No he visto nada adicional que no esté recogido en la Web de Cryptopia (https://www.cryptopia.co.nz/) y en los comunicados que tienen al respecto:

-   En Diciembre 2020 emitirán un comunicado respecto de los avances y el proceso de reclamación.
-   Tendrás que presentar una reclamación a través de un portal que aún no está creado, y se supone estará de cara a finales del 2020.
-   Habrá proceso KYC (aunque lo hubieses hecho previamente con el difunto Exchange).

Esta información supongo que será lo que recibiste por email, y parece no haber nada más oficialmente. Reddit tiene algunos comentarios de usuarios, pero nada del otro mundo (https://www.reddit.com/r/Cryptopia/).

En Bitcoin Duscussion, publiqué hace 15 días una encuesta para ver qué grado de confianza tenemos en que, en caso de un fallecimiento repentino y súbito, nuestros herederos se haría con la herencia de nuestros Bitcoins (otra cosa diferente es saber manejarlos).

Pongo aquí los resultados, dado que me ha parecido un ejercicio interesante de reflexión, y aunque las respuestas son meramente 80 (nada concluyente), si nos da una visión de la problemática, dándonos pie a reflexionar al respecto:


Halloween inspired poll –would your Bitcoins get passed on if you suddenly died?

Si asumimos que los valores de certeza del 90% y del 100% son más o menos sinónimos, vemos que hay una gran parte de los partícipes que no tiene nada claro que sus herederos efectivamente se hiciesen con los Bitcoins a heredar, bien por falta de planificación por nuestra parte, por la complejidad que supone, o la falta de interés y/o capacidad del heredero.

-   41,3% están bastante seguros de que sus herederos heredarían los Bitcoins.

-   58,8% no lo están (y gran parte está segura de que no)

Da que pensar … (y eso que sólo hablamos aquí de una moneda, no digamos si abrimos la mano a un portafolio más complejo y heretogeneo).

The poll has been running for 15 days, which is the scheduled timeframe. After 80 votes, the results are as follows (also added to the OP):



Let’s consider 90% and 100% as rough synonyms here. The results, although 80 participations is low to conclude, do constitute a window that allows us to see that passing on our Bitcoins is not plain simple, and that, were the events to be developed in an abrupt manner, the majority has no certainty that their Bitcoins would be passed on to their heirs:

-   41,3% are pretty certain that their heirs would be able to access the inherited Bitcoins.
-   58,8% are not (and quite a large part of these are pretty certain they would not).

This is normally something we don’t take into consideration too much, but perhaps it’s time to do so …

I’ve created a Google Doc with all the accumulated data as of last Friday, in case anyone wants to take a look:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_vYXRLlMQsdsw2teukQMZ-4vL3YE8J-tuR1zAP8sM9s/edit?usp=sharing

Columns:
meritReceived: Number of received earned Merits
nUsers:            Number of Users that have received meritReceived Merits
nUsersAcc:      Number of Accumulated nUsers (as we scroll down the list)
MeritsGroup:   meritReceived * nUsers
%AccMerits:    % of overall merits, Accumulated as we scroll down the list
%AccUsers:    % of overall merited Users, Accumulated as we scroll down the list

So in order to see how many users have earned at least 10 Merits, we’d go down to row 641 and we’ll see that 9.768 users have earned at least that amount. Likewise, row 643 shows that 13.857 users have earned at least 5 Merits.
The top 30K (earned) merited profiles are really read on row 647, rendering 1 Merit or above.

Additionally, we can see on row 316 that the top 1% merited users now accumulate 47,13% of the earned merits, and on row 637 we can read that the top 19,63% accumulate 88,70% of earned merits. The update for the overall data is now that of:

Top 1% merited -> 47,13% of total amount of earned merits.
Top 2% merited -> 59,08% of total amount of earned merits.
Top 3,02% merited -> 65,70% of total amount of earned merits.
Top 4,01% merited -> 70,07% of total amount of earned merits.
Top 5,02% merited -> 73,26% of total amount of earned merits.
Top 10,13% merited -> 82,07% of total amount of earned merits.
Top 19,63% merited -> 88,70% of total amount of earned merits.

Google trends may be an indicator to ponder, but not a certainty on which to base decisions solely. To start with, it does not display sentiment nor causality. You see when the term sought for increases or decreases, but you probably know that from the media buzz anyway, and you still have to interpret the trends.

A couple of additional things to consider:

- Google trends data is relative, not absolute. That means that you are seeing information relative to all other searches made on the internet. Mass searches due to a pandemic will lessen the relative score of Bitcoin vs global searches for example, so we don’t have a real measure (even though Bitcoin searches could be increasing, but not as much as Pandemic searches).

- Although perhaps not significantly in amounts, the values can be doctored (or at least Google can mess things up from time to time). For example, during Augost/September 2019, the term ‘BTC’ spiked to unmatched values. ‘Bitcoin’ on the other hand did not. The prevailing theory back then was that someone managed to create mass queries on servers worldwide in order to influence some trading bot/algorithm.

