"Negotiations have failed. BS/Core will *never* HF - except to fire the miners and create an altcoin. Malleability & quadratic verification time *should* be fixed - but not via SWSF political/economic trojan horse. CHANGES TO BITCOIN ECONOMICS MUST BE THRU FULL NODE REFERENDUM OF A HF." ~ u/TunaMelt
BS/Core has no intention of ever HF’ing (unless it’s to throw a tantrum while “firing” the miners and creating their very own altcoin). Their mouthpieces parrot the siren song, “Segwit, Schnorr, MAST, EXT blocks”, all by soft fork. Each intentionally benefiting signature heavy multi-sig and LN tx more than regular P2P BTC tx. Each intentionally subverting the explicit (via upgrade) consent of dissenting nodes and users. At this point, with the moves they’ve made in the game, one can’t help but see them trying to neuter PoW miners (responsible only for transaction ordering, lol), with cleverly crafted code, intense professional PR, and warm’n’fuzzy platitudes about “centralization” (cough, LN providers). This is not to say that malleability and quadratic verification time shouldn’t be corrected, just that they are not acceptable in political/economic trojan horse form that is embodied in the current SFSW code. Any changes to the root economics of Bitcoin should be accompanied by the full node referendum that a proper HF would provide. It’s unfortunate, and maybe they will recalculate after the failure of SWSF, but the time for assuming good faith among the Core decision makers has passed. The game is now measured in petahashes ... and sheer force of will, under the intense gaze of Ms. Market.
01-16 16:23 - 'Coinbase verification failed. Keeps saying "does not match our records". Coinbase has not responded to calls, emails or social media. Where do I go from here?' (self.Bitcoin) by /u/Pm-me-gift-cardz removed from /r/Bitcoin within 13-23min
Can't withdraw bitcoin or lend it. Logon Shield Verification fails. No help for a week.
Tickets S3236941619, S5054518467, S2530094312. I was able to deposit bitcoin a week ago, but without the Logon Shield verification working I can't withdraw it or lend it. I need support to help me with my account.
[uncensored-r/Bitcoin] Coinbase verification failed. Keeps saying "does not match our records". Coinbase has not respond...
The following post by Pm-me-gift-cardz is being replicated because the post has been silently removed. The original post can be found(in censored form) at this link: np.reddit.com/ Bitcoin/comments/7qt8o3 The original post's content was as follows:
I am trying to link my bank account for easier withdrawals and larger deposits. Any tips?
[uncensored-r/Bitcoin] ID verification fail on Coinbase, new phone number and now I can't seem to upload ID to Coinbase....
The following post by BEARPUNSS is being replicated because the post has been silently removed. The original post can be found(in censored form) at this link: np.reddit.com/ Bitcoin/comments/7gcfb1 The original post's content was as follows:
I just watched this not so positive video about Cardano and now I am posting it here so he probably achieves his goal of getting more views by talking shit about a project. But I am wondering. What do you think is the unique value proposition of Cardano? It is not interoperability. We have that with Cosmos and Polkadot. Kardiachain for interoperability between very different blockchains. What does Cardano have? Collaboration with Litecoin. Laughable because Litecoin is obviously garbage. Atala has been mentioned but is there any details about what that is? Is there a product? It is not scaling: Solana, Algorand, Elrond and others scale very well. So nothing unique here about Cardano. Cardano will be using an offchain scaling solution called Hydra. So kinda like the lightning network. Does that mean they failed with onchain scaling? Were they not able to get much above 1000 tps? Some people tend to focus on the peer review stuff, but in the long run that should probably not matter when the software has been battle tested with no known bugs for years. Like who cares about Bitcoin not being peer reviewed before launching? Nobody. So what do you think is so great and unique about Cardano? I am a huge fan of Cardano because I see it as a project that combines some of the best things from Bitcoin and Ethereum. Max supply and smart contracts plus proof of stake instead of proof of work. But the same can be said about other blockchains. I vehemently disagree with that dude/Molten Tar Monster number 2 in the video, but could we maybe try to make a list of things that are unique to Cardano? Not how it is created like peer review and stuff like that but the product itself. What does Cardano have that does not exist anywhere else? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88X6Ubc1lE4&lc=Ugz1SYqLMiIpxmLC7014AaABAg.9EqlQc4e4vd9ErHKiXwN6B I will start. Formal verification. I think Tezos might also have that but in another language.
https://github.com/gridcoin-community/Gridcoin-Research/releases/tag/126.96.36.199 Finally! After over ten months of development and testing, "Fern" has arrived! This is a whopper. 240 pull requests merged. Essentially a complete rewrite that was started with the scraper (the "neural net" rewrite) in "Denise" has now been completed. Practically the ENTIRE Gridcoin specific codebase resting on top of the vanilla Bitcoin/Peercoin/Blackcoin vanilla PoS code has been rewritten. This removes the team requirement at last (see below), although there are many other important improvements besides that. Fern was a monumental undertaking. We had to encode all of the old rules active for the v10 block protocol in new code and ensure that the new code was 100% compatible. This had to be done in such a way as to clear out all of the old spaghetti and ring-fence it with tightly controlled class implementations. We then wrote an entirely new, simplified ruleset for research rewards and reengineered contracts (which includes beacon management, polls, and voting) using properly classed code. The fundamentals of Gridcoin with this release are now on a very sound and maintainable footing, and the developers believe the codebase as updated here will serve as the fundamental basis for Gridcoin's future roadmap. We have been testing this for MONTHS on testnet in various stages. The v10 (legacy) compatibility code has been running on testnet continuously as it was developed to ensure compatibility with existing nodes. During the last few months, we have done two private testnet forks and then the full public testnet testing for v11 code (the new protocol which is what Fern implements). The developers have also been running non-staking "sentinel" nodes on mainnet with this code to verify that the consensus rules are problem-free for the legacy compatibility code on the broader mainnet. We believe this amount of testing is going to result in a smooth rollout. Given the amount of changes in Fern, I am presenting TWO changelogs below. One is high level, which summarizes the most significant changes in the protocol. The second changelog is the detailed one in the usual format, and gives you an inkling of the size of this release.
Note that the protocol changes will not become active until we cross the hard-fork transition height to v11, which has been set at 2053000. Given current average block spacing, this should happen around October 4, about one month from now. Note that to get all of the beacons in the network on the new protocol, we are requiring ALL beacons to be validated. A two week (14 day) grace period is provided by the code, starting at the time of the transition height, for people currently holding a beacon to validate the beacon and prevent it from expiring. That means that EVERY CRUNCHER must advertise and validate their beacon AFTER the v11 transition (around Oct 4th) and BEFORE October 18th (or more precisely, 14 days from the actual date of the v11 transition). If you do not advertise and validate your beacon by this time, your beacon will expire and you will stop earning research rewards until you advertise and validate a new beacon. This process has been made much easier by a brand new beacon "wizard" that helps manage beacon advertisements and renewals. Once a beacon has been validated and is a v11 protocol beacon, the normal 180 day expiration rules apply. Note, however, that the 180 day expiration on research rewards has been removed with the Fern update. This means that while your beacon might expire after 180 days, your earned research rewards will be retained and can be claimed by advertising a beacon with the same CPID and going through the validation process again. In other words, you do not lose any earned research rewards if you do not stake a block within 180 days and keep your beacon up-to-date. The transition height is also when the team requirement will be relaxed for the network.
