narrow their field of work on top of the current scripts that check members post quality. It would mean that the lazy managers can stay lazy while others do the work for them. I know one guy that is yobit that farms accounts like crazy because they tend to post before his main account or right after. If you got him alone you would see a difference but its hard to make the connection besides the posts being garbage or repetitive.
Number one question coming from new accounts tends to be where can I get signature and then they are off to the races asking questions that have been asked a million times.
Making it harder to jump from campaign to campaign would kill the spam and its well known that accounts post well for 20-40 posts before joining a new campaign that may look at quality. Twigged to this after clicking on yobits monthly "theres the door" list and sudden improvement from guys that posted no more than 3-8 word responses.
Campaign managers doing their job from the start would also kill spam. Dont accept newbies, they have no post history. Everyone else gets a history check before getting accepted. Repeatedly check again with each payment. This is pretty common with most campaigns, its just a few that dont bother or dont care enough. |
|
|
|
Some more information...
When the bitcoin daemon gets "stuck" I notice that CPU usage remains constant. For example, one of the servers is a quad-core Xeon processor (effectively 8 CPU). It's a dedicated server with 16G RAM and a 256G SDD running Debian 8.3. As the time passes between blocks, the CPU usage steadily creeps up until a new block is received, at which point the CPU usage drops. If too long passes between blocks being received (i.e. like the last block which took nearly an hour) the CPU usage levels out and the bitcoin daemon exhibits the behavior of being "stuck". Once that point is reached, no new blocks are received. Calling any function via bitcoin-cli results in either the call returning that it couldn't parse the results from the server, or a wait of quite a few seconds before it returns the results.
Restarting the bitcoin daemon immediately resolves the problem. The CPU usage drops to nearly zero. This cycle continuously repeats itself.
At no point is the server using anywhere over 8G of RAM total out of the 16G available. It doesn't even touch the swap (which is 4G).
I see this exact behavior on every single bitcoin daemon. I have tried daemons compiled from source and those precompiled and installed via the bitcoin repository. I see it on VPS instances as well as bare metal.
Sounds like something you should post on github[1]. Might be a bug, might not be, but chances are higher than someone there has an idea what you can try to come closer to a solution. [1] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues |
|
|
|
ok i changed the units, but i'm still not seeing the xfer to the site i xferred to.
Do you not see the TX to the site or on the site? The first might be a sync problem with electrum the later might be a problem with the service. |
|
|
|
what does all that mean?  click: Tools -> Preferences -> Appearance and change Base Unit to BTC |
|
|
|
I have the following question:
If A sends BTC to a stealth address of B, then B sends the same amount of BTC to the stealth address of C, will A be able to see that his coins are now on C`s stealth address ?
This is not the problem that stealth addresses (try to) solve. Stealth addresses can be posted online (e.g. for donations) without the person that it sending payment knowing how many bitcoin have already been donated. You can think of them like a new address for everyone that wants to send you coins. You however can post a single string. |
|
|
|
Das sollte die Python-Konsole sein. Da kommste mit exit() wieder raus. In der Nichtwindowswelt nutzt man gewoehnlich das sogenannte "schwarze Fenster" aka Terminal oder Konsole, ein sehr maechtiges Werkzeug fuer den Eingeweihten. Bei Windows funktioniert das auch, man muss die Kommandozeile aufrufen (bei WinXP war das ueber Start -> Ausfuehren (glaub ich) -> und dann "cmd" eintippen und Enter druecken). In der Commandozeile navigiert man dann zum Ordner des py-Files: cd c:\\<pfad\ordner_wo_datei_drin_liegt> und dann ruft man das Skript ueber python <script_name>.py auf. Und ja, etwas programmieren sollte man schon koennen. Kommt immer nur Syntaxfehler. Ich mache da wieder irgendwas falsch. "Programmieren sollte man schon etwas können" ist sicherlich gut. Aber woher sollte ich wissen, dass ich Programmierung brauche nur um an meine Bitcoins zu kommen (falls das überhaupt etwas wird). Konnte ich ja nicht mit rechnen und für was anderes brauche ich das ja auch nicht. Jedenfalls wüsste ich (noch) nicht wofür Auf meine Email wurde bisher übrigens auch noch nicht geantwortet. Naja, so ist das alles futsch. Muss ich mich jetzt mit abfinden. Es sei denn ich lerne das mit Python und habe vllt Glück, dass ich das Passwort bekomme. Aber Ernsthaft. Jemand wie ich der knapp 2 Jahre für Html brauchte wird hier mindestens genau so lange brauchen... Hmm ... vielleicht erbarmt sich hier ja einer noch aus dem Forum. Und warte mal noch ein zwei Tage, der Typ hat wahrscheinlich auch noch anderes zu tun ... Btcrecover ist eine Scriptsammlung, ja. Es ist leider auch nicht mit einfach python installieren und python btcrecover.py getan. Man muss noch eine sog. Token Datei erstellen aus deren Zeilen die möglichen Passwörter zusammengebaut werden. Wenn sich Dave nicht meldet oder absagt, schick mir ne PM. Ich denke aber nicht das es ein falsches Passwort ist. Auf Tippfehler prüfen kann man aber trotzdem mal. |
|
|
|
Its already removed from the OP. |
|
|
|
What is the transaction id of your transaction?
and which wallet software/service are you using? |
|
|
|
-snip- Thanks, exactly what I was afraid of. No reason to be afraid of some privacy enhancing tools. |
|
|
|
Ich habe einfach mal Kontakt aufgenommen. Naja, so wie ich das verstehe will man 20 % des Inhalts und das nur bei erfolgreichem öffnen der Wallet?  Korrekt, kann man mit ein bisschen arbeit aber auch selbst versuchen -> https://github.com/gurnec/btcrecoverMal sehen was zurück kommt. Ansonsten sind die Bitcoins ja sowieso weg wie es momentan aussieht.. Totaler Mist. Schuld bin ich da ganz alleine. Der Bitcoin ist trotzdem eine tolle Sache, ob ich weiterhin Multibit nutzen werde glaube ich aber nicht.
|
|
|
|
Its still possible that the original owner sold the account to ActSeller. Be that as it may I think a refund is in order. I will cover 50% of the paid price since - as Quickseller pointed out - I could possibly have prevented this by changing the mail address myself. Im not entirely sure this is true, as Im sure ActSeller changed the mail. Let me know an address where you want the BTC, PM me if you want to keep it private.
Looking at the post history it would seem that the "real" ctlaltdefeat stopped posting December 19, 2015 and then the new owner started posting February 1, 2016. Password changes for ctlaltdefeat: January 11, 2016 - account gets hacked? January 25, 2016 (three times) - likely when ActSeller acquires the account January 31, 2016 - ActSeller sells the account to Aleister Crowley April 7, 2016 - ctlaltdefeat takes the account back via e-mail reset ActSeller could provide more details about this, e.g. dates, any other users involved in the trade. I can't blame you shorena  I only can blame the hacker and a liar , indeed I got loss. Time to post from 120 to 440+ (half of it weren't in paid sig) , wasted money to bought hacked account etc. Now Waiting for actseller clarification...... No, I dont feel Im blamed. I think a refund is in order though and Im fine covering 50% of it. As you say you already lost enough as it is even if you get a full refund. |
|
|
|
Hey, sorry das ich erst jetzt wieder schreibe. Also der Zwischenstand ist so, dass ich die Bitcoins wieder im Multibit sehen kann. Jedoch erkennt es irgendwie mein Passwort nicht mehr. Zuvor hatte ich mein System neu aufgespielt, da ich zwischendurch immer wieder Bluescreen und Speicherfehler hatte. Bisher läuft es sehr stabil (Ca. 48 Std nun). Ich habe alles mögliche versucht und bin mir 100%ig sicher, dass ich das richtige Passwort eingegeben habe. Auch von einem .txt Dokument habe ich das Passwort reinkopiert, um Tippfehler auszuschließen. Langsam habe ich Zweifel, ob ich jemals wieder an meine Bitcoins dran komme Kann es sein das es sich um eine ältere Datei mit einem anderen Password handelt? Wenn Du das System neu gemacht hast, kann es sein das das Backup ein bisschen älter ist? Ordner und .key Dateien .Wallet Dateien usw. habe ich zuvor gesichert, bringt mich nur auch nicht weiter wenn es mein Passwort nicht mehr erkennt. Vielleicht hast du ja auch hierfür noch eine Idee. Aber ich bezweifle, dass man noch an die Coins kommen kann..  oder hat jemand anders eine Idee was ich nun tun könnte? Aktuell nutze ich MultibitClassic.. die Wallet Datei mit dem Passwort wurde damals soweit ich mich erinnere aber mit 0.5.17 erstellt. Nun nutze ich jedoch 0.5.19. Kann es daran liegen, dass mein Passwort nicht mehr erkannt wird? Bitte helft mir. 0.5.19 und 0.5.17 macht kein Unterschied was das Password angeht. Was möglich wäre ist, dass die Dateien beschädigt sind. Hast Du zufällig noch andere Backups die Du versuchen kannst? |
|
|
|
Hello
i have 1 question.
Suppose i use two electrum wallets on two different machines one offline and one online.If i use offline machine to just sign transactions via electrum and then transfer the signed transaction to the online electr wallet on another PC for broadcasting.Am i safe?
Do i risk getting my bitcoins stolen?Can my private keys leak? and if so how's that possible?
If the wallet on the online machine is watch only, if you are not using a virtual machine and electrum the keys will not leak. There is always the risk that someone will break in and take the offline machine. A virus will most likely not reach the offline machine. |
|
|
|
Restarting the bitcoin daemon on server 2 caused exactly the same result as I posted originally: it quickly synchronized up the missing blocks.
This behavior of getting "stuck" for lack of a better term is completely baffling to me.
odd indeed, it sounds like server 2 is bussy (indicated by the few seconds wait). Could it be bussy with something else that is keeping it from syncing? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
