That statement conflicts with the 'investor documents' that the WSJ has claimed to see. The FAQ does say to refer to the TOS. Unfortunately, customers are going to have no recourse if they relied on the discrepancy, even if there is liability on the part of Celsius, as based on their bankruptcy filings, Celsius has negative equity.
I don't think coinbase is at serious risk of bankruptcy. Obviously, there are real risks associated with keeping your coin on an exchange, and one should consider those risks if they are going to do so. Rather than basing your investment decision from a tweet, maybe look at the actual legal filings which show Coinbase making huge losses and the fact that all users are considered "unsecured creditors"
Coinbase has said in the past that they are working on legal mechanisms to change customers' status as 'unsecured creditors'. |
|
|
|
I think it would be better to use the default path for each address type for the wallet software you are using. This will make it simpler to recover your private key from the seed if you need to access your keys from a backup, which is a more realistic problem.
It is trivial to recover all at different derivation paths. Lets say you use P2PKH and P2WPKH, all you have to do is to tell the wallet you used these two (like checking 2 checkboxes in UI) and the wallet simply derives both branches and their respective children in the background. The complication is in the implementation and balance checking which is not a concern for the end user. Yes, it is trivial to recover the private keys at any arbitrary derivation path, however you need to know which path you are recovering from. There are a very large number of potential paths, and it is not trivial to check all of them. |
|
|
|
P.S.: feel free to merit that post  I sent that post a merit on your behalf. Does anyone have any idea why this happens?
You have ruled out the only root causes that I can think of. Based on the fact that you received the same message that The Pharmacist did when he tried to merit a post in a board that he didn't have permission to view (because he ignored the board), I think there may be an issue with your permissions, but I don't know what is causing it. |
|
|
|
My question is what if cryptocurrency continues to exist in the next 100 years is it possible for anyone who create a wallet to continue have a different Seed phrase?
It's possible, but it's not probable. But within next 100 years, it's likely we'll see new version of seed phrase which designed to be more secure (as in harder to brute force). All that is needed to make something more difficult to brute force is a larger scope of possible inputs. The number of potential seed phrases is large enough that it is very unlikely that someone will ever be able to brute force an existing seed. In order for a seed to be "more secure", it will need to be more difficult to find the seed via some means other than brute force.
A seed phrase is basically a 128 bit number. Nobody is going to get someone else's seed if they use proper random numbers.
The problem is that it is very difficult to know if the process of generating a number (seed) is in fact random. In other words, it is difficult to test that a procedure generates a random number. Yes you're right, but for example you can already increase your entropy by using more than 128 bits (which is 12 words) for your seeds. There are 2 256 private keys and 2 160 bitcoin addresses. It means you wont be able to generate all addresses and/or private keys with a 12 word seed, and the entropy of your keys and adresses will be reduced from the full capacity of Bitcoin. If you are looking for more entropy and security, it's certainly a good idea to use seeds with at least 160 bits (ie 15 words). I don't think adding additional entropy is going to meaningfully change the security of a seed phrase. For all intents and purposes, the chances of brute forcing a 128 bit seed is zero, so adding an addition bit of entrpy will make the chances stay at what is essentially zero. The only real way to add meaningful security would be to reduce the chances that someone can calculate a particular seed in less than linear time (eg, faster than brute force). |
|
|
|
There are millions of Satoshi in one Bitcoin and are in bits so even if the total 21 million Bitcoinhase been mined, the total buts will only increase in price which gives Bitcoin an infinite total supply. But you should also understand that Bitcoin, if the demand increase so the scarcity will inflate the price.
This is where the laws of economics apply. with the increasing scarcity of bitcoins to be traded while demand increases, it will further increase the price, and of course this limited supply I think will only affect the price, and of course crypto currency is not only bitcoin. and of course if developments are in accordance with our vision for the future, then we are very suitable for investing, as many people are doing today. This depends on if the price of bitcoin is elastic, or inelastic. It says that there will only ever be 21 million Bitcoin and the current BTC supply is almost at 19,094,150. What happens when its limit reached? will BTC price goes up instantly due to scarcity? is it the doom for Bitcoin since there is no room to mine? or maybe it will likely never reach 21 million?
