That's the description of a SEPA return code (MS03).

This explicit code means that the bank returned this transfer 'without any further reason'.

My guess would be that your bank does not support anything bitcoin-related and that they actively stop you from transacting with coinbase.


This definitely is not the fault of coinbase. You need to contact your bank for further information.

Just copy all necessary .deb files to your offline computer.

Since you already have installed armory on your online machine (including all dependencies), you can simply copy then over.
You can find them in:


Copy your armory installation file, python-qt4 and python-psutil over and install them by running the following in the directory where the files are stored:

Then you unfortunately can't do anything about it.

It is completely up to them how and when to recover wrongly send coins.


Please not that this doesn't mean they are 'scam', 'untrustworthy' or similar.

Accessing the private keys to recover funds sent to an wrong address is a time-consuming and highly risky process.
Security-wise it definitely makes sense that this is not easily possible. Most employees have absolutely no access to the private keys.

Accessing the private keys outside of the fully automated process which handles withdrawals is bound to huge risks and it makes sense that they do not accept the risk for an amount which seems to be 'too low' for them.

No one bans these accounts.

They receive a negative trust rating, because they are not to be trusted.


The account is not banned and can be still used the same way. But other people have to be warned that the so-called 'hero member with +6 trust' is just a sold account and anyone could be the owner.




No. The account itself needs to be tagged.

Using a bought and higher rank account lets other user think that the person is trustworthy (especially the account with +6 trust rating).
If the account is being sold, the account holder can not be trusted at all because it could be anyone without any effort being put into 'his' account. And therefore the negative trust rating.




Information about an potential trade was made public.
This is absolutely fine. You never told me to keep that confidential.

I am free to share my own chat history.




I have uploaded the screenshots of the whole conversation. Anyone who wants to see it, can see it.




Making my own chat history public and warning others (especially newbies) about fake higher-rank member means that i am untrustworthy in monetary terms?
Not really..

For anyone wondering what this is referring to: I pretended to be a customer to get untrustworthy accounts - which are up for sale - tagged.

Creating a flag requires the following:

• Must be created by the user who has been damaged
• Must have violated a written contract
• The violation must result in damage

There are multiple reasons why a flag is not appropriate:

1) There was no written contract.

2) IF you want to call that chat a 'contract', the terms were 'money for account'. Without an account being handed over, no payment is due. Therefore there was no violation at all. Neither any damage.

3) Rescinding from a trade is not a violation and did not result in any damage (Both would be absolutely necessary for a flag to be appropriate).

4) It must be created by @TrustedAccSeller. Why are you speaking for 'your friend' ?



If you are talking about a negative trust rating instead, this also is not appropriate.
Simply because the fact that i called your accounts out for being untrustworthy does not mean that i am untrustworthy in monetary terms.





I never explicitly said that i WILL buy an account - as it is - after the proof.
Once it was bound to the account having a good post history - which it didn't have.
Once it was after a promised +240 trust acc (which was a +6 trust acc).

There was no explicit agreement.

Even IF it was (which is not the case), a flag would still not be appropriate because simply rescinding from it is not a violation AND did NOT result in damage.





And both of you INSISTED on not using an escrow.
And insisting in terms of trying everything you can to not use an escrow.

This alone makes you extremely untrustworthy already.





We had no transaction. We were speaking about a potential transaction.

What confidential information are you talking about ? There was no confidential information.

Usernames are public. PM's which i receive can be shared by me without any consent of the sender.
You didn't even mention that you want to keep that confidential, which could have changed something.

But.. you bought bitcoins? Why did you paste your seed into localbitcoins.com ?
Did the seller expect you to give him your seed so he can 'put BTCs on it' ? If so, that's a scam.

Can you give us your (receiving) address of the first and second trade ? It will be way easier for us to investigate it this way.

This doesn't work because both wallets use completely different formats.

If you want to move your coins into an electrum wallet, do the following:

• Create a new electrum wallet and write down the mnemonic code (12 words). These are the key to your funds.
• Make sure you have backed them up properly (not digitally!)
• Export the private key of the address which received funds out of armory by opening the 'wallet properties' -> 'backup this wallet' -> 'export key list'
• Create a second (temporary) electrum wallet by choosing to import a private key. Use the private key of armory.
• Send funds from your temporary electrum wallet (containing only this one private key) to your other electrum wallet (which will be your new 'standard' wallet)

Afterwards your funds will be located in your new electrum wallet. 

Actually, the description of the flag says:

The first point we can argue about is the violation. We have different point of views regarding this.


But absolutely clear is, that the so-called 'violation' definitely did NOT result in any damage at all.

What resulted in 'damage' was that i didn't just keep my mouth shut but took the appropriate action to tag the accounts as being up for sale.
1) This actually isn't any damage at all. The accounts ARE worth way less because being some good of a trade. Other people (outside of the trade) just didn't know it before the tag. Now, it is fair, since everyone has the same information regarding these accounts (the fact that they are just a good in a trade and that they shouldn't be trusted).
My actions did NOT reduce the value of these accounts, they revealed the actual value to everybody on this forum.
2) The 'damage' is not the result of rescinding from the 'trade'. It is the result of sharing information which everyone should have access too.


