|
Sign a message using the private key for the address 1MDq7zyLw6oKichbFiDDZ3aaK59byc6CT8 in order to prove you own it.
Or, you are a scammer.
|
|
|
|
|
Like I said, total bullshit.
|
|
|
|
|
10,000 BTC at BS&T owned by pirate@40. He later went to jail for stealing everyone's BTC.
|
|
|
|
I am planning to invest in hardware and join in LBC, but I not know where is calculation to invest thousands of dollars in hardware, spent months and years for 0.5btc.
You will never make enough money to pay for the computer. Never. If you are doing it for fun and to learn more about how Bitcoin works then fine. Doing this to make a profit is a very very bad idea. |
|
|
|
|
Lost 10,000 BTC to pirate@40
|
|
|
|
|
Would be nice. But, I doubt it.
|
|
|
|
|
My answer was a general answer to a general question about the two forms of Bitcoin address and was not meant to be a technical paper or exact description of how to create Bitcoin addresses (that is what the wiki is for).
So, I started out with "Leaving out some small details:".
Thanks for filling in a few of the technical details.
BTW, even with the additional details, the description is still incomplete because you left out the checksum in the hashing description.
Anyone who wants to know all the nitty gritty details can look it up.
|
|
|
|
Hi guys, I'm trying to understand the procedure to solving this puzzle, starting from the easy ones that were solved already. Im clearly a little over my head here, and I cannot figure out what I am doing wrong. I have this code so far, which gives me the same results as this website ( https://brainwalletx.github.io/#generator), but they never match what I see here. So clearly i'm doing something wrong let bitcoin = require('bitcoinjs-lib');
let pvk_seed = '000000000000000000000000000000000011';
let hash = bitcoin.crypto.sha256(pvk_seed);
const keyPair = bitcoin.ECPair.fromPrivateKey(hash);
const { address } = bitcoin.payments.p2pkh({ pubkey: keyPair.publicKey });
let wif = keyPair.toWIF();
console.log(`${pvk_seed} = Address ${address}, WIF : ${wif}`)
That code is using 3 to generate PVK, ive tried 3 in Decimal, Binary, Hex, nothing works. Thanks for any tips If you put 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000003 here -> https://www.bitaddress.org/bitaddress.org-v3.3.0-SHA256-dec17c07685e1870960903d8f58090475b25af946fe95a734f88408cef4aa194.html(wallet details) you'll get 2 addresses: Bitcoin Address (Uncompressed) 1NZUP3JAc9JkmbvmoTv7nVgZGtyJjirKV1 Bitcoin Address Compressed 1CUNEBjYrCn2y1SdiUMohaKUi4wpP326Lb In this case the address in puzzle transaction is the last one. Look here : https://github.com/bitcoinjs/bitcoinjs-lib/issues/155I did a quick write up on compressed versus uncompressed Bitcoin addresses here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1573035.msg45500313#msg45500313in case you want more technical details. |
|
|
|
I do not see any information leak in the "888" UTXOs since they are sending them to so many addresses, the addresses are only related as a large arbitrary class (all addresses above a certain value threshold, etc.) and they not attempting to "tag" all addresses in a specific wallet. The reasoning behind a dusting attack is that you can compromise your privacy when you make a transaction. Say you have 3 addresses holding 1000 Bitcoin each. Let's call the addresses 1A, 1B and 1C. You receive 888 Satoshi on each address, and want to buy a pizza. If your wallet chooses to pay 0.01 Bitcoin from the large UTXO on address 1A, and add the 888 Satoshi from 1A, 1B and 1C to consolidate them, it becomes known that 1A, 1B and 1C are owned by the same person. This can of course be prevented by manually selecting which inputs to use ("Coin control" in Bitcoin Core, also possible in Electrum and no doubt in many other wallets), but I can imagine not everybody uses it. I see your point and you are correct for any legacy wallets that behave this way. I only use HD wallets and I believe this is not an issues for any well designed HD wallet since it will only use multiple input addresses when it must (when the output is larger than is available in one address). In this case even if there is no dust the two (or more) HD addresses required to fulfill the output will be tied together by the transaction itself. The addition of dust to each of the inputs does not tie them together any more than the transaction without dust does. I see one small timing related issue, assuming an HD wallet: 1) HD address n is discovered and queued to be "tagged" with the dust. 2) HD address n+1 is discovered and queued to be also tagged with the dust. 3) Before the dust arrives HD address n is spent with no tie to address n+1. 4) The dust arrives on both addresses 5) Now a spend of address n+1 happens 6) The wallet will probably spend the dust on address n, the dust on n+1 and the rest of n+1 So in this case n and n+1 are tied together in a case where they would not normally have been tied together - due to the timing of the arrival of the dust, but remember that these two addresses would have been tied together anyway if the first spend had been large enough to "overflow" into n+1. |
