How do you guys detect multiple accounts? I thought without IP tracking, it was impossible
Most commonly through linked addresses. |
|
|
|
Unfortunately its still there...
I returned to the Command Prompt approach but it gives me C:\> which, when I enter C:\Program Files (x86)\Bitcoin - zapwallettexes it returns "\Bitcoin was unexpected at this time"
I think its the ">" that's preventing the execution but I can't get rid of it.
I'll understand if you've had enough of this now!
Its simpler if you dont do it via the command line directly, but indirectly. #1 make sure bitcoin core is closed and you are running at least version 0.12 #2 open "run" (hit win + r) #3 enter c:\Program Files\Bitcoin\bitcoin-qt.exe -zapwallettxes#3.1 modify path if needed, e.g. in your case it looks like you are using the 32-bit version, so it would be in ... Files (x86)\Bitcoin...#4 let it do its thing. It will take some time. |
|
|
|
(a) Paper - es gibt nichts sicheres PUNKT
Du bist echt n Vogel, Hauptsache es plappert vor sich hin, wa? Paper Wallet mit einem dummen Drucker ausgedruck Gut gemacht – bis jetzt ist das die Sicherste Variante um Coins aufzubewahren. -snip- (b) Hardware - nur dann: wenn nicht unterwandert ist - dennoch wer weißt das schon   Doom and gloom, FUD, is that all you got? |
|
|
|
Ich schiebe. Kannst n double-spend versuchen also die transaktion nochmal erstellen. Dafür muss das Netzwerk aber zum großen Teil die alte TX vergessen haben, sonst bringt das wenig. Ist also direkt nach dem anschieben keine gute Idee. Ansonsten sollen einige Miner jetzt "CPFP" (child pays for parent) implmentiert haben. Das würde bedeuten das du das Wechselgeld mit einer extra großen Gebühr verwendest und dadurch die feststeckende Transaktion bestätigt kriegst. |
|
|
|
es wird kurz gesagt, immer alles gegen alles geprüft..
Das glaube ich, ich würde es halt nur gerne nachvollziehen. 1. Warum ist bei Faketransaktionen der Hashwert automatisch falsch? Der Hashwert ist nicht falsch, einen neuen Hash für veränderte Daten zu berechnen ist simple. Der Hash ist lediglich eine Referenz. Der Output zur Referenz muss existieren und unbenutzt sein. Eine Referenz die ins Leere führt oder bereits benutzt wird und die Transaktion ist ungültig. Weiter stellt ein Output der noch verfügbar ist ("unspend transaction output" - UTXO) Bedingungen daran wie er verwendet werden darf. (s.u.) Weil ich Coins nur von einer bestehenden Adresse versenden kann und ich bei einer Faketransaktion den korrekten Schlüssel nicht habe.
Coins werden nicht "von adressen" versendet. Es werden UTXOs (s.o.) ausgegeben. Wie ein UTXO der auf einer Adresse empfangen wurde ausgegeben werden kann, wird beim erzeugen der Adresse definiert. Am weitesten verbreitet sind die sog. Version 1 Adressen (die mit der 1 vorne). Auch bekannt als "pay to pubkey hash". Die Bedingung sieht dann wie folgt aus: OP_DUP OP_HASH160 <pubKeyHash> OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG
Zu deutsch: Braucht die Unterschrift von einem privaten Schlüssel zu einem öffentlichen Schlüssel. <hier> ist der Hash vom öffentlichen Schlüssel. Schritt für Schritt Abarbeitung des Stacks hier -> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction#Pay-to-PubkeyHash2. Wenn ich selbst mining betreibe, kann ich mich darüber hinwegsetzen. Jetzt sagt ihr, dass der Miner des nächsten Blocks bzw. alle Nodes diesen Block auch prüfen. Wie funktioniert das genau? Ich stelle mir eine solche Aufgabe sehr rechenintensiv vor.
