Good day.
Need real help from geniuses. I am not a complete layman, long in the crypt. But I meet this problem for the first time. I am ready to reward and pay who really help to get the BTC out. All the simple and known methods I tried.
In December, was create a new Electrum wallet (already used it several times before), saved 12 seed words with a QR code by print screan, did two factor authentication (it is a big problem now), send BTC there, left for a couple of months .
Decided to pull out, enter the address of the departure - asks 2FA. I lost my phone, I do not have it. Okay, I think, it does not matter. Restore without 2FA on Seed......
Can you fix the problem right at this point? There are procedures for re establishing 2FA after you lose a phone or replace a phone. Both for Google Authenticator and Authy. However Electrum uses "Trusted Coin." http://docs.electrum.org/en/latest/2fa.htmlhttps://api.trustedcoin.com/#/electrum-helpThis says "What happens if I lose my cell phone? If you lose your cell phone your only option is to restore your wallet from it's seed phrase. During the restore process you will be given the option to either (1) disable 2FA or (2) provision a new 2nd factor device." Do (2), then let's see where things are at. |
|
|
|
so don't even know where to start to try and get my money back, if I can,
You can't. Bitcoin transactions are final once confirmed. and how to prevent whatever has happened from happening again.
Update your software. How do you know that you were a victim of that vulnerability? Was your wallet encrypted? If so, you were not a victim of that vulnerability. Did you have your web browser open to random, unknown, and possibly malicious sites? If not, then you were not a victim of that vulnerability. Just because there was a vulnerability does not mean that you were automatically a victim of it. It is also possible you just have malware on your computer and that is stealing your money, in which case you will need to remove said malware. Suppose a person had the software 2.7.12 installed. Is there any method to go back and verify it? I assume the answer is NO because the signature and verification routines always refer to the downloaded installation DMG, not the installed product in the applications direction. I'm asking this question as a Mac user, but the question as posed is vital to both PC and Mac. |
|
|
|
I recently started dabbling in bitcoin and cryptocurrency this month. I decided to go with Coinbase to fund my first bitcoin purchase since they seemed to be reputable with a lot of good buzz from investors, mainstream financial press, etc. I am really starting to regret this decision. Here is what happened. 1) I funded my Coinbase account for the first time with $1,000 ACH transfer from my bank on January 3, 2018. 2) My online bank statement shows $1,000 was debited out of my bank account from Coinbase the next day on January 4. 3) As of January 9, my Coinbase account still showed the transaction as pending under recent transactions on the Coinbase website. 4) As of January 10, my $1,000 transaction has mysteriously disappeared from the list of transactions Coinbase. There is no trace on the Coinbase website that the transaction has even occurred. 5) My USD wallet on Coinbase still shows $0.00. There is no record anywhere on Coinbase of this $1,000 transaction, as if it never happened. But there IS a record of it on my bank statement that proves it was sent to Coinbase. 6) I will be filing a complaint with my bank first thing in the morning when they open as well as FDIC and CFPB. 7) Is Coinbase a scam? You decide. From where I'm sitting it sure looks like it. Do a Google search for "coinbase scam" and you can find hundreds of similar complaints from Coinbase customers.  Coinbase may be turning into the next Mt. Gox former biggest crypto exchange that went bankrupt and took all its customers money with it! I wish I knew about Mt. Gox beforehand I would have never started into this racket! ACH transfers can sometimes not go through or can be reversed. I was a Mt Got customer and can assure you, Coinbase is no Mt. Gox. Do ask for an explanation from the entity that sent the ACH. |
|
|
|
....
For me the problem isn't the extra money, but the months i have to wait before i can have the new trezor!
I would recommend going ahead and getting one of the proven design by Trezor on the market now. Really this is more an issue of what gadget is rock solid, bug free and hack proof that you can stash away and pull out a couple years later and have it work. Or a gadget that you can use regardless of a computer host that MAY be insecure. There is known capability of the existing Trezor in these respects. May I suggest that this is the type of product you don't want to get the first units off the production line, but six or twelve months later, to buy into? |
|
|
|
that's kind of an elegant way to express acceptance, that (n)etiquette can be ignored. Maybe no, or not in my humble opinion.... I'd rather see newbies to introduce, observe, understand (! - and show, that an effort was made to understand!), then comment (open questions), discuss, and then (if progress in knowledge is proven) allow to critisize. And of course don't insist others have to prove, how far they are wrong.
I think I am looking more at reputation not privacy.
On the technology: bitcoins must not be the only ramp on/off to the lightning network. Once I have coins in lightning, there is no reason to close the channel after every transaction. Au contraire, I could develop new business models around "my" coins in the channel. Last recently I discussed the value of having coins in the channel, while someone else needs to quickly send funds, but current congestion and fees prevent him to do so... And looking at the fees that large exchanges pay as per today, I guess they would be the first candidates to think about lightning channels (or cost reduction). Also bitcoin faucets, marketing hubs and regular payment services come to mind. I consider this to be the mesh network, which is clearly decentralized. Only commies would want to have lightning centralized:-)
Whereas I can't predict the future, I would think that reducing tx costs is a driver for moving to technology, in this case to Lightning.
I called it a joke because 7 transactions world wide per second is not even NEARLY enough, even with LN. Heck it's not even enough for a small country. It's a joke because people have to be online 24/7 to be part of a payment route: if one user is offline, he breaks a certain route. It's a joke because the maximum amount you can send is determined by the guy who has the least money in his channel. It's a joke since it will only work centralized and that's going against everything that bitcoin was meant to be (or do you really envision a chain of 30 people processing a $2000 payment, meaning everybody has to have $2000 freely available). It's a joke because you have ZERO guarantee you can pay the person you would like to pay, even if both have open channels and you're a billionaire. It's a joke since the WHOLE network has to be aware of the exact state of EVERYBODY's channels ALL OF THE TIME, otherwise routes can't be discovered. Imagine the amount of data if you want to do that decentralized! And it's a joke because fraud is possible between 2 users, you continually have to check if people aren't screwing you over. Interesting these assertions. First item. No, bitcoin is not a joke at 7x/sec. Why? Because really, it's about 3/sec and with that lame number, bitcoin is about the 20th largest currency (check M1 numbers) in the world. Well, maybe that is a joke. It's actually rather funny, isn't it? Or maybe the OTHER FIAT currencies are the joke. What do you think? Must be something going on right there. Next, you have some issues with the proposed LN network, and I have an answer for that, which is also pretty funny. Get an android phone, download the beta LN interface, start doing some testing and prove up good and bad in the design. You can do this with the testnet. Other people will be doing this, and it's certainly needed to get the bugs out. |
|
|
|
....
If you want lower fees then use segwit and tell others to use it also.
Segwit does not solve the fee problem. This is simply mis information. A reduction in fees of 30-40% is not material. To rephrase your statement: "Reduction of fees does not solve the fee problem." The levels of fees have utterly destroyed large parts of the bitcoin economy, and segwit does not change that. Cutting fees to 1/10 of current levels does not change this.
Fees would have to go to 1/100 - 1/1000 of current levels for the old bitcoin economy to arise again. Segwit DOES cause fee reduction in the long run: because segwit transactions are smaller, more of them can fit in a block. To better illustrate the point, assume that all transactions in the block are segwit transactions with 1 input and 1 output. There will be ~12,195 transactions that can be contained in that block, compared to ~5,208 non segwit transactions of the same type I'm talking buying beers, pizzas, tipping on line, Starbucks gift cards, etc.
You forgot to add coffee... Please read before you post. But I'll repeat and rephrase. Even if Segwit enables reductions in fees by 30-70%, this does not solve the problem with Bitcoin's fees having killed the entire ecosystem of transactions in the 0.01-$100.00 price range. However, should Segwit enable more transactions and hence fees tend downward, strong evidence exists that a huge latent demand would enter in and simply push the fees back up. The resulting equilibrium would be something like double the activity with fee levels the maximum that would be tolerated by an open market in such conditions. LN does seem to address this issue because people are "able to transact with bitcoin at low fees and huge volume." Although they are not interacting with the blockchain, end users don't care. The nerdy crypto nerds want to go in and buy their coffee with Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Some simple math.
Assume we have 30 mil bitcoin users.
Every user should open a LN channel and close LN channel.
Bitcoin can handle 300 000 transactions per day.
30 mil users should wait for 100 days so every one can open a channel, and 100 days to close a channel if there is no other transactions besides LN settlements in bitcoin network.
300 mil users should wait 1000 days, so every user can have openned LN channel.
Bitcoin can't even adopt Lightning Network without big blocks. LN official release will lead just to another huge fee spike, and since LN channels should be restarted regularly bitcoin network can be clogged by LN settlements.
It's extremely unlikely that every single user is going to attempt to open lightning channels simultaneously on the day that a fully released software for LN is available. It is extremely unlikely that every single user is going to attempt to close their lightning channels simultaneously. As with literally every other release of a new technology in Bitcoin, it's going to take months, probably years, before LN is actually widely used. Just look at how long it took for P2SH to become widely used. And how long it has taken for segwit. This situation you are describing is extremely unlikely to happen. One seemingly inescapable effect of the LN is an increased demand for bitcoin. This is because the LN network is essentially a huge distributed "HODLer." If there are 16 million bitcoins and over six months LN absorbs 2 million, more price and fee increases, hello. |
|
|
|
....
Anybody whose own 10 or more bitcoins should buy one miner machine - what do you think ?
No. I have some silver coins, but no silver mine. ....
If you want lower fees then use segwit and tell others to use it also.
Segwit does not solve the fee problem. This is simply mis information. A reduction in fees of 30-40% is not material. The levels of fees have utterly destroyed large parts of the bitcoin economy, and segwit does not change that. Cutting fees to 1/10 of current levels does not change this. Fees would have to go to 1/100 - 1/1000 of current levels for the old bitcoin economy to arise again. I'm talking buying beers, pizzas, tipping on line, Starbucks gift cards, etc. |
|
|
|
Hello everyone My name is SophyDavis and I'm a proud cam girl. I've been in this line of business for about 2 years now and what I've learned is that people want to have their life private and no record of them accessing camming sites whatsoever. So me and some of my friends decided to create a camming website where Bitcoin Payment is accepted. It's called www.bitcoingirls.live and here you can pay without a trace! Come check it out and let me know what you think. Is it a good idea?? You require an email address for registration, so no, you don't enable "paying without a trace." |
|
|
|
I'm downloading the Android LN app and going to play around with it. |
|
|
|
any api?
Please stop propagating interest and attempting to up the clicks about scams. |
|
|
|
...
But such features could be found in many implementations other than LN.
And these could be layered on top of many coins - for example, Bitcoin Cash....not just Bitcoin.
I thought SegWit capability was a mandatory requirement for the Lightning Network? Bitcoin Cash has not activated SegWit. Therefore I donīt think the Lightning Network would be able to function on top of Bitcoin Cash. Why would they deploy a solution like the LN anyway? Their whole narrative is based around how on-chain scaling is the superior solution to scaling Bitcoin. If they would introduce a 2nd layer scaling solution they would lose their main value proposition. LN only requires tx malleability fixes from segwit. There are other ways to skin that particular cat. As regards BCH deploying an LN like solution - why not? As long as users are given the choice to continue to use Layer1 as before, then L2 solutions can be developed that offer real value propositions to users and their intended use cases. What BCH wont do is force the issue by making the L1 solution unusable. Right. I can't buy arguments like "Their whole narrative is ..." or "they would lose their main value proposition." Things are moving fast and will be moving faster (except transactions trying to get into the blockchain). Narratives can change overnight to fit the issues of the day. |
|
|
|
Which one will be the solution to the bitcoin scalability problem (Dream of instant payments with low fees)? Lightning Network: off-chain protocolIt would feature a P2P system for making micropayments of digital cryptocurrency through a scale-free network of bidirectional payment channels without delegating custody of funds or trust to third parties. [1]SegWit2x: block size limitwas a failed contentious hardfork outlined in the New York Agreement that intended to double the block size limit. The hardfork has been denounced as an attempt made by CEOs and owners of large Bitcoin businesses to introduce changes to the currency's protocol and development cycle with ulterior motives. [2]Of course it's LN, the off-chain solution. Block size limit will always be reached while the transactions increase. But the ASIC company will not like the LN solution because that will reduce their profit. Bolded is not necessarily true. If transactions scale exponentially in LN companies serving blockchain users would see healthy use and growth, but not exponential. And the 180,000 backlog of transactions would go away. Yes there were ulterior motives in each of the hard forks, and yes the most disturbing one was the NY Agreement. |
|
|
|
Hello everyone My name is SophyDavis and I'm a proud cam girl. I've been in this line of business for about 2 years now and what I've learned is that people want to have their life private and no record of them accessing camming sites whatsoever. So me and some of my friends decided to create a camming website where Bitcoin Payment is accepted. It's called www.bitcoingirls.live and here you can pay without a trace! Come check it out and let me know what you think. Is it a good idea?? How could it be a good idea, given the high fees that accompany each bitcoin transaction? |
|
|
|
Hey everyone, Today on Yobit I made a withdrawal of all my DOGE and it's been pending now for about 12 hours. I've made two tickets and I haven't gotten a response yet. This is so aggrevating since there no way to even cancel it so I can try withdrawing them in LTC, which I read somewhere that it usually process much quicker on Yobit. When I look up the deposit address on the dogechain theres nothing and I have no transaction ID because Yobit does not provide any to me as of yet. All I have is the withdrawl "in process" under pending withdrawls. I don't get how an exchange with so much activity could be so shitty.  Can anyone tell me if they have had the same problem and how they fixed it? Any advice whatsoever?  KZ Although I have seen most things clear very quickly on Yobit all exchanges right now are under severe stress. Certain blockchains are backed up. Changelly is 24-48 hours for a transaction. Or worse. My suggestion is break up transfers into small pieces and move them one at a time; if one lags, do not do more with that exchange until that one clears. |
|
|
|
Hi there - I am so stressed out writing this message hoping someone might be able to help me. I have always saved bitcoins in Nano Ledger wallet and it has been fine. Today I opened up my wallet and was shocked to find that the balance is "0". All the transaction records were also disappeared. My hands are shaking writing this message and I hope it is some kind of technical error. I am not sure how the safest way to store bitcoins can lead to this. I have contacted the supplier in London. There is no contact number and so I emailed them waiting for their reply. Other than that, I have no where to turn to. Not sure who can help me, or point me to the right direction. I would really appreciate your help if you could shed some lights for me. Best, Roxanne
No, your transaction records cannot disappear, but if a wallet had a hard result and there were no records in the "new wallet" then certainly the balance would be zero. From this I think we deduct that you are not looking at the wallet in the Nano which holds your funds. Is there some way this is possible? |
|
|
|
Hello everybody! I was just getting ready to start my experience with bitcoin and as many recommended, I downloaded Electrum for windows 10 from the official site but as the download finished, windows defender has found a virus, a trojan and deleted it automatically. This seems a bit strange because I've seen many people talking about this wallet positively, could you tell me if you get the same result? I plan to buy soon from Coinbase, what wallet for desktop should I get instead of Electrum? Please let me know, thank you very much!
