QR codes are just handy automated ways to pass addresses around without errors. Easy to scan with some random device to another random device even if they're not connected.

I don't know how popular they are but they're popular enough that these scam addresses have (or had) decent money in them (?). I wasn't really looking to use one of these sites, I just wanted to know the proper QR code data format so I could generate my own. That's when I noticed most of the sites were giving me the wrong address. I imagine like anything, people use them because it's convenient for example if you want to put a QR code on a website or something and your client can't do it (like me, I don't use the GUI wallets). If you were using the QR as a donation address you might not even realize it's not working.

It's relatively easy to identify the fake ones. Go to the site and enter an address then scan the resulting code with something like qtqr or SecScanQR that shows you the raw data. See if the address matches. If it doesn't then you can look that address up to see where all the coins are going.

Why is no one taking about all the malicious QRcode generators? They come up as top results in major search engines. Most are scams. WTF

That's insane to owe tax on unrealized profit. It basically makes it impossible to make money trading unless you immediately cash all profits out to fiat. Otherwise you could end up owing tax when BTC was at a way higher mark than you could currently cash out to pay the tax you owe. Totally stupid.

The rule should simply be you owe tax on any coin-to-fiat conversion. Simple and easy for everyone.

I can't make sense of the IRS requirements.

If I trade BTC for ALT and ALT only has value in BTC (ie. a net zero transaction), what do I owe tax on?

And if I trade that ALT back to BTC I owe tax AGAIN on the same thing I already paid tax for. 

Yet more forks popping up all over the place. I can't even keep track of them.

Has anyone made a list of all bitcoin forks along with the block number they forked at? A list of forks-of-forks would be useful too (eg. some bitcoin cash fork is upcoming; bitcoin candy or something).

If "they" really cared about bitcoin and improving it then *ALL* wallets that have sent or received anything in the last year (at least) would get credit. Or whatever timeframe they care about.

But no, that's not enough for these guys... You have to first know their stupid coin exists in the first place, then spend a huge amount of money proving your wallet is active to get some coins on their fork.


Fuck, and fuck you to these type of scams. These are yet more people just trying to get rich quick by making a fancy website while not doing any actual work.

This applies to all coin forks but since there have been so many Bitcoin forks lately it's the most appropriate to demonstrate the issue.

So everyone hopefully knows you should move your original BTC to a new wallet after a fork and before importing your old wallet in to one of these forks. This prevents the forked client from stealing your original BTC.

However, if several forks happen between the time you move your original BTC then you're in a tough spot because although you can still protect your original BTC, there is no way to protect all the other forks from stealing coins from each other.

Consider this situation:
1. You have BTC in your BTC client wallet "A".
2. Bitcoin Alpha fork happens. You're like "whatever" and don't do anything.
3. Bitcoin Beta and Charlie fork happen at the same time. Meh...
4. Bitcoin Delta happens.
5. OK, maybe it's time to claim these forked coins.
6. You move your original BTC from wallet "A" to a new wallet "B". It's safe.
7. Now in order to get some Alpha, Beta, Charlie, and/or Delta coins you have to import your wallet or private key from old wallet "A". There is no other way to do it. This means all the forks have to use the same wallet/private key(s) from old wallet "A".  See the problem? All with the same private key, now any of the forks can access the coins of any other fork until you move the coins on those forks.

So you would want to use/import the forks in the order that you trust them (from most trusted to least trusted) but it's a gamble. Once you have coins on a new fork you want to move them to a new wallet on the fork. This will protect them from the other forks.

The only way to protect against this would be to move your original BTC in between each fork (or not use the forks at all). However, that can be expensive in fees and in the case of a Beta/Charlie simultaneous fork it would be impossible (this happened with BitcoinX and SuperBitcoin).

To be clear again, this only applies in the situation where you have multiple forks happening in between the movement of your original BTC.

It was when I went to generate a deposit address for a coin. It fails with a pop-up saying account disabled. I contacted support and they said they would not enable my account until I did the verification.

I wonder if new accounts also have to do verification if they're only trading cryptocurrency.

I have a "legacy" Bittrex account (created when the exchange was brand new) and my account is completely disabled until I do verification. No deposit, withdrawal, or trading of any sort.

Kind of annoying because I'm a long term stable customer for many years. Why would I suddenly be a problem now? Verification makes no sense if all I'm doing is trading cryptocurrency. I don't need or want FIAT or any sort.

