Upon seeing him, I noticed he didn’t completely resemble the photo ID he had provided; it was as if he were an off version of the person in the ID.
This is the guy you're doxing, correct? I doxxed myself which I have every right to. - The other information I provided was from a scammer which I provided to showcase my example/evidence. Sure, but why? Have you not seen all the wrench attack news articles lately? You posted a contract of a failed transaction, which means you still own those coins you were attempting to sell. And why would you not redact your own PII? The only explanation I can honestly think of is that you are trying to put a target on the seller in this contract, whom you claim is yourself. |
|
|
|
Upon seeing him, I noticed he didn’t completely resemble the photo ID he had provided; it was as if he were an off version of the person in the ID.
This is the guy you're doxing, correct? |
|
|
|
Thank you for the reference thread on these, I've recently taken an interest in the different versions of this book.
Any chance photos are able to be reuploaded for them?
Fixed! Thanks for bringing to my attention. |
|
|
|
95 - hybridsole Thanks  |
|
|
|
|
6 plz - thanks and Merry Christmas
|
|
|
|
|
2 for me - graded via MJ. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
For whole bean, do you know roughly how long ago they were roasted before they ship out? I am always looking for fresh beans to make espresso.
|
|
|
|
|
The Telegram bot (which is really awesome, by the way), is showing that it was redeemed for 267.999 BTC. It seems to be double counting the change amounts after the test transactions. So when they spent the first 1 BTC, there was 98.999 returned as change. They sent another 30, leaving 68.999 as change. So the bot added 100+98.99+68.99 = 267.999 or ~$16 million in value.
I think I have noticed this on a few other alerts. At first I thought they were overfunded coins by the end user.
|
|
|
|
|
Any 1 if available, thanks
|
|
|
|
Anyone have one for sale for 750? Seems cheap
Seems like it might be one of the rarest Cas items. I've seen more 1000btc's than paper wallets
I remember seeing the ebay posting for this, and I think it was legitimate because the seller had some other rare Cas items, but I did not bid because it seems pretty easy for almost anyone to fake these. There doesn't appear to be any info on how many were printed, any security features of the paper, etc. And I doubt Mike will weigh in at this point. So without some direct proof of the original purchase, I would not have any confidence in saying one is legitimate or not. Even in this thread, the two examples posted have lots of little differences. One has a header showing "S/N", the other says "Seq #". The fonts, spacing, and colors also appear to have some differences.  |
|
|
|
Are there any trustworthy alternatives to the Mycelium since they seem tough to find?
I have been playing around with Ian Coleman's BIP39 generator tool: https://iancoleman.io/bip39/. What really makes this one stand out is that you can click "Show entropy details", and then it allows you to put in dice rolls, coin flips, etc to see it create seed phrases in real-time. It also supports virtually all technical aspects of key generation to get a good sense of the many different options that are available. It's kind of crazy how many types of addresses there are such as BIP44, BIP84 that wallets just choose for you (and creates all kinds of cross-compatibility issues). You can also get things like the XPUB address to support multi-sig and all kinds of fun stuff. For people who do want to use this, you should use the github version and download the standalone page to use offline: https://github.com/iancoleman/bip39, as well as have a good understanding of the main concepts. Otherwise using a Trezor like krogoth recommends is probably better if you just want a safe and user-friendly option. |
|
|
|
Based on a discussion I had with the team separately earlier today, they opened the website on the computer, before removing the internet connection and generating the keys.
I went ahead and removed my negative trust, because I feel bad for you, and you have had to pay dearly for this mistake. But this sentence right here proves you should never, ever make any private keys for anyone ever again. Full stop. You don't need a "team" to generate keys, that's the first fuck up. If it wasn't the well known malware you used, it would have been someone in this "team" to save the keys for later. There was so much wrong with how you went about this, that to think you can salvage your brand and make more products is astounding. Let this thread be an example for anyone who wants to make their own coins. Don't. There is zero margin for error in this business. And without calling out this level of incompetency, we are only encouraging others to follow in your footsteps. |
|
|
|
I believe he is referring to the 5,000 Bits Bitcoin Savings Bond, which were issued in shrink wrapped packs of some quantity (5 I think). This was supposed to be a less expensive version of the satoshi note. The encrypted private key is in clear text, and the password is behind some sort of sticker or scratch off material. I can understand why someone might have trouble with this. The paper quality is probably not good enough to withstand something abrasive to remove whatever is covering the key. Might require a razor blade instead? Here's a picture of one:  |
|
|
|
This is for the website- not for the code on github which RC said he used. One of the main reasons this vulnerability was found was by comparing the two code bases, which revealed the addition of the malicious code. From that medium article you posted in (2019): 'At this time, the code on GitHub is not malicious nor vulnerable, nor has it been malicious or vulnerable previously.' Last checkin for that code on github appears to be 7 years ago. Even if that code was compromised, if it was on an air gapped system theres no way it could have communicated the keys back to the malicious actors. Something doesnt smell right here. Okay I was about to remove my negative trust for this incident considering the refunds and finally revealing the software, but it still doesn't add up. If the github repo that raritycheck cited is not vulnerable, then there is more to the story. Surely after 7 years someone would have reported an issue on github.
It was pure luck. We wanted to try creating vanity addresses (1O) for VIBGYOR coins so we looked at multiple options.
In the end we didn’t end up creating vanity addresses
But still went with the software we trying to generate vanity addresses
We are currently trying to help every impacted customer.
Please note that we aim to reach out to every single one by Sunday evening.
Additionally, you stated that you used this software to generate vanity addresses, but it does not support generating vanity addresses. From what I can tell it offers no functionality above what bitaddress.org does except for supporting dead shitcoins. I don't want to seem like we are being overly critical, and I want to commend you for refunding people, but the fact you waited this long to even give us the name of the software tells me you are still not sharing the full story. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
