Jump to content

at3n

Member
  • Content Count

    392
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About at3n

  • Rank
    Regular

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Does the history contain a transaction ID? If so, at least you can see what action was triggered by your attempted withdrawal, and maybe get a hint about what actually happened, by entering the transaction ID into e.g. Bithomp. If you really can't contact Koinex then you could consider legal action if it would be worth your while. If they've gone out of business though, there may be no way to force them to pay up.
  2. at3n

    Empty wallet

    Or even better, if the price goes way up and the reserve stays at 20, then maybe in the future you can sell it on eBay for "cheap".
  3. Have you tried to migrate it to Gatehub? https://www.rippletrade.com Or this: https://id.ripple.com/auth/migrate#/register, don't know if that still works. Ripple-trade was a wallet service run by Ripple ages ago. Secret key means the secret key for a wallet on XRPL.
  4. Wow, that's rough. Contact: Law enforcement in your country (give them the whois information, in case there's anything there they can use) yobit.net (where the scammer is sending the XRP), and ask them to freeze the scammer's account (destination tag 761833962) If you know anyone in Russia, perhaps they can go to law enforcement there? Although it's likely that the scammer used a fake identity to buy the domain, and does not live in Russia. I hope the scammers have not covered their tracks and can be eventually caught. Best of luck and condolences.
  5. How do you know they would write that? I don't think that they would announce plans to bankrupt themselves until all other options were exhausted. That's me assuming that they can't afford to pay out and stay in business (or at all). Of course, but that doesn't oblige a business to jump the gun and make statements promising that everything will be ok when they might have no means of following through? Don't get me wrong, I don't think their communication so far is acceptable, and I really feel for the people who have lost.
  6. I agree that in all likelihood, Gatehub is at fault (fault of negligence). If they weren't at fault, I think they would have put forward a reason. I don't necessarily agree that they are trying to avoid paying, I just think that they're drawing the situation out for some reason which hasn't been directly disclosed to us. It's a possibility that they're trying to sweep it under the rug, but to state or imply that it's 100% true without any hard facts backing it up is misleading, IMO. I don't agree that if they wanted to pay, they would. It's really not a simple situation. For example, they may not have enough to pay. If they use up all of their assets paying, then that will put their employees out of work, cause financial damage to their shareholders (who I presume they have some contractual obligation to?), which might open them up to further legal action, not to mention the individuals within the company who would be negatively affected. Yes, there's arguments that the victims of the hack deserve the money more, but my point is it's not a straightforward call to make, especially for us, who have zero insider information. I'm also disappointed at the continued lack of explanation from them. But I'm assuming, for now, that they still haven't worked out what to do? If they're working through legal systems and law enforcement, then they obviously have to be very careful about what they're saying. There may be many side issues arising from the fact that the XRP was not stolen from Gatehub, but from the individual owners. This is not the same as an exchange hack, as you know. What sort of legal and tax situations may need to be overcome considering the complexities? I don't know, but I bet it's not simple. Essentially it would be a private company gifting millions of dollars to individuals, after a third party (hackers) having directly stole it from the individuals. To us it makes sense, given the circumstances, but when it would need to comply with legal and tax systems across probably dozens of countries... I'm ok with giving them more time to work it out. And as already mentioned, the XRP that was actually recovered by exchanges, how on earth will they work out who's entitled to it anyway? I would think that Gatehub don't even have a say in that. My logic is that we don't have enough information to state that Gatehub will never pay out. And I hope that the above will help explain my thought process to you. It is, of course, my opinion only.
  7. Who knows...? The implication is that they are, and if the issuing gateway is trustworthy then they should be. If the IOU can be sold for market value then that means that the market as a whole trusts that the issuer holds the asset 1:1. No, Gatehub's Bitcoin will always be linked to Gatehub, and is distinct from any other. You can create your own BTC IOU of you want, but no-one will buy it from you because they can tell it's not backed by any of the trusted gateways. When you send a BTC IOU to another address, two things happen on the ledger: 1) The amount of BTC that the gateway owes you is decreased, and 2) the amount of BTC that the gateway owes the recipient is increased. The relationship is always between the issuer and the "holder". So the IOU is now issued to the Toast wallet in your example. Once you send an IOU to someone else, you are no longer owed the value of it, and they are. Doesn't matter who redeems it (subject to Ts and Cs), the gateway will pay whoever redeems it. Whoever the IOU is passed to must have set a trustline or they can't receive the IOU. But yes, only XRP wallets, everything has to stay on the ledger. No, they should only issue exactly the amount that they have been sent by their customers (minus fees that they may choose to impose). The FIs should not be using the BTC that they hold on behalf of their customers, so it shouldn't be in circulation, effectively. In practice, i don't know. Yes, ideally.
  8. 1) Couldn't find the answer from a brief search, but using the maximum values that are accepted on the iancoleman page: 2147483647 individual "Accounts", each of which can generate 2 x 4294967295 addresses. I believe that for XRP, you would usually use only the first generated address of each account, whereas for e.g. Bitcoin you use more as Change addresses and receiving addresses. So total number of keys per phrase if you maxed it out: 18,446,744,060,824,649,730‬. 2) Yes, the above number of keys can be generated individually for each coin, and they should all be unique. https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0044.mediawiki
  9. Yes, it's possible. BIP-39/BIP-44 defines the process of deriving multiple keys from the one phrase. So any software compatible with BIP-39/44, and that knows to look for more than one key, will be able to find them. The same keys will always be derived in the same sequence, so the recovering software would need to use logic such as: Look at key no.1, does it have any transactions associated with it on the public ledger? If so then it's a valid wallet, and look at the next key... Look at key no.2, does it have any transactions associated with it on the public ledger? If so then it's a valid wallet, and look at the next key... Look at key no.3, it has no transactions associated with it, it's never been used, stop looking for more keys. This assumes that the Nano uses the keys in numeric order, as per documention here https://ledger.readthedocs.io/en/latest/background/hd_use_cases.html?highlight=bip 44#how-does-my-wallet-know-which-addresses-i-ve-used Play around with a test phrase here: https://iancoleman.io/bip39/ to get a feel for how it works. edit edit: In reference to @karlos's mention of passphrase, that looks to be part of the BIP-39 standard also, which you can see on the iancoleman link. So any BIP39 recovery tool should still be able to recover all the keys as long as you have both the 24 words and the passphrase.
  10. No, and I appreciate that that gives me a different viewpoint to those who are suffering. But it allows me to be logical, which I feel is an important viewpoint to put across to balance the (understandably) highly emotionally-charged posts that are frequent in this thread.
  11. Opinions are fine, but the way you're presenting it is as if you know it to be true as a fact (at least it's easy to interpret it that way). Just be careful about misleading people who may be hanging a lot of hope on the lack of a definitive announcement as of yet. Don't want to unintentionally push someone over the edge. For all we know there could be some agreeable resolution yet, as unlikely as it might seem.
×
×
  • Create New...