I don't understand all of these methods. Can't just take the private key from a BCH wallet. Import into a wallet BCHSV, then import into a wallet XEC , so that we already have BCH, BCHVS and XEC, each in their wallet. The lack of replay protection may mess it up, or insecure wallets could steal your funds. Keeping it offline and signing after receiving some dust is the safe way to go. |
|
|
|
I'm looking for "Batch 4" users to test chat functionality. Who can I add? I don't want to PM spam, so please PM me to confirm who you are. My Mixin ID: 41189703.I have enough people to talk to now, thanks  Members in Batch#4: Mr.right85 Hero Member
_act_ Hero Member
GxSTxV Sr. Member
Sim_card Full Member
LoyceV Legendary
OmegaStarScream Legendary/ Staff
Z-tight Hero Member
coupable Hero Member
BitcoinTurk Hero Member
MAAManda Hero Member
Chilwell Full Member
Little Mouse Legendary
Synchronice Sr. Member
UmerIdrees Hero Member
virasog Legendary
nelson4lov Hero Member
bitmover Legendary
Iroh Sr. Member
Onyeeze Full Member
Beparanf Hero Member Your deadline to submit the reviews before 10/08/2023 @23:59 UTC. Please do not miss the deadline. |
|
|
|
Not much of a draw back considering there is a link to the post on the forum which captures later edits. I mean: it can't search for the current version if it's edited. |
|
|
|
So you're saying 87% of the feedback you left was unnecessary. I'm glad you finally realized what many others have known for a long time. You should add users who left accurate feedback and have good Trust lists to your Trust list, and you should exclude users who leave inaccurate feedback. So if my Trust feedbacks are correct (*), and I predominantly DT trust DT1 users, why aren't you doing as you tell others to do? My neutral feedback on you is spot on and well deserved: Trust abuse. This user left unjust negative feedback to 2 users and can't admit he was wrong. It looks like he doesn't understand the difference between a wallet and an exchange, while he's been using on-chain connections to link accounts for years. Unfortunately, I can no longer trust his judgement. Deleting some negatives long after you received massive backlash from the community doesn't suddenly make me trust your judgement. I think I've been very conservative with negative feedback and Trust exclusions, which also means that by the time I place them, I am pretty sure they're accurate. Your neutral feedback on my profile on the other hand is incomprehensible: / _ \__ _ _ __ __| | ___ _ __ / _ \
/ /_)/ _` | '__/ _` |/ _ \| '_ \ \// /
/ ___/ (_| | | | (_| | (_) | | | | \/
\/ \__,_|_| \__,_|\___/|_| |_| () Get a diary. There's more to a Trust list than inclusions: I want to see most of the feedback left by those users by default.
@Timelord2067: what's with the red font in neutral feedback?  It looks like you're abusing an unintended forum shortcoming. |
|
|
|
Am I wrong in assuming that it's either difficult or a pain in the ass to create a functional internal search engine? My further assumption that Theymos isn't a slacker and would have one running that didn't have members going to google instead is a valid one I think. My 2 sats: It's very difficult to beat Google on search capacity. But there's more to it: theymos is just one guy, and from what I've read, one of the reasons not to make many changes is security. Any change on the forum can potentially be abused, and if a user service (like Ninjastic.Space) can offer a similar service, at least that doesn't create an angle to abuse the forum. |
|
|
|
Try Ninjastic.Space to search posts on Bitcointalk. The only drawback is that it misses later post edits. |
|
|
|
Has anyone else experienced this problem? Yes. On Tor browser, I also this too: |
|
|
|
Another thing to consider is that if a DT1 gains an exclusion that renders them net excluded, it could have far reaching effects, triggering other exclusions or inclusions, possibly even resulting in some kind of endless cycle that might break the trust system  Let's say 2 DT1-users have no inclusions from other DT1-members, but they exclude each other. In the current system, they both have DT1 Strength (-1). Following GazetaBitcoin's suggestion, their exclusion becomes invalid when they're excluded, the other user is no longer excluded and reaches DT1 Strength (0) again. Being back on DT1 means their exclusions becomes valid again, and they're excluded. Since their exclusion becomes invalid when they're excluded, the other user is no longer excluded and reaches DT1 Strength (0) again. Being back on DT1 means their exclusions becomes valid again, and they're excluded. Since their exclusion becomes invalid when they're excluded, the other user is no longer excluded and reaches DT1 Strength (0) again. Being back on DT1 means their exclusions becomes valid again, and they're excluded. Since their exclusion becomes invalid when they're excluded, the other user is no longer excluded and reaches DT1 Strength (0) again. Being back on DT1 means their exclusions becomes valid again, and they're excluded. Since their exclusion becomes invalid when they're excluded, the other user is no longer excluded and reaches DT1 Strength (0) again. Being back on DT1 means their exclusions becomes valid again, and they're excluded. Since their exclusion becomes invalid when they're excluded, the other user is no longer excluded and reaches DT1 Strength (0) again. Being back on DT1 means their exclusions becomes valid again, and they're excluded. Since their exclusion becomes invalid when they're excluded, the other user is no longer excluded and reaches DT1 Strength (0) again. Being back on DT1 means their exclusions becomes valid again, and they're excluded. Since their exclusion becomes invalid when they're excluded, the other user is no longer excluded and reaches DT1 Strength (0) again. Being back on DT1 means their exclusions becomes valid again, and they're excluded. Since their exclusion becomes invalid when they're excluded, the other user is no longer excluded and reaches DT1 Strength (0) again. Being back on DT1 means their exclusions becomes valid again, and they're excluded.Since their exclusion becomes invalid when they're excluded, the other user is no longer excluded and reaches DT1 Strength (0) again. Being back on DT1 means their exclusions becomes valid again, and they're excluded. Since their exclusion becomes invalid when they're excluded, the other user is no longer excluded and reaches DT1 Strength (0) again. Being back on DT1 means their exclusions becomes valid again, and they're excluded. ....... |
|
|
|
Yeah… judge me I'm not judging  It's a strong argument for bringing a laptop though: all you need is internet access, and the security is your own responsibility. By chance, I already thought about the possibility of setting up a cyber cafe.
