last day i just wanted to receive 200EUR in BTC to my Wallet. I did tap on receive and shared the address where the 200EUR was sent, but never arrived on my Wallet. Even though the fees have come down considerably when compared to last week, it could be the case that the transaction simply hasn't been confirmed yet. Do you have the transaction ID? Until now i tried to recover my Wallet with 12 Passphrase (coinimi, exodus, sparrow) but without succeed (all the time the transaction with 5EUR and 200EUR never shown and after every recovery the amount was 0.000000 on all Wallets).
With Samourai Wallet you had full control of your funds since you held the seed words, which makes the recent events immune to you in that sense. Now if the transaction still hasn't confirmed it doesn't matter in which wallet you try to recover access to your funds simply because it just didn't confirmed (yet I suppose). I advise you to follow the steps outlined in this thread[2] in order to successfully have access to your funds, namely: just came across the following tweets from @freedomtech which describes the fastest/most secure way to migrate all your funds from the Samourai wallet to the Sparrow wallet. you need 6 steps for this whole procedure and there is also a screen recording as a video guide for the whole process: (...) https://twitter.com/freedomtech/status/1783850003179454731Pay attention to the last bit where they reference that you have to try this import process for each script type (Legacy, Segwit and Wrapped Segwit).
[1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5494114 |
|
|
|
(...)
I'm sorry if there is an answer somewhere in the forum, but I couldn't find anything useful. Does anyone know, or could recommend a trustful way buying Bitcoins from Germany without wasting to much of the reoccurring investment?
I would be willing to buy from someone here who is trustful, but I couldn't find offers from trusted people in the forum. I can do Credit Card, SEPA, Paypal or even hand over f2f if necessary as long as it is a fair exchange. The amounts are not going to be high, but regular. Could someone please point me to a service or a person?
(...)
From my perspective these two phrases contradict each other in the way that if you are looking to buy bitcoin from someone in the forum you will - most likely - pay a premium over it because you will be making a non-KYC[1] transaction. Some say that this price is even the right price for the bitcoin because the price that is being traded in the main exchanges has a hidden cost - your privacy. On the other hand, fees on Binance are extremely high and they overcharge you especially when you want to withdrawal to your wallet (they don't even let you choose your fee rate because of it). You could save on the overall cost of the operation if the exchange allowed you to send your purchase directly to your wallet, but I do not have knowledge of any exchange doing that (please correct me if I am wrong). As an alternative option, perhaps you could look upon Peach Bitcoin[2]. This is an no-KYC application - based in Switzerland - that gathers around people wanting to buy and sell bitcoin directly between each other, and you are able to send your purchase directly into your wallet (or address). You are able to buy up until 1000 CHF[3] (~1.033 €) per day (100.000 CHF (~ 103.000 €) per year) without the need to undergo KYC procedures, which keeps your privacy to you (as it should). Do note that, on the top of the current price of bitcoin of the market within the application, Peach Bitcoin charges the buyer a 2% fee[4] besides the network fee, so take this in consideration if you're planning on buying there. You also have the option of setting up your own buy offer if you do not kind any that you think it's fair - it may take some time to fill up but usually it does according to the community.
[1] https://thebitcoinmanual.com/articles/what-is-non-kyc-bitcoin/[2] https://peachbitcoin.com/[3] https://peachbitcoin.com/how-to-buy-btc-no-kyc/[4] https://peachbitcoin.com/faq/trading/#what-are-the-fees-for-trading-on-peach |
|
|
|
Agora eu fiquei um pouco curioso no quesito "Digital assets", será que deve existir algum outro tipo de relatório especificando quais os ativos digitais que a Tesla possui?
Ao dia de hoje acredito que seja uma informação que vais ter muita dificuldade em encontrar. O único parágrafo relevante que encontrei relativo à composição dos "digital assets" da empresa foi num relatório 10-K (anual) de 2022 que foi entregue pela empresa ao SEC[1]: Operating Expense Trends
(...)
In the first quarter of 2021, we invested an aggregate $1.50 billion in bitcoin. As with any investment and consistent with how we manage fiat-based cash and cash-equivalent accounts, we may increase or decrease our holdings of digital assets at any time based on the needs of the business and our view of market and environmental conditions. Digital assets are considered indefinite-lived intangible assets under applicable accounting rules. Accordingly, any decrease in their fair values below our carrying values for such assets at any time subsequent to their acquisition will require us to recognize impairment charges, whereas we may make no upward revisions for any market price increases until a sale. For any digital assets held now or in the future, these charges may negatively impact our profitability in the periods in which such impairments occur even if the overall market values of these assets increase. For example, in the year ended December 31, 2022, we recorded $204 million of impairment losses resulting from changes to the carrying value of our bitcoin and gains of $64 million on certain conversions of bitcoin into fiat currency by us. Já no mesmo relatório mas referente ao ano de 2023[2], não se encontra referência nenhuma a bitcoin, apenas menções aos "digital assets" que a empresa possui e o balanço geral do ano. Creio que só vais saber a composição quando se o Elon Musk se lembra de mandar um tweet sobre a carteira actual de "digital assets" da Tesla  .
