Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 1,107 results by Inedible
Transactions from your wallet went to this address. Remember.
https://ninjastic.space/addresses?address=1FmC6gUV1tkT7HHmQzo3NwtgZs3WGSz4Rd
https://ninjastic.space/addresses?address=1FmC6gUV1tkT7HHmQzo3NwtgZs3WGSz4Rd
Oh, so it was a scam?
I might just have blanked it out
It does not look like an exchange address based on the transaction flow on it, and the funds were spent the very same day it was received. COuld be a scammer t=but there is no way to be sure with the limited information available, only you can know the purpose for sending that amount of bitcoin, all we can see is transaction flow on the chain.
I tried to run the address for any high profile scams, but did not return any results.
Bitmax is an exchange which had a bad reputation. I do not know if they are still functional.
- Jay -
I tried to run the address for any high profile scams, but did not return any results.
Bitmax is an exchange which had a bad reputation. I do not know if they are still functional.
- Jay -
I guess I was hoping someone else would know what BitMax was (way back in 2012) or remembered something about it.
They were wild west days so I wasn't expecting anything from it. I was just hoping to find out what it was.
It's possible it's in a post somewhere but search returns posts up to 2014 but nothing older.
Thanks for taking a look.
So recently I was browsing through an old wallet and looked at all the rubbish I spent Bitcoin on and one particular transaction caught my eye.
It was to an address I'd labelled as:
"BitMax" 1KTxuZ6s2BPVhHkkbGc7hWEKG8rLeXUAqA
The thing is, it was over 10 years ago and I don't remember a thing about it and I've searched most of my email and BitMax doesn't appear anywhere.
Does anyone know/remember anything about BitMax, what this address is and why I would have sent Bitcoin there?
Maybe it was an exchange? Maybe it was to a scammer?
I've tried looking at blockchain explorers but they haven't led anywhere.
I also tried looking through my post history to see if I would have sent any bitcoin to any projects back then but nada.
P.S. It's not the current exchange called BitMax because my transaction is from 2012 so predates it's existence.
It was to an address I'd labelled as:
"BitMax" 1KTxuZ6s2BPVhHkkbGc7hWEKG8rLeXUAqA
The thing is, it was over 10 years ago and I don't remember a thing about it and I've searched most of my email and BitMax doesn't appear anywhere.
Does anyone know/remember anything about BitMax, what this address is and why I would have sent Bitcoin there?
Maybe it was an exchange? Maybe it was to a scammer?
I've tried looking at blockchain explorers but they haven't led anywhere.
I also tried looking through my post history to see if I would have sent any bitcoin to any projects back then but nada.
P.S. It's not the current exchange called BitMax because my transaction is from 2012 so predates it's existence.
The thing is that i am who pays the fees on paypal transactions, and i lose too much money with it. I can offer him some kind of discount for my services to motivate him to pay me with bitcoins.
Yet the difficult part will be to convince him to register with ID/Passport.
No, you tell him that if he pays in fiat, he will pay fees.
Example: He wants to pay by Paypal - he will now have to pay the fees. So if your charge is for EUR100, he will pay EUR100 PLUS the fee.
The discounted way is if he pays you in Bitcoin.
Interested in Immigration services (Destination UK) with payment in Bitcoin?
I'm just wondering if there's demand in Immigration services with payment in Bitcoin or if that's not something people really need (i.e. if they're going to pay, it'll be in fiat/bank transfer)
Tell him future transactions that he can pay you in any way he likes but if it's in fiat, he needs to cover the fees. This way if he wants to pay Paypal, he can pay the fees. If he wants to do a bank deposit, he can pay the fees.
However, you're willing to pay the fees if he'll pay by Bitcoin.
Problem solved and you won't sound like you're being difficult.
However, you're willing to pay the fees if he'll pay by Bitcoin.
Problem solved and you won't sound like you're being difficult.
Though it really needs talent, skill and hard research.
I'm not sure that's true.
Quote from: Inedible link=topic=1811134.msg18043043#msg18043043
There could be a doubling in price if the ETF goes through on the 11th of March.
