Well, the newbie jail should be patrolled... So if a newbie asks a legitimate question, the newbie could be let out of jail and his topic can be moved to the correct subforum... We like people that ask legitimate questions, they don't belong in jail..

Sure, it's a drawback, but i still think it would beat the system of letting them roam free and then send in the moderators to remove their shitpost from every nook and cranny of the forum after they have already caused damage to good threads...

Well... It's not *only* the money that has been spent... On numerous occasions, Theymos has also given a statement that just upgrading SMF wouldn't be possible/feasible since he rewrote a lot of the current SMF sourcecode so a straightup upgrade would no longer work (i'm just to lazy to find the correct reference link).

It's not really censorship.. They can still post, but they're confined to a subforum whose posts aren't listed on the main page... A non-newbie could still visit the subforum or use the searchfunction to find the posts made by the jailed newbies.

As for the workload: the mods are already playing whack-a-mole with these spammers/scammers... They only difference is that these spammy posts would be confined to 1 single subforum, thus decreasing the amount of effort for mods (at least, that's my pov)

But since Theymos already said he would't re-introduce newbie jail is't merely a philosophical discussion anyways

To bad
Sure, they would spam newbie jail, but the only people they'd bother would be other newbies that are still in jail instead of everybody.

The shadowbanning might actually be a good idear, i like it 

I'd like to propose (once again) to re-institute newbie jail... I know it's unfriendly, i know it discourages new users from joining our community... But i'm in favor of a newbie jail opposed to evil points because i guess most "real" newbies would rather make a couple good posts and be let out of jail opposed to paying a "fine" just because they share an ip block with a spammer...


I know this has been discussed quite a few times in the distant past, but today i saw a lot of my historic, technical, posts getting bumped by scammers and i got so frustrated i wanted to vent... So bare with me
I have opened a new topic since the historic ones discussing newbie jail are quite old, and the circumstances *might* have changed since then...


To give you an idear about how bad it currently is, i decided to analyse the last 200!!! posts from the patrol page:
https://web.archive.org/web/20190514091449/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=recent;patrol

I've assigned a label to each and every of the last 200 posts and counted them (the label was attached according to my gut feeling, some labels might be open to discussion):




I've found 9 posts out of 200 (that's less than 5%) posts containing ANY value, and only 2 posts (that's 1% that would have triggered me to give a reply if i would have been interested in the topic that was being discussed). This signal to noise ratio is plain bad... Whatever tool the mods are using is clearly insufficient... I know, the mods are doing what they can, they do a lot of good, but i wondered if it wouldn't be better to just lock up the newbies untill they've proven their merits, that way the mods can concentrate on moderating "real" members instead of nuking spammers and scammers.

I don't even think the rules should be that strict... Register a new account => newbie jail (a subforum whose posts are not shown on the main page "by default").
Gain 1 merit => get out of jail
Pay a fee => get out of jail
Convince a moderator by asking a real question => moderator moves your post to the correct subforum and lets you out of jail
Convince 3 sr+ members to let you out of jail => get out of jail
...

I know, i know... It has been done, it has been discussed, the new forum is coming, there are drawbacks to the system, it'll be a lot of work for the mods, some members might never get out of jail, non-english speakers will have a disadvantage,... But these spammers/scammers are ruining our community and i think the energy that will be put into filtering out the few good newbies that deserve to get out of jail will be less than the energy of finding these nonsense posts in all subforums scattered all over the place

Well... everybody is saying that IF the miners would try to do a re-org, nobody would be able to stop them.

However, there is always the possiblity of adding a checkpoint.
If most full nodes (including all mining nodes that weren't payed off by binance) would add a checkpoint
( 575955, uint256("0x0000000000000000001e43f03c821f0d95d0ea8a2f09bf9e1a53deba0e34eb18")) they would not accept the "new" chain (the chain not including the thief's transaction).

I'm pretty sure that if 75% of the nodes would add this checkpoint, the discussion about a reorg would stop right away... The beauty is that this could be done at any moment. The downside is that you have to find a way to convince 75% of the full nodes to add the checkpoint to begin with (that being said, a checkpoint can be added to older versions of core aswell, people would not need to upgrade their existing nodes, just add a checkpoint and recompile)

In this case, following options are available to you:

• wait it out, keep rebroadcasting the transaction and hope for the best
• do a cpfp (you did not answer the question as to which wallet you use, so i cannot piont you to a walktrough on how to create a cpfp with your wallet)
• pay a pool operator or use viabtc like LoyceV suggested (do be carefull not to get scammed... Only pay BIG pools, not somebody that claims to own a pool or says he'll mine the transaction himself)

If you keep in contact with the sender, you can always ask him if he can do a cpfp, since there are 2 outputs i guess he did send some change back to himself...

