Maybe one which gives ONLY YOU the full control over the private keys ?

There are numerous proper wallets around.

It is relatively simple:
1) Don't use a wallet where you don't have full control over the private keys.
2) Don't use a wallet where some other party has access to the private keys.
3) Don't use a web wallet.

You can not download it 'as PGP'.

When clicking on 'pgp', you are downlading the signature file to verify the downloaded .zip file.




.. using a 'dump' printer (not connected to any network, no buffer).




Public key != Address

Read this thread about terms which are often confused by newcomers.

Klingt ja an sich ziemlich interessant, aber für 10% Rabatt bei Expedia (max. 50$ pro Monat), muss man z.b. 5.000 MCO staken.
Das sind bei aktuell 5$ pro coin, 25.000$.

Für konstfreies Netflix, sind es 500 MCO. Immerhin auch schon 2.500$

Da gehört schon einiges an Vertrauen dazu. Ob sich das Risiko wirklich lohnt.. ich weiß ja nicht.

Aber die gratis alternative oder die mit 400$ gratis Abhebungen monatlich für 50MCO (~250$) is definitiv eine Überlegung wert.

A bit of a different request:

Can i have the top 10 people with 1000+ posts (preferably active within the last 6 months) which received the lowest amount of merits ?

Thank you for the information, i tagged each of his accounts.




No, but OP should report him for breaking the forum rules:

Well.. you are right.. but in this case we are really talking about very uneducated user regarding computers and 'technical stuff'.

Unfortunately UAC can almost always be bypassed if it is not explicitly set to the highest (most secure) option, which is not default.
There are numerous ways to bypass it, some are fixed, some are not.

So this makes it even more dangerous on a computer in comparison to an android 




But this still applies, no ?

On the computer malware could steal any data/files/etc. which the user (i.e. your kid) has access too (ignoring UAC exploits).
On an (unrooted) android the malware could only steal information in its user context (own app data) plus things possible with given permission (external storage, camera, etc..)

But accessing camera, storage, etc.. is always possible under windows. You don't even have to give permission for doing that.

One of the most dangerous things you can install on your mobile is a custom keyboard, which acts as a keylogger.
And on windows.. well.. it is not really hard to implement a keylogger.
You have about 3 different types of them:
- Via polling (GetAsyncKeyState)
- Via hooking (SetWindowsHookEx)
- Registering as input device

I mean.. hell.. there are 2 inbuilt accessible windows libraries available to create a keylogger with just a few lines of code.

If you refrain from installing a custom keyboard on an android, the chances of having a keylogger is close to zero (excluding unknown exploits), simply because an installed application has no access to the keyboard / buffer / etc.


Unfortunately this does not apply to OP's problem (clipboard hijacking), since this is readable for any application on android.

So, to get on-topic again, this also wouldn't have had him protected against this kind of malware.
I mean.. you could theoretically forbid applications to access the clipboard, but this also means you can't paste in them anymore.


I am no way saying that android is secure and windows is not.. however it is much easier to have your mobile clean than a windows computer.

But shared devices create new problems per se, whether smartphone, computer, tablet, etc.

Well.. since you are giving them the permissions, that's nothing an AV software should block, unfortunately.

But the same applies to a desktop computer.
If you run an executable, it can create outgoing connections without being blocked. And if it is establishing an encrypted connection with TLS, there is nothing an AV can do to determine whether it is 'normal' or malicious traffic 

Malicious applications on a desktop computer can even do more harm than malicious apps on a mobile.
On a desktop computer, malware gains access to each file in the user context (basically everything except for system files and folders).
On an android, the malware does not get access to any data from a different application since android enforces application encapsulation. Each application is being run in a different user context.
Only data on the SD card can be accessed by any application. That's btw also the reason why one should never store sensitive data on the external memory.


The only 'one' i am completely trusting is Mr. Mathematics. He never lies.




What did i do or say? 
Well.. it doesn't matter. Better be HappyFish instead of NeuroticFish 

Since both networks are completely separated, one entity has to explicitly relay the transaction (taken from the BCH network) to at least one BSV node.

If noone is doing this, the transaction will only be relayed in the BCH network, never reaching any BSV node and therefore also not being confirmed in the BSV network.

Around the date of the split, there was at least one person taking transactions from the one network and relaying it to the other one to create confusion. Don't know whether this is still the case.

And you don't believe that this is an extremely shady behavior that should not be used at all from a 'wallet' ?

Offering some kind of web wallet - Alright.
Having access to the private keys which the user don't have - Extremely risky and unnecessary, but ok. One could claim that it is the users choice.
Requiring KYC, as a 'wallet' - Absolute no-go.
Locking up funds - Absolute no-go.

Overall.. besides your service being delusional, you are showing extremely shady behavior, which every user should be aware of.

Fixed that for you 




Well but 'security software' means a single AV software.
There are plenty of AV's available for android too. TBH, i would everyone recommend to install it on their mobile.




