How To Make Sure Your Bitcoin Or Crypto Transaction Went ...
I paid, but my transaction is not going through. What ...
Proposal: The Sia Foundation
A common sentiment is brewing online; a shared desire for the internet that might have been. After decades of corporate encroachment, you don't need to be a power user to realize that something has gone very wrong. In the early days of the internet, the future was bright. In that future, when you sent an instant message, it traveled directly to the recipient. When you needed to pay a friend, you announced a transfer of value to their public key. When an app was missing a feature you wanted, you opened up the source code and implemented it. When you took a picture on your phone, it was immediately encrypted and backed up to storage that you controlled. In that future, people would laugh at the idea of having to authenticate themselves to some corporation before doing these things. What did we get instead? Rather than a network of human-sized communities, we have a handful of enormous commons, each controlled by a faceless corporate entity. Hey user, want to send a message? You can, but we'll store a copy of it indefinitely, unencrypted, for our preference-learning algorithms to pore over; how else could we slap targeted ads on every piece of content you see? Want to pay a friend? You can—in our Monopoly money. Want a new feature? Submit a request to our Support Center and we'll totally maybe think about it. Want to backup a photo? You can—inside our walled garden, which only we (and the NSA, of course) can access. Just be careful what you share, because merely locking you out of your account and deleting all your data is far from the worst thing we could do. You rationalize this: "MEGACORP would never do such a thing; it would be bad for business." But we all know, at some level, that this state of affairs, this inversion of power, is not merely "unfortunate" or "suboptimal" – No. It is degrading. Even if MEGACORP were purely benevolent, it is degrading that we must ask its permission to talk to our friends; that we must rely on it to safeguard our treasured memories; that our digital lives are completely beholden to those who seek only to extract value from us. At the root of this issue is the centralization of data. MEGACORP can surveil you—because your emails and video chats flow through their servers. And MEGACORP can control you—because they hold your data hostage. But centralization is a solution to a technical problem: How can we make the user's data accessible from anywhere in the world, on any device? For a long time, no alternative solution to this problem was forthcoming. Today, thanks to a confluence of established techniques and recent innovations, we have solved the accessibility problem without resorting to centralization. Hashing, encryption, and erasure encoding got us most of the way, but one barrier remained: incentives. How do you incentivize an anonymous stranger to store your data? Earlier protocols like BitTorrent worked around this limitation by relying on altruism, tit-for-tat requirements, or "points" – in other words, nothing you could pay your electric bill with. Finally, in 2009, a solution appeared: Bitcoin. Not long after, Sia was born. Cryptography has unleashed the latent power of the internet by enabling interactions between mutually-distrustful parties. Sia harnesses this power to turn the cloud storage market into a proper marketplace, where buyers and sellers can transact directly, with no intermediaries, anywhere in the world. No more silos or walled gardens: your data is encrypted, so it can't be spied on, and it's stored on many servers, so no single entity can hold it hostage. Thanks to projects like Sia, the internet is being re-decentralized. Sia began its life as a startup, which means it has always been subjected to two competing forces: the ideals of its founders, and the profit motive inherent to all businesses. Its founders have taken great pains to never compromise on the former, but this often threatened the company's financial viability. With the establishment of the Sia Foundation, this tension is resolved. The Foundation, freed of the obligation to generate profit, is a pure embodiment of the ideals from which Sia originally sprung. The goals and responsibilities of the Foundation are numerous: to maintain core Sia protocols and consensus code; to support developers building on top of Sia and its protocols; to promote Sia and facilitate partnerships in other spheres and communities; to ensure that users can easily acquire and safely store siacoins; to develop network scalability solutions; to implement hardforks and lead the community through them; and much more. In a broader sense, its mission is to commoditize data storage, making it cheap, ubiquitous, and accessible to all, without compromising privacy or performance. Sia is a perfect example of how we can achieve better living through cryptography. We now begin a new chapter in Sia's history. May our stewardship lead it into a bright future.
Today, we are proposing the creation of the Sia Foundation: a new non-profit entity that builds and supports distributed cloud storage infrastructure, with a specific focus on the Sia storage platform. What follows is an informal overview of the Sia Foundation, covering two major topics: how the Foundation will be funded, and what its funds will be used for.
The Sia Foundation will be structured as a non-profit entity incorporated in the United States, likely a 501(c)(3) organization or similar. The actions of the Foundation will be constrained by its charter, which formalizes the specific obligations and overall mission outlined in this document. The charter will be updated on an annual basis to reflect the current goals of the Sia community. The organization will be operated by a board of directors, initially comprising Luke Champine as President and Eddie Wang as Chairman. Luke Champine will be leaving his position at Nebulous to work at the Foundation full-time, and will seek to divest his shares of Nebulous stock along with other potential conflicts of interest. Neither Luke nor Eddie personally own any siafunds or significant quantities of siacoin.
The primary source of funding for the Foundation will come from a new block subsidy. Following a hardfork, 30 KS per block will be allocated to the "Foundation Fund," continuing in perpetuity. The existing 30 KS per block miner reward is not affected. Additionally, one year's worth of block subsidies (approximately 1.57 GS) will be allocated to the Fund immediately upon activation of the hardfork. As detailed below, the Foundation will provably burn any coins that it cannot meaningfully spend. As such, the 30 KS subsidy should be viewed as a maximum. This allows the Foundation to grow alongside Sia without requiring additional hardforks. The Foundation will not be funded to any degree by the possession or sale of siafunds. Siafunds were originally introduced as a means of incentivizing growth, and we still believe in their effectiveness: a siafund holder wants to increase the amount of storage on Sia as much as possible. While the Foundation obviously wants Sia to succeed, its driving force should be its charter. Deriving significant revenue from siafunds would jeopardize the Foundation's impartiality and focus. Ultimately, we want the Foundation to act in the best interests of Sia, not in growing its own budget.
The Foundation inherits a great number of responsibilities from Nebulous. Each quarter, the Foundation will publish the progress it has made over the past quarter, and list the responsibilities it intends to prioritize over the coming quarter. This will be accompanied by a financial report, detailing each area of expenditure over the past quarter, and forecasting expenditures for the coming quarter. Below, we summarize some of the myriad responsibilities towards which the Foundation is expected to allocate its resources.
Maintain and enhance core Sia software
Arguably, this is the most important responsibility of the Foundation. At the heart of Sia is its consensus algorithm: regardless of other differences, all Sia software must agree upon the content and rules of the blockchain. It is therefore crucial that the algorithm be stewarded by an entity that is accountable to the community, transparent in its decision-making, and has no profit motive or other conflicts of interest. Accordingly, Sia’s consensus functionality will no longer be directly maintained by Nebulous. Instead, the Foundation will release and maintain an implementation of a "minimal Sia full node," comprising the Sia consensus algorithm and P2P networking code. The source code will be available in a public repository, and signed binaries will be published for each release. Other parties may use this code to provide alternative full node software. For example, Nebulous may extend the minimal full node with wallet, renter, and host functionality. The source code of any such implementation may be submitted to the Foundation for review. If the code passes review, the Foundation will provide "endorsement signatures" for the commit hash used and for binaries compiled internally by the Foundation. Specifically, these signatures assert that the Foundation believes the software contains no consensus-breaking changes or other modifications to imported Foundation code. Endorsement signatures and Foundation-compiled binaries may be displayed and distributed by the receiving party, along with an appropriate disclaimer. A minimal full node is not terribly useful on its own; the wallet, renter, host, and other extensions are what make Sia a proper developer platform. Currently, the only implementations of these extensions are maintained by Nebulous. The Foundation will contract Nebulous to ensure that these extensions continue to receive updates and enhancements. Later on, the Foundation intends to develop its own implementations of these extensions and others. As with the minimal node software, these extensions will be open source and available in public repositories for use by any Sia node software. With the consensus code now managed by the Foundation, the task of implementing and orchestrating hardforks becomes its responsibility as well. When the Foundation determines that a hardfork is necessary (whether through internal discussion or via community petition), a formal proposal will be drafted and submitted for public review, during which arguments for and against the proposal may be submitted to a public repository. During this time, the hardfork code will be implemented, either by Foundation employees or by external contributors working closely with the Foundation. Once the implementation is finished, final arguments will be heard. The Foundation board will then vote whether to accept or reject the proposal, and announce their decision along with appropriate justification. Assuming the proposal was accepted, the Foundation will announce the block height at which the hardfork will activate, and will subsequently release source code and signed binaries that incorporate the hardfork code. Regardless of the Foundation's decision, it is the community that ultimately determines whether a fork is accepted or rejected – nothing can change that. Foundation node software will never automatically update, so all forks must be explicitly adopted by users. Furthermore, the Foundation will provide replay and wipeout protection for its hard forks, protecting other chains from unintended or malicious reorgs. Similarly, the Foundation will ensure that any file contracts formed prior to a fork activation will continue to be honored on both chains until they expire. Finally, the Foundation also intends to pursue scalability solutions for the Sia blockchain. In particular, work has already begun on an implementation of Utreexo, which will greatly reduce the space requirements of fully-validating nodes (allowing a full node to be run on a smartphone) while increasing throughput and decreasing initial sync time. A hardfork implementing Utreexo will be submitted to the community as per the process detailed above. As this is the most important responsibility of the Foundation, it will receive a significant portion of the Foundation’s budget, primarily in the form of developer salaries and contracting agreements.
Support community services
We intend to allocate 25% of the Foundation Fund towards the community. This allocation will be held and disbursed in the form of siacoins, and will pay for grants, bounties, hackathons, and other community-driven endeavours. Any community-run service, such as a Skynet portal, explorer or web wallet, may apply to have its costs covered by the Foundation. Upon approval, the Foundation will reimburse expenses incurred by the service, subject to the exact terms agreed to. The intent of these grants is not to provide a source of income, but rather to make such services "break even" for their operators, so that members of the community can enrich the Sia ecosystem without worrying about the impact on their own finances.
Ensure easy acquisition and storage of siacoins
Most users will acquire their siacoins via an exchange. The Foundation will provide support to Sia-compatible exchanges, and pursue relevant integrations at its discretion, such as Coinbase's new Rosetta standard. The Foundation may also release DEX software that enables trading cryptocurrencies without the need for a third party. (The Foundation itself will never operate as a money transmitter.) Increasingly, users are storing their cryptocurrency on hardware wallets. The Foundation will maintain the existing Ledger Nano S integration, and pursue further integrations at its discretion. Of course, all hardware wallets must be paired with software running on a computer or smartphone, so the Foundation will also develop and/or maintain client-side wallet software, including both full-node wallets and "lite" wallets. Community-operated wallet services, i.e. web wallets, may be funded via grants. Like core software maintenance, this responsibility will be funded in the form of developer salaries and contracting agreements.
Protect the ecosystem
When it comes to cryptocurrency security, patching software vulnerabilities is table stakes; there are significant legal and social threats that we must be mindful of as well. As such, the Foundation will earmark a portion of its fund to defend the community from legal action. The Foundation will also safeguard the network from 51% attacks and other threats to network security by implementing softforks and/or hardforks where necessary. The Foundation also intends to assist in the development of a new FOSS software license, and to solicit legal memos on various Sia-related matters, such as hosting in the United States and the EU. In a broader sense, the establishment of the Foundation makes the ecosystem more robust by transferring core development to a more neutral entity. Thanks to its funding structure, the Foundation will be immune to various forms of pressure that for-profit companies are susceptible to.
Drive adoption of Sia
Although the overriding goal of the Foundation is to make Sia the best platform it can be, all that work will be in vain if no one uses the platform. There are a number of ways the Foundation can promote Sia and get it into the hands of potential users and developers. In-person conferences are understandably far less popular now, but the Foundation can sponsor and/or participate in virtual conferences. (In-person conferences may be held in the future, permitting circumstances.) Similarly, the Foundation will provide prizes for hackathons, which may be organized by community members, Nebulous, or the Foundation itself. Lastly, partnerships with other companies in the cryptocurrency space—or the cloud storage space—are a great way to increase awareness of Sia. To handle these responsibilities, one of the early priorities of the Foundation will be to hire a marketing director.
