According to the tweet https://twitter.com/TheRealTahinis/status/1295770434349281281. Tahinis, A Canada-based Middle Eastern restaurant has converted all their entire savings to bitcoin. The decision to turn the cash holdings to cryptocurrencies emerged in the March crash and as the Canadian government started to offer aid services to companies struggling to stay open owing to the pandemic. With the U.S. and Canada printing money to support their crippled economies, Tahini's owner Omar Hamam began to see the financial system as "a play of tic tac toe being played right now, and music will halt and some people would be left out." Hamam said he was worried that handouts and money printing would devalue the economy of the fiat. "It was clear to us that cash did not have the same appeal," he added. "In the end, with all the extra currency floating in the market, the capital will be worthless." He decided to convert the business's savings to Bitcoin as it "gives a much viable choice to saving cash." He said they would proceed to use Bitcoin as a reserve asset — "perhaps permanently if we don't need fiat." Bad move. Bitcoin is a risky asset to park their funds in without any guaranteed gains. If the restaurant does need money, he probably wouldn't use Bitcoins and has to convert it to fiat. If at that point in time, he's not in profit, then he'll be permanently losing that amount of money. Monetary policies are made to sustain the economy in trying times like these and while it isn't desirable, it has to be done to sustain the economy. |
|
|
|
Hello guys! I've just ask this question in other topic but it's better to have a separate one. I know that hot crypto wallet are not safe and can be easily hacked. But what about bank cards with hot wallets? Are they safe enough?
Not safe is quite subjective. I find my hot wallet just safe enough for convenient access to my funds and the rest of my funds in my cold storage. If you're talking about Bitcoin debit cards, Bitcoin isn't reversible so they can still get hacked but fiat itself is relatively easy to reverse, albeit for a small fee. |
|
|
|
Where is wallet.dat located?
A neat little command I use in the terminal is: find / -name wallet.dat -print 2>/dev/null . The output should be the directory the wallet.dat is in. |
|
|
|
Because when I command that, this happens:
-zip-
Are you using your own wallet.dat? Might be the case of the wallet.dat not being backwards compatible (you're running 0.16.0 after-all). Try moving your wallet.dat to another directory and running the client again. |
|
|
|
For some reason, on the second wallet that acts as a co-signatory for me - after executing the command, the transaction is not deleted, writes unknown see photo  And when try to send a new transaction, this error occurs-see the photo  It's RBF. Is your replacement transaction having a larger fee per byte than your first transaction? What is this tool? how do I use it? The transaction is ready and signed by all cosigners, it remains to send out
Just a web utility tool for you to submit transactions to the network[1]. [1] coinb.in/#broadcast |
|
|
|
Interesting. I've really only used exchange wallets to send/receive, but have dabbled with Bitcoin Core a little bit. I guess my confusion came with not realizing the "dust" from multiple addresses in one wallet would all consolidate. I guess if you've linked an IP to 1 address and then do this dust attack and link new addresses to that original address then you link the IP to all addresses...which I guess makes it easier to trace IPs?
You can potentially use the link to establish that a set of addresses belongs to a specific group of people. Using the dust attack is more to identify which groups of addresses likely belongs to the same person. IP addresses is already leaked if you're using non-privacy oriented wallet clients. It can be determined to a certain degree of accuracy that some addresses belongs to the user behind that IP address. The dust attack is solely used to determine the links between addresses. |
|
|
|
Didn't you finish the article? It also says in black and white to avoid this you need to upload the corrected transaction to a new clean wallet so that this does not happen
Ah well, thought you wanted to put all the steps in the post. Also, you don't need to create a dummy wallet for this, just go online and broadcast using a broadcast tool. After executing this command, nothing happened >> wallet.remove_transaction(e87ee92e1fe83bfc59e8abf1b0d1096990de43254e0847262f0ef6882ea88aac)
Traceback (most recent call last):
>>
TXID has to be in a quotation. For example: wallet.remove_transaction('1ff95e3c5fced8284f91598583e109a614996f4c1f0ce072631a6611b71d14fe')
After executing the command, you can proceed to spend the funds again in the send tab. |
|
|
|
Hardware wallets are pretty much used for just hodling imo. If I were to frequently have the need to connect it to a device, I'd rather configure a laptop or a pc with my specifications, making it my wallet which I can connect to exchanges now and then and only that, nothing else would probably be done there to prevent myself from being swept up by possible malware/virus.
For which you'll be basically making your computer a less secure "hardware wallet" for being configured specifically for cryptos. Hardware wallets are hardly designed to be used for hodling only. It's more suited for users who want security but doesn't want to take a super cautious approach to secure their computers beyond the basics. There's absolutely no problem with connecting the hardware wallet to a computer frequently; there isn't any known exploit that could compromise your device over USB and it is likely quite hard to do so. If you really want to have a wallet specifically for long term hodling, you won't have to spend large sums of money for a hardware wallet and it's fairly easy to spin up a LiveCD for a wallet seed. |
|
|
|
in step: Press CTRL-F on the keyboard, and search for this hash in the file. It should appear 4 times, in different places, you need to delete them, but carefully to keep the JSON syntax intact, so I have highlighted what you need to delete, it should be different for you, but you will get the idea, it should be everything that is highlighted:  does not find the cache for some reason, see photo  Electrum 4.0.2 for Windows I really don't recommend anyone doing this. The transaction would re-appear after connecting to the internet and the client starts to synchronize from the Electrum server that it is connected to. If you want to remove any transactions, use the following command in your console. wallet.remove_transaction(txid_here)
|
|
|
|
|
It's honestly hard to predict and at this point in time, there really isn't any indication that the value of Bitcoin to grow in a factor of 40. I find it hard to believe that Bitcoin would be that valuable without the majority adopting Bitcoin and government supporting it. Even so, a value that high would still be difficult to reach.
