~
That is quite interesting, because the OP also made it sound like it was instant; I sent some bitcoin to my electrum wallet as soon as they appeared in there as unconfirmed there appeared a secound payment order.
I don't use blockchain, and haven't in a while. What a shitshow their front page for the explorer has become. Anyway, I used mempool.space, blockstream, and blockchair, (and a locally hosted mempool as well,) they all show the timestamp of both transactions as 17:30 UTC.
ETA; I just noticed that the Blockstream specifies the timespamp is indeed that of the block hash. Blockchain must post the time the transaction was broadcast, but it's possible that it doesn't treat a transaction with ab unconfirmed parent the same way. |
|
|
|
I never said Bisq has servers, but you still need to have some level of trust with anything you use.
Not to get too far into the weeds, but there's very little trust required to use bisq other than having to trust that selling bitcoin for fiat won't result in a charge-back. But that requires trusting the other trader, not the software. You can't really know that anything you use is not spying on you all the time, so it's not fair to claim this only for wasabi wallet.
There is the fact that Wasabi admitted they will be scrutinizing your UTXOs for taint. The term "spying" may be a bit of an overreach when it comes to Wasabi themselves, but if they decide many of your UTXOs are not to their liking, they'll have enough information about your wallet that can be provided to the authorities who can possibly use that information to determine your true identity. Everyday smartphone is 100% spying device, yet nobody seems to mind using them all the time.
When I'm hunting deer I turn my phone off because I don't want Google executives knowing about my honey hole.  Well, Trezor builds hardware wallets, and Wasabi is a coinjoin coordinator, those facts we know. My sharply honed powers of observation leaves me with little to surmise other than Trezor plans to integrate zksnacks' coin-join into Trezor Suite. Call me simple.
Wrong. Wasabi is not coordinator. zkSNACKs is coordinator. Okay, so I conflated the two entities, but lets not argue about semantics. We both know they're essentially one in the same. I suppose it's possible that Trezor doesn't want to maintain Trezor Suite going forward, and would rather promote Wasabi as their official wallet, but I doubt that's the case. Even if that was the case, the end result would essentially be the same thing, i.e Trezor's official wallet including zksnaks' coin-join coordinator. |
|
|
|
Not sure if the script is the culprit here. The outgoing transaction is 10 minutes after the incoming one. Scripts are usually activated immediately after the first confirmation. I still think that someone made a manual transaction after receiving notification about the incoming transaction. The OP may have some spyware on his/her computer, or the private key (seed phrase) was leaked in some other way. But of course, it is impossible to know for sure.
What makes you think it took ten minutes for the scam transaction to be initiated? To me it looks like it was generated instantly after the OP's wallet received the Tx.  I checked three different block explorers and they all show the two transactions with identical timestamps. |
|
|
|
|
If you're legit, want to avoid KYC, and want to preserve your privacy use Bisq.network. You won't be able to trade in one transaction, and it'll take at least 30 days for your account limits to be lifted, but it's probably the safest way to trade fiat for bitcoin without KYC.
|
|
|
|
The only danger in sharing the information above is breaching your privacy, no security risks exist. But I did notice a clue that's tells me you got scammed somehow; the fee rate that was applied to the outbound transaction:  227 sats per v-Byte is a huge overpayment on fees. It's a typical tactic used by scammer scripts that force huge fees to make sure the scam transaction gets confirmed in the next block, and prevents the victim from double spending the transaction in an attempt to thwart the theft. I also see that you've used the same address as recently as last month with no ill affects. That makes me think that something on your system must have changed after August 21. Do you recall installing any new software, or making some adjustments to your OS in the past few weeks? |
|
|
|
|
Husna QA's instructions will work, but this begs the question: Why?
A web wallet is considered among the least secure wallets in bitcoin country. The private keys are all stored and accessible by Blockchain.info, and even if you no longer use the web service, your wallet would still be stored on their server. If their security gets compromised and a hacker my be able to access your private keys. This could still happen years from now.
If your goal is to use a desktop wallet to create transactions, an easy way to do so is to restore your Blockchain.info wallet in Electrum using the Bip39 option. If your goal is secure your funds, you should create a new wallet using whatever desktop application you're comfortable using.
|
|
|
|
I sent some bitcoin to my electrum wallet as soon as they appeared in there as unconfirmed there appeared a secound payment order. That payment order was for that exact amount (it was empty before) and it sent the coins i just received to god knows where. Now both are fully confirmed and i kinda dont know what to do.
