Is there any site where I can use view key to check the balance of the wallet? I guess I can use the simplewallet for that, but is there any site for it? Or any other solution?
I don't think view key lets you see balance, actually, only received amounts. It does work for cold storage. Alternately, if you can account for spends another way, you can then subtract them, giving a balance. This is a bit tricky to do correctly since change will be scanned by the view key, so you have to subtract the payment amount plus the change amount on any spends. Yea. I am looking some way to check the balance of my cold storage, paper wallet. Would be great if the view key gave balance directly without need for user to do any calculations. But it is possible also that way. But is there any site for that? Or have I to use some wallet software? If you only want to confirm receipt of funds from one or a few transactions (and you know the IDs for those transactions), you could use http://xmr.llcoins.net/checktx.html. yeah im trying to wrap my head around why the viewkey / spendkey can't be used to scan for which output has been used as an input in a view-only mode. I know I've read it explained before, but I think it was on the order of "well the viewkey shows you what outputs are yours, and the spendkey lets you spend those outputs" . I mean I get part of the problem - having the spendkey does allow you to spend that output, so hence making a viewonly wallet with just the viewkey.
would it be possible (somehow) to hash the spendkey, and then somehow scan the blockchain with a hashed-spendkey... but then you'd need to somehow extract from each transaction... the term i want to use eventually is dehash, and I know thats unpossible (indeed the whole purpose of the whole thing).
So I guess really the solution would be a 3rd key?
What was the new enable-tracking or whatever I saw in the simplewallet. didn't I just recently ask this? i need more sleep.
No, that, uh, won't work. What does work is creating key images for every output discovered by the view key scan. Of course this requires bringing your paper/cold wallet at least to a running state (can be an offline computer). There is no (merged) simplewallet stuff for this yet. It'd be something like "watch-friendly"; store-tx-info is not related at all. |
|
|
|
Looks like 25 words is the way to go.
I have a 13 word mymonero wallet. I would like to use a 25 word wallet, but I'm not inclined to do a kludge-y conversion from 13 to 25 words.
The conversion is not "kludge-y", it's rather simply impossible, unless you happen to be a lucky ~6%-er. I downloaded the monero wallet generator from github, which was linked to in an earlier post. I'll make a new wallet and send all the Rita Morenos  from mymonero.com to the new wallet. You could always test and see if you're a lucky ~6%-er.  |
|
|
|
There is not yet a site for monero paper wallet generator. But we can have such a site by slightly modifying mymonero.com.
Try this site: https://moneroaddress.org/You can save that page and use offline. Well that is i great site. How long has it been alive? There is more words in mnemonic seed than mymonero.com creates. Is this a new feature of monero or the site? It has been online for quite some time now, I think 6-8 months. Simplewallet and Moneroaddress both use 25 words mnemonic seeds, whereas MyMonero uses 13 words mnemonic seeds. You can read a bit more about it here -> http://xmrtests.llcoins.net/addresstests.htmlSee "How Cryptonote Addresses Are Created". Mooo's 1st commit is June 15th. saddam hosted it very shortly after that IIRC. I've also had a very simple one up ( http://xmr.llcoins.net/) for even longer. There is really no reason to use a 13 word seed except for ease of storage due to length. Obviously 13 words is only half the bit strength, but neither are close to practical to attack yet. |
|
|
|
Looks like 25 words is the way to go.
I have a 13 word mymonero wallet. I would like to use a 25 word wallet, but I'm not inclined to do a kludge-y conversion from 13 to 25 words.
The conversion is not "kludge-y", it's rather simply impossible, unless you happen to be a lucky ~6%-er. |
|
|
|
server error on mymonero now.
Is there tutorial on how to import mymonero wallet to simple wallet?
Thinking on running fullnode now that I have stable internet connection.
There is no off-the-shelf way to do this. There is code (useful for an Oh Shit solution if MyMonero went offline permanently or for an extended period) but there are also issues with merging it directly. In practice the easiest and best way to do this, albeit with a 10 XMR fee, is to create a wallet with simplewallet, and then import that wallet in MyMonero. You will then be able to access it both ways. Easier still is generating with one of the offline generators (simplewallet is one). As long as you log into MyMonero with the seed prior to actually sending the account any funds, you don't need to pay the import fee. Basically, just use 25 word seeds instead of 13 word seeds. |
|
|
|
@$@%$!@# been fighting bots for a week. Getting sick of this shit. can't get friggin order filled.
Where at? |
|
|
|
XMR has gained 30%+ in a month. How high can it go? At the same time, DASH has gained 120 - 130%. Not a good news to me because I hold no DASH lol
Still...at least you have your self-respect. Expect Monero to reach 0.005 sometime before April. Where it goes from there is dependent on development variables. If monero reach 0.005 i would be the happiest guy here  How can you know for certain that others wouldn't be happier? |
|
|
|
Guys, Anyone know when the gui wallet is coming? I want to transfer my xmr's from polo... Yes, I can use the bitmonerod, but I'd rather use a nooby client Ty, Boestin If you are just wanting to store them, versus actually spending them or whatever, I'd recommend a paper wallet instead. |
|
|
|
A for-profit coin company, i dont care what they make, iwill never trust them. moreover RingCT will move Monero closer to Zcash
Shut up & take my ZookoCoins!  Shut up & take my VaporizedCoins. Totally untraceable and non-existent. I giggled. |
|
|
|
Recommend an exchange for New York residents barred from plx?
