According to your link you only need to place the message and signature to verify it's signed (but that doesn't guarantee it's the correct wallet unless you do some digging deeper)
No, the link is not saying that I only have to input the Signature and the Message. First, you have to go https://slowli.github.io/bech32-buffer/ where you need to decode bc1 address to binary data (in hex), then you have to go https://bitcoinvalued.com/tools.php where you convert the binary data to bitcoin address which is started with 1. Then copy the bitcoin address and try to verify it in brain wallet or other sites which has these services. [im g width=800 height=270]https://i.postimg.cc/prv7KwKR/Screenshot-9.png[/img] I'm just expanding on what I said earlier, the bold is only meant to represent the earlier words and italics the newer words, it is not intended to represent shouting or emphasis. According to you link https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5198585.0 in post number six it says you don't need to put the wallet address in, you only need to place the message and signature to verify it's signed (but that doesn't guarantee it's the correct wallet unless you do some digging deeper).Actually, there's a shortcut to this! Just get your original message, Then remove the address from the message ( copy this): -----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I'm Lulucrypto on Bitcointalk. And normally, I'm Luluwebmaster. I sign this message at 9 Aug 2019.
-----BEGIN SIGNATURE-----
IAIAMSyjMV62EttLm3HltwmQK0HEchc80OfXKJGPEo1pIvq/st/kgWvLmREfByk3/TSbdrWLmfzoExivGSxzTOo=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE----- And paste to https://brainwalletx.github.io/#verifyIt'll automatically recognize the legacy address used for that signed message. Because either way, the message was verified using the address: 1NtMnD5BQrRvVeHDk4HXaGvXiVkUuTjhXf, not bc1q7qgn8zw75n26hd60a8ay42482mukdjrdv3cyp7. But both can be derived from the same prv key, so there wont be a serious problem with future verification. The only difference is: those extra steps are some kind of proof that the result legacy address was based from your SegWit address. I did actually read your link. (Apologies to OgNasty for this minor disruption to your servie) |
|
|
|
jackg only trusts eight users, so they like Helana aren't in contention for DT1 at this point.
I take it you haven't reached out to either, if you had you would have mentioned it already.
Jet Cash is DT1 member, so his inclusion make Helana DT2 member. Helana hasn't posted since 2018-11-10, 07:13:37 (so it's getting a little off topic) and has given no trust feedback (ever) An user who never have sent feedback is unlikely to be seen in DT2 list.
If this thread wouldn't exist, I would never share it anywhere, used only another of this example. I trust both users jackg and Jet Cash.
You might "trust" both, however, you aren't on either's list of users trusted by them: https://loyce.club/trust/2020-12-19_Sat_04.07h/698159.html or https://loyce.club/trust/2020-12-19_Sat_04.07h/543626.html |
|
|
|
But who adds someone to their trust list in expectation of either of these?
There's only one of two reciprocal trusts and we don't know that it wasn't Helana that reciprocated trust of the other two first... I think what I was getting at is that these users' situation hasn't changed in over 100 weeks - if both were going to trust/betrusted, it would have happened by now.
I wouldn’t say Jet Cash and jackg are abusing the system. In fact, they are not much active in the feedback system but this inclusion is clearly misuse or wrong use.
I trust jackg and have no reason to distrust Jet Cash - abuse of the system? I doubt it. They might have both encountered that user early on and haven't given any thought to that user since. jackg only trusts eight users, so they like Helana aren't in contention for DT1 at this point. I take it you haven't reached out to either, if you had you would have mentioned it already. |
|
|
|
...so all we can do is play whack-a-mole with these new shitheads once they pop up.
You did ... in week 70 only to remove that distrust in week 99.
RaltcoinsB first created their DT trust list in week 69 then the following week, week 70 the two UID's you mention reciprocate DT trust-for-trust.
..
The two users you mention haven't changed their trust in over 101 weeks; they trusted Helana prior to week one and their trusts are unchanged now in week 101. |
|
|
|
Address: bc1qwpspuz5qwxnl8rxrgxrpftnl8jvgr62au8luwe
Message: I’m onindo and I can sign a message.
