I guess that some may not know where to look or simply not aware that the correct account is @VitalikButerin

I am surprised how on earth did those scammers got to verify those accounts (most probably with fake data, else the law enforcement agencies know where to look for them). Or some people were so dumb to sell genuinely verified accounts?!

I am pretty curious on how will this develop further (will this blow in Twitter's face or in the scammers'?).

I think that you've used the wrong word. Recovery is usually about finding removed wallets removed on HDDs. I think that you've meant restore from seed.

Wallets don't just generate randomly 1000s of addresses, there's a rather low gap limit, making only some tens of addresses being generated ad first. Then, when those addresses are all used, more will be generated, but, again, not too many.
My guess is that at restoring the wallet will pretty much do the same: generate the first tens of addresses, check if they're used, if so generate some more tens and so on, until it gets to a "gap" that's not used at all, then stops.

Every third party app you use for notifications and such is a privacy issue. Some use them, some not.
However, using special apps for notifications is overkill imho when a wallet on your smartphone can do that (and you can also import there only the address or master public key to keep it watch only).

And as said, whale tracking is counter productive: it doesn't give any relevant info, it can only scare some newbies.

Lol about the big numbers! I usually don't need them either, but lately, especially with the Hodlonaut trial, I've been "counting his pennies" hoping they'll suffice. And yes, the 70+ BTC there returns a number rather hard to read.

About implementation, just an (another idea) : if the number is bigger than 100k (or even 10k, up to you), then you can safely lose the numbers after the decimal point, since they no longer matter.
So the custom function would have to only "decide" whether the user works with big numbers or small ones.

However, if it's difficult, leave it as it is. It's already very good, well done!

I will simplify it so I may not be 100% correct but, let's try - you will have to try to think of two chains of events happening in paralel.

Let's say a malicious player send a transaction of 1M BTC. And at this point he starts his paralel "business" of attacking Bitcoin, i.e. he starts mining blocks, but he doesn't tell everybody about them, only to his (many) miners.

At some point the 1M BTC transaction is confirmed and he quickly trades that and cashes it in. (As a note you should read at the end: only confirmed transactions matter and even then, on big amounts the businesses may wait for 6 confirmations, which is one hour; this makes the scenario harder to be implemented, hence even more unlikely).

Now, the trick is that "the world" always considers as valid the longest chain. This is how Bitcoin consensus works. And meanwhile, in a closed environment, he mined more blocks (in the past hour, let's say) than the rest of the network, the blocks are correct, and this will become the "correct" chain, since it's longer. Even more, in this closed environment, he has made and confirmed another transaction spending the same 1M BTC, but sending to himself.

The world will use the new blockchain, the old one will be forgotten and our guy has cached in 1M BTC he didn't spend.



...Just the thing is that there are so many miners now that trying to do this would cost far too much.

---

This was the 51% attack.
Another way of "faking" can be transaction malleability attack. But that not possible on Bitcoin blockchain, period.
Another way of "faking" can be persuading people consider unconfirmed transactions as good, then double spend them (which is possible as long as they are not confirmed). But this is not an attack, this is taking advantage of newbies.

Oh, yea, yet another piece of the great list of "strong" businesses, built on top of each other like castle of playing cards...
I guess that we have to be happy there's crypto winter now and then to get rid of these before they grow bigger (and make even more damage when they collapse).

Treaba este ca probabil nici jurnalistul nu stie ce a fost acolo, ca fiind ancheta in desfasurare nu se dau informatii, plus ca probabil habar n-avea ce sa intrebe, ca daca e crypto e deja cel putin pe jumatate ilegal, nu?


Am ajuns la concluzia ca idioti sunt peste tot, si idiotenii se pot intampla peste tot. Iar de plecat de pe planeta nu as avea chef, s-ar putea sa nu o duc prea bine fara oxigen, apa si alte cele
Dar sa stii ca iti inteleg frustrarea.

I think that somebody may have been misleading you.
There are no such things like fake blocks: a block has to be accepted by the majority of nodes in order to get into the blockchain (if this doesn't happen, that block will get ignored by the majority). No miner would risk that.
Maybe you were reading about the 51% attack? In that case somebody has to have more than half of the miners, but will still make correct blocks, not fake.

You may have to explain even more what you think the fake blocks are.

You've made a mix of terms then asked something that may or may not be related, I don't know. As said, please ask clearer; maybe even ask more questions instead of assuming things.

However, I will try to answer:
1. A message can be signed, hence one person (actually his wallet) can sign a message with a digital signature.
The only thing is that (in Bitcoin world) one has to sign it with the private key of an address, not with something random, and this will allow people acknowledge the address is indeed his.

2. I am not sure what you mean by using digital signature on their own. Isn't using their own local wallet (even offline) good enough?


