Imagine using a Gameboy lookalike as your new hardware wallet? And I am not talking about the second generation pocket-sized ones, but the old brick-style consoles. I agree with dkbit98 that removing the cable is a ridiculous move and would force me to look elsewhere if I was looking to buy a hardware wallet. Not because I can't afford to buy a cable somewhere else or don't have spare ones somewhere, but because I expect to get a fully functioning device with everything that goes with it. What's next? You don't get a keyboard, but you can pay extra if you want them to install it for you? I remember my first purchase in Best Buy in the States some 15 years ago (approx.) Didn't have much money back then, so it was a big thing for me. On top of the price displayed in the store, I also had to pay extra for taxes. Didn't know that's normal in the US back then. On top of that, they added an additional charge of $99. When I asked what that's for, they said their Geek Squad team was kind enough to install the OS on it + drivers for the graphics card, etc. I had a Carol-like fit when I heard that. I said, isn't that standard when you buy a laptop? Were you just going to give it to me with no OS installed, so I can't use if after paying for it? I didn't want to pay for it and asked the salesman to take it back and have their Geek Squad uninstall everything they put on it. After he spoke with his boss, I was told I didn't have to pay the extra $99. Jerk  Sales tax is just the way it is over here. And Best Buy being scummy is just the way best buy is. As for the cable, I would like them to give you 2 cables. One with the data wires and one without. This way if your batteries are dead you always have a cable around that can power it by plugging it into anything without worry. Minor point but it would be nice. But, lets face it. All their previous ones did not come with cables either so it's not like anything changed with that. All you got was the unit in a bag. -Dave |
|
|
|
But why do you wait till now to complain about it?
He made a bunch of posts about it. But since LBC is licensed by FIN-FSA https://www.finanssivalvonta.fi/en/ they have to follow certain rules. The OP instead of filing a report with them just came here and started calling them frauds and scammers instead of going though proper channels. Since out of millions of transactions over a decade there are not a significant number of complaints that don't go back to the user being the one at fault it's not something anyone was putting a lot of time into following. -Dave |
|
|
|
|
A bit of snark here but...
Wyoming has about 600,000 people living in about 98000 square miles with a GDP of $37 billion.
Nassau County NY has about 1.4 million people living in 455 square miles with a GDP of $85 billion.
These mostly empty STATES can pass laws like this since it looks good on the books (although as written does very little) because the odds of it mattering one way or another are fairly small.
Having it places with a lot of people and a lot of money would matter since the issue might actually come up. Or, to put it another way. It's all political showmanship.
Something like this would probably never pass in a location with a lot of people and money moving since there could be real consequences to it.
There was a town around here that passed a law about no buildings higher then 25 stories. Which was kind of funny since due to the softness of the ground and a few other things any large buildings like that would have slid into the Long Island Sound. But it showed that the town was protecting the 'tranquility' of the area.
-Dave
|
|
|
|
|
The only way I can see a merchant being worried about high fees is if they are running their own node to take payments and then converting their coins later to cover expenses.
BUT, most of them that I know of fall into 2 categories.
1) Those that don't care since they are using a gateway that does it for them so they get fiat imminently through their processor and fees don't enter the picture
2) Those that do it themselves that will plan a bit to see if they can get a bit more fiat when the price of BTC rises in which case a few sats more for fees is not that big a deal
Unless I am missing something I can't see them caring about fees anyplace.
-Dave
|
|
|
|
|
I am really just reading it as:
Paragraph 1 = You cannot be forced to hand over your private keys.
Paragraph 2 = unless we say so.
It's good in theory, but I can see it being challenged as soon as someone tries to hide some funds and all of a sudden you are forced to produce private keys just to prove they are not related to some address.
-Dave
|
|
|
|
I smiled when I saw DaveF saying 12 million, then read the cost part and this ain't funny anymore: According to estimates, current management claimed that expenses for an independent examiner could reach between $90 million and $100 million. Common, this is just crazy, an independent examiner that will look through the finances will cost more than FTX was spending on actually doing that accounting and management, in 2021 SBF claimed FTX had an operational cost of 50 million a quarter, now it's 100 million to verify that data? Seems like some don't like how John Ray is closing in on those stashed away dollars and are trying as hard as possible to delay this, probably so that it won't interfere with the SBF trial, who knows?? It's a lot but it's not like you and me digging through some blockchain data to find some things. Everything has to be documented in a way that the courts and lawyers can deal with. Be verified by others that it's accurate. Then you have to bring in other people to see if the funds could be clawed back and from where since this is bouncing between countries you now have a bunch of international finance people involved and people involved in international finance law. And so on..... $100 million is a lot until you figure out the number of people who are going to be working on the team with the independent examiner. But if the CIO says I took those coins and put them there and those other coins and put them here it's a different story. -Dave |
|
|
|
|
Good call on the part of the judge. Unless the auditors can find more then they cost it's a loss for the people owed money.
Since they do have people within the organization cooperating with the government who can show what went where, the odds of them finding a substantial amount THAT CAN BE RECOVERED is probably not the best.
If you find $20 million and can only recover $10 million and you spent $12 million doing it. It's a loss for everyone.