That's true, unfortunately.. Any OS is prone to that.

The biggest vulnerability is not sitting inside of the software or hardware, but in front of the monitor 




Ironically.. Huawei 

I know.. people can claim "uuhhh china is spying and collecting data..", to prevent such arguments:
1) there is not a single proof for them spying and
2) everyone collects data. And i feel i am less vulnerable if china has my data compared to the US

Huawei is doing a really good job at pushing out updates soon after google releases them.

It is not prohibited. So no reason to ban the accounts.




No one has to 'allow' tagging.
The trust system is not supervised by theymos or anyone else.


I personally think that trading with anyone who bought his account (i.e. deceiving others into believing he is an trustworthy and/or long standing member of this community) is high-risk.

If you don't think so, you can simply ignore this specific trust rating and continue doing business with the tagged person.
It is not like the trust ratings contain "SCAMMER KEEP AWAY !1!!1!!11!one!!eleven".
They always contain the reason for the rating (i.e. account buying / selling).




Lol, no.

No user can force a forum to demand KYC.

Just because user X tags user Y because of Z, the forum is not liable at all. That's nonsense.




Your feeling is wrong.

A live OS is indeed a safer option, no doubts.

I am just sick of those people claiming mobiles are enormous unsecure by definition, while they are running a windows machine on their desktop.
I'd even go that far, to claim that compromising a windows machine is way easier then compromising an android mobile (given that both systems have the same 'level' of security measurements).

Excluding all social engineering - regarding only the technical aspects - windows is more prone to being compromised due to the extreme number of vulnerabilities (found and not found ones).


Btw.. my mobile is roughly 2 years old and still receives monthly updates. About 10-14 days after google releases them.

Already almost 1 hour passed without him sending you the funds.. Don't you want to create a type#3 flag against him? 

I see a violation here.

You can't really mess up a lot.

The most important thing is to transfer your coins from the highest to the lowest value. This means BTC first -> BCH -> ...

Afterwards, if you always send funds to an address you own, you don't have to worry about your transaction being replayed.
Even if someone is going to take your transaction and replay it to the other chain (e.g. from BCH to BSV), the coins will be sent to your address.

Such an replay attack can only be 'dangerous' if you send funds to a different person, because that person can replay the transactio and also receive funds from the other chain.
But since this is not the case here, you don't have to worry about an replay attack.

---

https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum is the one and only real github repository from electrum.

Using a live OS does not protect you against all kind of malware (i guess you wanted to say malware, not virus).

A virus is a subcategory of malware which spreads itself automatically through a network by exploiting vulnerabilities. You probably meant to talk about malware in general.




You are right.
An up-to-date android mobile is more secure than a windows computer.

No, as i have mentioned..

Create a new wallet file and use your seed to restore your wallet. Don't choose 2FA when doing so.
You will be able to spend all of your funds without paying any fee to TrustedCoin for 2FA.


You have your seed (mnemonic code; 12 words) backed up, right ?

Ah.. alright. That explains it.

You have a 2FA wallet.

The second party signing your transaction is TrustedCoin. They charge a 0.001 fee for 20 transactions.
This was stated when creating a 2FA wallet.


Therefore in your transaction you are trying to send:
- 1 satoshi to some address
- 0.00064.. BTC to your change address
- 0.001 to TrustedCoin for co-signing your transactions.


You either have to pay the 0.001 for 20 credits (= co-signing 20 transactions), or you recreate your wallet without 2FA. Your mnemonic code cointains the information for 2 out of 3 private keys, which is enough to have full control over the wallet.
However, you don't have the 2FA feature then.


Your 2FA wallet basically is a 2-of-3 multisig wallet.
This means 2 out of 3 signatures are necessary.
Your wallet itself holds 1 key. And TrustedCoin holds 1 key. The 3rd key is - together with the first one you hold - 'stored' in your mnemonic code (seed).

So simply create a new wallet file without 2FA, and you will be able to spend your coins as you wish - without 2FA and their fee.

0.001 BTC as a fee when 1 sat/B is chosen with 1 input and 1 output is way too high. That's somewhat weird.

Can you enter 1 sat/B as fee, click on preview and exactly report the outputs or simply share a screenshot of the preview-window ?
This might make it easier to determine the issue.

Heute dieser, morgen ein anderer.

Exchanges welche nicht einmal minimale Sicherheitsanforderungen erfüllen werden früher oder später alle gehackt. Das ist nur eine Frage der Zeit.
Vor allem kleiner Exchanges, von denen kaum einer was gehört hat, haben es normal nicht so mit der Sicherheit.. Und die gehen dann halt komplett Bankrott.

Hacks und Steuerhinterziehung stehen ja mittlerweile auf der Tagesordnung von jedem Exchange 'der etwas auf sich hält'.


Btw.. da fällt mir das hier wieder ein:


(Source: reddit: r/Bitcoin)

IMO, absolutely justified as pointed out here.