[/quote
There could be a doubling in price if the ETF goes through on the 11th of March.
[/quote
I would not place my bets on that. Just consider for a minute yourself to be a banker, threatened by some strange new sort of competition, some technology based stuff. And then consider if you would support that threat by voting for this to get a leg down into your area of interest.
Yes or no?
They might answer "No".
You might not place your bets on it but countless others are. They might win. They might lose but it's the same position OP was in previously, lamenting the fact that they've missed the opportunity when the same opportunity (with the same risks) presents itself again.
Lol. Me too. I had never think the price will touch this point in just short time, I think it would be in in the half of 2017. But yeah, this is what Bitcoin need. If I now this will happen shortly, I will never sell all my BTC.
But, of course, our headache will be more storming if the price rising 30% more in this March.
But, of course, our headache will be more storming if the price rising 30% more in this March.
There could be a doubling in price if the ETF goes through on the 11th of March.
Yesterday I made a request to the community here to share banks they think are friendly to bitcoin.
Many were of the opinion that it isnt easy to find a bank you can describe as bitcoin friendly. At best what you would find are banks that are willing to do business with Bitcoins enterprises and users or those that don't really care as to what customers do with their business accounts as long as it isnt explicitly against the law.
Nevertheless, so far the following are the banks we have in the list of bitcoin friendly banks.
You are welcome to grow it here.
Thanks
*Fidor in Germany
*Bawag PSK in Austria
*Liberty bank in Georgia, Caucasus
*Chase in USA
*Mistertango in Europe
*TD Bank
Many were of the opinion that it isnt easy to find a bank you can describe as bitcoin friendly. At best what you would find are banks that are willing to do business with Bitcoins enterprises and users or those that don't really care as to what customers do with their business accounts as long as it isnt explicitly against the law.
Nevertheless, so far the following are the banks we have in the list of bitcoin friendly banks.
You are welcome to grow it here.
Thanks
*Fidor in Germany
*Bawag PSK in Austria
*Liberty bank in Georgia, Caucasus
*Chase in USA
*Mistertango in Europe
*TD Bank
May I ask how these have been confirmed?
Does anyone else here have an account with BTCC.com?
They've recently sent an email round asking for proof of address and ID. This is pretty normal.
What I don't find normal is they state they need another copy of my passport (something I already did when I set up my account).
Naturally I emailed them and they said that yes, they need a new scan, a photo of me holding my passport and proof of address so I asked them why they needed another scan of the passport and if they had lost the original.
They replied that the original system didn't keep a copy of the passport photo which I find incredibly unlikely. Why would you throw away identifying documentation? How would you confirm details of the person in future when you need to?
It seems to me that they've simply lost the originals and are now looking to get them replaced.
I'm not sure I have faith in them anymore. Has anyone else received this email after previously providing proofs?
They've recently sent an email round asking for proof of address and ID. This is pretty normal.
What I don't find normal is they state they need another copy of my passport (something I already did when I set up my account).
Naturally I emailed them and they said that yes, they need a new scan, a photo of me holding my passport and proof of address so I asked them why they needed another scan of the passport and if they had lost the original.
They replied that the original system didn't keep a copy of the passport photo which I find incredibly unlikely. Why would you throw away identifying documentation? How would you confirm details of the person in future when you need to?
It seems to me that they've simply lost the originals and are now looking to get them replaced.
I'm not sure I have faith in them anymore. Has anyone else received this email after previously providing proofs?
Re: Can any DAO experts allay my fears that smaller investors won't get a raw deal?
I have no qualms about an investment not working out.
I don't even have a problem testing out the new risks presented by a DAO but I'm just trying to work out whether I need to consider the risk that what appears like a fair deal isn't all it seems. I just don't want to need to factor in an additional risk - collusion.
The only issue I have is that someone with enough resources (say USD2M) could effectively double their money by buying enough DAO tokens to take control.
So you could say the curators would manage that by preventing that from happening and that's a very comforting control unless the curators themselves have something to gain from allowing that vote to go through.
I guess you could say that in this instance, it's a conflict of interest the current curators have.
