CoinWallet.eu Stress Test Cancelled + Bitcoin Giveaway

[CoinWallet.eu]

Unlike previous "tests" any consolidation of these transactions will be with low fees and will not impact regular Bitcoin operations. It is the best way to shrink the UXTO set while rewarding anyone who is fast enough to take the coins first.

More keys

Ky4MMN1D6YsBi9whrMiQCzKFSV5rRajozPDFnAbTjSKzLygYdQcK
KxTn6JTCcu7DgbJsoMnoVNc6bAaYWAEggtFjuwy9zQEP576Cr1Ee
L4pvdFwouE864kVLgScmbpDZVZxm7w1LzA5jmGqRKDaT931xnvyF
KwMd5sbn2Rg4MrEtVaCMGkCtrZTHPzS7eSut8Q7Y4uCMhsrD2teF
L3MJzCf6U7LDzWvYRpAeZdnD2BfsRDrUYtzrr4PWLWg9Yb7MDfTf
Kwwn4imBfo9eqDcvaoSvUjDDVKRQGMdfkJT7y4YV1A29sC4jsj6Y
Kzv9m5Dvf6MLo3PsjBCwUETG4p667ScEs2t3wfUHx7wpYtLxphYN
L1J7tM78SyDXYchdFmLLZafxz3TW36fHnK9QYKxQjsvC6VmkLTX2
KwnVPvvyjxGBga15mrT5NcddYtDxThUndQ5e17kuoYc2iYHBL6Xv
L2HcNb8wPCQ2gpL4oT5Mn6cvKqfAFjCqK3qWquak9BvYasbgWxxF
L3PjeCNMrW4AKJ6QVgkj5RozpdhHeM8Zo7DUZUUsXAR4kQKEDNgK
L2pFTGoiefeApRpoBENebddkdac9ZjVqDZrBmKTUuJPB4Gk2NR7w

[PolarPoint]

If you want to do a giveaway. PM keys to random members. The way you are doing is just going to benefit those few who use bots to read the keys and send them off immediately.

[Jestah]

If you want to do a giveaway. PM keys to random members. The way you are doing is just going to benefit those few who use bots to read the keys and send them off immediately.

They don't care as long as we perform their testing for them.

[Lauda]

If you want to do a giveaway. PM keys to random members. The way you are doing is just going to benefit those few who use bots to read the keys and send them off immediately.

You are right about the second part. However, I do not agree with the first one. I'm going to assume that they want to do this very quickly. I do not know how long these keys might last after being posted (maybe 2-3 minutes? Instead of random members, they should ask people to post in the thread and give everyone a private key (or multiple).

They don't care as long as we perform their testing for them.

Yeah, if they post a lot of keys right now things would become really interesting. Technically nobody can blame them for doing anything at all.

[amiryaqot]

If you want to do a giveaway. PM keys to random members. The way you are doing is just going to benefit those few who use bots to read the keys and send them off immediately.

Agreed with you that is more interesting idea instead of wasting time to try during this stress test time, if OP will give random keys to members that would be nice.

[DannyHamilton]

If you want to do a giveaway. PM keys to random members. The way you are doing is just going to benefit those few who use bots to read the keys and send them off immediately.

Actually, the way they are doing it ought to just benefit the mining pools, unless they just can't be bothered to try to collect such minuscule amounts.

Any pool that decides that it's worthwhile to confirm transactions that include these outputs, can simply ignore any transaction funded by these outputs (even if they are sent by bots) and create their own transaction big enough to fill any available space in their block with a single transaction (or few transactions) that use up as many of the outputs as they can fit.

[Racey]

And how would you use those keys? I really don't know.

[Lauda]

And how would you use those keys? I really don't know.

You import the keys to Bitcoin Core (or other, depending on wallet that you're using). I've imported one to check and it looks like the balance was mostly intact for up to 10 minutes after it was posted. Somebody had already sent away most of the balance which was initially less than 0.01.
If you do not know how private keys are imported, then check this link out.

[patrolman]

If you want to do a giveaway. PM keys to random members. The way you are doing is just going to benefit those few who use bots to read the keys and send them off immediately.

Agreed with you that is more interesting idea instead of wasting time to try during this stress test time, if OP will give random keys to members that would be nice.

It is more work, no doubt, but I have to agree with the above - you're more likely to make a greater marketing impact sending PMs with the private keys to individual members. I would suggest starting in this thread 

[CoinWallet.eu]

I guess thats where the challenge lies. If you send the transactions with minimal fee, you could recover a huge amount of btc. However, if someone else sends a transaction with a high fee first, it will probably overrule the first.