Since you have said it's from the official site, then its to be sure its really from the official site. If its there, then there is nothing to worry about. A lot of people uses this software and it is yet to fail which its expected to stay that way. I have downloaded it but on Windows 8.1 which I haven't had any issue whatsoever even with a very strong anti virus until I discontinue its use. Just go trace the source, validate it, then make exception for your antivirus or better still download the android version. It's not enough to tell people to "be sure it's really from the official site." This is what is necessary. A) Locate the official site, such as by looking at bitcoin talk.org. NOT GOOGLE. B) Type the URL in. Do not click on a link. C) DL the program and verify the PGP signature. Do it, get used to it. Do it again just for practice. |
|
|
|
as far as I know AMD processors suffer the same problem though not as massive as intel's
Do you guys think this will usher in a new processor era, that will focus on privacy?
This is the only good thing that could come from events like this... then again, I have little hope about big changes in how people percieve their lack of privacy. Most people are complete morons when it comes to any of this, case in point, Microsoft still has the clear monopoly on desktop OS usage. If people cared about any of this, no one would use windows, but even I have a windows machine that I use mostly for videogames and video production because linux sucks for that, unfortunately. What we would need is completely open source CPU with the idea of bitcoin on mind, to secure private keys and transactions. Until we can have completely open source computers we will not be safe. It is completely insane that we are using computers and trusting that the chips will not have strange things on them, such as IME. I disagree, but before getting mad hear me out. The first thing you must have is knowledge of, and possibly control of, the outflow of info from your devices. For each program that runs, all of it's reporting upstream should be knowable. If this were accomplished, it would be possible to use devices/software even though they are considered compromised. |
|
|
|
1) Users need to be online all the time! If somebody is offline he can NOT process a transaction for you, this means that that person breaks the route, which is a huge problem. Banks on the other hand will of course be online 24/7
Not necessarily. If only one node's HTLC success transaction is broadcast, then all nodes in the route can take their payment and make their payment simultaneously even if one or more of them is offline. 2) Monetary incentives for centralization! Everybody who helps processing your transaction gets a small fee. So if there's a route with 10 people in it, then a bank with a direct route can charge 9.99x the fee for one hub and still be cheaper! So the bigger a hub becomes, the smaller the routes will become and the more they can charge. This of course works as a huge snowball for size and is a huge incentive to become as big as possible.
I don't think the fee will be a centralization pressure. It will be a race to the bottom ... Wait, so we can fund the entire LN with less than the current BTC miner fees?  |
|
|
|
Wow  Amazing discovery of a amazing coup. The guy who made this and the guy which discovered it are pure genious. I am really excited to find out in which priv key generation code this thing is implemented. Amazing, if any of it were true, Upon reviewing this article, I took to myself to spend 1/2 hour and run some of these things, I have a database of 5 million BTC addresses, and every public-key ever used, both hashed and open, and I ran the addresses though the system, I found less than 1,000 addresses have been used as 'seeds', and I found of that only 'one' had ever had a transaction, ... Not VERY INTERESTING ..... IMHO this article is a sci-fi fairy-tale that can be told to bitcoin wannabe's and their boyfriends. I am afraid arguing "against this" is like arguing against the theory of God. You cannot prove your point. There are an infinite number of possible variations on the embedded hints and seeds and secrets. For example, assume not that "seed" is embedded and with "seed you can discover the private key. Now consider k=numeric value(seed)+c Where c is a constant. Have fun.... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