Besides the beacon wizard, there are a number of improvements to the GUI, including new UI transaction types (and icons) for staking the superblock, sidestake sends, beacon advertisement, voting, poll creation, and transactions with a message. The main screen has been revamped with a better summary section, and better status icons. Several changes under the hood have improved GUI performance. And finally, the diagnostics have been revamped.
The wallet sync speed has been DRASTICALLY improved. A decent machine with a good network connection should be able to sync the entire mainnet blockchain in less than 4 hours. A fast machine with a really fast network connection and a good SSD can do it in about 2.5 hours. One of our goals was to reduce or eliminate the reliance on snapshots for mainnet, and I think we have accomplished that goal with the new sync speed. We have also streamlined the in-memory structures for the blockchain which shaves some memory use. There are so many goodies here it is hard to summarize them all. I would like to thank all of the contributors to this release, but especially thank @cyrossignol, whose incredible contributions formed the backbone of this release. I would also like to pay special thanks to @barton2526, @caraka, and @Quezacoatl1, who tirelessly helped during the testing and polishing phase on testnet with testing and repeated builds for all architectures. The developers are proud to present this release to the community and we believe this represents the starting point for a true renaissance for Gridcoin!
Most significantly, nodes calculate research rewards directly from the magnitudes in EACH superblock between stakes instead of using a two- or three- point average based on a CPID's current magnitude and the magnitude for the CPID when it last staked. For those long-timers in the community, this has been referred to as "Superblock Windows," and was first done in proof-of-concept form by @denravonska.
Network magnitude unit pinned to a static value of 0.25
Max research reward allowed per block raised to 16384 GRC (from 12750 GRC)
New CPIDs begin accruing research rewards from the first superblock that contains the CPID instead of from the time of the beacon advertisement
500 GRC research reward limit for a CPID's first stake
6-month expiration for unclaimed rewards
10-block spacing requirement between research reward claims
Rolling 5-day payment-per-day limit
Legacy tolerances for floating-point error and time drift
The need to include a valid copy of a CPID's magnitude in a claim
10-block emission adjustment interval for the magnitude unit
One-time beacon activation requires that participants temporarily change their usernames to a verification code at one whitelisted BOINC project
Verification codes of pending beacons expire after 3 days
Self-service beacon removal
Burn fee for beacon advertisement increased from 0.00001 GRC to 0.5 GRC
Rain addresses derived from beacon keys instead of a default wallet address
Beacon expiration determined as of the current block instead of the previous block
The ability for developers to remove beacons
The ability to sign research reward claims with non-current but unexpired beacons
As a reminder:
Beacons expire after 6 months pass (180 days)
Beacons can be renewed after 5 months pass (150 days)
Renewed beacons must be signed with the same key as the original beacon
Magnitudes less than 1 include two fractional places
Magnitudes greater than or equal to 1 but less than 10 include one fractional place
A valid superblock must match a scraper convergence
Superblock popularity election mechanics
Yes/no/abstain and single-choice response types (no user-facing support yet)
To create a poll, a maximum of 250 UTXOs for a single address must add up to 100000 GRC. These are selected from the largest downwards.
Burn fee for creating polls scaled by the number of UTXOs claimed
50 GRC for a poll contract
0.001 GRC per claimed UTXO
Burn fee for casting votes scaled by the number of UTXOs claimed
0.01 GRC for a vote contract
0.01 GRC to claim magnitude
0.01 GRC per claimed address
0.001 GRC per claimed UTXO
Maximum length of a poll title: 80 characters
Maximum length of a poll question: 100 characters
Maximum length of a poll discussion website URL: 100 characters
Maximum number of poll choices: 20
Maximum length of a poll choice label: 100 characters
Magnitude, CPID count, and participant count poll weight types
The ability for developers to remove polls and votes
[188.8.131.52] 2020-09-03, mandatory, "Fern"
Backport newer uint256 types from Bitcoin #1570 (@cyrossignol)
Implement project level rain for rainbymagnitude #1580 (@jamescowens)
Upgrade utilities (Update checker and snapshot downloadeapplication) #1576 (@iFoggz)
Provide fees collected in the block by the miner #1601 (@iFoggz)
Add support for generating legacy superblocks from scraper stats #1603 (@cyrossignol)
Port of the Bitcoin Logger to Gridcoin #1600 (@jamescowens)
Implement zapwallettxes #1605 (@jamescowens)
Implements a global event filter to suppress help question mark #1609 (@jamescowens)
Add next target difficulty to RPC output #1615 (@cyrossignol)
Add caching for block hashes to CBlock #1624 (@cyrossignol)
Make toolbars and tray icon red for testnet #1637 (@jamescowens)
Add an rpc call convergencereport #1643 (@jamescowens)
Implement newline filter on config file read in #1645 (@jamescowens)
Implement beacon status icon/button #1646 (@jamescowens)
Add gridcointestnet.png #1649 (@caraka)
Add precision to support magnitudes less than 1 #1651 (@cyrossignol)
Replace research accrual calculations with superblock snapshots #1657 (@cyrossignol)
Publish example gridcoinresearch.conf as a md document to the doc directory #1662 (@jamescowens)
Add options checkbox to disable transaction notifications #1666 (@jamescowens)
Add support for self-service beacon deletion #1695 (@cyrossignol)
Add support for type-specific contract fee amounts #1698 (@cyrossignol)
Add verifiedbeaconreport and pendingbeaconreport #1696 (@jamescowens)
Add preliminary testing option for block v11 height on testnet #1706 (@cyrossignol)
Add verified beacons manifest part to superblock validator #1711 (@cyrossignol)
Implement beacon, vote, and superblock display categories/icons in UI transaction model #1717 (@jamescowens)
So I've had a CashApp account for forever. Works great, no problems. But THEN I decide ( like a dumbass) that hey, CashApp does Bitcoin too!? Huh well why don't I buy some BTC from the app instead of all the reg places I have purchased from b4 & know & trust. Yeah... So I buy the BTC it goes thru and now Cash App is asking me to go thru verification to be able to use or withdraw my BTC (even tho I already have a cashapp card so I'm already verified w/my ID, personal info etc). I do the verification & it does not go thru!? So I email support and they basically say "I'm sorry your verification did'nt work, can I do anything else to help? Have a nice day!" Without explaining WHY there's an issue w/ my verification OR telling me how to fix the issue!! So I email back and let them know that I need to get this resolved and can they pls help & no response!! TDLR: Have had the app & a CashApp debit card for yrs, already verifed all my personal info with them to get that but when I buy BTC from them their verification that would let me DO ANYTHING WITH THAT BTC FAILED... and they refuse to help me!
