I don't know what you did.
When i am searching for "Lauda", i get the following result:




The first result obviously is the Lauda you meant.

A decentralized service is a service which is being provided in a decentralized network (e.g. peer-to-peer network).
This has nothing to do with "hash power" or Proof of Work in general.




Theoretically, yes.




All of those services which do not rely on mining etc.
A 51% is an attack against cryptocurrency.

Es ist genau anders herum.

Dein Problem ist sehr unpräzise beschrieben aber vermutlich sehr einfach zu lösen.




Bei einer Transaktion kann mein weder eine Bestellnr. noch ähnliches "mit übertragen".




Schau dir die Transaktion an.
Dort werden (vermutlich) zwei Ausgangsadressen gelistet sein.
Eine ist gelb hinterlegt (das ist deine Wechselgeldadresse) und die andere is weder grün, gelb noch blau hinterlegt. Das ist die "Ausgangsadresse" (oder wie man besser sagen würde: Empfängeradresse).


Falls dir das immer noch nicht helfen sollte, dann poste hier einfach die Transaktions ID.

According to coinmarketcap, VOT (VoteCoin) is a useless coin with a 24 trading volume of less than 100$. Mostly even less than 20-30$.
A google search regarding "Valid Order Chain" does not bring up any cryptocurrency.

And the exchange.. oh well:

It is a scam too.

I am sorry, but you lost your money.




You should stop looking for the "next bitcoin". It won't exist.
All coins claiming that are scam.

If you really want to invests into crypto, choose bitcoin. Anything else will lose you money in the long run.

The scam part is that the address will get changed to the address in control of the creator of this "free money tool".
You basically send him your money and won't get anything in return.

Everyone can fake such a video. Don't rely on such "proofs".




Then why are you here posting about it instead of making money?  


That's an obvious scam. I wonder how people still can fall for that.

Mycelium is still being developed and not abandoned.
On android, there are quite a few reliable mobile wallets. And mycelium is one of them.

There are definitely mobile wallets around with more functionality, but mycelium is perfectly fine.

I disagree.
Why should someone use a hardware wallet from a friend instead of simply using his computer ?
Using a device from a different person, again needs more trust.

If you trust your hardware (which you have to, otherwise you shouldn't use any IT devices), you can boot a live linux distro and use /dev/random to generate the entropy. Then use openssl to create your private- and public key as well as the address.
This requires less trust and is more handy.

I was referring to the image based recaptcha from google.
Text based captchas can easily be solved by some open source tools available on github.

The service i was referring to, pays other people to solve captchas.
Your software gets the captcha, submits it to the service (where it gets solved by humans paid for it), you get the answer and can therefore solve the captcha.

This takes roughly 5-10 seconds until a captcha is solved.

If you want to be secured from online attack vectors, you need to choose an offline (or semi-offline) type of wallet.

A paper wallet is probable the more secure one, if you:

• know how to properly create it offline on a clean machine
• know how to properly spend from it on a clean machine

The disadvantages are that generation and spending from it can be quite a hassle. Especially for people who don't do this often.


A hardware on the other hand has the advantages:

• better usability
• easier setup

The disadvantage is that it is not free. But you will have an easier time setting it up and using it.

Both of them are kind of secure against online attacks.
If you are regularly spending coins, i'd recommend you a hardware wallet.

Yea, no.

You seem to misunderstand. I am warning any potential customer to not fall for this.
There are basically 2 options:
1) You are malicious and have backdoors or vulnerabilities built in to exploit it later on or
2) You think your software is secure, but it is full of vulnerabilities which allows an attacker to steal funds later on.

There is nothing else which can happen with your "packages".

Even your "30k package" is way to cheap, since it is not about the features but the security. It is either a scam or bad quality.

If you don't want to type your mnemonic code into your PC, you could just install another mobile wallet (e.g. electrum, samourai or mycelium) and restore your wallet with these.
This obviously will only work for your BTC.

Another option would be to create a bootable linux live distro and use your mnemonic code to create a wallet in that live distro.
Then just send your coins to an exchange or wherever you want them to send to.
Since you are not creating a new wallet, but using your mnemonic code, there is nothing you need to save. Just boot it, import your mnemonic code, make your transaction and shut down your pc.

Do not trust any exchange software for an amount as low as 5.000$.

This is either malicious (vulnerabilities or backdoors built in) or insecure / buggy.
Creating an exchange costs way more than just 5k. You will never get a functional and secure exchange software/setup for such a low amount.

You need way more capital than that to start an exchange. The development will be much more costly if you want a secure software.

So, if you buy this.. you either get scammed or hacked.

1 exa = 1.000 peta = 1.000.000 tera

So, 120 million tera hashes are indeed 120 exa hashes.

Tera = 10¹²
Peta = 10¹⁵
Exa = 10¹⁸

No.
A transaction is validated once it is received (before adding it to the mempool).




There is no "the blockchain".
Every non-mining node adds blocks to his own local blockchain.
Upon receiving a new block from the network, it is being locally validated and afterwards added to the local blockchain.

There is no single blockchain instance. Each full node has a copy of "the blockchain" and adds blocks to it received from the network after validating it.



Your troll attempts are very weak. At least put a little bit of effort into it.
That's just sad. Your whole account is a trolling dumpster.

I'm done with replying to your troll posts.
It should be clear to everyone in this thread now that you are talking garbage. No reason for me to care about your shitty posts anymore.

No, you are still wrong.

Each full node validates a transaction before it is added to its mempool.
Later on, those transactions can be verified by full nodes (as well as SPV clients).

No. Every full node does.
Check this users trust rating.




This does not prove anything.
Even if all non-mining full nodes are turned off, i can still run my own non-mining full node and still verify all transactions.

You seem to have a big misunderstanding regarding bitcoin.

You are wrong.
Every full node does validate all blocks and transactions.

If we apply your theory, a malicious miner could include a non-valid transaction into a block and every non-mining full node would accept it. This is simply wrong.
Each full node would decline that block which contains that non-valid transaction.

This truly depends on the definition of using bitcoin.
IMO using bitcoin is defined as participating in the bitcoin network by using the bitcoin protocol.

And in this case - even with only 1 out of 3 keys - this would fall under the category of using bitcoin.
With 2 out of 3 keys hold by a 3rd party, this might not be the way it is intended to be used as decentralized peer-2-peer money, but it still is used in a proper way.

But running a full node doesn't have anything to do with using bitcoin, IMO.

All (except one) of those mentioned vulnerabilities are vulnerabilities of a software used, not the bitcoin protocol.

That's like saying:
There are X email vulnerabilities... and then only mentioning vulnerabilities from specific email clients.
or..
There are X internet vulnerabilities.. and then mentioning vulnerabilities from random internet services.

The protocol had vulnerabilities in the early phase, i am not denying that.
But those vulnerabilities you mentioned are completely irrelevant in the context of "bitcoin vulnerabilities". They have nothing to do with the protocol itself, but with bitcoin related software.

You don't necessarily need to run a full node to be using bitcoin.
The SPV mechanism has been mentioned by satoshi in the bitcoin whitepaper. There is nothing wrong with using SPV wallets.

In the end, you are still verifying whether a transaction has been confirmed yourself. You just don't store all blocks.
Getting (and storing) the blockheader, together with requesting additional information to validate whether a transaction is included using the merkle tree, is still verifying by yourself. Therefore you are still using bitcoin 'the correct way'.

If you want to to help the network or want more privacy, then a full node obviously is better. But it isn't required to actually use bitcoin.