See: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&q=btc,Bitcoin

Pues de lo anterior, me he quedado anclado en entender a qué se refiere por "Beta" (que, efectivamente, dista de lo que tenía en mente). Por Beta se entiende una medida de la volatilidad del producto, en relación al mercado en el cual se mueve el producto. Cuanto más alto el Beta, más volatilidad, riesgo, y potencial recompensa.

https://www.investopedia.com/investing/beta-know-risk/

En todo caso, es otro negacionista del Bitcoin que se torna converso.

Nota: Hay una pequeña errata en el artículo referenciado en el OP (una fecha que se ha desplazado una década en el tiempo), cosa que no sucede en la versión en inglés.

OP probably wants to know how to get to Member rank from Newbie (and not Newbie from Member as expressed), as that is likely what the OP is targeting, in order to enrol in some campaign. For that, simply going over some of the links provided on this thread, and observing a bit which posts receive merits here and there should suffice (need to unbury the head from bounties though).

Anecdotally, accounts can de-rank from Member to Newbie (or other combinations). Sometimes people get overzealous when deleting their posting history. Other times its deliberate and calculated, in order to leave an account squeaky clean (multiple potential reasons behind this). Since deleting posts can lead to the Activity being reduced, the additional effect can be that of going down one or more rank levels.

This is a set of 7 accounts that went from Member to Newbie (there are more, but I only trace those that were merited at some point): https://public.tableau.com/shared/WPFY5DJ3W?:display_count=y&:origin=viz_share_link

Las causas subyacentes parecen un tanto turbias por ahora – a ver si transciende algo más de lo que he leído tras la vista previa a celebrar en el día de hoy. Llevan sin permitir a los clientes acceder a sus activos desde el pasado 28/10/2020. OKEx por su parte lleva por su parte desde el 16/10/2020 sin que sus clientes puedan acceder. Creo que ambos casos son los más candentes ahora con relación a criptoactivos paralizados.

Seguimiento: https://www.donlinrecano.com/Clients/cred/Index

I have been seeing the same for a brief period of time, on a Firefox browser with Ublock Origin, but the effect seems to have evaporated after a while. I tried, at the time, with different browsers, and they did not display the grey matter on Meta’s last post area (no adblock type plugging on those).

The means by which the custody service is implemented will differ from one custodian to another, and that is perhaps something which should be more transparent per se, as more corporations implement their custodial services, or delegate on third-party custodians (i.e. Paypal using Paxos). There’s normally a combination of hot (for liquidity proposes) and cold storage, alongside safes, vaults, multisignature protection, hidden replicas, bunkers, … you name it.

The thing is, when we deposit crypto with a Custodian, we are not normally informed on the safety proceedings, which, whatever they may be, are sold as infallible, until they are breached. Exchanges have has a large trajectory of hacks, being Custodial themselves, and one can only wonder what will happen when banks generalize this type of service ...

I took 52 days to receive my see a single merit appear on my profile. Now that is not really anything to measure by, but it does denote that it is not something that is necessarily fast to obtain when one joins the forum. I recall my first merit was for an exaggerated scenario I comically depicted on my local board, in relation to Bitcoin price fluctuation. The second merit was on a post related to first steps on Ledger Nano S, and the third … an explanation of what "proof of authentication" meant (that one was multi-merited) …

All in all, there is no formal definition of Merit, and the concept is subjective, but overly, it denotes that the meriter found the post to be useful or interesting, or controversial, or novel, or informative, or well reasoned, or that required some effort, or that was a benefit to the community, … or that was funny, or that went against someone in particular, or that I scratch your back – please scratch mine … or whatever. More often than not though, it stated that the post has some substance to it, which is the core intent.

I’ve searched around for the list of targeted apps, but it is still nowhere to be found.

So what Ghimob does once installed and camouflaged, is read fields from the current active window, searching for specific terms, and then sends this information over to the hacker. Information such as login credentials, balance and statements are gathered, so the hacker will get to know both the financial status, and how to access the targeted accounts.

https://securelist.com/ghimob-tetrade-threat-mobile-devices/99228/

En España en particular, ayer se aprobó en el Congreso de los Diputados, el Proyecto de Ley para la transformación digital del sistema financiero (aún queda la aprobación del Senado). Dentro de la ley, se contempla la creación de un espacio de pruebas tuletadas, con el objeto de validar la convergencia de los proyectos con la regulación, antes de su arranque oficial en los mercados.

En este marco es donde se engloban los proyectos fintech con base en el blockchain y las criptomonedas. Es por tanto el punto de arranque a que veamos cómo los bancos lanzan sus productos y servicios con esta base, y no dudo de que veremos novedades a corto plazo en este terreno. Me espero de todo: desde criptomonedas para los pagos, hasta la compra/venta/custodia de Bitcoin y demás …

https://www.criptonoticias.com/regulacion/congreso-espana-aprueba-sandbox-regulatorio-innovaciones-fintech-bitcoin/

To further pursue what I was on about before on this thread, the following (not too deep) article contextualizes the resurge in price, and relates it to what it calls purchases made by Silicon Valley and ‘smart money’. Mainstream purchases are not current core drivers:

https://cointelegraph.com/news/silicon-valley-and-smart-money-are-behind-this-bitcoin-rally-data-suggests

People tend to flock to the well when it is springing all over common media news, and we’re not there yet (I figure surpassing the ATH is the real call action for the common media ...).