People want to buy PayPal accounts for many reason. PayPal hold money without any reason. People need multiple PayPal account. PayPal not allow to sign up multiple accounts for one person. Outside of United States freelancer and e-commerce business need multiple accounts for receive and payment money. Data Expert USA found many reason to people buy PayPal Accounts. https://preview.redd.it/l1rwuqo4huv51.png?width=600&format=png&auto=webp&s=30f1237f182190ff428f8119ebab8a1a7eb6e0e0 Data Expert USA sell USA verified PayPal accounts. We always provide quality accounts with very low cost. We provide all kinds of verification document that you use if PayPal ask for verification document you can upload provide document and sole PayPal limitation. Data Expert USA is the trusted place for aged PayPal accounts for sale. We provide best quality buy PayPal accounts verified. PayPal verified accounts is the best way for transaction money. Data Expert USA is the best site to buy PayPal accounts. You can buy USA full verified PayPal accounts from our site. Our every PayPal accounts is fully verified accounts.
Using this PayPal accounts you can receive & payment accounts everywhere in the world.
Buy & sell product and service form any e-commerce site where PayPal accepted.
Use PayPal accounts at any freelancing site for receive and payment amount.
PayPal accounts any kinds of payment and receiving activity.
Don’t login your PayPal everywhere. Don’t change your location all time. You can fix a place & device where you login your PayPal every time.
Newly use PayPal accounts don’t get large payment first time. Get some small payment and increase amount.
Avoid refunding any new transaction, PayPalconsider refund transaction as an unusual activity.
If you facing error to make payment don’t try again and again. You try again and again create payment sending failed attempted PayPal security check department can block your PayPal sending activity for up to 48 hours. If it happens please stop doing all kind of transaction for 48 hours. After passing 48 hours you can do all kind of transaction 100% successfully.
PayPal accounts password don’t change instantly. After using 24 hours change password.
You can use USA virtual PC for squired PayPal login. We suggest don’t use free VPN or free proxy with shared IP.
Please follow all above the instruction. If there any issue findings feel free to contact us. We are always ready to help you. If you have a question can I buy PayPal accounts? Yes you can get Paypal verified accounts from Data Expert USA. If you want PayPal accounts? Feel free to order or contact at skype, telegram, email or text at our phone number. From Data Expert USA you only Paypal verified accounts cheap. You can use PayPal accounts USA verified. We suggest to use full verified PayPal accounts. Data Expert USA sell USA PayPal VBA. We sell PayPal personal accounts. Buy PayPal accounts now days a very popular matter. Many bright people who are suffering for PayPal related issue. They want fully verified paypal accounts. There is a question where to fully verified PayPal accounts. There are many sellers at online who sell PayPal accounts. PayPal accounts is not fully verified every where. Sellers are not trusted in other site. All sellers cannot provide verified PayPal. You can Paypal verified accounts. You need to buy fully verified PayPal accounts. And we are the best supplier. Data Expert USA is the trusted site for PayPal accounts for sell. Feel free to order verified PayPal accounts for sale here. If you think “I need fully verified paypal accounts”. Feel free to order. Where can I buy paypal accounts verified? Data Expert USA is the best place where you can get Paypal verified accounts. Data Expert USA is the best site to buy PayPal accounts. You can buy USA PayPal VCC. Without any hesitation you can use verified PayPal accounts. You are at the right place. Data Expert USA is the most trusted site where you can buy paypal accounts. PayPal is one of the best payment processor in the world for buy and sell any kinds of product and service. We are the best site for aged PayPal accounts for sale. We provide USA fully verified PayPal accounts. All accounts will verify with United States Bank, USA Visa Card, USA Phone Number, and Email Address. PayPal accounts link with SSN. It’s a very hard process to link United States Bank, Visa Card, Phone Number and SSN. For getting best performance you can buy Paypal verified accounts. We delivery PayPal accounts within 24 hours to 48 hours after receiving your payment.
You can receive & send payment without any limits.
Increase your importance in your business sector and all over the world.
PayPal limitation for your PayPal accounts
Sending / Receiving money related issue
Merchant related issue
Would you accept payment from you website or online store? For large volume of transaction you need business PayPal. You can buy PayPal accounts as your backup accounts where you can freely do business transaction without any personal or business information. There is no matter which country you are form. You are highly recommended to use those PayPal accounts without any problem. Where to buy verified PayPal accounts? Data Expert USA is the best place to get PayPal accounts. We are reliable, trustworthy and honest. We sell USA verified PayPal. High quality and long term sustainability. Are you interested to buy PayPal Business accounts online? Or, Are you interested to buy PayPal accounts? Data Expert USA sell PayPal accounts. We ensure high quality accounts. Every PayPal accounts are created and verified with United States information. You can use PayPal without any problem. How to create PayPal accounts? Signup at paypal.com. Verify your address, phone number and credit card. Your PayPal accounts are ready. Is it safe to buy PayPal accounts? Data Expert USA carefully create all PayPal accounts. PayPal need number verification we use a Google Voice Number. You get Google Voice Number access at the time of PayPal accounts delivery. Data Expert USA support all payment method like PayPal, MasterCard, Visa, Bitcoin, Ether, Skrill, Neteller, Perfect Money, WebMoney and Payoneer. For Getting 10% Discount Please Contact Email, Skype, Telegram, WhatsApp or Text at Phone. For More Info Please Contact: Email: [email protected] Skype: [email protected] Telegram:u/dataexpertusa WhatsApp : (402) 413-6303WhatsApp : (520) 216-5981
Summary: Everyone knows that when you give your assets to someone else, they always keep them safe. If this is true for individuals, it is certainly true for businesses. Custodians always tell the truth and manage funds properly. They won't have any interest in taking the assets as an exchange operator would. Auditors tell the truth and can't be misled. That's because organizations that are regulated are incapable of lying and don't make mistakes. First, some background. Here is a summary of how custodians make us more secure: Previously, we might give Alice our crypto assets to hold. There were risks:
Alice might take the assets and disappear.
Alice might spend the assets and pretend that she still has them (fractional model).
Alice might store the assets insecurely and they'll get stolen.
Alice might give the assets to someone else by mistake or by force.
Alice might lose access to the assets.
But "no worries", Alice has a custodian named Bob. Bob is dressed in a nice suit. He knows some politicians. And he drives a Porsche. "So you have nothing to worry about!". And look at all the benefits we get:
Alice can't take the assets and disappear (unless she asks Bob or never gives them to Bob).
Alice can't spend the assets and pretend that she still has them. (Unless she didn't give them to Bob or asks him for them.)
Alice can't store the assets insecurely so they get stolen. (After all - she doesn't have any control over the withdrawal process from any of Bob's systems, right?)
Alice can't give the assets to someone else by mistake or by force. (Bob will stop her, right Bob?)
Alice can't lose access to the funds. (She'll always be present, sane, and remember all secrets, right?)
See - all problems are solved! All we have to worry about now is:
Bob might take the assets and disappear.
