The explorer is down.
What? How dare you say such things! BLASPHEMER! YOU SHALL BE COVERED IN SAUCE AND....oh wait, you're right, it is down. No it's not. (now)I have also discovered that the main difference between a $14.95 wireless router that you pick up at WalMart and a $549.99 SonicWall is.... $535.04 The quality of the hardware is about the same. -Dave |
|
|
|
|
Yeah, full power off. Wait 30 seconds and power on.
If chain #9 starts showing the odd numbers again, I would contact the developer of the firmware or revert to stock.
Since we can't really know what the custom firmware is doing having you post a log will probably not help much in figuring it out.
It becomes a bit more guesswork then looking at the Bitmain logs which everyone who has worked on them over the years more or less knows.
-Dave
|
|
|
|
Yeah... looks like it's stuck on block 0000000000000000001393b90b751003c03df800d732059fa7c7e2d7272058e2 (2018 December 15th)
Poked wizkid057. If he doesn't respond, maybe I'll point the DNS somewhere without a pool server running. :/
It's been 10 days or so any word? I hate to say point it elsehwere, since it was good here for a very long time. But it might be time. His last post was ~18 months ago, his last time online was ~ 9 months ago. It's accepting shares but the back end is dead so it's just a black hole for mining at this point. On a personal note, I worry about what happened to him. But, since no friends / family have posted anything anywhere that I could find there is not much we can do. There is ~ BTC0.415 sitting in the pool address that has not been touched since the end of Nov 2017 so it's not like he ran off with the money. -Dave |
|
|
|
|
Which firmware is that? It's not stock.
Either way, look down to chain 9. Something it's not right.
Does a power cycle clear it?
-Dave
|
|
|
|
@DaveF may I ask how will the scam go down in StackGambler's situation? Are you trying to say that he is asking for help to cancel a ongoing transaction to scam another person? If that is the case you need to have proof that he is indeed scamming another person not just a hunch about it because having two negative feedbacks and a password change won't cut it, the negative feedbacks he has isn't even directly related to cancelling any transactions in Blockchain. We do need more proof that StackGambler is scamming another person before we can give him a negative feedback with regards to this matter because I don't think he deserves a new one as of right now.
Does anyone read? I did not tag him. I did not leave him more negative feedback. I just said that it looks off. Originally I kept it in PM, and it was agreed that it should be brought out for others to see and discuss. Even the title of the thread is "coincidence or scam" According to his post he was using the core wallet. Royce777 who saw the live TX it was sent with a 0.547 sat/B fee. I have no idea how to send a transaction through core with a less then 1 sat/B fee. Fine OK, just because I don't know how to do it does not mean it can't be done. He also posted to reddit about the problem and deleted the post. If you search for the TX on google you will find the deleted post. https://www.google.com/search?q=1a62267aa812b8d289148192ff15cb2d6a1fccf40ce0e31278125191ff9d181b&filter=0&biw=1536&bih=723There is a link to someplace that captured the post before it was removed: https://tr.bitlovin.com/summary/someone-hacked-my-bitcoin-service-and-will-be-sending-the-funds-to-what-looks-like-a-binance-walletAccording to him in that post he was "locked out of his server" So, he posted here and there and got back into his server, and was able to send out a new TX before it was mined because it was such a low fee. Which means either he got hit by the worlds worse hacker [Fee and allowing access back to server] or there is something we are missing or something that he is not telling us. Just my view. Others obviously disagree. -Dave |
|
|
|
|
And since he never came back we can never know.
The only edge case I could come up with is that he wanted to test making 1000's and 1000's of small transactions to do something and that yes, you can do the same with less. However, since they are not mining their own transactions even 1sat + fee .005 can be eaten up somewhat quickly.
But, that is a very edge case.
Seriously, in less then 1 day after seeing this post I got myself .1 testnet coins using the faucets.
I did not try that hard and then I got bored so if he really wanted to it's not that much work.
-Dave
Yes, I donated the coins back to the faucets.
|
|
|
|
|
An option to play without having to register & give an email address (or facebook acct) would be nice.
It's the internet. It's bitcoin. You might need to know who we are later to withdraw for KYC reasons but just to play around with a little money. Nope.
