Bitcoin Forum
May 26, 2024, 10:18:16 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 [75] 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 ... 573 »
1481  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN][CLAM] CLAMs, Proof-Of-Chain, Proof-Of-Working-Stake, a.k.a. "Clamcoin" on: June 21, 2016, 09:29:53 PM
A few months ago I noticed that the Just-Dice staking wallet was performing very poorly, spending long periods stuck waiting for the hard drive. My 'fix' was to move all the staking coins to a new address in a new wallet.

That worked, until now...

It's happening again, and so I'm 'fixing' it the same way.

Here's the new address:



I remember last time the chart looked similarly weird, and presstab commented saying he should fix it. Smiley

Just-Dice won't be staking much for the next 4 hours while the coins settle in at their new address, so the difficulty should drop significantly. Easy staking for everyone else - enjoy! Smiley

Edit: it looks like the last time it happened was back at the start of April:



Edit: here's a close-up of the last few days. It looks like the staking wallet has been performing poorly since late Saturday, causing the difficulty to halve. The sheer drop at the end is a result of me moving the coins to a new address. It will take 4 hours until those coins start staking again. The move started at 9pm UTC, so JD will start trying to stake again around 1am UTC, or 6pm Pacific, or in about an hour and a half from the date of this edit...



Edit2: back to normal:



1482  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Bitcoin greatest vulnerability on: June 21, 2016, 08:24:34 AM
new:
can see the Bitcoin account number that I've created by coincidence:

Private key:
5Jf6mGTeCg37iZST1ukHXacwyuhjL3ABvEcpgwCRQX9y9fLGLbD

15eUHuCMKGekXmfH2B5awPWnwY3qVe3Nz1

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=775881.130;imode

That's amazing. Not only did you find a private key for an address that had been used already (it was a 1-in-2^160 chance that you would ever find any private key that unlocks that address), but you actually found one with *the same* public key as was used when amaclin generated the address.

It's surprising enough that you found one of the 2^96 private keys that unlocks amaclin's address, but you actually found the same one as him - 1 in 2^256 chance!

I don't believe a word of it, of course. The chance of your claim being true is closer to zero than I can conceive of.
1483  Bitcoin / Mycelium / Re: Mycelium Bitcoin Wallet on: June 20, 2016, 08:32:28 PM
What happened with Mycelium iOS version?

It was separately developed and wasn't very good judging by all I've read about it.

The next generation of Mycelium wallet will use a common codebase across platforms, so the Android and iOS versions will be pretty much the same.

Until then the iOS version isn't available.
1484  Bitcoin / Mycelium / Re: Mycelium Bitcoin Wallet on: June 20, 2016, 08:29:25 PM
dooglus,
Is that a c++ program, that I have to compile?

No, that's javascript. Run it using the node interpreter. https://nodejs.org/en/

Edit: if you want to PM me an xpub key, I can PM you back a list of receiving and change addresses. Tell me how many of each you want.
1485  Economy / Gambling / Re: Min investment now 0.01 Bitcoin at BetKing.io on: June 20, 2016, 01:14:32 AM
I just tried logging in for the first time in a while. My login attempts fail, and so did my reset password attempt.

Has my account been deleted?

Username is/was "dooglus".
1486  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN][CLAM] CLAMs, Proof-Of-Chain, Proof-Of-Working-Stake, a.k.a. "Clamcoin" on: June 19, 2016, 08:35:01 PM
As much I like CLAM PoS and Just Dice, I also HATE the possibility of a new digger waiting around the corner.

It's been a while since I posted a digging chart. Notice how little digging there has been recently:

1487  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Bitcoin greatest vulnerability on: June 19, 2016, 12:39:20 AM
OP, you are completely and absolutely wrong. The private keys ARE NOT randomly generated characters. They are actually 256 bit numbers. This means that the total number of possible private keys is 2^256 - 1, which is a ridiculously large amount of possible private keys. Those private keys are converted into the characters that you see through a process known as Base58 Check Encoding (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Base58Check_encoding). You cannot just throw random characters together to get a private key because it will probably fail the Check part of Base58 Check Encoding. The Check is the first four bytes of a SHA256 checksum of the private key.

