Con Paypal fuera de escena desde hace un año, ahora parece que tanto Visa (de manera temporal por ahora) como Mastercard (de manera permanente) van a dejar de admitir pagos realizados en Pornhub desde hoy mismo. Aunque quedan un par de tarjetas aceptadas (JCB y Discover), este baneo por parte de los medios de pago probablemente impulse el pago con Bitcoin en la plataforma, así como algunas criptomonedas que aceptan adicionalmente. No me espero que el precio de BTC varíe debido a esto … Ver: https://insidebitcoins.com/news/btc-friendly-pornhob-loses-visa-mastercard-payments-after-allegations |
|
|
|
Hace poco más de un año, vi un artículo (Medium) donde se narraba un caso de uso a modo de ejemplo. Lo describí en su momento de la siguiente manera: I found this interesting exercise on the topic: https://medium.com/bull-bitcoin/the-crypto-diversification-trap-6744b0a954a6It goes on to show what a diversified portafolio, suggested by Brian Kelly on CNBC in 2017, looks like today. It displays the portfolio value in USD and the cost of opportunity on BTC. Fine, the article is not at it’s best (too many freak images), and perhaps the portafolio is not my piece of cake, but the author performed an interesting exercise. To cut a long story short, the suggested portafolio back in 2017 by Brian Kelly was: (only) 30% Bitcoin, 15% Ethereum, 15% Ethereum Classic, 10% ZCash, 10% Monero, 10% Ripple, 5% Metal (wtf?) and 5% Iota. The result is that, if you invested 10K in August 2017 into the above diversified crypto-portfolio, two years later you would have ended being up +33,56%. The thing is, when you go into the details, Bitcoin rendered the vast majority of the benefit, and only Ripple and Monero contributed marginally to the benefit. The others were at a sever loss. The cost of opportunity in diversifying in the sample case is that, had you invested it all in Bitcoin initially, your 10K would be now (August 2019) worth 26,6K (+266,84% vs the 33,56% made). Of course that is just an example, but one of what advice a couple of years ago would have led to today. La base partía de una sugerencia de portafolio de criptomonedas, elaborada por Brian Kelly de la CNBC en el 2017. Dos años más tarde, el autor del artículo miró qué tal se había comportado ese mismo portafolio, y concluyó que el valor se había incrementado esencialmente debido a Bitcoin. La cartera incrementó su valor un 33,56%, versus +266,84% si lo hubiese hecho sólo en Bitcoin. Caso podemos poner a miles, pero la gracia de éste era coger uno que se había sugerido en la CNBC, y ver su evolución. |
|
|
|
<…>
These companies have investors behind, and are subject to recurrent audits, where the purchases are going to be verified. It’s not very likely that they’ll make a public announcement in a terrain that is not tied to their core business, for a few minor headlines here and there, only to come out looking bad against their stakeholders for not being honest about it. |
|
|
|
<…> Como regla general, las altcoins, después de un tiempo, superarán a bitcoin. <…>
¿En qué te basas exactamente para esta afirmación tan taxativa? ¿Superar en qué (valor, marketcap, utilidad, reserva, confianza, extensión, etc.)? Claro que las hay con más valor unitario, o que en algún momento han tenido crecimientos tremebundos (normalmente a raíz de un pump&dump), pero habría que especificar de qué estamos hablando (utilidad, especulación) y la durabilidad esperada del efecto. Hay algunas monedas alts que tienen su utilidad, y pueden convivir en una cartera junto con Bitcoin, pero la mayoría, históricamente, han sido tildadas como "shitcoins" por algo. |
|
|
|
<…> Como moderador local podríamos hacer una votación aunque estando tan poquitos como estamos ahora no sé si es la mejor opción. Yo basándome en lo que he visto estos últimos meses adelanto que votaría por <…>
Hay muy pocos subforos con más de un moderador asignado. De los foros locales, he visto el indonesio y el ruso, y me da que, con nuestro volumen de actividad, la idea tendría poco recorrido. Comentar que en algún momento pasado hablé brevemente del tema con la dirección del foro, y en su momento me decanté por no postularme al cargo de moderador de nuestro foro local. <…>
