Good luck, this has been done years ago and there are dozens of auto-sweeping bots already out there.

All about fungibility and centralization. It sucks, and I don't think anyone could honestly argue that the attacker deserves the coins, but intervening would be disastrous to the long term prospects of ETH. There's plenty of precedent to suggest that intervention like this would be a death sentence. The "fanboys" wouldn't care, but as far as long term adoption and all that goes, you're really shooting yourself in the foot. Those in it for the quick money are no doubt pissed off, but anyone in it for the long haul should be staunchly against a fork.

Ethereum will continue to slowly bleed out over next 26 days until the "stolen" ETH is available to be spent. The big bleedout will occur when one of two things happen:

1. Ethereum forks, either soft or hard, both would be disastrous to the long term viability of ETH. It would be a very dangerous precedent to set.
2. No action taken, the "stolen" funds become spendable and the attacker dumps them all on the market, because who the hell wants to sit on several million dollars worth of funny money?

Either scenario would involve a mass dump return and Ethereum back to sane pricing. Over 1 billion market cap for an unproven system was always unsustainable - this just hastened things along. I would not be surprised to see it go under $1 or $2 after all this is said and done. I worry what the community will do, since this situation is very similar to what happened with NXT, even though no fork was issued there, the community was split down the middle and the coin never recovered.

Time will tell. Ethereum still has a long term chance if they do not fork, and the community does not divide itself, though it will take a long time to recover from this market shock. Very unfortunate situation for all involved, but maintaining fungibility should take priority over everything else.

Truly?

Posting to verify that these addresses belong to me.

Development is underway.

Messages are bad. I get flooded, so some slip through the cracks. Better to email me: http://dev.cryptolife.net/contact-us

XCP already had it's pump and dump a while back. Wonder if there's enough fresh meat in the scene for it to happen again?

Bump

The real kicker.

I'm legit.

It's already well known that the ethereum team mismanaged funds and had to dump a lot of ether back when it was around $1 in order to keep their operations going. Maybe they're cashing out more as we speak?  

Android wallet bounty still available?

How I feel waiting on this

Nothing absurd, your typical €9/mo server can run it without issue. Out of the box, electrum server only supports bitcoin and bitcoin-identical altcoins, so if your coin differs, it will have to be patched for compatibility. Of course there's the expected stuff like having to patch in different block hashing algorithms, but there's a lot of lesser known quirks that need to be accounted for. I've found most devs don't even know which of these quirks their coin has, so I usually have to go through manually and figure out what changes I'll need to make. Example: Transaction timestamps. Some coins have them, some coins don't. Of those that do have them, some use human readable timestamps, while some use epoch timestamps.

In some cases I'll even need to patch the daemon itself, as it doesn't support a particular RPC call that electrum requires.

Anyway, the other guys on here are charging between 1-2 BTC for the electrum server alone, so I'm not sure why I'm being attacked in particular.

When an exchange validates an address, all they're really doing is checking the first character and the last few (the checksum). I couldn't find the source code anywhere, but USDT likely uses the same starting character (1) as bitcoin, so a bitcoin address is technically a valid USDT address, and vice versa. That's why the transaction went through.

In this case, coinbase currently holds the private key to your USDT. You'd have to get them to disclose to you the private key to the deposit address, then just import that key into the USDT client and voila, you have your coins back. However, their policy is to not disclose private keys, for various reasons relating to how their deposit system works.

You could push for them to hand over the key and retire the address, but I doubt you'd get anywhere with that. You'd have to go very far up the chain before you get to anyone who has private key access. I'd probably just chalk it up as a loss given the small value of it.

Bump

PM me

Coinomi only supports 26 different coins... Out of the thousands that are out there.


Yes.

There was no attempt was made to hide that, so calm down, detective: http://imgur.com/wrl25Qw

I love this idea.

Cryptsy removed transfers though, didn't they? Such a system can't really work without them.