Eben nicht, weil du nicht über den privaten Schlüssel verfügst um eine gültige Unterschrift zu erzeugen. Du kannst natürlich irgendwelche falschen Daten in deinen Block machen, aber eine Block mit korrekten Daten ist zur Zeit 12,5 Bitcoin + Gebühren Wert. Der Betrugsversuch hat keine Chance. Da stellt sich für mich irgendwie nicht die Frage ob ich ehrlich bin oder Strom verschwende. |
|
|
|
Why would anyone use Google or similar providers for such? No, I'm not talking about those. I believe BadBear used gmail. They use yahoo. I use gmail for this forum. Does not really matter though, does it? In any case, does protonmail securely erase emails? they never stated anywhere that they do, nor do you have anyway of knowing if they do or not. Only their front-end is open source, none of their backend is, so we have absolutely no idea what the delete button actually does. I was not talking about en-route encryption. That said, I definitely agree with your statement. Every encrypted email providers is working for the NSA and is reading every email. My statement referred to both encryption in transit and encryption at rest. It's quite simple, Protonmail can read your emails if they want to, even though they say that they can't. There is very little benefit of an encrypted email provider. The best way is for the sender to encrypt the email with the receivers key. Any encryption done by the provider themselves is security theatre. No. Even if you know my email address that is associated to this account it's just another dead end. If users do use personal email accounts or accounts with more activity then it could indeed be a problem. There's the problem. then a subpoena would do the trick. How exactly is that different from sending a subpoena to Bitcointalk? When you receive a subpoena, you have two options, comply or fight it. Bitcointalk may decide to fight a subpoena that they believe is illegal in some way, perhaps a subpoena that requests every users email address or something similar, and rather than deal with that, the government agency could bypass that altogether by subpoena'ing some email provider who will comply immediately. This all does not really matter either. Yes, the problem can be mitigated by user behaviour, e.g. by using a specific mail for this board only or a fake one like username@bitcointalk.org, but its still unneeded exposure of information. Not everyone may be aware and I agree with our pot smoking anon troll It seems to not be trivial either.
In order to change this in smf 1.19 all that is needed is to edit the file Sources\SendTopic.php and change the following : // Send it to the moderator.
sendmail($row['emailAddress'], $txt['rtm3'] . ': ' . $subject . ' ' . $txt['rtm4'] . ' ' . $posterName,
sprintf($txt['rtm_email1'], $subject) . ' ' . $posterName . ' ' . $txt['rtm_email2'] . ' ' . (empty($ID_MEMBER) ? $txt['guest'] . ' (' . $user_info['ip'] . ')' : $reporterName) . ' ' . $txt['rtm_email3'] . ":\n\n" .
$scripturl . '?topic=' . $topic . '.msg' . $_POST['msg'] . '#msg' . $_POST['msg'] . "\n\n" .
$txt['rtm_email_comment'] . ":\n" .
$_POST['comment'] . "\n\n" .
$txt[130], $user_info['email']);
to: // Send it to the moderator. sendmail($row['emailAddress'], $txt['rtm3'] . ': ' . $subject . ' ' . $txt['rtm4'] . ' ' . $posterName, sprintf($txt['rtm_email1'], $subject) . ' ' . $posterName . ' ' . $txt['rtm_email2'] . ' ' . (empty($ID_MEMBER) ? $txt['guest'] . ' (' . $user_info['ip'] . ')' : $reporterName) . ' ' . $txt['rtm_email3'] . ":\n\n" . $scripturl . '?topic=' . $topic . '.msg' . $_POST['msg'] . '#msg' . $_POST['msg'] . "\n\n" . $txt['rtm_email_comment'] . ":\n" . $_POST['comment'] . "\n\n" . $txt[130], "noreply@bitcointalk.org"; Now I know that the forums software is heavily modified, I don't see how it could be modified in a way that would change this procedure, however another way to do it without having to change the forum software at all is to change the forums email server to filter out that header. IIRC this can be done with postfix. I personally think theymos is just lazy. or maybe noone demanded it loud enough yet. I dont really care why it wasnt done until now, Id like to see it changed. Edit: missing word. |
|
|
|
i can wait days , but the problem why i can't see this transactions in my trezor account !
It seems that (after a brief search online) an option may be to use Electrum to attempt to check your Trezor account. Give this a shot - it's worth a try. Keep in mind, though, that your private key hasn't gone anywhere. You should theoretically still have access to those funds - since you saw it update with a newer one. i tried electrum and connected to trezor and still same problem :/ The Transaction will show up once its confirmed. |
|
|
|
First off, out of the blue, multibit is showing my balance as unconfirmed. Even though my current balance has been confirmed for a few days now. I've tried repairing my wallet multiple times now. I even tried restoring it. No dice.
How else can I go about trying to fix this?
Here is the second issue I am having:
Before this issue arose, I had sent some bitcoin across two transactions. I only realized after the fact that my miners fee for both were a little low, not really a big deal. I had sent those two transactions on Sunday the 20th. I'm aware that bitcoin sent with a lower than recommended miners fee can take some time to get confirmed. Today I decided to send some more bitcoin to another wallet of mine, with a much higher miners fee, just to see test it out. Unfortunately, the transaction with the higher miners fee was sent six hours ago, and it has yet to be confirmed.