Bob might spend the assets and pretend that he still has them (fractional model).
Bob might store the assets insecurely and they'll get stolen.
Bob might give the assets to someone else by mistake or by force.
Bob might lose access to the assets.
It's pretty simple. Before we had to trust Alice. Now we only have to trust Alice, Bob, and all the ways in which they communicate. Just think of how much more secure we are! "On top of that", Bob assures us, "we're using a special wallet structure". Bob shows Alice a diagram. "We've broken the balance up and store it in lots of smaller wallets. That way", he assures her, "a thief can't take it all at once". And he points to a historic case where a large sum was taken "because it was stored in a single wallet... how stupid". "Very early on, we used to have all the crypto in one wallet", he said, "and then one Christmas a hacker came and took it all. We call him the Grinch. Now we individually wrap each crypto and stick it under a binary search tree. The Grinch has never been back since." "As well", Bob continues, "even if someone were to get in, we've got insurance. It covers all thefts and even coercion, collusion, and misplaced keys - only subject to the policy terms and conditions." And with that, he pulls out a phone-book sized contract and slams it on the desk with a thud. "Yep", he continues, "we're paying top dollar for one of the best policies in the country!" "Can I read it?' Alice asks. "Sure," Bob says, "just as soon as our legal team is done with it. They're almost through the first chapter." He pauses, then continues. "And can you believe that sales guy Mike? He has the same year Porsche as me. I mean, what are the odds?" "Do you use multi-sig?", Alice asks. "Absolutely!" Bob replies. "All our engineers are fully trained in multi-sig. Whenever we want to set up a new wallet, we generate 2 separate keys in an air-gapped process and store them in this proprietary system here. Look, it even requires the biometric signature from one of our team members to initiate any withdrawal." He demonstrates by pressing his thumb into the display. "We use a third-party cloud validation API to match the thumbprint and authorize each withdrawal. The keys are also backed up daily to an off-site third-party." "Wow that's really impressive," Alice says, "but what if we need access for a withdrawal outside of office hours?" "Well that's no issue", Bob says, "just send us an email, call, or text message and we always have someone on staff to help out. Just another part of our strong commitment to all our customers!" "What about Proof of Reserve?", Alice asks. "Of course", Bob replies, "though rather than publish any blockchain addresses or signed transaction, for privacy we just do a SHA256 refactoring of the inverse hash modulus for each UTXO nonce and combine the smart contract coefficient consensus in our hyperledger lightning node. But it's really simple to use." He pushes a button and a large green checkmark appears on a screen. "See - the algorithm ran through and reserves are proven." "Wow", Alice says, "you really know your stuff! And that is easy to use! What about fiat balances?" "Yeah, we have an auditor too", Bob replies, "Been using him for a long time so we have quite a strong relationship going! We have special books we give him every year and he's very efficient! Checks the fiat, crypto, and everything all at once!" "We used to have a nice offline multi-sig setup we've been using without issue for the past 5 years, but I think we'll move all our funds over to your facility," Alice says. "Awesome", Bob replies, "Thanks so much! This is perfect timing too - my Porsche got a dent on it this morning. We have the paperwork right over here." "Great!", Alice replies. And with that, Alice gets out her pen and Bob gets the contract. "Don't worry", he says, "you can take your crypto-assets back anytime you like - just subject to our cancellation policy. Our annual management fees are also super low and we don't adjust them often". How many holes have to exist for your funds to get stolen? Just one. Why are we taking a powerful offline multi-sig setup, widely used globally in hundreds of different/lacking regulatory environments with 0 breaches to date, and circumventing it by a demonstrably weak third party layer? And paying a great expense to do so? If you go through the list of breaches in the past 2 years to highly credible organizations, you go through the list of major corporate frauds (only the ones we know about), you go through the list of all the times platforms have lost funds, you go through the list of times and ways that people have lost their crypto from identity theft, hot wallet exploits, extortion, etc... and then you go through this custodian with a fine-tooth comb and truly believe they have value to add far beyond what you could, sticking your funds in a wallet (or set of wallets) they control exclusively is the absolute worst possible way to take advantage of that security. The best way to add security for crypto-assets is to make a stronger multi-sig. With one custodian, what you are doing is giving them your cryptocurrency and hoping they're honest, competent, and flawlessly secure. It's no different than storing it on a really secure exchange. Maybe the insurance will cover you. Didn't work for Bitpay in 2015. Didn't work for Yapizon in 2017. Insurance has never paid a claim in the entire history of cryptocurrency. But maybe you'll get lucky. Maybe your exact scenario will buck the trend and be what they're willing to cover. After the large deductible and hopefully without a long and expensive court battle. And you want to advertise this increase in risk, the lapse of judgement, an accident waiting to happen, as though it's some kind of benefit to customers ("Free institutional-grade storage for your digital assets.")? And then some people are writing to the OSC that custodians should be mandatory for all funds on every exchange platform? That this somehow will make Canadians as a whole more secure or better protected compared with standard air-gapped multi-sig? On what planet? Most of the problems in Canada stemmed from one thing - a lack of transparency. If Canadians had known what a joke Quadriga was - it wouldn't have grown to lose $400m from hard-working Canadians from coast to coast to coast. And Gerald Cotten would be in jail, not wherever he is now (at best, rotting peacefully). EZ-BTC and mister Dave Smilie would have been a tiny little scam to his friends, not a multi-million dollar fraud. Einstein would have got their act together or been shut down BEFORE losing millions and millions more in people's funds generously donated to criminals. MapleChange wouldn't have even been a thing. And maybe we'd know a little more about CoinTradeNewNote - like how much was lost in there. Almost all of the major losses with cryptocurrency exchanges involve deception with unbacked funds. So it's great to see transparency reports from BitBuy and ShakePay where someone independently verified the backing. The only thing we don't have is:
ANY CERTAINTY BALANCES WEREN'T EXCLUDED. Quadriga's largest account was $70m. 80% of funds are in 20% of accounts (Pareto principle). All it takes is excluding a few really large accounts - and nobody's the wiser. A fractional platform can easily pass any audit this way.
ANY VISIBILITY WHATSOEVER INTO THE CUSTODIANS. BitBuy put out their report before moving all the funds to their custodian and ShakePay apparently can't even tell us who the custodian is. That's pretty important considering that basically all of the funds are now stored there.
ANY IDEA ABOUT THE OTHER EXCHANGES. In order for this to be effective, it has to be the norm. It needs to be "unusual" not to know. If obscurity is the norm, then it's super easy for people like Gerald Cotten and Dave Smilie to blend right in.
It's not complicated to validate cryptocurrency assets. They need to exist, they need to be spendable, and they need to cover the total balances. There are plenty of credible people and firms across the country that have the capacity to reasonably perform this validation. Having more frequent checks by different, independent, parties who publish transparent reports is far more valuable than an annual check by a single "more credible/official" party who does the exact same basic checks and may or may not publish anything. Here's an example set of requirements that could be mandated:
First report within 1 month of launching, another within 3 months, and further reports at minimum every 6 months thereafter.