Signature: H+DZ9jSdFu4XufVCevL/bnLECE7L+HXjeEWz+B4FHaL9d07e/Q5xrv8ay8yJfB1NJ3VIyq5qP7b4oA3woY+ajZE=
You need to check again as its showing wrong signature.  Maybe the last dot of the Message will be removed. and where you tried to verify the message? In a wallet like Electrum? or in online sign message verifier sites? I am asking this because the online verifier site basically does not verify the address start with bc1 But you can follow this post to verify SegWit address in brainwallet How to verify SegWit signature with Brainwallet ?I have tried this way and got the result is verified if I remove the DOT in the message texts. I used https://tools.bitcoin.com/verify-message/ According to your link you only need to place the message and signature to verify it's signed (but that doesn't guarentee it's the correct wallet unless you do some digging deeper) https://brainwalletx.github.io/#verify
Address: bc1qkqacdzuqmy2rfcve4pxkpne3gefujduzkns0j8
Message: I’m tamim60, it's 12/20/2020 and I can sign a message.
Signature: H0F84m1yxGp89ZGWjODqtZrJ5uoEYxiyaXRy1ITyjYJXNrLoyUOlAnmTGpRdJ6Ag982Hr20W0o37ysj r7ifzIOQ=
https://brainwalletx.github.io/#verify |
|
|
|
If anyone wanted to help point out posted signatures like this that can't be verified, I would be appreciative.
Address: 1DqJpUGi434Sv6YtYeMRBVDr45JkTX55uh
Message: I am lichukhan. it is 12/20/2020 and i can sign a message.
Signature: IG0MEJxpHpKL6RINNgnZD9Q7lChaKSjuAM9Iyml3pRMwQhV24ikPD9M62zu+svI/7Lop1S5IgfZTyGP5I6qW5vE= There's a space at the end of your message that's included. Please try to avoid these in future. https://tools.bitcoin.com/verify-message/
Address: 1BAjcdGvr48opEZCUtg5ZtXnfVyeDj6LUa
Message: I’m hatakeyudu, it's 12/20/2020 and I can sign a message.
Signature: H1q2ZOgTMErsm+5OrGcM9fE/AjPAtaNCdF9/kN+kJyNbV0qo31goSrZVgQ7jaFXdAJA2gG/ugHB2aVkEf7j7VV4=
Thank you.
 |
|
|
|
You forgot to include your username.  has already been banned in the <12 hours since they posted. With your permission, I'd like to make a list of those who have been banned after claiming to see if there are any connections between the users? Date Registered: 2017-09-06, 08:18:15 hossamdz Trust List N N Y N SecLog Activity Y
It might also be helpful if you were to post this quote in your OP: |
|
|
|
|
I would suggest you split your funds into two or even three pieces, the first you use for day-to-day trades (work out what your daily limit is beforehand) second chunk is to make a one off purchase of crypto - it could be just BitCoin, or a spread of other coins and tokens. The third chunk of funds divide by 52, 26 or 12 and make weekly, fortnightly or monthly purchases in much the same way as the second option.
In twelve month's time you can compare which pays you dividends and which were too much bother for their own good.
|
|
|
|
|
I can't help but wonder why the OP would gather up multiple posts by user morvillz7z post them in one new thread and stress out that nothing is being done to those who've been identified as alts?
Why not contact the Campaign Managers directly and send them links? Have you tried this? What was their response?
Why these two? Why now?
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps you would be better off if you were to discuss the pros and cons by comparing the forum as it is on a browser compared to what could be achieved via an app.
I personally don't see the need for an app as I can log in quite easily on my mobile device and read/reply.
|
|
|
|
EDIT: suchmoon's response below answers none of these questions so now I'm wondering if any of these issues have even been thought of prior to announcement.
Given the disrespectful Trolling by @ibminer when I made a suggestion and posted an external link as an example (and instant DT1 distrust for making that suggestion), it's highly unlikely @suchmoon nore @ibminer are going to seek anyone's permission to use images (are they going to contact any or all of the Casino, Gambling sites or coin mixers/tumblers for permission to use what are most likely copyrighted imagery where a user is participating in a signature campaign? I doubt it). The cards look really cool and will be a good sell out as collectibles
And who is going to receive the profits from this venture? Do the users' who are featured on the card receive a complementary copy?
