Bitcoin Forum

I will compile your wallets for:

* Windows (BTC 0.05) - which gets you *coind, *coin-qt (dependant on what the coin is based on also *coin-cli *coin-tx) zipped in 32 and 64 bit packages, as well as 32 and 64 bit windows install files

* MacOSX (BTC 0.05) which gets you a DMG image with *coind *coin-qt (dependant on what the coin is based on also *coin-cli *coin-tx)

both for BTC 0.09

send me a PM include github link

Payment via OgNasty Escrow. And and prices are for fully compiled sources. no working executable means no payment.

depends on your need, PM me.

*bump*

Aren't Bitcoin wallets for Windows precompiled, that is, distributed as an executable file (exe, msi)? I don't really know...

Further, how can we be sure that you don't inject some code into an executable to steal user's private keys?

there will always be that question, even though you do what you can to try and proof that no tampering has been done...

i can only point to my long time ingagement with different altcoins here, and that i have always been ethical, about what i do, my
trust level, can be an inndicator of how i am as a person, even though there are people here that misuse the trust system.

i could turn the question around, and ask, since your questioning my morality, is it because im threatening your business?

Not that im pointing a finger, i am trying to show you, that you can always point a finger at someone for some reason.

but feel free to look through my posts, and see for yourself what i do.

the compile process does automatically grab the repo from github, import it into gitian, compile it, and out comes finished wallets..

but back to your question, it is actually unproveable that i do not ad anything to the source, since no matter what proof i provide,
someone will always say .. "You could have faked it."

so basically, your question is irrelevant...

the only proofable method would be for someone who needs a wallet compiled and thinks someone might do something to the code,
to get wallet compiled by 2 different people, using the same version of all libraries and compilers.

Since, as you say "it is actually unprovable that i do not add anything", we can safely assume that you add something (even if you in fact don't). Why? Because it is always better be safe than sorry...

Especially when your money is at stake

So we can also safely assume, that all wallets that you get from "official sites" also has something added, since it is unproven that they dont.
so the only way to be sure, is not use any wallets, and thereby not use any crypto wallets at all.

and since we are on the assume part, we can then safely assume, that i am threatening your business, since it is unproven that i dont.

but for those that wish to use my service, i am willing to leave my name, phone number, address, since i do not have anything to hide.
if i really did add anything, that would be stupid of me, since i would be easily found..
again, its a question of morality, i am providing a service, and i do take pride in what i do, that is the different, from some other people.

Aren't these wallets distributed as source code (MD5 checksums and stuff like that)? Otherwise, why would you offer your services? Anyway, these concerns have already been raised and answered before. Even if a distribution is provided as a source code tarball, you can't be sure that the compiler you use hadn't been tampered with...

On the other hand, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you

And now you begin making logically contradictory statements. At first you claim that it is actually unprovable that you don't add anything (which I specifically emphasized at that) and then you state that you "would be easily found"...

It doesn't sound quite right, does it?

when taking statements outside of there full sentences, it is easy to make things look, in a different light, than they really are

so, lets recap:

notice the above and read the whole sentence, else you start sounding like a troll...

and also, notice the fact i wrote, i am will to provide those who buy my services, with full contact info, since if something is amis with the wallet i compiled, i can be easily contacted..
how unclear is that fact, since you seem to just want to read, what you want, instead of taking everything i write into account.

The thing is you don't provide any proofs. Your words that you don't add anything can't be considered as a proof as well as your full contact info...

Thereby, the inference that it is unprovable is true, regardless of what you said afterwards

the problem in general is that no matter what proof you provide, anyone could say that its faked, my compile process, uses gitian, with the gitian descriptions provided with the source
i have build up my system on a clean computer, everything is compiled from sources found at the correct places, and pathces has been verified by me to be correct and not add anything to
the build process, i have been part of the alt scene for a very long time, and at no time, have i tried to scam anyone, nor will i in the future. my credentials are quite good, even the
feedback in my trust is on the possitive side, i think your just fishing now, trying to get me to say or do something, and then you will take a tiny word out of it, and try to use it
against me. i have provided all the details that should be needed, and i also provide more details to my clients. im wondering what your motivation is, since you try so hard that its
starting to look like your just a crumpy old man.

im now considering you a troll, nothing more... ciao

It is irrelevant what you consider me as. I'm not talking for my own sake here (since I use neither Windows nor MacOS, to begin with). You may not be fishing right now (as you put it in respect to me)), but this doesn't in the least guarantee that you won't in the future. As I have already said, you don't provide any proofs but talk is cheap. A paranoid would say that you are trying to steal into your users' confidence (building your trust, providing credentials and so on). Further, the users who may need your "help" are obviously both tech illiterate and ignorantly careless, so there should have come up something like that...