Note that most Bitcoins are spendable by addresses, not public keys. Addresses are only 160 bits, and any private key whose public key hashes to the same 160 bit address is able to spend the coins at that address.

So for most coins it's "only" a 160 bit search to find a private key that can spend them. You don't need to find the same private key as the proper owner of the coins, you only need to find one which gives the same address.

Of course, a 160 bit search is still impractical to carry out. But it's a lot easier than a 256 bit search.
1488  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: CoinJoin: Bitcoin privacy for the real world on: June 19, 2016, 12:26:07 AM
In that particular example, wouldn't it be more anonymous to just have 6 outputs of 61.04976087 BTC? (That's the total amount less tx fees divided by 6, or 3 yellows and 3 change outputs of all exactly the same amount).

That way, even the "change" outputs can no longer be tied to the three people.

The three people contributed different amounts to the transaction, so they get different amounts of change.

The person paying for the transaction (the 'taker' in JoinMarket terminology) decides the amount of the yellow outputs, and the other two people (the 'makers') go along with that. It's only the yellow amount which is to be considered 'joined'.

Note that we could figure out which of the three people was the taker by summing the inputs and outputs of each colour. We'll find that two of the thee made a small profit on this transaction (the makers) and one took a loss (the taker).

If the maker had wanted to mix his whole wallet in this transaction he could done so. He must have only needed 70 BTC mixed at this time, for whatever reason.

Also, try following the yellow outputs - you'll see that all three of them went on to further coinjoin transactions for different amounts.
1489  Bitcoin / Mycelium / Re: Mycelium Bitcoin Wallet on: June 18, 2016, 06:14:18 PM
I'm tracing transactions, which means I need to see the addresses the coins came from; addresses that are empty now, because of those transactions.

When I want to see a list of receiving and change addresses and all I have is the xpub key, I use this code:

Code:
var bitcore = require('bitcore-lib');

function showPubKeys(derivedHdPublicKey, n) {
    function scanAddressesInternal(change, index) {
        var path = "m/" + change + "/" + index;
        var derivedPublicKey = derivedHdPublicKey.derive(path).publicKey;
        var address = derivedPublicKey.toAddress().toString();
        console.log(path, address, derivedPublicKey.toString());

        if (index < n)
            scanAddressesInternal(change, index+1);
        else if (change < 1) {
            console.log();
            scanAddressesInternal(change + 1, 0);
        }
    }
    scanAddressesInternal(0, 0);
}

showPubKeys(new bitcore.HDPublicKey('xpub6EE1LEbg1qzEG2xbeuCkHaoj2Gjw6fFqwbuEgedA4aPsREfNcX4h4QyPDKTfd9u97YoiJZwRND5KdzucmEdChpHCdk4hXfwqrJzqAnEvk45'), 5);

It produces output like this:

Code:
m/0/0 1NqppWsUkWYNLyxDcY7BATBXpwpatTiGSs 033ca772878871c94b3c41dd622c557a527880f4117e4f27e3bce154970416eead
m/0/1 15qwh7PCqyzVzuWWK4cEmiweBC7Bc922EA 0395db6c339db554e52b1879b712a6ecaedbfd924efc5260bf862cc2ec62c01aa1
m/0/2 1KY3KNnegroZXwYQvmvGJnLeiPqibPRdXr 02e39a87bbf7fd25d5ae7690ee4947c7559a21bb02695e3841b68f3be1d3103dcc
m/0/3 1M9cpQUqpkmmgTNVLbBPku8KRFsHAMJp3m 020dda02bc7dfb95bb8cb6ef04eaa1e0b34772a43547d81453bbe0c25bd52488c0
m/0/4 12uJA9VkzqgKRXu9P32gQWLYWsTkdR1zVe 03874b84816d6217719291b2938d4c58ba07f66e06204df5df82b3e13c08b42071
m/0/5 14nJrV8jHDWQvZXTmpTrL3423vHcdZwtNH 03af8229fda029a8420835f35199d867d28bd84cf9fffecead4c80ed602fc0cb8f

