We can just report and tag him. Users with many posts and merits are not very often banned for AI plagiarism. But well, let's at least make a reference post for tagging and reporting this spammer. So Kamasylvia AI spammer. Several most recent posts as example, will report more AI written posts. --snip-- Thanks for your effort. I also notice he quoted my post with technical nonsense, so i'll also tag him for different reason. Newbie marcosadelacruz has only 5 posts but earned 14 Merits, and woke up after more than a year to post AI plagiarism: I have been thinking a lot about this topic these days, but we must keep the following in mind:
Risks:
- Protocol complexity: Adding tokens and smart contracts introduces extra complexity to Bitcoin's protocol. This could expand the attack surface and raise the likelihood of vulnerabilities that might compromise the network's security and stability.
- Potential implementation errors: Whenever new features are introduced, there's always the risk of implementation errors that could be exploited for malicious attacks or cause network failures. This could undermine trust in Bitcoin and impact its adoption and value.
- Scalability impact: Incorporating functionalities like tokens and smart contracts might strain Bitcoin's network and hinder its ability to scale effectively. This could lead to network congestion, higher fees, and longer confirmation times, negatively affecting user experience.
Benefits:
- Expanded use cases: Implementing BRC-20 could allow for a wider range of use cases on the Bitcoin network, attracting new users, developers, and businesses to the ecosystem. This could drive adoption and long-term value for Bitcoin.
- Interoperability with other ecosystems: Compatibility with tokens and smart contracts could streamline interoperability between Bitcoin and other blockchain ecosystems, fostering collaboration and synergy among different projects and communities.
- Continuous innovation and development: Bitcoin's ability to adapt and evolve is crucial for its long-term sustainability. Implementing new functionalities like BRC-20 could encourage innovation and ongoing development in the Bitcoin ecosystem, strengthening its position as a market leader in the cryptocurrency space. Can't believe there are few member spouting nonsense on technical board within short time. |
|
|
|
To this point all good no error, but when I run: I get error: command 'ord' not foundI tried to install it using: curl --proto '=https' --tlsv1.2 -fsLS https://ordinals.com/install.sh | bash -s Can anyone help? Thanks. Adding /home/btc/bin to $PATH environment variable should fix your problem. You can check https://askubuntu.com/a/60221 how to do that. |
|
|
|
Another important reminder: Censorship won't prevent monkey jpegs. Let's leave asides if censoring monkeys would undermine one of the important properties: It just technically doesn't work. People who spend dozens of millions of dollars in monkeys everyday can bypass every censorship measure and save them straight to the UTXO set, which would be a lot worse for the rest of us.
But don't forget there are ways to discourage those spammer. Even if it's limited to make Ordinals TX become non-standard, it would force them to use Runes instead where they only can store 80 bytes of arbitrary data on OP_RETURN on each TX. Another important reminder: Censorship won't prevent monkey jpegs. Let's leave asides if censoring monkeys would undermine one of the important properties: It just technically doesn't work. People who spend dozens of millions of dollars in monkeys everyday can bypass every censorship measure and save them straight to the UTXO set, which would be a lot worse for the rest of us. Reinstating the "coin days destroyed" priority mechanism can help. Spammers can't destroy unlimited coin days, but this isn't in the interest of miners. And that's a fundamental problem: the ones who earn from high fees benefit from the flaws in the fee system. That mechanism was never part of Bitcoin protocol. It's just default behavior on Bitcoin Core (previously called "Bitcoin-Qt" and "Bitcoin") which used by miner until they prioritize profit. |
|
|
|
2. Multifunctional calculator from Chinese noname AIRCHR.  Price: unknown. I just checked the link and the page says that device has price 9067 RUB or about 97 USD. With two or three memory card which I can put on a memory card adapter. Only one adapter. Or to get two or three small size flashdrive. Or to get two or three small size disk. Or get one of each or anyhow that I want it but in a way that I will have more than one backup. I can use any of them to encrypt the seed phrase and carry it along with me while traveling. If possible I am still traveling back, I will also leave backups at home.
A flash drive arouses the curiosity of strangers about the contents of this device, even if the data there is encrypted. But i wonder how many people would put random/unknown flash drive to their device these days. After all, it may contain malware or send high voltage in attempt to break your device. |
|
|
|
I would like to use BRC-20 for completely uncensored communication.