[CoinWallet.eu]

More privkeys

KxrZ7GWwMQggTUT1kCKJykwWP4j9w2QJAdq7ZzBHgR2ZxVxnVPGD
L3MwcPy9gc6VmfuHyR3EtHjkyn7gq2q5hyG38MAfdwsZmYQriV63
L32dWAJV4TFr1UZucUh4dRP2GaSttgsTPEs5VZSBDWmNzM7X56YZ
L1VKFTepC6gSabHQi2uVjueQRqbhWgakJsifsSPCkXwd988GgP9a
L5kUSSyU9v4dY82nkDzpJcVesZvJftvsmLMQEYSrL71LPbKKjDLe
KysBwc1VSj1V5cG3EqLUixwLQjB2we2WUneYuhTxkAy5ANCbpvyc
KxvN1EWmuAPTPuVft1HBCsVgKzBG2hzn3hPfnpThCoZ8rwrwGyLo
L3gGhY6DQtVRvkQTbqndXeBH9ehzCxVzUazpUPCrbLAS9W4ce8Rt
L4KepuTEJRZgbZDtZM2zbbVE6JZu2f7ihtDWEDGjBnV3R1yQVTPd
L1T5ZRa5byi9NbbMbymv6Q3UQy6isnEZ8nwFNBbTKVA7mhgtjSjh
L4VZSCJsYMA2d8NBcKJFQGUf9j1vBbq3VuQkqnkRkWSRJZnUzxMU

[RealMalatesta]

Now things are getting funny.

After authorities were informed that coinwallet is violating AML-laws in Great Britain and Canada, they are "giving away" 200 Bitcoin. Which is roughly 47000 US$.

Two scenarios: They will be able to convince the authorities in an investigation that they really gave away this money to strangers - a weird thing for a "company" which wants to become a player in the exchange- and trading-business.

Or authorities will claim that they've sent the assets to some co-conspirators.

Either way, funny times ahead for coinwallet's lawyers.

[TheGrimm]

If you want to do a giveaway. PM keys to random members. The way you are doing is just going to benefit those few who use bots to read the keys and send them off immediately.

Agreed with you that is more interesting idea instead of wasting time to try during this stress test time, if OP will give random keys to members that would be nice.

It is more work, no doubt, but I have to agree with the above - you're more likely to make a greater marketing impact sending PMs with the private keys to individual members. I would suggest starting in this thread 

agreed lol and ty OP

[alani123]

Now things are getting funny.

After authorities were informed that coinwallet is violating AML-laws in Great Britain and Canada, they are "giving away" 200 Bitcoin. Which is roughly 47000 US$.

Two scenarios: They will be able to convince the authorities in an investigation that they really gave away this money to strangers - a weird thing for a "company" which wants to become a player in the exchange- and trading-business.

Or authorities will claim that they've sent the assets to some co-conspirators.

Either way, funny times ahead for coinwallet's lawyers.

If the giveaway ends up stress testing bitcoin, it would also be the liability of people trying to cash out bitcoins from those addresses. It's like they've successfully distributed part of the blame away from them.

[RealMalatesta]

Now things are getting funny.

After authorities were informed that coinwallet is violating AML-laws in Great Britain and Canada, they are "giving away" 200 Bitcoin. Which is roughly 47000 US$.

Two scenarios: They will be able to convince the authorities in an investigation that they really gave away this money to strangers - a weird thing for a "company" which wants to become a player in the exchange- and trading-business.

Or authorities will claim that they've sent the assets to some co-conspirators.

Either way, funny times ahead for coinwallet's lawyers.

If the giveaway ends up stress testing bitcoin, it would also be the liability of people trying to cash out bitcoins from those addresses. It's like they've successfully distributed part of the blame away from them.

There are two things. If you would go into a bank where people want to pay invoices, withdraw money and alike and you throw a couple of hundred bills in the air, you have to anticipate that this will disrupt the ability of the persons ther to do their business, i.e. paying invoices, etc. So "you saw it coming". Nevertheless, you did try to disrupt a service. In some jurisdictions, you would be liable.

Then comes the situation with their fake company which is violating anti-money-laundering regulations and laws. As a "company" which violates these laws "giving away" money to "strangers" - or at least to people they claim are strangers to them - will not make them look good during the investigation. Especially not after they had to learn that authorities were informed about their activities.

[alani123]

There are two things. If you would go into a bank where people want to pay invoices, withdraw money and alike and you throw a couple of hundred bills in the air, you have to anticipate that this will disrupt the ability of the persons ther to do their business, i.e. paying invoices, etc. So "you saw it coming". Nevertheless, you did try to disrupt a service. In some jurisdictions, you would be liable.

