Did admin state that was the reason? The Games and rounds board has many similar giveaways from other sites. Looking back at the last few of pages I see you made several back to back posts saying 'added' rather than combine them all in one post. Back to back posting is against the forum rules and might have been what the ban was for.

That is actually a user configurable option although the default is off. Under your profile page Personal Message Options https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=xxxxxx;sa=pmprefs
There is a checkbox for 'Allow newbies to send you PMs.'

Quoted and verified using Electrum


You are supposed to quote the person above if it hasn't already been done.
It might help but that is not guaranteed and at the very least it will probably slow the process down.

That's sort of why I'm guessing you can't. I also seem to remember when I first upgraded to Electrum 3.0.0 and created my first Segwit wallet seeing a warning somewhere that it would not be possible to import these private keys into other wallet types.

That still leaves me wondering why anyone would want to use the same private key to generate different addresses. I cannot see any application that would benefit from that and it sets alarm bells off that it could make things less secure.


Edit: I've been thinking about it and I think this explains it but people with better technical knowledge may be able to answer it more fully.

A private key creates a legacy address. The 3 Segwit address is created from the legacy address, not from the private key. They are not meant to be associated, the Segwit address is just nested in the legacy address.
Another private key creates a bech32 address and that's all as it is native and doesn't need to be nested in anything.

Let's try this again. As I've only been learning about Segwit a couple of months this took a while to work out.

A legacy addresses private key doesn't have a Segwit address associated with it. The Segwit implementation using the 3 addresses is nesting Segwit in the old legacy address. That address is not intended to be used for anything else. It was only done this way as a tempory solution to provide backward compatibility of the address format (base58).

The native implementation of Segwit using bech32 addresses does not require any other address to make it work.

The devs didn't make it possible to do what you asking because there is no reason to.

Yes, that's what I was saying. It's a privacy issue and there are ways of combatting it such as in Electrum you can create as many wallets as you want and then use each one for different purposes. Then use a service like ChipMixer to further distance yourself from the source of the coins before combining them.


I'm not 100% sure here but I think the answer is no. Before I go trying to look that up I'm still completely baffled as to what you are trying to achieve and maybe if you could explain that I might get it.

No worries, as I said I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. I was just a bit annoyed as I thought I had convinced you the last time we went through this.
The idea that any accountancy firm would be fooled by a trick like that seemed so ludicrous to me as to be laughable before I even read the report. I just find it frustrating to see people still repeating it.


It could be helpful in some respects but as above would also just give the bloggers more source material to misrepresent.


My bit of conjecture. This is exactly where traders that know how to trade are building their positions.


I'd like to read those reports to see exactly what they mean by that before commenting. It doesn't really strike me as something that is measurable.
Given the combined size of the exchanges using Tether, $2Bn seems like a small number to me. As you say marcap is irrelevant, it's not a stock, it's currencies. Compare $500Bn to money supply numbers and get some real perspective as to how small this still is. It's less than half a percent of the world's M2 money supply.

I'll add a little to that. It will work but there a couple of reasons you should use the new addresses when possible. 1) It protects your privacy to use different addresses. 2) Coinbase may at some time in the future upgrade the wallet software they use and start using a new wallet. Although your funds are unlikely to be lost in this case it may cause delays in your account being credited.

We discussed a few post ago that I have no problem with conjecture, debate and differences of opinion but I do have issues sometimes with how things are presented. This is an example of that. It is possible that it is just that you don't fully understand the report but it looks very much like a deliberate attempt to misrepresent it by selectively quoting out of context. I'm giving you the benefit of doubt here, I'm the son of an accountant, so I grew up with this stuff and I have been sole director of Limited companies. Maybe what is strikingly obvious to me isn't to everyone.


I remember that you argued that they had not seen bank statements by selectively quoting the line where they said they had seen snapshots of the balances and neglected to the statement just below it saying they had.

Now, what is the context of this quote?


It comes at the beginning of the document under the heading Background where they outline the purpose and scope of the report. In summary to verify that Tethers are fully backed as of a specific date.

This is what I quoted last time and its context is that it is under the heading Procedures Performed where they describe what they actually did.


They explicitly stated that they traced the cash, that means verifying where it came from and fully rules out the conspiracy theory that they just borrowed the money from a friend to fool the accountants.

So it is not.....