I'll be AFK for most of the weekend, starting in about 10 minutes, but there'll probably be other people willing to help you out...

Good luck

OK... Well, the person that created this tx did not opt-in RBF...

However, you did not answer the rest of my questions

A lot of people have given pretty good advice already... The wallet you used to create the transaction doesn't really matter (except some wallets automatically opt-in RBF, and some are better at estimating fees), the wallet used to create the address that was funded is certainly not important.

The only things that matter:

• What is the fee
• Was the transaction RBF
• Does the transaction contain dust outputs

As for your last question, fees fluctuate pretty heavily when the price is on the rise. You basically have to outbid other transactions in order to get a place in a block a miner is currently trying to solve... If your transaction has 58 sat/byte, and at this moment the top 1Mb transactions in the mempool have ~90sat/byte fees, the odds of your transaction ending up in a block are small.

• Either wait it out and hope more +58 sat/byte fee transactions end up in blocks than new +58 sat/byte fee transactions get broadcasted
• Or do a rbf (if the transaction is opt-in RBF and you either are the sender, or the sender is willing to do a rbf)
• If you're the receiver, or if you're the sender and you sent change back to your own address do a CPFP
• or you can wait a while and just double spend the inputs used for the stuck transaction (if you're the sender)
• or use a free tx accelerator
• or pay a big pool operator to include your tx in the block he's trying to solve... DO NOT pay some random dude who says he'll mine the transaction for you... That's just not how this works

If you want advice tailored to your situation, i/we do need some more info:

• the transaction id (giving a tx id is not dangerous, but it does decrease your privacy)
• are you the sender or the receiver
• what are your technical skills (would you be able to manually create a transactions if we tried talking you trough the procedure)
• which wallet are you using (if you use an old wallet, giving this info might actually be harmfull, but giving the general "brand" should be sufficient and pretty harmless

There's a big chance you're right and the thieves do not exchange the stolen funds for fiat for many years... That being said, i'm pretty sure i'd be able to completely "wash" 7000 BTC if i'd had a couple of months and was allowed to "lose" 10-20% on various fees. It's basically a matter of splitting up those huge outputs in smaller chunks, then wash them by using multiple different techniques and services on each of those chunks whilst always using a combination of privacy techniques to make sure you never get your real ip or other digital fingerprint recorded on any of the services you use to "clean" your illgotten gains.

I do realise you'd really have to have a welldrawn plan in order to make the washing seem completely random so nobody can just start analysing the blockchain and pinpoint you... And if you do slipup you'll probably end up in jail... But i don't think it's impossible if you keep your focus and know what you're doing.

Disclaimer: Eventough i'm pretty sure i'd be able to do this, i'm not offering my services to anybody... If you contact me to help you clean stolen funds, i'll probably report you to the authorities...

Yes and No.
Bitcoin is pseudo-anonymous. IF the hackers just keep on funding their own wallets on the bitcoin network, it's defenately possible to keep tracking untill they deposit funds on an exchange or a P2P marketplace and arrest them when they exchange their stolen funds for fiat.

HOWEVER... There are countless "tricks" that can be used to break the connection between 2 wallets. If you combine a couple of these tricks it becomes virtually impossible to keep tracking.

For example:

• The use of mixers
• Coinjoin
• Depositing and withdrawing from casino's
• Exchanging BTC to a privacy coin (like monero), moving the funds around a bit, then exchaning back

I'd like to see them try a rollback... Even if you have 51% of the miners helping out, it's still allmost impossible.

If you have 51% of the hashrate, it's pretty easy to orphan the last couple of blocks by building a longer (more work), alternative blockchain... But at this point the "stealing"  transaction has 221!!! confirmations
(https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/e8b406091959700dbffcff30a60b190133721e5c39e89bb5fe23c5a554ab05ea)

This means that the last 221 blocks have to be re-created, and by the time these blocks have been re-mined, the 49% "leftover" miners will probably have mined an additional ~218 blocks... So the 51% of the miners have to re-mine those 218 blocks aswell... But by the time these blocks have been re-mined the 49% will have mined an additional ~215 blocks (so they still have the chain with the most work and the 51% have to catch up those ~215 blocks)... And so on, and so on...

Basically, even if you have 51% of the hashrate, it'll take months before your alternative chain (not including the thief's transaction) will be longer and have more work done than the chain including the thief's transaction... You'll basically invalidate 49% of the miner's blocks' and cause huge losses (not only for the miners, but also for other people that have valid transactions that are only included in the blocks mined by the 49%)... not a good situation...

I don't see an elegant sollution for this problem... This is the other side of immutability, once a transaction is confirmed, it's confirmed... You can talk all you want, but pulling off a succesfull rollback is allmost impossible.. Just imagine the cost of having to hire 51% of the miners for a couple of months, it'll be much higher than the $40.000.000 that have been stolen in the first place.