I mean yet another way of parting a fool and his money

As there is a concept of devil's advocate, there should necessarily be a concept of devil's prosecutor, right?

and what proof would you consider to be sufficiently?

There is no such proof and can't possibly be. That's what people who ask for your assistance should clearly understand and realize, that they are essentially trusting you with their present and future money. Technically speaking, the same source code compiled with the same compiler may produce different executables just for a tiny difference in compiler options or even with the same options aiming at making architecture specific optimizations...

But as I said earlier, this is basically irrelevant, since you can inject code only once and get done with that

But since you brought up text taken out of context about me not wanting to provide proof. You are now backtracking on that.. please be more consistent than that. You cannot try and hit me in the head for not providing proof and then backtrack on that.


As I stated in the beginning it is not possible

But programs compiled with the same compiler version. And the same libraries will produce the same executables if compiled with the same optimisations.

Therefore if you want proof hire 2 different people and get them to compile with the same settings will generate identical executable. So that is the path to take if your paranoid... and that can be used as proof.

Unless of course they know each other and do have plans to inject stuff..  (just getting ahead of you else you would write that)

I think I have explained my point pretty well. The context you are talking about is irrelevant, since my point would be valid in any context you could possibly try to invoke. Should I repeat it again that validating one executable doesn't in the least deprive you of the capability to inject some arbitrary code next time (or any time you see fit)? In which context this statement wouldn't be valid?

If the same code is compiled on different architectures (e.g. Intel vs AMD), you may get different executables even if you are using the same compilation flags

Seems like you do not fully comprehend how compilers work.. if you optimise for a specific cpu then yes.. if you use exactly the same optimisations the compiler (of course has to be compiled from the exact same codebase) will produce exactly the same executable the cpu does not have anything to do with how code is optimised.. only what compiler optimisations you use... please find someone that knows about compilers and ask them..

Actually it's not irrelevant since you started talking about proof.. I'm presenting the only way proof can be performed.

But since your so persistent I can only give you one advice don't use any wallet.. any altcoin, since your point goes for all.. not just me..

Regarding compilers and optimization flags, I guess you may want to start your learning curve from here (https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Optimize-Options.html). There is a whole bunch of compiler flags which produce different binaries for different architectures. You may even get different results depending on whether you compile source files in a batch mode (multiple files at once) or each file separately. Now I leave it to you to decide who doesn't fully understand how compilers work..

I've started talking about the lack of proof, to be precise. As you can see, this perfectly validates my point

notice what ive hilighted.. to compile for a specific architecture IS an optimisation, you decide WHEn you compile to optimise, and what to optimise, even if you want to optimise for a SPECIFIC architecture see this link https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Option-Summary.html (https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Option-Summary.html)

as i said, if you USE THE SAME optimisations on a given program compile, with the same libraries compiled with the same compiler from the same source, you will get identical executables.... platform optimisations are only activated IF you either ask for a compile for current platform, or for a specific platform.. the compiler will not decide by itself what to optimise in regard to cpu if you ask for a generic cpu type.. i.e. compile for i686 or amd64 will produce the exact same code. as long as we use the exact same versions for libraries and compilers.

I guess you should read again what I've written, namely


That is, the same compilation flags may produce different binary codes, since an architecture you compile on (or for) may not support instruction sets which are used for optimizations invoked with these flags (cf. SSE vs 3DNow!). Optimization flags may be the same (think -O3), the output is not (even if the compiler version is the same)...

Is it really so hard to understand, and what are you trying to argue with?

Host optimisation.. meaning if you compile for a generic group of crus result will be the same.. if you start adding more specific cpu optimisations then you are also optimising.. platform specific else your arguing that you cannot compile for different crus on the same machine..

Also see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/gitian-building.md


DETERMISTIC recognise that word?

Means you can verify by compiling yourself that a given executable was compiled from the same source will give same end result.

You are trying to clutch at minute details while choosing to ignore the major issue, which I have to repeat again. It doesn't matter if someone is able to produce the same executable since in no case this can prevent you from changing the code next time. Thereby, it can't be a proof the way you want it to look...

