Well I guess that answers my question

Imo you should focus more on proofing your API(Rest)/RPC rather than issues like these.

How is your application going to communicate with the wallet? It won't matter if it's a hot wallet or a cold one, if there are vulnerabilities or attack vectors that others can exploit to take control of it, it won't matter if it's a bitcore node or a trezor.

What you could do to mitigate damage would be to simply not keep all your funds accessible to your business at all times. Every once in a while, send out from your business wallet to your cold storage, or vice versa depending on how much you expect to spend. Manually.

https://whattomine.com/

I found this website a while ago, I think it has values for average of every card. A lot of scripts (except sha256..) so you can compare hashing power depending on which coin you plan to mine.

From looks of it 3 RX470 are worth about 1.75x of a 1080ti on most scripts.

When a channel is forcefully closed, funds are kept in the channel's contract for a few more blocks until they're available for you. If you still own the old lightning wallet, you need to wait a while after the other party closes the channel so that the funds get broadcasted on chain for you to get back.

Do you still have the old hsm_secret? Or addresses from the onchain lnd wallet?

Major Counter-Strike event happening in the course of the next 2 months, I don't know how many people here are interested in e-sports, but for me it's always been a much more satisfying watch than plain old football. There's just so much more potential for unexpected events to happen that every round keeps me on the edge, I never miss a major.

So! The initial seeds for challengers stage are out, and the round 1 games are scheduled for next week. Which team do you think is going to pull off the 3-0 & the remaining 7 teams to make it out of elims? I want to pick NiP for the 3-0 win but they're too inconsistent even if their first game looks easy. Ence is a popular pick but it's just a meme at this point. Would love to hear thoughts from other e-sport fans on the forums.

a - KingZee

Give it another shot what the hell been a while

Is this using G-suite? If that's the case, are you offering super-admin rights, or user rights with you as the super-admin, meaning that you can change access rights to files in the future? Thanks.

Yep, just like the comments above, this is a withdrawal system.

User 1 requests withdrawal : Address 1 signs transaction to User 1 + Address 2, and so on.

I did use some blockchain tools to get the original address :  3BhE9fR6KWcAqBvPmfex1NMXNyTKnAhDEw

This is the address that held the initial funds that then keep being used for withdrawals. You can google it or search a bit more to find to what service it belongs to, but I don't understand why you find this weird anyways.

That website is a straight up scam? It sends me through an ad-fested loop of redirects.

Since you're a newbie and through your last comment :


You're basically just shilling & forcing people to click your link. Nice try.

Lol. Well, hopefully more one-time miners give it a shot every once in a while, lend us their PHs for a few weeks.

Are you sure those channels are closed? From my understanding unless you choose to close them, they will remain open, or the other nodes can choose to unilaterally close them.

Like Heisenberg said, you need the hsm_secret to recover your onchain funds. As for funds in channels, I honestly cant figure out from a quick search how you can recover them. Channel states is stored in the .sqlite3 file, but I think that using it might cause conflicts in case you still have it.

How much time do you reckon that could be if we were to reach it? Another half a year?

If his trust rating is red because of ponzi promotion, and it's very unlikely for him to dabble into that after 5 years, then in my opinion it's undeserved at the moment, and should be re-considered.

But whatever buddy, way I see it you're acting exactly the same way as him. First because it came from me, so you're being stubborn. And second, because generally speaking getting you to remove a trust rating hurts your ego, because it makes you look like you were wrong.

The more interactions I have with you, the more I see that you act a lot more based on emotions rather than reason. It's not necessarily bad, because you can still be a "good" person judging people subjectively. But it becomes bad once you get on the bad side of someone, and your judgement becomes clouded by your personal opinions. a.k.a me, OgNasty, and -I don't follow enough drama to cite any more people, but they do exist-.

