<…> J.P. Morgan piensa que bitcoin llegará a los 146K (a largo plazo), no sin antes pasar por importantes turbulencias este año. <…>
Claro que luego los analistas de J.P. Morgan luego puede decir que quizás no se vuelva a superar los 40K $ … Vamos, que si cada analista lanza una posibilidad, se pueden cubrir las espaldas corporativas, y "alguien" quizás habrá atinado a futuro. Es cierto que ponen el matiz de quizás, pero el juego de la incertidumbre es intrínseco a bitcoin, y quizás podría llevar a valer cualquier número real entre 0$ y 10M$ en un momento dado (así me cubro las espaldas y seguro que acierto). Coñas aparte, si se huele un momento de freno en las inversiones institucionales, y aunque siguen dando algún titular menor, no parece seguir la tendencia y la expectativa creada. Ver: https://www.altonivel.com.mx/finanzas/jp-morgan-advierte-que-bitcoin-quiza-no-vuelva-a-rebasar-los-40000-dolares/ |
|
|
|
<…>
Lo de las llamas "comerciales", derivadas de la publicación de los datos Ledger está al orden del día. Es un canal más para intentar sisar a la gente, y aunque estés en las listas Robinson (argumento que uso de preámbulo), normalmente les da bastante igual (no hablo sólo por este caso, sino en términos generales en relación a las llamadas). Otra opción a ponderar en este caso es cambiar el número móvil, pero ahí cada cual tiene sus circunstancias a valorar. El caso es que, a través de las llamadas, algunos logran su botín. Recuerdo haber leído múltiples casos de gente de cierta edad desplomada por estas prácticas, por algún motivo usualmente residente en Inglaterra, y a los cuales les venden los servicios de inversión en bitcoin con pingues (irrelales) beneficios. |
|
|
|
<…>
La probabilidad de que suceda algo físico es muy baja diría (no imposible). Al fin y al cabo, viendo donde vive uno y/o el vehículo que lleva parece más indicativo de si la persona tiene poder adquisitivo. Es mucho más probable que sufras múltiples intentos de timos a través de phishing/smishing, llamadas directas, o que incluso alguien se aventure a intentar realizar un sim-swapping a ver qué pilla (en un Exchange o similar). Ante esto, uno ha de valorar si cambiar su número de móvil, dar de baja el vigente, cambiar el móvil allá donde figure como posible camino de acceso a una cuenta, cambiar su email, etc. Estos días, entre los emails recibidos sobre mi correo expuesto, he recibido uno relativo a una persona que dice estar en posesión de los documentos KYC y los datos de contacto de un Exchange menor (con el cual tuve alguna relación en su momento). Según la persona, ha intentado chantajear al Exchange, han pasado de él, y ha pasado a pedir "la colaboración" de las personas del supuesto filtrado de datos. Según indica, la BD no es de dominio público, pero si no la rentabiliza, lo hará. Para que veamos cómo está el percal… |
|
|
|
I’ve checked my data again just in case, and it’s consistent. Here is the update as of last Friday (same context: account created during 2020, non-banned, and merited at some point): rank ProbableInitialRank nUsers
Sr. Member New Era Newbie 8
Full Member New Era Newbie 17
Member New Era Newbie 142
Jr. Member New Era Newbie 458
Newbie New Era Newbie 1482
Brand new Brand New 10
The update shows some slight changes regarding my prior retrieved data, but on this occasion, I’ve added some surprising additional information that corresponds to profiles that have not ranked-up at least one level, but that have been merited (the last two rows). There are 1.482 Newbies, created in 2020, that have earned at least 1 merit, but that have not made enough posts to warrant Jr. Member rank. In fact, most of them barely made any Activity: segment_activity segment_merit nUsers
(0%..20%) 100% 757
[20%..40%) 100% 372
[40%..60%) 100% 192
[60%..80%) 100% 104
[80%..100%) 100% 87
757 have made less than 20% of the required Activity. That is pretty surprising, and it’s a wonder why that is. One possible reason is that the banned list I’m using is incomplete, but I’ve checked 10 or so profiles, and they are not banned, although mostly inactive. Some perhaps earn a few merits for questions/answers, but are here sporadically, others may quit thinking that the campaigns are not going to be worth their time. Who knows, but it’s surprising to see so many potential Jr. Accounts stalled by Activity. |
|
|
|