The Foundation Fund will be controlled by a multisig address. Each member of the Foundation's board will control one of the signing keys, with the signature threshold to be determined once the final composition of the board is known. (This threshold may also be increased or decreased if the number of board members changes.) Additionally, one timelocked signing key will be controlled by David Vorick. This key will act as a “dead man’s switch,” to be used in the event of an emergency that prevents Foundation board members from reaching the signature threshold. The timelock ensures that this key cannot be used unless the Foundation fails to sign a transaction for several months. On the 1st of each month, the Foundation will use its keys to transfer all siacoins in the Fund to two new addresses. The first address will be controlled by a high-security hot wallet, and will receive approximately one month's worth of Foundation expenditures. The second address, receiving the remaining siacoins, will be a modified version of the source address: specifically, it will increase the timelock on David Vorick's signing key by one month. Any other changes to the set of signing keys, such as the arrival or departure of board members, will be incorporated into this address as well. The Foundation Fund is allocated in SC, but many of the Foundation's expenditures must be paid in USD or other fiat currency. Accordingly, the Foundation will convert, at its discretion, a portion of its monthly withdrawals to fiat currency. We expect this conversion to be primarily facilitated by private "OTC" sales to accredited investors. The Foundation currently has no plans to speculate in cryptocurrency or other assets. Finally, it is important that the Foundation adds value to the Sia platform well in excess of the inflation introduced by the block subsidy. For this reason, the Foundation intends to provably burn, on a quarterly basis, any coins that it cannot allocate towards any justifiable expense. In other words, coins will be burned whenever doing so provides greater value to the platform than any other use. Furthermore, the Foundation will cap its SC treasury at 5% of the total supply, and will cap its USD treasury at 4 years’ worth of predicted expenses. Addendum: Hardfork Timeline We would like to see this proposal finalized and accepted by the community no later than September 30th. A new version of siad, implementing the hardfork, will be released no later than October 15th. The hardfork will activate at block 293220, which is expected to occur around 12pm EST on January 1st, 2021.
Addendum: Inflation specifics The total supply of siacoins as of January 1st, 2021 will be approximately 45.243 GS. The initial subsidy of 1.57 GS thus increases the supply by 3.47%, and the total annual inflation in 2021 will be at most 10.4% (if zero coins are burned). In 2022, total annual inflation will be at most 6.28%, and will steadily decrease in subsequent years.
We see the establishment of the Foundation as an important step in the maturation of the Sia project. It provides the ecosystem with a sustainable source of funding that can be exclusively directed towards achieving Sia's ambitious goals. Compared to other projects with far deeper pockets, Sia has always punched above its weight; once we're on equal footing, there's no telling what we'll be able to achieve. Nevertheless, we do not propose this change lightly, and have taken pains to ensure that the Foundation will act in accordance with the ideals that this community shares. It will operate transparently, keep inflation to a minimum, and respect the user's fundamental role in decentralized systems. We hope that everyone in the community will consider this proposal carefully, and look forward to a productive discussion.
https://github.com/gridcoin-community/Gridcoin-Research/releases/tag/22.214.171.124 Finally! After over ten months of development and testing, "Fern" has arrived! This is a whopper. 240 pull requests merged. Essentially a complete rewrite that was started with the scraper (the "neural net" rewrite) in "Denise" has now been completed. Practically the ENTIRE Gridcoin specific codebase resting on top of the vanilla Bitcoin/Peercoin/Blackcoin vanilla PoS code has been rewritten. This removes the team requirement at last (see below), although there are many other important improvements besides that. Fern was a monumental undertaking. We had to encode all of the old rules active for the v10 block protocol in new code and ensure that the new code was 100% compatible. This had to be done in such a way as to clear out all of the old spaghetti and ring-fence it with tightly controlled class implementations. We then wrote an entirely new, simplified ruleset for research rewards and reengineered contracts (which includes beacon management, polls, and voting) using properly classed code. The fundamentals of Gridcoin with this release are now on a very sound and maintainable footing, and the developers believe the codebase as updated here will serve as the fundamental basis for Gridcoin's future roadmap. We have been testing this for MONTHS on testnet in various stages. The v10 (legacy) compatibility code has been running on testnet continuously as it was developed to ensure compatibility with existing nodes. During the last few months, we have done two private testnet forks and then the full public testnet testing for v11 code (the new protocol which is what Fern implements). The developers have also been running non-staking "sentinel" nodes on mainnet with this code to verify that the consensus rules are problem-free for the legacy compatibility code on the broader mainnet. We believe this amount of testing is going to result in a smooth rollout. Given the amount of changes in Fern, I am presenting TWO changelogs below. One is high level, which summarizes the most significant changes in the protocol. The second changelog is the detailed one in the usual format, and gives you an inkling of the size of this release.
Note that the protocol changes will not become active until we cross the hard-fork transition height to v11, which has been set at 2053000. Given current average block spacing, this should happen around October 4, about one month from now. Note that to get all of the beacons in the network on the new protocol, we are requiring ALL beacons to be validated. A two week (14 day) grace period is provided by the code, starting at the time of the transition height, for people currently holding a beacon to validate the beacon and prevent it from expiring. That means that EVERY CRUNCHER must advertise and validate their beacon AFTER the v11 transition (around Oct 4th) and BEFORE October 18th (or more precisely, 14 days from the actual date of the v11 transition). If you do not advertise and validate your beacon by this time, your beacon will expire and you will stop earning research rewards until you advertise and validate a new beacon. This process has been made much easier by a brand new beacon "wizard" that helps manage beacon advertisements and renewals. Once a beacon has been validated and is a v11 protocol beacon, the normal 180 day expiration rules apply. Note, however, that the 180 day expiration on research rewards has been removed with the Fern update. This means that while your beacon might expire after 180 days, your earned research rewards will be retained and can be claimed by advertising a beacon with the same CPID and going through the validation process again. In other words, you do not lose any earned research rewards if you do not stake a block within 180 days and keep your beacon up-to-date. The transition height is also when the team requirement will be relaxed for the network.
Besides the beacon wizard, there are a number of improvements to the GUI, including new UI transaction types (and icons) for staking the superblock, sidestake sends, beacon advertisement, voting, poll creation, and transactions with a message. The main screen has been revamped with a better summary section, and better status icons. Several changes under the hood have improved GUI performance. And finally, the diagnostics have been revamped.
The wallet sync speed has been DRASTICALLY improved. A decent machine with a good network connection should be able to sync the entire mainnet blockchain in less than 4 hours. A fast machine with a really fast network connection and a good SSD can do it in about 2.5 hours. One of our goals was to reduce or eliminate the reliance on snapshots for mainnet, and I think we have accomplished that goal with the new sync speed. We have also streamlined the in-memory structures for the blockchain which shaves some memory use. There are so many goodies here it is hard to summarize them all. I would like to thank all of the contributors to this release, but especially thank @cyrossignol, whose incredible contributions formed the backbone of this release. I would also like to pay special thanks to @barton2526, @caraka, and @Quezacoatl1, who tirelessly helped during the testing and polishing phase on testnet with testing and repeated builds for all architectures. The developers are proud to present this release to the community and we believe this represents the starting point for a true renaissance for Gridcoin!
Most significantly, nodes calculate research rewards directly from the magnitudes in EACH superblock between stakes instead of using a two- or three- point average based on a CPID's current magnitude and the magnitude for the CPID when it last staked. For those long-timers in the community, this has been referred to as "Superblock Windows," and was first done in proof-of-concept form by @denravonska.
Network magnitude unit pinned to a static value of 0.25
Max research reward allowed per block raised to 16384 GRC (from 12750 GRC)
New CPIDs begin accruing research rewards from the first superblock that contains the CPID instead of from the time of the beacon advertisement
500 GRC research reward limit for a CPID's first stake
6-month expiration for unclaimed rewards
10-block spacing requirement between research reward claims
Rolling 5-day payment-per-day limit
Legacy tolerances for floating-point error and time drift
The need to include a valid copy of a CPID's magnitude in a claim
10-block emission adjustment interval for the magnitude unit
One-time beacon activation requires that participants temporarily change their usernames to a verification code at one whitelisted BOINC project
Verification codes of pending beacons expire after 3 days
Self-service beacon removal
Burn fee for beacon advertisement increased from 0.00001 GRC to 0.5 GRC
Rain addresses derived from beacon keys instead of a default wallet address
Beacon expiration determined as of the current block instead of the previous block
The ability for developers to remove beacons
The ability to sign research reward claims with non-current but unexpired beacons
As a reminder:
Beacons expire after 6 months pass (180 days)
Beacons can be renewed after 5 months pass (150 days)
Renewed beacons must be signed with the same key as the original beacon
Magnitudes less than 1 include two fractional places
Magnitudes greater than or equal to 1 but less than 10 include one fractional place
A valid superblock must match a scraper convergence
Superblock popularity election mechanics
Yes/no/abstain and single-choice response types (no user-facing support yet)
To create a poll, a maximum of 250 UTXOs for a single address must add up to 100000 GRC. These are selected from the largest downwards.
Burn fee for creating polls scaled by the number of UTXOs claimed
50 GRC for a poll contract
0.001 GRC per claimed UTXO
Burn fee for casting votes scaled by the number of UTXOs claimed
0.01 GRC for a vote contract
0.01 GRC to claim magnitude
0.01 GRC per claimed address
0.001 GRC per claimed UTXO
Maximum length of a poll title: 80 characters
Maximum length of a poll question: 100 characters
Maximum length of a poll discussion website URL: 100 characters
Maximum number of poll choices: 20
Maximum length of a poll choice label: 100 characters
Magnitude, CPID count, and participant count poll weight types
The ability for developers to remove polls and votes
[126.96.36.199] 2020-09-03, mandatory, "Fern"
Backport newer uint256 types from Bitcoin #1570 (@cyrossignol)
Implement project level rain for rainbymagnitude #1580 (@jamescowens)
Upgrade utilities (Update checker and snapshot downloadeapplication) #1576 (@iFoggz)
Provide fees collected in the block by the miner #1601 (@iFoggz)
Add support for generating legacy superblocks from scraper stats #1603 (@cyrossignol)
Port of the Bitcoin Logger to Gridcoin #1600 (@jamescowens)
Implement zapwallettxes #1605 (@jamescowens)
Implements a global event filter to suppress help question mark #1609 (@jamescowens)
Add next target difficulty to RPC output #1615 (@cyrossignol)
Add caching for block hashes to CBlock #1624 (@cyrossignol)
Make toolbars and tray icon red for testnet #1637 (@jamescowens)
Add an rpc call convergencereport #1643 (@jamescowens)
Implement newline filter on config file read in #1645 (@jamescowens)
Implement beacon status icon/button #1646 (@jamescowens)
Add gridcointestnet.png #1649 (@caraka)
Add precision to support magnitudes less than 1 #1651 (@cyrossignol)
Replace research accrual calculations with superblock snapshots #1657 (@cyrossignol)
Publish example gridcoinresearch.conf as a md document to the doc directory #1662 (@jamescowens)
Add options checkbox to disable transaction notifications #1666 (@jamescowens)
Add support for self-service beacon deletion #1695 (@cyrossignol)
Add support for type-specific contract fee amounts #1698 (@cyrossignol)
Add verifiedbeaconreport and pendingbeaconreport #1696 (@jamescowens)
Add preliminary testing option for block v11 height on testnet #1706 (@cyrossignol)
Add verified beacons manifest part to superblock validator #1711 (@cyrossignol)
Implement beacon, vote, and superblock display categories/icons in UI transaction model #1717 (@jamescowens)
TL;DR: Wakey wakey, give a crap about freedom, or accept the consequences. Another Sunday afternoon, another news item about Monero being delisted from a centralized exchange, this time in Australia. Last year it was OKEx and others. Just a few days ago it was Coinspot. It is sort of an open secret that Coinbase is not listing Monero due to external pressures. Today we're hit with news that Kraken will be ceasing Monero trading for AU residents. And you will also recall that Japan and South Korea have made similar moves. It's a near impossibility with me, especially when powered by caffeine, which is most definitely the case today, but I will try to make this brief, sweet and to the point. These are not isolated incidents. There is an International Organization™ in particular orchestrating, behind the scenes, the policies and requirements that financial institutions (crypto exchanges have since joined that category for this purpose) must follow, or else. Here is what bothers me about this. Have you been consulted about this? Anyone you know? Heard of it in the news? Yeah, me neither. You have to know where to look to find some information on what they would like to see happening (we'll get to that in a moment), and often you have to read PDFs with dozens of pages to find the good stuff too. I will leave that as an exercise to the reader. Suffice to say, I have been digging a bit deeper myself, and what I found shocked me. FATF wants nothing less than the complete elimination of anonymity and privacy in financial affairs, even going so far as to consider BANNING peer to peer transactions so that people are forced to interact with each other through exchanges, where data collection is more reliable and certain, effectively obliterating one of the major selling points of cryptocurrency (p2p-ness) with complete disregard for the millions of people who are already onboard with the vision. No privacy and no anonymity, imagine that. Many of you probably already use plastic cards for everything, day in day out, and don't think too much about this stuff. But the fact that an international organization that you have little to zero democratic control over is planning to get rid of class of financial tools that 99.99999% of people don't even realize exists yet should give you pause for concern. The tools I speak of are, of course, digital cash-like cryptocurrencies like Monero. I would like you to PAUSE, daydream a bit, visualize and imagine, what a world without zero financial privacy/anonymity would look like. Consider, this has certainly not been the case in human history, ever -- yes, even today. Today most of you still have cash as a choice. But what happens when that goes out of the window, and the only options are CBDCs, CorporateCoins, and transparent cryptocurrency ? Needless to say, both in the case of CorporateCoins and CBDCs, there will be little to none privacy/anonymity, and even if there was (in the case of CorporateCoin), the state would obviously bully its way into it and force them to do otherwise (without being asked to do so, of course). So, imagine that world. Every donation you make. Every $50 transfer to a friend or family member. Every item you buy. Every service you purchase. Every money you send to help a friend you. All of it stored, forever, to be accessed later at will for whatever reasons. Would you make the same choices, knowing that your entire financial life is entirely exposed to powerful organizations of which you likely know very little about and almost certainly can hardly ever influence at all? Does that seem like a good recipe for a free society?