[1] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1318605/000095017023001409/tsla-20221231.htm[2] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1318605/000162828024002390/tsla-20231231.htm |
|
|
|
~ My own DIY Mini-ITX rackmount build with an N100 that I slapped together last night would use: - Inter-Tech 1U-K-126L rackmount chassis
- 2 * Noctua NF-A4x20 PWM fans
- ASRock N100DC-ITX
- 19V 120W DC power supply
for a total of approx. €250 w/out shipping for a barebones build w/out memory and storage. More than an old refurbished Mini-PC of course, but not much more than e.g. an N100 Beelink. Which route did you end up taking? Did you actually build that node or are you waiting for some results regarding ODROID-H4 Plus performance? (Hardkernel already has a case available in their website bt the way) |
|
|
|
just came across the following tweets from @freedomtech
which describes the fastest/most secure way to migrate all your funds from the Samourai wallet to the Sparrow wallet. you need 6 steps for this whole procedure and there is also a screen recording as a video guide for the whole process:
~
The guide is very well made (after all I wasn't expecting less from the people behind Foundation[1]) but as I discussed[2] previously with BlackHatCoiner[3], if anyone used their wallet without running their own node, you have to consider that the xpub can/have been obtained by the DOJ/FBI. For privacy sake it would be best if you created a new wallet and then transfer the funds to it.
[1] https://freedom.tech/[2] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5494114.msg63991397#msg63991397[3] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5494114.msg63991471#msg63991471 |
|
|
|
A questão do acervo das bases de dados levanta sempre a questão que tipo de informação é que poderá estar lá contida. Acredito que os responsáveis tenham tomado todas as precauções para encriptar o máximo de informaçã que tinham na sua posse mas neste tipo de casos já sabemos o desfecho para o acesso à informação.
O pior é que a história de outros casos, os responsáveis não esconderam assim tão bem essas informações. Quando se está a lidar com serviços de terceiros, não se pode confiar muito nesse campo. Como eu disse no outro tópico. Não se pode querer defender a privacidade e depois usar-se serviços centralizados. Um serviço centralizado, dificilmente vai conseguir manter um bom nível de privacidade. Correcto. Eu acredito que a maior parte dos utilizadores que têm a privacidade como objectivo usavam a Samourai Wallet com o seu próprio nó, o que faz com que as suas transacções tenham ficado localmente armazenadas e longe dos servidores da Samourai. Contudo acredito que isto se trataria de uma percentagem muito pequena de utilizadores... |
|
|
|
E foram ainda apreendidos bens: PJ detém fundador de site de criptomoedas em operação com FBI
envolveu ainda várias buscas domiciliárias na zona da Grande Lisboa, que culminaram com a “apreensão de bens materiais de elevado valor monetário e de um acervo de bases de dados que permitirão determinar a total abrangência dos factos e a cabal incriminação dos autores”, esclarece a PJ em comunicado.
A questão do acervo das bases de dados levanta sempre a questão que tipo de informação é que poderá estar lá contida. Acredito que os responsáveis tenham tomado todas as precauções para encriptar o máximo de informaçã que tinham na sua posse mas neste tipo de casos já sabemos o desfecho para o acesso à informação. Também discuti este assunto um bocado no tópico principal, mas se alguém desta aba quiser recuperar os fundos que têm na carteira deles eu recomendava que enviassem para uma nova semente noutra carteira tendo em conta que as chaves públicas (xpub) muito provavelmente estão na mão do DOJ e do FBI, o que lhes permite compreender todas as misturas (e qualquer transacção) que foi feita na plataforma. |
|
|
|
RickDeckard
I just tested a upload and everything is fine from my end as well. I stopped making backups at the moment because I want to move them to another section within my setup but I still haven't found the time to do it properly... |
|
|
|
Was browsing around Zeus[1] Telegram group when found out a (not expected) reference to Foundation Passport in their recent alpha build (only available to sponsors): ZEUS v0.9.0-alpha1 is now rolling out to community sponsors!
This build includes:
- Watch-only account import (xpub)
- Hardware wallet / signing device support (Coldcard Q, Seedsigner, Passport Foundation etc.)
- Batch channel opens
- Batch on-chain txs
- Close channels to external addresses
- Improved payment path view
(...)
Zeus looks like a solid wallet and knowing that Passport is intended to be integrated with it just adds more options to their users (especially considering that Zeus is a Bitcoin Lighthing wallet),
[1] https://zeusln.com/ |
|
|
|
~
É interessante ver, que a Tesla apesar de não ter feito compras, consegue ter mais BTC que a Coinbase.