-Dave
|
|
|
|
The amount they earn from these fees likely varies depending on if tx fees are increasing or not, and if so by how much. I don’t think it is a given they will always have positive profit from eventually spending the coin they receive.
it does seem like the "network fees" collected primarily subsidize their horribly inefficient fee practices. they are paying 28-35 sat/byte to sweep when the network is routinely confirming 1 sat/byte transactions. not to mention the fact that they could save an additional 40% on fees by using ubiquitously compatible P2SH wrapped segwit addresses. i can understand not implementing bech32 because of compatibility but not using P2SH is singlehandedly driving their customers costs up by 40%+. that's a real FU to all of us. As I said earlier and what PrimeNumber7 said routinely confirming 1 sat/byte transactions does them no good. They are making money on the % they charge business. You you buy a laptop for $1000 BP takes their 1.5% so the merchant gets $985 the next day. With that $15 they have to move it twice and make and hopefully make a profit on the sale of the BTC So they assume the worst case fees. It sucks, but it's their business model. And for now it seems to be working for them. -Dave |
|
|
|
Hmmm Port 25 is to send mail. Some pools use it as a possible port to connect to, but other then that I would wonder why your miners are trying to connect on port 25 Also, some ISPs block or semi block (monitor and then block) port 25 to prevent spamming. Do you have any of the miners set to a pool on port 25? -Dave tcp 192.168.1.231:50469 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.194:59635 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.162:55155 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.49:43272 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.72:43617 47.252.50.124:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.193:38093 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.48:58221 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.160:41666 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.177:39039 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.20:59960 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.72:43614 47.252.50.124:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.72:43612 47.252.50.124:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.174:54686 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.25:56874 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.74:38891 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.39:57951 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.91:37786 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.20:59961 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.150:38021 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.39:57955 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.195:57945 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.74:38892 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.216:48503 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.226:52603 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.195:57943 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.92:42031 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.134:55872 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.160:41665 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.134:55875 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.150:38020 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.72:43601 47.252.50.124:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.49:43274 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.82:45891 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.39:57950 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.193:38092 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.48:58223 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.186:39106 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.146:36113 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.101:56021 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.231:50472 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.104:58249 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.195:57942 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.72:43616 47.252.50.124:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.48:58220 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.72:43609 47.252.50.124:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.101:56020 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.174:54687 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.25:56872 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.77:35713 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.160:41664 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.77:35711 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.49:43270 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.150:38018 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.72:43613 47.252.50.124:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.92:42029 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.186:39105 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.92:42030 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.72:43602 47.252.50.124:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.72:43611 47.252.50.124:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.27:54180 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.72:43599 47.252.50.124:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.177:39041 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.216:48502 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.162:55156 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.104:58246 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.134:55874 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.27:54176 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.134:55873 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.25:56869 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.72:43604 47.252.50.124:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.77:35710 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.216:48501 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.186:39104 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.195:57944 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.82:45890 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.39:57954 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.194:59637 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.146:36112 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.226:52604 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.229:34346 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.150:38019 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.82:45892 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.48:58216 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.193:38094 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.72:43615 47.252.50.124:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.91:37788 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.72:43600 47.252.50.124:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.77:35712 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.216:48500 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.174:54688 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.82:45893 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.72:43607 47.252.50.124:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.20:59962 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.229:34345 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.72:43606 47.252.50.124:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.229:34343 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.104:58247 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.91:37785 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.38:41924 116.211.174.223:3333 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.72:43608 47.252.50.124:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.177:39040 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.193:38095 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.194:59638 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.174:54689 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.177:39042 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.38:41927 116.211.174.223:3333 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.194:59636 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.49:43271 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.101:56022 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.27:54181 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.27:54177 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.231:50473 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.229:34344 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.226:52606 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.100:39225 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.100:39223 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.162:55158 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.162:55157 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.104:58248 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.100:39224 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.20:59959 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.226:52605 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.72:43598 47.252.50.124:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.72:43610 47.252.50.124:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.100:39226 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.186:39103 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.160:41667 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.74:38893 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.72:43605 47.252.50.124:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.92:42032 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.25:56873 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.91:37787 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.72:43603 47.252.50.124:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.101:56024 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT
tcp 192.168.1.146:36114 47.93.164.229:25 SYN_SENT |
|
|
|
|
Remember: we don't know you and you don't know us.
I see the following:
You ask about reversing a double spend.
You get hacked, and then are able to double spend to get your money back.
You caught the hack before it could be confirmed because it was an insanely low fee. To the point that some nodes would not even broadcast it.
You have 3 negative feedback's about ripping off a casino.
Put it all together and it just looks off.
Off, not necessarily a scam
That is why I was bouncing this off Royse777 before posting.
That is why I posted this as coincidence or scam instead of "StackGambler is a scammer"
As I said in the 1st line, we don't know you. You don't know us.
It is worth a discussion.
-Dave
|
|
|
|
The user StackGambler posted a thread today about getting help because he was hacked: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5179071OK, fine. Stuff happens, the fee seems REALLY low as in I'm not sure how you can get it that low, and a hacker / thief would set it high so it would be confirmed in the next block, nice and quick. Before replying I took a look at his feedback, because something just felt wrong. Not sure what, it just did. And: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=25590723 negatives by somewhat trusted people and a password just changed. Looking a bit more, you find this post from June 1st: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=51496931st you ask how to reverse a 0 conf and then you need to a little while later because you were hacked. Looks like a scam to me. Anyone else have any input? -Dave |
|
|
|
|
2 things.