|
|
|
I do not see any information leak in the "888" UTXOs since they are sending them to so many addresses, the addresses are only related as a large arbitrary class (all addresses above a certain value threshold, etc.) and they not attempting to "tag" all addresses in a specific wallet. All this does is link all the dusted addresses back to their sending address, which is well known and is dusting the entire UTXO set in a known arbitrary way. |
|
|
|
and why? It looks like they're sending it to addresses with at least a couple hundred Bitcoin. Advertising, I guess. "Self-made Legendary!" I like it. |
|
|
|
Go here: https://lbc.cryptoguru.org/statsAs of the time I posted this they are generating and checking about 290 Mkeys/second for Bitcoins, or about 25.07 trillion keys per day. So, yes, it is still up and operating. |
|
|
|
If you remove signature campaigns then a lot of people would not post here and it opens the doors to people moving to alternative forums. The last thing you want is a dead half empty forum, but i think 1 merit is achievable so it is the right decision by the admins.
Yes, all the people who are here to just post crap will leave - and good riddance. That is exactly the point. This forum was fine before the spam nightmare and crap posts and it would be just fine without them. The forum would become again what it once was - a great place to discuss and learn about Bitcoin. Maybe all the shitcoins would leave and make their own forum also? Wouldn't that be nice. |
|
|
|
Install Electrum, save your Electrum backup seed words, after you have saved your Electrum backup seed words and finished installing Electrum then use Electrum to sweep the private key into Electrum. That is how you import a private key into Electrum so you can recover your Bitcoins. More information: [overview] Recover Bitcoin from any old storage formatAdded a bit more detail. |
|
|
|
|
The solution is simple: ban all paid signature campaigns.
This would remove almost all economic incentives to farm accounts by posting crap to the forum.
|
|
|
|
"Junior member", "1 merit", "demoted", etc, will be hot keyword for searching today. I was a newbie (junior member with 0 merits) not long ago, and feel that to achieve my first merit is not easy before. Some members wonder why the system change so sudden in today. For more information, you can visit here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5030366.0The idea of getting 1 merit for being a junior member has contributed a few months ago and now it is approved: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3775593.0But the thing is, In today when visiting https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=merit;stats=recent I saw many cases which abuse the merit system. Such as: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4776598.msg45810421#msg45810421https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4414245.msg39302532#msg39302532(send from an untrusted account) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4323682.msg39372029#msg39372029(same case above) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2552297.msg31019787#msg31019787(archival thread, really?) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3365339.msg35500008#msg35500008(very short post, something wrong?) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=23705.msg304619#msg304619(Exact 5 points to rank-up to member, suspicious???) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2226669.msg23858289#msg23858289(same case above) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=45750.msg545628#msg545628(active recently) I can find a hundred cases like this. Buying/selling merit seems to be off-forum activities that difficult to handle. The aim of this campaign is to motivate new member to contribute their thoughts and quality topics/posts. But, I think this is not really effective. The question is "Is this solution enough to limit garbage-posting?" The solution is simple: ban all paid signature campaigns. This would remove all economic incentives to farm accounts by posting crap to the forum. |
|
|
|
You can create any arbitrary address simply by putting the correct checksum at the end. You, of course, will not know the secret key, so anything that is sent there is unlikely to ever be received will be destroyed and can never be spent.
FIFY. Here is an example I made a long time ago: 11When1DieBuryMeDeepLayTwoXVEY5jv - (Unspent) 0.00000001 BTC
11SpeakersAtMyFeetAPairofXXTyrHor - (Unspent) 0.00000001 BTC
11HeadphonesonMyHeadAndXXXXYUSvnd - (Unspent) 0.00000001 BTC
11ALwaysPLayTheGratefuLDeadWdq4Xo - (Unspent) 0.00000001 BTC |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