The people at the top either don't care about the consequences of what they're imposing worldwide, or they don't understand. Sounds highly concerning to me either way - It comes down to either bullying or ignorance. Would you ever have truly heart-to-heart conversations if you knew your worst enemy was potentially watching and recording everything? Could you make passionate love knowing hundreds of strangers are analyzing your every move? Can you be spontaneous knowing you are being recorded? What if you did not have a choice in those matters ?! What if someone has already decided for you, your friends, your family, your neighbors, your country, that you are all potential criminals and the thing to do is to keep records on everyone, just in case ? Newsflash: It already happened. It's been happening for awhile, and it seems to be picking up pace; the technology that was going to liberate us, slowly enslaving us instead -- because the general public largely does not understand the issues at hand, while the elite certainly does, and boy oh boy, are they thrilled with the technological advancements that help them cement their power. What do I mean by cement? Imagine trying to kick-start civil rights in a place where every social map is known, everything a person is interested in is known, every transaction they make is known, every website they have visited is known, every time they step on the street, an AI-powered camera automatically identifies them and tracks their movement. You would be unable to organize. To exchange value. To discuss behind curtains, so to speak. You would not have any privacy, and you would not have any anonymity. Could you be free under these circumstances?
It's been a long road towards more freedom, but nowdays it is disappearing fast. Stopping to consider the implications is a most pressing issue. They want Monero(-like tools) GONE because Monero ACTUALLY would change the paradigm. By the time they are done with their "recommendations" (which really mean: comply, or else...), mark my words, there will be a name behind every Bitcoin address in some centralized database, query-able by partners in deciding who can and cannot use the system. Merchants will be forced to perform chain analysis and by law they will be compelled to reject/refund/report transactions coming from "anonymous clusters" (addresses that are not known to have an identity tied to them). This is what the normalization of the lack of privacy has brought us. The possibility was there, and they took it. Of course they did. I repeat, it is no accident that it's not Dogecoin and Nano, Bitcoin or Litecoin being delisted. The star of the show (for better or for worse) is Monero, and that is because it works. It lets you transact anonymously and privately, like cash - why the hell should FATF know that you sent $500 to your mother last week? in fact, why the hell should they know your entire financial history?! When cash goes (and we can be fairly certain that it will be gone; would already be gone if this sort of authoritarian mindset had its way), Monero or tools like Monero, will become the only way to make any transaction outside the eyes of the state. It's not because you have anything (nefarious) to hide. It's not because you're a criminal. Rather, it's because to accept anything else is to bow to tyranny. It's your choice to make - are you meekly going to accept that in perhaps less than a decade there will be zero privacy and anonymity in financial matters, or are you going to fight back? Will you organize, campaign, email, discuss, spread awareness? Will you spend precious summer Sunday afternoons writing for strangers on the Internet trying to help a few more see the major shit-show we're headed into? Or will you be a good boy and do what you're told? Tomorrow, by the way - if left unchallenged - it won't just be financial privacy that disappears. One of the most prominent examples in the introductory part of this post (Australia) has already made quite clear that they don't like the fact that people can hide things from them (encryption). In other words, either they know about it (and archive it forever), or you better let them know. After all, a threat - any threat! - could be lurking somewhere in that encrypted data. And you have nothing to hide anyway, yes? This is a cryptocurrency sub though so let's not steer too far from that. It is important to remember that ultimately the issue is the same though - totalitarian control over everyone's life; mass-surveillance, and the ability to rewind and see someone's entire life exposed for the benefit of the state. Their actions are letting you know what really works and what really threatens the status quo. That is useful information. If you care at all about the freedom and privacy of your future self, your friends and family, children present or future, I think you would do well to think long and hard about these issues. Because the direction assumed by the most prominent regulators seems to be headed in a uniform direction - that is no surprise, seeing as how they meet with each other. You have to ask yourself though, is this for your benefit, your safety? Or is it to keep the statuo quo? How would the world be different if human beings - regardless of color, nationality, age, sexual orientation, political beliefs- with an Internet connection could freely exchange value privately and anonymously (the way we can still communicate private and anonymously in most places today - though not so in authoritarian places like China, AND THAT IS NOT A COINCIDENCE)? It would be instant, like an instant message. It would cost very little. Well, I have news for you: It's already possible, and a growing number of people are realizing this. This tool is called Monero. It exists today, and the cat is out of the bag. The technology will only get better, and more interesting tools may even come along later. In fact, barring mass persecution of open-source developers, that is very likely what is going to happen, as ultrasmart people everywhere congregate in virtual spaces to discuss better ways to do stuff. If we keep losing our right to be left alone until suspected of a crime, life will increasingly come to resemble what the regulator types are - consciously or unconsciously - creating: a Panopticon society. If you don't speak up, then the decision has already been made - and you're probably going to live to regret being complicit in it. Freedom or Tyranny. It's your choice to make. p.s: Yes, totally failed at making this short. I guess it's just not my thing.
People want to buy PayPal accounts for many reason. PayPal hold money without any reason. People need multiple PayPal account. PayPal not allow to sign up multiple accounts for one person. Outside of United States freelancer and e-commerce business need multiple accounts for receive and payment money. Data Expert USA found many reason to people buy PayPal Accounts. https://preview.redd.it/l1rwuqo4huv51.png?width=600&format=png&auto=webp&s=30f1237f182190ff428f8119ebab8a1a7eb6e0e0 Data Expert USA sell USA verified PayPal accounts. We always provide quality accounts with very low cost. We provide all kinds of verification document that you use if PayPal ask for verification document you can upload provide document and sole PayPal limitation. Data Expert USA is the trusted place for aged PayPal accounts for sale. We provide best quality buy PayPal accounts verified. PayPal verified accounts is the best way for transaction money. Data Expert USA is the best site to buy PayPal accounts. You can buy USA full verified PayPal accounts from our site. Our every PayPal accounts is fully verified accounts.
Using this PayPal accounts you can receive & payment accounts everywhere in the world.
Buy & sell product and service form any e-commerce site where PayPal accepted.
Use PayPal accounts at any freelancing site for receive and payment amount.
PayPal accounts any kinds of payment and receiving activity.
Don’t login your PayPal everywhere. Don’t change your location all time. You can fix a place & device where you login your PayPal every time.
Newly use PayPal accounts don’t get large payment first time. Get some small payment and increase amount.
Avoid refunding any new transaction, PayPalconsider refund transaction as an unusual activity.
If you facing error to make payment don’t try again and again. You try again and again create payment sending failed attempted PayPal security check department can block your PayPal sending activity for up to 48 hours. If it happens please stop doing all kind of transaction for 48 hours. After passing 48 hours you can do all kind of transaction 100% successfully.
PayPal accounts password don’t change instantly. After using 24 hours change password.
You can use USA virtual PC for squired PayPal login. We suggest don’t use free VPN or free proxy with shared IP.
Please follow all above the instruction. If there any issue findings feel free to contact us. We are always ready to help you. If you have a question can I buy PayPal accounts? Yes you can get Paypal verified accounts from Data Expert USA. If you want PayPal accounts? Feel free to order or contact at skype, telegram, email or text at our phone number. From Data Expert USA you only Paypal verified accounts cheap. You can use PayPal accounts USA verified. We suggest to use full verified PayPal accounts. Data Expert USA sell USA PayPal VBA. We sell PayPal personal accounts. Buy PayPal accounts now days a very popular matter. Many bright people who are suffering for PayPal related issue. They want fully verified paypal accounts. There is a question where to fully verified PayPal accounts. There are many sellers at online who sell PayPal accounts. PayPal accounts is not fully verified every where. Sellers are not trusted in other site. All sellers cannot provide verified PayPal. You can Paypal verified accounts. You need to buy fully verified PayPal accounts. And we are the best supplier. Data Expert USA is the trusted site for PayPal accounts for sell. Feel free to order verified PayPal accounts for sale here. If you think “I need fully verified paypal accounts”. Feel free to order. Where can I buy paypal accounts verified? Data Expert USA is the best place where you can get Paypal verified accounts. Data Expert USA is the best site to buy PayPal accounts. You can buy USA PayPal VCC. Without any hesitation you can use verified PayPal accounts. You are at the right place. Data Expert USA is the most trusted site where you can buy paypal accounts. PayPal is one of the best payment processor in the world for buy and sell any kinds of product and service. We are the best site for aged PayPal accounts for sale. We provide USA fully verified PayPal accounts. All accounts will verify with United States Bank, USA Visa Card, USA Phone Number, and Email Address. PayPal accounts link with SSN. It’s a very hard process to link United States Bank, Visa Card, Phone Number and SSN. For getting best performance you can buy Paypal verified accounts. We delivery PayPal accounts within 24 hours to 48 hours after receiving your payment.
You can receive & send payment without any limits.
Increase your importance in your business sector and all over the world.
