as far as i can tell coinb.in only supports single signature transaction signing.
I regularly sign multisig transactions using https://coinb.in/#sign. Only unsigned rawtx in HEX format and any 2 private keys are the requirement. In fact, I have successfully signed BCH, BSV, BTG transactions for this same multisig address using respective Coinb.in fork. Unfortunately, BCD does not have a Coinb.in fork. Hence, the BCD fork of my coins on the multisig wallet have got stuck.  how do you create that raw unsigned transaction hex? specifically does it have anything in its scriptsig or is it empty? you can use https://www.blockchain.com/btc/decode-tx to decode and see if its scriptsig is empty or contains the redeem script already. that may be the reason why you could do it. Creation of raw unsigned transaction hex using https://coinb.in/#newTransaction requires Redeem Script for MultiSig. I already said it here... No. You dont need the redeem script to sign. Redeems script is required to create the unsigned tx. You need either xPrv or the private keys to sign.
ok so when you create your raw unsigned tx with coinb.in you are already explicitly giving it your redeem script. you just don't notice it during signing because the transaction already has it inside of its scriptsig. same is true with Electrum but the difference is that the wallet is not designed to recognize the normal inclusion of redeemscript inside the scriptsig, it needs to be a special format. for example when you pass an unsigned tx spending a p2pkh output your script sig contains either the address, the public key or the master public key. so it looks like this: 0xfd + 20_bytes_hash160 or 0xff + your_xpub this special format is also not recognized by any other tool like coinb.in! and there is no special format for redeemscript defined in Electrum AFAIK hence it is not possible to use the `signtransaction` command. |
|
|
|
|
altcoins in my view are two categories:
1) the hot ones on top
these are big coins like the top market cap coins and sometimes even small ones. they are completely useless coins that are only hyped up by their owners to be pumped and dumped. they are excellent for making short term profit if you are a day trader and familiar with the altcoin market. you should never bag hold any of them
2) the technologically interesting ones
these are rarely among the top coins and i have not seen any see any major pumps. they usually don't see any interest because they are being overshadowed by those big pumping coins and sometimes because they have some additional issues. they aren't good for investing but they are good to see the blockchain technology used in a different way.
|
|
|
|
and now its activated i dont see 95% of UTXO's being segwit bc1q addresses or 3 addresses.. so it looks like the community are not that interested in it, even after 2 years of oppertunity to convert.
you should as this from the services that the "community" uses. ask them why they haven't yet implemented SegWit. for example when the exchanges the "community" uses don't accept bech32 addresses, people don't use them. ~
What do you do if a small group of users -- like a few large mining companies -- are blocking upgrades that users want? I don't have a problem with the UASF mechanism per se, but I think it must be done on a very long timeline (years) to maximize full node participation in forcing miners to fork.
that is a good question but here is another question; a problem that i see with UASF is that compared to mining (hashrate) the cost of running a node is negligible. you can't go buy a ton of ASICs to signal for what you want but you can easily "buy" servers and run lots of nodes and signal for what you want. an AntMiner s17 is $2735 (20.5e-5% of total hashrate), it seems it costs $10/month to run a node on AWS (~0.02% of total nodes)! so for instance if in 2017 someone started a UASF to fork the block size to 32 MB and started running a ton of nodes, should we really consider that "the community"? |
|
|
|
what do you mean by sending the same transaction twice ?
What do you mean by pay the change address?
based on your comments here, it seems to me like you may not know the basics of how bitcoin works. maybe it is best if you start there. read what is a transaction output, what is a change address, how transactions work, how the network works,... and then start looking for how to double spend! you can't jump in to the end. |
|
|
|
as far as i can tell coinb.in only supports single signature transaction signing.
I regularly sign multisig transactions using https://coinb.in/#sign. Only unsigned rawtx in HEX format and any 2 private keys are the requirement. In fact, I have successfully signed BCH, BSV, BTG transactions for this same multisig address using respective Coinb.in fork. Unfortunately, BCD does not have a Coinb.in fork. Hence, the BCD fork of my coins on the multisig wallet have got stuck. how do you create that raw unsigned transaction hex? specifically does it have anything in its scriptsig or is it empty? you can use https://www.blockchain.com/btc/decode-tx to decode and see if its scriptsig is empty or contains the redeem script already. that may be the reason why you could do it. |
|
|
|
Setting the precedent that the community can push back against the mining-cartel's politicizing in the network, the worst thing?
of course, the ideology is great but as i said the implementation of it was horrible. it had an almost guaranteed chance of splitting bitcoin and that is the worst thing that could ever happen to bitcoin. Lest we forget, the "community" or more precisely the nodes which were signalling for BIP148 were only 11% of the total nodes. Yes, UASF was the minority, but many supported Segwit's activation.
