When importing the private-key, try this instead: p2wpkh-p2sh:YourPrivateKey
Btw, is there is any reason why you are importing a single private-key instead of the whole wallet (from the seed)? |
|
|
|
|
I don’t think this is easily done (or even possible). Hardware wallets are more than a flash drive with a screen. They have specific chips with cryptography functions to generate private keys, sign transactions and only transmit certain informations; while an USB flash drive is just a storage device that mounts a partition on your PC so you can store files on it. There is also a lot more on hardware wallets (like the way they are build to prevent tampering and someone from simple opening the device and getting everything that is stored there).
The closest you can get from a hardware wallet with a USB flash drive is by keeping your wallet file there and only plugging it in a safe air-gapped device to sign transactions (while offline) and later broadcast them.
|
|
|
|
I don’t think there is any tool/service that supports it. There is no standard way of signing Segwit messages, so they just did their way (thus they are the only ones supporting it so far). For segwit addresses there is no standard. You can sign and verify only using trezor-trezor device. Which make this feature a bit pointless. The problem is that there is no standard algorithm for verifying with segwit addresses. In particular, the site you mentioned will never accept a signature for a 3.. or bc1.. address as valid. It doesn't matter what signature you use. I think the same is true for Bitcoin Core. You can't create any signature for a 3.. or bc1.. address that Bitcoin Core would accept.
To solve this, we need a standard algorithm for segwit addresses and we need everyone to accept it.
The algorithm the TREZOR wallet uses is a straight-forward extension of the existing signature schemes. It signs the message with the public key and only changes the first character of the signature to indicate that it is a segwit address. Previously, the first character was either "H" for old uncompressed keys, or "I" for compressed keys (introduced 2012). We added "J" for segwit p2sh addresses (3...) and "K" for bc1q... addresses. |
|
|
|
we have to use it in offline mode for more security?
It’s up for you to decide. Doing it offline increases your security and blocks possible external threats. |
|
|
|
Eu só não entendo isso aqui: Caso a empresa seja condenada judicialmente, o valor da indenização não vai para os clientes afetados, e sim para um fundo judicial para ser investido posteriormente. A empresa não é considerada uma instituição financeira porque no Brasil não há regulamentação referente às criptomoedas. Se o valor não vai para os clientes, então qual é a lógica da indenização? “Você bateu no Pedrinho, então está me devendo R$ 10,00 de indenização” (e que se dane o Pedrinho). |
|
|
|
How old is modlog data in bpip? I mean from which date you started scrapping the modlog/seclogs ?
I’m not sure if both started being tracked at the same time, but the seclog started at March 2018: The mod log does not have a date stamp. I just started tracking the datetime I parsed it.
I have been tracking the sec log since March 2018.
BPIP does not track posts right now. Only profiles.
|
|
|
|
|
Can you please stop creating a new thread every couple of hours? Did your first account (cryptohunter) got banned? Because if so, you will probably get this one as well very soon.
Isn’t it clear already that no one gives a damn about your ranting essays (theymos included)? It just gets worse for you. Even if you are right, DT is a mafia and trust sucks, you are just losing your credibility (if you still have any left) every time you come here and post a new wall of text.
Legit question.
|
|
|
|
|
Por isso estou tão cético quanto a isso. Parece impossível pensar uma exchange como a NegocieCoins ter 1k de BTC dando sopra pra dar em uma única ordem e em uma duração de 5 minutos.
Mas... nunca se sabe, né?
|
|
|
|
Sempre fui suspeito quanto a essa NegocieCoins, mas olha só o post que um membro do Bitcoin Brasil fez: E ele não é qualquer um.  |
|
|
|
Its not clear what are you even trying to do here.
You even edited your own quote to show bitcloak name instead of bestmixer, pretty rude thing
I did that to put things on context. Both work the same way, so they have the same conceptual vulnerability. Why do you think I even put a strikethrough on BestMixers name? FacePalm. since this sentence is incorrect "works exactly as the other traditional mixers".
Coins on Address A; Send coins to mixer -> Receive coins on Address B. Both work exactly this way (like every other traditional mixer). here is trying to discredit the competition (since you are paid by chipmixer).
I'm not trying to discredit anyone. I'm not biased on my opinions (I was even defending BitBlender yesterday from a guy claiming that he was scammed - wtf). Stop with the ad hominem. You are trying to discredit my opinions and posts based on my signature, while all I'm saying is 100% TRUE. Attack my arguments and not my signature. FFS. |
|
|
|
Those concerns can be applied to millions of websites where sensitive information is exchanged, including bitcointalk.
Exactly. Glad you understood. Its objectively far worse to leave naked servers hosted in usa-friendly countries, failing to completely anonymize a transaction, not offering refunds for wrong deposits and keeping logs for a week. Many services are doing that.