Bitcoin is like money, people will always be needing to exchange their coin for goods/services, so there will always be a supply of bitcoin being "sold" for other things. Once the block subsidy reaches zero, the block reward will be made up entirely of transaction fees. A long time before this happens, the majority of the block reward will be transaction fees, so miners will only be marginally affected. |
|
|
|
what companies do is they "paper loan" (no actual money switches hands) to a dying company
EG say $2billion (on paper not real cash transfer)
<>
If a company were to do this immediately before filing for bankruptcy, they would be forced to reverse this transaction by the bankruptcy court. Another grand display of financial imprudence and recklessness. Celsius attracted many customers through mouth watery interest rates and easy access to most times un-collaterized loans. Sometimes the operations of most of these crypto lending companies is similar to ponzi operations. They seems not to put into consideration the risk and volatility of the crypto space while offering there services. They feel that because of the recent favorable bullish trend of the crypto market, they are free to be careless. But without a strong risk management systems and sound financial management practices we might see more lending companies file for bankruptcy. Filling for bankruptcy is not the end of the road for Celsius, they can still put their house in order and bounce back gallantly.
While I do agree that Celsius acted recklessly in making loans, I don't think they were a ponzi scheme. Celsius was essentially a bank, however, it does not appear they were very good at managing credit risk. Celsius would take deposits from their customers, and pay a lower interest rate than they expected to receive from loans made to borrowers using the money deposited. |
|
|
|
There is nothing technically wrong with doing something like that.
Also considering privacy and security, as long as each address type is derived from a different key then you are fine. Meaning you should never use key at m/0/0 for both P2PKH and P2TR addresses, instead you should use keys at different paths like this: m/0/0 for P2PKH and m/0/1 for P2TR.
If this is not followed and the implementation is flawed, you could easily leak your private key each time you spend from both P2TR and P2PKH/P2WPKH addresses.
Note that it only works for Taproot (Schnorr sigs) and any of the older address types that use ECDSA.
I don't think this is a serious enough risk to warrant different deprivation paths to be used for each address type. If someone is using P2PKH addresses, you could similarly argue that their private keys would be leaked if the implementation is flawed. I think it would be better to use the default path for each address type for the wallet software you are using. This will make it simpler to recover your private key from the seed if you need to access your keys from a backup, which is a more realistic problem. |
|
|
|
My question is what if cryptocurrency continues to exist in the next 100 years is it possible for anyone who create a wallet to continue have a different Seed phrase?
It's possible, but it's not probable. But within next 100 years, it's likely we'll see new version of seed phrase which designed to be more secure (as in harder to brute force). All that is needed to make something more difficult to brute force is a larger scope of possible inputs. The number of potential seed phrases is large enough that it is very unlikely that someone will ever be able to brute force an existing seed. In order for a seed to be "more secure", it will need to be more difficult to find the seed via some means other than brute force.
A seed phrase is basically a 128 bit number. Nobody is going to get someone else's seed if they use proper random numbers.
The problem is that it is very difficult to know if the process of generating a number (seed) is in fact random. In other words, it is difficult to test that a procedure generates a random number. |
|
|
|
Banks make unsecured loans all the time without issue Based on thorough risk assessments, credit scores, income analysis, and so on. It seems very much like Celsius were handing out loans to any large entity which wanted one without really any due diligence on how that loan was to be repaid or what it was to be used for. I don't think I can argue with you on this one, at least in principle. Celsius may or may not have known the purpose of the loan, but it seems that if they did know the purpose, they had very lax standards. There are a few forum members who have made a business out of lending, sometimes without collateral. I am sure that some of these loans have gone bad, but I believe their business is overall profitable, net of losses. Yes, but these users have very strict limits as to what they will lend without collateral. They certainly aren't risking amounts sufficient to put them out of business should their customer default. Forum lenders don't take deposits, which I am aware of, and anyone trying to take deposits would likely quickly be labeled a scammer. My issue is not with Celsius making unsecured loans Mine is. While they claimed all loans were collateralized by at least 150%, we know now that this was not the case. They made that statement in 2019, and it is possible that their business model had subsequently changed. I am not sure how much demand there is for fully collateralized crypto loans. It is also possible that greed got the better of whoever made (and approved) the decision to make these risky loans, as I would think if they turned out better, they would have made Celsius a lot of money. |
|
|
|
And, by the way, China has taken big steps to meet their goal of being carbon neutral by 2060 (same as Russia, and just 10 years after lefty boris promised) and has been the biggest investor in renewable energy for almost 10 years now.