This sounds a lot like the behavior of that malicious version of Electrum that plagued the community around the end of 2018. Do you remember from where you downloaded Electrum? I'm not going to ask you to disclose any information you want to keep private, but I'm curious if you would be willing to share the address to where you coins were sent? No big deal if not, if my suspicion is accurate, the coins probably just moved from there to a mixing service, anyway. I also encourage you to heed LoyceV's warnings and advice; back up what you need from the device, then purge the OS and reinstall it. I also suggest that you read this post before installing Electrum again. [GUIDE] How to Safely Download and Verify Electrum [Guide] |
|
|
|
Honestly the first half giants looked like the worst team in the league lol. Then they turned it on a couple big plays helped them out. They went for 2 pts for the lead at the end and luckily titans missed an easy fg. Either way on the road against last year's #1 seed I will take a win! However it looks  It made for a good game, though. The Saquon show in the second have was cool, and they did get a couple of luck breaks. Nonetheless, I'd take an ugly win over a pretty loss.
how shall I put it without offending the OP
It didn't work.  But all kidding aside, I tend to agree for the most part. Our secondary looked horrible, and there's nothing I've seen from Lance to suggest he was worth the third round pick. I really hope I'm wrong, but I figure we'll know more after hosting the fired-up Seahawks. That was such an odd game in Chicago that it's really hard to make an assessment. If we were to have started the season at home against Seattle, I'd pick the Niners. But after both teams' performances last week, I'm not so sure. To your first point, I really hope Mahomes stays healthy all year. He's the best I have on my fantasy team.
@Hueristic, picking up Taysom Hill as a TE was a smart move. I almost went for him myself, had a hard time deciding. |
|
|
|
The whole unit could also be stolen if put up somewhere outside; then cracked open elsewhere with power tools.
To be fair, this can be said about nearly anything of value that's left unattended. As we used to say about locking up bicycles in the old days; all we can hope to achieve is keeping the honest people honest. A professional thief will be prepared for most obstacles, and if he's determined enough well... To avoid all these risks, I'd still prefer to just put it up in a safe location, like at home, in your store (if you have one) or actually in the office (as DireWolfM14 suggested). I really like this idea! Get people interested, directly with some hands-on experience and small amounts that present no risk. It all seems very abstract before you once try it..  I've been mulling it over as well, it would be a fun project. If I do I would keep it simple and cheap, since I'm not sure it would get much use. One way to cut down on costs and still keep it fun is eliminate the bill counter. A small plexiglass box would make a decent looking housing. |
|
|
|
Because some people here are using closed source stuff and in same time they preach other about openess...
I don't know why you think that's contradictory or hypocritical. Most modern cars operate on closed source software. And I mean really closed to review or public scrutiny, not just some licensing verbiage that restricts redistribution. Would you suggest I not own a car since I care about my financial privacy? Maybe you're referring to those of us who use Windows, but in and of itself Windows is not a bitcoin wallet. You're not entrusting portions of your wealth to Windows, the flagship product of a multi-billion dollar company that's been around for decades. Even if we're not trying to compare apples and oranges, deflection doesn't win arguments. Regardless of what "closed source stuff" people decide to use in one portion of their lives, that doesn't eliminate their right to care about openness from financial products they choose. But whether Wasabi closed source or centralized is not my gripe with Wasabi; my gripe is the misinformation about privacy and fungibility. That's not preaching about openness, it's preaching about blatant dishonesty. Announcing a plan for trezor and wasabi to work together in future, doesn't even mean it will happen the way someone imagines.
Well, Trezor builds hardware wallets, and Wasabi is a coinjoin coordinator, those facts we know. My sharply honed powers of observation leaves me with little to surmise other than Trezor plans to integrate zksnacks' coin-join into Trezor Suite. Call me simple. |
|
|
|
They are fully aware of the consequences and anger of their community for this blacklisting, but they are ok with it.
