Better to hold stocks, bonds, real estate or bitcoin.
Bonds are even worse than just keeping money in the bank right now. Bitcoin is... well, gotta love Bitcoin, but one also has to admit that it currently doesn't fit everyone's risk profile. They don't have to invest in stocks in Germany. They can invest all over the world, wherever they find a profitable opportunity.
I think a lot of the general populace still sees stock investments as a form of gambling. Even when investing conservatively via index funds you still might wind up with your funds being held up in a negative position over a prolonged time when a bear market strikes. This is further aggrevated by everybody and their dog expecting the next bear market being just around the corner especially since the current global boom cycle is already lasting for an above-average timeframe. Also, they can invest in real estate. The mind boggles at Germans continuing to rent in old age, while keeping their money in banks that charge negative interest rates. That's a recipe for getting poor.
Investing in real estate takes money. Like in most countries, real estate ownership has become pretty much non-achievable during the last 10 years. In most areas the cost of real estate has more than doubled during the last decade or so, with disposable income staying pretty much the same. Not a good recipe for increasing home ownership. Especially with the middle class being squeezed through all age groups. The young are fucked because they were born too late for fetching good real estate prices. The old are fucked because the pension system is failing them. I think most people do want to achieve home ownership. It just has become pretty much impossible for most. |
|
|
|
|
So much stuff to learn
encryption, trading, mining
Bitcointalk dot org
Do not invest more
than you can afford to lose
Bitcointalk dot org
Keep private keys safe
Don't leave coins on an exchange
Bitcointalk dot org
Be careful with alts
because most of them are shit
Bitcointalk dot org
Thank you for 10 years
it's been a rollercoaster
Bitcointalk dot org
Sorry for this post
it is not a good entry
3BvMEB423GA5db1RUX2sojFwBsDcgdtNtG
|
|
|
|
tfw you start reading up on that bitcoin thing  Happy 10th Bitcointalk Anniversary everyone! 3BvMEB423GA5db1RUX2sojFwBsDcgdtNtG <3 |
|
|
|
|
What wallet are you using? If you're using Electrum, you should be able to sign a message as described by o_e_l_e_o with the caveat that your counterparty has to use Electrum as well to verify your signature. They don't need to use Electrum as their main wallet, they only need it for verification.
If the address belongs to an exchange or similar custodial service then no, no you can't use this address to sign a message.
Yes, and don't upload your private keys or recovery seed. Ever.
|
|
|
|
|
Have you tried logging into your router to see what devices are connected?
Maybe the new miner is trying to use the same IP address as one of your other machines or maybe it is in a different subnet.
If it's trying to use the same IP address as one of your other machines you'll probably have to temporarily disconnect your machines one by one to see which IP address is conflicting. Alternatively Connect the troublesome miner on a router of its own and see what IP it requests.
If you find that the miner is in a different subnet (say 192.168.2.xx instead of 192.168.1.xx) you'll need to change the local IP address of your PC to the same subnet as the miner (192.168.2.xx in this case) so as to access the miner and correct its IP address to the correct subnet.
|
|
|
|
Addresses are derived from a BIG Number, which is randomly generated.
That's not correct because every single addresses reproduced or generated by the wallet come from the master seed key. I believe the HeRetiK have provide the OP the right answer before. CounterEntropy is correct as well. Strictly speaking, the seed is just a big number. So are private keys, public keys, etc... any kind of digital data. Seed phrases are just a way to express those big numbers in a human readable way. |
|
|
|
Then you didn't get what I have intended to say, There are 2256 private keys. There are 2160 legacy addresses calculated from those keys by applying RIPEMD-160 to SHA-256 hash of those keys. It means at the end we have collision as only 2160 legacy addresses will correspond to the whole set of 2256 private keys. Roughly each address can be accessible through the set of 296 keys.
Ah... sorry, now I get what you mean. Yes, that sounds about right. To generate all the possible addresses (assuming you never generated the same address twice), it would require you to continue generating addresses for another:
(1.27 X 1028 seconds to generate ALL addresses) / (4.35 X 1017 seconds in the universe) = 29,195,402,299 entire universes worth of time.
Let's not forget though that assuming Moore's Law applies to this hypothetical technology we'd only have about 70 years until computation time will be reduced to a single universe worth of time. Just sayin' (70 years of computation power doubling every two years => 2^35 = 34,359,738,368 times the computation power you started with. Yes I'm aware that technically that's neither what Moore's Law states nor how any of this works.) |
|
|
|
That means that each single key may correspond roughly to 2256 / 2160 = 296 addresses, right? No, it's straight up 2^160 addresses, no need to divide. RIPEMD-160 is used to hash the SHA-256 hash of the corresponding public key [1], reducing the P2PKH address space from a potential 2^256* to 2^160. *slightly smaller, ECDA's private key space does not cover the full 2^256 [2] So in fact addresses are not unique in their nature cuz bunches of them have the same private keys. There's also P2SH and Bech32 Bitcoin addresses, so any private key corresponds to at least 3 valid Bitcoin addresses. [1] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Technical_background_of_version_1_Bitcoin_addresses[2] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Private_key |
|
|
|
2017 called, they want their crypto jokes back. ...and their bull market.  How about this one: - A man enters a bar and attempts to double-spend his bitcoins. - A man enters a bar and attempts to double-spend his bitcoins. |
|
|
|
@DannyHamilton,
Isn't it true that even if we add a passphrase to secure our wallet, it does not add any security locks to the seed and if seed is compromised, the wallet software will not ask for the old passphrase but a new passphrase to the person who hacked it, right?