What are you even talking about? I've read this one before but how is it related to a scam? A user blackmailed bbc.reporter, got an emotional reaction from jeremypwr, but then he regretted it and added him back into the campaign. bbc.reporter (the blackmailed) and jeremypwr are on good terms now, so I seriously fail to see how is this even worthy of mention???

For an example I've seen myself of "past mistakes", may I recommend jeremypwr : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=137185

I'm only mentioning him because I interacted with him through his signature campaign, which he pays out on time, and since he's currently managing 2 campaigns it generally means he can be trusted with a decent sum of money. The first time I've seen his trust rating I thought it was hilarious for him to be tagged for something he did 5 years ago, even it being a ponzi promotion.

I'm sure there are a shitload of similar examples, especially red ratings for one-time actions that aren't straight up thefts, and more like lack of knowledge or better judgement. But if anything, theymos's message should mean future ratings should be more focused on the time being rather than digging up small dirt on people from distant past actions.

I think everyone here is taking the "easy" way out. It's VERY easy to take the side of the one with power rather than a red-trusted newbie.

But imagine if it were OgNasty that made the thread of removing Lauda from DT? It's no surprise that they're both not fond of each other. What would you guys think then? theymos already cleared out that corroborating and vote advocation is allowed, and I think it's mainly because of this biased standard, where people are fine with unilateral trust list manipulation, but frown upon other parties that do it.

I personally would rather have each person care about their own trust list, and keep outside interactions with each others to a minimum, but if theymos is opening the floodgates then so be it, make subjective opinions and let drama collide with each other to then end up with some sort of mutual agreement.

So right now I actually would recommend Og to make that thread about his disagreements with Lauda, and place all his reasons on why he doesn't want her being on DT, (it IS morally allowed by theymoss standards as it stands now). Not that I'd partake in that drama, but since Lauda is already getting users to include this and exclude that, maybe she'll make her own thread, and this one can stop being the drama-fest it is.

If I were to give my best answer (this might not align with what theymos thinks), you should ask yourself the question : Does this person's action mean I EVERYONE shouldn't trust him with money?

For the dude advocating users to remove Lauda from the truat list, it technically says nothing about his trustworthiness as a trade party. His hate for Lauda  (not just his, it seems like a whole gang of people want to exclude her from DT..) is a very subjective opinion, and more of a "politicial" issue as theymos put it.

Account trading on the other hand, can objectively be considered as manipulation of trust. Since a high ranked account, possibly one with trust, being sold to someone else, means that account is not a reflection of the new owner's trust rating.

It kind of goes both ways when you think about it. Why is Lauda allowed to manipulate trust by advocating inclusion or exclusion of specific members, while if someone else advocates for HER exclusoon, it's neg-trust. That's some double standards for you guys.

If you're serious about anything you stand for, you should stop acting like you're better than other users on the forums, while all you do is spam your own website, and promote your questionable services at the expense of other people's misfortunes.

This is the first time I've seen this thread pickup so much, with several accusations to actually start to touch at cloudbet's reputation. I'm sure that if this keeps up, Cloudbet will have to rethink their KYC procedures and selective bet-cancelling, hopefully refunding the users who got into trouble in the process.

Mt. Gox? didn't they exit rather than "lose access forever" to the coins?

Regardless, I've heard about the news OP's mentioning. A lot of people are skeptical about the "he died" part. Only time will tell, and everyone has their eyes on the coins in the cold storage address now if they will ever move.

Maybe Quadriga can discuss with the owner's family and take over his personal computer so they can have access to his wallet? It's not because bitcoin is impenetrable that there aren't other ways to access addresses.

I'm not sure I get your point a lot. Do you want to teach kids crypto? Or do you want them to learn "how to make money"? What is "how to make money", and how are you going to teach it?

I'm fine and I actually agree with the fact that education needs to be on par with technology. A lot of new things have emerged in the last 20 years, and they're not nearly being taught as much as they should be.

But plain old 1+1=2 education isn't at the same time depracated. You can't just throw it away, they're necessary for a kid to develop basic logic skills.