Let's put it this way: under our model, it's not feasible to provide private keys to individual wallet addresses.
Regardless of your model. It is always possible to provide private keys from individual addresses. Each address (or more precisely: public key) has an associated private key. That's how bitcoin works. The way you derive those private keys doesn't matter here. |
|
|
|
[...] so we do not share private keys with individual addresses.
Elaborate this statement please. Feel free to make it as technical as possible. Hi Bob, This is not supposed to be a technical statement. It's rather a business model. 'Private keys' and 'addresses' are technical terms. So, please explain what you meant with your statement. The reason i am asking is, because it doesn't make any sense. It is not possible to 'share private keys with addresses'. I honestly start thinking you almost know nothing about bitcoin at all, which makes it even more worrying that you are hosting a fake-wallet.. |
|
|
|
[...] so we do not share private keys with individual addresses.
Elaborate this statement please. Feel free to make it as technical as possible. |
|
|
|
This has been discussed many times in this thread. And this can not be considered plagiarism.
Why do you think this can not be considered plagiarism ? It was an exact copy/paste of the post of another user. You didn't forget to quote it properly, you didn't express any opinion. You simply just copy/pasted it. If you just wanted to help someone / answer questions, why not either just quote it or use your own words ? I don't think this falls under the category of mistakes mentioned by theymos. IMO this is very clearly plagiarism.. anyway.. i wish you good luck getting your account back. |
|
|
|
Of course, making two posts in sequence won't let people "trust us with their money".
You either don't get it or try to ignore it miserably. Posting two times in a row doesn't mean that people shouldn't trust you.. but the fact that you can't even admit it and expressing it as 'moderators are evil, they delete posts' is just a plain stupid move. And imo, THIS makes you even less trustworthy and more shady than you already have been. Why can't you simply admit that you made a mistake here by multi-posting ? How can i know that you will admit your mistakes when they are more severe (e.g. loss of user funds) if you can't even admit posting twice in a row ? .. |
|
|
|
No multiple posts were made.
You always replied with multiple posts in a row instead of simply quoting and answering in one single post. Each time you answered X people, you created X posts in a row. If you can't even admit doing such a lenient mistake.. how shall people trust you with their money  I don't understand why you can't even be honest about such a trifle.. |
|
|
|
I wonder why i am not surprised that game-protect is #1 and that quickseller made it into the top 5..  |
|
|
|
One transaction consists of at least one input and at least one output. If you want to spend your whole balance spread between 3 addresses, you create a transaction which has 3 inputs and 1 output Each letter represents one UTXO (Unspent transaction output): Using more UTXO's does increase the fee, yes. However, you have to completely 'use' the UTXO. If you have 10 BTC on address A and want to send 1 BTC to Z: You could use the same address again as change address, but this wouldn't help you lowering the fee. If you receive funds multiple time to the same address, they are still multiple UTXO. For example, if you received 10 transaction with 1 BTC each to address A and want to spend 3 BTC to Z, your transaction looks like this: A(1 btc)+ A(1 btc) + A(1 btc) -> Z(3 btc)
Using a new change address does not increase the fee because it doesn't matter which UTXO's you are using, but how much of them. By the way, the last example is also called consolidating inputs. You take all of your UTXO's and combine them into one when the transaction fees are low. Then you only have 1 input for your next TX when the fees are high again. Please note, that this can harm your privacy since it will be publicly available then which addresses belong to each other. |
|
|
|
I am sorry to hijack your thread. This post (in this exact thread) is needed to be able to support RoachBoy's flag against himself, because it contains this thread as reference in it. Reasons why RoachBoy deserves a type 1 flag: - Trying to scam newbies: Look here
- Trust abuser: Falsely accuses other of scams and leaves negative trust ratings
- Flag abuser: Creates flags without any evidence
Please make sure, to support RoachBoy's flag against himself! He even still supports it himself.
To get on-topic a bit: marlboroza is some high quality poster and scam hunter. Your ads will get a lot of views! I can only encourage anyone who wants his ads to be displayed by a high-quality poster to contact him  |
|
|
|
I strongly against any scam accusation in that case, because: 1. Bounty rules can be changed as was stated in the bounty thread. 2. TerraGreen doesn't request KYC in order to avoid paying to hunters otherwise they didn't prolongate kyc procedure on 10 days. But they prolonged it as hunters requested. Proof: https://t.me/terragreencoin/944333. TerraGreen Team doesn't hide. Core members pass kyc on icobench https://icobench.com/ico/terragreen and icoholder https://icoholder.com/en/terragreen-28096 They would not do that if they were a scam project. 4. Also, i have never seen a scam project that makes so many publications in good media (check media section here: https://terragreen.io/) 1. No it wasn't. "Information regarding the bounty" could be changed. Not the payout terms. 2. This doesn't make sense. What has the time you have to submit your KYC documents to do with the fact that they changed the terms from "NO KYC" (see their title) no "KYC absolutely mandatory" ? Nothing. 3. Sure, because icoholder is so trustworthy  Look at his trust rating and flag. 4. Then you either didn't see good scams at all.. or didn't identify them as such. It would be a ridiculous situation if a project like TerraGreen gets scam accusation.