Depends on the wallet. In some cases the password is used to extend the seed phrase, in some cases it's used to encrypt the wallet file. e.g. Trezor and Ledger use the password to extend the seed phrase (ie. the private keys are derived from the seed phrase + password), so an adversary can't do anything with the seed phrase alone (except trying to brute-force the accompanying password). Confirmed? What if they remain unconfirmed during the time the original owner of the wallet sees and catches the fraudulent activity? Are there any chances of reversal?
You can attempt to send a competing transaction spending the same coins with a higher transaction fee, maybe submitting the transaction to an accelerator while you're at it. Unless your adversary has set a really low fee you're unlikely to succeed though. |
|
|
|
|
Mostly the technical stuff (Bitcoin Technical Support, Development & Technical Discussion), followed by Meta for news and occasionally dropping by at Beginners & Help.
Recently I've started to keep track of the German local boards again just to see what my local community is up to.
|
|
|
|
Okay, I get it that chances are nonexistent that it will ever happen to me personally that I will have an address which is the same as another one, but at some point EVER there will be 2 persons with the same BTC address. Whether it is now or in 10 years, it will happen some time.
That's assuming people still exist then  The question is not "Whether it is now or in 10 years" but more like "Whether it is now or in 10 billion years" (give or take a couple orders of magnitude) The equation where x = ∞ and y = the number of users creating x amount of addresses will only make it possible for the graph to dissolve this situation into an issue where people may face a 'collision' to each other. But there are chances you may get your seeds or phrases randomly guessed by someone and a person who is intentionally doing it, gets lucky some day. I mean yeah, there's also a non-zero chance for a bank robber to be able to walk through the wall straight into a bank's vault due to quantum tunneling. https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/243715It's just that that chance is very very small. Unlikely-to-occur-before-the-heat-death-of-the-universe small. Granted the chance of a random private key collision is slightly higher, but still not within a realm that makes sense to consider as a threat model. |
|
|
|
Okay, I get it that chances are nonexistent that it will ever happen to me personally that I will have an address which is the same as another one, but at some point EVER there will be 2 persons with the same BTC address. Whether it is now or in 10 years, it will happen some time.
That's assuming people still exist then The question is not "Whether it is now or in 10 years" but more like "Whether it is now or in 10 billion years" (give or take a couple orders of magnitude) |
|
|
|
Armory is a HD (hierarchical deterministic) wallet, meaning all its addresses are derived from a seed phrase / master key. This seed phrase is what you write down when making a paper backup of your Armory wallet. While most modern HD wallets are cross-compatible by following BIP-32 [1], Armory currently uses its own type of HD key derivation. The basic premise is the same though. [1] https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0032.mediawiki |
|
|
|
Oh are we lining up already?  I'm not much of an alt coiner but I do have my doubts that we'll see Bitcoin at 80% market dominance any time soon. Alts are just too tempting a gamble for many people. Honestly, I don't think the market dominance really makes too much of a difference. I suspect it is more that the market is a bit more mature these days now that the ICO/IEO goldrush is well and truly dead and you're not getting new coins every other day.
I wonder what's going to be the next big thing though. Both the 2013 and 2017 bull markets came with their own flavours of gold rushes (unregulated securities / mining bonds in 2013, ICOs in 2017). |
|
|
|
I doubt this will do much for mass adoption but it's definitely yet another example of cryptocurrencies being legitimized. It's quite interesting to see how far we've come, especially since virtual goods having "real world value" has been a hard to grasp concept for most people for the longest time (and it still is for many). I think it's very difficult to apply tax on crypto, that's why some countries prohibit bitcoin maybe because crypto is an asset to avoid government taxes
Pretty much every country relies to some extend on people self-reporting their income. People avoiding taxes by earning off-the-book income has been a thing since... well, since people have taxes. Crypto has nothing to do with it. |
|
|
|
My thinking is something like this:
After a given time (years) it could be a good option for the sender to be able call back/invalidate a still unspent transaction.
I believe this could help a lot of people to reclaim lost funds. I know this is a big one (maybe a silly too) one and won't be fast if ever happens. Goes a against the basics too, but not so much I believe as if someone want's to avoid this possibility he/she would only need to move the funds and that would make this "re-call" impossible.
Thing is, that would open a whole different can of worms. Now you get people wondering why the coins they bought a couple years back have suddenly vanished (ie. stolen back by prior owners). Now instead of "You should have kept a backup" it's "You should have moved your coins after receiving them". Makes matters kinda worse, don't you think? Even worse still, that would pretty much break cold storage. The coins you sent to cold storage to hold unto for the next couple of years? Anyone getting access to the hot wallet you used to sent the coins to cold storage is now able to clean out your stash some time further down the road, even if the hot wallet is empty by now. |
|
|
|
Any node that only recently connected and isn't synced can rely
on the PoW consensus mechanism to help distinguish genuine
genesis blocks from fakes, just as we do now with regular blocks.
That means trusting the longest chain representing the greatest
amount of work.
That's the thing though, a node won't know what the longest chain following a checkpoint-genesis-block is until they have downloaded and validated all subsequent blocks. Worse still, they have to do this check for each checkpoint-genesis-block they receive, every time. Even without someone actively trying to attack the network this would put you in a situation where each checkpoint-genesis-block would be followed by an increased orphan rate, making it a very risky and unreliable time frame to accept payments. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