En mi caso, veo que tengo el 100% de los reportes gestionados, tanto relativos al foro local como en otras partes. De ello derivo que sí se están mirando y procesando aquí, pero que algunos no sean sencillos de dictaminar, y puede que ante la duda en su resolución se decida dejarlos como "unhandled". |
|
|
|
Data as of 11/12/2020Updated 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): - 36 Heroes (on their way to Legendries) - 67 Sr. Members (on their way to Heroes) - 55 Full Members (on their way to Sr. Members) - 48 Members (on their way to Full Members) - 189 Jr. Members (on their way to Members) Added this week (none): user_id name Status posts activity activity_Met merit rank ProbableInitialRank trust url
(*) this week (10): user_id name Status posts activity activity_Met merit rank ProbableInitialRank trust url
1925869 Tytanowy Janusz Active 2406 952 - 1002 Legendary Old Era Newbie =+2 / =0 / -0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1925869
1862043 cryptofrka Active 3387 1008 Y* 503 Hero Member Old Era Newbie =+1 / =1 / -0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1862043
1626490 safar1980 Active 699 476 N 502 Sr. Member New Era Newbie =+0 / =0 / -0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1626490
1570182 Basiak Active 670 378 N 265 Sr. Member New Era Newbie =+0 / =0 / -0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1570182
2593173 Unsoldier Active 459 459 N 258 Sr. Member New Era Newbie =+0 / =0 / -0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2593173
241548 Rizzrack Active 257 257 N 251 Sr. Member New Era Newbie =+1 / =1 / -0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=241548
2680306 0x256 Active 257 257 N 250 Sr. Member New Era Newbie =+0 / =0 / -0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2680306
229829 vladman Active 66 66 N 10 Member New Era Newbie =+0 / =0 / -0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=229829
2859133 Unicap.finance Active 39 39 N 12 Jr. Member New Era Newbie =+0 / =1 / -0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2859133
330516 Nthelight Active 56 56 N 10 Jr. Member New Era Newbie =+0 / =0 / -0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=330516
(*) Due to enough merits for the next rank, or being banned.
|
|
|
|
Por lo visto, hay varios IDs distintos en las URLs de phishing que están circulando estos días. No son nominales, y no sé si estarán testando distintos mensajes para ver los resultados (sobre distintas URLs de phishing). ledger[dot]com[dot]634644[dot]app
ledger[dot]com[dot]837729[dot]app
ledger[dot]com[dot]565333[dot]app
ledger[dot]com[dot]453455[dot]app
ledger[dot]com[dot]342344[dot]app
ledger[dot]com[dot]device[dot]id[dot]837729[dot]app
ledger[dot]com[dot]device[dot]id[dot]634644[dot]app
ledger[dot]com[dot]device[dot]id[dot]565333[dot]app
ledger[dot]com[dot]device[dot]id[dot]453455[dot]app
ledger[dot]com[dot]device[dot]id[dot]342344[dot]app
ledger[dot]com[dot]device[dot]id[dot]756728[dot]app
ledger[dot]com[dot]device[dot]id[dot]727783[dot]app
ledger[dot]com[dot]device[dot]id[dot]657377[dot]app
ledger[dot]com[dot]device[dot]id[dot]893900[dot]app
ledger[dot]com[dot]device[dot]id[dot]745583[dot]app
ledger[dot]com[dot]device[dot]id[dot]688338[dot]app
ledger[dot]com[dot]device[dot]id[dot]883882[dot]app
ledger[dot]com[dot]device-u23-verification[dot]app
ledger[dot]com[dot]device-e72-verification[dot]app
ledger[dot]com[dot]verification-login-s61[dot]app
ledger[dot]com[dot]acc-verification-login[dot]app
ledger[dot]com[dot]device[dot]id[dot]7537472[dot]app
ledger[dot]com[dot]hardware[dot]id[dot]54656346[dot]app
ledger[dot]com[dot]device[dot]id[dot]6567288[dot]app
ledger[dot]com[dot]hardware[dot]id[dot]953781832[dot]app
xn--ldr-qsa2998aca[dot]com
ledger[dot]com-settings[dot]device-id-45682[dot]app
xn--lede-dxa93a[dot]com
Ver: https://www.reddit.com/r/ledgerwallet/comments/kaasmt/ledger_security_breach_please_update_your_pin/Estos intentos a veces dan con un buen botín, para desgracia del que cae en ellos. Un usuario reportó recientemente haber conversado por las redes sociales con alguien que perdido 50K$, al caer en la trampa … Ver: https://coinfomania.com/bitcoiner-loses-50k-life-savings-ledger-phishing/#utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=bitcoiner-loses-50k-life-savings-ledger-phishing |
|
|
|
I just encountered a case like this this morning. There was a thread on Bitcoin Discussion with the following OP: The rate at which bitcoins are unrecoverably lost?