So do I just sit and wait for these transactions to confirm, or is there something else going on here? I've been using this wallet for over a year without any issue. I'm stuck and unsure what to do.
There is currently an usual large number of transactions waiting for a confirmation. The 3rd TX (16be...) depends on the 2nd transaction (cd54...) to confirm which in turns depends on the 1st transaction (573c...) to confirm. Each of the transaction created change which is used by the following transaction. |
|
|
|
Hallo,
wer hat hier die zündende Idee, falls es sowas überhaupt gibt in diesem Fall.
Ich habe ca. 840 mBtc im Wallet gehabt. Habe dann 200 zur Börse geschickt. Sie haben keine Confirmation, sind allerdings auf der Börse bereits bekannt. Ich habe dann nochmal 10 Testmillicoins versandt. Auch die wurden nicht berücksichtigt. Der Client ist schon älter und hat wirklich einiges auf dem Buckel (Anzahl der Transaktionen). Gibt es bei Electrum sowas wie eine maximale Transaktionsanzahl pro Wallet.
Wer hat eine gute Idee?
neinstein
Es gibt keine maximale Anzahl an Transaktionen. Ich tippe mal das die Gebühr für die gerade sehr hohe Anzahl an wartenden TX zu gering ist. Kannst du deine Transaktions ID posten? |
|
|
|
-snip-
I think the dev should remove that post quality thing there. If it doesn't mean anything, it shouldn't be there.
Its already gone. I have to say I liked it. Mainly because it was a little joke for me. I dont remember what exactly I was classified as, "fair" or something. |
|
|
|
Anyone plz quote my address for future reference
1GszjeX6VGdVmSG5xTN8K897gtNxhSNidy
Please quote my address 15EEUF9ZAw6weqgGR3kYNxMmvoQ6tn9zxn
Thanks
|
|
|
|
-snip-
Thanks aton, it's back on blockchain.info hoepfully will confirm this time!
Ill rebroadcast every 20 minutes, let me know if you want to try the approach suggest by achow101, so I can stop and not make it harder to replace the TX. |
|
|
|
Actually I think there was an idea (im not sure if by satoshi or later on) to separate the wallet from the node, as in there would be a client that includes the wallet and another client that makes impossible to store coins. Probably they discarded this idea because it would only add confusion with 2 separate clients that do the same except for the wallet.
The code is already separated and there even is a command to disable the wallet part[1] if you just want to run a full node. [1] -disablewallet -> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Running_Bitcoin |
|
|
|
My node still knew it I broadcasted it again. 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
|
|
|
|
|
Wenn ein Full Node einen Block prüft werden auch alle Transaktionen geprüft. Ist eine falsche dabei ist der Block(!) ungültig. Reicht also gerade mal bis zum nächsten Knoten und ist ziemlich teuer.
|
|
|
|
There are archives of the entire trust network made every Saturday. If you haven't edited your list since then you can recover your list from the most recent archive.
File from Nov 19 $ cat trust.txt | grep 'dserrano5\-'
dserrano5->sirius
dserrano5->theymos
dserrano5->Gavin Andresen
dserrano5->nanotube
dserrano5->casascius
dserrano5->dooglus
dserrano5->grue
dserrano5->Maged
dserrano5->gmaxwell
dserrano5->Kluge
dserrano5->teukon
dserrano5->majamalu
dserrano5->tysat
dserrano5->jackjack
dserrano5->yxt
dserrano5->aigeezer
dserrano5->DeathAndTaxes
dserrano5->BadBear
dserrano5->Shawshank
dserrano5->vgo
dserrano5->Dabs
dserrano5->DannyHamilton
dserrano5->Carlton Banks
dserrano5->franky1
dserrano5->LuisCar
dserrano5->fernarios
dserrano5->ioxoi
dserrano5->gentlemand
dserrano5->EcuaMobi
Note: Yes, this would catch exclusions -\>, but there are none. |
|
|
|
Initiated a transaction w/ high fees 3 hours ago and still not 1 confirm. THis really gets old...
TX ID? 80c0b5a9011ab164c1bd23330ce25eb1bbfe5ca697526667856ea5d0f1512166 I would not call 35 Satoshi per Byte a high fee. Ill rebroadcast it, let me know (best via PM) when its confirmed please. |
|
|
|
Initiated a transaction w/ high fees 3 hours ago and still not 1 confirm. THis really gets old...
TX ID? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
