I still can't login with my password. Export the private key and anything else you can find in there, and start using a real wallet from now on  Electrum for instance. |
|
|
|
I have recovered my og vanity address  You may want to print the private key this time Address:1edgym1sR5wLyhiziT8nk5spF1MUWAJcA
Message:Today is 2nd July 2022. This is edgycorner and I have restored my wallet :p
Signature:G0uQsqq83Ou00rcgZxPArZFlkBECAjbMbxuBgCtKil+gEhIttbJECpcFYhn0DbiZGEtMwTzQFOFPhI1JlpcWcLI=
Verified! Does that mean your newly staked address is no longer relevant? Address:1SiDiZqbAUN4TvyCCbSM4g1SLiwxedgVt
Message:Today is 27th of June 2022. This address is owned by edgycorner.
Signature:HIVJozDmMMtjnAKGUhcjT98OLIOcwUQZhSiVV05Rp2gQPl314TqwHTqcOWwonLlBZSNMgvVG18M/Us89vHUvKrE= Or, to be thorough, you can sign a message from your old address to confirm the new one. |
|
|
|
Disclaimer:Theymos updated DT1 while I was scraping Trust scores. That means half of this week's Trust scores is based on last month's DT1-distribution, and the other half is based on current DT1-members. The DT1-update is also the cause of today's delay: I forgot to update my list, and didn't want to keep inaccurate data on DT1. Update:Starting point to avoid loading the large index page: Trust list for: El duderino_ (Trust: +29 / =1 / -0) (8758 Merit earned) (Trust list) (BPIP). Or use https://loyce.club/profile.html?id=1067333 (BPIP isn't updated yet).
|
|
|
|
I would put the question the other way around. Do you think there is much time left legally speaking for services that are dedicated to obscuring the origin of funds? I think we have to fight for every bit of privacy we have left! That leaving aside that I am not very clear on the basis of what legal vacuum mixers operate, because in normal conditions a company that provides services to Italian citizens, should charge VAT and pay it to the government of Italy, which I doubt very much that the mixers do. There's no VAT on exchanging money, right? That would make buying dollars very expensive in Italy, and just as expensive to exchange them back after your vacation. I'll take this post from another topic here: From Janyiah's feedback: Admin BestChange.com June 30, 2022, 21:47
Hello!
There is no mark in monitoring about possible verification because verification is not carried out at the exchange service.
The situation with your order is another, the funds from you were not received by the exchange service and were frozen by the exchange, which requested verification, because the funds have the status Stolen 100%.
By creating and confirming your initial order, you have agreed to all the terms and conditions of the exchanger. The rule 7.7 of terms says about situations with frozen funds.
Verification is one of the most common and effective ways of following the AML and KYC policies.
In this case it is not possible to resolve this situation without providing the requested information to the exchange office. Who is "the exchange" who didn't receive the funds but froze it anyway? You make it sound as if the exchanger doesn't own the deposit address they ask the user to send funds to (but again: they froze it anyway). In this case “the exchange” is a custodial service which uses OpenChange to receive funds. That’s why although practically the funds were transferred within crypto wallets, but the accrual to the inner balance of OpenChange in this custodial service didn’t happened because of the highest AML-risk. I still don't get it. Does this mean Janyiah sent his Bitcoin to a third party, and not to OpenChange? Who thought this is a good idea? It now sounds like OpenChange uses deposit addresses owned by another exchange, and not their own funds. If that's the case, the Reserve: $175 804 859 probably isn't correct. |
|
|
|
This is a keyboard/OS feature, not a website feature. On a computer, CTRL-Z is easy. On mobile, there are actually a few solutions, such as swipe left with 2 fingers on Samsung keyboard (note: I just found this, and haven't tested it). But I'm not using that keyboard, and it's not important enough to switch. Let's face it: phones are just terrible for typing, especially for editing quotes. Get a laptop  |
|
|
|
I watched a few disassembly videos. It's a very easy process. Requires a precision screwdriver tho. Which I don't have rn. I just want to charge the battery externally and put it back. Are you sure that's possible without blowing it up? The battery has a very small charging connector, and I don't think you can just connect it to a 4.0V power supply to charge it without battery monitoring. |
|
|
|
We don’t have a notion of a “negative review” on our website These are the options: Positive Comment Complaint This sure looks like negative feedback to me! the red marks unsolved financial claims to the service. The problem is that the service can decide when it's "resolved". And, no surprise, they all "resolve" everything! it was implemented for the sake of protection from "consumer terrorism" That's a lousy excuse. Every services on the planet can receive unwarranted negative reviews somewhere on the internet. That makes it up to the customer to decide how they value reviews. Giving the service the power to censor reviews makes the reviews utterly useless and worse: misleading. Please understand that AML does not threaten the integrity of bitcoin ecosystem as such, but it only limits the work with gateways between the traditional financial system and the crypto world. Of course I know Bitcoin itself will still work. That's not the point. AML doesn't mean you can confiscate someone's funds because a previous owner may have committed a crime. That is what fungibility means. AML also doesn't mean an exchange can return the funds after receiving KYC documents. |
|
|
|
From Janyiah's feedback: Admin BestChange.com June 30, 2022, 21:47
Hello!
