Maybe I've lost faith in humanity but whenever I see something like this I immediately remember Elon Musk and others like him who started the same way and people thought it is going to help "in popularization of bitcoin" but it ended up only giving them some popularity which they abused in the end.
I agree 100% that it's all about his image, about his popularity. But for now I see a difference though: Jack has to maintain a good image in bitcoin community for the sake of his businesses, whether we talk about Square, or his upcoming hardware wallet or whatever he has in mind. On the other hand most of Elon's businesses are - by far - unrelated to crypto/bitcoin and he has his own destructive way to abuse his popularity, proven by his past, even before the bitcoin story. |
|
|
|
Until now, I'm still wondering how much cash Michael Saylor and MicroStrategy have
I can tell how much Bitcoin: around 114041 BTCThere's a topic about it, but it's outdated now. But if you follow there the correct links you end up at this spreadsheet showing up-to-date amount, including the buy from yesterday. I've read somewhere that they're selling shares and such for buying Bitcoin. I don't think that he actually keeps much cash (fiat) at hand. |
|
|
|
I understand Bitcoin is PoW
But do you understand that SHA-256, Scrypt, Equihash and many others from that list are PoW algorithms? That list looks like a salad of terms, really... I expect that in 25 years literally everything will be different. For example, there's a good chance nuclear fusion will be available until then making electricity basically for free and becoming a game changer for PoW. PoS was shown by plenty of coins that can bring the price to nearly zero in a couple of years, hence it has the potential to bring the demise for Ethereum. |
|
|
|
Experts' opinions are needed.
Experts in what? In reading the crystal ball? I'm not sure what you expect. You want to be lied to? If not, just go by this reply, it's pretty good. All I'd add is to not get your expectations too high. This way Bitcoin will not disappoint you and will keep bringing wonderful surprises. |
|
|
|
|
It will do the trick, but from what you are saying, also Tails with persistence and 2 different wallet files (and you load up one or another as you wish) should do the same job, easier.
Another thing that came into my mind is that if you think that this is cold storage, you're wrong -- you need 2 watch only wallets on a system that goes online and keep the Tails always offline.
|
|
|
|
So this is exactly it. Regarding Point #2, I see that the address shown that the larger transaction is going to is in my "address" tab on elecrum, as a previous receiving address. Does this indicate that I am able to approve the message?
I won't say what you should do, I would be uneasy too with such messages (and I don't know how good you checked the addresses, no offense). I've sent you quite a long message in private, I don't know how your tx looks like, I will post it here too: It depends also how you do it.
If you have value_x on Your_Address_1 and just want to send value_y to Coinbase_Address_1, your transaction will be
In: Your_Address_1
Out_1: Coinbase_Address_1
Out_2: Your_Address_2 (the change, meaning value_x - (value_y + tx fee))
Now, if you have made yourself the transaction as "Pay to many" and put yourself Your_Address_2 you wanted, this may be the problem; in my case this was it and I've fixed it by NOT using Pay to Many and instead only send to Coinbase_Address_1 and let the wallet do the rest.
Problem 1: I don't know what you actually done and you don't look as somebody that would have been using pay to many.
Problem 2: This kind of things should be discussed publicly because I may be a scammer trying to get more info from you and steal your money. And it should be public because others may also have good ideas.
Problem 3: I don't know if your Electrum is clean. I don't want to scare you, but another direction would be to uninstall Electrum, download it, verify the signature and install/run it again; just to make sure you don't have some odd Electrum clone that's trying something fishy. --> update, this may not be the case if the second address is indeed part of your wallet Since my use case differs from yours, since I didn't do multisig (and I don't have experience with that), I'll leave to the others find a way that maybe the Ledger won't complain. I think that such direction would still be option #1. |
|
|
|
It would therefore be safe to assume iOS 14.8 patches the issue associated with the Pegasus spyware ... so yeah, those with Apple devices should hurry with the patching. |
|
|
|
Anyone have any suggestions?
I don't remember the exact error message, but I've got some similar strange error (but it was telling about the change path - is there a chance you've misread the message?) when I wanted to send the change of a transaction to one of the funding addresses in my wallet. (But it was not multi-sig). My point is that: 1. I'd agree with the previous post that's probably 2 outputs, not 2 transactions. 2. I'd expect that the large transaction is the change. In that case, if you go on this path, make sure it indeed goes to an address from within your wallet. 3. If you want to avoid that error, look at the transaction you make and change something (like for example don't set the address for the change yourself, if it's the case) |
|
|
|
Bug fix la ultimul release acum 11 zile (articolul de pe getmonero este mai vechi): Mea culpa. Nu ma asteptam ca asemenea probleme sa "scape" pe mainnet; am crezut ca se testeaza mai bine inainte. Se pare ca am fost prea optimist/increzator. Pare interesant! Poate ar fi bun pentru site-uri care vand produse digitale de genul jocuri, coduri, licente etc ... desi iti poti face cont la PcGarbage pe numele Popescu Ion si il ridici de la easybox, fara alte documente. La fel de bine poate fi un astfel de proxy BTC-BTC. In ambele cazuri platesti 2 fee-uri dar nu iti expui adresa. Sau in cazul BTC folosesti LN, dar si acolo pot fi unele sifonari de informatii, cativa vectori de atac (zic gurile rele) dar par cam targetate deci cineva chiar trebuie sa aibe boala pe tine  Problema e ca in general asemenea operatii care sa ajute la privacy nu sunt vazute cu ochi buni de autoritati, iar magazinele mari probabil ca le vor evita. Sper sa ma insel... |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin had a big drop / correction not long ago.
VISA considers accepting crypto payments (in Brasil).
Croatian bike company Greyp Bikes is accepting crypto payments.