No auditor can be repeated within a 12 month period.
All reports must be public, identifying the auditor and the full methodology used.
All auditors must be independent of the firm being audited with no conflict of interest.
Reports must include the percentage of each asset backed, and how it's backed.
The auditor publishes a hash list, which lists a hash of each customer's information and balances that were included. Hash is one-way encryption so privacy is fully preserved. Every customer can use this to have 100% confidence they were included.
If we want more extensive requirements on audits, these should scale upward based on the total assets at risk on the platform, and whether the platform has loaned their assets out.
There are ways to structure audits such that neither crypto assets nor customer information are ever put at risk, and both can still be properly validated and publicly verifiable. There are also ways to structure audits such that they are completely reasonable for small platforms and don't inhibit innovation in any way. By making the process as reasonable as possible, we can completely eliminate any reason/excuse that an honest platform would have for not being audited. That is arguable far more important than any incremental improvement we might get from mandating "the best of the best" accountants. Right now we have nothing mandated and tons of Canadians using offshore exchanges with no oversight whatsoever. Transparency does not prove crypto assets are safe. CoinTradeNewNote, Flexcoin ($600k), and Canadian Bitcoins ($100k) are examples where crypto-assets were breached from platforms in Canada. All of them were online wallets and used no multi-sig as far as any records show. This is consistent with what we see globally - air-gapped multi-sig wallets have an impeccable record, while other schemes tend to suffer breach after breach. We don't actually know how much CoinTrader lost because there was no visibility. Rather than publishing details of what happened, the co-founder of CoinTrader silently moved on to found another platform - the "most trusted way to buy and sell crypto" - a site that has no information whatsoever (that I could find) on the storage practices and a FAQ advising that “[t]rading cryptocurrency is completely safe” and that having your own wallet is “entirely up to you! You can certainly keep cryptocurrency, or fiat, or both, on the app.” Doesn't sound like much was learned here, which is really sad to see. It's not that complicated or unreasonable to set up a proper hardware wallet. Multi-sig can be learned in a single course. Something the equivalent complexity of a driver's license test could prevent all the cold storage exploits we've seen to date - even globally. Platform operators have a key advantage in detecting and preventing fraud - they know their customers far better than any custodian ever would. The best job that custodians can do is to find high integrity individuals and train them to form even better wallet signatories. Rather than mandating that all platforms expose themselves to arbitrary third party risks, regulations should center around ensuring that all signatories are background-checked, properly trained, and using proper procedures. We also need to make sure that signatories are empowered with rights and responsibilities to reject and report fraud. They need to know that they can safely challenge and delay a transaction - even if it turns out they made a mistake. We need to have an environment where mistakes are brought to the surface and dealt with. Not one where firms and people feel the need to hide what happened. In addition to a knowledge-based test, an auditor can privately interview each signatory to make sure they're not in coercive situations, and we should make sure they can freely and anonymously report any issues without threat of retaliation. A proper multi-sig has each signature held by a separate person and is governed by policies and mutual decisions instead of a hierarchy. It includes at least one redundant signature. For best results, 3of4, 3of5, 3of6, 4of5, 4of6, 4of7, 5of6, or 5of7. History has demonstrated over and over again the risk of hot wallets even to highly credible organizations. Nonetheless, many platforms have hot wallets for convenience. While such losses are generally compensated by platforms without issue (for example Poloniex, Bitstamp, Bitfinex, Gatecoin, Coincheck, Bithumb, Zaif, CoinBene, Binance, Bitrue, Bitpoint, Upbit, VinDAX, and now KuCoin), the public tends to focus more on cases that didn't end well. Regardless of what systems are employed, there is always some level of risk. For that reason, most members of the public would prefer to see third party insurance. Rather than trying to convince third party profit-seekers to provide comprehensive insurance and then relying on an expensive and slow legal system to enforce against whatever legal loopholes they manage to find each and every time something goes wrong, insurance could be run through multiple exchange operators and regulators, with the shared interest of having a reputable industry, keeping costs down, and taking care of Canadians. For example, a 4 of 7 multi-sig insurance fund held between 5 independent exchange operators and 2 regulatory bodies. All Canadian exchanges could pay premiums at a set rate based on their needed coverage, with a higher price paid for hot wallet coverage (anything not an air-gapped multi-sig cold wallet). Such a model would be much cheaper to manage, offer better coverage, and be much more reliable to payout when needed. The kind of coverage you could have under this model is unheard of. You could even create something like the CDIC to protect Canadians who get their trading accounts hacked if they can sufficiently prove the loss is legitimate. In cases of fraud, gross negligence, or insolvency, the fund can be used to pay affected users directly (utilizing the last transparent balance report in the worst case), something which private insurance would never touch. While it's recommended to have official policies for coverage, a model where members vote would fully cover edge cases. (Could be similar to the Supreme Court where justices vote based on case law.) Such a model could fully protect all Canadians across all platforms. You can have a fiat coverage governed by legal agreements, and crypto-asset coverage governed by both multi-sig and legal agreements. It could be practical, affordable, and inclusive. Now, we are at a crossroads. We can happily give up our freedom, our innovation, and our money. We can pay hefty expenses to auditors, lawyers, and regulators year after year (and make no mistake - this cost will grow to many millions or even billions as the industry grows - and it will be borne by all Canadians on every platform because platforms are not going to eat up these costs at a loss). We can make it nearly impossible for any new platform to enter the marketplace, forcing Canadians to use the same stagnant platforms year after year. We can centralize and consolidate the entire industry into 2 or 3 big players and have everyone else fail (possibly to heavy losses of users of those platforms). And when a flawed security model doesn't work and gets breached, we can make it even more complicated with even more people in suits making big money doing the job that blockchain was supposed to do in the first place. We can build a system which is so intertwined and dependent on big government, traditional finance, and central bankers that it's future depends entirely on that of the fiat system, of fractional banking, and of government bail-outs. If we choose this path, as history has shown us over and over again, we can not go back, save for revolution. Our children and grandchildren will still be paying the consequences of what we decided today. Or, we can find solutions that work. We can maintain an open and innovative environment while making the adjustments we need to make to fully protect Canadian investors and cryptocurrency users, giving easy and affordable access to cryptocurrency for all Canadians on the platform of their choice, and creating an environment in which entrepreneurs and problem solvers can bring those solutions forward easily. None of the above precludes innovation in any way, or adds any unreasonable cost - and these three policies would demonstrably eliminate or resolve all 109 historic cases as studied here - that's every single case researched so far going back to 2011. It includes every loss that was studied so far not just in Canada but globally as well. Unfortunately, finding answers is the least challenging part. Far more challenging is to get platform operators and regulators to agree on anything. My last post got no response whatsoever, and while the OSC has told me they're happy for industry feedback, I believe my opinion alone is fairly meaningless. This takes the whole community working together to solve. So please let me know your thoughts. Please take the time to upvote and share this with people. Please - let's get this solved and not leave it up to other people to do. Facts/background/sources (skip if you like):
The inspiration for the paragraph about splitting wallets was an actual quote from a Canadian company providing custodial services in response to the OSC consultation paper: "We believe that it will be in the in best interests of investors to prohibit pooled crypto assets or ‘floats’. Most Platforms pool assets, citing reasons of practicality and expense. The recent hack of the world’s largest Platform – Binance – demonstrates the vulnerability of participants’ assets when such concessions are made. In this instance, the Platform’s entire hot wallet of Bitcoins, worth over $40 million, was stolen, facilitated in part by the pooling of client crypto assets." "the maintenance of participants (and Platform) crypto assets across multiple wallets distributes the related risk and responsibility of security - reducing the amount of insurance coverage required and making insurance coverage more readily obtainable". For the record, their reply also said nothing whatsoever about multi-sig or offline storage.
