I have been hacked yesterday. I had 2 UTXOs in a single-sig, hot wallet. My seed phrase was 12 words long. I had originally created the wallet using Bluewallet. Here is the transaction: https://mempool.space/tx/dc8460f585ec591a3a8ee264f2604e868dfada4efdcc30eb4d21f97692289d37I don't know you the thief is, but I really wish that they lose all of their belongings. Even though I had a single-sig wallet. Even though I had not used my own node to connect to. Even though I have done many mistakes, stealing is not acceptable... PS: I think there may be something wrong with windice.io. I had sent some sats multiple times to play some roulette. Maybe they are doing something suspicious. Anyway, I will blame myself only... Please, tell me that there is nothing wrong with 12 words seed phrases. Tell me it was malware and it would have happened even if I used 24 words... I need to hear this. |
|
|
|
Quick summary:
Some scammers wanted to create a new coin using bitcoin name.
They first tried to impose their idea to bitcoin (increase block size), but that idea was rejected by the majority miners.
What do you mean "rejected by the majority of miners"? If a miner decides to change their code on their unique mining device, the changes wouldn't be accepted. I get that. But if many miners decide to change their codes, do they need to be more than 50% of the total mining power to be able to do whatever they want? So they forked the coin and created a new one, called bitcoin cash. Later on, they did anoyhert fork and created another coin, bitcoin sv, whose founder is the faketoshi.
Those fraudsters made a lot of money in both forks.
How? From who? Sorry for asking, I am completely ignorrant on how this thing could work. I find it extremely stupid. Pardon me... |
|
|
|
Naah, The blocksize war is an old-fashioned topic. Typically I am not sure why you are asking for it again is it just because of the recent ordinals Block crisis? For that even you are late. OP Block size is more than enough for now.
I am asking simply because of curiosity. I want to read about it, because I really have no clue about it. Simple as that. |
|
|
|
I will order it. My primary goal is to educate myself in technical aspects of bitcoin. I believe that it will be beneficial to read the arguments of both sides. |
|
|
|
|
Hello. I am interested in learning about "The blocksize war".
I have been in Bitcoin since 2020, and therefore, I don't know the history before 2020. I know that it was a "debate" regarding the block size, but I want to read details about it.
I can google it, but I don't know who to trust. So, knowing that there are many knowledgeable people in this forum, could you tell me more about this period?
Of course, any relevant website, video, article is more than welcome.
|
|
|
|
|
I am using Jade. I erase its memory after each usage, so it keeps my keys only for 5 mins, in order for me to sign transactions. Jade is cheap and fully airgapped.
|
|
|
|
|
Hello, technically you can use your single signature wallet as one of the cosigners of your multi-sig wallet. I don't suggest it though cause if anyone ever gets your seed phrase they could empty your single sig wallet and at the same time, they will have access to one of the cosigners of your vault.
I suggest you create a 2-of-3 multisig vault.
You will need the 3 seed phrases and their 3 corresponding xpubs.
You will be able to monitor your wallet (view UTXOs, generate addresses etc.) using only your 3 xpubs.
You will be able to sign transactions using 2 of your 3 seed phrases.
I suggest you back up your wallet as follows (S1 = seed phrase of wallet 1, X1 = xpub of wallet 1 etc):
Packet 1: S1, X2
Packet 2: S2, X3
Packet 3: S3, X1
You will need 3 distinct places to store each of your packets.
If you lose any of the packets, you will still be able to recover your wallet with the other 2. If an attacker stills one of your packets, they will be unable to do anything with it.
Also pay attention that XPUBs are vital. If you lose one of them, and don't have access to the seed phrase that produces it, you will lose your funds.
Finally, make sure to generate both the cosigners and the multi-sig wallet on an airgapped device. If you can use your own node to connect to, it is much better.