-Dave
|
|
|
|
|
Who are you using for taking credit card payment now? Where are you hosting it?
Some web hosts have partnered with some providers to get you crypto payments.
It's not a 1 size fits all answer. And what do you want to do with the payments? Convert straight to fiat or hold them?
Some places like Conbase Commerce are more expensive then others. BUT they will do the conversion on the fly and put the money into your account.
Others can be more of a manual process.
-Dave
|
|
|
|
For bitcoin itself here is how they work: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_timestampSo you can vary the time a bit, but in the end it does not matter since it's when it's broadcast and seen by other nodes, not what time it says it was found, so long as it's within the 'valid time' As for explorers, there is no standard. Some report what the block says, others report when they see it, usually within a few seconds or less of it being found. It really does not matter much other then for us to take a look later. -Dave |
|
|
|
Good points but the problem is that the regulations are made by governments to monitor people's activities not to ensure their security. This is why they enforce a lot of restrictions on customers such as KYC which is not going to help with the business owner scamming its users but instead will give all your detailed information and your activities to the authorities.
We see that in the banking system too. Remember the disasters leading to 2008? All those banks were regulated and members of FDIC and yet they ruined the economy and in the end they were bailed out while their "customers" were crushed.
Drifting a bit OT but I will not say it's an apples to oranges comparison but rather a lemons to limes. If you had money in an FDIC insured bank that failed. You got your money back, many people got their money back well above their insurance limits. The stock / bond / mortgage holders who got crushed I would put more into the people who invested in all the scam coins that are out there that vanished in the middle of the night so to speak. When you had places lending 110%+ of STATED (not appraised) property value those of us watching who had seen the dot com implosion knew what was going to happen. The only question was when. Either way, it's what we have now. So although we can keep sitting here and complaining about it, without getting peoples support behind it nothing is going to happen. And here is the kicker that nobody want's to hear. Most people WANT more regulation of things like this. Because *most* people don't want to know or care about how BTC works they just want to make money off of it somehow, and regulation makes them feel safe. IF they actually are or not safe is a different story, but they just want to feel safe. We here are not in the most people category, so we have a different view. -Dave |
|
|
|
How about Google (or similiar) that benefits from providing some Bitcoin infrastructure/data and not releasing any bug-fixes, plug-ins, tools etc.? They must have made effort in order to integrate Bitcoin with many other components. Have they shared anything (a simple script or a code example at least)?
We may never know. If someone at Google told a programmer to go do X and it then gets released by the programmer as open source unless they attribute it back to their boss telling them to do it we may just know it as the DaveF tool. Most of the time there will be some recognition, other times it's just put out there. Years ago (20+) was, an open source video codec that was written by someone working for a DVR manufacturer. HE open sourced it, with their permission, but without noting that it was done while working for them at at their request. Because, at that time it did not do what they wanted with what they had to work with. A few years later when they started using it on some hardware, people were screaming that they stole this guys work. Who worked for them and was paid to develop it for them..... But there were a few weeks when shit was blowing up about it..... Had that not happened, that codec would have just sat there as open source never knowing that megacorp paid to develop it. -Dave |
|
|
|
The other 1/2 the of it is that is also has the potential to save people from getting scammed by others who are operating without the proper licensing. DaveF goes out and files the paperwork, gets the background checks, posts valid bonds and insurance. pooya87 does not. DaveF as has to charge more to cover his expenses. pooya87 does not. DaveF disappears with a bunch of peoples money. After a bunch of time and effort they get at least some of their money back from the bond and insurance. pooya87 disappears with a bunch of peoples money. After a bunch of time and effort people get nothing. Possibly an auction here on BTC from other community members trying to help out. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5434623.0Even today there are banks here in the US that do not have FDIC insurance. And people keep putting money into them. And are surprised when they disappear in the middle of the night with their funds. As franky1 said. You want to be a currency you get to play by those rules. -Dave |
|
|
|
i as a brit can say this without bias...
i read the OP's content as if he is a republican/trump supporter being anti democratic party
however the actual events are not banning all accounts
its banning accounts of bank account owners that are doing business but not being licenced, when said businesses are operating as a money business
its also businesses that operate certain flaggable offenses such as laundering russian riches or gambling services in a no-gambling region or other politically prohibited stuff
yes those businesses might be operating ethically for their customers. but they still need to operate legally
the fault here lays in where bitcoin stopped being treated as a tradable private property and instead traded as a currency which allowed regulators to get their fingers in and grab power over crypto businesses
its the downside of "going mainstream recognition as a currency circa 2013 and being more enforced since
It's easier to say it's called making everyone play by the same rules. People who took the time, set themselves up as a MSB, properly filed the paperwork and everything else were and are loosing money to people who were doing things under the table. Want to take $100 of BTC and convert it to fiat for a friend, fine. Want to do it for a stranger, also fine. Want to do it for 1000 people and charge a percentage. You are running a MSB and should be treated as such. -Dave |
|
|
|
|
There are not enough letters in the word no to give an accurate representation of the no of the answer.
Even if someone came in, paid the debt and made everyone whole again there is no way people would use it.