Further, I think I can safely assume that those who can follow the steps required to reproduce the same binary from source code can pretty much compile for themselves

And that is why I'm trying to tell you that the only way to make proof is by having source compiled by 2 different people... and I didn't say only once... you seem so determined to proof me wrong and argue about details you clearly have no real grasp of, it is quite simple I provide  a service use it if you need this service.. if you want get someone else also do a compile verify the sources are the same... all your points are basically moot and therefore you only try to show yourself as right no matter the facts... ergo troll

As I've explained earlier, you would more often than not get different binaries even if they are actually compiled from the same source, for a multitude of reasons, some of which I have mentioned. To sum it up, you claim innocence in a world where the assumption of innocence usually doesn't end very well...

And surely is not the way to go

And we are back to the same discussion again about compilers... to sum it up..

Your guilty until proven otherwise.. you cannot trust people... and we might as well expect you to cheat on someone tomorrow...

In my country we have a saying... thief thinks everyone is stealing..

So I might as well assume your going to cheat someone out of coins..

At least I have some faith in people.. I double check but I am not paranoid.. you on the other hand assume everyone is guilty.. therefore you should not use any wallets since who knows someone on the inside might tamper with the official bitcoin wallets. So I would suggest to keep away from any cryptocoin.

You raise issue's that are well known in the world.

Trust.

Trust is needed to conduct business, no trust no business.

Banks lend large amounts of money to people for over 30 years. There's a huge amount of trust needed here, but banks take precautions, they vet the person, check his credit history.

You as a customer to chaositec can hire someone to vet his code (If you're not able to yourself).

Fundamental business operation is based on trust, it's that simple. If you can't trust people, good luck.
If you don't trust chaos, don't use his service, but for everyone else, i can recommend chaositec.

In fact, you are not very far from truth. I had been successful at trading (multiplied my capital a few times), but it was pure luck that I got my money back from Bter, a Chinese exchange that got allegedly hacked in February, 2015. After that, Crapsea went belly up, but I had already withdrawn my funds from there...

Because it is not a matter of if but rather when you get scammed or otherwise lose your money in the Bitcoin world

Yeah, and you know, they never forget to take collateral, which covers the bank losses in case their client defaults on his debt (and often with a vengeance at that). Just business, as you like it...

So, no need to paint banks as charities when they are ruthless vultures in reality

So I'm still thinking what are you doing in this thread, you should be posting in ALLE threads especially those involving escrow because.. you cannot trust the escrow either with your line of thinking...

Or any service involving paying with bitcoins..

Nor goods sold for bitcoins.. because who knows they might scam you tomorrow...

You sound more and more like  a guy that should stick to paper money and creditcard

I'm wondering if you really don't understand what people are risking using your service, or you are deliberately trying to make it look harmless?

So, anyone using this service be warned and aware of the risks it possibly involves

It seems more to me that I have at some point stepped on your toes. Might have been an alt.. you, without knowing who I am, basically point a finger at me, and accuse me of wanting to steal people's coins. And why should people care what you think... I'm looking at your trust level.. people have trusted me with their wallets because I was helping them recover their coins.. I could, if I wanted to,  have stolen those and claimed I could not recover them. But I am not that kind of person.. I recovered that persons coins, and send all of them back to his new wallet.. I am known to help people out with no regards of earning a coin out of their misery.

So tell me once again, did I bother one of your alts.. because it does seem like your on some kind of vendetta.

I welcome everyone to look through my posting history.. that talks for more than cheap words from someone who doesn't really know me.. and pretends to know how compilers and their optimisations work.. because you surely seem clueless.. you have tried every attack angle you can think of.. and when I put forward an article about gitian written by the devs of bitcoin on how the compile process is verifiable by doing another compile on another machine you decide to ignore it..

just hit ignore on deisik, he is just troll and signature spammer who likes to argue with anyone 

You can rest assured, I've never encountered you here before (if only your alts, lol), there is nothing personal. My trust score is irrelevant since I don't sell anything, but I've seen users with much higher trust than yours (e.g. a certain TradeFortress (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=67058)) which didn't stop them from scamming on people in the end. And just like you, they all claimed innocence and trustworthiness...

As I said, better safe than sorry

Well.. at least I know I do not have any alts.

But I have already pointed  out how to double check... you on the other hand have only tried to spread fud.