Move. Alternatively, consider relocating. Actually, after looking a bit, it appears that bittrex.com has applied for a BitLicense. Volume is quite low (~5 BTC) on the XMR market, but I'm sure some tasty bids would attract more sell-side liquidity (or buy-side dumping). Recommend an exchange for New York residents barred from plx?
Bittrex is another one. Sad that NY consistently chooses banning over freedom, even to the point of a 20oz soda. That's just New York City, rather than the whole state, but agree nonetheless. |
|
|
|
1. I hate when n00bs make me repeat the same shit over and over and over again. Do you think my time is free?
2. Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Exemplifies that you are a n00b who should STFU.
3. Seems you all often miss the points entirely. They fly right over your heads.
1. You appear to be giving it away. No one seems to be offering to pay you for it, but you're still here. Make of that what you will. 2. This is an extremely rude response, it doesn't matter how right/wrong either of you are. If you were wondering why (some) people are responding with hostility, look no further than examples like this. 3. Not "all" of us regularly read the thread, or your posts, or expect to have technical discussions in a thread labeled "Speculation". Okay I will leave the thread.
I would encourage you to use the thread for its intended purpose. If you have no desire or use for its intended purpose, then posting your thoughts in a better suited thread seems appropriate. |
|
|
|
So can someone tell me how the daemon is (-8days) ahead]
I think this daemons data may be corrupted. I have this running on an old spindle HHD (slower than hell) I have an SSD on the way and I think I'll just re-sync from scratch once installed but any Ideas why this message shows up? My other open daemon is running fine with no errors on another machine.
2016-Jan-19 20:12:33.976115 [P2P6][31.6.70.206:34959 INC] SYNCHRONIZED OK
2016-Jan-19 20:12:33.976115 [P2P2][45.63.14.235:48551 INC] SYNCHRONIZED OK
2016-Jan-19 20:12:45.021900 [P2P7][107.170.19.65:42753 INC]Sync data returned un
known top block: 919725 -> 913265 [6460 blocks (-8 days) ahead]
SYNCHRONIZATION started
2016-Jan-19 20:12:52.769040 [P2P3][217.118.66.161:41543 INC]Sync data returned u
nknown top block: 919725 -> 913363 [6362 blocks (-8 days) ahead]
SYNCHRONIZATION started
2016-Jan-19 20:12:53.972043 [P2P7][107.170.19.65:42756 INC]Sync data returned un
known top block: 919725 -> 913265 [6460 blocks (-8 days) ahead]
SYNCHRONIZATION started
2016-Jan-19 20:12:59.248541 [P2P3][107.170.19.65:42758 INC]Sync data returned un
known top block: 919725 -> 913265 [6460 blocks (-8 days) ahead]
SYNCHRONIZATION started
You seem to be connected to a few naughty peers. I'd suggest spanking them. (107.170.19.65:42753 and below, note the others say "SYNCHRONIZED OK") |
|
|
|
Bumping up against the hard limit is probably wastefully expensive for this "attack"
What expense? You're suggesting mining is (or can be) free? That's absurd. Even if it were free, this attack still costs you the reward. I am suggesting the State (or those corrupt who control it) can charge the cost of mining to the collective (think the Three Gorges Dam that wrecked environmental devastation downstream, upstream and derivative effects all over China). I have made this point numerous times. And apparently (after everyone said I was crazy), it came true in China and if true was a factor that enabled China to capture an estimated 67% of the mining and 51% attack Bitcoin. Documentation of these statements is in my vaporcoin thread. 1. If the profit from shorting is greater than the reward, then it doesn't cost you anything. The free mining cost just makes it more likely you can sustain it long enough to reap your reward. How do we know the Chinese won't milk the investors while the block reward is high (mining at near $0 cost charging it the cost to the collective) and then also profit by shorting it all the way down from $1000. We are bunch of naive geeks who are being reamed (mined) by savvy traders and strategists. These are no different conceptually than Rothschild's and Rockefeller's methods of yore. The players and technological field change, the game remains the same. ( 2. Yeah I am crazy conspiracy theorist whose analysis is always wrong) Edit: haven't you been slightly suspicious of why the MSM publicized Bitcoin so much. 3. That doesn't happen without the approval the global elite. 1. You likely can't know this in advance, though in some cases you may have a high degree of certainty. There is always *some* opportunity cost, as smooth mentioned. Asking the rhetorical question "What expense?" may have set me off; sorry about that. 2. Strongly disagree. Oftentimes I find your writing and analyses insightful or at least an interesting perspective. 3. Maybe, maybe not. You are making an absolute statement, but I haven't seen particularly convincing evidence. |
|
|
|
Bumping up against the hard limit is probably wastefully expensive for this "attack"; you only need to produce blocks bigger than the (expected, since you don't know in advance) median to cause the new median to shift higher.
