just be careful to only store the blockchain on your external hard disk and not your wallet file because and external hard disk is susceptible to hardware failure more than your internal hard drive which is stationary and also it can be lost or stolen.
The wallet file must be in the datadir, same as the blocks folder. Which of your disks is more likely to fail depends on the disks and not the way they are connected to your system.
-snip-
it will need more space to download blockchain. Btw, how much is it?
~100 GB right now. |
|
|
|
-snip-
Classic non sequitur. Your conclusion could either be true or false, but you assume that it will inevitably be true which makes your statement a fallacy. That is, unless you have 'proof' to back something like this up.
Deisik might be refering to something specific that I only vaguely remember myself. The idea that every community over a certain size needs some sort of enforcer to maintain a set of rule that have been agreed on in one way or another. Problems occured over when a few of these enforcers had been too pushy when enacting the rules. This eventually led to a split within the community. There was a specific community where this happened and I suspect that deisik either has heard of it, something similar or came to a similar conclusion based on different events. @Deisik if this sounds only vaguely familiar to you, please let me know. I wanted to look into the story for quite some time, but forgot too many details to get a good starting point.
-snip-
So, is there a need for developing a tool for analyzing this log and representing its data in a more readable format for these activists (and mods alike)?
I personally dont like a very similar tool used for similar reasons, the wallet explorer. It is somewhat established at connecting wallet addresses via inputs, which is imperfect information as well. I think these connections, especially the transactions themselves should be verified by hand. Due to the comfortable tool, this is less and less done when alt accounts are connected. A similar effect might take place once a tool for the modlog is established. IMHO this is more likely if its externally hosted and the data can no longer by verified. There is a small archive of modlog pages on archive.is[1] and maybe on other similar sites. Since moderation is something moderators should do, I would say that a tool for easier access should be restricted to staff. After all we have to assume that they double check all available data before an account is (perma) banned. Regardless of my opinion I dont think a tool like this will be implemented in the current forum. Mabye it can be made for epochtalk, maybe epochtalk already has something similar. I didnt look too much into it tbh. [1] http://archive.is/https://bitcointalk.org/modlog.php |
|
|
|
I deposited 1.00 btc there about a year ago just to try it out out of curiosity. Since the coin price has went up I decided to go retrieve my btc from there. When trying to withdraw I got some bull shit withdraw error. So I shot them an e-mail just to get this reply back Hello XXXX,
Thanks for your email. Please verify yourself as an investor, all you have to do is to send in a photo of your id and write in your current address, the system shall verify it within the same day. Also, please confirm with me your latest withdraw address change request. Thanks for reaching out!
Best,
BTCjam Support Team
I never agreed to this intrusion. My guess is they know most users are not willing to send in a photo of their identification. So now they get to keep those users coins. I dont even understand how sending in an id even verifies anything. They are crooks and probably got hacked and lost all the coins they have on deposit. I feel bad for people who have larger amounts on deposit there. This is another gox for sure. STAY AWAY FROM THIS SHADY COMPANY!!! Remember the little checkbox when you signed up? READ. IT. Its what you agreed to, whether you actually read it or not. 15. Verification Procedures
The Company uses procedures to collect and verify information about in order to protect the Company and the community from fraudulent users and to keep appropriate records of the Company’s users.
All Users of the Site, at minimum, must provide identity verification requested by the Company.
https://btcjam.com/terms-of-use |
|
|
|
|
Hmm, komisch ist das schon.
Also double spend:
#1 bitcoin core schließen
#2 Win + R drück für "ausführen"
#3 c:\Program Files\Bitcoin\bitcoin-qt.exe -zapwallettxes eingeben (ggf. pfad ändern) und mit OK bestätigen
#4 warten
#5 neue TX erzeugen die möglichst alle bitcoin an eine sichere Wallet schickt.
|
|
|
|
|
Profile -> Forum Profile Information -> put something in the Signature Box and click the change profile button at the bottom.
|
|
|
|
Ich verwende die Bitcoin Core-Wallet in der aktuellen Version. Es wurden 0.00529394 BTC an eine unbekannte Adresse überwiesen (immer noch unbestätigt). Das ist zwar nicht viel, aber zu viel, um als Gebühr für eine vorangegangene Transaktion durchzugehen, oder?
