Protipp: Use a BIP32 deterministic wallet to create addresses on the fly on the server but keep the private keys offline in your wallet.
I'm building a online wallet- I would need the private keys on the server, no? Building an online wallet, on Amazon EC2 is a horrible idea, this will end in disaster. Also I hope your not using TF for this would be way over his level. He won't know how to encryption the and deliver them in javascript so only the user can use the private keys. I am warning you this will end in disaster. Why would he use TF? TF is designing websites, not programming them. He created his last wallet, Terracoin wallet. Ew, remind me not to use it. |
|
|
|
|
Not worth it. BFL might be shipping next week, and difficulty will be up 3x what it is now once that happens, continuing to climb rapidly over the next months as well.
|
|
|
|
Protipp: Use a BIP32 deterministic wallet to create addresses on the fly on the server but keep the private keys offline in your wallet.
I'm building a online wallet- I would need the private keys on the server, no? Building an online wallet, on Amazon EC2 is a horrible idea, this will end in disaster. Also I hope your not using TF for this would be way over his level. He won't know how to encryption the and deliver them in javascript so only the user can use the private keys. I am warning you this will end in disaster. Why would he use TF? TF is designing websites, not programming them. |
|
|
|
I'm just saying if I can make 50 LTC(x.41 cents = $20USD) by solo mining then that is what i will be doing..
Today I made 10 cents for 3 hours work by joining ltcminingpool.org
You just did make that much, but the likelihood of making that much again is slim. It could take months or a year before you see another 50 LTC. Also, wow, LTC is $0.41 now? That's nuts... glad I've been trading the NMC I mine for them. |
|
|
|
|
I'm halfway tempted to offer you something for one of the P4 laptops as a really cheap offline wallet. Would be handy... Does the standby/resume functionality work ok on them?
BTW, the graphics chipset in the i3 laptop is integrated on the processor. It's the Intel 3000 HD chipset.
|
|
|
|
I'm running a bitcoin service on amazon Ec2, and I need to run a full version of bitcoin- block chain included. How much disk space will I need to keep on hand to keep bitcoind from crashing? (my current problem).
The smallest has 160GB of the local storage. That is more than enough for couple of years. I/O to the local storage is free of charge. Just don't pull a bitomat.pl and don't store the backup copy of the wallet on the same ephemeral storage as the working blockchain. Could you give me a little bit more info on what happened? They stored the backup on the same storage as the normal. Amazon pulled their storage for whatever reason. They lost 25,000 BTC because they didn't have the wallet backed up to anything else, and Amazon wiped it when their storage was pulled. |
|
|
|
Anyone who has any sort of debt is essentially taking out a loan to buy BTC if you choose to buy bitcoins instead of paying down that debt.
Valid point. |
|
|
|
There seems to be a very strong demand for these - one user was recently offering 2 BTC each. Do people see these as becoming collectors items? If one BTC could be worth $1000 on day, what could one of these be worth?  It's nice to think the ones I gave to my friends and family could make them some money. The first physical coin made to hold and represent Bitcoin value. Hell yes it'll be a collectable! If the BTC price tracked up to $1,000 very quickly, I don't really see the coins keeping up, but I'd say $1,500 might be a safe bet for an unopened, pristine series 1. |
|
|
|
and they will keep on going up and up as bitcoins deflate
They can be changed. Also, Paypal's fees are $0.30 + 2.99%.  Paypal is paypal, this is bitcoin and the client even if set to zero will force a fee. I have no issue with paying a fee, but threads are popping up saying that transactions cost a fraction of a penny, well at the current rate that is untrue and people should be aware of this. meaning that if the client stays as is, then as bitcoins rises fees will rise and end users will bot want to use a system based on fees. Do end users really have any choice? No matter what system they choose, fees are present. Either they pay them directly, or the merchant pays them. |
|
|
|
Good god, what is this?
Turquoise font on pale blue background.
Login data sent via http as plaintext.
Internal image links are broken.
Banner and Navigation elements are defined on every page instead of pulled from a central repository. A supporting nightmare.