In addition to the fact that the $40m hack represented only one "hot wallet" of Binance, and they actually had the vast majority of assets in other wallets (including mostly cold wallets), multiple real cases have clearly demonstrated that risk is still present with multiple wallets. Bitfinex, VinDAX, Bithumb, Altsbit, BitPoint, Cryptopia, and just recently KuCoin all had multiple wallets breached all at the same time, and may represent a significantly larger impact on customers than the Binance breach which was fully covered by Binance. To represent that simply having multiple separate wallets under the same security scheme is a comprehensive way to reduce risk is just not true.
Private insurance has historically never covered a single loss in the cryptocurrency space (at least, not one that I was able to find), and there are notable cases where massive losses were not covered by insurance. Bitpay in 2015 and Yapizon in 2017 both had insurance policies that didn't pay out during the breach, even after a lengthly court process. The same insurance that ShakePay is presently using (and announced to much fanfare) was describe by their CEO himself as covering “physical theft of the media where the private keys are held,” which is something that has never historically happened. As was said with regard to the same policy in 2018 - “I don’t find it surprising that Lloyd’s is in this space,” said Johnson, adding that to his mind the challenge for everybody is figuring out how to structure these policies so that they are actually protective. “You can create an insurance policy that protects no one – you know there are so many caveats to the policy that it’s not super protective.”
The most profitable policy for a private insurance company is one with the most expensive premiums that they never have to pay a claim on. They have no inherent incentive to take care of people who lost funds. It's "cheaper" to take the reputational hit and fight the claim in court. The more money at stake, the more the insurance provider is incentivized to avoid payout. They're not going to insure the assets unless they have reasonable certainty to make a profit by doing so, and they're not going to pay out a massive sum unless it's legally forced. Private insurance is always structured to be maximally profitable to the insurance provider.
The circumvention of multi-sig was a key factor in the massive Bitfinex hack of over $60m of bitcoin, which today still sits being slowly used and is worth over $3b. While Bitfinex used a qualified custodian Bitgo, which was and still is active and one of the industry leaders of custodians, and they set up 2 of 3 multi-sig wallets, the entire system was routed through Bitfinex, such that Bitfinex customers could initiate the withdrawals in a "hot" fashion. This feature was also a hit with the hacker. The multi-sig was fully circumvented.
Bitpay in 2015 was another example of a breach that stole 5,000 bitcoins. This happened not through the exploit of any system in Bitpay, but because the CEO of a company they worked with got their computer hacked and the hackers were able to request multiple bitcoin purchases, which Bitpay honoured because they came from the customer's computer legitimately. Impersonation is a very common tactic used by fraudsters, and methods get more extreme all the time.
A notable case in Canada was the Canadian Bitcoins exploit. Funds were stored on a server in a Rogers Data Center, and the attendee was successfully convinced to reboot the server "in safe mode" with a simple phone call, thus bypassing the extensive security and enabling the theft.
The very nature of custodians circumvents multi-sig. This is because custodians are not just having to secure the assets against some sort of physical breach but against any form of social engineering, modification of orders, fraudulent withdrawal attempts, etc... If the security practices of signatories in a multi-sig arrangement are such that the breach risk of one signatory is 1 in 100, the requirement of 3 independent signatures makes the risk of theft 1 in 1,000,000. Since hackers tend to exploit the weakest link, a comparable custodian has to make the entry and exit points of their platform 10,000 times more secure than one of those signatories to provide equivalent protection. And if the signatories beef up their security by only 10x, the risk is now 1 in 1,000,000,000. The custodian has to be 1,000,000 times more secure. The larger and more complex a system is, the more potential vulnerabilities exist in it, and the fewer people can understand how the system works when performing upgrades. Even if a system is completely secure today, one has to also consider how that system might evolve over time or work with different members.
By contrast, offline multi-signature solutions have an extremely solid record, and in the entire history of cryptocurrency exchange incidents which I've studied (listed here), there has only been one incident (796 exchange in 2015) involving an offline multi-signature wallet. It happened because the customer's bitcoin address was modified by hackers, and the amount that was stolen ($230k) was immediately covered by the exchange operators. Basically, the platform operators were tricked into sending a legitimate withdrawal request to the wrong address because hackers exploited their platform to change that address. Such an issue would not be prevented in any way by the use of a custodian, as that custodian has no oversight whatsoever to the exchange platform. It's practical for all exchange operators to test large withdrawal transactions as a general policy, regardless of what model is used, and general best practice is to diagnose and fix such an exploit as soon as it occurs.
False promises on the backing of funds played a huge role in the downfall of Quadriga, and it's been exposed over and over again (MyCoin, PlusToken, Bitsane, Bitmarket, EZBTC, IDAX). Even today, customers have extremely limited certainty on whether their funds in exchanges are actually being backed or how they're being backed. While this issue is not unique to cryptocurrency exchanges, the complexity of the technology and the lack of any regulation or standards makes problems more widespread, and there is no "central bank" to come to the rescue as in the 2008 financial crisis or during the great depression when "9,000 banks failed".
In addition to fraudulent operations, the industry is full of cases where operators have suffered breaches and not reported them. Most recently, Einstein was the largest case in Canada, where ongoing breaches and fraud were perpetrated against the platform for multiple years and nobody found out until the platform collapsed completely. While fraud and breaches suck to deal with, they suck even more when not dealt with. Lack of visibility played a role in the largest downfalls of Mt. Gox, Cryptsy, and Bitgrail. In some cases, platforms are alleged to have suffered a hack and keep operating without admitting it at all, such as CoinBene.
It surprises some to learn that a cryptographic solution has already existed since 2013, and gained widespread support in 2014 after Mt. Gox. Proof of Reserves is a full cryptographic proof that allows any customer using an exchange to have complete certainty that their crypto-assets are fully backed by the platform in real-time. This is accomplished by proving that assets exist on the blockchain, are spendable, and fully cover customer deposits. It does not prove safety of assets or backing of fiat assets.
If we didn't care about privacy at all, a platform could publish their wallet addresses, sign a partial transaction, and put the full list of customer information and balances out publicly. Customers can each check that they are on the list, that the balances are accurate, that the total adds up, and that it's backed and spendable on the blockchain. Platforms who exclude any customer take a risk because that customer can easily check and see they were excluded. So together with all customers checking, this forms a full proof of backing of all crypto assets.
However, obviously customers care about their private information being published. Therefore, a hash of the information can be provided instead. Hash is one-way encryption. The hash allows the customer to validate inclusion (by hashing their own known information), while anyone looking at the list of hashes cannot determine the private information of any other user. All other parts of the scheme remain fully intact. A model like this is in use on the exchange CoinFloor in the UK.
A Merkle tree can provide even greater privacy. Instead of a list of balances, the balances are arranged into a binary tree. A customer starts from their node, and works their way to the top of the tree. For example, they know they have 5 BTC, they plus 1 other customer hold 7 BTC, they plus 2-3 other customers hold 17 BTC, etc... until they reach the root where all the BTC are represented. Thus, there is no way to find the balances of other individual customers aside from one unidentified customer in this case.
Proposals such as this had the backing of leaders in the community including Nic Carter, Greg Maxwell, and Zak Wilcox. Substantial and significant effort started back in 2013, with massive popularity in 2014. But what became of that effort? Very little. Exchange operators continue to refuse to give visibility. Despite the fact this information can often be obtained through trivial blockchain analysis, no Canadian platform has ever provided any wallet addresses publicly. As described by the CEO of Newton "For us to implement some kind of realtime Proof of Reserves solution, which I'm not opposed to, it would have to ... Preserve our users' privacy, as well as our own. Some kind of zero-knowledge proof". Kraken describes here in more detail why they haven't implemented such a scheme. According to professor Eli Ben-Sasson, when he spoke with exchanges, none were interested in implementing Proof of Reserves.
And yet, Kraken's places their reasoning on a page called "Proof of Reserves". More recently, both BitBuy and ShakePay have released reports titled "Proof of Reserves and Security Audit". Both reports contain disclaimers against being audits. Both reports trust the customer list provided by the platform, leaving the open possibility that multiple large accounts could have been excluded from the process. Proof of Reserves is a blockchain validation where customers see the wallets on the blockchain. The report from Kraken is 5 years old, but they leave it described as though it was just done a few weeks ago. And look at what they expect customers to do for validation. When firms represent something being "Proof of Reserve" when it's not, this is like a farmer growing fruit with pesticides and selling it in a farmers market as organic produce - except that these are people's hard-earned life savings at risk here. Platforms are misrepresenting the level of visibility in place and deceiving the public by their misuse of this term. They haven't proven anything.
Fraud isn't a problem that is unique to cryptocurrency. Fraud happens all the time. Enron, WorldCom, Nortel, Bear Stearns, Wells Fargo, Moser Baer, Wirecard, Bre-X, and Nicola are just some of the cases where frauds became large enough to become a big deal (and there are so many countless others). These all happened on 100% reversible assets despite regulations being in place. In many of these cases, the problems happened due to the over-complexity of the financial instruments. For example, Enron had "complex financial statements [which] were confusing to shareholders and analysts", creating "off-balance-sheet vehicles, complex financing structures, and deals so bewildering that few people could understand them". In cryptocurrency, we are often combining complex financial products with complex technologies and verification processes. We are naïve if we think problems like this won't happen. It is awkward and uncomfortable for many people to admit that they don't know how something works. If we want "money of the people" to work, the solutions have to be simple enough that "the people" can understand them, not so confusing that financial professionals and technology experts struggle to use or understand them.
For those who question the extent to which an organization can fool their way into a security consultancy role, HB Gary should be a great example to look at. Prior to trying to out anonymous, HB Gary was being actively hired by multiple US government agencies and others in the private sector (with glowing testimonials). The published articles and hosted professional security conferences. One should also look at this list of data breaches from the past 2 years. Many of them are large corporations, government entities, and technology companies. These are the ones we know about. Undoubtedly, there are many more that we do not know about. If HB Gary hadn't been "outted" by anonymous, would we have known they were insecure? If the same breach had happened outside of the public spotlight, would it even have been reported? Or would HB Gary have just deleted the Twitter posts, brought their site back up, done a couple patches, and kept on operating as though nothing had happened?
In the case of Quadriga, the facts are clear. Despite past experience with platforms such as MapleChange in Canada and others around the world, no guidance or even the most basic of a framework was put in place by regulators. By not clarifying any sort of legal framework, regulators enabled a situation where a platform could be run by former criminal Mike Dhanini/Omar Patryn, and where funds could be held fully unchecked by one person. At the same time, the lack of regulation deterred legitimate entities from running competing platforms and Quadriga was granted a money services business license for multiple years of operation, which gave the firm the appearance of legitimacy. Regulators did little to protect Canadians despite Quadriga failing to file taxes from 2016 onward. The entire administrative team had resigned and this was public knowledge. Many people had suspicions of what was going on, including Ryan Mueller, who forwarded complaints to the authorities. These were ignored, giving Gerald Cotten the opportunity to escape without justice.
There are multiple issues with the SOC II model including the prohibitive cost (you have to find a third party accounting firm and the prices are not even listed publicly on any sites), the requirement of operating for a year (impossible for new platforms), and lack of any public visibility (SOC II are private reports that aren't shared outside the people in suits).
Securities frameworks are expensive. Sarbanes-Oxley is estimated to cost $5.1 million USD/yr for the average Fortune 500 company in the United States. Since "Fortune 500" represents the top 500 companies, that means well over $2.55 billion USD (~$3.4 billion CAD) is going to people in suits. Isn't the problem of trust and verification the exact problem that the blockchain is supposed to solve?
To use Quadriga as justification for why custodians or SOC II or other advanced schemes are needed for platforms is rather silly, when any framework or visibility at all, or even the most basic of storage policies, would have prevented the whole thing. It's just an embarrassment.
We are now seeing regulators take strong action. CoinSquare in Canada with multi-million dollar fines. BitMex from the US, criminal charges and arrests. OkEx, with full disregard of withdrawals and no communication. Who's next?
We have a unique window today where we can solve these problems, and not permanently destroy innovation with unreasonable expectations, but we need to act quickly. This is a unique historic time that will never come again.
No one representing Cash App will ever ask for your sign-in code over the phone, on social media, or through any other medium. No one representing Cash App will ever ask you to make a payment.
Welcome to the unofficial Cash App subreddit. This subreddit was created as a place to talk about Cash App and to get assistance for simple problems. The mod team of this subreddit do not represent Cash App or Square, Inc. If you require specific help with your account, you must contact the Cash App support team directly via the app (never via a support phone line you found via Google). Do not share your account details with anyone.
How to Get Help
For general advice about Cash App, please post here in /cashapp. Do not include cashtags or any other personal information in your posts. If you need help regarding your account, contact support via the app itself. Tap your profile picture, then choose Support. Follow the menu. You can also check https://cash.app/help If you are unable to get help via the app, you can try `@CashSupport` on Twitter (https://twitter.com/cashsupport) or `@SquareCash` on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/SquareCash/).
Due to increased volume, support wait times may be higher than normal.
Cash App does not have a call-in phone line to speak with someone. The only call-in phone line that's available is listed on their website. It's automated and intended to assist with general account issues.
This subreddit welcomes discussions, news and general (non account-specific) questions about Cash App. The following content is not permitted and will be removed. Accounts breaching these rules may be temporarily or permanently banned, at moderators’ discretion.
Referral codes or cashtags
Spam. This includes but is not limited to advertising for porn, findom, referral links, nonsense.
Begging. If you need assistance, please try appropriate subreddits such as /assistance
Trolling. Do not insult, attack or bait other users.
Personally identifying information of yourself or others.
Fraud. Attempts to defraud other users will not be tolerated and will result in an immediate and permanent ban. This includes:
Asking users to DM someone in order to provide support.
Providing or linking to fake support listings
Asking how to defraud someone.
Offering to buy or sell an account
Asking about how to change your account’s routing number.
And any other suspected fraudulent activity, as and when it arises.
How to Post
Use the search function. Most questions have been answered before.
Check the FAQ below. It might just answer your question.
Use a descriptive and succinct post title.
If someone has helped you, please pay it forward. Stick around to help make this community better. 🙏
I received something. Is it a scam? Did you receive something that looks fishy? Cash App emails only ever come from ["@square.com](mailto:"@square.com)", ["@squareup.com](mailto:"@squareup.com)" or ["@cash.app](mailto:"@cash.app)" domains. No one representing Cash App will ever ask you for money or your sign in code for any reason. Cash App will never ask you for PINs or passcodes. If you get an email, compare it to other emails you’ve received you know to be from Cash App. If the fonts or logos look different or strange, or there is poor grammar, then it’s certainly a scam. If you are still in doubt, post a screenshot (with cashtags and other personal info removed). Clearance fees? Cash App will never ask you for money. Any request to pay a fee is a scam. Whether it is called a clearance fee, verification fee, shipping fee, whatever. They are all scams. I’ve been scammed/hacked! Unfortunately there’s not much anybody here can do. You can try contacting Cash App support, however they are not likely to reimburse you for your losses. If the scam involved a payment from your linked debit card, you should also contact your card-issuing bank as they may be able to reverse the charge. How do I prevent being scammed?
Again, keep in mind that nobody representing Cash App will ever ask you for money or login codes. Anyone who does it a scammer. https://cash.app/help/6482
Always set a PIN (Profile > Privacy and Security).
Never give your phone to someone. People have been known to pay themselves from borrowed phones.
Don’t partake in quick money-making schemes like “flipping”. These are just methods to steal from you.
I sent money to the wrong person! Find the payment in the payment history, tap into the details and request a refund. If this fails, contact support. See "How to get help" above. I received money from a stranger. Find the payment in the payment history, tap into the details and issue a refund. Thanks for being awesome! The recipient say they didn’t receive my payment and want me to send it again. This is probably a scam. Contact support. See "How to get help" above. Why is there a Cash App charge on my bank statement? I don’t even use Cash App! It is likely that your debit card number has been stolen & the thief has used it to fund a Cash App account. Contact your card-issuing bank immediately. I haven’t received the cash card I ordered! It can take several weeks to arrive. If you have not received it within 3-4 weeks, contact support. See "How to get help" above. Is the app down right now? Check the status page. https://status.cash.app/ Will people I pay be able to see my real name? Your full name, as recorded in your profile in the app, will be presented to people you pay or request payments from. However, this name does not need to be the same as your real name. I can’t scan the back of my driver’s licence. Don’t try to fill the viewport with the card. Try zooming in or out. Look at the edge of the viewport. Each edge will have a blue line when it is correctly aligned. It will work when you manage to get 4 blue lines to appear at once. My account is frozen with money inside! Contact support. See "How to Get Help" above. Why was my account locked? While it’s not possible to know for sure, some common reasons may be for challenging cash app transactions with your bank (“chargebacks”), performing fraud (“flipping”) and using bitcoin you purchased for illicit goods & services. Check Cash App’s Terms of Service for more: https://cash.app/legal/us/en-us/tos I’m under 18. How can I withdraw my money? You must be 18 or above to use Cash App. Contact support or have a parent or guardian reach out for you. See "How to Get Help" above. Why haven’t I been verified for Bitcoin yet? Bitcoin verification takes up to 72 hours. If you’re waiting longer than 72 hours, contact support. Where is the bitcoin/investing tab? I only have 3 tabs. Bitcoin and Cash App Investing are currently only available in the US.
Bitcoin Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for Bitcoin crypto-currency enthusiasts. It only takes a minute to sign up. Sign up to join this community. Anybody can ask a question Anybody can answer The best answers are voted up and rise to the top Bitcoin . Home ; Questions ; Tags ; Users ; Jobs; Unanswered ; GUI Miner no responses to getwork, and Verification failed. Ask Question ... You’re ready, the new financial world is at your fingertips. All that’s left to complete the verification process is upload your documents and a selfie. You do it. You’re there. You’re in the game. Then you get a message – your application has failed. We know how frustrating this can be – especially when you don’t really understand why your documents have been denied. We’ve ... Bitcoin (BTC) is a digital or virtual currency based on a peer-to-peer network created in 2009 to become a viable replacement of conventional fiat currencies and payment systems. Based on a decentralised mechanism, Bitcoin is denoted by BTC and aims to take control of money away from governments and huge organisations and give it to the people. It isn't a physical entity; it's a code that ... address verification failed. Close. 2. Posted by 1 year ago. Archived. address verification failed. hey all, been hybernating for a few months, well most of 2018.. i have an account on binance i used it a few times, successfully deposit and withdraw. now i am trying to withdrawaw some btc (not above minimum) to my wallet (brd) and keep geting: address verification failed notice. tried eth to ... Identity verification is required in order to use Swap, our non-custodial crypto-to-crypto exchange within the Blockchain.com Wallet, and for the Exchange (learn more about this here).Once verified, you will be able to exchange between bitcoin (BTC), bitcoin cash (BCH), ethereum (ETH), stellar (XLM), USD Digital (USD-D), and Tether (USDT).
Coinbase ID verification is required to prevent fraud and keep the community safe. It also adds an extra layer of security by ensuring no one but you links y... I couldn't verify my Coinbase account until I tried this one weird trick… Here's my original video about Coinbase: https://youtu.be/CLPAiRX-mso How To Send And Receive Bitcoin With Coinbase - Duration: 8:01. Dusty Porter 86,304 views. 8:01 ... How To Create And Verify Coinbase Account ? in Hindi !! - Duration: 11:02. Daily Income 25,235 ... If this helped please leave a like i know cash app sucks and dosnt help there people out but that should make u not wanna help me out just the way i helped u... #Bitcoin #Crypto #Coinbase #USD Coinbase: https://www.coinbase.com/join/57f2053882877600cb2d6a92 & Earn $50 of Stellar Lumens Free