ok, once I change all that the email, password and secret question, I have full control over the account? there is not some sort of password retrieval that would allow the seller access? your awesome thanks for the help
Unless the seller wants to claim that the account was stolen and opens a thread in meta to attempt to reclaim it, then nope, there is nothing else that you need to do to claim the account. If the seller does try to do that though, all you would need to do is to post the entirety of the PMs that went between you and him (without the passwords of course) and also bring the escrow in to vouch for you that the account was indeed sold. The admins can also check and verify the authenticity of the PMs. The fact that the trust page of the account will also indicate a password change will help to support your case. In those situations, the seller would not be able to recover the account so long as you are there to give your side of the story. |
|
|
|
thank you for the information. Once an account is bought, how can I ensure the seller cant just reclaim it? Again any info is appreciated.
When you get the account, you will receive the username and password. Change the password, email, and secret question if set (you should really never set the secret question as that can result in the account being locked) as soon as you receive the account. If everything is to your liking and once all that is done, inform the escrow to release the funds to the seller. If you aren't using an escrow, you risk the seller changing the password on you or not giving you the account after the payment confirms. |
|
|
|
Hi, I understand it is kind of frowned upon to buy an account but I have a question about the process. Is there a safe way to finish a transaction? I have read something about a signed message. I'm not sure what this is or how this could help me secure a newly bought account. I understand escrow is a must. Someone with experience buying/selling accounts, could you give me a quick run through of what you would do? Thanks for any information that you can give me, sorry I'm pretty new to this.
To verify that seller actually owns the account, you should ask for him to sign a message with an address that was posted in either a post that was unedited or was quoted by another person. The post should be old, at least a two months. The signed message indicates that the seller owns the private key to that account and thus reliably proves that he is the owner of that account. To verify a signed message, you can use websites like https://coinb.in/#verify or through Bitcoin Core. If the message does not verify to be the address it was supposedly signed with, do not buy the account as that seller could have hacked that account. If you use an escrow, then the escrow will typically verify all of this for you. If you do use an escrow, make sure that he is trusted. I recommend that you use any escrow from this list: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=855778.0You have one already, why do you need another one? You're not one of those scammer people are you?
Usually people buy for sig campaigns, not scamming. |
|
|
|
I have the same problem. So many confirmations already but it is not being credited to my user id 1ced.
I already emailed support but no reply.
I sent 0.15 bitcoin and 0.001 but nothing shows on account!!
Both has so many confirmations on blockchain. I think they are already stealing our deposits and they think we will just be quiet about it!!
Please do not hijack other people's threads for different problems. You have a service problem with some service, this thread is for a bitcoin transaction problem. If you have a service problem, you aren't going to get an answer here. |
|
|
|
|
Who is "you" and what website are you taking about? This is NOT a forum or support site for any business. Please contact THEIR support as they are the only ones who can help you.
|
|
|
|
The taint simply means that if you trace the the transaction history of an address, then the balance of the address is made up of spends from those taint addresses. |
|
|
|
|
Whatever site it is, you must contact their support. Their is nothing we can do about it.
|
|
|
|
they hostage my bitcoins
from blockchain.info I sent 80 dollar in btc's to my MultiBit wallet
it is still pending, so I cannot use this money...... I lost my money?
No, it may just take a while for the transaction to confirm. Otherwise it will go back to your blockchain.info wallet in a few days. Can you give us the transaction id so that we can help you figure out what went wrong and whether it can be sped up? hi knightdk, the number is: d6467e455a753a847fa9dba0db8f19c9078a90a8465431afd25504178af76439 but does it take 4 days? Since you sent it with no fee, it is unlikely to become confirmed. In a few days (three I think) blockchain.info will allow you to resend the transaction. When that happens, resend the transaction but make sure that you include a fee. If you don't have a transaction fee, then the transaction won't confirm. you can check http://www.cointape.com/ to see what the current fee is for getting a transaction confirmed quickly. Just don't be stingy with the fee and the transaction will confirm quickly. |
|
|
|
they hostage my bitcoins
from blockchain.info I sent 80 dollar in btc's to my MultiBit wallet
it is still pending, so I cannot use this money...... I lost my money?
No, it may just take a while for the transaction to confirm. Otherwise it will go back to your blockchain.info wallet in a few days. Can you give us the transaction id so that we can help you figure out what went wrong and whether it can be sped up? |
|
|
|
Both are implementations of the Bitcoin software, I think nothing would change because the site is called Bitcointalk, not Bitcointalkcore talk.
maintained by core devs.... i think if classic wins core devs will close the shop Who says that this forum is run by Core devs? Theymos runs this forum, and while he has contributed to Bitcoin Core, he is by no means a Core dev. And it doesn't matter what implementation Bitcoin is used, this forum is independent of that. I can't help but wonder. I also think this forum has run its course.....