No content management in place for front page content boxes. Everything has to be built manually. Supporting nightmare.
Dont' even get me started on the table background colour choice.
This is website design circa 1999.
And yet, not so surprisingly, still better than I would do with regards to design.  |
|
|
|
and they will keep on going up and up as bitcoins deflate
They can be changed. Also, Paypal's fees are $0.30 + 2.99%. |
|
|
|
Good god  What, they didn't apply the glue that holds the metal caps in place evenly?  That's what I was thinking... it's just uneven glue (or epoxy, or whatever it's called in this case). If you look at edges other than the top, you can see similar unevenness, but it's clear that it is because of the glue. The left side of the bottom left chip in this zoom is an excellent example. |
|
|
|
|
I might recruit you for a site I have in the works...
|
|
|
|
I keep a mental list of forum members to pay extra attention to, as I think many do. On my list are obvious names like Gavin and jgarzik, but also others I've long since added like DeathAndTaxes, evoorhees, and Mike Hearn to name a few. This post is inspired by a member I had suspected should make my list and did with the post Why does everyone keep calling them fees? They're not fees, they're BIDS!. Now, instinctively, going by the username alone 'blablahblah' I would not expect much content of value. So my idea is a sort of reverse ignore button. My guess of how this forum's ignore link works is when clicked by a number of users it glows progressively prominent shades of orange. While I've personally never clicked to ignore anyone the glowing names I see seem to tally with my loose mental list. As Bitcoin becomes more popular and this forum grows it will be harder to separate the signal from the noise. Maybe a link that reads 'don't ignore' and glows progressively green could be helpful. Using post count alone isn't ideal as people can say a lot about nothing. I do caution as much as a visual indicator might help I hesitate to suggest it. That's because people can be spot on about some things while off on others. Giving visual weight to a user's words shouldn't be done lightly. So maybe a better version would be a private link that glows only one shade of green for the user that clicks it. That would help me at least to keep track. It'd be cool to just shade the background of their whole post a light green. A big and obvious indicator as you're scrolling through a thread. |
|
|
|
Never doubt the stupidity of people. Just because a direct route of information is ssl encrypted does not mean every place he could have sent relevant information is encrypted as well. Information gathering is key to an operation, and if the reward is high enough plenty of these 'hackers' would spend enough time to not only gather info from unencrypted data, but also try to get a keylogger or any other type of malicious software onto the victims computer. If the reward is high enough, the difficulty doesn't matter; It is only a matter of time. Is it the easiest possibility? No, so occam's razor applied you might find that it is a simple case of misplaced coins from a fallible human being.
Just please don't think the use of one ssl encrypted site means much to a dedicated wardriver. Trust me; it doesn't.
So you're saying that a wardriver, who knows that Bitcoin is only used by 0.007% of the population, is driving around, looking for open or crackable WiFi, in the hopes that one of those 0.007% of people is actually using Bitcoin instawallet (used by even fewer people), and that person just so happens to be accessing their instawallet at the same time said wardriver is watching their network, and that person also just so happens to be accessing their instawallet via http instead of https (even though instawallet is always accessed through https, so there would be no reason for an instawallet URL to be stored as http)? I feel like it would be more likely for me to win the lottery twice than for this to happen. See: https://bitcointalk.org/annoyance.phpSo the wardriver sets up a fake instawallet and redirects the user's traffic to said fake instawallet. Wouldn't the SSL certs prevent this from happening? The user's browser would warn him that it is not a valid cert, this looks like the wrong website, etc? Otherwise, I don't know what you are attempting to infer by sending me to that link. I'm saying you need to start playing the lotto. It's perfect for you ^.