I'm not sure about this, since it depends on your objective. We can model this simply by viewing the calculation by epochs rather than a sliding window. If you create a set of blocks with size limit+10% in each epoch, the limit will only grow by 10% per epoch. If you double the size, the limit will double per epoch. So this allows much faster growth (albeit at higher cost in penalty). But other objective functions are possible certainly. It would be a relatively simple matter to express them mathematically and maximize. Hmm, the quadratic increase in penalties suggests to me that it'd be cheaper to do it over time, but maybe not. Either way, I don't see how you can raise it above the amount "allowed" by your hash rate. Bumping up against the hard limit is probably wastefully expensive for this "attack"
What expense? You're suggesting mining is (or can be) free? That's absurd. Even if it were free, this attack still costs you the reward. |
|
|
|
There is also afaics a math flaw in ArticMine's analysis. Unless N is very small, then a miner with a significant but less than 51% hashrate is going to win a block in most every N set, and thus they can hit the 2 * MN hard limit every time, gradually ramping the median block size up over time. Thus the spam attack is not avoided, rather it just takes longer. And again I had pointed out that by shorting the coin, they can potentially recover their lost block rewards and profit. And if N is very small, then the likelihood that a miner can win all N blocks with less than 51% hashrate increases. Also it is not clear to me from ArticMine's specification if N is overlapping meaning a FIFO queue? But I doubt that makes any difference to my math point.
Bumping up against the hard limit is probably wastefully expensive for this "attack"; you only need to produce blocks bigger than the (expected, since you don't know in advance) median to cause the new median to shift higher. However, your attack doesn't work AFAICS. If a (less than 50%) miner spams his own blocks full of transactions (greater than current median, exact values not important as he's not including any other transactions), he can only expand the median relative to his % of the hash rate. For example, if a 33% miner produces blocks all 2x the median, he effectively reduces "real" block space by 33%, so the median should expand 50% to accommodate. His effect after that expansion is likely not going to be significant. This should remain true all the way up to 50% and 2x. After that, a block from the attacker actually captures the median value, and he can do whatever he wants. N=100 right now BTW. There are some other possible weaknesses or mal-incentives in the current approach; I think it still has room for improvement. |
|
|
|
I stand corrected. I think the chance of getting one or more double block in a day, including any double that's part of a triple
1 - (1 - .025^2)^1339 =~57%
Using exponents 3 and 1338, you have about a 2% chance of hitting a triple on any given day.
Now we're on the same page. Though, I don't think it's correct to subtract from the exponent like that, but I could be wrong. Let's see if this makes sense. Consider a group of three consecutive blocks. Your chance of winning at least one is 1 - (1 - .025^1)^3 Your chance of winning at least two in a row is 1 - (1 - .025^2)^2 Your chance of winning all three is .025^3, or 1 - (1 - .025^3)^1. The sum of the exponents is constant. This still isn't right, but it's fairly close. For example: 1 - (1 - .025^2)^2 = 0.001249609375, but the true odds of "2 in a row out of 3 'rolls'" seem to be 79 / 64,000 or 0.001234375. Anyway, I think neither of us are really correct. We need something more like: https://www.quora.com/How-many-times-do-I-have-to-roll-a-dice-to-roll-the-same-number-six-times-in-a-rowIf I did it right, I think it should take 65,640 blocks on average for a triple, or like 2.19% / day. |
|
|
|
I stand corrected. I think the chance of getting one or more double block in a day, including any double that's part of a triple
1 - (1 - .025^2)^1339 =~57%
Using exponents 3 and 1338, you have about a 2% chance of hitting a triple on any given day.
Now we're on the same page. Though, I don't think it's correct to subtract from the exponent like that, but I could be wrong. |
|
|
|
its all about the probability of an orphan block. if we could minimize that probability it would be a big step in the right direction. maybe we should diminish the advantage of 0 tx blocks by making all blocks equally large no matter how much real TXs are in there. so every block would have the same disadvantage of a full block no matter if those are TXs or just some clutter to fill up the 1MB or 2MB
The reason there are one transaction blocks is that the miners don't know which transactions which are in the mempool are valid. The minute you add a minimum requirement, miners will just fill it with dummy transactions they know to be valid but are not in the mempool. You gain nothing but waste space. Not sure what you mean here... The mempool is, by definition, the set of transactions a node has received and validated, but have not yet been included in a block, right? Maybe I am missing some context or something? I think he means "valid to include in the next block", because they don't (yet) know which ones were included in the header they are building on. |
|
|
|
FWIW I don't really recommend messing with limit-down unless it is interfering with your gaming, movie streaming, voip, etc. It is just going to make the sync process take longer and use about the same total bandwidth anyway. Usually "sprint to idle" is the best approach.
Limit-up is another matter, since that is a measure of how much you are serving blocks to other nodes. You can currently cut that down and leech if you want to. Although somewhat anti-social, it is better than not running a node at all.
Yes, I agree. Download usually isn't a concern. Nearing max upload on most consumer connections can royally screw them up their performance, so limiting that can make perfect sense. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