As for the rest of your post. However many audits reports or whatever Tether and Bitfinex issue will not make any difference, the conspiracy theorist will just misrepresent them in the same way they did this one. Privately held companies are under no obligation to make accounts public.

I hope you're just having a laugh with ETH stuff. Making a comparison between using a technology as a means of transmission and a Ponzi raising funds through an ICO. Please tell me you are joking.

Going back to conjecture and opinion. Your opinion would be that the large increase in the issuance of Tether over the last few months is a sign that it is a fraud. My opinion would be that it is entirely consistent with the increase in interest in crypto and mainstream news coverage during that time. There were days back in December where my fiat markets squawk feeds were entirely filled with Bitcoin news. The fact that a large amount of money poured into the markets at the same time is entirely logical to me.

Absolutely, the problem being all the altcoin and ICO campaigns that don't care because they're paying with free coins. They just sign up anyone who applies and pay them to shitpost all over the forum.


I am in agreement.


I really don't care what you think. I'm doing this out of frustration at how difficult it is to have a meaningful discussion on here with the thread filling up with complete garbage. I don't think I have anything to fear from anyone in DT.

Exactly that.


We already had this discussion and I fully explained why that couldn't have happened. Do you want to revisit those posts?


In my opinion that is by far the most likely explanation.


As I recall it wasn't at all ambiguous and I quoted the lines from the report that you missed explaining that they had reconciled the bank statements and received full explanations from Tether what every entry was. (What accountants call auditing).


OKEx did because they had the same issues receiving international wires as Tether did due to the Taiwanese banking system.
So, in summary, I would guess that the vast majority of Tethers funds are coming from Bitfinex and Bittrex customers deposits.



Not sure, maybe it's trendy and they like playing with virtual kittens?

It is nothing like saying that. You must be the one that didn't understand what I said.


It has nothing to do with being stupid or wrong. It is about posts that add absolutely nothing to the debate and are made entirely for the reason of getting paid. There is no reason to post on a thread that already has 199 pages. Nobody is ever going to read it and it adds nothing to the forum except noise. How many lines are in a post has no bearing on whether it is spam or not.

A lot of higher ranked accounts have been hacked and/or sold and many of them also shitpost. Two wrongs do not make a right.


That is a matter of opinion and in this case, I do not share yours. Posts like the one quoted above that say absolutely nothing and that are made for no reason other than to increase post count and get paid pollute this forum. The administrator of the forum will not do anything to address this problem, so some people on the DT list have decided to tackle it in a different way. That's not ideal but at least something is being done.

This was the post quoted in the reference to the trust feedback. It is the very definition if shitpost. It says absolutely nothing of any meaning and is buried on page 199 of a thread that hundreds of people have already said the same thing.

Excellent news. Tether goes from strength to strength. What a success story they are turning out to be, despite the failed predictions of all the naysayers.

It looks like a post in response to someone where he just didn't think through what he was saying. He could have gone back and deleted it but then there would just be more screams of conspiracy.



Step 5 is where this falls down. Exchange rate volatility would make that impossible to maintain and secondly Freedman LLC would not have confirmed that the money was in bank accounts.


It's going to be a mixture of customers. A question for you. You probably saw the Tether rich list nrd525 posted on his thread earlier. Of those exchanges holding large amounts of Tether how many accept USD wires? Obviously Bitfinex and Bittrex I know of but I don't frequent the others.

https://support.bittrex.com/hc/en-us/articles/115001293992-Purchase-USDT-via-Wire-Transfer
https://wallet.tether.to/richlist

The trust system as its name implies is simply for people to say whether or not they trust you.

In the spam mega thread "Does the Price of Bitcoin Matter?" you posted this.


Giving advice like that I'm not surprised someone doesn't trust you.

As Thirdspace just said the reason is your posts are regarded as spam. If you use Google translate then they will be in very poor broken English and difficult for anyone else to read. I would advise you to stick to the Vietnamese board this time.

Oh, I see now. You actually enjoy the fact that everything you have been saying will happen to Bitfinex for years hasn't happened. I'm sure you going to have many more years of happiness then.

Regards to audits I answered that yesterday and, unlike you, I find repeating myself somewhat pointless.

Go to the 'Addresses' tab and change the filter from 'Receiving' to 'Change' and you should see it there, not a mystery after all.

The two administrators are theymos and Cyrus. You can contact them via PM. They are very busy and may not view this request as a priority so you may wait some time for a response.