^ The lotto is a stupid way to lose a lot of money. You're still not getting your point across. Please say whatever you mean instead of attempting to make inferences through irrelevant links and phrases. Lol. If you like you can go back to my first post to attempt to understand what my 'point' was/is  So you're implying that a wardriver randomly driving by a place: 1) Knows that the person uses Bitcoin 2) Knows that the person is a wealthy Bitcoin holder 3) Finds a security hole in the person's computer allowing the insertion of a keylogger or other malware Does this not seem unlikely to you? How does said wardriver know #1 and #2? In my city of 300,000 people, only 21 of them (average) use Bitcoin. Does someone drive all around Eugene, Springfield, and the surrounding area looking for hackable wifi and inserting malware into the networks in the hope that they randomly come across someone computer-savvy enough to use Bitcoin, but not so computer-savvy that they know WEP is broken? And they hope that at least one of those 300,000 people actually has a decent amount of Bitcoin stored up, in an instawallet, so that they can grab it? It still seems like winning the lottery would be far more likely to happen than a random wardriver hacking someone's Bitcoins away. Much more likely, in my mind, would be a friend or relative of OP knew about his Bitcoin holdings and got greedy. It would be trivial to take the Bitcoins with physical access to the computer. Thank you for reiterating my main 'point' as you put it; not exactly the word choice I would be using, but whatever works for ya. Oh, and to answer your list "no" you need to do your homework honey. Piiissseee And I still don't know what your point is. Is it that a wardriver would randomly stumble across a Bitcoin user, or that a relative/friend is the likely culprit? |
|
|
|
If they were called bids, then I would assume that I could increase my bid at any time - which would actually be pretty cool. If I'm not seeing my 0.0005 BTC "bid" getting through in 30 minutes or so and I'm getting kind of frustrated, I could double or triple my bid to increase the likelihood of it going through in the next few minutes.
Create a double spend transaction with the same inputs and outputs, but a different "confirmation urgency bid" Currently most clients in the network will block/not relay this second transaction though. And rightly so. If clients relayed double-spend transactions, it would make 0-conf transactions (which are used in things like digital download services) utterly useless. However, I'd like to think that a particular set of rules could be created to allow relay of transactions with the same inputs and outputs, but it wouldn't be easy. The possibility of additional inputs in light of a higher fee has to be considered, as well as a differing change address or a differing amount going to the change address. Perhaps changing the bid after the fact is not the correct approach. Is there enough information under control of the Satoshi reference client -- what do we call this, just bitcoind, SRC, or what --- to predict how many blocks later the transaction will be processed, based on work already in the queue? Not at all, because each mining pool has different rules by which they include or disclude transactions. And if higher-priority transactions are created at any time while the transaction is waiting, they take precedence. There isn't any sort of queue, only priority. Any sort of estimate wouldn't be at all reliable. |
|
|
|
|
It halfway scares me that this guy has a million dollars in Bitcoin. When Bitcoins are worth $50,000/ea, he'll be a billionaire. A crazy guy can control a lot with a billion dollars...
|
|
|
|
If they were called bids, then I would assume that I could increase my bid at any time - which would actually be pretty cool. If I'm not seeing my 0.0005 BTC "bid" getting through in 30 minutes or so and I'm getting kind of frustrated, I could double or triple my bid to increase the likelihood of it going through in the next few minutes.
Create a double spend transaction with the same inputs and outputs, but a different "confirmation urgency bid" Currently most clients in the network will block/not relay this second transaction though. And rightly so. If clients relayed double-spend transactions, it would make 0-conf transactions (which are used in things like digital download services) utterly useless. However, I'd like to think that a particular set of rules could be created to allow relay of transactions with the same inputs and outputs, but it wouldn't be easy. The possibility of additional inputs in light of a higher fee has to be considered, as well as a differing change address or a differing amount going to the change address. |
|
|
|
Never doubt the stupidity of people. Just because a direct route of information is ssl encrypted does not mean every place he could have sent relevant information is encrypted as well. Information gathering is key to an operation, and if the reward is high enough plenty of these 'hackers' would spend enough time to not only gather info from unencrypted data, but also try to get a keylogger or any other type of malicious software onto the victims computer. If the reward is high enough, the difficulty doesn't matter; It is only a matter of time. Is it the easiest possibility? No, so occam's razor applied you might find that it is a simple case of misplaced coins from a fallible human being.