Personally, I use Sparrow for storing the XPUBs and monitor my wallet and I also use Blockstream Jade to enter my seed phrases offline and sign transactions if I need to.
|
|
|
|
I run Umbrel on RPI4 model B with 8GB RAM. I have a 2TB SSD. I use the FLIRC case for my RPI, maintaining the temperature around 55 celcius degrees. However, I am literally in love with this channel: https://www.youtube.com/@402PaymentRequired. It gives perfect instructions on how to run all the features you want from scratch. Fun fact, if you are a nerd like me, is that the content creator uses their terminal only  I have no relation to the owner of the channel, but whoever they are, I love them. |
|
|
|
If not, how can they know? By examining the publicly viewable blockchain data. As I said above, coinjoin transactions are easy to identify. For example, here is a recent JoinMarket coinjoin I just pulled from the blockchain: https://mempool.space/tx/98423f23138446f079442bda7856b87cba075d15142ae756e06dcbdc0eb6b61cIt has all the characteristics of being a JoinMarket coinjoin which makes it easily identifiable - large number of inputs and outputs, similar number of inputs and outputs, all inputs are from segwit addresses, multiple outputs of identical values (0.04416277 BTC in this case) in order to obfuscate which is which, and if you look back in time the majority of the inputs have come from similar JoinMarket coinjoins. Similarly, here is a recent Whirlpool coinjoin I just pulled: https://mempool.space/tx/5a734035c9745820dc98ab79209a1e44d4fbd2b7a0ed1dd417131be31a7ad763These are even easier to identify, since Whirlpool uses fixed pool values of 0.001 BTC, 0.01 BTC, 0.05 BTC, or 0.5 BTC, they always have the same number of inputs and outputs, and two inputs will always be slightly more than the pool size in order to pay the transaction fee. As I said, the privacy gain from coinjoin transactions comes from it being impossible to link the inputs to the outputs, not from the coinjoin transaction itself being hidden or secret. A blockchain analysis company can easily watch where all the outputs of every coinjoin transaction go, but if they don't know who owns those outputs, which other outputs that person controls, or who owns the addresses they are being sent to, then they can't do anything with information. But if a very small number of outputs all go the same unusual and identifiable place, which I imagine would the case when taking outputs from one coinjoin implementation and sending them to a second coinjoin implementation, then they can infer common ownership. (I have no data on this, I am just postulating that moving coins from one coinjoin implementation directly to a different coinjoin implementation is not a very common thing to do.) I totally understand, but I really assume that they wouldn't bother. The only reason why I did it was because I wanted to experiment with those conjoin apps. I won't repeat it though. I will keep using Jam however. It seems too easy to me. |
|
|
|
If you are the only user spending your outputs in this way, then a blockchain analysis company might make that connection. If there are 10,000 Whirlpool outputs spent today, and only 5 of them go directly to JoinMarket, then those outputs are potentially linked.
But how can they know that? Considering that I run Jam on my node. I haven't seen the code but is JoinMarket connected to some central servers? If not, how can they know? |
|
|
|
Yes, that's more than enough, although I shudder a little at the thought of how much you have paid in fees to do all that.
If it was me, I would probably have just left my coins in Sparrow for more free remixes.
You 're right. Unfortunately I couldn't leave my computer (Sparrow) turned-on since I 'll not be home for a week. I 've lost a total 2.3% of my original satoshi. I imagine it is fairly unusual to take outputs from Whirlpool and immediately feed them in to JoinMarket, so that potentially gives blockchain analysis companies something to latch on to.