Not even close! Where would I go after work if not bitcointalk? This place functions much like a bar where I get to yell at people and pick fights and where I don't have to actually pay for drinks. It's a very nice place to hang out if you have fangs and claws. And I must admit complete ignorance here. I don't even know what "bitcoin classic" is. Is this like what Coca-Cola Classic used to be? Bitcoin Classic is a fork of Bitcoin Core which will implement BIP102 to hard fork to increase the block size limit. |
|
|
|
There even is a neat example in that file. You should be able to read this. -----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
Version: GnuPG v2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=V/Gr
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----
Yes I can. this is just a test, if everything worked fine you should be able to decode this. If you can, thanks  |
|
|
|
Does anyone know how to set an alias with gpg2? E.g. the key for knightdk is not found with -r knightdk because that name is nowhere found in the key information. I also have this problem with other keys.
You can find it if you try searching -r achow101Yeah, but that requires me to remember knightdk is achow, which I cant do for all bitcointalk.org users. Esp. not if I dont write them regularly. Sorry about that. You can use the group option to get the same effect. The command would be something like gpg --group knightdk=0x17565732E08E5E41 I though as much after reading the man page, but whenever I enter it like that I end up in "please enter your message mode". When I finish it with ctrl+d it returns errors[1] ("no valid OpenPGP file found" and "processing message failed"). I will give it a try again later when I can ask in the #GnuPG IRC channel. [1] translated from german, actual wording might be different for english version. Put the option in the gpg.conf file. So you would add group knightdk=0x17565732E08E5E41 to the end of your config file. |
|
|
|
-would it be difficult to make RBF only relevant for a "I made a mistake by insterting a low fee, I want to raise it and skip the queue" scenario and nothing else, like sending money elsewhere or back to yourself?
That is likely to be both difficult to program and have unintended consequences limiting legitimate usage of RBF. I'm trying to think about this algorithmically and I don't see why... a) You broadcast your intention to bump up the fee, the other clients are programmed to accept it. b) You broadcast your intention to bump up the fee and change the address or the amount or something, and the other client is programmed to reject it / consider it invalid if you do that. If a miner mines transaction (b) and does not consider it invalid => he is orphaned by those who are running the proper client and say "what the fuck did you include in your block? GTFO" It sounds trivial to me, but then again I'm not a coder so... I suspect the complexities arise from the soft forking approach and trying to satisfy everyone and retain compatibility with all. No. RBF is not a consensus rule which causes forks. Transaction standardness is a node policy and should not be a consensus rule. By forcing transaction standardness to be a consensus rule and simply not node policy, then you are making experimentation with different transaction formats and nonstandard transactions be against consensus rules, which should not be allowed as that will make it more difficult to experiment and create new stuff. RBF and relaying RBF transactions are simply node policy. Nonstandard transactions that make it into the blockchain are still accepted because although they aren't standard transactions, they are not technically invalid. |
|
|
|
Is this related to the blocksize debate?
No. It simply means that the server you have connected to is not in sync with the network and is 817 blocks behind the network. Try switching to another server. |
|
|
|
When the network is (openly) attacked, there should be an option (for RBF) where everyone running nodes should be able to disable rbf through some kind of flag until a QC transition is complete. At least that way some transactions involving addresses with 100% unspent coins can still go through without getting attacked, although the first target will definitely be the addresses with spends that are idle / not transacting.
With the opt-in feature of RBF, people won't have to use RBF which provides some protection. However, if the attacker with a QC is able to break the keys in the time it takes to get a confirmation and to send out a transaction in that time, they will still be able to create a double spend transaction. RBF makes it easier, but it is still fairly trivial to create a competing double spend which could have a good change of getting confirmed without RBF enabled. An option has been recently merged into Bitcoin Core to disable RBF relaying. In the case that this scenario does happen, people can use that flag to disable RBF and thus we can have more protection against such an attack. |
|
|
|
I just realized something about RBF - please correct any misunderstandings I may have, I'm not a btc developer.
We are all operating under the assumption that a quantum computer doesn't exist - but I'm not so sure that there isn't, or that there won't be pretty soon. In any case, the greatest safeguard we have against such a possibility is storing coins in addresses that have no prior spending in them. So when a QC is on the loose, the best one can do is to spend the full amount in order to not leave any coins behind for priv. key extrapolation and hacking. But this is based on a first seen-first serve scenario. RBF would allow an attacker to see a transaction, extrapolate the priv key and issue a respending with a higher fee, hijacking one's money.
So, from what I understand, RBF reduces the futureproofing / quantum resistance of BTC. Is there a way where it can only be implemented by honoring the initial transactions, plus a higher fee - for those desiring to jump the queue - and reject any other attempts to change the destination?
At this time, it is a safe assumption that a usable QC currently doesn't exist except in research institutions where they would not be malicious. Although RBF has that problem, in the future, we can upgrade all of the algorithms to quantum resistant algorithms. We will have to do that anyways. |
|
|
|
Does anyone know how to set an alias with gpg2? E.g. the key for knightdk is not found with -r knightdk because that name is nowhere found in the key information. I also have this problem with other keys.
You can find it if you try searching -r achow101Yeah, but that requires me to remember knightdk is achow, which I cant do for all bitcointalk.org users. Esp. not if I dont write them regularly. Sorry about that. You can use the group option to get the same effect. The command would be something like gpg --group knightdk=0x17565732E08E5E41 |
|
|
|
|
Bump. The auction ends in less than 24 hours.
|
|
|
|
NEED TRUSTED MEMBERS TO DO THIS JOB
STILL WAITING
I can probably do this for you. Will send a PM. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