Then why don't you run your own Nostr or Matrix server? That is alongside the second layer scaling solution and as a complementary improvement because something like LN can not solve much alone. Well, if the problem is that on-chain peg-in transactions are not sufficient to bring all people inside LN, then there are other solutions. One of them is to put channel-opening transactions to the off-chain world: https://delvingbitcoin.org/t/can-game-theory-secure-scaling/797/1 And another is of course CoinPool, or other similar proposals, to switch from 2-of-2 multisig into N-of-N multisig: https://coinpool.dev/Opening LN channel from sidechain sounds interesting. But on other hand, it'll require some party use LN software which monitor activity on that sidechain. And in practice, both party could just create the transaction on sidechain itself since sidechain usually offer lower TX fee. |
|
|
|
i understand some of the risks involved with this, regarding being feed a false history etc
Your node wont have a risk of accepting false history if you ensure that you're connected to a number of peers and not limit it with 1 or a few that could all be rogue nodes. ( hardly even happens with 10) Forget to say it earlier, but Bitcoin Core also have IP bucketing feature in order to avoid connect node in similar region based on connection type, ASN and IP subnet. It makes connecting only to rogue nodes even more unlikely since attacker need to allocate their rogue nodes on different network. |
|
|
|
The concept speeks for itself: after a determined amount of time alive, let's say E epochs, where E could be 4, any UTXO becomes claimable by miners.
Why miners ? They are big corpos, they will even be states, but they are forced in some way to make sats circulate. Wether it is directly, by selling / spending fresh coins (or fees), or indirectly, by storing those sats and rely on a friendly actor to cover power expenses.
Each UTXO store different amount of Bitcoin, so some miner/pool would receive far more Bitcoin than others. In addition, claiming one or more UTXO which contain tons of BTC will give incentive to perform 51% attack in order to claim those UTXO for themselves. |
|
|
|
Well, thanks to all for contributions. There are several guides on how to install linux on a chromebook but I am trying also to generate a key without software.
Why do you want avoid generate key without software? I think you fell into XY problem[1]. Or at least it would be the last option. Looking for an alternative, I am looking for a private key directly from a "binary" code. But I am not able to generate a valid one with my (rude ...) method  : I have taken a private key: 5KYZdUEo39z3FPrtuX2QbbwGnNP5zTd7yyr2SC1j299sBCnWjss
source: https://jhoenicke.github.io/brainwallet.github.io/#generatorconverted in binary code with: https://www.rapidtables.com/convert/number/binary-to-ascii.htmlI made some random changes in 0/1 (only few changes if 0 to 1 and vice versa). But I am not able to generate a valid private key converting back to text .... I get error invalid private key. It's a wrong method? Any suggestion? It's probably because the first website only accept Base58 format, where Base58 format have checksum[2]. Changing the data would make it no longer match with it's checksum. [1] https://xyproblem.info/[2] https://learnmeabitcoin.com/technical/keys/base58/ |
|
|
|
I will simply create a new wallet without 2FA... this shit cost me 40$, without a pre-warning when setting up the 2FA. Feels like I got scammed.
You were warned about that extra fee when you were creating your 2FA wallet, but you probably didn't notice that.  --snip-- But on a side note, TrustedCoin haven't changed their fee in really long time. I did quick search and found out the fee haven't changed since January 2021[1]. Which means the cost was about $15 back then. And their service was never cheap since they need to manage the signing key securely. [1] https://archive.ph/8xvqR |
|
|
|
OP, what exactly do you mean by do the right thing? Reviving P2Pool (a decentralized mining pool)[1]? Asking miner to mine on different pool? Anyway, it's hard to understand why would those pool decide to use custodian rather than manage it by themselves. [1] http://p2pool.in/ |
|
|
|
--snip--
However, one thing I don't like at Windows (which I also use too much) is the default auto-run at inserting USB stick, which can cause you surprises (eg install malware) when you are transferring tx to the airgapped wallet for signing. Plus, you know, most viruses and malware are Windows specific.
So... I still recommend to give a good thought before choosing.
It's no longer true though. Autorun (running arbitrary application) no longer work and only Autoplay (opening multimedia file) remain exist on Windows OS. While there's possibility malware hidden on the multimedia file and executed by the multimedia application, overall risk is lower. |
|
|
|
Everyone trusts hardware wallets to secure cryptocurrencies, but how can the authenticity of a hardware wallet be verified so that it has not been tampered with or compromised during production or distribution? That's a tough one It's recommended to only buy hardware wallets directly from the manufacturer (and never from third parties). After that, you can follow the authentication process on their website. But indeed, it's one of the things I never feel 100.0000000% sure about. It's too much of a black box. FWIW, some hardware wallet company create list of authorized reseller/distributor. Although i don't expect they're being monitored closely by HW company. And few hardware wallet is completely open (both hardware and software), where theoretically you could verify everything assuming you have time and skill to do that. |
|
|
|
|
While i agree with OP's opinion, it's not really new idea. People have been using satoshi, mBTC and other less common unit when displaying price of their goods or services. Even Electrum use mBTC unit by default. Besides, i expect very few Bitcoiner use Bitcoin to pay goods or services on daily basis. Many Bitcoin owner either only hold or make payment on some occasion (e.g. pay yearly VPN).
|
|
|
|
Try an Initial Blockchain Download and node sync on a mechanical harddrive, it's a real funnot so much for the drive. You can keep the irony if you detect it.