Because the Chinese government should be trusted by default. In the meantime, China will continue to build additional coal power plants and will take other measures to increase its carbon emissions. In the West, governments are actually taking steps to becoming less energy independent. |
|
|
|
I'd be interested to see what Mashinsky does next after he likely loses his job after Celsius likely either goes out of business or is sold. Reports are that he sold around $45 million worth of CEL tokens he had very kindly given himself prior to collapse, so I'm sure he'll be fine. Although no doubt he will launch Celsius 2.0 or some other bullshit and people will flock to it. I mean, just weeks after the scam that was Terra Luna collapsed to nothing, Terra Luna v2 has a volume of $90 million a day. There are plenty of people in this space who are beyond stupid, and immoral people like Mashinsky are all too happy to capitalize on that stupidity. I am sure that he was paid well during his tenure, so even if the reports are false, he is likely to be okay financially. It is pretty rare for someone who once ran a business to not try again. Luna is probably off topic here, but its recent collapse was not the first time that something similar had happened to a stablecoin that was not backed by actual assets. I don't think Luna's model is sound because someone can bring down the coin by buying up a lot of it over time, and quickly dumping it onto the market, causing its dollar peg to break, removing confidence in the coin. The automatic stay from the bankruptcy filing will put the lawsuit on hold. I am not aware of any evidence that Celsius was a ponzi. I think it is more accurate to say that Celsius made risky investments (loans) that turned bad. |
|
|
|
The URL is clickable, but the forum has implemented a security feature that will display links to the bitcointalk forum as green when the user hovers their mouse over the link, and will display as blue for all other links. That "green" is barely noticeable on my screen, and I bet I'm not alone. I am aware of the feature and notice it. The feature may not be all that well known. I'm wondering why the security feature that stops fake links to be labeled "Bitcointalk.org" didn't kick in. Example: http://google.com[url=google.com]bitc ointalk.org[/url] Converting the text to upper case answers it: BITCOINTALK.O ГG. It seems that using the above BB code will result in "google.com" to be displayed, however it will show as "bitcointalk.org" when previewing the post. It seems that saving the post will actually remove the BB code, and will only have the link after the "url=". Probably another good feature |
|
|
|
This is an example (if true) of Celsius throwing all risk out of the window. The fact that as we discussed previously they handed out billions of dollars loans which were only 50% collateralized, and then went on to spend that collateral, leaving them with fully uncollateralized loans, means we can absolutely say that Celsius did not have good risk management. I noted before that the hypothecation of collateral increases risk to Celsius, although it does not mean that a loan 50% secured by collateral is now entirely unsecured, it means that Celsius has increased their leverage. Banks make unsecured loans all the time without issue, as I noted before, credit card debt is generally unsecured, and is so profitable for banks that they have resorted to giving customers rewards for using their credit cards. There are a few forum members who have made a business out of lending, sometimes without collateral. I am sure that some of these loans have gone bad, but I believe their business is overall profitable, net of losses. My issue is not with Celsius making unsecured loans, my issue is with the purpose of the loans, and the (what I believe) lack of documenting borrowers' ability to repay the loans. Making a loan to a business for the purpose of buying speculating on NFTs is basically the same as giving someone a loan for gambling. Gambling loans are very risky (for obvious reasons), and anyone who borrows for this purpose needs to have the ability to repay said loan via other reliable sources of income. I can't imagine how Celsius could have documented 3AC's ability to repay their loan via some way other than their NFT bets being successful. |
|
|
|
@op did you get a warning on the message that it could be phishing?
If I am thinking of the same warning message, that warning is only displayed with newbies send a PM, and it is displayed for all newbies, regardless of PM content. The person who sent the OP the PM is a Junior Member When I try to post the above BB code in a post, the link does not show up as green when I hover over the link. While this is a phishing link, santhosh121081 was not able to beat the anti-phishing measures of the forum.
That's weird. It was legit-looking and clickable in the PM. Maybe that URL has now been flagged by the system and so won't properly render anymore? The URL is clickable, but the forum has implemented a security feature that will display links to the bitcointalk forum as green when the user hovers their mouse over the link, and will display as blue for all other links. The link in question was not to a bitcointalk forum page and was displayed as green |
|
|
|
A more efficient method would be to cache the keys for only a few seconds (in case more keys are found) before printing them to output and clearing the cache. That way, there is no I/O bottleneck, as printing stuff to the terminal continuously can drastically slow down loops by an order of magnitude.