MicroStrategy bought more bitcoin.
We are still in the "middle of" bull run.
There are multiple reasons for the price move up. This doesn't guarantees it will (it would be nice though).
And MicroStrategy buys didn't always made the price rise.
|
|
|
|
Let's also put here a better guarded address, from the HW. -----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I am NeuroticFish (UID 257071). Today is 2021-09-14. My new signing address is bc1qlnzyltd6nej2qw6l6pxjzpx2ae80r82a5hzdfx
-----BEGIN SIGNATURE-----
1KBKTnYoyQ3hc4mBmF4iytwn7AotiMEDRJ
H3qvhao35UGTduB0FFu/hpRO7S6sCm+F0GJo3dNYH77PcPj0LB7vd1Grd8iG94SHtTgxFgc/PZpv/Z/uMGgkvC0=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
|
|
|
The development of the lightning network has solved the speed issue with bitcoin transactions, but it is moving its goal to a centralized organization.
I'm interested if it's feasible to improve bitcoin transaction throughput while retaining decentralization.
Another issue, the bitcoin upgrade is coming, and I heard that Bitcoin may include a potential smart contract, but it would still make it appear centralized, is there any way for devs to do that while keeping decentralization?
You seem to have read some... terms... here and there, but haven't really understand them. 1. LN doesn't bring centralization. Not by design. On the other hand, users and their habits may create problems, by keeping their coins at centralized custodian service providers (which will probably open LN channels for them too). But that's not centralization of Bitcoin (network, nodes), it's centralization of funds. 2. Taproot making bitcoin "appear centralized"... wow... what?! No. Not related. |
|
|
|
Although I don't know every single detail, it still appears to be quite risky!
For a company to do what Microstrategy does, they have to have quite high appetite for taking risk. And until now it did pay off. Microsteel
Is this a mix between MicroStrategy and "balls of steel"? |
|
|
|
inca e noua treaba deci pericolul de bug-uri e maricel
A fost in teste ceva vreme, deci pericolul nu ar trebui sa fie chiar asa "maricel"; altfel nu ar fi pe mainnet. Iar la Monero, istoric vorbind, accentul a fost pe functionalitate. UI frumos si prietenos.. ceva mai tarziu. Dar nu am aruncat inca ochi pe atomic swap-ul facut de COMIT. Si inca ceva, posibil interesant: se pare ca mai sunt in lucru si alte implementari de atomic swap XMR-BTC: Though COMIT Network's atomic swaps are available today, other similar projects are in development by other teams. The Farcaster project raised 2727 XMR (worth $650,000 today) to build out a similar trustless atomic swaps implementation. Haveno, a Monero-focused fork of Bisq, is implementing atomic swaps for their XMR/BTC trading pair. Relatedly, cross-chain bridges (with varying degrees of distributed trust) have been announced for Secret Network and Thorchain, which will allow for easy trading with Ethereum and Binance Smart Chain tokens. |
|
|
|
yes, it will be great news to the users of vast bank if the fees to withdraw and transfer their assets from it is low
Banks are not for those looking for low fees. Exchanges will always beat banks at the exchange fees. Banks will be used by those who want convenience and trust. It's for the newbies who didn't find yet bitcointalk, and it's for smaller businesses. |
|
|
|
Indeed, it was in the 1990s when Biden accidentally inspired Phil Zimmerman to create “Biden sponsored a bill that scared Paul Zimmerman so much that he finally finished the code for PGP, eventually helping Bitcoin to be born.” The physics teach us that every action has an opposite reaction  Clearly "the stars" had to be "aligned right" in order to have Bitcoin getting born. I am sure that along the way there have been quite a lot of small bits until this great puzzle got assembled. Luck is (also) a very important "component" in the history. For example, we are lucky that Bitcoin was born before our death. |
|
|
|
It appears I downloaded it from https://99bitcoins.com/how-to-get-a-custom-bitcoin-address/vanitygen-0.22-win is the folder name after download. I've only used it offline and have never had any btc stolen from it but I am genuinely curious if this is a trust vanity address generator. I saw conflicting things online. It may be this one -> Vanitygen: Vanity bitcoin address generator/miner [v0.22]1. The one I've linked is the oldest and most reputed vanity generator I know. 2. Although I remember 99bitcoins as being a legit/ok website, I'd recommend you use the one linked from the bitcointalk thread. 3. There may be newer vanity generators that are better (maybe SegWit too?), but I didn't care that much about them after I've "met" the HD wallets. |
|
|
|
I have had good experiences with Trastra after leaving Wirex.
5% spread, same Contis issuer, I see nothing special about them, plus the fact that all their social media TW,FB,Reddit have zero comments good or bad makes me wonder if they have more than a hundred clients. If Contis is "not a problem", there are more known options for the card, probably with lower fees and spread too (like Binance). At least Wirex move to MasterCard resulted more reliable cards, or better accepted by merchants. |
|
|
|
Or freeze the input in your wallet so you never move it.
I think that this is the "best use" for dust. Second best is consolidate, if you know what you're doing. 1BURNbitcoinBURNbitcoinBURP3vqZJo
Impressive! I know that there are available scripts to create proper burn address, I know that all it needs is a string with allowed characters/format and then a checksum, but I've never ran one. And again, your choice of starting string is impressive  |
|
|
|
The only problem in this way of storage is where to place this box, because in case of burglary, the thief has everything valuable and important in one place
Unfortunately most people tend to keep all valuable belongings and papers in one place, so I don't actually see anything unusual here. For the seed phrases of the hardware wallets I use a stamped stainless steel plate
hidden elsewhere in the house which can also withstand fire.
Oh, impressive! Then the HWs don't really have to stay in that box, right?  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