It’s not immediate, and there is a process that verifies the requirements and performs the changes in rank. It runs pretty frequently (every few minutes or so, I figure), and it seems it has already kicked-in for your account: Jr. Member rank achieved.

A veces, la frontera no está tan delimitada. El caso de los hackeos a cuentas de renombre de Twitter por ejemplo, devengó en un timo para los seguidores de estos perfiles que cayeron en la trampa del x2 BTCs. Hackean para luego timar, como vimos en algunos procesos de las ICOs, donde los hackers se hacían con el control de la página corporativa o las redes sociales asociadas, a fin de cambiar las direcciones de contribución para la adquisición de los tokens.

Por volumen no obstante, hay más intentos de timar (léase phishing, ofertas para ingenuos, consejeros en inversiones, y demás) que hackeos puros y duros, sobre los equipos personales, invirtiéndose las cifras cuando se trata de entidades corporativas. En este último caso, la motivación de los hackeos no necesariamente tiene que ver con la obtención de dinero directo rápido o mediante ransomware, sino que también están los orientados a obtener información sensible (que a la postre suele tener una derivación económica de alguna manera u otra).

A medida no obstante que tengamos elementos con rango económico en nuestros equipos, como es el caso de las wallets para las criptomonedas, el hackeo se torna una opción de interés, y lo es más en la medida que se pueda hacer con delegación sobre un malware, una suerte de hackeo por proxy.

In February of this year, Google has to remove around 500 Chrome extensions from the store. Many of them were Ad related, but others were malicious, and could redirect the traffic to a malware based site with phishing or rouge links to malware downloads.

A couple of months later, Google has to remove a batch of 49 Chrome extensions that were specifically targeting crypto wallets.

Chrome apps require you to give them certain permission to operate, but people tend to give them whatever they ask for without question. Consequently, it’s feasible for an extension to oversee your activity, log and resend information to a hacker.

See:
https://www.zdnet.com/article/google-removes-500-malicious-chrome-extensions-from-the-web-store/
https://www.zdnet.com/article/exclusive-google-removes-49-chrome-extensions-caught-stealing-crypto-wallet-keys/

One thing to consider is the privacy of the installation itself, and the buy/sell process. I’ve got a BTC ATM not too far away, which it is located within a store. The ATM is seemingly small, and I figure that all the cash needs to go through the teller (*), which is fine for some people (as they will aid them in the process), but personally, I’d rather not have to let someone know what amounts I’d purchase, nor the frequency of my habits.

(*) Not Quite as I thought it was at first glance: I just checked, and the ATM, which is pretty small in size, does accept bank notes, although I there does not seem to be a Credit Card slot option. It is though physically very close to the teller, who'd be able to see whatever goes on there pretty much. It is part of the business, as the intent is to be a proximity solution and aid their customers as much as possible.

The type of information I was looking for these days, but did not manage to find, was that of the number of new users in Exchanges per month. That would be interesting information to follow, but alas, there is no public information on it.

My gut feeling is that we are not near the popular FOMO of end of 2017/ beginning of 2018, where major Exchanges were increasing their number of accounts in the 100k/day (on aggregate (*)), and even had to block account creation for some days. I’d personally rather it would not replicate the exponential pattern, as the aftermaths on a non-organic growth is not pretty.

It’s possible that surpassing the ATH will have a call to the masses, hopefully in a smooth entry pattern. There is not ICO effect now, and the DEFI projects should not constitute a booster with the same effect as we saw a couple of years ago.

(*) 20180107: https://cointelegraph.com/news/exponential-growth-cryptocurrency-exchanges-are-adding-100000-users-per-day

En el plano personal, es un indicativo de qué tal se reporta, y aparte del ego como comentas, ayuda de alguna manera a saber qué tal lo va haciendo uno. Tiene un efecto lateral, y es que es posible que algunos decidan no reportar casos que no tienen del todo claro, para no perjudicar este indicador.
En todo caso, lo más práctico para mejorar en la efectividad de los reportes, es poder ver el historial de los reportes personales (últimos 30 días), lo cual se logra a partir de los 300 reportes correctos.

Bajo el punto de vista del foro, desconozco si los moderadores ven este indicador, y si lo tienen en cuenta para su labor (no me suena de nada). Si sé que se utiliza como unos de los principales criterios para seleccionar moderadores. Se mira el número de reportes, la tasa de efectividad, y dónde se producen los reportes, en una ventana de tiempo determinado. Hay más factores lógicamente, y supongo que se pondera con alto valor, lo conocido es uno (para bien) y la confianza que la dirección del foro tenga en él (y la objetividad espero).