There is no sense to print keys partially. Script is mainly for redirecting to a file (python3 keyhunter.py > keys.txt). It might be better to take a file path as input, and have the script output the keys to that particular file path. If the intended use is for the script to output to a txt file, there shouldn't be the potential for it to output to the console output. |
|
|
|
had a "net zero" emissions goals for England
Not all conservatives come up ridiculous ways to interpret what Scientists around the world are claiming so that it benefits them personally like they do with the bible. Tackling the climate change problem translates to more stability long-term, which, is actually a conservative value. The climate is in fact changing over the long term, but that doesn't mean that it is being caused by humans, that there is anything that humans can do to stop/reverse it, nor that it will result in harm to the ability to inhabit the planet. There have been multiple cycles of climate over long periods of time, for example, many years ago, there was the ice age. Measures to "fight" climate change are really a means to make the West weaker economically and militarily compared to China. |
|
|
|
This person didn't participate in that thread and the "link" is some kind of messed up BBCode (which I sanitized before quoting above): [flash=200,200]https://[/flash][url=https://bitcointalk.login-index.php-topic.794551.0.thegermanaccess.com/?u=PowerGlove&l=5406168.0]bitcointalk.oгg/index.php?topic=5406168.0[/url]
Anybody know anything?  When I try to post the above BB code in a post, the link does not show up as green when I hover over the link. While this is a phishing link, santhosh121081 was not able to beat the anti-phishing measures of the forum. |
|
|
|
The idea that those old scams were gone does not mean that the scammers did, and they could have very well created new accounts such as yours (who knows) and now they say oh look at those old scams they should be all gone. So you are implying that I may be an old scammer of the forum, which was blamed in the past and then, somehow, returned with a new account and spent years for building a good reputation, just to have the chance to meet such a bright mind as you are to expose me? Of course, you may be, that is totally possible, no need for a bright mind, even you must say it's possible. Anyone can be a scammer, but that does not mean that everyone should be treated like a scammer if there is no evidence they are a scammer. Sure, it is possible that GazetaBitcoin is an alt of some scammer, but I am not aware of any evidence to suggest that is the case. Nor am I aware of any accusations of GazetaBitcoin scamming anyone, credible or otherwise. I would compare this to TF, whose case has a set of facts that I do not believe are disputed (and that I understand are accepted by TF), which makes me believe that TF has not honored his obligations to certain members of the community. You can argue semantics as to what he should be called, but I think it is reasonable to not entrust him with your money. |
|
|
|
This should be the end of Celsius, and really, of all centralized lending platforms. Celsius, and other lending platforms operate essentially the same way that banks operate -- that is they borrow money from depositors, and lend money out, and pocket the difference between what they pay in interest, and what they receive in interest via loan payments (less loan losses). If a platform can sufficiently manage risk, including not making risky loans, (and matching loan maturities with when they need to repay their lenders/deposit holders), they have a solid business model. This is an example (if true) of Celsius throwing all risk out of the window. It is not uncommon for banks to successfully lend without collateral, for example, most credit cards are unsecured loans, and credit cards are so profitable for banks that they often pay customers to use them (via new account bonuses and rewards). Banks also often lend to businesses successfully, although the underwriting process is often more complex. If Celsius really made a loan to a 3AC to buy NFTs, I think it is fair to say that the underwriting process was too complex for Celsius. |
|
|
|
I really don't see many people depositing more money into Celsius, nor becoming a customer in the near future. I honestly don't think PR should be a concern right now. I highlighted a quote from Mashinsky in another thread here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5403254.msg60564757#msg60564757. Absolutely ridiculous that with millions of people losing huge amounts of money, he is more concerned about the optics of his company. I'd be interested to see what Mashinsky does next after he likely loses his job after Celsius likely either goes out of business or is sold. Celsius currently has negative equity to the tune of at least a billion dollars (according to their numbers). This is almost certainly going to result in losses for their customers. There is the potential that some of the numbers are missing some context, or are based on faulty assumptions, but I don't think they are being intentionally misrepresented.
I would agree. I don't think they are intentionally wrong, rather just another indication of Celsius' amateurish behavior. I think the mining loan is probably more of an example of Celsius engaging in risky behavior. Miners are not trivial to liquidate, especially in large numbers, and mining is an inherently risky proposition. The more details about Celsius' business practices in recent time, the lower opinion I have about their management. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