PayPal limitation for your PayPal accounts
Sending / Receiving money related issue
Merchant related issue
Would you accept payment from you website or online store? For large volume of transaction you need business PayPal. You can buy PayPal accounts as your backup accounts where you can freely do business transaction without any personal or business information. There is no matter which country you are form. You are highly recommended to use those PayPal accounts without any problem. Where to buy verified PayPal accounts? Data Expert USA is the best place to get PayPal accounts. We are reliable, trustworthy and honest. We sell USA verified PayPal. High quality and long term sustainability. Are you interested to buy PayPal Business accounts online? Or, Are you interested to buy PayPal accounts? Data Expert USA sell PayPal accounts. We ensure high quality accounts. Every PayPal accounts are created and verified with United States information. You can use PayPal without any problem. How to create PayPal accounts? Signup at paypal.com. Verify your address, phone number and credit card. Your PayPal accounts are ready. Is it safe to buy PayPal accounts? Data Expert USA carefully create all PayPal accounts. PayPal need number verification we use a Google Voice Number. You get Google Voice Number access at the time of PayPal accounts delivery. Data Expert USA support all payment method like PayPal, MasterCard, Visa, Bitcoin, Ether, Skrill, Neteller, Perfect Money, WebMoney and Payoneer. For Getting 10% Discount Please Contact Email, Skype, Telegram, WhatsApp or Text at Phone. For More Info Please Contact: Email: [email protected] Skype: [email protected] Telegram:u/dataexpertusa WhatsApp : (402) 413-6303WhatsApp : (520) 216-5981
Summary: Everyone knows that when you give your assets to someone else, they always keep them safe. If this is true for individuals, it is certainly true for businesses. Custodians always tell the truth and manage funds properly. They won't have any interest in taking the assets as an exchange operator would. Auditors tell the truth and can't be misled. That's because organizations that are regulated are incapable of lying and don't make mistakes. First, some background. Here is a summary of how custodians make us more secure: Previously, we might give Alice our crypto assets to hold. There were risks:
Alice might take the assets and disappear.
Alice might spend the assets and pretend that she still has them (fractional model).
Alice might store the assets insecurely and they'll get stolen.
Alice might give the assets to someone else by mistake or by force.
Alice might lose access to the assets.
But "no worries", Alice has a custodian named Bob. Bob is dressed in a nice suit. He knows some politicians. And he drives a Porsche. "So you have nothing to worry about!". And look at all the benefits we get:
Alice can't take the assets and disappear (unless she asks Bob or never gives them to Bob).
Alice can't spend the assets and pretend that she still has them. (Unless she didn't give them to Bob or asks him for them.)
Alice can't store the assets insecurely so they get stolen. (After all - she doesn't have any control over the withdrawal process from any of Bob's systems, right?)
Alice can't give the assets to someone else by mistake or by force. (Bob will stop her, right Bob?)
Alice can't lose access to the funds. (She'll always be present, sane, and remember all secrets, right?)
See - all problems are solved! All we have to worry about now is:
Bob might take the assets and disappear.
Bob might spend the assets and pretend that he still has them (fractional model).
Bob might store the assets insecurely and they'll get stolen.
Bob might give the assets to someone else by mistake or by force.
Bob might lose access to the assets.
It's pretty simple. Before we had to trust Alice. Now we only have to trust Alice, Bob, and all the ways in which they communicate. Just think of how much more secure we are! "On top of that", Bob assures us, "we're using a special wallet structure". Bob shows Alice a diagram. "We've broken the balance up and store it in lots of smaller wallets. That way", he assures her, "a thief can't take it all at once". And he points to a historic case where a large sum was taken "because it was stored in a single wallet... how stupid". "Very early on, we used to have all the crypto in one wallet", he said, "and then one Christmas a hacker came and took it all. We call him the Grinch. Now we individually wrap each crypto and stick it under a binary search tree. The Grinch has never been back since." "As well", Bob continues, "even if someone were to get in, we've got insurance. It covers all thefts and even coercion, collusion, and misplaced keys - only subject to the policy terms and conditions." And with that, he pulls out a phone-book sized contract and slams it on the desk with a thud. "Yep", he continues, "we're paying top dollar for one of the best policies in the country!" "Can I read it?' Alice asks. "Sure," Bob says, "just as soon as our legal team is done with it. They're almost through the first chapter." He pauses, then continues. "And can you believe that sales guy Mike? He has the same year Porsche as me. I mean, what are the odds?" "Do you use multi-sig?", Alice asks. "Absolutely!" Bob replies. "All our engineers are fully trained in multi-sig. Whenever we want to set up a new wallet, we generate 2 separate keys in an air-gapped process and store them in this proprietary system here. Look, it even requires the biometric signature from one of our team members to initiate any withdrawal." He demonstrates by pressing his thumb into the display. "We use a third-party cloud validation API to match the thumbprint and authorize each withdrawal. The keys are also backed up daily to an off-site third-party." "Wow that's really impressive," Alice says, "but what if we need access for a withdrawal outside of office hours?" "Well that's no issue", Bob says, "just send us an email, call, or text message and we always have someone on staff to help out. Just another part of our strong commitment to all our customers!" "What about Proof of Reserve?", Alice asks. "Of course", Bob replies, "though rather than publish any blockchain addresses or signed transaction, for privacy we just do a SHA256 refactoring of the inverse hash modulus for each UTXO nonce and combine the smart contract coefficient consensus in our hyperledger lightning node. But it's really simple to use." He pushes a button and a large green checkmark appears on a screen. "See - the algorithm ran through and reserves are proven." "Wow", Alice says, "you really know your stuff! And that is easy to use! What about fiat balances?" "Yeah, we have an auditor too", Bob replies, "Been using him for a long time so we have quite a strong relationship going! We have special books we give him every year and he's very efficient! Checks the fiat, crypto, and everything all at once!" "We used to have a nice offline multi-sig setup we've been using without issue for the past 5 years, but I think we'll move all our funds over to your facility," Alice says. "Awesome", Bob replies, "Thanks so much! This is perfect timing too - my Porsche got a dent on it this morning. We have the paperwork right over here." "Great!", Alice replies. And with that, Alice gets out her pen and Bob gets the contract. "Don't worry", he says, "you can take your crypto-assets back anytime you like - just subject to our cancellation policy. Our annual management fees are also super low and we don't adjust them often". How many holes have to exist for your funds to get stolen? Just one. Why are we taking a powerful offline multi-sig setup, widely used globally in hundreds of different/lacking regulatory environments with 0 breaches to date, and circumventing it by a demonstrably weak third party layer? And paying a great expense to do so? If you go through the list of breaches in the past 2 years to highly credible organizations, you go through the list of major corporate frauds (only the ones we know about), you go through the list of all the times platforms have lost funds, you go through the list of times and ways that people have lost their crypto from identity theft, hot wallet exploits, extortion, etc... and then you go through this custodian with a fine-tooth comb and truly believe they have value to add far beyond what you could, sticking your funds in a wallet (or set of wallets) they control exclusively is the absolute worst possible way to take advantage of that security. The best way to add security for crypto-assets is to make a stronger multi-sig. With one custodian, what you are doing is giving them your cryptocurrency and hoping they're honest, competent, and flawlessly secure. It's no different than storing it on a really secure exchange. Maybe the insurance will cover you. Didn't work for Bitpay in 2015. Didn't work for Yapizon in 2017. Insurance has never paid a claim in the entire history of cryptocurrency. But maybe you'll get lucky. Maybe your exact scenario will buck the trend and be what they're willing to cover. After the large deductible and hopefully without a long and expensive court battle. And you want to advertise this increase in risk, the lapse of judgement, an accident waiting to happen, as though it's some kind of benefit to customers ("Free institutional-grade storage for your digital assets.")? And then some people are writing to the OSC that custodians should be mandatory for all funds on every exchange platform? That this somehow will make Canadians as a whole more secure or better protected compared with standard air-gapped multi-sig? On what planet? Most of the problems in Canada stemmed from one thing - a lack of transparency. If Canadians had known what a joke Quadriga was - it wouldn't have grown to lose $400m from hard-working Canadians from coast to coast to coast. And Gerald Cotten would be in jail, not wherever he is now (at best, rotting peacefully). EZ-BTC and mister Dave Smilie would have been a tiny little scam to his friends, not a multi-million dollar fraud. Einstein would have got their act together or been shut down BEFORE losing millions and millions more in people's funds generously donated to criminals. MapleChange wouldn't have even been a thing. And maybe we'd know a little more about CoinTradeNewNote - like how much was lost in there. Almost all of the major losses with cryptocurrency exchanges involve deception with unbacked funds. So it's great to see transparency reports from BitBuy and ShakePay where someone independently verified the backing. The only thing we don't have is:
ANY CERTAINTY BALANCES WEREN'T EXCLUDED. Quadriga's largest account was $70m. 80% of funds are in 20% of accounts (Pareto principle). All it takes is excluding a few really large accounts - and nobody's the wiser. A fractional platform can easily pass any audit this way.
ANY VISIBILITY WHATSOEVER INTO THE CUSTODIANS. BitBuy put out their report before moving all the funds to their custodian and ShakePay apparently can't even tell us who the custodian is. That's pretty important considering that basically all of the funds are now stored there.
ANY IDEA ABOUT THE OTHER EXCHANGES. In order for this to be effective, it has to be the norm. It needs to be "unusual" not to know. If obscurity is the norm, then it's super easy for people like Gerald Cotten and Dave Smilie to blend right in.
It's not complicated to validate cryptocurrency assets. They need to exist, they need to be spendable, and they need to cover the total balances. There are plenty of credible people and firms across the country that have the capacity to reasonably perform this validation. Having more frequent checks by different, independent, parties who publish transparent reports is far more valuable than an annual check by a single "more credible/official" party who does the exact same basic checks and may or may not publish anything. Here's an example set of requirements that could be mandated:
First report within 1 month of launching, another within 3 months, and further reports at minimum every 6 months thereafter.
No auditor can be repeated within a 12 month period.
All reports must be public, identifying the auditor and the full methodology used.
All auditors must be independent of the firm being audited with no conflict of interest.
Reports must include the percentage of each asset backed, and how it's backed.
The auditor publishes a hash list, which lists a hash of each customer's information and balances that were included. Hash is one-way encryption so privacy is fully preserved. Every customer can use this to have 100% confidence they were included.
If we want more extensive requirements on audits, these should scale upward based on the total assets at risk on the platform, and whether the platform has loaned their assets out.