While I appreciate the hard work @Vod went to to create the site, and it is very useful, the current custodians are treating BPIP as though it were their personal bat and ball and want to go home sulking whenever anyone else has a valid suggestion or comment.
I wonder which user @suchmoon and @ibminer will disrespect first with vandalized cards/imagery/details? Inclusion, not exclusion. |
|
|
|
Also, add it to your list if it is not already included, it might help push Txids  . It's all free but there is no guarantee if it helps or works, but for me, it seems like yes (not very sure with the third one). I've got the first two on my list: [Guide] Broadcast Your RAW Transaction (Push TX) BTC & Alts coinsand am adding the third as we speak (although I wouldn't recommend it due to the shear number of banners that pummel the brain when you visit the site & nothing appears to happen). Thanks for the heads up. |
|
|
|
i am not too sure what you all are on about, but we mined the 'stuck' tx and got the bounty (if that's what you all are wondering about)
Out of curiosity, where did you get the TX? |
|
|
|
But the mined transaction has different TXID, input and output amount than the one you've been broadcast(ing).
Chances is OP gave a different signed raw txn to "neutraLTC", it also contains a 1BTC output which looks like the bounty.
Yes, I have been wondering about that - perhaps they came and grabbed the first version of the TX and tried it and it worked (especially with the much higher than usual number of transactions in mempool at the moment). The OP has been offline for two day - no doubt because they were exposed as a mult-alt scammer, so I doubt anyone will get any kind of thanks. |
|
|
|
Told you it isn't worth-it.
Confirmed with my own full node client. It took about 1 year 2 months to solve OP's problem, but at least Bitcoin prices currently at it's ATH (All time high).
OP, be careful with anyone who contact you since it's possible they're scammer who aim to steal your Bitcoin.
As no-one else is claiming to have helped, I claim the $1,000 in bitcoin that the OP promised me for continually posting the TX: Right now if the transaction that is continually broadcasted on Blockcypher is mined, Timelord receives the agreed bounty. I am not in need of anyone else to do what Timelord is doing at the current moment, but if Timelord gives up, I may talk to you privately.
Edit: As @nc50lc said, it's not a problem to figure out who mined it - and I'm not offering an extra bounty besides the transaction fee to any miners unless they contact me directly beforehand.
Thank you in advance for your generosity. |
|
|
|
The first and most important thing that GT has to do, is to find a way to verify users without such a complex system as they have now. Even if it's like all the other exchanges. It seems that they prefer users/ holders not to be able to claim their funds, thus they use this outrageous verification process and that makes it already a travesty.
You have to wonder why GT never reached out to the users of Crytopia and asked us how we would approach the task of refunding funds (as well as securing the funds in the first place) |
|
|
|
If I can make a small suggestion to improve the *cough* quality of those applying for merits from you? My suggestion is that you limit the applicants to newbies who registered on the Forum PRE 2020-09-11, 17:04:23 (11 th of September, 2020) registration, (the creation date of your first such thread) that way you aren't gifting users of questionable values who have gone out and created a string of new accounts just to make multiple claims of merits. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is pumping, it's not a good idea to use bitcoin if you are trying to save on fees, right, altcoins is the best solution for now as the party is only on bitcoin and altcoins remain calm as it was before, we don't know when bitcoin will settle, either it will continue to pump or will result to a bigger splash or dump, regardless, it will still make the network congested.
The bitcoin mempool currently has 73,000+ transactions waiting to occur with a total of close to 170Mb in those transactions. IIRC I saw the suggested fee to transact is now around 100 sats/byte |
|
|
|
If he check his mail then fine else before Christmas if happen to login to freebitco and then really a big gift is waiting for him which will make him go crazy and have the best Christmas wit surprise amount of 0.34btc which at present is equivalent to 7050$ at present value where btc has crossed 20700$ and moving up quickly. Its like a double bonus as btc price crossed 20k and moving towards 21k.
If bitcoin crosses the $25,501 threshold I'll be a very happy chappy with the wager I placed a while back on both $25,501 - $27,500 and $27,501 - $30,000 paying (at the moment) 61.43 and 110.62(Of course with seven days to go those prices could well drop down considerably) |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