But whenever I look at this situation, this is what comes to mind - how safe would that be for my clients?
The conclusion I reached was that the only solution would be to create a virtual environment for each client, which would be eliminated when he leaves. I'd go for a (Linux) system that wipes the user account when he's done. Or just use "kiosk mode". It depends on your users though: if they only want to game, they won't care about security much. I don't know if operating systems can be set up in a few minutes. Most operating systems take more than 20 minutes to set up and install the necessary software. Most people use browsers only to do their work, so you don't have to install any software. You must have dedicated employees to set up the operating system after each session. A network boot option with reinstall should work. But still, no matter what precautions someone else takes, I'll always assume the system is compromised. It's just the safe assumption. |
|
|
|
It didn't stop me from buying crypto but I would like to ask: what additional sources one may use as a proof of clear assets in crypto? You just walk away if you feel uncomfortable handing your sensitive data to a stranger. This is how you fall victim to a targeted attack. Your local cash swapper now knows who you are and possibly how much you hold in crypto. Walk away. |
|
|
|
Or you could try going in some internet cafes or place that rents you computer and internet access, people usually use them for playing games or talking with relatives from other countries. I wouldn't trust those to enter server passwords though. |
|
|
|
- The tendancy to DDOS mixers started a few days after Chipmixer was shut down (confirmed by more than 1 guy) Don't forget that CM was often plagued by DDOS too. It was the reason they gave up on the clearnet version entirely. There is definitely a tendancy recently to attack the bitcoin mixers, and more than usual Even loyce.club had a DDOS last month. For all I know it's the DDOS protection companies doing it  Mob style, offering "protection" |
|
|
|
Ok, so if I get it right, you mean I should re-run my own code, to see whether the private key generates the address. No. Use other software to verify you get the same result (from the private key). And, I must do it offline. Correct? Correct. |
|
|
|
|
Thanks again for your flawless timing!
|
|
|
|
I've started receiving some spam ads in my whitelist mail, I don't know if I'm alone but it seems that this scam service is active so avoid clicking on any URL in that message. I've received some spam, but not much. I don't really worry about it, I use Protonmail in Tor browser running in an isolated environment. |
|
|
|
You could do the same thing you've been doing to recover the wallet on Electrum or maybe Bitaddress[1] (download the source code first), you should just make sure that the device you're using is offline and safe. For peace of mind, I (would) do this every time when I create any offline wallet ( before funding it). It doesn't hurt to make sure you can recover your backups. |
|
|
|
maybe a middleman with bitcoin talk is better From what I've seen, escrow here mostly gives a false sense of security. See Best practices for Bitcointalk escrow providers. All is fine as long as both parties are honest, but an escrow should assume that's not the case. i sell some vouchers and the buyer ask to do escrow Is it possible for the escrow to verify authenticity of the vouchers without invalidating them? |
|
|
|
It's not what really important to me, but maybe it's important to you: don't you find it strange that everyone in the list has Trust: neutral mark? Comparing with previous lists, there should be a diversity of different numbers. Thanks, I hadn't noticed this (and missed your post). This means my "forum cookie" expired (I don't know why, but that happens sometimes), which means my scraper couldn't login, which means Trust ratings aren't shown. I've fixed it. I don't quite understand the addition of Timelord2067 to DT1. There are about 7 DT1s that trust him and about 17 that distrust him. Didn't he drop out of DT2 because of that? See Default trust breakdown: he has DT1 Strength (-12), which means his feedback isn't shown by default. But he can still vote for other DT1-members (up or down). |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