1) As everyone else has said KYC = :-(
2) Can you sign your app? My phone will not let me install it for some reason might be the AV or it might be something else stopping unsigned apps. I used to be able to do it, now it's just pops up a warning about it and there is no way to continue.
-Dave
|
|
|
|
Yeah. Moneypot was in a place of its own. Global bankroll, wallet integration across all apps. I thought it was a beauty in its time, still think it is today. But it never recovered and investor confidence also deserted it and its apps. That was a big shame, I suppose, the timing with the great crypto winter. I'm sure it's a matter of time before a replacement comes along.
I do not think there is any perfect replacement of moneypot yet. There are few apps which are made to act as alternative to money pot, but none of them offer the same services which moneypot provided.
Really? What are these apps? I like to know. I don't think there will be a replacement soon. A lot of places are now allowing "investment" into their casinos. Don't really know if I trust them. But it pulls some money out of what would go into MP 2.0 The issue replacing MP is that it didn't work out. So MP 2.0 would have to address those issues, and some others before people put in enough money to make it work. -Dave *Full disclosure I lost some money but not enough to matter, I would be back but would have to think longer about it. |
|
|
|
Going to be tough to get one at that price. Figure most people here are already into it with registration fees for more than that. Try the namesilo marketplace https://www.namesilo.com/register.php?rid=7a64929sfClick on marketplace then under type choose Expired Auction. There are many ending everyday with no bids, so you can get in for $1.00 + reg fees. If you want one that is bitcoin related then it's probably going to cost you more. If you want a short one it's probably going to cost you more. -Dave |
|
|
|
|
Bumping this because I didn't even know this post existed and it had dropped 20+ pages deep.
If I was looking for it I'm sure someone else was also.
-Dave
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, 21 pages deep in meta.
Thanks for the link.
Locking this.
-Dave
|
|
|
|
I know you can find the modlog here: https://bitcointalk.org/modlog.phpOr that you can find your report to mods report here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=reportlist;mineBut is there a place where all this kind of stuff is listed? I found out about the modlog while reading a thread someplace and found out about the report to mods link when I asked a question about my reports. I looked for a thread that had a list of all this kind of stuff but did not find it. So, is there one? If not do you think we should make one? -Dave |
|
|
|
To be fair to BitPay, the fee might be higher when they need to spend the coin they receive in what could be weeks in the future. They could be combining unspent outputs/spending when transaction fees are low, they're also probably big enough that they could get fiat first from someone else and then settle the bitcoins with them later. That could wind up being a lot of fiat. As in 10s of millions of different countries money across the globe. It's easy to say they can combine when fees are low, but if BTC has an up or down swing that causes fees to be high for a week or so it can start to become an issue. Most of their clients get fiat the next day. If fees are high and BTC is down 5% they now either have to float it and hope it goes back up or eat it and take the loss. A couple of weeks ago I got a new laptop from newegg BTC at that point was $11825 give or take a buck. Within hours of my purchase BTC was at $11,400 and fees were stupid high and would stay high for a few days after too. Guess what newegg got their money in their account and didn't give a shit. So, their business model requires them to have to be able to move in the next block and you get to pay for that. We, can argue if it's a good business model or not, we can argue if it's a sustainable business model or not. But it is the one they choose to have. So their additional fee if you look at it, tends to be the 2x highest fee needed to be in the next block over the last few days. Note, not the average highest fee, the highest fee. Around here, some gas stations charge more to take credit cards because they have to pay the 3%+ fee to take them, so they pass that to the consumer. You can accept it and pay with your card or pay a bit less with cash or drive to the next station. Same with merchants using BitPay. -Dave Edit added 2x above about 15 minutes after initial post. Brain freeze on my part as they tend to move your BTC after 1 or 2 confirms and then move it again later. Not sure why. |
|
|
|
Started playing here the other day.
I keep saying it to a lot of places and will contine to do so.
Can you get away from the flash based games? Click on this slot, needs flash, click on some other slot, also needs flash.
With the security issues with flash more and more people are just not installing it and more and places are not allowing it.
Just my view.
-Dave
All the games are coming from various gaming providers and that's how the slot games works (flash based game). I'm not really sure what wrong with flash game as I have never faced any security issues while playing flash based game on some different sites. Obviously they wont be able to get away from the flash game as the site is not the one who create the games but providers. If they change the game then it wont be original games from the providers anymore which may make players think twice before playing. I'm not saying that the games are the security issue, I am saying flash is. There have been many security issues with it over the years and many places (businesses / schools / etc) are blocking it at the edge. I don't even have it installed on all of my PCs. -Dave |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