I don't have a problem with verification per se but I do have a problem handing out personal information to just anybody. If the exchange gets hacked (and they ALL get hacked at some point) then the hackers might have access to very detailed personal information of the users. That's just no good.

Consider this: every alt-coin/fork/whatever in the existence of ever has only gone down in value (vs fiat). BTC is literally the only one that prevails and literally everything else in cryptocurrency depends on it. This simply means that Bitcoin Cash is yet another doomed alt-coin. Nobody wants to recognize the truth but the Chinese (government) simply owns the BTC mining market (whatever variation), they decide what bitcoin is and they decided they don't like Bitcoin Cash.

This is life now in electronic currency. The Chinese (government) decides who has money in the e-currency world. Yes, they're smarter than all of you idiots. They create mining hardware far beyond anything you have access to. When you buy it, they're selling old hardware that have already extracted profit beyond what you could ever expect in your lifetime and you're just giving them more profit. You're all idiots.  China has long-term goals and they are way smarter than you.

No. The Bitcoin Cash website/developers themselves call it BCC (bitcoincash.org). From there it depends on the exchange as to whether they are calling it BCC or BCH (or XBC) but the description should tell you which is what. But you're right about people getting it wrong. Don't just go by the symbol.

Thanks! I'll use an older blockchain and stop the sync before it hits the fork, then make the copy. I just didn't want to have to stay up tonight watching the sync so I can stop it.  

If you copy the current bitcoind (Linux) blockchain and use it with the BCC bitcoind, will it automatically go back and resync all the blocks starting at the fork?

Reposting here because BITMAIN deleted my support thread (nice, guys... real nice)

I have an S3 that was offline for about 4 months. I started it up a few days ago and it was running fine for a few days until last night it stopped running at full speed. All ASIC's except one were listed as x's. This is not usual and has happened before and is usually fixed with a power cycle so I powered it off. Then when I powered it back on, now it will not start any ASIC's at all. The web interface works, network is working, etc. In the web interface there is nothing listed under ASIC's (literally nothing, it's just blank).

Both the green and red status lights are flashing in unison about once per second.

I run all stock clocks/voltages etc, no modifications. I have tried a full reset but that did not fix it. Tried multiple power supplies and no change.

Update:
After some fiddling I found that one of the ASIC cards is not working (there are two of these boards in the S3). If I only connect the working one then that hashes at half speed to a full S3. If I connect the other one either by itself or with the other working board then it will not hash at all.

So it seems that one of the hash-boards is bad for some reason. Any ideas how to affect a repair? I'm not sure what would make the entire set of ASIC's go bad so I'm guessing it's a component on the board... Or are they like Christmas tree lights and if one ASIC goes bad, they all go bad? What is the PIC looking for when it talks to the hash-board?

Nothing looks burned or broken on the nonfunctional board. I'd like to repair it if possible.

Edit:
For those wondering. This was my original support post (now deleted? WTF): https://forum.bitmain.com/bbs/topics/1961
And the cache is here (at least for now, until bitmain requests a takedown... again, WTF... What's with these guys?)

Which "chips" are you talking about? Voltage regulator or something? Do you have a picture?

I have the same problem with an S3. One minute it was working, power cycle, and now although the firmware boots, the network works, etc, it will not start hashing. Fan and ASIC status are blank.  cgminer says "No devices detected!"

Edit:
The S3 has what looks like two 3.3V test pads and one 1.8V test pad on the control board. They all test good.

Edit:
Upon further investigation is looks like one of the hash boards is bad in my S3. It will hash at half speed with the one good board but the other board doesn't seem to work. Why would a whole hash board go bad? Hmmm... I'm not sure what the protocol/communication is between a hash board and the PIC32 on the control board. I know it's not the control board though.

What happened to Maxcoin.co.nz? They go belly-up and not tell anyone?

Is there a recent set of seed nodes? I'm having a hell of a time reconnecting after bringing up the new version and turning off the checkpoint thing. Never had this problem before. The network seems fubar right now, what is going on or maybe it's just me.

Compiles fine on a stock Ubuntu 13.10 machine. It has all of the boost libraries installed (aka "libboost-all-dev" v1.42-v1.53) and openssl 1.0.1e

"price stabilization" is "no change at all"? Good job