Being okay with it one thing, but being deceptive about it another thing all together. I wouldn't mind if someone came out and said I'm going to provide a wallet and coin join service that blacklists UTXOs suspected of containing ill-gotten funds. But to instead attempt to deceive your potential clients by claiming the service you offer is for "privacy" and to keep bitcoin "fungible" is inexcusable. The Wasabi team are spreading blatant lies. |
|
|
|
I figure I should quote this post for redundancy as well. DireWolfM14 thought people might like to cast a vote on the outcome hence the poll. Purpose of this post is mainly to confirm the Escrow transaction with DireWolfM14. - Escrow providers are Zarzarb and DireWolfM14, each to hold 2BTC, being 1BTC each from FatMan and nubcake_MeoW_. - Zarzarbs escrow already confirmed and funds paid. - Funds are yet to be sent to DireWolfM14, pending confirmations by reply to this message. Bet terms: @FatMan, you’ve offered a bet, and I @nubcake_MeoW_ accepted, that we both contribute 2BTC with the winner taking all proceeds (4BTC minus escrow fees) The bet originated as a response to your following statement 08/09/2022 on TR discord: No major exchange will ever support a 1.2% burn tax for off-chain trades. It will simply never happen and there's no point talking about it because it's a silly idea. If you disagree, I am happy to bet on it. You maintain the statement will prove true, and if it does you win the bet. I maintain the statement will not prove true, and if it does not, I win the bet. For clarity on both sides, we have discussed the key points and terms in detail and agreed as follows: 1. ‘Major exchanges’ are defined by you as: Binance, Kraken, KuCoin, Huobi, Coinbase, FTX, Gemini 2. A burn tax is defined as a mandatory >0.9% fee taken out of amounts traded on LUNC spot trading pairs with the intention of burning the proceeds. This definition only includes a tax levied on amounts traded internally on the exchange and does not include on-chain burns (ie. burns caused by withdrawals from or deposits to the exchange). Non-exhaustive examples of nubcake winning: - Binance increases their spot trading fee to >0.9% and forces it on users across all LUNC spot trades and sends it to the burn wallet. - Binance automatically deducts >0.9% of every LUNC purchase's proceeds to send to the burn wallet. - If the recent MEXC burn described in the following link had been implemented by one of the exchanges noted in this bet https://support.mexc.com/hc/en-001/articles/10122048174105. The spirit of the bet is that if someone trades $100 of LUNC, the exchange takes >$0.9 (this number is X) to burn and gives ($100 - X) to the user on the other end of the trade, regardless of how it is specifically implemented. 3. If Terra Classic governance alters the on-chain burn tax to be less than 0.9%, or removes it entirely, the bet is considered void and both parties are refunded less an equal contribution to the escrow fees. 4. The ‘burn tax’ must be announced by one of the above listed CEX before 01/01/2023 and implemented no later than 01/01/2024 for nubcake to ‘win’. If this does not occur FatMan ‘wins’. In the case that a ‘win’ becomes clearly apparent, or is otherwise agreed by the parties, the proceeds of the bet are to be immediately paid to the winning party, less any escrow fees which are to be taken from the proceeds. 5. The parties will organise separately the escrow arrangements and each pay their 1BTC into escrow within 4 days of the escrow arrangements being agreed. 6. In the event of a dispute, the escrow provider will determine the ‘winner’ on their sole discretion but must rely on this agreement as the sole basis for their decision. Here are the terms we both agreed to. The executive summary is if the Terra Classic chain implements a burn tax of 0.9% or higher per transaction, the bet becomes active - I win if no major exchange implements a burn tax on trades and nubcake wins if any major exchange does (refer to the above message for finer details). If the Terra Classic chain does not implement such a burn tax, the bet is voided (you can keep the escrow fee and return the bets to us). It's unlikely that there will be a dispute (it will be quite clear to both of us who won), but in the event that one of us acts in bad faith or if the outcome is ambiguous, please refer to the above message in order to determine who won. DireWolfM14, Fatman, please repond quoting this message to confirm details are accurate and your acceptance. Agreed multisig wallet for BTC deposits: bc1qnmt5q56rlftz9zuyh4kf8xx3yuvvux36q3n0vmw62v38mlv4v6aqv2pk0c My wallet address for payment in case of winning: 1MLnUWTYzvL1iqzC52H1ZD9c93s9TnFw82 |
|
|
|
Confirmed, I am holding one of three signing keys from a 2/3 multi-sig wallet. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
September 13, 2022
This is DireWolfM14@Bitcontalk.org confirming I hold one of three signing keys for the address below:
bc1qnmt5q56rlftz9zuyh4kf8xx3yuvvux36q3n0vmw62v38mlv4v6aqv2pk0c
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=r8Ap
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|
|
|
Let's be fair and admit it, he's probably also paying for the adrenalin when the numbers are extracted/picked  Haha, yeah I readily admit that. I only recently started gambling a little bit (and I do mean a little bit,) and now I know first hand the thrill is real, even if you only have about $2 on the line, lol. I guess the emotions are piqued the more you "can afford to lose." Much of the same mentality must apply to the victims of these HYIP scams. I don't mean to minimize the culpability of the scammers, but lets continue to be fair; if it wasn't for the greedy these scams wouldn't work. Everything will be over when the bubble pops. The bubble doesn't even need to pop. No, a bubble isn't needed. If it's one thing about crypto I can be certain of; the scammers are always there. The scams are only more successful during bull markets, and therefore we here about more of them. They're still lingering in the shadows during a bear market. |
|
|
|
~
that's the kind of feedback one would hope could get removed before the person who left it died
~
Somehow I don't think he planned it. It's just one of those things that happens to all of us, eventually. And, I don't see anything wrong with the feedback; it's a neutral feedback for an obvious troll who misses his favorite target. RIP, Tecshare. |
|
|
|
|
Good job, PowerGlove. I just assumed this was an update to the Bpip extension when I first saw it. Thanks for the contribution.
|
|
|
|
That's correct, but 50$ is an amount people may be playing at the lottery, so trying their luck with whatever HYIP / Ponzi is not that uncommon. Unadvised, yes, stupid, yes, still, not uncommon, not a surprise.