m/1/0 17Ua81hyD4LN5HXYMp7j37uu1jgUnPUxqD 02122c95e12b17707daf55e42a02001b7e38ef1f2591a3ecf2e5a3790e8cae4daf
m/1/1 16DP4hGyTVmL1ptynFW2WFMAhkwRKPztcg 023a7cbba6b2547055f90c717aed33233182bfea988c8684203e37c5b80db455c4
m/1/2 17USGbfLDPas8vte9Dcp5Fie59KDyiyBiH 02e964dc39395c81698e02bdd7cdadacdf3e02ea1dd605cfc01c579b50cd3d75e9
m/1/3 1MVq5RPH6qyiNRkWmwGp6dbzaMzdRMnjhY 036d23fbad3ce2046d4e56effd9cd240f851b471e403038533eeb55b0b7948efcb
m/1/4 17a25svx3fY7B2H1QLuyLbZWoBfr4HkBEv 02bf5e9779c1ea7a07b8e654c6dcb0139055babf3accb6d553a321f50a2a0a893c
m/1/5 1Amwk2eU1uYboAyZ91118T3Dzwb1DFv4pZ 020ae7bfcb2f2819502411145f430c5adc67a1fce807ed0ac4a6aacfc5f70ef805

That's the derivation path, the address, and the pubkey.

It uses bitcore from bitpay, which is open source software, available here: https://bitcore.io/
1490  Economy / Gambling / Re: bustabit.com -- The Social Gambling Game (formerly moneypot.com) on: June 17, 2016, 07:13:12 PM
   return Math.floor(((100 * e) - h) / (e - h));

That's the only really interesting line. We can ignore the "0x crash 1-in-101 games" part, because that is only used to fund the 1% bonus that it paid out on the other 100-in-101 games. It has no effect on the house edge at all.

We can even lose the Math.floor bit, because that just makes sure the result has no more than 2 decimal places. And divide the top by 100, because that function is returning the crash point times 100 (so it's an integer).

So the crash point is simply:

Code:
  e - h/100
  ---------
    e - h

e is a big number, but it doesn't really matter what it is (it's 2^52)
h is a random number between 0 and e-1 inclusive

Let's look at three cases:

1. If h is at its minimum, 0, the crash point is 1x

The house edge is 0%. (We can ignore the 1-in-101 0x crashes, because on the other 100-in-101 games we get a 1% bonus, assuming we're the only player, or that all the other players are also playing at a 1x cashout).

2. If h is half way through its range, e/2, the crash point is 1.99x

So we have a 50% chance of winning 1.99x. That gives an RTP of 50%*1.99 = 99.5% and so a house edge of 0.5%

3. If h is at its maximum, e-1, the crash point is 0.99e+0.01 (ie. very high, since e is a big number)

So we have a 100/e% chance of winning 0.99e+0.01. That gives an RTP of (99e+1)/e% ~= 99% and so a house edge of a tiny bit under 1%.

So you can see that the house edge ranges from 0% to 1% as your payout multiplier ranges from 1x to high numbers.

i just don't know how i would go about calculating the house edge for a certain multiplier

The payout multiplier for any particular h is (from the code you pasted):
  m = (e - h/100) / (e-h)   [1]
and the probability p of hitting that payout is:
  p = (e-h)/e   [2]
  h = e-ep
the RTP for that h is [1]*[2]*100:
  (e - h/100) / (e-h) * (e-h)/e * 100
  = (e - h/100) * 100/e
  = 100 - h/e
and so the house edge is simply:
  edge = 100 - RTP
  = h/e
  = (e-ep)/e
  = 1-p