Gebühren werden nicht als gesonderte Transaktion angezeigt. Zeigt die Wallet den an das der Betrag abgeht oder nimmst du das nur an? Kann es z.B. eine Adresse für Change (Wechselgeld) sein? |
|
|
|
Sorry, das ist mir zu hoch, wie geht das? Habe eben eine bis jetzt unbestätigte und auch völlig ungerechtfertigte Transaktion von meiner Wallet an eine andere Adresse festgestellt. Ich habe niemandem Bitcoins gesendet, dennoch sieht es aber danach aus, was kann man da machen?
Meine Wallet ist mit einer Passphrase verschlüsselt.
Double spend auf eine neue Wallet durchführen ehe die TX bestätigt ist. Kommt auf die Wallet an, welche benutzt du? Ist die Transaktion immer noch nicht bestätigt? In jedem Fall brauchst du eine neue, auf einem sauberen System erstellte Wallet. |
|
|
|
Habe eben eine bis jetzt unbestätigte und auch völlig ungerechtfertigte Transaktion von meiner Wallet an eine andere Adresse festgestellt. Ich habe niemandem Bitcoins gesendet, dennoch sieht es aber danach aus, was kann man da machen?
Meine Wallet ist mit einer Passphrase verschlüsselt.
Double spend auf eine neue Wallet durchführen ehe die TX bestätigt ist. |
|
|
|
-snip-
I did, wallet.dat was unrecognized
Had the same issue, probably best to contact btchris, they wrote btcrecover. |
|
|
|
Nice, but i meant using the actual client... Strings like this are commands passed to bitcoin core, e.g. via bitcoin-cli. There may be typos. Start with getblockhash ID for block numbers from 0 to getblockcount. It will return you a hash for each block. Use getblock HASH to get the full block. The first transaction is the coinbase(?). Use its transaction id to get the raw transaction with getrawtransaction TXID. Decode the raw TX decoderawtransaction RAWTX. Verify that vin has coinbase just to make sure its actually the correct one. Look for all (its possible that there are more than one) value under vout und substract the current blockreward for that block. Add it all up and you get your answer. |
|
|
|
Hi,
I'm transferring bitcoin between 2 of my personal wallets.
this is a small transaction and it's staying unconfirmed for hours now, I think it's because of the very low fee (0.1 mBTC)
1) I'm wondering if I can confirm the transaction myself, by doing the ~1 hour of compute on my computer ?
another question,
No. There is no ~1 hour compute that gets you a confirmation. You need to find a new block and include your (and other) unconfirmed transaction in it. Currently the entire network calculates roughly 2,377,551,472 GigaHashes every second in order to find one of these blocks every 10 minutes on average. Your CPU will probably not be able to do even 1 Gigahash/s[1]. 2) is there a way to avoid to lose fee when we transfer money between 2 wallets that we own. ( newbie questions I suppose  ) Thanks. Export the private key from one wallet into the other (if the software allows it). [1] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Non-specialized_hardware_comparison#CPUs.2FAPUs |
|
|
|
Maybe I should leave counter ratings then. After all, its just my opinion that these ratings should not be given. I prefer discussions where both sides are open to change their mind. It seems they almost never happen here.
IIRC, theymos has stated a counter feedback is acceptable; to counter malicious/false feedback. The issue with this is ( just like original feedback) when it starts being used as a "like" button and an obvious side effect is it could diminish credibility. Yes, its acceptable, but I dont like it and I try my best to avoid leaving such ratings. I think it takes difficult discussions off the forum and onto the trust page.
-snip-
He gave negative feedbacks to reduce his possible competitors for his ACE Campaign.
How so? AFAICT there is no competitions for ACE. Its pitch is high quality, all in one ad service for the services willing to pay a little premium for that service. -snip-
He must be given negative trust or remove from DT.
-snip-
That will convice people. Some random throw away account, telling them they must do something.
Neither can I, its not an abusive rating. I wouldnt give it though. At least not currently, if someone reads this 2021 and I changed my mind, sue me. It leads to what is currently common though, throw away accounts are used to sell accounts. This makes it impossible for account sellers to establish a reputation of good quality product. Good quality meaning, not hacked, not farmed with spam, signed message to confirm it was traded freely. This makes this market more confusing and might possibly do more bad than good.
I disagree with it doing more harm than good. Let's take a look at 2016 [...] -snip- I admit I have no numbers to back my argument which makes it pretty weak. |
|
|
|
This is a very interesting topic I too have a similar experience losing a wallet.dat I just don't try to recover it since I only had a few coins on it,what I do is to always create a duplicate in my cloud storage,but I also would like to know how to recover your wallet.dat if you accidentally or not delete it..