Maybe the way people use digital signatures to certify owning addresses here could help: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=996318.msg60584851#msg60584851

This is the preev replacement that seems to work closest to what I'd like, but I would ask you consider some (hopefully) small improvements:
1. Digit grouping. Right now, if I put there 10 BC, preecs shows 223219.70 USD. While the tab title tells nicely the current BTC price (22,322 USD), I would also like to see something similar on the lower area/edit box too, i.e. numbers like 223,219.70; you already have this for sats, maybe applying the same logic everywhere is not something big.
2. This is less important, however: multiple dots are allowed in the edit box (0..1) and also multiple 0 before the dot are allowed (00.01 BTC)

My address: bc1qeuvhugrlu8g34e8wl3s8dtm2k8mjf0khvqxmaf

Thank you for the giveaway. Glad you finally got to do it.

$25 Giveaway in BTC
Link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5413258

Organizator: Mitch212

Se poate castiga: echivalentul a 25$ in bitcoin

Poate participa oricine (din pacate).
Modalitate de inscriere: fiecare participant se inscrie cu adresa lui de bitcoin.

Concurs incheiat

I would get rid of XP and put a Linux on it. And I'm telling you this as a Windows user.
Especially under Windows USB is a high risk, hence, no matter what OS you use, I advise you transfer the information via camera.

On my Win10 Electrum opens the camera directly when I do Tools->Load Transaction->From QR code
Do some tests yourself. If you have another (live) laptop you can start both on testnet and do a test with signing a tx with your cold storage. Then you know you have all you need and can do the proper install and configuration.

Nu am experienta nici cu USDT, nici cu TRON, dar:
* TRON este o moneda cu blockchain propriu
* USDT este un token care poate foloseste (cel putin) 3 blockchain pe care poate sa existe / sa fie transferat: OMNI (BTC), ERC20 (ETH), TRC20 (Tron)

Deci USDT va fi transferat pe blockchainul pe care ai monedele, iar costul depinde de blockchain.
Cred ca in ultima vreme se folosesc mai degraba USDT pe Tron, unde transferul e mai ieftin (dar nu stiu cat).
Oricum, daca ai USDT intr-un portmoneu al tau, vezi si tu cum arata adresa si vezi din articol ce inseamna asta.

..Dar... tu ai aceste monede intr-adevar la tine in portmoneu sau sunt pe la vreo casa de schimb? Fiindca in al doilea caz costul este cat taxeaza ei pentru retrageri si nu are legatura cu nimic altceva.

I will add to the previous post that this kind of investments are risky, hence you should invest only money you afford to lose or have locked in the investment for long time.

In my experience with Bitcoin, while the price did recover sooner or later, there were long periods the price was low and the news were depressing; I expect many did sell in such times and if you are one of those getting easily scared by that you better not invest. Even more, investing in bitcoin makes sense only if you plan to leave your coins untouched for 3, 4 or even 5 years, at least. Of course, financial emergencies tend to occur when Bitcoin price is also far from great. So you have to have a good plan.

Adding to this the risks the previous post wrote, it's not easy to invest into Bitcoin.

Now... you wrote "crypto". Many Bitcoiners will say that you may want to invest in whatever altcoin. Altcoins are way more risky than Bitcoin and I don't have a good rule for them to see profit. In my experience altcoin investments are a losing scenario on long term. Maybe on short or medium term some got nice profits, but I don't recommend altcoins at all.

So, altcoins are a no, and Bitcoin is also something that must be weighted carefully. Then you decide for yourself whether you should invest or not. Good luck!

Umm, you're wrong
An ASIC is built to make one operation. Since DdmrDdmr is more than capable to also post actually human-like logic and information, I would say that ASIC/MSIC is a huge understatement. Overly evolved AI? Maybe. But not a simple ASIC/MSIC.

Heh, la ce de "competenti" au fost angajati la stat, mai ales in ultimii ani, nu m-ar mira.
Dar totusi cred ca (sau cel putin nu exclud ca) e ceva mai mult decat doar un grup de discutii acolo...


Asta se poate intampla daca ignori notificarile de la ANAF pentru ceva perioada - dar nu stiu daca este vorba de luni sau ani.
Altfel nu inteleg, eventual sa fi fost si altceva, nu doar taxele. Dar na, sunt analfabet in "legaleza", asa ca poate ca ma insel.

Oohh, I've missed that. Thank you. So it was intended, interesting...

That's most probably because any low value project would start making such giveaways - for advertising purpose - handing out some shitcoins or tokens with no value.

It's easy nowadays to camouflage bad intentions as good intentions. I guess that this is the way many scams actually work.

Same here, same here. Just I've been at a concert, hence I didn't reply yesterday here.


Very good point.
Somehow I have a feeling that Ddmrddmr has done (intentionally or not) something different this time, with newer posts merited by him not getting re-merited at this merit spree, and older posts (even from April or May!) being re-merited.