They announced they reopen: https://www.okex.com/support/hc/en-us/articles/360052758931-OKEx-Official-Announcement-Reopen-of-withdrawals-and-other-related-updates

It's still quite vague, but it seems to confirm that the issue was the arrest of Star Xu. Their description of the key backup is quite worrisome, still:


What does that mean? I interpret that they have Star Xu as a necessary part in both the main and the backup paths. That if his main co-signers went missing, he could "trigger the activation of the backup" but only he was able to do it.

That could be read, alternatively, as that there were timelocks involved. However, I think that's not the most likely, for many reasons: they don't explicitly mention timelocks, their known cold wallets are plain multisig with no fancy scripts, suspension covers all coins not just Bitcoin, etc.

Wat? Even at the lowest margin tier (which is $50k max, i.e., at 100x salvages $500 max), liquidation costs amount to 0.5% which, at 100x, would take 50% of the margin. Add an additional 0.06% -> 6% and whatever the fees at the other exchange. A ruinous strategy.

Please, don't. Bitcore wallet / Copay is unmaintained, at least on the Bitcoin side (they focused mostly on Bcash).

Electrum has easy multisig and it is also cross-platform.

The bot is spamming now. Did you get hacked?

You could not, if it was. Fortunately enough, it is not: It is just the domain that got seized. Site is still available via hosts file redirect or, I believe, via the app.

Funds are apparently locked. I would guess that SEC ruling affects 1Broker only, but that by CFTC could be affecting 1Fox too.

This is about the other Bitcoin Diamond, the one that is a fork (as in blockchain fork, not codebase fork) of Bitcoin. That one has a 210M supply (10:1 airdrop w.r.t. BTC) and it is also a premined scam, just not this one in this thread.

Looks prone to abuse. Does the BTC address need to be funded? I tried an unfunded address and it got accepted. If yes, at which blockheight?

What is preventing someone from creating 1000 addresses, thus claiming 5000 BTR? Or if there is need to have the addresses funded, spam them with a small amount?

American crypto, but closed to Americans. Quite "interesting" indeed.

Nice, so even at the certainly overpriced rate of $5400 per rig, you can now buy this "token" for a 5000% premium only.

Remember that each token represents a 5-millionth of a rig.

Not really. New issuance is fully proportional, so it is actually debasement. Because of this, no value changes hands and, rationally, the market cap should stay the same.

There is an additional issuance to BTC holders too, but it is too small to be relevant.

My black for your white byteballs:

WTS 113 GB Black (buy white GB), at 0.25 each

Even after a full reinstall? (that is, with a newly generated wallet)

Anyway, do you know what are those linking instructions?

The transition bot has gone silent for me and does no longer reply to anything. Even if I delete my profile, it still does nothing. This is very strange. Did I trigger some IP ban or something?

Sukrim, the actual implementation has more casuistic over what is described in the paper. This is the case for both Ripple and Stellar.

What makes you think that Ripple is not vulnerable to the consensus fault and subsequent reorganization that affected Stellar? (other than the fact that it has not happened yet)

Edit: Consider for relevant discussion, by the inventor of the protocol: https://stellartalk.org/topic/6698-jeds-technical-explanation-of-the-ledger-fork/

I thought they were implementing CoinJoin instead. EDIT: true, Amir confirmed that: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2ijsw1/the_coming_of_darkwallet/cl2qow6

On the other hand, I see a problem with CoinShuffle. The participants are supposed to sign their messages "with their addresses"; this assumes that the inputs they provide were paid to standard P2PH addresses, but they cannot use outputs sent to P2SH (those starting with a 3, e.g., "multi sig" addresses). Participants could still be required to reveal their script and then sign their handshaking rounds with a key contained there (if there is any).

Well, I definitely do not think that that new project should back off in light of Catalonia's independence  . You probably meant that a future Catalan currency could be backed by the new country, which is valid but unnecessary. In my view, the point of cryptocurrencies is that they do not need any backing. The Catalan people can use bitcoin or develop their own cryptocurrency without asking anybody's permission, with or without independence.

The only point of national (or group-restricted) coins is if they can provide something unique that would be impossible in the universal framework, e.g., equal initial distribution. Auroracoin and all the others have failed in that only a tiny percent of the population actually claimed their share (they cannot grow now, because if they did they would be sharply unequally distributed then). Consequently, any valuable national coin should avoid any premine and airdrop, and be gradually distributed instead to provable individuals, as I proposed a few posts ago:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=518418.msg6761117#msg6761117

Those are asks not bids! You just showed the opposite: someone is selling.

To be fair, there is also a rather thin bidding-side book: I count a total of 2100 XRP (around $10-15) with most of these at 0.000001 (one millionth) XRP per RSC. Even the average bid, 0.0001 (a tenth mill) XRP per RSC, is ridiculous: electricity costs orders of magnitude more, let alone a DigitalOcean droplet.

Anyway, my comment was about the fundamentals, not the actual book. The OP and a few dumb speculators are bidding these few dollars that we observe, but I still do not see how any rational research supporter would ever buy RSC in any significant amount.

I'd gladly sell. But selling requires someone buying, and I can't see who'd rationally buy.

Auroracoin is more expensive only because it was the first country-scam-coin. It still retains some speculative pumping from non-Icelanders, but only because it came first.

The main problem with Auroracoin, Spaincoin and the like is that their airdrops are not fair at all and do not promote any growth in coin adoption. They promise equal distribution among citizens -- this is their only real advantage over bitcoin -- but they are instead shared between the earliest adopters only (except the small breadcrumbs left for mining).

This is quite similar to the case of the distribution of Counterparty: Its devs claim that XCP were fairly distributed because users claimed them through burning bitcoins. However, once I learned about it (it hit the frontpage) and was willing to burn my bitcoins, I discovered that it was no longer possible. Top-earliest-adopters get all; how could this ever be fair?

The only justification for an early airdrop is that, before it takes place, the coin is heavily centralized (why the launch should then precede the airdrop escapes me though). Spaincoin for example has the worse of both worlds: most of the coins will be distributed by the end of this month, yet small portions will be left in dev's hands for an unspecified time.

National coins will not succeed unless they are truly distributed among the people. If it is just to the earliest adopters, there will not ever be any newer adopters. However, this can be entirely avoided. OP, could you please say word or two about what I proposed?: