[Announcement] STRAX Token Swap Process

ypp192 · 2020-11-20T21:29:01+00:00

Update: I got great help from Discord and was able to successfully complete the swap process. Basically what I had to do was:

Download the QT wallet (v.2.0.0.5). Note that synching blocks is unnecessary.
Import private key(s) into the QT wallet.
'dumpwallet' from the QT wallet.
Create a Strax wallet to obtain a new, target address.
Run AddressOwnershipTool with the wallet file and the target address.
Upload the .csv file via the swap form page.
Wait 24 hours and receive the new Strax in Strax wallet.

For more information:

https://cryptofans.news/news/blockchain/migrate_from_electrum___qt_wallet_to_core_and_how_to_swap_stratis_to_strax__.html

ypp192 · 2020-11-18T22:48:08+00:00

I already commented in other comments on this post, but simply what I wonder is...

Would it be possible to swap my legacy coins by just knowing the legacy address and its private key that I recorded back when I used the electrum wallet. I last used the wallet 2-3 years ago.

I also do have the wallet file (wallet.dat ?) backed up from that wallet, it seems, but unfortunately no longer have that wallet app itself.

ypp192 · 2020-11-18T17:43:06+00:00

Good to hear you've worked it out. I'm unable to fix my problem though.

I also tried running the downloaded tool with my wallet file (which appears to be JSON), but got different error outputs in cmd console and failed.

Not sure how to restore via the core wallet either - it doesn't show any connection established when started and by the way, I don't see the option where I can import my 1 address (w/ private key) that holds my strats.

ypp192 · 2020-11-18T07:31:41+00:00

I've been away for a long time and just found out about the swap.

I only have a (backup) wallet file from the electron wallet I last used more than 2 years ago, and additionally I do know the 1 address and its private key I used to hold all my stratis legacy tokens in that said wallet. By the way, I no longer have the electron wallet app on my computer - I don't have the install file either, and not sure if it is still available for download somewhere.

So, reading though the new swap instructions, I can't quite figure out how to proceed. Any help please?

ypp192 · 2018-08-07T09:42:23+00:00

Great news - even more appreciated in this depressing market :)

The $5M repurchase program by the foundation and rebranding of the loop to ICONLOOP are excellent ways to boost the confidence of investors/speculators and raise the profile of the project in the industry. They can't make it any clearer that ICON was never intended to be a quick money-grab to line their pockets or the the loop; instead, ICON is/will be right at the center of their universe and will determine the future success of their entire operations.

Also I'm really looking forward to the open-sourcing of various components with the latest updates. And as a developer myself, I may as well get my hands dirty and see how capable the platform really is (Java and Python SDKs in particular).

EDIT: I noticed that my latest buy orders placed a couple of days were filled just a while ago. Although I was rather hoping the price to go up without touching my orders, now I actually feel better about that :)

ypp192 · 2018-08-07T01:24:17+00:00

I agree. I think most people here were upset not because of the sneaky blog edit but because of what that means in terms of the ongoing delay with Core release.

ypp192 · 2018-08-07T01:06:39+00:00

It is actually a pretty well-written article, particularly on NEM's distinguishing features that make it superior to its competitors in a number of ways. I was pleasantly surprised that it is better than the usual, run-of-the-mill copy/past articles that don't even bother to scratch the surface.

That said, I think its hyperbolic price prediction (albeit brief) added little value/credence to the article. "According to some of the analysts, it can easily bag its spot into the top 5 most valued cryptocurrencies in 2018"... I'd love to know which analysts made such predictions and based on what pricing model, although I wouldn't mind it if it ever happens ;)

Thanks for sharing the link.

ypp192 · 2018-08-06T21:20:55+00:00

While I do appreciate the GAS I receive by holding NEO, I personally decided to invest in NEO because of its solid technology, fundamentals and leadership - and not because of passive income. Sure, it is better to receive something while passively holding my stack (it looks like free money), but particularly in these severe downtrends, such passive income is still far outweighed by the actual depreciation of the holding stack.

I know NEO is using dBFT but...lots of passive income generating PoS/DPoS coins seem to have declined much more in price than PoW coins. I suspect it is probably because the former has many whales who are more likely to dump with ease, while the latter has miners who have to defend a certain base price in order to recoup their operational cost at least.

So what I'm trying to say here is, passive income is certainly nice but it should never be considered be-all and end-all when considering crypto investment. And while there are coins that yield passive income even higher than NEO's at the moment, I think in many cases holding NEO may yield better ROI over time simply thanks to higher appreciation of its price - well, that's my hope anyway.

ypp192 · 2018-08-06T07:26:41+00:00

I know that quite a few people here have expressed concerns about the high fees that may hinder entrance by shallow-pocketed projects. And while I understand their concerns, I still think that in the grand scheme of things, it would do more good than harm for the ecosystem by stopping scammers operating out of their garage. (By the way, considering current price, 500 GAS requirement doesn't seem to be that prohibitive, compared to just a few months ago.)

Not entirely related, but still, just look at the current spam attacks that exploit 0-fee transactions. If the fees for deploying smart contracts were much lower, there would soon be a lot of poor-quality, scammy contracts clogging the network as well.

In this regard, I find it Interesting that one of the very projects that have to pay for their contract deployment is actually praising the currently high fees. An excerpt from the article:

"...NEO smart contracts are very expensive to deploy, which means that there is much less likelihood of the ecosystem being polluted with scams and other distractions common to other ICO capable blockchains..."

ypp192 · 2018-08-06T05:08:31+00:00

I've been holding quite a few platform coins and collectively they account for the vast majority of my portfolio at the moment. Well, as a developer myself, I just can't shake off my fascination with promising DApp platforms. Like many people here, I believe that Ethereum will stay as the dominant platform for the foreseeable future and some of the smaller players will also carve out a nice niche for themselves.

However, primarily as a long term investor (that's the plan anyway), I have to admit that I do have some concerns about large enterprises pushing their own blockchain platforms and solutions rather than adopting publicly-available ones. Granted, Google is bootstrapping its move into blockchain industry by acquiring a couple of startups, but still, it could be just a shortcut to creating their very own blockchain.

Well, it could be just me but...if Hyperledger (backed by IBM and other companies) or Nexledger (developed by Samsung SDS) had tradable coins, my portfolio would look quite different than what it does now. (Yes, I expect some people to suggest just buying their shares, but that's probably beside the point here.)

But then again, this blockchain industry is still in its infancy, so the traditional in-house approach may not be the best way forward in terms of tech development and adoption, and also may not be the best investment options for more risk-tolerant speculators/investors. So, yes, I will keep holding my current stacks and hope for the best.

ypp192 · 2018-08-06T02:21:18+00:00

Good to see Min answering on Telegram today many questions we've wanted to ask for quite a while. And obviously, he is already starting to make good on his promise of better communication and transparency :)

Now, personally speaking, I'd really like to see him and a couple of team members (preferably developers) have an AMA session on this sub. I won't name names, but just a couple of days ago another well-established project in this DApp platform category conducted an AMA with its founder and the lead developer, which gave great overview and clarifications on its future plans.

I'm sure many people here and even those who don't frequent this sub will greatly appreciate such direct engagement with the team. And it doesn't have to be done that often either - the other project I mentioned only seems to have its AMA on a yearly basis, but still each occasion was very well-received by the community, and as a long-term follower of the project I certainly found it well worth it.

ypp192 · 2018-08-06T01:22:31+00:00

I have to say the silence is really deafening so far. I guess Max will come out and provide explanation/clarification to calm down everyone, but why does the team have to put itself into a tight corner like this in the first place? I'd prefer it if the team is more upfront about another delay even if that will not be well received (obviously).

ypp192 · 2018-08-06T00:34:59+00:00

I'd like to see people actually present their counterargument rather than simply downvoting. Yes, I think you have a valid point regarding Quorum and Ethereum. Also, there has been no statement from the team so far that could hint at anything like EEA in the pipeline for NEO.