Estive a analisar a plataforma e os dados que são compilados pela mesma e tenho os meus receios se em alguns casos a plataforma estará a apresentar carteiras correctas de bitcoin. Usando o caso da Coinbase, segundo relatório de 31 de Dezembro de 2022[1] encontramos a seguinte menção na página 113: As of December 31, 2022, we held $356.2 million of crypto assets for investment and operating purposes at impaired cost. Our future earnings and cash flows will be impacted when we choose to monetize our crypto assets and the variability of our earnings will be dependent on the future fair value of such crypto assets.(...) A forma que os utilizadores obteram os 9.480 bitcoin que a Coinbase terá foi a dividir o preço da carteira deles (356.2 milhões) pelo valor do bitcoin do dia de 31 de Dezembro de 2022 (16,529 USD), que resulta então em 9.480 bitcoin. O meu receio está no facto de a Coinbase mencionar, no paragrafo anterior ao que transcrevi, que investem 10 % do resultado líquido numa carteira diversificada de criptomoedas, o que leva a entender que os 356.2 milhões de holdings em cripto poderão não ser 100 % em bitcoin, o que invalida os cálculos anteriores.
[1] https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001679788/86fe25e0-342b-40fa-aacc-ea04faf322cb.pdf |
|
|
|
From my point of view, mixing isn't inherently criminal behavior either.... As a matter of fact, many people (including myself) use(d) mixer to increase their privacy. It's nobody's business how much BTC i hold, that's private information (just like my FIAT balance on my bank account). But this didn't stop the world's governements of attacking all mixing services, so i don't see why they wouldn't increase their attack surface by making every service that isn't 100% KYC and actively working with them a valid target.
Don't be surprised if they even make Privacy illegal soon, that is the way we are going now. If they started to ban and arrest people who created open source wallets than be sure they will expand in future to other wallets and services. They clearly wanted to send a message with this. (...) Well I picked up in the news that there is actually a proposed rule by the Commerce Department issued on 01/29/2024 - whose comments are being collected until 04/29/2024 - whose intend is to KYC "foreign customers" who use IaaS products: The Executive order of January 19, 2021, “Taking Additional Steps To Address the National Emergency With Respect to Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities,” directs the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to propose regulations requiring U.S. Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) providers of IaaS products to verify the identity of their foreign customers, along with procedures for the Secretary to grant exemptions; and authorize special measures to deter foreign malicious cyber actors' use of U.S. IaaS products.(...) The bill is aimed towards identifying foreign customers that intend to train AI models considering the next paragraph of the summary, but even still it doesn't hide the fact that it is still a intend to KYC people that use IaaS services: (...) The Executive order of October 30, 2023, “Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence,” further directs the Secretary to propose regulations that require providers of certain IaaS products to submit a report to the Secretary when a foreign person transacts with that provider or reseller to train a large Artificial Intelligence (AI) model with potential capabilities that could be used in malicious cyber-enabled activity.
[1] https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/01/29/2024-01580/taking-additional-steps-to-address-the-national-emergency-with-respect-to-significant-malicious |
|
|
|
Por acaso já andei a ver se encontrava alguma noticia portuguesa sobre o assunto e nada. Sim, ele provavelmente vai ser extraditado, pois é cidadão EUA e o crime não tem condenação de pena de morte (único motivo para não ser extraditado). Claro que ele poderá solicitar ser julgado em Portugal e não nos EUA, mas tenho duvidas que seja aceite.
Não sei se será a existir grande cobertura da notícia em Portugal considerando o meio em que ocorreu - trata-se de um serviço que para além de servir como carteira também disponibilizada protocolos de mistura - e o facto de o público alvo português ter baixa sensibilidade a estes temas (no sentido de não compreender o que são na sua essência). Por exemplo no caso do Rui Pinto[1] já é totalmente diferente - o tema é muito acompanhado por parte dos portugueses e trata-se de um assunto que é fácil de explicar e perceber.
[1] https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rui_Pinto |
|
|
|
Coinjoins aren't custodial, so there's no funds they can seize. The Feds are only able to access the data of Samourai's users since their wallet was designed to collect xpub addresses and IP addresses by default.
As if it wasn't possible to use it over Tor since 2019, or a VPN. Taking shots at your competitor even after they have been extinguished -- the kind of class I would expect from you. Besides, nobody cares so long as you weren't sending money to North Korea-related or other watchlist addresses. Considering their documentation[1] and how xpub[1] were handled when not using DOJO with Samourai Walelt can we assume that, in worst case scenario, the DOJ has access to every xpub and can trace the mixes that were done in the platform? I assume that is more private create a new wallet and then transfer the funds from Sparrow Wallet to it, instead of just importing them to another one...