TIL something extremely bad (like letting a big company under USA jurisdiction control all your traffic between server and client) is ok because the competitors do something I (subjectively) think it's worst. Great logic. A pretty negative thing about the service in your signature is explained in this post. This: I just had a look and it doesn't appear to make any link between funds coming out of ChipMixer to funds going into ChipMixer so it seems to show that ChipMixer works.
And this: That’s funny for you to say after this post: Breaking Mixing ServicesQuoting it: I found some trivial bugs (timing attacks, leakages, xss, ...) through which nearly all relevant centralized bitcoin mixing services could be broken. Based on outgoing mixing transactions (transactions sent by the mixer) I was able to identify the correct incoming transactions sent by customers (vice versa). [...]
[...] In my thesis, I attacked coinmixer.se (at the time of writing it was the biggest centralized mixing service), however - except chipmixer.com1 - every other centralized mixing service I checked could be broken in a similar fashion. While the author doesn’t explicitly quotes BestMixer’s bitcloak's name, it is clear that BestMixer’s bitcloak's works exactly as the other traditional mixers (except that they charge huge fees for some “extra privacy” methods that no one can confirm if it works or if it even does anything at all). ChipMixer isn't even on try here. So, weird for you to say this when we're talking about putting a government-controlled company in the middle of a totally privacy-oriented service. Let's not derail this thread, ok? |
|
|
|
I still haven't got round to claiming my Bitcoin Cash coins from the fork. I've probably left it too late. I put it off because I didn't want to run yet another node.
You can always just use a SPV wallet to claim your BCH without having to download the whole coin’s blockchain and run a node just for that. |
|
|
|
Once again,an other mixer using cloudflare.STOP USING CLOUDFLARE you are a mixer not a bank.
There is nothing wrong with cloudflare, plenty of services are using it. Perhaps you should be more concerned about other mixers security (the ones you ask about in your post history), as they dont hide the server ip address, host the service in insecure countries and lack complete tools to anonymize transactions. CloudFare acts as MITM when you use it. This means that they know EVERYTHING that is happening from the view of the user (addresses, amount, final destination, IP, etc...). It’s can basically log everything and give to the authorities at any moment. How the hell is this not a problem for a mixing website? |
|
|
|
Can I transfer my Google Play credit card to Bitcoin please help yes you can use third party for that, you can swap on https://www.bitrefill.comOP wants to convert his Google Play card to Bitcoin and not the opposite. In other words, he is trying to sell his card for BTC. Bitrefill sells Google Play cards; they don't buy it. OP: GPlay card -> Bitcoin. Bitefill: Bitcoin -> GPlay card. |
|
|
|
There's now an option in your account settings which will allow you to reduce retention of your logged IPs to 3 months. You should only consider enabling this if you've staked a pubkey in the thread and you're sure that your account email is correct. I'm not sure if 3 months is enough to respond adequately to all abuse; we'll see, and I might change it later or perhaps restrict it based on rank.
It can be enabled here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;sa=account Just for reference. |
|
|
|
So as per your statement (The Pharmacist), 50% percent of the people here for earning the money through campaigns. But you yourself was in yobit campaign back in 2015 and now in 2019, you're in Chip Mixer Campaign, to make money.
So Were you categorize yourself ? Standing in those who are here to earn money ?
Since it looks like you missed my post (which The Pharmacists are referencing it to): Also, there is a huge difference between “posting and earning money” and “posting to earn money”. I don’t need this money, but it’s a nice way of gifting myself something cool from time to time and increasing my BTC holdings.
Being part of a campaign in no moment makes anyone wrong or "here to make money". And his post already answers your question: I'd be posting here anyway, regardless of whether I was in a campaign or not [...]
|
|
|
|
I know that it can be false positive and wrote about it too but normally such detections are described as a heuristic or the explanation for the virus is not so scary as by this Trojan.DR.Agent.
This doesn't make this less of a false-positive. Download this file and then try to scan with VirusTotal and you will see the virus threat.
I did... That's why I said they have the same hash and the 1/69 VirusTotal result. |
|
|
|
C'mon, only Yandex (??) detected it as a virus. Obvious false-positive. Your second result ( https://central.github.com/deployments/desktop/desktop/latest/win32) is because you are checking the website and not the file. Take a look at the image. "No engines detected this URL" Yandex is not even on the list, so obviously that it won't show up as a (false-positive) virus. Both links give the same file (same hash and same 1/69 result). |
|
|
|
Looks like the whole service is in maintenance (not just the API). I just visited the website (ChipMixer.com) and tried to create a new session. The same message appeared for me. Just wait a few hours.  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
