Noob question
What's the best way to even look at these private keys?
Topic: CoinWallet.eu Stress Test Cancelled + Bitcoin Giveaway - page 27. (Read 98876 times)
What is a good link to monitor any developing backlog in the mempool and so forth?
What is the fastest way to import a private key?
What a pitty, we lost the chance to do a thorough evaluation of bitcoin network's robustness 
don't worry, they are using plan B!
What a pitty, we lost the chance to do a thorough evaluation of bitcoin network's robustness
Why are anti-fragile libertarians ALWAYS the first ones to scream"Lawyer!!" at every opportunity?
Just shut up and get some of that free money...
Doesn't seem that easy lol Just shut up and get some of that free money...
There are two things. If you would go into a bank where people want to pay invoices, withdraw money and alike and you throw a couple of hundred bills in the air, you have to anticipate that this will disrupt the ability of the persons ther to do their business, i.e. paying invoices, etc. So "you saw it coming". Nevertheless, you did try to disrupt a service. In some jurisdictions, you would be liable.
Then comes the situation with their fake company which is violating anti-money-laundering regulations and laws. As a "company" which violates these laws "giving away" money to "strangers" - or at least to people they claim are strangers to them - will not make them look good during the investigation. Especially not after they had to learn that authorities were informed about their activities.
I don't think there's a good real world example to reflect what they're doing on bitcoin. A bank's space is obiviously owned by some entity whilst bitcoin isn't owned by somebody. They aren't targeting any individual user's property or ability to use the system, they're stresstesting an entire decentralised system owned by no one. And now they're doing it via a proxy of thousands of people. Then comes the situation with their fake company which is violating anti-money-laundering regulations and laws. As a "company" which violates these laws "giving away" money to "strangers" - or at least to people they claim are strangers to them - will not make them look good during the investigation. Especially not after they had to learn that authorities were informed about their activities.
I'm not talking about a bank filing a lawsuit, but about clients filing a lawsuit. For example: If you put a tool online for "stress-testing" - read ddos-ing - an internet related service, authorities will go after the one who makes the tool available if they can prove that the intent of him was to disrupt the service.
Now IF these giveaways will create a backlog, and if someone can prove that losses occured because of this, he would be able to file a suit.
Why are anti-fragile libertarians ALWAYS the first ones to scream"Lawyer!!" at every opportunity?
Just shut up and get some of that free money...
lol, good point.
There are two things. If you would go into a bank where people want to pay invoices, withdraw money and alike and you throw a couple of hundred bills in the air, you have to anticipate that this will disrupt the ability of the persons ther to do their business, i.e. paying invoices, etc. So "you saw it coming". Nevertheless, you did try to disrupt a service. In some jurisdictions, you would be liable.
Then comes the situation with their fake company which is violating anti-money-laundering regulations and laws. As a "company" which violates these laws "giving away" money to "strangers" - or at least to people they claim are strangers to them - will not make them look good during the investigation. Especially not after they had to learn that authorities were informed about their activities.
I don't think there's a good real world example to reflect what they're doing on bitcoin. A bank's space is obiviously owned by some entity whilst bitcoin isn't owned by somebody. They aren't targeting any individual user's property or ability to use the system, they're stresstesting an entire decentralised system owned by no one. And now they're doing it via a proxy of thousands of people. Then comes the situation with their fake company which is violating anti-money-laundering regulations and laws. As a "company" which violates these laws "giving away" money to "strangers" - or at least to people they claim are strangers to them - will not make them look good during the investigation. Especially not after they had to learn that authorities were informed about their activities.
I'm not talking about a bank filing a lawsuit, but about clients filing a lawsuit. For example: If you put a tool online for "stress-testing" - read ddos-ing - an internet related service, authorities will go after the one who makes the tool available if they can prove that the intent of him was to disrupt the service.
Now IF these giveaways will create a backlog, and if someone can prove that losses occured because of this, he would be able to file a suit.
Why are anti-fragile libertarians ALWAYS the first ones to scream"Lawyer!!" at every opportunity?
Just shut up and get some of that free money...
Hmm, right. However the fact that so many people get involved makes it even more complicated.
There are two things. If you would go into a bank where people want to pay invoices, withdraw money and alike and you throw a couple of hundred bills in the air, you have to anticipate that this will disrupt the ability of the persons ther to do their business, i.e. paying invoices, etc. So "you saw it coming". Nevertheless, you did try to disrupt a service. In some jurisdictions, you would be liable.
Then comes the situation with their fake company which is violating anti-money-laundering regulations and laws. As a "company" which violates these laws "giving away" money to "strangers" - or at least to people they claim are strangers to them - will not make them look good during the investigation. Especially not after they had to learn that authorities were informed about their activities.