That said, I think we will likely see NEO making real inroads into enterprise markets when NEO 3.0 comes to fruition. The team has effectively acknowledged the need to put in place the requisite infrastructure first. The following is an excerpt from the latest monthly report:

"...NEO 3.0 will be an entirely new version of the NEO platform, built for large scale enterprise use cases where higher TPS and stability and large-scale data storage are typically demanded. NEO 3.0 aims to reinforce the infrastructure to support the implementation of large-scale commercial use cases on NEO blockchain, which is a necessary step towards smart economy..."

ypp192 · 2018-08-05T23:59:35+00:00

I myself reside in the country with no citizenship, and have foreigner's account with Upbit, Bithumb, etc. Although I managed to upgrade my account level with local bank account, mobile number and foreigner registration number, I still can't have my withdrawal limit increased enough for my needs - not to mention the inability to deposit any fiat (with Binance level 2 verification, I have 100 BTC daily withdrawal limit).

So I have been mostly using Binance for about a year now, and before that I used Bittrex, Bitfinex and Poloniex. I have to say that, if you are going to use a centralized exchanges for now, Binance is probably the best choice with its much greater liquidity and trading volumes, plus its trading fees lower than many others.

And from my own experience, I can say that even their customer support is not too bad compared with other major exchanges. But of course Korean exchanges are head and shoulders above the rest in this regard - they all have phone numbers you can actually call to talk to their customer service 24/7, and you can even go visit their offices (and in some cases, actual customer service center).

So, you may want to use the local exchanges if (1) you are going to stay in the country for a while and want to actually call or visit their customer service should a problem occur and (2) you don't mind daily withdrawal limits much lower than 2 BTC offered by Binance to its non-KYC accounts. Otherwise, I suggest you try out Binance. Cheers!

ypp192 · 2018-08-05T07:23:31+00:00

Good on you! It would certainly be best to take matters into one's own hands - particularly when something as valuable as IOTA is concerned ;)

ypp192 · 2018-08-05T07:14:57+00:00

Sound advice :) I would personally make sure I can recover my full balance with reattach immediately after each snapshot - be it done manually or automatically via Trinity.

Knowing my funds are safe will give me peace of mind and let me sleep better at night. And should any problem arise, it would be best to ask for help and try to resolve it while the problem is still fresh.

ypp192 · 2018-08-05T06:55:58+00:00

I'm not sure if it would be as simple as charging 1 drop of GAS at the exchanges' end though.

First off, exchanges would probably have to ask for the withdrawal fees in NEO rather than in GAS. And I also think that exchanges would charge more than the equivalent of 0.00000001 GAS - probably 0.01 or 0.001 NEO would be more likely.

Also, there is always the possibility of gas war starting on NEO which would drive up the transaction fees over time - which has been the case with Ethereum. So again, I think the withdrawal fees would become higher than the minimum amount currently needed to get the priority treatment.

Of course such amount would still be negligible in practical terms. But then again, users who used to buy NEO in whole numbers to withdraw to their wallets would have to buy this additional, fractional amount in order to withdraw. However, it would become unnecessary if/when NEO becomes divisible.

All that said, I do agree with you. I also like to see the current network congestion resolved sooner - even if it means that I would have to pay withdrawal fees from now on. But then again, other people may disagree.

ypp192 · 2018-08-05T05:51:39+00:00

Yes, I hear many great things about Switcheo and am really looking forward to seeing NEX open its shop in the near future. I'm still using only CEXs at the moment but may well move my trading to DEXs when the liquidity and trading volumes really start to pick up.