Now you want the house edge for a given multiplier, m. Let's find h in terms of m:
  m = (e - h/100) / (e-h)
  (e-h)m = e - h/100
  em - hm = e - h/100
  em - e = hm - h/100
  e(m-1) = h(m-0.01)
  h = e(m-1)/(m-0.01)

And so the house edge:
  edge = h/e
  = e(m-1)/(m-0.01)
  = (m-1)/(m-0.01)

And there's your answer. The house edge for a probability of p is 1-p, and for a multiplier of m is (m-1)/(m-0.01)

Examples:

  the house edge when you have a 0.5 probability of winning is 1 - p = 1-0.5 = 0.5%
  the house edge for a multiplier of 2x is (m-1)/(m-0.01) = (2-1)/(2-0.01) = 0.50251256%

Edit: if all you want to do is change the house edge so that it goes from 0% to N% instead of 0% to 1%, I think you only need to replace the 100 in the Math.floor line by 100/N. Don't change the insta-crash logic unless you want to unbalance the bonus system. Looks like you already changed it to insta-crash every 51 games (without changing the corresponding comment), but that's a bad idea. People won't want to play a game that insta-crashes so often. Adjust the edge using the Math.floor line instead.

Example:

>>> e = 2**52
>>> h = e * 0.75
>>> 100 - (e - h/100) / (e-h) * 25 # the bustabit setting - house edge is 0.75% when we have 25% chance of winning
0.75
>>> 100 - (e - h/20) / (e-h) * 25 # increase the house edge by a factor of 5 - house edge is 3.75% when we have 25% chance of winning
3.75
1491  Economy / Services / Re: [$] Need developer. Add Bitcoin Core RPC command [deleteaddress] on: June 17, 2016, 05:46:47 PM
- we use deleteaddress command, wallet.dat returns to it's initial size, 'validateaddress ismine' returns false.

This seems like an odd requirement.

Do you really care that the starting and ending wallet.dat sizes be exactly the same? If so, why so? I doubt you're going to get this requirement met.
1492  Economy / Gambling / Re: BitBet policy around late bets on: June 17, 2016, 01:19:47 AM
If you start allowing the bets you'll open up yourself to being scammed.

Well, the site only takes a commission, so they're not opening themselves up to being scammed. The more bets the better as far as they're concerned. It's the other players who are vulnerable to getting scammed if you accept bets once the result is clear.
1493  Economy / Gambling / Re: BitBet policy around late bets on: June 16, 2016, 10:32:33 PM
    - on the one hand we want to protect legitimate bettors from skimmers
    - on the other hand, we do not want legitimate bettors who just bet late
       to be unjustly penalized by the rule

I understand the tradeoff, and prefer protecting players from skimmers.

I very rarely bet on your site however, so it doesn't matter what I think. Smiley
1494  Economy / Gambling / Re: BitBet policy around late bets on: June 16, 2016, 03:50:41 PM
We typically refund such bets unless they are a blatant attempt at taking advantage of the other
bettors

[...]

we did refund a very late bet even though it could in fact have been construed as a skimming attempt.

By changing this rule you are effectively telling the cheats that they will now be allowed to cheat again as long as they don't make it too obvious. You are also opening yourself up to accusations of favouritism yourself - maybe you refund some bets and not others because of who made them. We can't tell.

Using the old rule is much clearer and fairer for everyone in my opinion.
1495  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: CoinJoin: Bitcoin privacy for the real world on: June 14, 2016, 09:49:43 PM
Great post man, thanks! Makes me appreciate more what a cool idea this is.

Here's an actual example of a CoinJoin transaction (click link for blockchain.info link):



There were 3 people involved in the transaction. There are 6 outputs, 2 per person. 3 of the outputs (coloured yellow) are for the exact same amount. It's impossible to know which of these three yellow outputs belongs to which of the 3 people just from looking at this transaction. The other 3 outputs are change amounts. We can easily tie the change outputs to the inputs, which I did by using the coloured arrows.