I don't think there's a good real world example to reflect what they're doing on bitcoin. A bank's space is obiviously owned by some entity whilst bitcoin isn't owned by somebody. They aren't targeting any individual user's property or ability to use the system, they're stresstesting an entire decentralised system owned by no one. And now they're doing it via a proxy of thousands of people. Then comes the situation with their fake company which is violating anti-money-laundering regulations and laws. As a "company" which violates these laws "giving away" money to "strangers" - or at least to people they claim are strangers to them - will not make them look good during the investigation. Especially not after they had to learn that authorities were informed about their activities.
I'm not talking about a bank filing a lawsuit, but about clients filing a lawsuit. For example: If you put a tool online for "stress-testing" - read ddos-ing - an internet related service, authorities will go after the one who makes the tool available if they can prove that the intent of him was to disrupt the service.
Now IF these giveaways will create a backlog, and if someone can prove that losses occured because of this, he would be able to file a suit.
There are two things. If you would go into a bank where people want to pay invoices, withdraw money and alike and you throw a couple of hundred bills in the air, you have to anticipate that this will disrupt the ability of the persons ther to do their business, i.e. paying invoices, etc. So "you saw it coming". Nevertheless, you did try to disrupt a service. In some jurisdictions, you would be liable.
Then comes the situation with their fake company which is violating anti-money-laundering regulations and laws. As a "company" which violates these laws "giving away" money to "strangers" - or at least to people they claim are strangers to them - will not make them look good during the investigation. Especially not after they had to learn that authorities were informed about their activities.
I don't think there's a good real world example to reflect what they're doing on bitcoin. A bank's space is obiviously owned by some entity whilst bitcoin isn't owned by somebody. They aren't targeting any individual user's property or ability to use the system, they're stresstesting an entire decentralised system owned by no one. And now they're doing it via a proxy of thousands of people. Then comes the situation with their fake company which is violating anti-money-laundering regulations and laws. As a "company" which violates these laws "giving away" money to "strangers" - or at least to people they claim are strangers to them - will not make them look good during the investigation. Especially not after they had to learn that authorities were informed about their activities.
Now things are getting funny.
After authorities were informed that coinwallet is violating AML-laws in Great Britain and Canada, they are "giving away" 200 Bitcoin. Which is roughly 47000 US$.
Two scenarios: They will be able to convince the authorities in an investigation that they really gave away this money to strangers - a weird thing for a "company" which wants to become a player in the exchange- and trading-business.
Or authorities will claim that they've sent the assets to some co-conspirators.
Either way, funny times ahead for coinwallet's lawyers.
After authorities were informed that coinwallet is violating AML-laws in Great Britain and Canada, they are "giving away" 200 Bitcoin. Which is roughly 47000 US$.
Two scenarios: They will be able to convince the authorities in an investigation that they really gave away this money to strangers - a weird thing for a "company" which wants to become a player in the exchange- and trading-business.
Or authorities will claim that they've sent the assets to some co-conspirators.
Either way, funny times ahead for coinwallet's lawyers.
If the giveaway ends up stress testing bitcoin, it would also be the liability of people trying to cash out bitcoins from those addresses. It's like they've successfully distributed part of the blame away from them.
There are two things. If you would go into a bank where people want to pay invoices, withdraw money and alike and you throw a couple of hundred bills in the air, you have to anticipate that this will disrupt the ability of the persons ther to do their business, i.e. paying invoices, etc. So "you saw it coming". Nevertheless, you did try to disrupt a service. In some jurisdictions, you would be liable.
Then comes the situation with their fake company which is violating anti-money-laundering regulations and laws. As a "company" which violates these laws "giving away" money to "strangers" - or at least to people they claim are strangers to them - will not make them look good during the investigation. Especially not after they had to learn that authorities were informed about their activities.
Now things are getting funny.
After authorities were informed that coinwallet is violating AML-laws in Great Britain and Canada, they are "giving away" 200 Bitcoin. Which is roughly 47000 US$.
Two scenarios: They will be able to convince the authorities in an investigation that they really gave away this money to strangers - a weird thing for a "company" which wants to become a player in the exchange- and trading-business.
Or authorities will claim that they've sent the assets to some co-conspirators.
Either way, funny times ahead for coinwallet's lawyers.
After authorities were informed that coinwallet is violating AML-laws in Great Britain and Canada, they are "giving away" 200 Bitcoin. Which is roughly 47000 US$.
Two scenarios: They will be able to convince the authorities in an investigation that they really gave away this money to strangers - a weird thing for a "company" which wants to become a player in the exchange- and trading-business.
Or authorities will claim that they've sent the assets to some co-conspirators.
Either way, funny times ahead for coinwallet's lawyers.
If the giveaway ends up stress testing bitcoin, it would also be the liability of people trying to cash out bitcoins from those addresses. It's like they've successfully distributed part of the blame away from them.
If you want to do a giveaway. PM keys to random members. The way you are doing is just going to benefit those few who use bots to read the keys and send them off immediately.
Agreed with you that is more interesting idea instead of wasting time to try during this stress test time, if OP will give random keys to members that would be nice.