I have read that 20% of all bitcoin been already lost. People lost they keys, or people died, etc. As bitcoin becomes more mainstream, is it easonable to expect that more and more bitcoins will be lost? And that even one day, all of bitcoin may be lost?
I can’t find the topic (5298720.0) in modlog, so I can’t attest the rank of the OP, but if anyone really needs to plagiarize content like that, which barely takes 3 minutes to think and write, then they’ve really got an issue. As it, turns out, it was plagiarized from https://www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinBeginners/comments/ka9kx3/the_rate_at_which_bitcoins_are_unrecoverably_lost/ (assuming the author was different), which led to the thread being trashed, alongside my post, amongst others. Not a big issue, but I’d still rather receive a notification, instead of having to go on a longer route to find out which post of mine was deleted and why. |
|
|
|
<…>
Hacía una semana que no actualizaba los datos del Coinmarketcap Dashboard, así que he procedido (me cuesta menos de 5 minutos). Según los datos reflejados, aún no hemos superado el ATH del 17/12/2017, siendo el valor más alto del 2020 19.846$ por ahora. Si que el valor de apertura más alto histórico se ha dado en el 2020: 19.634$ el 01/12/2020. Lo del referente del ATH va por barrios. Los hay que se fijan en su Exchange predilecto, y los que utilizan valores ponderados como hace CoinMarketcap. |
|
|
|
What this malicious site seemingly does, is clone Ledger’s real website, keeping most of the pointers still redirecting to the proper site, except for the download options related to Ledger Live for Desktops, where the file you’ll obtain is downloaded from their own website (i.e. not redirected to the original site). Specifically, all three entries (Windows app, Mac app, Linux app) point to the same file (each entry should link to a different platform-based file). I’ve carefully downloaded the file (not a recomended practice), and VirusTotal does not report anything on the file itself. In fact, it has exactly the same file information as the download from the legit Ledger site. I've checked the SHA-512, for the downloaded file from both the legit site and the cloned site, and the file currently renders the same SHA-512 in both cases: 861bce8795f50c0b545ba8a51047f8e7b3ba38fdacefc3eb2eebbcda4b8d68ff1999af4df3f5759 6d770bcb7cc821449c6b675edf40d309e7da0437a9611b84c Which is correct according to https://ledger-live-tools.now.sh/lld-signatures, where I arrived from within https://github.com/LedgerHQ/ledger-live-desktop. It is seemingly pointing currently to the proper version, but that can be changed in a second, and a rouge version could be deployed instead anytime. |
|
|
|
A couple of weeks ago, we saw another conclusion base on a customer survey from deVere being extrapolated over an entire population of Millionaires (see re: Millionaires FOMO: 73% Will Own Bitcoin by 2022, Survey ). The deVere survey on Milennials focuses on over 700 millennial clients, as per their own wording. That means that, if the survey group is well selected and distributed, the conclusion may be right in the context of their own customers, and perhaps that of customers of similar corporations. What would be interesting is to perform a street level survey in different whereabouts, and then compare the results, as well as seeing the amount who answer that they haven’t got a clue. Customers of a financial consultancy such as deVere are going to be more alike and investment versed than a similar group randomly chosen at street level, thus what the survey concludes may not be applicable to the general millennial population. |
|
|
|
Se especula que el BBVA va iniciar también su oferta de servicios de compra/venta de Bitcoin en breve, gestionando dichos servicios desde Suiza. Se indica (sin que sea a ciencia cierta), que el BBVA podría estar utilizando los mismos soportes que utiliza Gazprombank. Es prácticamente inevitable que los bancos se adentren en este terreno en el corto plazo, y me imagino que, bajo el punto de vista del cliente, la operativa base no distará demasiado de la de Paypal, con la adición de productos derivados e indexados. Ver: https://www.criptonoticias.com/finanzas/bbva-estaria-planes-integrar-servicios-compraventa-bitcoin/ |
|
|
|
<…>
I really despise receiving any call pitching a sale of any kind. More often than not, the call is from a competitor of a service I have, trying to move you over to their company, using deceiving techniques and not being transparent at all. Then there’s the bunch that call to try to scam you with the lame pretext of "yurr computer has a virrus", trying to lure you to install some software that will allow them to take over your computer. There’s a bunch of crypto related phone made scam attempts, made by phony companies that lure people to invest in BTC et al, with the prospect of high returns. I’ve read cases of old people falling for this, waving good bye to a large chunk of their live’s savings. I have therefore no sympathy for cold call phone sellers. In general, if one doesn’t opt-in, they should not receive these pestering calls under a B2C prism. <...> I can't say how it is in other countries of the world, but I have the opportunity to enter my phone number in a register that is simply called "Don't call me" and then no one is allowed by law to call me and sell something over the phone.