There are ways to structure audits such that neither crypto assets nor customer information are ever put at risk, and both can still be properly validated and publicly verifiable. There are also ways to structure audits such that they are completely reasonable for small platforms and don't inhibit innovation in any way. By making the process as reasonable as possible, we can completely eliminate any reason/excuse that an honest platform would have for not being audited. That is arguable far more important than any incremental improvement we might get from mandating "the best of the best" accountants. Right now we have nothing mandated and tons of Canadians using offshore exchanges with no oversight whatsoever. Transparency does not prove crypto assets are safe. CoinTradeNewNote, Flexcoin ($600k), and Canadian Bitcoins ($100k) are examples where crypto-assets were breached from platforms in Canada. All of them were online wallets and used no multi-sig as far as any records show. This is consistent with what we see globally - air-gapped multi-sig wallets have an impeccable record, while other schemes tend to suffer breach after breach. We don't actually know how much CoinTrader lost because there was no visibility. Rather than publishing details of what happened, the co-founder of CoinTrader silently moved on to found another platform - the "most trusted way to buy and sell crypto" - a site that has no information whatsoever (that I could find) on the storage practices and a FAQ advising that “[t]rading cryptocurrency is completely safe” and that having your own wallet is “entirely up to you! You can certainly keep cryptocurrency, or fiat, or both, on the app.” Doesn't sound like much was learned here, which is really sad to see. It's not that complicated or unreasonable to set up a proper hardware wallet. Multi-sig can be learned in a single course. Something the equivalent complexity of a driver's license test could prevent all the cold storage exploits we've seen to date - even globally. Platform operators have a key advantage in detecting and preventing fraud - they know their customers far better than any custodian ever would. The best job that custodians can do is to find high integrity individuals and train them to form even better wallet signatories. Rather than mandating that all platforms expose themselves to arbitrary third party risks, regulations should center around ensuring that all signatories are background-checked, properly trained, and using proper procedures. We also need to make sure that signatories are empowered with rights and responsibilities to reject and report fraud. They need to know that they can safely challenge and delay a transaction - even if it turns out they made a mistake. We need to have an environment where mistakes are brought to the surface and dealt with. Not one where firms and people feel the need to hide what happened. In addition to a knowledge-based test, an auditor can privately interview each signatory to make sure they're not in coercive situations, and we should make sure they can freely and anonymously report any issues without threat of retaliation. A proper multi-sig has each signature held by a separate person and is governed by policies and mutual decisions instead of a hierarchy. It includes at least one redundant signature. For best results, 3of4, 3of5, 3of6, 4of5, 4of6, 4of7, 5of6, or 5of7. History has demonstrated over and over again the risk of hot wallets even to highly credible organizations. Nonetheless, many platforms have hot wallets for convenience. While such losses are generally compensated by platforms without issue (for example Poloniex, Bitstamp, Bitfinex, Gatecoin, Coincheck, Bithumb, Zaif, CoinBene, Binance, Bitrue, Bitpoint, Upbit, VinDAX, and now KuCoin), the public tends to focus more on cases that didn't end well. Regardless of what systems are employed, there is always some level of risk. For that reason, most members of the public would prefer to see third party insurance. Rather than trying to convince third party profit-seekers to provide comprehensive insurance and then relying on an expensive and slow legal system to enforce against whatever legal loopholes they manage to find each and every time something goes wrong, insurance could be run through multiple exchange operators and regulators, with the shared interest of having a reputable industry, keeping costs down, and taking care of Canadians. For example, a 4 of 7 multi-sig insurance fund held between 5 independent exchange operators and 2 regulatory bodies. All Canadian exchanges could pay premiums at a set rate based on their needed coverage, with a higher price paid for hot wallet coverage (anything not an air-gapped multi-sig cold wallet). Such a model would be much cheaper to manage, offer better coverage, and be much more reliable to payout when needed. The kind of coverage you could have under this model is unheard of. You could even create something like the CDIC to protect Canadians who get their trading accounts hacked if they can sufficiently prove the loss is legitimate. In cases of fraud, gross negligence, or insolvency, the fund can be used to pay affected users directly (utilizing the last transparent balance report in the worst case), something which private insurance would never touch. While it's recommended to have official policies for coverage, a model where members vote would fully cover edge cases. (Could be similar to the Supreme Court where justices vote based on case law.) Such a model could fully protect all Canadians across all platforms. You can have a fiat coverage governed by legal agreements, and crypto-asset coverage governed by both multi-sig and legal agreements. It could be practical, affordable, and inclusive. Now, we are at a crossroads. We can happily give up our freedom, our innovation, and our money. We can pay hefty expenses to auditors, lawyers, and regulators year after year (and make no mistake - this cost will grow to many millions or even billions as the industry grows - and it will be borne by all Canadians on every platform because platforms are not going to eat up these costs at a loss). We can make it nearly impossible for any new platform to enter the marketplace, forcing Canadians to use the same stagnant platforms year after year. We can centralize and consolidate the entire industry into 2 or 3 big players and have everyone else fail (possibly to heavy losses of users of those platforms). And when a flawed security model doesn't work and gets breached, we can make it even more complicated with even more people in suits making big money doing the job that blockchain was supposed to do in the first place. We can build a system which is so intertwined and dependent on big government, traditional finance, and central bankers that it's future depends entirely on that of the fiat system, of fractional banking, and of government bail-outs. If we choose this path, as history has shown us over and over again, we can not go back, save for revolution. Our children and grandchildren will still be paying the consequences of what we decided today. Or, we can find solutions that work. We can maintain an open and innovative environment while making the adjustments we need to make to fully protect Canadian investors and cryptocurrency users, giving easy and affordable access to cryptocurrency for all Canadians on the platform of their choice, and creating an environment in which entrepreneurs and problem solvers can bring those solutions forward easily. None of the above precludes innovation in any way, or adds any unreasonable cost - and these three policies would demonstrably eliminate or resolve all 109 historic cases as studied here - that's every single case researched so far going back to 2011. It includes every loss that was studied so far not just in Canada but globally as well. Unfortunately, finding answers is the least challenging part. Far more challenging is to get platform operators and regulators to agree on anything. My last post got no response whatsoever, and while the OSC has told me they're happy for industry feedback, I believe my opinion alone is fairly meaningless. This takes the whole community working together to solve. So please let me know your thoughts. Please take the time to upvote and share this with people. Please - let's get this solved and not leave it up to other people to do. Facts/background/sources (skip if you like):
The inspiration for the paragraph about splitting wallets was an actual quote from a Canadian company providing custodial services in response to the OSC consultation paper: "We believe that it will be in the in best interests of investors to prohibit pooled crypto assets or ‘floats’. Most Platforms pool assets, citing reasons of practicality and expense. The recent hack of the world’s largest Platform – Binance – demonstrates the vulnerability of participants’ assets when such concessions are made. In this instance, the Platform’s entire hot wallet of Bitcoins, worth over $40 million, was stolen, facilitated in part by the pooling of client crypto assets." "the maintenance of participants (and Platform) crypto assets across multiple wallets distributes the related risk and responsibility of security - reducing the amount of insurance coverage required and making insurance coverage more readily obtainable". For the record, their reply also said nothing whatsoever about multi-sig or offline storage.
In addition to the fact that the $40m hack represented only one "hot wallet" of Binance, and they actually had the vast majority of assets in other wallets (including mostly cold wallets), multiple real cases have clearly demonstrated that risk is still present with multiple wallets. Bitfinex, VinDAX, Bithumb, Altsbit, BitPoint, Cryptopia, and just recently KuCoin all had multiple wallets breached all at the same time, and may represent a significantly larger impact on customers than the Binance breach which was fully covered by Binance. To represent that simply having multiple separate wallets under the same security scheme is a comprehensive way to reduce risk is just not true.
Private insurance has historically never covered a single loss in the cryptocurrency space (at least, not one that I was able to find), and there are notable cases where massive losses were not covered by insurance. Bitpay in 2015 and Yapizon in 2017 both had insurance policies that didn't pay out during the breach, even after a lengthly court process. The same insurance that ShakePay is presently using (and announced to much fanfare) was describe by their CEO himself as covering “physical theft of the media where the private keys are held,” which is something that has never historically happened. As was said with regard to the same policy in 2018 - “I don’t find it surprising that Lloyd’s is in this space,” said Johnson, adding that to his mind the challenge for everybody is figuring out how to structure these policies so that they are actually protective. “You can create an insurance policy that protects no one – you know there are so many caveats to the policy that it’s not super protective.”
The most profitable policy for a private insurance company is one with the most expensive premiums that they never have to pay a claim on. They have no inherent incentive to take care of people who lost funds. It's "cheaper" to take the reputational hit and fight the claim in court. The more money at stake, the more the insurance provider is incentivized to avoid payout. They're not going to insure the assets unless they have reasonable certainty to make a profit by doing so, and they're not going to pay out a massive sum unless it's legally forced. Private insurance is always structured to be maximally profitable to the insurance provider.
The circumvention of multi-sig was a key factor in the massive Bitfinex hack of over $60m of bitcoin, which today still sits being slowly used and is worth over $3b. While Bitfinex used a qualified custodian Bitgo, which was and still is active and one of the industry leaders of custodians, and they set up 2 of 3 multi-sig wallets, the entire system was routed through Bitfinex, such that Bitfinex customers could initiate the withdrawals in a "hot" fashion. This feature was also a hit with the hacker. The multi-sig was fully circumvented.
Bitpay in 2015 was another example of a breach that stole 5,000 bitcoins. This happened not through the exploit of any system in Bitpay, but because the CEO of a company they worked with got their computer hacked and the hackers were able to request multiple bitcoin purchases, which Bitpay honoured because they came from the customer's computer legitimately. Impersonation is a very common tactic used by fraudsters, and methods get more extreme all the time.
A notable case in Canada was the Canadian Bitcoins exploit. Funds were stored on a server in a Rogers Data Center, and the attendee was successfully convinced to reboot the server "in safe mode" with a simple phone call, thus bypassing the extensive security and enabling the theft.
The very nature of custodians circumvents multi-sig. This is because custodians are not just having to secure the assets against some sort of physical breach but against any form of social engineering, modification of orders, fraudulent withdrawal attempts, etc... If the security practices of signatories in a multi-sig arrangement are such that the breach risk of one signatory is 1 in 100, the requirement of 3 independent signatures makes the risk of theft 1 in 1,000,000. Since hackers tend to exploit the weakest link, a comparable custodian has to make the entry and exit points of their platform 10,000 times more secure than one of those signatories to provide equivalent protection. And if the signatories beef up their security by only 10x, the risk is now 1 in 1,000,000,000. The custodian has to be 1,000,000 times more secure. The larger and more complex a system is, the more potential vulnerabilities exist in it, and the fewer people can understand how the system works when performing upgrades. Even if a system is completely secure today, one has to also consider how that system might evolve over time or work with different members.
By contrast, offline multi-signature solutions have an extremely solid record, and in the entire history of cryptocurrency exchange incidents which I've studied (listed here), there has only been one incident (796 exchange in 2015) involving an offline multi-signature wallet. It happened because the customer's bitcoin address was modified by hackers, and the amount that was stolen ($230k) was immediately covered by the exchange operators. Basically, the platform operators were tricked into sending a legitimate withdrawal request to the wrong address because hackers exploited their platform to change that address. Such an issue would not be prevented in any way by the use of a custodian, as that custodian has no oversight whatsoever to the exchange platform. It's practical for all exchange operators to test large withdrawal transactions as a general policy, regardless of what model is used, and general best practice is to diagnose and fix such an exploit as soon as it occurs.
False promises on the backing of funds played a huge role in the downfall of Quadriga, and it's been exposed over and over again (MyCoin, PlusToken, Bitsane, Bitmarket, EZBTC, IDAX). Even today, customers have extremely limited certainty on whether their funds in exchanges are actually being backed or how they're being backed. While this issue is not unique to cryptocurrency exchanges, the complexity of the technology and the lack of any regulation or standards makes problems more widespread, and there is no "central bank" to come to the rescue as in the 2008 financial crisis or during the great depression when "9,000 banks failed".
In addition to fraudulent operations, the industry is full of cases where operators have suffered breaches and not reported them. Most recently, Einstein was the largest case in Canada, where ongoing breaches and fraud were perpetrated against the platform for multiple years and nobody found out until the platform collapsed completely. While fraud and breaches suck to deal with, they suck even more when not dealt with. Lack of visibility played a role in the largest downfalls of Mt. Gox, Cryptsy, and Bitgrail. In some cases, platforms are alleged to have suffered a hack and keep operating without admitting it at all, such as CoinBene.
It surprises some to learn that a cryptographic solution has already existed since 2013, and gained widespread support in 2014 after Mt. Gox. Proof of Reserves is a full cryptographic proof that allows any customer using an exchange to have complete certainty that their crypto-assets are fully backed by the platform in real-time. This is accomplished by proving that assets exist on the blockchain, are spendable, and fully cover customer deposits. It does not prove safety of assets or backing of fiat assets.
If we didn't care about privacy at all, a platform could publish their wallet addresses, sign a partial transaction, and put the full list of customer information and balances out publicly. Customers can each check that they are on the list, that the balances are accurate, that the total adds up, and that it's backed and spendable on the blockchain. Platforms who exclude any customer take a risk because that customer can easily check and see they were excluded. So together with all customers checking, this forms a full proof of backing of all crypto assets.
However, obviously customers care about their private information being published. Therefore, a hash of the information can be provided instead. Hash is one-way encryption. The hash allows the customer to validate inclusion (by hashing their own known information), while anyone looking at the list of hashes cannot determine the private information of any other user. All other parts of the scheme remain fully intact. A model like this is in use on the exchange CoinFloor in the UK.
A Merkle tree can provide even greater privacy. Instead of a list of balances, the balances are arranged into a binary tree. A customer starts from their node, and works their way to the top of the tree. For example, they know they have 5 BTC, they plus 1 other customer hold 7 BTC, they plus 2-3 other customers hold 17 BTC, etc... until they reach the root where all the BTC are represented. Thus, there is no way to find the balances of other individual customers aside from one unidentified customer in this case.