It's generality true. But if you allocate enough RAM for all UTXO, then it's boring. |
|
|
|
Since you post it under Bitcoin parent board, i'll just say that there's almost no chance Bitcoin will switch from PoW to PoS. Aside from everything you've mentioned, it require hard fork which usually flat rejected by Bitcoin community. For such crap like ordinals, inscriptions and similar baggage I'm really grateful for shitcoins to exist. Having such a mess on Solana or Ethereum is a big benefit for Bitcoin to stay as far away as possible from getting overloaded by such spammy activities. And no, I'm not a friend of Shitcoins but here, no one can deny that shitcoins are not beneficial by absorbing a large part of spam.  You have this backwards. It's beneficial for ordinals and inscriptions to take place on Bitcoin instead of other chains because these transactions pay fees for higher hashrate security. Or rather, it's only beneficial for both miner and exchange. Miner earn more BTC from high TX fees, while exchange have excuse to increase their withdraw fee even though only fraction used as BTC TX fees. |
|
|
|
Your question already answered on https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/q/88652. In short, assumevalid only skip script verification (usually verify whether the cryptographic signature is valid or not) until certain block passed. |
|
|
|
Assuming you did not format the device but make it airgapped. Can malware still be able to affect the device? The reason I said this is not because I will not format the device but because I read that not all malware can be completely removed from the device after formatting and OS reinstallation.
FYI, it's not completely removed since the malware put itself on your BIOS/UEFI firmware. Here's an example, https://www.pcmag.com/news/malware-that-can-survive-os-reinstalls-strikes-again-likely-for-cyberespionage. But there aren't many malware which have such advance capability. The reason for all this Linux is because it is not prone to viruses or malware than the Windows or MacOS. So probably going offline after reformatting will actually reduces the risk of both OS too to be infected. But the best still remains the Linux.
I do not see a reason to use Linux if the wallet is on an airgapped device. I think all those operating systems are good. If you need reason, Linux distro is lighter. By lighter, i mean use less storage space, less RAM and less CPU usage. Although i expect it doesn't matter much unless you use old or slow device. |
|
|
|
To make it easier, maybe you can add some code to your OP, where it's easier for everyone to report, similar like: Account:
List of posts containing false/fake information:
Case status: still open / solved by moderators And add below the form that it would ne nice to correct all false/fake informations. That's great idea. I'll think about the format and edit this thread later. Thanks @ABCbits, just to summarise I have done the following: (1) I deleted my post in the thread in relation to tails, as it was incorrect. (2) My post in the bitcoin inheritance thread was already deleted by a moderator. (3) I have updated my post in relation to the attack scenarios to include the new insights you shared: That was quick, i appreciate your action. |
|
|
|
After 14 years I just recovered all the data from it, but because the system was RAW all files came out unknown.. I know the wallet is one of them but I got about 3 thousand files
I forget to mention it earlier. But if you have access to the HDD or raw copy of the HDD, you could use tool called pywallet to scan it and automatically find bitcoin wallet files. You can obtain it from https://github.com/jackjack-jj/pywallet. I also provide a short example how to use it on https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5472426.msg63097543#msg63097543. Hi everyone is there anyone here who could possibly help me identify a wallet mined with MS DOS in 2010 before bitcoin core existed, if you know you know.
...
It was mined with MS DOS, there was nothing to install at that time, just run commands and mine..
...
Those two statements make no sense. Before bitcoin core was bitcoin-qt and various GPU mining software such as cgminer, but MS-DOS? I know of a Linux distro that came with bitcoind in 2011, but MS-DOS? OP's most recent reply (3 posts above yours) indicate he actually refer to Windows's Command Prompt (cmd). |
|
|
|
Some P2P/DEX such as Bisq require deposit to reduce scam possibility. As for physical or face to face P2P, you also could reduce the risk by bringing people you could trust.
Problem is you don't know what kind of laundry the p2p provider is involved in. If they also work for Hamas. I doubt P2P and DEX is popular choice, especially due to low volume and worse exchange rate. In addition, U.S. treasury recently also share their finding that cryptocurrency is rarely used by such group[1]. [1] https://beincrypto.com/us-treasury-clears-crypto-terrorism-financing/. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