The guy who spent 82 BTC got back a yellow 70 BTC and 12 BTC of change - indicated by the blue arrow.
The guy who spent 171 BTC got back a yellow 70 BTC and 101 BTC of change - indicated by the orange arrow.
All the other inputs came from the 3rd guy, and he got back a yellow 70 BTC and 41 BTC of change - indicated by all the red lines.

Hopefully that makes it clearer. It's the yellow outputs that have been anonymised by this transaction, not the inputs or the change outputs.
1496  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Roger Ver and blocksize on: June 11, 2016, 06:27:03 AM
It's certainly not a storage of wealth (which is a weird concept, you can't store an abstraction like "wealth" any more than you can store "love" or "respect"), but it is a payment system. It was a payment system long before credit cards and electronic payment processors, long before commercial use of electricity Undecided

There are payment systems which use the US dollar, but the US dollar itself is not a payment system.
1497  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Roger Ver and blocksize on: June 10, 2016, 07:13:48 AM
Quote
Is Bitcoin a means of storage of wealth, or is it a payment system?
If Bitcoin has to be a currency, it certainly must be both.

The US dollar is a currency and is neither.
1498  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: staking question... on: June 09, 2016, 08:08:35 AM
hope i'm not repeating a prior post but cant figure out why my wallet wont go past March 18, or if it does it is very slow been trying for days and yes 24/7... loaded the latest bootstrap and no go... any suggestions???  Thanks
 
 
Would need a debug log or additional information to identify a specific problem. 
If by 'past March 18' you mean it isn't sync'd, you can try the 'kick it' solution - restart the client. 
In the same vein, check your ./clamd getinfo and make sure you have peers. 
 
Just a couple thoughts.

The latest bootstrap shouldn't need "kicking". It goes to May 22nd.
1499  Economy / Gambling / Re: bustabit.com -- The Social Gambling Game (formerly moneypot.com) on: June 08, 2016, 02:30:19 AM
Looks like after grinding a -ev game for 31,600 games he was up around 600,000 with some 6-1 martingalish system.

He took this as solid proof that he was the first person to ever develop a betting system that was capable of overcoming the house edge.
With his system, he would be making 60-70 btc a year from RHaver.

Then he lost 47 in a row and his account went from almost BTC1 to 1 bit.  (which he turned into 7 before 0)

Can't blame himself, can't blame the house edge, gotta blame someone.

In the poker world we call these guys riggies.  They're everywhere.

I've seen my fair share of these guys too. When they're winning they attribute it to skill, and when they're losing they attribute it to the game cheating them.

They don't seem to realize that if you play a game a million times you're quite likely to witness a one-in-a-million event.

All you can do is answer their ranting with logical verifiably true responses. They're unlikely to listen to reason but hopefully the rest of the players spectating the chat will see who is making the most sense.
1500  Bitcoin / Mycelium / Re: Mycelium Bitcoin Wallet on: June 06, 2016, 01:52:41 AM
That makes more sense, thanks for the explanation. I didn't realize that my seed would cover all generated accounts, but that does make sense - I believe the Trezor uses a similar system where a single master seed can be used to generate multiple accounts.

Maybe some further explanation would be useful.

If you look at https://dcpos.github.io/bip39/ you can see how the accounts work.

Your first account uses derivation path m/44'/0'/0'/0 for receiving addresses and m/44'/0'/0'/1 for change addresses.
Your 2nd account uses derivation path m/44'/0'/1'/0 for receiving addresses and m/44'/0'/1'/1 for change addresses.
Your 3rd account uses derivation path m/44'/0'/2'/0 for receiving addresses and m/44'/0'/2'/1 for change addresses.
... and so on ...

The 12 word seed is the same for all accounts. Only part of the derivation path changes.
Pages: « 1 ... 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 [75] 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 ... 573 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!