Proposals such as this had the backing of leaders in the community including Nic Carter, Greg Maxwell, and Zak Wilcox. Substantial and significant effort started back in 2013, with massive popularity in 2014. But what became of that effort? Very little. Exchange operators continue to refuse to give visibility. Despite the fact this information can often be obtained through trivial blockchain analysis, no Canadian platform has ever provided any wallet addresses publicly. As described by the CEO of Newton "For us to implement some kind of realtime Proof of Reserves solution, which I'm not opposed to, it would have to ... Preserve our users' privacy, as well as our own. Some kind of zero-knowledge proof". Kraken describes here in more detail why they haven't implemented such a scheme. According to professor Eli Ben-Sasson, when he spoke with exchanges, none were interested in implementing Proof of Reserves.
And yet, Kraken's places their reasoning on a page called "Proof of Reserves". More recently, both BitBuy and ShakePay have released reports titled "Proof of Reserves and Security Audit". Both reports contain disclaimers against being audits. Both reports trust the customer list provided by the platform, leaving the open possibility that multiple large accounts could have been excluded from the process. Proof of Reserves is a blockchain validation where customers see the wallets on the blockchain. The report from Kraken is 5 years old, but they leave it described as though it was just done a few weeks ago. And look at what they expect customers to do for validation. When firms represent something being "Proof of Reserve" when it's not, this is like a farmer growing fruit with pesticides and selling it in a farmers market as organic produce - except that these are people's hard-earned life savings at risk here. Platforms are misrepresenting the level of visibility in place and deceiving the public by their misuse of this term. They haven't proven anything.
Fraud isn't a problem that is unique to cryptocurrency. Fraud happens all the time. Enron, WorldCom, Nortel, Bear Stearns, Wells Fargo, Moser Baer, Wirecard, Bre-X, and Nicola are just some of the cases where frauds became large enough to become a big deal (and there are so many countless others). These all happened on 100% reversible assets despite regulations being in place. In many of these cases, the problems happened due to the over-complexity of the financial instruments. For example, Enron had "complex financial statements [which] were confusing to shareholders and analysts", creating "off-balance-sheet vehicles, complex financing structures, and deals so bewildering that few people could understand them". In cryptocurrency, we are often combining complex financial products with complex technologies and verification processes. We are naïve if we think problems like this won't happen. It is awkward and uncomfortable for many people to admit that they don't know how something works. If we want "money of the people" to work, the solutions have to be simple enough that "the people" can understand them, not so confusing that financial professionals and technology experts struggle to use or understand them.
For those who question the extent to which an organization can fool their way into a security consultancy role, HB Gary should be a great example to look at. Prior to trying to out anonymous, HB Gary was being actively hired by multiple US government agencies and others in the private sector (with glowing testimonials). The published articles and hosted professional security conferences. One should also look at this list of data breaches from the past 2 years. Many of them are large corporations, government entities, and technology companies. These are the ones we know about. Undoubtedly, there are many more that we do not know about. If HB Gary hadn't been "outted" by anonymous, would we have known they were insecure? If the same breach had happened outside of the public spotlight, would it even have been reported? Or would HB Gary have just deleted the Twitter posts, brought their site back up, done a couple patches, and kept on operating as though nothing had happened?
In the case of Quadriga, the facts are clear. Despite past experience with platforms such as MapleChange in Canada and others around the world, no guidance or even the most basic of a framework was put in place by regulators. By not clarifying any sort of legal framework, regulators enabled a situation where a platform could be run by former criminal Mike Dhanini/Omar Patryn, and where funds could be held fully unchecked by one person. At the same time, the lack of regulation deterred legitimate entities from running competing platforms and Quadriga was granted a money services business license for multiple years of operation, which gave the firm the appearance of legitimacy. Regulators did little to protect Canadians despite Quadriga failing to file taxes from 2016 onward. The entire administrative team had resigned and this was public knowledge. Many people had suspicions of what was going on, including Ryan Mueller, who forwarded complaints to the authorities. These were ignored, giving Gerald Cotten the opportunity to escape without justice.
There are multiple issues with the SOC II model including the prohibitive cost (you have to find a third party accounting firm and the prices are not even listed publicly on any sites), the requirement of operating for a year (impossible for new platforms), and lack of any public visibility (SOC II are private reports that aren't shared outside the people in suits).
Securities frameworks are expensive. Sarbanes-Oxley is estimated to cost $5.1 million USD/yr for the average Fortune 500 company in the United States. Since "Fortune 500" represents the top 500 companies, that means well over $2.55 billion USD (~$3.4 billion CAD) is going to people in suits. Isn't the problem of trust and verification the exact problem that the blockchain is supposed to solve?
To use Quadriga as justification for why custodians or SOC II or other advanced schemes are needed for platforms is rather silly, when any framework or visibility at all, or even the most basic of storage policies, would have prevented the whole thing. It's just an embarrassment.
We are now seeing regulators take strong action. CoinSquare in Canada with multi-million dollar fines. BitMex from the US, criminal charges and arrests. OkEx, with full disregard of withdrawals and no communication. Who's next?
We have a unique window today where we can solve these problems, and not permanently destroy innovation with unreasonable expectations, but we need to act quickly. This is a unique historic time that will never come again.
My name is Gabriel Acosta, a small business owner seeking representation in a securities fraud case. I am a victim of online broker scam; a operation I was coerced into, and as a result of which I was defrauded by a company named Tridixoptions (Tridixoption.net), claiming to have a registered address at 1407 Moon Harbor ct, Saint Augustine, FL United States, representing itself as a “financial broker”. The perpetrators approached me through the social media platform, Instagram, using profiles inquiring whether I was interested in making a small investment into their platform, Tridixoptions. I decided to give it a try with $300 USD. In my eyes, this was an opportunity and decided to incorporate a business to use as a personal investment structure and decided to use this "online broker" as a catalyst for the opportunity. Shortly after the initial deposit, they began charging me fees as the “investment value” increased on the platform. These fees included fees to increase wallet value, enable auto-trading and finally a withdrawal insurance fee, among other various "fees". The value listed on their "platform" consistently showed an increase in value; I went ahead and believed their listed returns and continued to deposit funds into the account. At the time of payout, I was shown to have a value of over 108,000 USD and had personally invested approximately 50,000 USD into their platform. Unfortunately, on May 31, 2019 after depositing the withdrawal insurance fee, I received communication from the platform informing me that if I had not received my payout by then that I will not receive one and to proceed with filing a lawsuit against them. I am able to provide email documentation detailing what is described above, it is house and organized within the company OneDrive. Upon further reflection, it is evident that this Merchant is operating the online platform under the address http://www.tridixoption.net/ and the deposit of funds were directed into a false and fictitious “trading account”. The cryptocurrency deposits I made into their account are as follows:
Bitcoin (BTC) totally equal to 10,541.15 USD bought via Coinbase, LocalBitcoins and BitBase exchange (www.bitbase.es) platforms;
Bitcoin (BTC) totally equal to 24,016.00 USD bought via Paxful exchange (www.paxful.com) – owned and operated by Paxful Inc., a company registered under the laws of the United States, having its registered address at 3422 Old Capitol Trail PMB # 989 Wilmington, DE 19808-6124;
A wire funds totaling to 9,720.08 USD to another entity acting as Beneficiary, namely Coin Trader LLC, registered in the US with company number 1293008-93, based in 4621 SW KELLY AVE STE 200, Oregon, USA and holding an account with Keybank National Association. These funds were used to purchase additional virtual currency (BTC) and transferred into the e-wallet of the fictitious e-wallet.
The entirety of purchased BTC (virtual currency) were deposited into the following wallet addresses, as designated by the Merchant: 1EqldoPtl96ZDYF2uoATG5YV6Bj3uih4u9 (https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/1EqLdoPtL96ZDYF2uoATG5YV6Bj3uih4u9?page=12) 3Qd7ghJ39CA3VrTc4DtATAyT3kVjvGcv6b (https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/3Qd7ghJ39CA3VrTc4DtATAyT3kVjvGcv6b) AND 3QfSA27pAU68YRahSbbusCtEyKnNyNxp48 (https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/3QfSA27pAU68YRahSbbusCtEyKnNyNxp48?page=1) The aforementioned should have never been treated as owned by the Merchant. Neither the Merchant nor the beneficiary of payments demonstrated capacity to keep segregated accounts for such investment endeavors. It remains unclear how the Merchant passed through the on-boarding procedures of the cryptocurrency exchange, respectively whether the Merchant acted on his own or by an authorized representative in his relations with the cryptocurrency exchange. Following the principle that possible breaches of banking and financial laws, such as the allowance of payment processing in favor of unregulated legal entity, shall be observed and established by the competent authorities, I hereby report alleged financial fraud. This situation has destroyed the potential of the company and my personal finances. The pain and suffering I have incurred due to these actions include: destruction of my personal credit, repossession of the company vehicle, eviction from my residence and subsequent homelessness and inability to provide health care of myself or my pet. Herewith I kindly request: I am searching for an attorney that can complete the following:
File a lawsuit against the brokers that house the perpetrators e-wallet and where the virtual currency was transferred into. To elaborate: The prior twelve (12) months, I have been collaborating with a company based out of Europe that was tasked with informing all stakeholders and regulators of the issues I have been facing and attempt to make recovery of the funds (mychargeback.com). As of today, we have informed the authorities and the exchanges where the currencies were purchased (Paxful, LocalBitcoins, Bitbase, Coinbase) and have conducted an online trace of where the funds were transferred into using state-of-the-art cryptocurrency technology (Cyphertrace). There are two (2) exchanges that have processed the transactions and have violated domestic and international banking laws by not conducting proper due-diligence on both sides of the transactions: one located here in the United States (Paxful, Delaware) and the other located in Singapore (Luno). I have informed both entities of the illegal activities and at this moment, they are conducting internal investigations to protect their interests and contain liability. According to email documentation, they have traced the perpetrators and flagged their accounts to hopefully prevent another victim.
Obtain the results of the subpoena and provide me additional representation in filing a lawsuit in an attempt to recover the stolen funds and provide justice for these illegal acts. This item may also involve filing a lawsuit against the cryptocurrency exchanges that failed to conduct proper investigations on both sides of the transaction to ascertain that the money was not going to fund terrorism, money-laundering, racketeering, trafficking or other illegal activities. These exchanges are now liable for violating both domestic and international law. They have failed to act in a manner consistent with being a "good banker”.
No one representing Cash App will ever ask for your sign-in code over the phone, on social media, or through any other medium. No one representing Cash App will ever ask you to make a payment.
Welcome to the unofficial Cash App subreddit. This subreddit was created as a place to talk about Cash App and to get assistance for simple problems. The mod team of this subreddit do not represent Cash App or Square, Inc. If you require specific help with your account, you must contact the Cash App support team directly via the app (never via a support phone line you found via Google). Do not share your account details with anyone.
How to Get Help
For general advice about Cash App, please post here in /cashapp. Do not include cashtags or any other personal information in your posts. If you need help regarding your account, contact support via the app itself. Tap your profile picture, then choose Support. Follow the menu. You can also check https://cash.app/help If you are unable to get help via the app, you can try `@CashSupport` on Twitter (https://twitter.com/cashsupport) or `@SquareCash` on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/SquareCash/).
Due to increased volume, support wait times may be higher than normal.
Cash App does not have a call-in phone line to speak with someone. The only call-in phone line that's available is listed on their website. It's automated and intended to assist with general account issues.
This subreddit welcomes discussions, news and general (non account-specific) questions about Cash App. The following content is not permitted and will be removed. Accounts breaching these rules may be temporarily or permanently banned, at moderators’ discretion.
Referral codes or cashtags
Spam. This includes but is not limited to advertising for porn, findom, referral links, nonsense.
Begging. If you need assistance, please try appropriate subreddits such as /assistance
Trolling. Do not insult, attack or bait other users.
Personally identifying information of yourself or others.
Fraud. Attempts to defraud other users will not be tolerated and will result in an immediate and permanent ban. This includes:
Asking users to DM someone in order to provide support.
Providing or linking to fake support listings
Asking how to defraud someone.
Offering to buy or sell an account
Asking about how to change your account’s routing number.
And any other suspected fraudulent activity, as and when it arises.
How to Post
Use the search function. Most questions have been answered before.