So you have funded an address that belongs to a core wallet you own, but don't have the diskspace to do a full sync?
Then i'm happy to tell you the following: you don't need to do a full sync!

Just run the core wallet, and while it's syncing export the private keys belonging to the address you funded => import those private keys in an SPV wallet (like electrum, but make sure you download from the official repo + check the signatures) => then just spend the unspent output yourself

Faaaaar less risk than sharing your walletfile!

More like a 1% chance... Just my gut feeling tough, it's not like i actually setup a trial to see how much of those double spends would actually end up in a block.
My gut feeling tells me most of those double spending transactions will be rejected right away, so they'll never end up in the mempool of a mining node.

Theoretically, it should still work... In reality, the odds have always been very small.

Running a full node =/= mining
My point of view is simple: at the moment, i have no problem finding a HD that's big enough to store all blocks. Sure, in the future the size of the blockchain will increase... If it wouldn't increase it would me no more valid transactions were broadcasted and no new valid blocks would be broadcasted either (in other words: if the  blockchain size wouldn't increase, bitcoin would be dead).
I hope the HDD price to size ratio will decrease over time aswell, so i hope that even in 10 years i'll still be able to pick up a reasonably priced HDD that's big enough to store the complete blockchain, even if there's 750 Gb of data to be stored at that point in time.

If the size of the blockchain data is ever so big i cannot find a reasonably priced HDD, i'll switch to an SPV client in a heartbeat, so even this scenario doesn't worry me. There'll always be tons of companies that run full nodes, even if storing the data costs a lot... Think about exchanges, HW wallet vendors, block explorers, big companies that accept BTC, mining pools,...

Even IF you're planning on mining, you're best off joining a pool anyways (unless you're planning on investing millions of dollars to setup a huge mining farm... That's about the only usecase where it still makes sense to solo mine IMHO), so even if you're mining there is no need to run a full node...

Normally, you should just make a backup of your wallet.dat, install a new version and run it so it can start syncing, starting from the last time you synced your wallet... The actual data is stored not in the directory containing the bitcoin binary, but in %APPDATA%\Bitcoin (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Data_directory), so it shouldn't matter which path you start bitcoin-qt or bitcoind from.

This being said, 0.14.2 was released almost 2 years ago, i don't think there were reverse compatibility problems since then, but i'm not 100% sure.

The main advice is always the same: make sure you backup your wallet.dat before doing anything else... If you have your wallet.dat, you can basically scratch everything else and re-start on a clean machine

coinswitch.co
http://bittrust.org/coinswitch

Als ik deze reviews lees valt me één ding op: er is een enorm contrast tussen de reviews. Ofwel (bijna) 5 sterren, ofwel 1 ster. Dit KAN duiden op gekochte reviews (shills).
Bij het nakijken van de whois info viel me op dat het gaat over een anonieme registratie van de domeinnaam.
En "last but not least", ze gebruiken de SSL certificaten van cloudflare... Dit is gewoon een  MITM die ingebakken zit in hun workflow. Cloudflare SSL certificaten zijn prima voor informatieve sites, maar zogauw je het over effectieve betalingen hebt zou een site toch over eigen certificaten moeten beschikken... Mijn persoonlijke site gebruikt cloudflare SSL cerfiticaten voor bijna alle subdomeinen, maar het subdomein waar mijn btcpayserver onder hangt heeft een X3 certificaat.


btcswap.online

Voor btcswap vond ik zelfs geen reviews... De site is gewoon té nieuw denk ik (februari 2019!!!)
De naam werd ook anoniem geregistreerd.
Een pluspunt is wel het gebruik van een "letsencrypt" certificaat... Ze hebben tenminste geen MITM ingebakken in hun workflow.

Mijn persoonlijke mening? Ik zou persoonlijk geen van beide gebruiken... Hoewel ik zeker geen bewijs heb dat het hier zou gaan over scamsites!
Als je toch beslist om deze sites te gebruiken, doe het dan met kleine bedragen, en als je toch bedrogen zou worden: laat zeker een review achter op bitcointalk om anderen te waarschuwen!

Why did you use cloudflare's certificates? You do realise they're a MITM, right? I guess you'll at least need to pay for your own certificate or use letsencrypt...

No, it's not a good chance... In fact, i've been in this community for many, many years, and i can tell from experience that the odds of this site being legit are in fact incredibly small... In my years i've never seen a site that asks for a deposit in order to activate a withdrawal being legit in the end. From time to time, they turn out to be ponzi's and early investors get their money, but in the end the late investors always get scammed.

The thing is: you're not taking any risks, since you don't offer any collateral. So if the site turns out to be a scam (and there's a big chance it is) you can just walk away and it's the person giving you a loan that carries all the risk (not you).