Dont hijack topics.
To be clear I have a wallet.dat file with a password, that I do in fact remember, on a flash drive. Do I just download a program and copy and paste it?
The wallet.dat must be in the data directory[1] when you start the wallet. It will need some time to sync and verify the currently ~100 GB blockchain. Once thats done you can use the coins. If you moved to a more powerful machine you should set a new password. [1] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Data_directory#Default_Location |
|
|
|
-snip-
Guys, show your knowledge !!
Stop playing around with ponzis. |
|
|
|
-snip-
I have always wondered how the addresses are generated. I am not talking about hackers finding private keys and using it.
I am talking how many times does the address gets generated, we all know that your old wallet address still can be used to receive money on, but what if it gets confused with another generated address that belongs to another user.
Dont give your private keys to other people and no one can get "confused" using the wrong one. |
|
|
|
|
There was a lengthy argument a while and plenty people argued that a ponzi with clear rules is just a game for them. The fact that its not provably fair, did not strike them as valid or they just accepted it as part of the "thrill of the game". Since these people see it as a form of gambling and the forum does not want to outright ban these games, their own section was created to keep them away from other forms of gambling. Similarly now the sport bets people got their own section.
|
|
|
|
-snip-
If you're conducting business in a legitimate way, then no one's "voice", not even a DT member's, should have any effect on your business.
Realistically, it does though. Yes, I am aware of that. But so does any negative review on any business. We can go back and forth on that, or we can agree that it shouldn't, but it is what it is. True, but I think the consequences should be considered when leaving a rating. More below. As long as the Trust Rating is not being abused,
What would be an abusive rating for you? Hmm... 1) a rating based on unreasonable prejudice such as racism, sexism, homophobia, different political and socio-cultural views, etc. 2) outright lies, oftentimes slanderous 3) blatant attempts to drive away customers from a competing service 4) a revenge rating which holds no merit 5) spam There's more I'm sure, but I can't be expected to know all of them offhand, especially if I've yet to encounter them. In the case described on the OP, I can't say that it's abusive, since the same rating is applied to other members when the aforementioned rater encounters other members in the same circumstances. Whether you agree or not that participants of account trading are deserving of a negative rating, you can surely see that the rationale behind the neg is reasonable, and therefore justifiable from the perspective of the rater. As long as the rating is based on something reasonable and justifiable, then that can't be called abusive, now can it? Neither can I, its not an abusive rating. I wouldnt give it though. At least not currently, if someone reads this 2021 and I changed my mind, sue me. It leads to what is currently common though, throw away accounts are used to sell accounts. This makes it impossible for account sellers to establish a reputation of good quality product. Good quality meaning, not hacked, not farmed with spam, signed message to confirm it was traded freely. This makes this market more confusing and might possibly do more bad than good. -snip-
valid reason -snip- engage in account deals.
Some people would consider it a legitimate enough reason, yes. However, let's face it. Most people who buy accounts don't just earn from participating in a signature campaign on one account. You know that, because...? I dont know what most people do with accounts once they are traded. I only have very limited experience in this market, mostly from failed loans. I am almost certain that none of them have been used for nefarious reasons. The rest either start scamming or spamming with a single bought account, or they are one of those rarities who get by with earning without being noticed (let's call them "innocent" for argument's sake). Now, some people would prefer to give the account traders the benefit of the doubt, if just to save one "innocent". Others would prefer to err on the side of caution. Both sides have their own perspectives, and both sides have merits. And since both sides have merits, then it also holds true that they can give out whatever rating they want to give based on any actionable evidence. That's the point of the Trust rating, after all.
Which is also the reason why there is a discussion here. If all agreed on one side, it would be simple. How do you come to this conclusion though? Do you have experience as account trader or with traded accounts? -snip- All trust ratings are opinions. However, valid trust ratings are usually a reflection of some sort of action. Trading accounts is an action. It's not much different from newbies getting tagged for asking loans without collateral, investor based games getting tagged on sight, and similar. In all of those cases, technically no scam (or similar) has yet occurred.
^ THIS.Maybe I should leave counter ratings then. After all, its just my opinion that these ratings should not be given. I prefer discussions where both sides are open to change their mind. It seems they almost never happen here. |
|
|
|
|
You can use the prune option to only kept part of the blockchain, if you dont want to switch to a different wallet. You still have to download the data though.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