Then comes the situation with their fake company which is violating anti-money-laundering regulations and laws. As a "company" which violates these laws "giving away" money to "strangers" - or at least to people they claim are strangers to them - will not make them look good during the investigation. Especially not after they had to learn that authorities were informed about their activities.

I don't think there's a good real world example to reflect what they're doing on bitcoin. A bank's space is obiviously owned by some entity whilst bitcoin isn't owned by somebody. They aren't targeting any individual user's property or ability to use the system, they're stresstesting an entire decentralised system owned by no one. And now they're doing it via a proxy of thousands of people.

[RealMalatesta]

There are two things. If you would go into a bank where people want to pay invoices, withdraw money and alike and you throw a couple of hundred bills in the air, you have to anticipate that this will disrupt the ability of the persons ther to do their business, i.e. paying invoices, etc. So "you saw it coming". Nevertheless, you did try to disrupt a service. In some jurisdictions, you would be liable.

Then comes the situation with their fake company which is violating anti-money-laundering regulations and laws. As a "company" which violates these laws "giving away" money to "strangers" - or at least to people they claim are strangers to them - will not make them look good during the investigation. Especially not after they had to learn that authorities were informed about their activities.

I don't think there's a good real world example to reflect what they're doing on bitcoin. A bank's space is obiviously owned by some entity whilst bitcoin isn't owned by somebody. They aren't targeting any individual user's property or ability to use the system, they're stresstesting an entire decentralised system owned by no one. And now they're doing it via a proxy of thousands of people.

I'm not talking about a bank filing a lawsuit, but about clients filing a lawsuit. For example: If you put a tool online for "stress-testing" - read ddos-ing - an internet related service, authorities will go after the one who makes the tool available if they can prove that the intent of him was to disrupt the service.

Now IF these giveaways will create a backlog, and if someone can prove that losses occured because of this, he would be able to file a suit.

[alani123]

Hmm, right. However the fact that so many people get involved makes it even more complicated.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

There are two things. If you would go into a bank where people want to pay invoices, withdraw money and alike and you throw a couple of hundred bills in the air, you have to anticipate that this will disrupt the ability of the persons ther to do their business, i.e. paying invoices, etc. So "you saw it coming". Nevertheless, you did try to disrupt a service. In some jurisdictions, you would be liable.

Then comes the situation with their fake company which is violating anti-money-laundering regulations and laws. As a "company" which violates these laws "giving away" money to "strangers" - or at least to people they claim are strangers to them - will not make them look good during the investigation. Especially not after they had to learn that authorities were informed about their activities.

I don't think there's a good real world example to reflect what they're doing on bitcoin. A bank's space is obiviously owned by some entity whilst bitcoin isn't owned by somebody. They aren't targeting any individual user's property or ability to use the system, they're stresstesting an entire decentralised system owned by no one. And now they're doing it via a proxy of thousands of people.

I'm not talking about a bank filing a lawsuit, but about clients filing a lawsuit. For example: If you put a tool online for "stress-testing" - read ddos-ing - an internet related service, authorities will go after the one who makes the tool available if they can prove that the intent of him was to disrupt the service.

Now IF these giveaways will create a backlog, and if someone can prove that losses occured because of this, he would be able to file a suit.

Why are anti-fragile libertarians ALWAYS the first ones to scream"Lawyer!!" at every opportunity?

Just shut up and get some of that free money...  

[RealMalatesta]

There are two things. If you would go into a bank where people want to pay invoices, withdraw money and alike and you throw a couple of hundred bills in the air, you have to anticipate that this will disrupt the ability of the persons ther to do their business, i.e. paying invoices, etc. So "you saw it coming". Nevertheless, you did try to disrupt a service. In some jurisdictions, you would be liable.

Then comes the situation with their fake company which is violating anti-money-laundering regulations and laws. As a "company" which violates these laws "giving away" money to "strangers" - or at least to people they claim are strangers to them - will not make them look good during the investigation. Especially not after they had to learn that authorities were informed about their activities.

I don't think there's a good real world example to reflect what they're doing on bitcoin. A bank's space is obiviously owned by some entity whilst bitcoin isn't owned by somebody. They aren't targeting any individual user's property or ability to use the system, they're stresstesting an entire decentralised system owned by no one. And now they're doing it via a proxy of thousands of people.

I'm not talking about a bank filing a lawsuit, but about clients filing a lawsuit. For example: If you put a tool online for "stress-testing" - read ddos-ing - an internet related service, authorities will go after the one who makes the tool available if they can prove that the intent of him was to disrupt the service.

Now IF these giveaways will create a backlog, and if someone can prove that losses occured because of this, he would be able to file a suit.

Why are anti-fragile libertarians ALWAYS the first ones to scream"Lawyer!!" at every opportunity?

Just shut up and get some of that free money...  

lol, good point.