And to top it off, they would have charge such outlandish fees to make up for the losses there is no way they could be competitive.
And every action they took would be under such scrutiny by regulators that nothing could ever be done quickly.
And then getting other financial institutions to partner with them would be just about impossible.
And so on.....
-Dave
|
|
|
|
Blockstream gives to Bitcoin and there isn't much fuss about it.
Actually there is a lot of people that don't like them and bring up how they are forcing side chains (LN and Liquid) and slowing development and so on. BUT, they are a business that exists to make things happen in BTC so them giving and having people complain are just what it is. What I am talking about is say IBM donates to a project they they find interesting. They know about it because it's using IBM a supercomputer hardware and obviously they want it to succeed. And it does work out and it does succeed. BUT, since it was developed on IBM hardware (before IBM got involved in giving money) it will run better on IBM hardware then any other supercomputer because that is what it was developed on. Do you think people are going to not care, or do you think they are going to scream that IBM is trying to take over BTC or some such nonsense. So they either help out under the table so people don't know. Or they just skip the headache and don't help. Once again, just my opinion. -Dave |
|
|
|
|
HW wallet manufactures are also kind of stuck in a loop. NOT picking on any one here, even OneKey, more in general.
If I create the BEST and MOST SECURE hardware wallet on the planet. BUT I make it all closed source and remove all marking from all the chips so you can't see what they are. And then figure out a way for them to all self destruct when tampered with I am going to sell just about none. Because there could never be any proof since it would all be a black hole and nobody could trust it. So, we have open source products with off the shelf parts and have to deal with the fact that the bad guys have now have a perfect knowledge of what we are doing and how we are doing it and can work from there to figure it out.
Not saying there is a better or worse way, but this is what it is and we as a group have to accept it and be able to help others understand the risks and how to mitigate them and possible fixes.
-Dave
|
|
|
|
So from the tweets you have this: due to the scheduled termination of our contract with the card’s Issuing Bank. And then this: In the aftermath of FTX, Luna/Terra, Voyager, and other high profile crypto-related incidents, many financial institutions are reducing their potential exposure to digital currencies and related products. Scheduled termination really sounds like this was planned. Could just b poor wording or were they going to replace them and did not or could not get someone to take over. That is part of the problems with tweets. Sometimes you really need a 2 or 3 page press release to discuss what is going on. NOT just the highlights in a couple of paragraphs. -Dave |
|
|
|
At current hash rate, you'll have a 2% chance of solving a block in a year. Up to you to decide if that's worth it.
I don't really believe in "free electricity": someone pays for it. And if they notice a continuous 3000W going to your place, they may not like it.
I am seeing more and more "free electricity" to mean 'my landlord charges me a fixed amount if I use it or not, so screw them I am going to use all of it' Just ran into that with a customer that it happened to in the start of the year. They went from metered ($75 to $90 a month) to a fixed amount ($178.00 a month) so now PCs don't get shut off at night, who cares if you leave lights on when you go home and a pair of L3+ are now humming away in a unused space. Because....screw them. Back to this. If you don't need the money coming in and want to play the lottery then going solo is fine. Could be a big score one day. Or you could be felling like the people who bet on Philadelphia to win the Super Bowl last weekend. -Dave |
|
|
|
...now everything will be seen by the government and financial privacy will become a thing of past in UAE.... It's that the point? Not to be cynical about it but this goes back 50+ years when the US pulled the $500 & $1000 and $5000 bill when they were pulled from circulation for fear of 'criminal money laundering' Every year more and more places come up with more and more regulations and more and more ways to follow the money. I'm sure as more and more countries come out with their CBDC we will start to see more and more ways of taxing transactions that used to fly under the radar. -Dave |
|
|
|
I'm not opposed to that approach either, but in some cases the feedback was unrelated to Yogg's ColdKey business. For example, DarkStar_ left feedback relating to Yogg's borrowing habits, and I'm not sure how I feel about encouraging DarkStar_ to remove or change his feedback. The feedback is still accurate, but given Yogg's more recent feedback I doubt that DarkStar_ or anyone else would lend money to Yogg again. Having that feedback remain does show that Yogg was working towards the long-con. That could provide a valuable lesson to all.
Actually he stiffed DarkStar_ and some others with loans so I am surprised that he has not changed his feedback. Is there anyway of checking which addresses belonged to which sets? I have a gold AP halving set that I won't be able to physically access for a while. I'd assume it's almost certainly been sweeped, but it does look like there are 3 halving addresses still intact right now. - loans that should have been returned long time ago (to Mopar, Polymerbit, Agrawas and possibly others)
He also borrowed money from me, and still owes me $1500 (+ interest). I had no idea he borrowed money from so many different people. I'm sure there is also some inertia involved, it's not like he is coming back, and it's not like anyone is going to trust him again, so there is probably a bit of the 'I'll get to it, when I get to it' attitude. It's not going to change anything. Probably should be a different post. But I keep going around and around in my head. Was this a long con, or was he troubled and struggling for years and then something finally pushed him over the edge? We have what he told others, about the gambling and drugs and such, but we really don't know the truth just what he told them. In the end it probably does not matter. -Dave |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