And I have said what needs to be said.. anyone can double check by comparing same compiler from someone else.. your argument about compilers producing different result based on where they run and not about which optimisations are used is still fud. Because compilations are and will always be reproduce able under same conditions for source, library and compiler ... and host architecture does nothing to change those facts..

Lol, it doesn't only depend on host architecture (welcome -O3), it actually depends on the compile-time environment, here and now, on the same machine. I understand you think that compiling is totally deterministic, but this is simply not the case. You are just flat-out wrong about that. I didn't want to raise this issue again but you obviously seem to be asking for more, lol. For example, optimization usually requires a lot of memory, and still more memory for higher optimisation methods. If memory allocation fails (e.g. due to a lot of other memory hungry processes), then the compiler may omit some optimizations, which results in a different binary that would be produced if all optimizations had been made...

Does this also pass as FUD? If not, what about the "verification" process of double check you suggest to run and its results?

And again I point you to gitIan.. and the compile process that uses fake time...

Since you apparently do not read very well I have for your enjoyment pasted part of the bitcoin build process using gitian.

Bitcoin Core is not the same as Bitcoin wallet which is based on Qt framework (at least, the last time I checked), right? I assume that it uses these binaries as a backend, but what about the wallet itself? Isn't that what you offer precisely?

In other words, where is Gitian for Bitcoin wallet (if that was your point)?

Further, I don't quite like words such as "deterministic" and "reasonably sure" used in two adjacent sentences. It seems like someone is trying to make things look better than they really are...

Am I overly paranoid here?

Yes you are.


On another note... if you look at the bitcoin/contrib/gitian-descriptiors/gitian-win.yml or Linux.yml or osx.yml then you will notice the build process is for bitcoins bitcoin-click bitcoin-tx and bitcoin-qt

This is the whole build process to build ALLE files including installer files for windows

Bitcoin core is all of it backend plus frontend reasoning for calling it core was to ensure that this is the benchmark other wallet makers would have to follow.

Then why do we need your service, I don't get it? If someone has already built everything in a "reasonably sure" way?

Altcoin need wallets too.. and it seems people have a hard time building a stable invironment to build their wallets so they seek outside help... often they want to pay in some coin... but I would rater be paid in btc.. quite simple

Edit: I hate my phones autocorrected just saw that it had changed bitcoind to bitcoins and bitcoin-cli to bitcoin-click

Is there an altcoin version of Gitian to "double check" your binary against? Do you actually build wallets in a controlled "deterministic" environment as the concept of Gitian requires (i.e. in a QEMU virtual machine with "faked times")?

Yes to both.

It's the same environment since most are build on bitcoin the process and files are 99% identical

If a build process cannot be done with the supplied files I will tweak them and give the correct files back so it will be repeatable and the files can be easily read for verification on what has been done/changed

Then I don't understand why bother to ask you if people can just download a precompiled binary given they are identical (which is what you basically claim)? On the other hand, you could just download that binary and sell it as your "version" (which should necessarily be the same as the "vanilla" one since it was built "deterministically")?

What's the catch?

Let me repeat what I wrote be before but hopefully in a more understandable way...

Some altcoin developers struggle to with having a build process for windows and Mac I offer a service to compile it so they can focus on other things if they do not want to use the time to build said environment

So there is no "vanilla" binary to check against, right?

No. But then again anybody is welcome to either compile and double check or hire someone else to compile so that they can double check.

Basically I offer a service.. they can decide to use it or not. I do not add anything to the source. And if it's uncompileable I will offer to fix the compile descriptors so they can build the files themselves.. or I can compile them. Either way they pay for my services. There is nothing suspect in what I do. Look around and you will find developers from one coin being hired by other coin either developers or bagholders to work on their coin.

This is just another service...

So your whole argument about Gitian was fake and contrived given that even "altcoin developers struggle" to have a build process for Windows and Mac, right?

Nope not fake.. now your just jumping to conclusions..

But it's quite challenging to get a decent build environment up and running..

Anyone can given time and trial and error

But your whole thesis on this is still attacking me and I'm still not sure what you think you will accomplice.

I offer a service use it or not I don't care if you need my services then I have set the price it will cost. For usage of my time and computing power. But you cannot apparently comprehend that there is a need for people who knows how to set it up. Nor knows how to fix problems with cross compilation that might arrive.  I suggest you do not use any altcoin.  Since you might end up running a wallet I have compiled or code I have contributed.