No pensemos que con el caso Ledger ya hemos cubierto el cupo. Aunque se trate de un exchange de la india, BuyUCoin, y nos pille algo lejanos, esto le puede suceder eventualmente a cualquier otro Exchange, se haga o no público: Un grupo de hackers ha filtrado supuestamente datos particulares de entre 161K y 325K clientes del Exchange, haciendo accesible a malhechores los nombres, emails, teléfonos, cuentas bancarias, detalles de las wallets (se entiende que en el Exchange), etc. Vamos, que ya están tardando en cambiar sus canales de comunicación y ver cómo puede afectar a sus cuentas bancarias (se me ocurre el caso de la impersonalización). Ver: https://es.cointelegraph.com/news/breach-at-indian-exchange-buyucoin-allegedly-exposes-325k-users-personal-data |
|
|
|
<...>
You can have a read through threads on the forum such as this one: Ledger SMS phishing campaign – New Leak (believe it or not). You’ll see references to: Leak 1: - a breach in their customer email database (1M++ exposed) - a breach in their marketing database (phone, address, email, full name) -> 272K++ leaked -> not the initial 9,5K stated by Ledger. Leak 2: - a breach in their marketing database through an API with Shopify -> 292K++ leaked (theoretically, a superset of the 272K). Concerning Ledger Live, if it’s the original source you downloaded the software from, then you should be ok. Regardless, anytime you perform a firmware upgrade, you should probably make sure you’ve got your mnemonic handy in case anything goes wrong. |
|
|
|
<…> FYI what I copy as you can check at the end of the website it says "No copyright ever. No rights reserved." <…>
Nevertheless, a link to the source is not really to cover copyright issues, but rather to avoid people passing on other people’s work as their own. Generally speaking, many may not be aware of this, especially at the beginning of their engagement with the forum (i.e. no formal indication upon registering of the forum’s rules), and where one may be trying to provide information, it can easily be misinterpreted (thus the link to the source requirement). People do sometimes copy/[spin]/paste complete fragments or articles with the intent of obtaining merits, or increasing their posting counter with something that seems elaborate. They even resort to copying other people’s posts on and from the forum for those same reasons. That led to a forum rule to be instated (prior to the merit era infact) that dictates that plagiarism is not allowed, but as I said, more from an intentional point of view than a copyright one. |
|
|
|
<…>
If seems pretty dangerous for the people included in the data leak, by all means. Besides the expected set of phishing/smishing attempts in the name of any pretext, and emulating any sort of crypto related firm, there’s also the potential information to perform sim-swaps, or direct phone scams. On top of that, bank details allow one to derive the bank entity, and depending on which entity, there’s enough information there to create an attack vector by impersonation through one of the contact channels, or redirect bills to a given bank account number. |
|
|
|
<...>
Just to point out that any potential recovery process is much smoother, and likely to have a positive outcome, if you can sign a bitcoin message or pgp message from an address you might have written on the forum at some point (ideally, in an unedited post, or quoted by somebody else). The hacker may or may not have gone through prior posting history to deleted these addresses, but there is also the off-chance that it may have be quoted by somebody else. If posts have been edited by the hacker, you may (slim chance though) find some archived posts using tools such as TheWayBackMachine, which may have captures a snapshot of something relevant at some point in time. Edit: <...> Uh, sadly <...> I'd include that in your email to account recoveries, just in case they can work with any of what you mention there. |
|
|
|
<…>
It’s seemingly unclear what you are trying to state here: - A chance to what specifically? (rank-up, post, ask, etc.). - What fines? (evil-ip fines upon registration is all there is in the worst case scenario). - Take the forum further by means of what? (number of registrants, content, reduce spam, etc.). Really, if anyone set out with objectives here of any nature, it’s basically down to setting aside plenty one of our most valuable assets: our personal time. |
|
|
|
|
Not that it’s going to happen, but @YOSHIE’s petition seems more like a wish to be conceded to him as an exception (the "for me" seems to delimit the scope), and not as a general rule, likely knowing the outcome, but still tossing the idea.
Knowing that such concessions are not going to be made, the runner-up solution would be to postulate to become a Merit Source (and then wait for developments).