So, no.. I don't believe the flag would be appropriate.

After reading this, i still have a few questions:

• How did you 'import' your BTCs ? Did you import a private key ? A mnemonic code ?
• What do you define as a 'root key' ? AFAIK, the only wallet which uses this term is armory.
• Which site did you use to convert your seed (are you talking about the 12-/24- word mnemonic code) into a 'root key' ?
• Is there an outgoing transaction from your wallet?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(computing)



Do you know how would I record mouse movements and/or how could I could use that as an entropy source? Javascript itself is just a language. This doesn't say anything about the way the entropy is collected and the quality of the PRNG at all.

You could simply use /dev/random of a unix system.
The linux kernel uses mouse movements, inter-keyboard timings, CPU interrupts and other non-deterministic events to gather entropy.

That's definitely random enough to generate a private key.

Which itself has nothing to do with the 'contract'. What is the 'confidential information' in your eyes ?
The only thing which is 'confidential' is the PM i received. And this PM itself did not decrease the value.

The fact that i called him out for doing shady business is what decreased the value. And ONLY if you really want to call it like that.
Because the accounts had no real value. They were sold for a price. That's it. But the real value was close to zero.. it is just some shitty account which is being traded. No value behind it.


By the way.. i don't have a problem with tagging account sellers and their accounts. Even if they 'lose value'.
I know that sounds harsh to someone who owns multiple accounts.. but it is the truth.




There were so much things missing regarding the 'trade' that it wouldn't even be called 'similar to a contract' in my country..

What the hell?

How did my expection to receive an PM to get the proof of ownership decrease the value of what he is selling?

I didn't know accounts lose value for each PM sent... But that's probably because i don't buy/sell accounts..

Not replying to you here, but to AdolfinWolf:


mindrust, i think you celebrated the rise of BTC/USD a bit too much already  

So.. just because it is hard to tell whether an account has been bought.. it is ok to do something which is not permitted by the signature campaign managers.. just to join such a campaign ?  
So.. if i am not getting caught.. i can rob a bank ?

---

He is a member of the DT1 list. Or is this some joke i don't understand?

---

I wouldn't call that scam.
It definitely would have been a scam if i took those accounts (he offered me to send credentials first) and not pay him afterwards.

But just accepting a deal and later rescinding does not fall under the scam-category IMO.

Unethical? Yes.
Unfair? Yes.
Mean and misleading? Yes.

But scamming? Definitely no, IMO

---

It is not.

People behind bought accounts are NOT to be trusted.. simply because they didn't earn any trust or acceptance in this forum.
They bought an account which did.. So tagging them as what they are (simply just bought accounts, no value behind it) is not an abuse of the trust system.

Not even this..

You can only view the balances of the altcoins which are directly supported by ledger live (which can be sent / received via ledger live).
The majority of coins (especially those who only have 'basic' support) are not viewable / accessible using ledger live.

Only 23 out of 79 coins are natively supported and can be viewed by ledger live (excluding Monero, NEO, etc.. ).

Wow.. this definitely is overkill..

If you are using lower case letters only, a password with the length of 20 is already more than secure enough.
If you add special characters to it (which you have in your password), you get the same level of security with 16 chars (note that this is calculated without numbers in the password; only lower case letter and special characters).

100 chars is way too long, this just makes it more error-prone. Effectively, it doesn't protect your private keys 'more'.
You should rather focus more on the security of the computer / network instead of a password which is insanely long.

That's by the way also the reason i have [Proven that the account is really up to sale and owned by the seller] behind some of the accounts.
These are all the accounts which i received a message from after demanding a proof that they really own the account.

Those who don't have the tag behind them, have been mentioned as up to sale by the seller, but didn't give me proof of ownership in form of a message.

Not exactly.

If a buyer now wants you to proof that you own the account and you send a message from my account.. then this is what happened.
If you just claim you sell this account without any proof of ownership, this is far away from what happened.




Absolutely, not a problem at all.

I can give any (trusted) member the credentials to log in and verify.




As far as i understood SeW900 is not @TrustedAccSeller, but a friend of him.
SeW900 is 'Walter' and 'his friend' (the person who sells the accounts) is @TrustedAccSeller.


All conversations can be seen in the screenshots i uploaded:

1. I was speaking to an account seller
2. He offered to sell this account
3. He proved that he indeed owns this account.


I understand this concern regarding the other accounts (where i didn't get any proof about the ownership)
I mean.. i could say "i sell account 'theymos' for 1 BTC'.. without proof you can't be sure.

But in this case i strongly believe this is evidence enough 
What exact scenario are you insecure about ? How can this be a game if the owner of the account took part in it ?

Please move this thread into the german subsection (at the bottom left corner: 'move topic').

Bitte verschiebe den Thread in die deutsche Subsection (unten links: 'move topic').