I don't understand this. Could you elaborate please? |
|
|
|
In fact, I started getting familiar with Jam. I don't know if you have heard of it. It is an app that I run on my node through tor. It allows you to send BTC and do the whole mixing stuff. Seems good, have you checked it? I am aware of it and have heard lots of good things, but I haven't used it myself so cannot vouch for it directly. It's effectively a GUI for JoinMarket though, which I do use frequently. Of all the coinjoin implementations, JoinMarket is the best, so it seems like a good choice for what you are looking for. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on Jam once you've used it a bit. It remains on my ever growing list of "interesting things to look at more than I have the time". Hey. So I have been experimenting with 2 mixers in the past 3-4 days. I have created a BIP39 wallet in Sparrow where I have sent my UTXOs from my multisig vault. There, I have done 2 mixes and I have generated some new UTXOs. (I also have some coins in badbank which is the amount of coins that wasn't mixed - which I don't touch for the time being). Then, I sent my freshly mixed UTXOs to Jam (which is a nice GUI for JoinMarket). I have done 5 mixes with 9 collaborators each. Finally I have created a new vault and I plan to send my UTXOs there. I will use the auto-sweep feature which allows me to "Execute multiple transactions using random amounts and time intervals to increase the privacy of yourself and others. Every scheduled transaction is a collaborative transaction.". This will mix my coins even more. As a sidenote, I run my own electrum server and Sparrow is connected to it over TOR. At the same time, I also run my own instance of Jam. I assume this is more than enough, to secure my coins privacy-wise, isn't it? |
|
|
|
This looks interesting: http://www.loper-os.org/bad-at-entropy/manmach.htmlI have tried this website here for fun: https://numbergenerator.org/random-256-bit-binary-numberIt produced the following: 0000000000001000101110010110010111110110100010101101110111000011110010111100001 0110101000100100011101001000100100100001001110101111000001001110000000000001010 0100110110000001011010101010000010011001001101111001000010101001011100100111000 0111011101001001101 I have played the game above using this input and it "won" the machine with a score of 56% approximately. |
|
|
|
For example, I first sign a transaction with seed 1. Then I sign this transaction with seed 2. The transaction is valid because it is a 2 out of 3 multisig.
Then I copy the first transaction and signed it with seed 3 this time (instead of seed 2).
So now I have two signed transaction (actually this is the same transaction). Every signature is done offline on my airgapped computer.
What « happened » if I then don’t broadcast this or these two transactions over the internet ? Is it ok ?
If you are afraid that you may have privacy issues broadcasting transactions, since you need internet for this purpose, I suggest running your own node + electrum server. Then connect a wallet, like Sparrow for example, to your personal electrum server using TOR. I think you can't really do much more to avoid connecting to the internet at all. Bitcoin needs the internet. |
|
|
|
Make sure to back up your 3 xpubs as well. In case you lose one of your seeds, if you don't have all the 3 xpubs, you will not be able to recover your keys, even if 2 out of 3 seeds are needed to sign transactions.
To be more accurate, if you lose one of the seed phrases, you will need the master public key associated with the lost seed phrase to recover your wallet. You won't need all three master public keys. Two of them can be derived from the two existing seed phrases. To recover you wallet and spend fund from that, you will need: Seed A, Seed B, MPK C or Seed B, Seed C, MPK A or Seed A, Seed C, MPK B (MPK = Master public key) Correct. If OP doesn't want to backup all the xpubs with each cosigner's seed, they could back it up as follows: 1. Seed A, MPK B 2. Seed B, MPK C 3. Seed C, MPK A Therefore, losing 1 of those packets OP will still be able to recover their wallet. At the same time, if an attacker steals one of the packets, they will not be able to monitor your wallet. |
|
|
|
Hello,
I created an electrum 2/3 multisig Wallet on an air-gapped device.
The three seeds are geographically distributed.
I want to verify that I have well written the three seeds.
I have to create a "fake" transaction on electrum then sign it with the first key then export the PSBT then sign it with the second seed ? What about the third seed to check it's correct ?
Is there any other solution to check I own the correct seeds ?
Make sure to back up your 3 xpubs as well. In case you lose one of your seeds, if you don't have all the 3 xpubs, you will not be able to recover your keys, even if 2 out of 3 seeds are needed to sign transactions. |
|
|
|
Having to send them in batches would in no particular order and possibly not all at once would help but, aren’t they still getting into the same address? I get the idea that the dots could still be connected some how from the sun up value though, it still gives that extra stress to deduce. Well, the whole point would be to withdraw in batches of different amounts at different times to different addresses. And since OP says his watch only wallet is synced via his own personal Electrum server and bitcoin node, then there is no risk of a malicious Electrum server linking the addresses in his wallet together via his IP address querying all the addresses at once. If he withdrew everything to the same address then doing so in batches provides no additional privacy over doing so in a single transaction - anyone can simply sum up all the withdrawals and then try to match input and outputs amounts. To both @o_e_l_e_o and @Smartvirus. In my opinion sending in batches is better. In fact, I started getting familiar with Jam. I don't know if you have heard of it. It is an app that I run on my node through tor. It allows you to send BTC and do the whole mixing stuff. Seems good, have you checked it?