Yes, they do exist, although there are many that still fail to cross their call DB with these so called Robinson lists (not to mention that scammers won’t pay attention to them to begin with). I’m actually on these Robinson lists, but still … |
|
|
|
It’s probably the best easy solution to enhance personal authentication security, but the account protected by 2FA is not immune from social engineering attacks to actually trick support into switching 2FA off on a given account, nor, in broader terms, from malware that can actually capture your codes and send them off to a backend remote server. For example, the banking Trojan malware called Cerberus is potentially capable of stealing and resending your 2FA codes. It’s perhaps not too extended as a method, but the possibility is real. See: https://www.zdnet.com/article/android-malware-can-steal-google-authenticator-2fa-codes/ |
|
|
|
|
The thing is to apply Blockchain not where applicable, but where it’s application makes proper sense. The essence behind is built on its immutability and transparency (be it public, or delimited in scope for a certain business area), which lead to applications in the field where trust is a core value to guarantee.
Many corporations dedicate resources to investigation and innovation, and Blockchain is one of those areas being looked into. That does not mean that these corporations will, in effect, eventually end-up using Blockchain further than an in a pilot project, and some overdo marketing the use of Blockchain in projects where there is no real benefit in it in relation to developing a solution based on more conventional software.
|
|
|
|
<.> Question to those merit senders (DdmrDdmr (2), OgNasty (1), ETFbitcoin (1), mk4 (1), 20kevin20 (1), GazetaBitcoin (1)),
Did it look like the introduction (2 paragraphs) was entirely the author's (@Ratimov) own words when you sent the merits?
Since I’m quoted here for meriting (albeit this being an irrelevant fact) the thread being deconstructed, I’ll provide my input as to what I saw when reading through the referenced thread. What I saw was an elaborate thread, that contained interesting information, far from the usual type of content, and that was appealing to read. I’ve already merited @Ratimov multiple times, so there was no need to vet the content like I often do with first-timers. By vet, I mean see if there was a reference to the source, and determine whether the content surpassed the copy/paste that many newly created accounts resort to (without link -> plagiarism; with link -> unsubstantial post in general). I did enjoy the read, and the structure looked like the typical layout of a posting author’s compiled and worded set of comments, with embedded verbatim quotes. I therefore did assume, as I’d generally do on mentally vetted profiles, that the non-quoted parts of the post were indeed essentially @Ratimov’s wording, not original content, since drafting original content when laying out historical information is not that common. I do recall seeing the reference to the sources, and clicking on the first two. Having no wish for further readings on the topic at the time, and being thrown back by the (understandable) format of the first two sources (*), I scrolled back to the top, pressed the Merit button, and went for my puffed-up hyper generous procedure of awarding 2 sMerits (as opposed to my mean 1 sMerit usual). Now is this plagiarism? It depends on the prism we are using. From the perspective of the forum, the reference/s are there, so it complies with what is ordinarily common law around here, and cannot be deemed as Bitcointalk rule-type interpreted tradition plagiarism, as (unofficial) rules stand. From an academic point of view, any thesis with this degree of non-original wording would be pointed out, and the author would by all means fail his thesis. When are we going to have a original wording indicator (percentage) for each post? I would certainly take it into heavy consideration when meriting, but I guess this question surpasses the meriting factor. (*) The third source is of course the key, but being in Russian, I would probably not have really looked at it upon reflecting on the fact, thus missing the visually similar layout, which, dealing with a vetted profile, I would probably not have looked into. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