There is no mark in monitoring about possible verification because verification is not carried out at the exchange service.
The situation with your order is another, the funds from you were not received by the exchange service and were frozen by the exchange, which requested verification, because the funds have the status Stolen 100%.
By creating and confirming your initial order, you have agreed to all the terms and conditions of the exchanger. The rule 7.7 of terms says about situations with frozen funds.
Verification is one of the most common and effective ways of following the AML and KYC policies.
In this case it is not possible to resolve this situation without providing the requested information to the exchange office. Who is "the exchange" who didn't receive the funds but froze it anyway? You make it sound as if the exchanger doesn't own the deposit address they ask the user to send funds to (but again: they froze it anyway). In this case “the exchange” is a custodial service which uses OpenChange to receive funds. That’s why although practically the funds were transferred within crypto wallets, but the accrual to the inner balance of OpenChange in this custodial service didn’t happened because of the highest AML-risk. I still don't get it. Does this mean Janyiah sent his Bitcoin to a third party, and not to OpenChange? Who thought this is a good idea? |
|
|
|
No exchange can confiscate your funds legally without a court order, they can freeze your account for a period but doing so because you have failed KYC would require them to inform the authorities where they operate about this transaction immediately. There is no such thing as these funds look stolen then we freeze it and we unfreeze it the moment you send us a pic of an id, this is illegal on so many levels it doesn't even need to be discussed. Very well explained. This is what makes "Openchange" look like a scam! |
|
|
|
People tried this before, publishing private messages and lying for a sting operation isn't appreciated by everyone. Are you by any chance referring to that sting operation that Lauda and others did a couple of years back, or was there another attempt like this to get account sellers to give up the details that was rebuffed by the community? I couldn't find the link from mobile, but it's bob123's topic from 3 years ago: Flagging accounts which are up to sale. |
|
|
|
BestChange should intervene. They responded twice, see Janyiah's feedback: Admin BestChange.com June 30, 2022, 20:14
Hello!
We request the exchanger's administrator to respond to the user's complaint.
Best regards, BestChange administration. Admin BestChange.com June 30, 2022, 21:47
Hello!
There is no mark in monitoring about possible verification because verification is not carried out at the exchange service.
The situation with your order is another, the funds from you were not received by the exchange service and were frozen by the exchange, which requested verification, because the funds have the status Stolen 100%.
By creating and confirming your initial order, you have agreed to all the terms and conditions of the exchanger. The rule 7.7 of terms says about situations with frozen funds.
Verification is one of the most common and effective ways of following the AML and KYC policies.
In this case it is not possible to resolve this situation without providing the requested information to the exchange office. None of this makes sense: if funds are stolen, sending documents to an anonymous website isn't going to change that. But they say they'll return it after receiving documents. Note that the feedback has been bumped 48 times: BestChange allows the exchanger to cancel the claim (this happened 20 times). Then, Janyiah can renew the claim (which happened 19 times). That alone is very shady: imagine if any user on Bitcointalk could turn their negative feedback into neutral just by clicking it.
This brings another interesting question: what happens to "tained" Bitcoins once a service decides they're "tainted" (based on completely arbitrary criteria)? I wouldn't be surprised if they use this as an excuse to keep funds for themselves, AKA stealing. It's not as if they know Bob stole the Bitcoins from Alice, and they return them to Alice. So what's the plan after announcing some Bitcoins as "tainted"? |
|
|
|
Openchange.cash's Contact page shows an email address. No phone number, no company address, no country of origin. That alone is reason enough to never send them any documents, and I'm pretty sure such an anonymous company doesn't care about " combating the financing of terrorism" and the other big words in their AML policy. They like to refer to "international law", which is as broad as it can be: In accordance with international law Openchange.me is not obliged to inform the Client that it was reported to the corresponding bodies of the Client's suspicious activity. What does that even mean? A totally anonymous website is going to report Janyiah201 to some "international government"? I doubt it! This sounds like it's designed to keep your money. The policy on the .cash domain only refers to the .me domain. According to BestChange, OpenChange.cash is from Russia. That's the closest thing to an "address" I found. It's funny that you signed up to use openchange.cash but did not read their ToS and AML policy that were right there before you confirmed
~
Sincerely, who is to blame here?
Did you sign up on gun point? It doesn't worry you that an anonymous entity demands people to share their legal documents? It worries me! I'm okay with legit companies following the law in the country they're registered in. I'm also okay with totally anonymous services that solely rely on their reputation. But I'm not okay with anonymous entities cherry picking which rules do or don't apply to them. They call it a privacy policy, but it has nothing to do with that.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