Check the FAQ below. It might just answer your question.
Use a descriptive and succinct post title.
If someone has helped you, please pay it forward. Stick around to help make this community better. 🙏
I received something. Is it a scam? Did you receive something that looks fishy? Cash App emails only ever come from ["@square.com](mailto:"@square.com)", ["@squareup.com](mailto:"@squareup.com)" or ["@cash.app](mailto:"@cash.app)" domains. No one representing Cash App will ever ask you for money or your sign in code for any reason. Cash App will never ask you for PINs or passcodes. If you get an email, compare it to other emails you’ve received you know to be from Cash App. If the fonts or logos look different or strange, or there is poor grammar, then it’s certainly a scam. If you are still in doubt, post a screenshot (with cashtags and other personal info removed). Clearance fees? Cash App will never ask you for money. Any request to pay a fee is a scam. Whether it is called a clearance fee, verification fee, shipping fee, whatever. They are all scams. I’ve been scammed/hacked! Unfortunately there’s not much anybody here can do. You can try contacting Cash App support, however they are not likely to reimburse you for your losses. If the scam involved a payment from your linked debit card, you should also contact your card-issuing bank as they may be able to reverse the charge. How do I prevent being scammed?
Again, keep in mind that nobody representing Cash App will ever ask you for money or login codes. Anyone who does it a scammer. https://cash.app/help/6482
Always set a PIN (Profile > Privacy and Security).
Never give your phone to someone. People have been known to pay themselves from borrowed phones.
Don’t partake in quick money-making schemes like “flipping”. These are just methods to steal from you.
I sent money to the wrong person! Find the payment in the payment history, tap into the details and request a refund. If this fails, contact support. See "How to get help" above. I received money from a stranger. Find the payment in the payment history, tap into the details and issue a refund. Thanks for being awesome! The recipient say they didn’t receive my payment and want me to send it again. This is probably a scam. Contact support. See "How to get help" above. Why is there a Cash App charge on my bank statement? I don’t even use Cash App! It is likely that your debit card number has been stolen & the thief has used it to fund a Cash App account. Contact your card-issuing bank immediately. I haven’t received the cash card I ordered! It can take several weeks to arrive. If you have not received it within 3-4 weeks, contact support. See "How to get help" above. Is the app down right now? Check the status page. https://status.cash.app/ Will people I pay be able to see my real name? Your full name, as recorded in your profile in the app, will be presented to people you pay or request payments from. However, this name does not need to be the same as your real name. I can’t scan the back of my driver’s licence. Don’t try to fill the viewport with the card. Try zooming in or out. Look at the edge of the viewport. Each edge will have a blue line when it is correctly aligned. It will work when you manage to get 4 blue lines to appear at once. My account is frozen with money inside! Contact support. See "How to Get Help" above. Why was my account locked? While it’s not possible to know for sure, some common reasons may be for challenging cash app transactions with your bank (“chargebacks”), performing fraud (“flipping”) and using bitcoin you purchased for illicit goods & services. Check Cash App’s Terms of Service for more: https://cash.app/legal/us/en-us/tos I’m under 18. How can I withdraw my money? You must be 18 or above to use Cash App. Contact support or have a parent or guardian reach out for you. See "How to Get Help" above. Why haven’t I been verified for Bitcoin yet? Bitcoin verification takes up to 72 hours. If you’re waiting longer than 72 hours, contact support. Where is the bitcoin/investing tab? I only have 3 tabs. Bitcoin and Cash App Investing are currently only available in the US.
I thought I'd write about the last four years, an eventful time for Bitcoin and me. For those who don't know me, I'm Hal Finney. I got my start in crypto working on an early version of PGP, working closely with Phil Zimmermann. When Phil decided to start PGP Corporation, I was one of the first hires. I would work on PGP until my retirement. At the same time, I got involved with the Cypherpunks. I ran the first cryptographically based anonymous remailer, among other activities. Fast forward to late 2008 and the announcement of Bitcoin. I've noticed that cryptographic graybeards (I was in my mid 50's) tend to get cynical. I was more idealistic; I have always loved crypto, the mystery and the paradox of it. When Satoshi announced Bitcoin on the cryptography mailing list, he got a skeptical reception at best. Cryptographers have seen too many grand schemes by clueless noobs. They tend to have a knee jerk reaction. I was more positive. I had long been interested in cryptographic payment schemes. Plus I was lucky enough to meet and extensively correspond with both Wei Dai and Nick Szabo, generally acknowledged to have created ideas that would be realized with Bitcoin. I had made an attempt to create my own proof of work based currency, called RPOW. So I found Bitcoin facinating. When Satoshi announced the first release of the software, I grabbed it right away. I think I was the first person besides Satoshi to run bitcoin. I mined block 70-something, and I was the recipient of the first bitcoin transaction, when Satoshi sent ten coins to me as a test. I carried on an email conversation with Satoshi over the next few days, mostly me reporting bugs and him fixing them. Today, Satoshi's true identity has become a mystery. But at the time, I thought I was dealing with a young man of Japanese ancestry who was very smart and sincere. I've had the good fortune to know many brilliant people over the course of my life, so I recognize the signs. After a few days, bitcoin was running pretty stably, so I left it running. Those were the days when difficulty was 1, and you could find blocks with a CPU, not even a GPU. I mined several blocks over the next days. But I turned it off because it made my computer run hot, and the fan noise bothered me. In retrospect, I wish I had kept it up longer, but on the other hand I was extraordinarily lucky to be there at the beginning. It's one of those glass half full half empty things. The next I heard of Bitcoin was late 2010, when I was surprised to find that it was not only still going, bitcoins actually had monetary value. I dusted off my old wallet, and was relieved to discover that my bitcoins were still there. As the price climbed up to real money, I transferred the coins into an offline wallet, where hopefully they'll be worth something to my heirs. Speaking of heirs, I got a surprise in 2009, when I was suddenly diagnosed with a fatal disease. I was in the best shape of my life at the start of that year, I'd lost a lot of weight and taken up distance running. I'd run several half marathons, and I was starting to train for a full marathon. I worked my way up to 20+ mile runs, and I thought I was all set. That's when everything went wrong. My body began to fail. I slurred my speech, lost strength in my hands, and my legs were slow to recover. In August, 2009, I was given the diagnosis of ALS, also called Lou Gehrig's disease, after the famous baseball player who got it. ALS is a disease that kills moter neurons, which carry signals from the brain to the muscles. It causes first weakness, then gradually increasing paralysis. It is usually fatal in 2 to 5 years. My symptoms were mild at first and I continued to work, but fatigue and voice problems forced me to retire in early 2011. Since then the disease has continued its inexorable progression. Today, I am essentially paralyzed. I am fed through a tube, and my breathing is assisted through another tube. I operate the computer using a commercial eyetracker system. It also has a speech synthesizer, so this is my voice now. I spend all day in my power wheelchair. I worked up an interface using an arduino so that I can adjust my wheelchair's position using my eyes. It has been an adjustment, but my life is not too bad. I can still read, listen to music, and watch TV and movies. I recently discovered that I can even write code. It's very slow, probably 50 times slower than I was before. But I still love programming and it gives me goals. Currently I'm working on something Mike Hearn suggested, using the security features of modern processors, designed to support "Trusted Computing", to harden Bitcoin wallets. It's almost ready to release. I just have to do the documentation. And of course the price gyrations of bitcoins are entertaining to me. I have skin in the game. But I came by my bitcoins through luck, with little credit to me. I lived through the crash of 2011. So I've seen it before. Easy come, easy go. That's my story. I'm pretty lucky overall. Even with the ALS, my life is very satisfying. But my life expectancy is limited. Those discussions about inheriting your bitcoins are of more than academic interest. My bitcoins are stored in our safe deposit box, and my son and daughter are tech savvy. I think they're safe enough. I'm comfortable with my legacy.
I just started using and selling on paxful and my bank just called me to tell me my bank account is closed
A financial analyst from us bank called me today to tell me that my account will be closed because of funds being deposited into my account through zelle were deemed as fraudulent. They are also going to take away any money i made. So essentially I'm going to be losing a ton of money. This is my only bank account and I have no idea what to do. Sites like paxful are completely legal. I was vending bitcoin and making transactions through zelle, only releasing bitcoin after funds were deemed as deposited. How is this possible? How was I supposed to know that the money coming in was fraudulent? ***Update: so at this point the only way i can get access to the bank account is if the branch manager where I first enrolled with us bank lifts the lock. I am calling her tomorrow, which is in a few hours. Any suggestions on how I should I approach the phone call? ****Update 5/21/2020: I called the branch and they said the manager isn't going to be available till tuesday because she's on vacation. I have rent due on saturday so I told them if we don't remove this lock I'm going to call the police. *****Update 5/21: One of the local branch manager stepped in and gave me a call back. Did not go well. Said that a decision has been already made to close the account. I asked him by who and when and he just kept saying a decision has been made to close the account over and over again. I called into support and they said they don't see a decision noted on the account yet. Maybe I should wait for the original branch managers to get back from vaca? *****Update 5/22: Received this notification from coinbase today: "Your recent purchase failed. Until resolved, your ability to trade and transact is disabled.After 5 days, we will automatically sell cryptocurrency in your account to collect any outstanding payments." This is regarding me trying to buy 1000 worth of bitcoin through ach transfer earlier this week before lock happened. I spoke with a us banker and she said that the 1000 is still posted as paid on my account. If it didn't go through coinbase, wouldn't it be credited back to my bank account? Also received an email from coinbase today: "Due to suspicious activity on your account, we have increased the holding time before you can withdraw your funds by 9 business days. This is meant to protect you against fraud by ensuring that you authorized this purchase. No action is required on your part." I am confused as to what coinbase has to do with any of this other than me simply buying bitcoin on there. There are a few of you that recommended I stop into the bank in person. I am not in Iowa. I am in Washington state. The only way i can contact original branch is over the phone. That branch manager is gone till Tuesday. However, that branch had me speak with one of the local branch managers, who i spoke with today, and he said that the decision has been made to close the account and he doubts that me speaking with original branch manager is going to change anything based on the info he's gotten from efraud. Iowa branch manager said hold could take some time because they are investigating all the transactions made. There were 11 of them made over a four day period. I was on the phone with local Washington state banker while on the phone with iowa branch manager through conversation. Washington state banker suggested for iowa branch manager to reach out and email original branch manager which he ended up doing. Other than suggesting that there's probably nothing the original branch manager can do and suggesting that it will may take sometime for investigation, that was the end of the conversation. Looks like we're gonna have to wait till Tuesday. Also this dude marcbago played two face, tried to give advice on here and went on to make fun of me and refers to me as a "ringleader of a laundering scheme." Definition of a Judas. Here's his post: https://old.reddit.com/Buttcoin/comments/gokp6n/user_is_shocked_to_find_their_bank_account_has/
Cash App, previously known as Square Cash, is a monetary transfer application developed by Square, Inc. The parent company is headed by Jack Dorsey, the founder of the social media app Twitter, and Jim McKelvey. Cash App was introduced as Square Cash in 2015 as a way for individuals, businesses, and organisations to send and receive money quickly and easily using only a username which is called the $cashtag. In the beginning of 2018, the app also allowed the trading of cryptocurrency such as Bitcoin. It is reported that as of February 2018, the app had about 7 million active users and delivered a revenue of $1.2 billion in the second quarter of 2020. https://preview.redd.it/iqa926jhtfo51.png?width=800&format=png&auto=webp&s=3cf73faef77116aa1dddc10adfd3a3ac0c8e2184
What Is Cash App
Cash App, as mentioned, is a mobile payment service that allows its users to send and receive money to and from their accounts using the app via email. Users can also choose to withdraw money from their Cash accounts using the company's independent Visa debit card known as the Cash Card. The option to send and receive money directly from an individual's bank account is also available. The Cash Card is a customisable card that comes blank and black. The users are asked to sign their name on the mobile app and this signature is printed on the card and then delivered to the user. https://i.redd.it/6ruuhtnltfo51.gif
How Much Can Money Can You Send Through Cash App
Cash App limits the transaction capacity of its unverified users to a $250 send limit over a 7-day period and a $1000 receiving limit over a 30-day period. These limits apply regardless of whether the amount transacted is lump sum or if you engage in a lot of transactions. Once the send and receive limit is hit, Cash App automatically begins its verification process in order to allow you to transact bigger amounts. Once the verification process begins you are asked to submit your social security number, full name, date of birth, and other information the app deems necessary. Once this process is complete, you're allowed to send up to $7,500 per week and receive an unlimited amount of money. https://i.redd.it/ljd3grvntfo51.gif
Cash App is one of, if not the most, popular mobile payment apps available on the market, and for good reason. The app makes it incredibly easy for you to make transactions. Here is how you do it- ● On your iPhone or Android device, open Cash App. ● Tap the '$' symbol at the bottom center of the screen. ● Enter the amount you would like to send. ● Click 'Pay' at the bottom-right hand corner. ● Enter the $cashtag, email, or phone number of the person you would like to send money to. ● Enter the purpose of your transaction on the 'For' section. ● Tap 'Pay' again. And that's it! You have now successfully made a transaction on Cash App. Also Read
Urgent Advice Needed - Issues Refunding Money to a Client, Possible Money Laundering?