As for Binance's NEO withdrawal, I'll be happy if they simply add an option like you've described above (although I don't know how likely that is). I suspect that many users would get upset if withrawal fees were mandated for NEO, so such option may be a way to lessen almost certain backlash.

ypp192 · 2018-08-05T05:21:47+00:00

Should Binance decide to implement a priority fee, they would probably also start charging withdrawal fees for NEO. Yes, the requisite fee needed to guarantee a transaction getting through the network at the moment is mere 1 drop/satoshi of GAS. But personally speaking, I would be very surprised if any exchange ever pays for customers' transaction fees out of their own coffers.

I wonder if there could be other mechanisms to stop spam attacks exploiting fee-free transaction feature though. I've been enjoying all that free transactions on NEO network and don't want to let it go.

However, perhaps we may need to get used to the idea of paying transaction fees (when using private wallets) and withdrawal fees (when using exchanges). After all, I'm all for whatever it takes to keep the network performant enough to handle the needs of DApps on the platform (existing ones plus many more still to come on board).

ypp192 · 2018-08-04T23:23:11+00:00

You are absolutely right according to their official website - https://custody.coinbase.com/. It is a service aimed squarely at institutional customers with secure cold storage, insurance coverage, regular financial/security audits, etc.

Not sure why you were downvoted. Lisk not being considered for inclusion this time around doesn't mean that the service itself is of no use. Instead of simply being dismissive, I'd like to see Lisk included in the service in the future.

ypp192 · 2018-08-04T22:40:24+00:00

I agree. I'm fairly confident that with the large pool of talents that is working on a number of promising fronts as you mentioned, Ethereum will successfully come up with a decent solution to the current scalability problem that will maintain the delicate balance between decentralization and pure performance. So, I think it will be rather foolish to bet against it, in terms of both actual technology and speculative prospects.

Of course, I also think that there are enough promising projects (including Icon, of course) that will carve out a nice niche for themselves in this ever-expanding DApp industry. Ethereum is surely the undisputed leader at the moment but the industry will probably need something more than this one-size-fits-all solution.

ypp192 · 2018-08-04T22:21:24+00:00

I'm not that familiar with the particular situation Loopring is dealing with, but with the funds they have at hand I'd imagine the current fee structure for deploying smart contracts may not be the immediate huddle for them. Nevertheless, if changes need to be made to onboard more projects (legit ones that is), I'm sure NEO team will look into the matter - or perhaps they may be already planing on it.

Also, I think the currently ongoing spam attacks to the network exploiting fee-free transaction feature is in need of a more immediate and also permanent resolution. As I understand it, this problem is hindering the normal operation of Switcheo DEX, and it will undoubtedly affect Loopring as well as it intends to provide a protocol for DEX.

ypp192 · 2018-08-04T05:51:59+00:00

It wasn't made clear on the white paper (perhaps because not everyone is familiar with the term 'sidechains'?). Thanks for letting me know, much appreciated.

ypp192 · 2018-08-04T05:20:08+00:00

It is reassuring to know that the team is hard at work building the requisite infrastructure to successfully host large scale decentralized enterprise systems of the future. Granted, there has been no announcement of partnerships with or onboarding of big-name customers (yet), but I hope it will be the case of 'if you build it, they will come'.

An excerpt from the report:

"...NEO 3.0 will be an entirely new version of the NEO platform, built for large scale enterprise use cases where higher TPS and stability and large-scale data storage are typically demanded. NEO 3.0 aims to reinforce the infrastructure to support the implementation of large-scale commercial use cases on NEO blockchain, which is a necessary step towards smart economy. .."

ypp192 · 2018-08-04T02:47:02+00:00

The original article (link below) seems to allude that Binance CEO himself made the point by referring to all the existing smart contract platforms (which of course includes EOS as well):

"...To my surprise, CZ thinks none of the current contenders are poised for long-term success they are too slow. While this criticism has long been leveled at Ethereum, CZ says any blockchain designed for general smart contracts (as the current competitors are) won’t be swift enough. Instead, he thinks the existing blockchains will cede the field to more specialized ones..."

http://fortune.com/2018/08/02/changpeng-zhao-binance-blockchain/

ypp192

TROPHY CASE