They already got the scam accusation. And they already received their negative trust rating and a flag (15 supporter including 9 DT and 0 oppositions). They are labeled as what they are - scammer. Your poor attempt to defend them failed miserably. What were you trying to achieve ? Did they pay you 100 shittokens more to do that? |
|
|
|
A recent study by the University of Sydney (Faculty of Engineering's School of Computer Science and Data61-CSIRO) determined that, out of the 1M+ apps investigated on the Google Play Store (out of around 2,6M apps), 2040 of them were likely counterfeit, with the potential of stealing data from your device.
The proportion is small by comparison, [...]
The study only talks about fake application, but not about malware infected applications itself. While it stands to reasn that every of this faked application contains malware, there are for sure multiple others (for example popular original games, which have malware included). Recently about 10 apps have been removed, with more than 1M+ downloads, because of malware. This wasn't real dangerous malware, but adware (it nested itself into other applications and showed custom advertisements), with the ability to download further code to execute - which hasn't been used yet. I am sure that the number of infected applications is way higher than the number quoted from a study concentrating on counterfeit applications. |
|
|
|
If the hacking is suspected (which happens upon a user's request), we are putting the activity on hold until KYC is completed.
Did the user referred in the OP request it? Can I request e.g. LoyceV's account to be KYCed and how would you possibly know it's a legitimate request? I think he was referring to technical (web-) requests (most probably only withdrawal), not to requesting KYC itself. Let me guess freewallet's answer, "if request is sent from the same IP address"
Wait.. are you trying to tell me this isn't a good criteria to determine legitimacy  Me and the whole freewallet team are shocked! |
|
|
|
If someone is the owner of a dumb brain and believes his lies and wants to get scammed by him then it be!  This is my favorite one |
|
|
|
Tvplus006's post was made on April 12, 2018, 09:55:26 AM
The Other person's post came in on May 04, 2018, 09:33:58 AM, so clearly the other person plagiarized from Tvplus006
You are right. Sorry for the confusion. However, suchmoon already brought another example: Since it appears that the results are inconclusive
Better now? Spreadsheet is under updation and will be public once the stake calculation will be completed.
Signature stakes have already been updated so participants may remove their signature.
Please be patient and try not to ask for access in the meantime.
[...]
Spreadsheet is under updation and will be public once the stake calculation will be completed.
Signature stakes have already been updated so participants may remove their signature.
Please be patient and try not to ask for access in the meantime.
Even the non-existing word ("updation") has been copied over Doesn't look good, IMO  |
|
|
|
Freewallet mobile app is the safest cryptocurrency wallet I’ve ever used. I trust them not only my crypto but my private keys too.
Sure buddy. Shitwallet, asking newbies to shill your 'wallet'-service a.k.a. we hold your funds hostage until you do KYC because thats what we want service, doesn't make you more trustworthy at all..  Do you really think anyone falls for some newbies shilling your shitwallet That's embarrassing. |
|
|
|
OP should edit title with, "Ban by mistake" and mention admin. So other moderators and admin will check your account.
It is time to change the name of the thread. Didn't you plagiarize ? As i can see, this post is a plagiarism of this post. What did i miss? For me it seems like the ban is justified. |
|
|
|
~snip~
Let me guess the answer.. " bla bla bla It can not stop from funds being stolen bla bla bla but we have the identity of the thief bla bla bla" |
|
|
|
Responding to other concerns expressed in this thread, let us make it clear that we may from time to time conduct KYC procedure in case our risk-scoring system detects:
- multiple transfers of funds in and out with very short intervals;
- IP address is changed.
There are many more but we cannot list all the criteria.
What kind of nonsense is this ? So your 'customer' are not allowed to receive funds and forward them shortly after What kind of (shit-) wallet is this supposed to be? And you guys realize that most people have a dynamic IP address? And that a mobile wallet is supposed to be used mobile. Which implies multiple different WLAN networks and the mobile network. IP changes are inevitable. It seems like you are not only extremely shady, but also extremely incompetent. |
|
|
|
We can't trust apps from playstore anymore
That's nothing new. You should have never blindly trusted them at all. 100s of apps from play store are infected with malwares and keyloggers,do not download apps from play store anymore,if you need any app badly find their website and download from original source,
Unfortunately quite a lot of apps are not open source. And downloading it from a website is even more risky than using the playstore. The playstore is somewhat moderated. Malware is going to be removed once recognized. On a website, everyone is free to host whatever he wants to. What most of these apps do is uploading users data to their own servers which can result in stealing your wallet keys too
No. That's simply wrong. An application on your mobile can only access its own app data. If you grant file system permission, it additionally can access the external memory (i.e. SD card). Application encapsulation is a security mechanisms of android which ensures that each application can only run commands and access files in its own user context. Well.. except if you root your mobile, which you should never do at all if you store sensitive information on your mobile. Please don't spread misinformation. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