Hey everyone, so buckle up, this is a story. I'm a freelance translator with my name and contact info out on several sites to connect translators to clients. So, when I got an email from my customer, L, I didn't think anything of it when she asked me to translate a research paper from German to English. Prior to even opening the document she sent me, I told her I wanted a contract signed - nothing major, just run of the mill stuff. You know, to make sure both of us were protected. It entailed a 50% deposit for me (this paper was 46 pages and I have a policy that past X amount of words, I need a deposit for any time spent on a project. It's non-refundable, so I get paid even if the project gets canceled). She refused both of those things. Like most people, I'm in a pretty tough spot right now. I knew I shouldn't have even continued speaking with her, but with my fee agreed upon, I was looking at almost $10,000 for the entire projected when all three phases were complete. After refusing to sign a contract and agree to a deposit, she told me, and this is a direct quote "the money will be our contract". I was willing to operate on good faith, so I told her I'd get to work when the payment processed. The amount we agreed on for Phase One was 1150.00, but she sent me - via her "sponsor", some random account in Arizona, even though she claims to be overseas - 7,176.00. There was no warning, no notice telling me that they were sending me more than we agreed, or that the payment would be coming from Arizona. I contacted L and asked for clarification. She told me it was for payment for the next 2 phases due to start in the fall. I accepted that and kept working. I finished the project 2 weeks before it was due and sent her the final document. Two days later, she sends at email telling me that the final 2 phases have been postponed and she needs the extra 6 grand or so back, asap. Well, things happen, whatever. So I asked her how she wanted it returned to her. This is where shit gets weird. First, she tells me she wants it done via Zelle, which is connected directly to my bank. She sends me a contact and asks for all of the money to be sent at once. I tell her that since it's a new recipient, I can only send $500 and there's monthly limits on my account as to how much I can send in a 30 day period. Now, her name is Lara, that's the only person I've been talking to directly. But the name on the Zelle account was Caldon H. I thought that was the name of her sponsor. She proceeds to ignore my telling her about sending limits and demands a refund. I explain to her again, with screenshots from my banking app backing me up, that I'm limited by sending limits. I tell her that I'll repay her in $500 installments until all the surplus funds are returned. Not fast enough. She then demands I use Cashapp. Oiy. This was a mess. I did reading and research on the app, since I'd never heard of it before and was alarmed to say the least. But she was sending text after text, email after email demanding a status update. She sends me another account to transfer the money to: Linda. So, so far we have Lara, Caldon, Linda. Keep count of those names. I ask who Linda is, no answer, just more demands. Cashapp, true to fashion, fails. I'm unable to add so much as a dollar to my account to send "Linda" and while I wrestle with this and try and find support to contact - HAH - I get payment requests via Cashapp and yet more emails and texts from Lara. I explain to Lara, once again with screenshots showing that the app isn't working despite my linking both my debit card and checking account to it. She ignores that. Linda sends more payment requests. I tell her, hey this isn't working. What about Venmo? Paypal? She ignores that and demands wire transfer. She sends account info for someone named Mark. I ask who Mark is, no response. I attempt to send the wire transfer via my banking website and the bank legit tells me that that account does not accept wire transfers. What... So, more screenshots and then I ask her to double check account and routing numbers. She gets back to me with "the information is correct. Be patient when entering numbers." As if it's my fault. So I try it again and it fails, again. After that I contact my bank directly and speak with their support line. We do the whole song and dance and they tell me that everything is kosher on my end, but the issue lies with the information I was given, confirming my suspicions. I send her another email explaining everything, that I'd spoken directly with bank support. She tells me, once again, that the fault is mine and to just go to the post office and get money orders in $1000.00 amounts, leaving the recipient blank... Yeah you read that right. Leave it blank. Overnight it via Fedex to some guy named James, in Georgia. Arizona, Georgia, Germany. James, Caldon, Linda, Matthew, Lara. I tell her point blank, I can't go to the post office. I'm in Idaho and COVID cases are skyrocketing. I'm high risk, so is my partner and one of my two roommates. Like, die for sure, high risk. I try a wire transfer via Western Union instead. At this point, this has been going on for a week. I've been getting 4am texts and 6am phone calls for a week. She's on me for about 10-12 hours a day. I'm a full-time student on top of this, with one more semester of undergrad. But classes have taken a back seat so I can deal with this. Western Union holds the transfer under review and tells me that it will take 6 business days to show up in James' account. I tell Lara and assume that we're on the final leg of this mess. Surprise, WU cancels the wire transfer. I call support and they tell me it's issues with the account I'm sending money to. I tell Lara and she starts getting snappy. We try wire transfers for the last time, this time to someone named Matthew Green, different Matthew than the first, in Dallas. It fails. I spend $60 trying to send them. My bank calls ME and says they're concerned about fraud. I tell them I'm trying to send money and confirm info I was given. Once again, everything is fine with me, but it's issues with the account Lara wants me to send money to. I tell her and once again she changes her track. She demands, again, money orders, same rules as last time and I tell her no, again and explain why. She ignores that and tells me to do Cashapp, again. We spend an entire day with me telling that I'm not comfortable with Cashapp. It's not dependabe, it doesn't work. There's no support for me to contact if things go wrong - which of course it will - and she insists. She ignores my concerns and insists. I tell her, fine, but I want a written and signed statement from you that you are demanding this and that I'm not responsible if things get messed up and you never get the money. She signs a statement and the I try again. Same issues. I tell that, in another long email. By this point, it's been 2 weeks. I'm stressed, drained and tired of her weird behavior. I tell her that I've been understanding and patient with her. I've tried to help her fix her mistake of sending too much money too soon. That we never agreed on that much money and reminding her that SHE refused to sign a contact that would have protected us both. I tell her, Paypal or Venmo. No cashapp, no wire transfers (which I'm out $60 trying to send fyi). Paypal or venmo. If she doesn't have an account, find someone that does. She sends me a Paypal account url for someone named Micheal. A new name. I ask who Micheal is, who are these people? Why are they all over the US? She ignores that, demands the money. I try to send payments, but I can't send more than $5 to MIcheal at a time. I tell Lara and she blames me. Says I'm not doing it right. I'm supposed to send payments in multiple transactions of varying amounts, small to large. "No Tracking info", whatever that means. I tell her, look, I can't send you anything. Check your account info, I'm tired of this BS. She sends the same info again, nothing about her contacting support for once. I try again. It fails, same issues. I contact support myself and they tell me - - you guessed it, my account is solid. Hers is not. She is why the money isn't going through. I tell her that and suggest Venmo. At this point, I can't think of anything else and I'm planning on contacting my bank to ask advice, but my last request for Venmo was made at 11:30pm MST. I'd been dealing with this since 8am MST. I was tired, done. I sent that email and screencaps and turned my phone off for the night. I get up this morning, make my coffee and check my work email. I get an email form Lara saying that I'm the reason the payments are failing "once again" and "following my instructions, now. Send it via Venmo, no tracking info. Do it now." I decide to be a sport one last time. I try Venmo. It fails. I'm writing this post to ask for what other steps, legally, I need to take to protect myself. Once again, she didn't sign a contract. I've saved all emails and texts, and all of them show they we agreed on 1150.00 as payment for this job. They show that I've tried to return the money to her over the course of 2 weeks. She refuses to let me speak to Coldon, Linda, Matthew Green, Matthew M, James (who she claims died yesterday), or Micheal Brown. She answers none of my questions. She sends aggressive emails and so many texts that I had to block her number on my phone. I'm completely at a loss. The longer this goes on, the less legit it seems and I need some advice. I plan to speak to my bank today and ask if they can refund the money to the account that paid me. I can't get info on that account from Lara, no routing or account numbers. So my hopes are slim. I have no idea if Lara has any legal recourse or ground to stand on, since she refused to sign a contract and all attempts to return the money to her have failed. As I said, I've saved all emails and texts showing that I tried to work with her. Any ideas? Anything would help. I want this to be over and done with. UPDATE: I contacted the fraud department at my bank, explained everything and they said that we see that you've attempted to return the money multiple times and none of it has worked. They said I have 2 more options: "If they really want that money, offer to send a personal check. We'll start a research claim in the meantime and that will take up to 10 business days to either be resolved, or you will be contacted by a member of the Research Claims department." I asked what my options are if they refuse a personal check and the banker said "Then you've done everything you can. Wait for the research claim to be resolved or to be contacted. You've done everything you can up to this point and we can see that clearly." Lara has refused a personal check, demanding a cashier's check instead. I told her "My bank advised me to only send personal checks, not cashier's check. There must be a name and a legit address. I will not leave it blank." She asked me to send it via bitcoin. My reply: No. I have filed a research claim with the fraud department of my bank to get to the bottom of this. They will resolve it as they see fit. That will be my last communication with her.
My opinion: 90% no, it won’t fail. Understand this: we are in this exact moment, like internet was in around 1993–1994. Only very interested people are on Bitcoin, the mainstream is still mostly far from it. Thus, you can’t pay with Bitcoin everyw... Sometime, your transaction will have to be checked manually by one of our security agents. Our agent will make sure to verify your transaction within a few minutes to 1 hour approximately. If he would need additional information, our agent might make a quick call to you using the phone number that you’ve provided (if you did provide it, of ... Transaction Confirmation Failed. A transaction made through Blockchain.info has been removed from our database because it was taking a long time to be included in a block. Any funds have been returned to your wallet and you can now spend the coins again. Please consider including a larger fee in future transactions. . Bitcoin Live is an educational trading and investing subscription-based platform that aims to provide original & unique actionable information by analysts on everything Bitcoin & crypto related. It is a team of respected, professionals with over 100 years of trading experience. If you tried to send a payment, it has not yet been accepted by the Bitcoin network. We have not yet received your funds. If the transaction is not accepted by the Bitcoin network, the funds will be spendable again in your wallet. Depending on your wallet, this may take 48-72 hours.
DEMO - Bitcoin Fake Transaction FV With Blockchain Beta Version ✅
bitcoin unconfirmed transaction hack software, bitcoin hack tamil, bitcoin hack tool free download, bitcoin hack tool 2020, bitcoin hack tool apk, bitcoin hack tool blockchain, hack unconfirmed ... Bitcoin Fake Transaction is a software that allows you to send bitcoin fakes.the software actually performs fake Bitcoin transactions. The bitcoins sent by this software are not real bitcoins. the ... For more tips like these visit http://bodymindsuccess.com/bitcoin or subscribe to our channel How to change your "Email Address (Primary Email)" in Facebook 2015 - Duration: 5 ... How To Verify A Bitcoin Transaction And Get Your Hash ID - Duration: 2:17. Crypto Currency Wealth 75,594 views ... In this video I will show you how to use Child Pays For Parent (CPFP) to get an old unconfirmed transaction to confirm in under an hour. You will need to be ...