Just please don't think the use of one ssl encrypted site means much to a dedicated wardriver. Trust me; it doesn't.
So you're saying that a wardriver, who knows that Bitcoin is only used by 0.007% of the population, is driving around, looking for open or crackable WiFi, in the hopes that one of those 0.007% of people is actually using Bitcoin instawallet (used by even fewer people), and that person just so happens to be accessing their instawallet at the same time said wardriver is watching their network, and that person also just so happens to be accessing their instawallet via http instead of https (even though instawallet is always accessed through https, so there would be no reason for an instawallet URL to be stored as http)? I feel like it would be more likely for me to win the lottery twice than for this to happen. See: https://bitcointalk.org/annoyance.phpSo the wardriver sets up a fake instawallet and redirects the user's traffic to said fake instawallet. Wouldn't the SSL certs prevent this from happening? The user's browser would warn him that it is not a valid cert, this looks like the wrong website, etc? Otherwise, I don't know what you are attempting to infer by sending me to that link. I'm saying you need to start playing the lotto. It's perfect for you ^.^ The lotto is a stupid way to lose a lot of money. You're still not getting your point across. Please say whatever you mean instead of attempting to make inferences through irrelevant links and phrases. Lol. If you like you can go back to my first post to attempt to understand what my 'point' was/is So you're implying that a wardriver randomly driving by a place: 1) Knows that the person uses Bitcoin 2) Knows that the person is a wealthy Bitcoin holder 3) Finds a security hole in the person's computer allowing the insertion of a keylogger or other malware Does this not seem unlikely to you? How does said wardriver know #1 and #2? In my city of 300,000 people, only 21 of them (average) use Bitcoin. Does someone drive all around Eugene, Springfield, and the surrounding area looking for hackable wifi and inserting malware into the networks in the hope that they randomly come across someone computer-savvy enough to use Bitcoin, but not so computer-savvy that they know WEP is broken? And they hope that at least one of those 300,000 people actually has a decent amount of Bitcoin stored up, in an instawallet, so that they can grab it? It still seems like winning the lottery would be far more likely to happen than a random wardriver hacking someone's Bitcoins away. Much more likely, in my mind, would be a friend or relative of OP knew about his Bitcoin holdings and got greedy. It would be trivial to take the Bitcoins with physical access to the computer. |
|
|
|
Never doubt the stupidity of people. Just because a direct route of information is ssl encrypted does not mean every place he could have sent relevant information is encrypted as well. Information gathering is key to an operation, and if the reward is high enough plenty of these 'hackers' would spend enough time to not only gather info from unencrypted data, but also try to get a keylogger or any other type of malicious software onto the victims computer. If the reward is high enough, the difficulty doesn't matter; It is only a matter of time. Is it the easiest possibility? No, so occam's razor applied you might find that it is a simple case of misplaced coins from a fallible human being.
Just please don't think the use of one ssl encrypted site means much to a dedicated wardriver. Trust me; it doesn't.
So you're saying that a wardriver, who knows that Bitcoin is only used by 0.007% of the population, is driving around, looking for open or crackable WiFi, in the hopes that one of those 0.007% of people is actually using Bitcoin instawallet (used by even fewer people), and that person just so happens to be accessing their instawallet at the same time said wardriver is watching their network, and that person also just so happens to be accessing their instawallet via http instead of https (even though instawallet is always accessed through https, so there would be no reason for an instawallet URL to be stored as http)? I feel like it would be more likely for me to win the lottery twice than for this to happen. See: https://bitcointalk.org/annoyance.phpSo the wardriver sets up a fake instawallet and redirects the user's traffic to said fake instawallet. Wouldn't the SSL certs prevent this from happening? The user's browser would warn him that it is not a valid cert, this looks like the wrong website, etc? Otherwise, I don't know what you are attempting to infer by sending me to that link. I'm saying you need to start playing the lotto. It's perfect for you ^.^ The lotto is a stupid way to lose a lot of money. You're still not getting your point across. Please say whatever you mean instead of attempting to make inferences through irrelevant links and phrases. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
