Ich hab dann, nachdem ich den Grund gefunden hatte, den Support nochmal gebeten, die Fehlermeldung für die, die nach mir kommen, zu verbessern, und sie haben versprochen sich darum zu kümmern.

Letzten Endes hab ich ja selbst einen Fehler gemacht, blöderweise aber wegen der irreführenden Meldung mit einem Dutzend Konvertierungsversuchen auf dem falschen Bild Zeit verdödelt...

Falls jemand das gleiche Problem hat:

Bei mir war das Foto von mir selbst mit ID card zu groß, angemeckert wurde aber das "Proof of Residence"-Bild und keines der beiden anderen. Also wenn eines der Bilder angeblich nicht die Spezifikationen erfüllt, checkt ihr am besten alle drei. Die Fehlermeldung ist leider irreführend und sollte korrekt lauten "Irgendwas an einem deiner drei Bilder ist falsch, such selber nach dem Grund".

BTW, thanks everyone for helping!

Ah! That's what happened:

In the "Add cosigner" dialog of wallet creation, I was presented three options:

• Enter cosigner key
• Enter cosigner seed
• Cosign with hardware device

Because the cosigner wallet was on my Android smartphone, I preferred the seed rather than the public key because the seed would be more convenient to type by hand. I didn't want to transfer anything electronically (which of course, thinking about it, is not dangerous at all with the public key).

Naively, I thought that from the seed the cosigner's public key and ONLY the public key would be derived. I wasn't aware that also the cosigners private key would be stored and thus cosigning would then be done in the same wallet that initiates the transaction. In other words, more or less unconsciously I assumed it wouldn't be implemented that way because that would make multisig pointless (that was my idea at least).

Wow... it's really not for newbies  ... and I still didn't leave the newbie state entirely behind me... at least I'm already smart enough to search for a better bitcoin storage than an exchange 

As a follow-up question, what's the use case then for the "Enter cosigner seed" option?

Yes, sorry for cross-posting, but I thought if it was a bug then github might be the better place to report this; if not, might be better to ask here. Anyway, the issue I opened at github was closed because of "no evidence of a bug".

So, if it's not a bug, then I'm probably doing something wrong. I just have no idea what...

Thanks for your help!

yes, there are two xprvs for x1/ and x2/, and they are different.
I have also "seed" entries, which you don't. Not sure if that matters.

Hi,

ich versuche gerade, die Tier-3 Verification zu machen. Dazu muss ich drei Bilder hochladen: ein Identity Document, ein Proof-of-residence und ein ID confirmation photo.

Leider bekomme ich beim Proof-of-residence immer die Fehlermeldung, dass das File zwischen 98KB und 3MB groß sein muss. Das ist es allerdings, die Fehlermeldung ist falsch. Auch die Auflösung ist innerhalb der Limits, und die Filename-Endung ist .jpg. Ich habe das Bild auch schon mehrfach skaliert und auf diese Weise verschiedene Dateigrößen ausprobiert, alle innerhalb der geforderten Limits. Ich habe auch versucht, das Bild nach PNG zu konvertieren. Ich habe es in Firefox und in Chrome probiert. Egal, was ich mache, nichts funktioniert. Es wird aber nur der Proof-of-residence angemeckert, die anderen beiden Bilder scheinen akzeptiert zu werden.

Was macht mich so besonders, dass es bei mir im Gegensatz zu so vielen anderen nicht funktioniert? 

Ich habe auch schon beim Support angefragt, aber die brauchen relativ lange. Und Zeit ist ja Geld 

Vielen Dank für Eure Hilfe,
villabacho

Hi,

I set up a 2-of-2 multisig wallet with Electrum on 2 devices. I then sent some BTC to this wallet's address, and it showed up on both devices, so everything looked fine.
Then I sent BTC from the first of my multisig wallet pair. After pressing the "Send" button on the "Send" tab, I would have expected that electrum asks me to co-sign it,
but instead the BTC was sent already (I confirmed that it arrived at the target address). The outgoing transaction is also seen by the second wallet of the multisig wallet pair.

I'm new to Electrum, so my question might be stupid, but at least a quick google / forum / stack exchange search didn't give me an answer.
I was pretty sure also that I did the multi-sig setup correctly (following the documentation in http://docs.electrum.org/en/latest/multisig.html),
and the electrum title bar also says "default_wallet [2of2]".

It looks like the multi-signature requirement is just not effective. Do I have to turn it on explicitly after having set up my multisig wallet pair?

Thanks,
villabacho

Manipulation would mean a deceptive action, but moving walls around happens in public. Besides the psychological effects, there might even be an element of rationality behind doing this: you can suddenly change the total margin value of other margin traders, and potentially cause forced liquidation on some of them. That is, playing by the rules that everyone knows, moving walls around could sometimes be a reasonable strategy even neglecting psychology.

Sure, playing games like this causes short term price swings that do not reflect the fundamental value. But hey, the value of a commodity on a market always is a mix of its fundamental value and some "playing games" white noise - games that often are not manipulative (deceptive), but playing by the rules in some creative way.

Cool, thanks, I'll try it!

I understand that you don't want to publish too specific details on the bot's strategy, but it would be nice if you could publish some numbers on how much it is used (e.g. how many XMR the bot bought per week or so summed over all users)

At least we know now that you're not a Python 3.x script :-)

Yes, it's being worked on by the same developer still. Here's a recent thread btw: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=755057.0

I think the plan is to keep it closed source for some months to allow for enough time for the network effect in case others fork the coin, and open source it later. There were also discussions about having an independent 3rd party review the code.

eMunie scales pretty well (did a million transactions within 24 hours in a beta test some weeks ago). They also have anonymity, though I cannot comment on how that is implemented. Would be interested to know what your impression is.

Didn't try anything. Don't be so negative, then many doors will open - or stay open, for that matter ;-)

Yes, there's some spam unfortunately in the emunie forums, but not too much that you couldn't find the useful posts. I would say it's easy enough to get lots of useful information there. See e.g. the excellent summary posts that Jazzer made recently. Also, the shoutbox has always been a good source of information.

I understand that the eMunie client being closed source in the beginning makes some people sceptical. As long as this is so, you'll have to trust Dan (the dev). Personally, I'm willing to trust him because he has put a lot of energy into this project over a very long time, and has been very transparent about his plans. I think you could rip off people with less effort if you wanted to. After a while (some months or so) the client will become open source, as I understand it. Then everyone who wasn't willing to invest without being able to look at the source code can join. If you join later, there's less risk, but potentially also less profit. That's a very natural thing...

I think you can also add

3. Because of the rising difficulty, an increasing fraction of the people who want to acquire XMR and were mining so far to that purpose now will buy instead.

So, the selling pressure created by botnets is one thing. On the other side of the coin (pun intended), also buying pressure should build up. Economically, the only reason that these two effects do not perfectly neutralize each other is that they do not happen at the same time.

That's how I see it, from an economical perspective at least. Hard to figure out the psychological effects, though.

I'm wondering if reaching the same high as last time (=0.010)  wouldn't already indicate a rising trend, because there are much more coins in circulation now. So if we reach 0.010 again, much more capital will have flown into XMR than was the case at the time of the last high.

Would be interested to hear your opinions on that view.

The reason I like this thread so far is that it concentrates mostly on fundamentals of coins.

Pleeeease no chart analysis :-)

I agree. Among the many shitcoins that will arise from this, there might also be a few good ideas, some of which might even be integrated
into Monero. And then, if the same feature becomes available in an established coin like Monero, many will prefer that over the new coin (hopefully).