Yes, spending coins from Binance and/or mixing them in with your other coins invalidates any privacy measures that you previously previously took. If any inputs aren't mixed together, maybe they are okay...though it also depends on your wallet and the level of logs that the node you are connected to is taking edit - Credits to you for using your own electrum server and Bitcoin node! You should be fine for the inputs that you don't mix with your binance inputs.
It should be noted too that even if you didn't use Binance, the moment that you start spending yours coins, you will likely join the inputs if you aren't using coin/input control (as without this, inputs will join to make your transaction)...and if you aren't using a P2P marketplace for liquidating, coin privacy measures are likely redundant anyway.
From a security standpoint, you have a great setup. It would be extremely difficult for anyone to hack your wallet.
Hi! thanks. Unfortunately half of my sats come from centralised exchanges. |
|
|
|
-snip- That will work, but a couple of points to be aware of. If you choose to use Sparrow to Whirlpool, you will pay the Whirlpool entry fee, and some of your inputs will be segregated in to toxic change. You'll have to work out what to do with this change separately, since if you combine this change with any of your final outputs or address you will lose all your privacy. Also, this method won't be quick. Putting 0.1 BTC in to Whirlpool (for example), coinjoining it once, and then withdrawing 0.1 BTC is still traceable. You will need to leave your coins in Sparrow for several weeks (assuming you are connected 24/7, if not then even longer than this) in order to get a good number of remixes in order to properly obfuscate things. You will also need to make sure Sparrow is linked to your own full synced node and connecting to the Whirlpool coordinator over Tor. I think this will work for me. Should I create smaller UTXOs to break the incoming amount into smaller? In your example if I send 0.1BTC to my mixing wallet, should I send 0.1BTC to my vault in one transaction or multiple smaller? |
|
|
|
As others have said, if you want to break the link between your KYCed coins from Binance and the coins in your multi-sig, then you should empty your current multi-sig, mix the coins with Whirlwind or coinjoin them with Whirlpool or JoinMarket, and then return them to a fresh multi-sig wallet. It's better to do this over a couple of transactions and addresses and not consolidate everything in to a single UTXO to make it harder for any blockchain analysis firm which is tracking the total amounts.
This will give you coins which are no longer linked to your KYC data from Binance, but of course Binance will still have a record of you purchasing and withdrawing x amount of bitcoin. If you want to go for full privacy, then you would need to return the coins you have bought to Binance, sell them for fiat, withdraw that fiat, close your Binance account, and then buy fresh bitcoin using a non-KYC method such as Bisq.
Actually I am buying BTC using RELAI at the moment which is non-KYC, but half of my stack is from Binance. So, let me clarify the process once more, because I will do it any time soon. 1. I will send my coins to a fresh wallet that I have created in Sparrow. 2. Sparrow gives you the ability to mix UTXOs. 3. I will create a brand new multisig vault (fully airgapped). 4. I will send my coins to my new vault. Is this ok? |
|
|
|
That does not repair the privacy issue you are trying to fix, also privacy cannot be "fixed" in the direct sense.
The proof of transactions from your binance address to you current address will always be on the blockchain and anyone with basic analytic skills can link the dots.
What you can do is to create a different set of addresses and send (coinjoin or mix) all the coins into these new sets. This will break the link between your current set of addresses and the new one.
- Jay -
Thanks Jay. Even if the word "fix" isn't the proper one to use, I believe what you said WILL fix my privacy issues. Mixer is capable of sending funds back to any address you choose but it's not recommended to reuse the same vault. Create a new vault instead of using existing one repeatedly. I have shared my personal experience of using Mixy service. Perhaps my post will be helpful to you. I am checking it right now. Thanks. Nevertheless if you are sending from your multi-sig set up wallet to another different address that you own, you should first send the funds to Whirlwind mixer and from the mixer to the address, or you use CoinJoin.
That's exactly what I meant. Thanks Unfortunately I don't have any merit to send you guys, but I thank you all!!!! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