So you are offering a service which is mostly focused on setting up a build environment for a specific coin wallet on Windows and MacOS, not so much on wallet binary per se. Did I get you right?

This is surely not something that can be construed from the OP

I think your still not reading what I'm writing.

I can compile for windows and for Mac if people need it. I can also fix their gitian descriptors if they do not work.
It's a basic service. What is your problem with that?

I have added the OP to this post.. it says I can compile wallet


Notice the * in front of the coind coin-cli etc * equals anything
What part of that is it you do not understand?

No, I don't understand what you actually offer. At first you say that you just provide wallet binaries, then you bring about the Gitian argument, which consists in "deterministic build process" approach (i.e. which anyone can reproduce with the same result). If this argument is not contrived, it means that you offer as a service a step-by-step description of the wallet building process in a "reasonably sure" way...

Which by definition implies that the process could be repeated and result in the identical binary (to which you compile)

So your saying you do not know what "I will compile your wallets for" means then

It's says I need the github link to the source that needs compiling but alas you did not really read the text or you do not really know what your attacking

Could you rephrase your question? I'm not sure I got what you meant to say. If you mean providing just binaries and getting done with that, it means that your Gitian argument was meant only to obfuscate the matters, since you do nothing in respect to making your compiled wallet Gitian-ready...

That is, ready to be compiled by anyone (for the purpose of double-checking, as you termed it)

Read the OP carefully from a to zoom.  If you do not know what service I am providing then your not one that needs my services

And so what? People ask you to compile a wallet source for them into an executable. The concept of Gitian (which you were so eager to copy-paste here) assumes that wallets are built in a controlled environment, i.e. in a "deterministic" manner (read fully repeatable with the identical outputs). If you don't do that, that is, make your wallet Gitian-ready which "allows multiple builders to create identical binaries", then your reference to Gitian was only meant to confuse. Really, how others can double-check your binary if they don't know how you actually built the wallet beside just knowing that you built it in a virtual machine?

That's the way I see it, whether you like it or not

YOU HAVE NOT REALLY READ ANYTHING HAVE YOU.

I wrote and I will repeat for the last time

I will compile wallet using gitian if your gitian descriptors doesn't work I will fix them and give you the files I have fixed.. then I can compile the wallet and other can do the same and compare OMG.. really get a grip your stumping around in circles it basically doesn't matter what I write it seems like you are here just to troll

Github and Gitian aren't the same thing, so no need for using Caps Lock. You'd better "double check" your own posts before submitting them

Would people be able to compile sources themselves (without your help) and get the same binaries that you made for them after you make changes to what you call gitian descriptors? In other words, they pay you only once, and after that they can compile the wallet on their own? Is this conclusion correct?

I do know that they are not the same but you are running around in circles I need the github link for the source that needs to be compiled.. I start gitian with the gitIan descriptors that have the github link inside the text file. Gitian compiles the sources and gives the finished executables if the gitian descriptors do not work I will fix them AND give those to the client that wants their sources compiled. Then I can compile the sources for them.. then other people can use those descriptors that I changed (if they needed to be changed) and compile the same files. Or if they did not needed to be changed other people can use the altcoin original gitian descriptors to compile the same fucking sources. which fucking part is it you do not understand?????????????

In this way, people don't actually need your binaries, they just need that you fix those broken Gitian descriptors, since, if what you say is true, they can easily compile the sources themselves with Gitian ("Gitian compiles the sources and gives the finished executables")...

Is that correct?

see above i already answered your question there!
see circles... again and again, and again....

also here:

you should really try harder, because you are on your own, building your reputation as a troll, and that can affect your ability to get to be in any sig in the future....

You didn't answer the question

The only one who is trolling here is you

'


i actually did:




which one of those doesnt answer the question????

and how can it be trolling in my own thread when your the one questioning EVERYTHING, even though i have explained every detail to you, not once but twice, and we are now heading into the 3rd time...

In none of these posts you made reference to Gitian

descriptors ARE the gitian compile instruction files look at highlighted... i will make sure to mention both gitian and github in every text i write, your nitpicking.. EVERYTHING ABOUT FIXING AND COMPILING is with the goal of compiling via gitian. source files are in github, which is a source code management system.

so, you get paid per post i see, then accounts for the trolling... makes sense...

Okay then