Some dude at work buys $50 worth of lottery tickets every paycheck, 26 times a year. He and I started researching bitcoin around the same time, I stuck with it, he stuck with the lottery tickets. Last year when BTC was hovering over $40k he came to me and told me he had calculated what the amount he spent on lottery tickets would have been worth if he had spent that money on BTC instead. He was beside himself for being so shortsighted... He's still buying buying lottery tickets instead of bitcoin.  Some people are so emersed in their "get-rich-quick" dream that even if they come to conclusion on their own that the rug has been pulled out from under them, they'll still cling on. This guy I'm talking about is no idiot, he readily admits he's spending the money for the dream. I've tried gently reminding him that Dreaming is Free. I mean not just Bitcointalk, but also e.g. ads on news sites. Maybe I just tune them out subconsciously.
Yeah, scam adds have already saturated the internet, even on non-crypto related sites. Wasn't it mycelium wallet that was advertising 1xBit not long ago? I tend to ignore that stuff, but once in a while it's so outlandish. Even quality service like blockchair are not immune. |
|
|
|
I did trade total around 180 USD.
Still not worth the risk. Avoid Changenow as it's one of those controversial services that has complaints when it comes to freezing funds. Use exchanges that are listed on Kycnot.me like Bisq, Elude, Majestic Bank etc Funny thing is that ChangeNow is listed on Kycnot.me with a score of 7/10, but then they say this about ChangNow's KYC policy: ChangeNOW is a non-custodial crypto-to-crypto exchange where you can trade a large number of coins quickly, conveniently, registration-free, and without any limits. Although it normally does not require KYC it could be that one of your transactions is marked as suspicious and then they will require you a KYC procedure. The suspicious transaction detection system is not public so we can't know what may trigger this. You can get a refund to your address if you don't want to provide your information (without KYC).
As for some of ChangeNow's "scam accusations" I suspect they largely stem from their use of blockchain analysis to blacklist UTXOs. It's really quite odd that exchanges will pay for a service that only results in alienating their customer base. It's worth noting that the only exchange listed with a perfect score (10/10) is Bisq. Not surprising, due to the way bisq works it's quite likely the safest p2p exchange in existence. |
|
|
|
I confused the Jacks. My bad.  ~ ~ To Mallers' credit, he's talking about Strike's future as a product that largely resembles a brick and mortar bank, i.e. competing with Chase and BofA in their arena, while also allowing LN transactions to seamlessly work like typical debit cards work today. Such a product could be a tremendous help to the bitcoin ecosystem, on-board more bitcoin users, and possibly even force the legacy financial institutions to adopt similar features. In today's world, that kind of financial convenience means absolutely no privacy, and I'm afraid the majority won't care. Hopefully the "self-sovereign" mentality will come later. Baby steps... To further separate the two Jacks; at least Mallers isn't trying to shill the idea of " shared self-custody!"
If you've got the budget for a Model T, you should probably look at Passport, instead.. I'm anxiously awaiting your review of the second batch of the FPW. It does indeed check a lot of my "essentials" boxes, and quite a few "nice to have." I bought a Trezor T when they were around $150 USD, which is a great deal in my opinion, but I agree that the current price is not a great value at all. I suspect that Trezor is low on inventory on the Model T, and rather than make more, they're priming their followers for the release of a new unit with a secure element. I wouldn't be surprised to see it before Black Friday 2023, and priced similarly to the current price of the Model T.
Too bad it doesn't have a wider distribution network in Europe. Last time I checked, you could only get it from resellers in the UK, Netherlands, and Belgium when we are talking about the EU zone.
True; though I find ordering within the EU to be a fairly effortless task in 99% of cases. In theory, even one good distributor would suffice. Does Foundation not serve customer's outside of the USA directly? That seems odd. I don't see any reason whey they wouldn't be able to ship their product directly over-seas. Being that it's open source hardware and software, there're no ITAR restrictions that I see as obstacles, and if I'm not mistaken, no other restrictions to shipping items over-seas exists in the US. |
|
|
|
|
What's interesting is that all of you guys are getting these emails. I haven't, but I don't use Tron, and haven't installed any of their wallets. I'd be curious to know how the scammer was able to obtain your email addresses.
Was there some Tron promotion that you guys all signed up for, something that was posted here on the forum perhaps?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