true, we were supporting activation of SegWit but with >95% support of miners to prevent any kind of damage caused by splitting the network.... just like any other previous forks that we had with the same process. a process that works and has nearly no risk. |
|
|
|
One last time, try signing the Raw TX using only one key at a time: signtransaction('TransactionHEXEncoding', "PrivateKey01")Including the punctuation and parenthesis. that option can not work simply because in order to sign a multisignature transaction (unlike the normal single sig ones) you need the redeem script since you can't get it from the previous transaction (tx being spent) so that command needs to explicitly receive the redeem script if it has to be able to sign a multi-sig transaction. No. You dont need the redeem script to sign. Redeems script is required to create the unsigned tx. You need either xPrv or the private keys to sign. For example, in https://coinb.in/#sign, we can just provide the unsigned rawtx and sign it twice separately by 2 private keys of a 2-of-3 multisig address. But, this wont work in Electrum, because Electrum itself decides which key it'll allow to sign with. If it finds an unsigned rawtx is being signed by an address not directly related to the transaction, it'll just disable the sign button or throw error in console. What I have understood that, for anything related to multisig, Electrum looks for xPrv. when you are signing a transaction (under the hood) you strip all the inputs from their signatures and put empty scriptsig in their place, then you place a specific scriptsig in the input you are signing. for normal 1 sig transactions (spending P2PKH outputs) the scriptsig is the previous transaction's pubscript (OP_DUP OP_HASH160,...) this is already fetched from the previous tx that you are spending. so all you need to do in a wallet or any online tool is to give it the rawtx and your private key and it does the rest as long as it has access to the previous tx. but for multi signatures (the P2SH outputs) that specific scriptsig that you use is the redeemscript which is not on the blockchain so you have to explicitly provide it to the wallet to be able to sign. what we have on the blockchain in your previous tx that you are spending is the hash of redeem script which is not used for signing. as far as i can tell coinb.in only supports single signature transaction signing. |
|
|
|
in my opinion UASF has been the worst thing that has ever been introduced to bitcoin mainly because it is incomplete and the way it has been used (BIP148) is a dangerous thing. basically anything that has a remote chance of splitting bitcoin must be avoided at all costs let alone having a very high chance of it. there is a reason why 95% was chosen, there is a reason why consensus exists and that is why bitcoin is still strong. in 2017 SegWit had ~35% hashrate support while UASF had less than 10% and even less node support but people were still pushing for it disregarding the dangers of it. the fact is SegWit was mainly activated because of SegWit2x not UASF. when we plant the idea of anybody can split bitcoin without reaching that 95% agreement first, we end up with things such as bcash which consequently were also called "UAHF". if you ask me, if you support UASF then you are also supporting bcash. because that is exactly what they did: they had little support from miners and nodes, a small group of people decided they wanted a different thing and they went that way. this is the only case where i believe we need to be black and white. we either reach majority support from every one (both miners and nodes) or have no fork at all. by the way i am not denying the problems that the current mining situation has. specifically about pools having the power to signal anything they want without miners (who are connecting to that pool) having a say in it. but the solution should be solving that problem instead of adding more problems. something like this makes a lot more sense to address than issue: https://github.com/TheBlueMatt/bips/blob/betterhash/bip-XXXX.mediawiki |
|
|
|
this is exactly why i never liked these kinds of debates. i see no point in them. neither side is going to come down from their positions, they just stick to whatever the hell they think and just talk their heads off. in the end the viewer wastes his time while in the end is not able to make any conclusions.
While I agree with you, I like hearing criticisms though. I think it's healthy to listen to the negative criticisms from time to time, not just the positive things. Sometimes I feel like I'm overly too bullish that I feel I need a little bit of bearish in me to balance things out a bit.  criticism is OK, in fact i myself criticize bitcoin a lot and the more i learn about the technical aspect of it the more i criticize certain decisions. for example the most recent problem i have is that each transaction we have been sending for the past 10 years is wasting about 10-12 bytes! but arrogant people who don't want to accept things and only focus on the negative and even exaggerate those negative things aren't really criticizing anything. |
|
|
|
|
this is literary the oldest trick in the book but modified to work digitally and with bitcoin.
basically they call you up and say something like "you have won something" out of nowhere. then play on your greed to believe their lies. as the person is hooked, they bring up the money. in traditional method at least it make sense because they use excuses such as "shipping fees" and things like that. in these new ways they don't even use any excuses they just plain ask for money for no reason!
|
|
|
|
One last time, try signing the Raw TX using only one key at a time: signtransaction('TransactionHEXEncoding', "PrivateKey01")Including the punctuation and parenthesis. that option can not work simply because in order to sign a multisignature transaction (unlike the normal single sig ones) you need the redeem script since you can't get it from the previous transaction (tx being spent) so that command needs to explicitly receive the redeem script if it has to be able to sign a multi-sig transaction. |
|
|
|
competing with newer coins?