Hope that it would eventually happen but it's hard to imagine it happening.
|
|
|
|
|
Lending Bitcoin is really not the ideal method to earn Bitcoins. The nature of Bitcoin means that it is not recognized as a currency across many different countries. If a borrower were to default, there is little legal means to get it back.
Passive income in Bitcoin is generally accompanied by substantial risks.
|
|
|
|
No, I was not aware Helix was down. I have always clicked the link for it at the top of the Grams Search Engine. Unless I somehow grabbed a bad URL for Grams...
The way SEO works could allow the sites which are not legitimate to be ranked higher than the actual sites. That, or scammers pays for their sites to be promoted. It's hard to trust search engine with all the results and its better to do some cross referencing before using the site. |
|
|
|
|
It's just a form of social engineering attack. No hardware can ever prevent the exploitation of human nature. With the leakage of Ledger's customer information, phishing attempts are just going to be more deliberate and its just a matter of time before even the more cautious ppl falls for it.
|
|
|
|
There couldnt be a way the seed was leaked electronically. I store them offline but still on computer too, will may take a further step to prevent future attacks and store it further than where it currenty is take it off the computer and store it cold I believe the terminology is.
If you believe that the computer is compromised, you have to backup all the important files and reinstall windows. Cold storage means that the seed is never loaded into your online computer and all transactions are done using the offline computer only. I dont really know of the gap limit but do know if the wallet was used on only one channel from one device having this happened would be more shocking but where I did restore the wallet on another device the sync up may not of collated properly, although have experience with wallets this is the first time I have tethered it elsewhere so new plausible scenarios are welcomed
Hmm. Gap limit shouldn't likely be an issue unless you manually generated new addresses from the seed and the wallet missed it. Its shocking about not needing the passphrase to load the wallet and with the seed people could access funds. Just makes me want to be a step closer to strong internet security
Keeping the seed safe is all it takes. If you store it on a piece of paper in a safe, the only attacks it susceptible to is any power tools at your safe or a $5 wrench attack. |
|
|
|
|
Given the current state of the economy, it could be possible. People would be more willing to divert their funds to cryptos instead of their investments in the stock market given its uncertainty. With the government busy dealing with the pandemic, it seems to be a pretty far stretch for any government to implement favourable policies for cryptos in general.
|
|
|
|
|
Did you validate the installer using ThomasV's PGP?
Could you give a more detailed error message? Your post doesn't say much about what's wrong.
|
|
|
|
I know people try stupid things however I hope in this case we will not see any stupid to send any coin. :-D
I checked with Electrum and it always gives this error of "invalid line..." even with the address OP posted. So, I assume Electrum has some built-in feature to prevent this sorts of lose.
The address that OP posted has the checksum (ie. the final few characters) in the wrong capitalisation. It is easy to generate a burn address with a correct checksum and it is the intended purpose; for address to be valid and allow funds to be burned. Electrum (or any other wallets) do not have any feature to prevent people from sending funds to burn address. They do however, have features to prevent users attempting to send Bitcoins to invalid addresses which would be rejected by the network anyways. Just for the sake of clarity, there is a private key associated with that address. The only thing is that there is a very low probability that anyone would currently have access to that private key. |
|
|
|
I think its a good list for brand new ppl getting into crypto for the first time. I know when i was new I struggled with the desktop and hardware wallets, and coinbase mobile app is what got my feet wet into this space.
Hmm.. Fair enough. I don't think using a desktop wallet is particularly hard though. It's pretty much the same as using an online wallet and there is enough resources on the web to guide them along. would it make it better if I added the ledger hardware walllet? There is a small mention of it at the top.
IMO, not that much, the way it is catagorised should include more of desktop wallet and consolidate the wallets that you're recommending into a section called online wallet. The list gives an impression that using Bitcoin requires the creation of an account. Appreciate your honest feedback. And yes, they are referral links.... why wouldnt i use them.
Apologies if I come across too harsh. I don't discourage your use of referral links but the way it is structured seems to give me the impression that the wallets are being chosen for their referral programs? |
|
|
|
|
Scrap it all. You're only recommending online wallets for your referrals.
Online wallets gives the companies the liberty of seizing your funds, blocking your transaction and accounts. It doesn't promote the main aim of Bitcoin to promote privacy. Your choice of "Trust wallet" isn't good either... No matter how much security they promise, no mobile wallet could rival the security of hardware wallets. None of your choices are about desktop wallets or hardware wallets. If you're serious about your recommendations, take the time to browse the forum and do your own research.
|
|
|
|
|
Save for a few sites, most of those using Bitcoin has already adopted Bitcoin, be it native segwit or segwit-nested-P2SH. The adoption of segwit is certainly not as small as you think. The adoption would only increase further when people realise that their fees are much higher than those using segwit.
LN, on the other hand doesn't really have a huge userbase. It's primarily because a lot of the merchants and sites aren't adopting it yet. To be fair, as compared to segwit, it does take a bit more resources to accept LN transactions. Don't be mistaken though, the transaction volume on LN is not that small.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