I don't even have a problem testing out the new risks presented by a DAO but I'm just trying to work out whether I need to consider the risk that what appears like a fair deal isn't all it seems. I just don't want to need to factor in an additional risk - collusion.
The only issue I have is that someone with enough resources (say USD2M) could effectively double their money by buying enough DAO tokens to take control.
So you could say the curators would manage that by preventing that from happening and that's a very comforting control unless the curators themselves have something to gain from allowing that vote to go through.
I guess you could say that in this instance, it's a conflict of interest the current curators have.
Can any DAO experts allay my fears that smaller investors won't get a raw deal?
I'm currently investigating The DAO and it looks incredible. It seems like a great model to build businesses like-minded people can support based on their own beliefs and goals, however, I have some worries about the current offering from daohub.org.
I get that you can vote on whether or not a proposal goes through.
My understanding is that if you vote NO, you can withdraw your ETH before the proposal goes through.
This all leads to a perception that you have absolute control of your investment but I believe that's true up to a point.
We all know that in order to have more say in a DAO, all you need to do is buy more DAO - which is fair enough. If you have a larger stake, you should have a larger say and this is where my doubts begin.
What's to prevent the main stakeholders of The DAO from ensuring they have the majority share by buying up just enough DAO to maintain that position? You would only needed to have been an early adopter in ETH or you'd need a cash equivalent of around USD1.7M at TODAYS price (USD460) to do that. You'll need more and more ETH/cash before this is up but these amounts of money are tiny in the financial world.
With control of the DAO, you now have a huge amount of funds at your disposal. You've effectively doubled your money.
Now you can put in a proposal to pay for some big project that you control. You could effectively pay yourself a huge sum of money to build a product that will return 5% of any revenue.
You now have a lot of cash that built a project that you keep and you'll only pay 5% of any profit it makes. Now that sounds like a bargain to me.
To make matters worse, you can now sell your large stake (because all the funds have been extracted from it) and you're all done.
You can tell me that this will never happen but then I'll point you to the numerous examples of people getting conned by organisations that all claim to be reputable.
I get that you can vote on whether or not a proposal goes through.
My understanding is that if you vote NO, you can withdraw your ETH before the proposal goes through.
This all leads to a perception that you have absolute control of your investment but I believe that's true up to a point.
We all know that in order to have more say in a DAO, all you need to do is buy more DAO - which is fair enough. If you have a larger stake, you should have a larger say and this is where my doubts begin.
What's to prevent the main stakeholders of The DAO from ensuring they have the majority share by buying up just enough DAO to maintain that position? You would only needed to have been an early adopter in ETH or you'd need a cash equivalent of around USD1.7M at TODAYS price (USD460) to do that. You'll need more and more ETH/cash before this is up but these amounts of money are tiny in the financial world.
With control of the DAO, you now have a huge amount of funds at your disposal. You've effectively doubled your money.
Now you can put in a proposal to pay for some big project that you control. You could effectively pay yourself a huge sum of money to build a product that will return 5% of any revenue.
You now have a lot of cash that built a project that you keep and you'll only pay 5% of any profit it makes. Now that sounds like a bargain to me.
To make matters worse, you can now sell your large stake (because all the funds have been extracted from it) and you're all done.
You can tell me that this will never happen but then I'll point you to the numerous examples of people getting conned by organisations that all claim to be reputable.
Re: Craig Wright to move coins from an early (genesis?!) block?
Or we could all just hold our horses and wait for the transfer.
If there's no transfer or the transfer isn't from an account that we can be certain Satoshi is in control of, then we can just let all this drama pass.
Of course this doesn't prove he IS Satoshi but from where I'm sitting, it's the next best thing < insert speculation of bought/sold keys, hacked email accounts, compromised private keys >
If there's no transfer or the transfer isn't from an account that we can be certain Satoshi is in control of, then we can just let all this drama pass.
Of course this doesn't prove he IS Satoshi but from where I'm sitting, it's the next best thing < insert speculation of bought/sold keys, hacked email accounts, compromised private keys >