[1] https://docs.samourai.io/en/dojo/using-dojo[2] https://learnmeabitcoin.com/technical/keys/hd-wallets/extended-keys/#extended-public-key-normal |
|
|
|
Is anybody able to visit the project page? IsItDownRightNow[1] says that the service is DOWN for everyone but it also says that it has been down for more than 1 week which I know it isn't true.
[1] https://www.isitdownrightnow.com/bpip.org.html |
|
|
|
Ando sempre à procura de esclarecimento em relação a este assunto, obrigado por compilares estes links.
Em conversas com o joker_josue foi uma lacuna que sentimos e que achamos que faria sentido compilar tudo num local, obrigado pelo feedback positivo. O tópico também serve para discutir possíveis entraves que estejam a ser sentidos aquando a submissão do IRS. Já me informaram que no IRS deste ano já aparecem os quadros devidos (nomeadamente G1 e J) mas acredito que ainda haja muitas dúvidas e receios no que toca ao preenchimento da declaração neste âmbito. |
|
|
|
To add to the discussion, and since I have recently been reading more about Ordinals and Runes, in the first article written by Casey regarding Ordinals[1] he says that the concept of Ordinals had already been discussed, in some ways, back in 2012, right here in the forum[2][3]: ~
In another sense though, ordinals were in fact created by Satoshi Nakamoto in 2009 when he mined the Bitcoin genesis block. In this sense, ordinals, and especially early ordinals, are certainly of historical interest.
I personally favor the latter view. This is not least because the ordinals were independently discovered on at least two separate occasions, long before the era of modern NFTs began.
On August 21st, 2012, Charlie Lee posted a proposal to add proof-of-stake to Bitcoin to the Bitocin* Talk forum[2]. This wasn't an asset scheme, but did use the ordinal algorithm, and was implemented but never deployed.
On October 8th, 2012, jl2012 posted a scheme[3] to the the same forum which uses decimal notation and has all the important properties of ordinals. The scheme was discussed but never implemented.
The idea never reached adoption and generate some discussion about it and eventually Casey would make a post about his idea on the forum on December 2022[4]. What I can't seem to understand so far is the contradiction that Casey makes regarding Ordinals when he says that he has views from those whom he considers being labeled as "ideological Bitcoin maximalists", without being himself a ideological Bitcoin maximalist: If you ask me my views, they will be nearly indistinguishable from those of, for lack of a better term, ideological Bitcoin maximalists. I loathe the state, have no particular respect for authority, and believe that Bitcoin is the path away from the debauched debasement of our lives and civilization that fiat currency has wrought.
However, I do not consider myself an ideological Bitcoin maximalist, with the primary reason being that ideology often does not survive contact with reality.
(...) This is all fine and well - I suppose he supports a hybrid model regarding supporting some basic fundamentals but embracing other perspectives - but this is the part that triggers me: So, what should you do about inscriptions?
Just ignore them. More valuable use-cases will price out the majority of inscriptions. There will always be some high-value inscriptions, but they don't compete seriously with hard money and uncensorable transactions. Bitcoin's destiny is high fees. Embrace it. I would very much would like to ignore Inscriptions but sadly I can't - Every now and then I am faced with 100 sat/vB fees if I want to make a payment of a couple of dollars to any kind of service. How can I choose to ignore them when they have a huge impact on the core functionality of Bitcoin?
[1] https://rodarmor.com/blog/ordinal-theory/[2] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=102355.0[3] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=117224.0[4] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=117224.msg1273726#msg1273726[5] https://rodarmor.com/blog/inscriptions-a-guide-for-the-ideological-maxi/*He mispelled bitcointalk  (Bitocin??) |
|
|
|
Btw, there have been multiple posts about these spammers soon losing their money and stopping their attacks. Possible. What is the discussion around this particular case? Ordinals have been going on ~ mid 2022[1] and their behaviour hasn't slowed down to the point of being non-relevant in the network and Runes are following the same trend (albeit in a bigger scale at the moment, but the data is still few). But the enemies of Bitcoin with access to money printers could also improve their approaches and clog the network in the same way. The current spammers have showed them the way.
This point brings me back to my previous comment[2], especially when combined now with this suspicious from LoyceV[3] - If this is the work of one individual, how deep do you have to trust these implementations to sink hundreds and hundreds of dollars in (fees) transactions that, supposedly, have a unique characteristic that will make somebody in the future find value in that? Like I said, surelly this isn't the average Joe that heard about bitcoin in the news, nor this is the early adopter whose pockets are the first ones that I believe could sustain such "investment". Or is this a case of a very, very bored individual that sees Ordinals and Runes as the next boom (similar to what happened so far with Bitcoin) and want to take the early benefits of it?
[1] https://rodarmor.com/blog/ordinal-theory/[2] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5493652.msg63979843#msg63979843[3] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2848987.msg63981471#msg63981471 |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