It is more work, no doubt, but I have to agree with the above - you're more likely to make a greater marketing impact sending PMs with the private keys to individual members. I would suggest starting in this thread
Now things are getting funny.
After authorities were informed that coinwallet is violating AML-laws in Great Britain and Canada, they are "giving away" 200 Bitcoin. Which is roughly 47000 US$.
Two scenarios: They will be able to convince the authorities in an investigation that they really gave away this money to strangers - a weird thing for a "company" which wants to become a player in the exchange- and trading-business.
Or authorities will claim that they've sent the assets to some co-conspirators.
Either way, funny times ahead for coinwallet's lawyers.
After authorities were informed that coinwallet is violating AML-laws in Great Britain and Canada, they are "giving away" 200 Bitcoin. Which is roughly 47000 US$.
Two scenarios: They will be able to convince the authorities in an investigation that they really gave away this money to strangers - a weird thing for a "company" which wants to become a player in the exchange- and trading-business.
Or authorities will claim that they've sent the assets to some co-conspirators.
Either way, funny times ahead for coinwallet's lawyers.
More privkeys
KxrZ7GWwMQggTUT1kCKJykwWP4j9w2QJAdq7ZzBHgR2ZxVxnVPGD
L3MwcPy9gc6VmfuHyR3EtHjkyn7gq2q5hyG38MAfdwsZmYQriV63
L32dWAJV4TFr1UZucUh4dRP2GaSttgsTPEs5VZSBDWmNzM7X56YZ
L1VKFTepC6gSabHQi2uVjueQRqbhWgakJsifsSPCkXwd988GgP9a
L5kUSSyU9v4dY82nkDzpJcVesZvJftvsmLMQEYSrL71LPbKKjDLe
KysBwc1VSj1V5cG3EqLUixwLQjB2we2WUneYuhTxkAy5ANCbpvyc
KxvN1EWmuAPTPuVft1HBCsVgKzBG2hzn3hPfnpThCoZ8rwrwGyLo
L3gGhY6DQtVRvkQTbqndXeBH9ehzCxVzUazpUPCrbLAS9W4ce8Rt
L4KepuTEJRZgbZDtZM2zbbVE6JZu2f7ihtDWEDGjBnV3R1yQVTPd
L1T5ZRa5byi9NbbMbymv6Q3UQy6isnEZ8nwFNBbTKVA7mhgtjSjh
L4VZSCJsYMA2d8NBcKJFQGUf9j1vBbq3VuQkqnkRkWSRJZnUzxMU
KxrZ7GWwMQggTUT1kCKJykwWP4j9w2QJAdq7ZzBHgR2ZxVxnVPGD
L3MwcPy9gc6VmfuHyR3EtHjkyn7gq2q5hyG38MAfdwsZmYQriV63
L32dWAJV4TFr1UZucUh4dRP2GaSttgsTPEs5VZSBDWmNzM7X56YZ
L1VKFTepC6gSabHQi2uVjueQRqbhWgakJsifsSPCkXwd988GgP9a
L5kUSSyU9v4dY82nkDzpJcVesZvJftvsmLMQEYSrL71LPbKKjDLe
KysBwc1VSj1V5cG3EqLUixwLQjB2we2WUneYuhTxkAy5ANCbpvyc
KxvN1EWmuAPTPuVft1HBCsVgKzBG2hzn3hPfnpThCoZ8rwrwGyLo
L3gGhY6DQtVRvkQTbqndXeBH9ehzCxVzUazpUPCrbLAS9W4ce8Rt
L4KepuTEJRZgbZDtZM2zbbVE6JZu2f7ihtDWEDGjBnV3R1yQVTPd
L1T5ZRa5byi9NbbMbymv6Q3UQy6isnEZ8nwFNBbTKVA7mhgtjSjh
L4VZSCJsYMA2d8NBcKJFQGUf9j1vBbq3VuQkqnkRkWSRJZnUzxMU
I guess thats where the challenge lies. If you send the transactions with minimal fee, you could recover a huge amount of btc. However, if someone else sends a transaction with a high fee first, it will probably overrule the first.
If you want to do a giveaway. PM keys to random members. The way you are doing is just going to benefit those few who use bots to read the keys and send them off immediately.
Agreed with you that is more interesting idea instead of wasting time to try during this stress test time, if OP will give random keys to members that would be nice.
It is more work, no doubt, but I have to agree with the above - you're more likely to make a greater marketing impact sending PMs with the private keys to individual members. I would suggest starting in this thread
And how would you use those keys? I really don't know.
You import the keys to Bitcoin Core (or other, depending on wallet that you're using). I've imported one to check and it looks like the balance was mostly intact for up to 10 minutes after it was posted. Somebody had already sent away most of the balance which was initially less than 0.01.If you do not know how private keys are imported, then check this link out.
And how would you use those keys? I really don't know.
Jump to: