|
I see, my guess is your computer/private keys are compromised, any coins arriving in your wallet will be sent to attacker's address and immediately mixed.
|
|
|
|
they stopped paying . support disappeared on skype and on site . doesnt reply on twitter or facebook .
Who could have guess this was going to happen? |
|
|
|
|
To get rich of course, why else?
|
|
|
|
Purchased bit coins from Circle ( https://www.circle.com/signin) send to my electrum wallet (1AwEo6xYxLe8sU3q9esrgCB1GHZDBFR8zZ). They arrived successfully. Then I send them to ( http://foggeddriztrcar2.onion) which usually take around 45 minutes give or take. But before I even had a chance to send them, my balance was brought to 0BTC so I was unable to send them to the fog from my wallet as they were automatically send to some random address (12azuscncZJTWoYbzYbHrG39bX18qUTqk8) which I never intended to send to. Never happened to me before. ANY help on the matter would be greatly appreciaed on the mater as I don't want to wait until payday tomorrow to "attempt" to send more. Also, any ideas on the best fogger site where errors are minimized as much as posslbe? I've only been at this about a month now and any advice would greatly be apprecaited! Thanks for your generous help regarding this matter. Something is not right. https://blockchain.info/address/1AwEo6xYxLe8sU3q9esrgCB1GHZDBFR8zZNever received any coins. https://blockchain.info/address/12azuscncZJTWoYbzYbHrG39bX18qUTqk8Coins here seem to go out to a mixer. |
|
|
|
is autosurf counted as ponzi? i thought autosurf are like visiting website and get more visitor to our site.. its like exchanging sites. well i never use that autosurf, good luck on finding one here. i just know hitleap but never use it too. Firstly there are not only ponzi ...because my site is there and it is not a ponzi Secondly autosurf are not ponzi. I've 'auto-surfed' a lot back in 2006, 12 daily pro ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charis_Johnson) was my first one, never found one that was not a ponzi. Usually people refer to "Investment" Autosurfs just as autosurfs ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autosurf#.22Investment.22_Autosurfs), and those are ponzis. But you're right, it can be just a traffic exchange... |
|
|
|
|
I'll give it a try.
Here: 1AY9MnP5V59KfhkE9L5xoDgHRJ2aGKN2cW
|
|
|
|
I just updated to 0.12.0 and compared to the endless waiting time for the previous versions to check the blockchain and that stuff, this one was really quick, and they have put a % so you can see how much time there is left. It was quick and now im syncing. Syncing seems to be at the same pace tho, which is pretty slow for me.
But overall massive improvement, good job by Core devs. Classic devs can only dream to do this kind of improvement by themselves.
Dude, they're the same... Huh? Bitcoin Classic developers are Bitcoin Core developers... Classic does not have any solid dev at all except Gavin & Jeff. That's enough, only one small change between Core and Classic, maxblocksize increases to 2 MB, everything else is the same... Sorry but you seem very confused. Who did develop all the improvements for Core? The Core devs, no one on the Classic dev team did shit for Core. Bitcoin Core is a lot faster in 0.12.0 thanks to active Core devs, not the Classic devs. Please don't be stupid. I hope you are just trolling. Bitcoin Core developers are basically the Bitcoin Classic developers. There is almost no difference between them.
Are you guys trolling now or just this retarded? Dude, they're the same people, Bitcoin Classic isn't some completely new software, with completely new people developing it, it's the same software with just one change, 2MB blocks, and they will soon release Bitcoin Core 0.12 with that change and it will be called Bitcoin Classic 0.12. Gavin and Jeff are just giving every user the right to vote on this issue by simply running a node. By Core's road map they will increase block capacity in summer 2017, if you think that's to far away, support the change now by running a Bitcoin Core with 2MB support, Bitcoin Classic I mean! |
|
|
|
-offtopic- I just updated to 0.12.0 and compared to the endless waiting time for the previous versions to check the blockchain and that stuff, this one was really quick, and they have put a % so you can see how much time there is left. It was quick and now im syncing. Syncing seems to be at the same pace tho, which is pretty slow for me.
I think somebody needs to run a few tests and compare syncing from scratch 0.11.2 and 0.12. I'm certain that the difference will be noticed. I didnt notice any difference when starting 0.12, but as Im currently testing sync speeds for the german section[1] with and without bootstrap.dat I might as well put in another round with 0.12. [1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1357766.0Depending on the platform, this means a significant speedup for raw signature
validation speed. The advantage is largest on x86_64, where validation is over
five times faster. In practice, this translates to a raw reindexing and new
block validation times that are less than half of what it was before. When I Upgrade to 0.12 I had to download the entire block chain and it took something like 2 days to fully sync. It's pretty fast compared with previous versions. |
|
|
|
I just updated to 0.12.0 and compared to the endless waiting time for the previous versions to check the blockchain and that stuff, this one was really quick, and they have put a % so you can see how much time there is left. It was quick and now im syncing. Syncing seems to be at the same pace tho, which is pretty slow for me.
But overall massive improvement, good job by Core devs. Classic devs can only dream to do this kind of improvement by themselves.
Dude, they're the same... Huh? Bitcoin Classic developers are Bitcoin Core developers... Classic does not have any solid dev at all except Gavin & Jeff. That's enough, only one small change between Core and Classic, maxblocksize increases to 2 MB, everything else is the same... |
|
|
|
I just updated to 0.12.0 and compared to the endless waiting time for the previous versions to check the blockchain and that stuff, this one was really quick, and they have put a % so you can see how much time there is left. It was quick and now im syncing. Syncing seems to be at the same pace tho, which is pretty slow for me.
But overall massive improvement, good job by Core devs. Classic devs can only dream to do this kind of improvement by themselves.
Dude, they're the same... Huh? Bitcoin Classic developers are Bitcoin Core developers... |
|
|
|
I just updated to 0.12.0 and compared to the endless waiting time for the previous versions to check the blockchain and that stuff, this one was really quick, and they have put a % so you can see how much time there is left. It was quick and now im syncing. Syncing seems to be at the same pace tho, which is pretty slow for me.
But overall massive improvement, good job by Core devs. Classic devs can only dream to do this kind of improvement by themselves.
Dude, they're the same... |
|
|
|
|
All great improvements and new features, but it lacks the one we need the most, moar transactions!
|
|
|
|
 Shiiiiit! Did the guy just ran away with the money? |
|
|
|
Thank you. I understand. The thing is, it was just a test to see if and how to reactivate those Bitcoins. The thing is, there is a date printed on the paper wallet (not sure if that will really count). And we in Germany have to pay no taxes if we hold the BTC longer than 1 year. Thats the reason why I asked if I can use the old wallet. Because the coins were stored in March 2014.
In that case I assume what matters is the date you bought the coins, you should have some proof of that, a receipt maybe, if not, use the transaction date, you can check it in any block explorer. The address generation date is irrelevant. |
|
|
|
|
I wouldn't call artificially preventing growth a "fee market", most users aren't even aware of this and just pay whatever the particular wallet they use is set to pay.
|
|
|
|
|
Go SaaS, fee is calculated based on account profit, if user does not pay in the end of the cycle account gets frozen, access only restored when bill is paid...
If your software is good enough this might work.
|
|
|
|
So I created a new wallet and imported 10BTC from my paper Wallet to my new blockchain. It had 10 BTC on it. I then sent the 10BTC to my BTC-E account. So is that paper Wallet dead now? Or can I sent the 10BTC back to the same old paper wallet again?
It's not "dead", but you should just create another one. The benefit of using a paper wallet is that your private keys have never been on a connect device and that means they're pretty safe, if you already expose such keys in a connect device you should archive the keys and use a new 'virgin' one.  |
|
|
|
|
I can't see how that will solve the problem.
I get that it would be a better way to get paid and much more appealing to users, but the security implications are huge, plus the exchange may not offer such option over API because security.
You may, however, implement a subscription based system and the cost of the subscription is calculated based on account profit, although user might decide not to pay at the end of the billing cycle...
|
|
|
|
|
Never heard of banks granting loans for mining operations...
Bitcoin miners cannot simply change to altcoins, hardware is highly specialized and they are probably already merge mining other sha256 coins, it gives a little bit more profit.
If some altcoin becomes valuable enough people will invest in hardware to mine it, remember doge?
|
|
|
|
|
You need to have total control over users account, if your system gets compromise your users' accounts can/will be emptied.
I'll predict no one will use your service, it's just another possibility to lost coins at an exchange.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