There are alot of coins resolving these issues ,
no, not a single coin exists that has resolved any issue without creating a dozen new ones. for example they "increase speed" or more precisely decrease the time between blocks but that increases the orphan rate and decreases the security. they increase the block size and that increases centralization, propagation time, resource consumption,... and people are buying into them
well don't confuse speculators "temporarily" buying a pump and dump coin with real "adoption". but why if bitcoin is considered No. 1 ? Is there a possiblity the new coins could be linked with bitcoin or that future bitcoin 'integrates with them and their technology which therfore increases their prices?
no bitcoin is standalone and will not "link" to any other coin. |
|
|
|
Anyone noticed that we have breached 17,800,000 BTC already? Which means that 85% of all BTC have been mined. And in the next 10+ years we can all assumed that 'almost' all bitcoin is mined already. This is why I'm a small blocker. The inflation subsidy is quickly dwindling down. In just a few more halvings, it will hopefully be negligible compared to transaction fee revenue -- otherwise we might need to start worrying about major drops in hash rate, reorganization attacks, etc. Any increase to block size will lower fee revenues, so I'm definitely on the conservative side when considering them. this is not necessarily true. because the relationship between revenue and fees is not that easily. small blocks which means higher fees will also mean less users and stop of adoption and the result of that is falling price and finally less resulting revenue for miners. on the other hand bigger blocks can mean more transactions in block which have a higher sum of fee instead of having individual high fees and it also means more adoption and the result of that is higher price and finally a much higher revenue for miners. it is like having 2000 tx/block paying 1000 s/b fee while price is $1k or having 5000 tx/block paying 1 s/b fee while price is $100k ps. we shouldn't confuse bigger blocks with what bcash did, that was an exaggeration to create a useless crap for pump and dumping. i believe in a bigger capacity while having a second layer so that everything runs smoothly. |
|
|
|
Satoshi once said; If you don't believe it or don't get it, I don't have the time to try to convince you, sorry.
Pomp brought it up during the debate but clearly didn't agree with it. He wastes his time on someone that is not ever going to concede that Bitcoin has value and is a better alternative to Gold in most fields aside from where Gold's physical aspect fetches demand from various industries. Peter is doing a good job protecting his own interests. Gold bugs can be proud. this is exactly why i never liked these kinds of debates. i see no point in them. neither side is going to come down from their positions, they just stick to whatever the hell they think and just talk their heads off. in the end the viewer wastes his time while in the end is not able to make any conclusions. |
|
|
|
“We don’t have a target for Bitcoin, but the prior high was $20,000. I think there’s a good possibility that Bitcoin reattains that high this year
he keeps lowering his expectations of bitcoin and it seems like he forgot to take a look at the charts again to see how the last time (2015) looked like with the slower rise at first which is what we have right now. it seems like he gets caught up in the short term drama a lot and then makes the emotional yet permabull predictions out of. i am still waiting for the price to reach $40,000 by the end of 2018, the prediction he made in Nov 2017 when price was below $9k and was shooting up towards $20k. |
|
|
|
The x coordinate and y coordinate are both binary numbers in the range 2256.
the max is also a little bit less than 2 256 but unlike private keys the max is defined by P (the prime) not N (the curve order) For the curve used for Bitcoin public keys it turns out that for every x coordinate there are two possible y coordinates.
that doesn't depend on which curve is used, as long as it is an elliptic curve it will be symmetrical about the x-axis so for each x there are 2 y values. which is due to the formula being y 2=... A compressed public key give you the x coordinate and the sign of the y coordinate so in order to convert it to a full public key you have to calculate the correct y coordinate from the x coordinate.
that is not exactly the "sign", the first byte being 2 or 3 indicates if y is even or odd respectively. we don't actually use any signs in elliptic curve calculations since we are using modular arithmetic. for example if prime is 7 then we have 4 ≡ 11 ≡ 18 ≡ -3 ≡ -10 (mod 7) by a "contract" we only use the smallest positive number meaning "4" |
|
|
|
Trying to get rich faster: For example, if the price of a coin is increasing and it has reached a peak, one will try to invest on that without thinking about the future rate down fall. Due to FOMO, the people will rush to invest on it without thinking much.
Taking profits early: If the price is surging drastically, one will be eager to invest on that coin without waiting for it to increase more. Will be in a loss, if we try to invest early.
Following the Crowd: By seeing some trading sites or trading groups investing on a particular coin, following them blindly without checking the actual price chart of the coin and investing on it, will lead to a loss. My advice to newbies, please do not follow the crowd blindly without proper investigation before trading.
these 3 are the same exact thing and you are wrong about the reason of losing money. all of these are explaining the everyday situation of the altcoin market. people see the hype ("follow the crowd") and buy in a shitcoin because they want to make a large amount of profit quickly ("get rich faster"). the reason for losing money is not this purchase. instead the reason is not selling or selling too late. you see when you buy a shitcoin that is getting pumped because of some hype you should expect its dump too. so you should plan on cashing out, if you don't sell then the dump will come and you will end up losing money but if you sell, then you take out your profit and stay clear of the dumping part preventing any losses. |
|
|
|
this is not about doing stuff which needs anonymity, someone I know just don't want to spread information.
in that case coinjoin is more than enough. what you could do is that you could always have 2 wallets. first one as the "hot wallet" where you receive the payments and the second as the storage (the hardware wallet for instance) where you first receive the coins in the hot wallet then mix them through coinjoin or any other method and then send it to the storage wallet. this will cost a lot of fees though. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