I’m pretty sure @YOSHIE is aware that a generalized 1:1 ratio would unleash a ton of merit ping-pong games.
|
|
|
|
La verdad es que cuesta recordar toda la secuencia de eventos hasta el momento con Craig Wright como autoproclamado creador de Bitcoin, si es que se uno tiene realmente ganas de seguirle la pista a este historial. Con anterioridad a este nuevo giro de tuerca, el siguiente artículo hace una cronología de los eventos significativos a lo largo del tiempo: https://chainbulletin.com/timeline-craig-wrights-story/ |
|
|
|
Esto es un ejemplo de supuesto sim swapping que afecta a un caso de un usuario de Ledger, pero que esta tan mal explicado, y que es tan incoherente, que no hay por dónde cogerlo: https://decrypt.co/55137/man-loses-27000-in-bitcoin-to-sim-swap-scamNo hay manera de ver si el caso tiene relación con el filtrado de información de clientes Ledger, pero en una parte del redactado, cita que la persona en cuestión fue contactada por supuestos empleados de Ledger, que verbalmente le indicaron que su cuenta estaba comprometida. La persona entregó su "contraseña y los números de identificación de la cuenta" al llamante (véase la incoherencia en lo que les entregó), tras lo cual le desplumaron 27K$ en bitcoin. Haciendo un ejercicio de comprensión con el redactor, probablemente neófito en la materia, o perdido en la traducción, el llamante le pidió el mnemotécnico de 24 palabras, y luego lo reestableció en otra wallet (del tipo que sea) para clonar la original, pudiendo mover los bitcoins sin problemas. Para esto no hace falta hacer realmente realizar un sim swapping, sino sencillamente llamar a personas de las listas, encontrar alguno que esté realmente pez, y proceder al timo del técnico que te resuelve el problema … de manera permanente … |
|
|
|
Not much to go on from a quantitative point of view, but the following provides some (perhaps biased) qualitative insights as to how well planned and tested our crypto inheritance is in a given moment in time: Halloween inspired poll –would your Bitcoins get passed on if you suddenly died? Results (Poll run for 15 days) Roughly 2/3 of our assets are at some level of risk currently of not being inherited (as I said, this is likely biased), and although throughout one’s lifetime one will likely reflect, and deploy some sort of temptative solution, many things can go wrong both out our side and the inheritor’s side. Even being technological savy does not warrant anything as we’ve recently seen. All in all, less effective circulating supply over time … |
|
|
|
<…>
They’d need to access your device physically. The leaked data will though make you very much prone to phishing/smishing attacks, possibly to sim-swapping, and one can never discard something taken on to a physical level (but so can that happen for having such and such a vehicle, living in a certain neighbourhood, etc.). Most of these vectors would apply to any assets you have outside the scope of protection of the Ledger device, which are now open vectors created as a side effect, which one will need to be wary of to mitigate accordingly. All necessary tutorials are on the Ledger site itself. |
|
|
|
<...>
It’s something related to a stand-alone analysis I did some time ago, where I used that notation, and since the Merit Dashboard includes some of these analysis, the terminology and subjacent calculus stuck. The distinction I make here is as follows: Note: New Era Newbie: First Merit >= 17/09/2018; Old Era Newbie: First Merit < 17/09/2018.
The origin is therefore as cited above, and derived from the times the 1 Merit requirement was introduced to become a Jr. Member. Edit: These avatars are misleading ... |
|
|
|
Data as of 22/01/2021Updated the lists in the OP (and subsequent post) to reflect the forum members that still qualify in each of those lists. Currently, on those lists there are, lacking <= 20% merits to rank-up (activity may not be met though): - 42 Heroes (on their way to Legendries) - 71 Sr. Members (on their way to Heroes) - 55 Full Members (on their way to Sr. Members) - 51 Members (on their way to Full Members) - 198 Jr. Members (on their way to Members) Added this week (15): user_id name Status posts activity activity_Met merit rank ProbableInitialRank trust url
374628 rdbase Active 4614 1666 Y* 825 Hero Member Full Member =+9 / =1 / -0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=374628
805294 cryptomaxsun Active 3831 1778 Y* 812 Hero Member Hero Member =+0 / =0 / -0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=805294
1422438 Paolo.Demidov Active 2232 1106 Y* 801 Hero Member Old Era Newbie =+2 / =0 / -0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1422438
1795724 GrosWesh Active 2648 1078 Y* 800 Hero Member Old Era Newbie =+1 / =0 / -0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1795724
2449551 plvbob0070 Active 1953 644 Y 400 Sr. Member New Era Newbie =+1 / =1 / -1 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2449551
761729 gembitz Active 6154 1330 Y 400 Sr. Member Sr. Member # +0 / =0 / -3 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=761729
312919 CounterEntropy Active 195 195 N 201 Full Member Full Member =+0 / =0 / -0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=312919
2521454 Stanlo Active 918 714 Y 91 Member New Era Newbie =+0 / =0 / -0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2521454
1333577 Serious475 Active 562 546 Y 83 Member Member =+0 / =0 / -0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1333577
2597241 Unbunplease Active 1158 630 Y 80 Member New Era Newbie =+0 / =2 / -0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2597241
2835857 cryptoboss2020 Active 837 182 Y 8 Jr. Member New Era Newbie =+0 / =0 / -3 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2835857
1170582 9kek Active 90 90 Y 8 Jr. Member New Era Newbie =+0 / =0 / -0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1170582
2862048 Shubh7668 Active 35 35 N 8 Jr. Member New Era Newbie =+0 / =0 / -0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2862048
1281462 Beauzebut Active 57 56 N 8 Jr. Member New Era Newbie =+0 / =0 / -0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1281462
2802917 Tessnik Active 61 61 Y 8 Jr. Member New Era Newbie =+0 / =0 / -0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2802917
(*) this week (12): user_id name Status posts activity activity_Met merit rank ProbableInitialRank trust url
2376653 Coyster Active 2354 812 Y* 511 Hero Member New Era Newbie =+0 / =0 / -0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2376653
2546135 mandown Active 3948 714 N 507 Hero Member New Era Newbie =+0 / =1 / -0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2546135
1024933 RaltcoinsB Active 3678 924 Y* 505 Hero Member Full Member =+0 / =0 / -0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1024933
1137579 icopress Active 461 434 N 510 Sr. Member Member =+5 / =0 / -0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1137579
2632934 Krubster Active 184 184 N 259 Full Member New Era Newbie =+0 / =1 / -0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2632934
2830659 execijutiere Active 889 196 N 107 Full Member New Era Newbie =+0 / =0 / -0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2830659
2836461 Poker Player Active 556 182 N 106 Full Member New Era Newbie =+0 / =0 / -0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2836461
477706 Tash Active 1151 700 Y 100 Full Member New Era Newbie =+0 / =0 / -0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=477706
1143990 Dave1 Active 116 98 N 107 Member New Era Newbie =+0 / =0 / -0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1143990
2796716 jgonzi Active 313 252 Y 11 Member New Era Newbie =+0 / =0 / -0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2796716
1575273 El Loco Active 568 336 Y 11 Member New Era Newbie =+0 / =0 / -0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1575273
2874970 BlackViruse Active 54 54 N 11 Jr. Member New Era Newbie =+0 / =0 / -0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2874970
(*) Due to enough merits for the next rank, or being banned.
|
|
|
|
Update 22/01/2021:The dashboard gives you access to anyone’s complete merit history in the TX tab, surpassing the 120 day limit. Link: BitcoinTalk Merit Dashboard. Updated the Merit Dashboard to reflect the most recent sMerit available data: Total sMerit: 835.877 Total TXs: 449.707 From Users: 23.035 To Users: 37.392 minDate: 2018-01-24 22:12:21 maxDate: 2021-01-22 02:49:59 Aggregate awarded sMerit for the last complete week (11/01/2021 .. 17/01/2021) is 3.985, which is down 0,23% from the previous week. In addition, there are 0 new Legendary and 3 new Hero Members this week: Coyster -> Hero Member from New Era Newbie during Merit System kick-off. mandown -> Hero Member from New Era Newbie during Merit System kick-off. RaltcoinsB -> Hero Member from Full Member during Merit System kick-off. Note:
-Copper Members and non-native ranks (staff, etc) are displayed as real (regular) ranks.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
