For Raspberry Pi 4 Model B (8GB) will there be assembly or the device does not meet the technical requirements? Installing deb package didn't work... You can't install 64 bit deb packages in Raspberry Pi that is usually 32 bit arm, but maybe you can find or make compatible Appimage for Wasabi. they are similar to portable applications used on wiNd0ws OS. I think that I was able to run older Wasabi 1.0 like this on Rpi before, but you can always compile it yorself, or open request on Wasabi github page. Raspberry Pi 4B use 64-bit ARM SoC. The problem probably are, 1. The website only show .deb file for x86_64. But arm64 available at their GitHub release page[1] 2. OP download Raspberry Pi[2] OS long time ago where they offered 32-bit OS by default. It took some time until they offer 64-bit version[3]. [1] https://github.com/zkSNACKs/WalletWasabi/releases[2] https://www.raspberrypi.com/software/[3] https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Raspbian-OS-64-bit |
|
|
|
Lightning doesn’t create coins out of thin air Of course, because millisatoshis not divisible by 1000 are enforced on-chain, right? When you close LN channel, it's rounded down (e.g. 1.9876 satoshi become 1 satoshi). |
|
|
|
That is true, but you can in some extent disable all this tracking and history settings in your google account and disable all this data collection, so even if your account gets hacked they wont have much information. I am happy to report that my Google Timeline is completely empty. According to Google, I have never even left my house and I am planning to keep it that way. No movements in my town, I have never travelled anywhere, visited any new cities, and they have no photos to connect me to any destinations. The less they have, the better. In reality, Google only claim they don't collect your data by not showing anything on Google Timeline. They still track you even after you opt-out[1], although AFAIK their ads/recommendation become less accurate after you opt-out. [1] https://www.consumerreports.org/privacy/google-sued-for-tracking-consumers-after-they-opted-out-a2966481024/ |
|
|
|
I'm also curious as to what is going to happen when (for example) 50% of nodes have enabled full RBF, 50% of nodes have not enabled full RBF, and I try to replace a transaction which is opted out of RBF. What about if I'm using a hot wallet and not my own node? Will I have to connect to different servers to find one which will relay my replacement transaction? And then presumably some block explorers will show the original transaction while some will show the replacement, and I'll have no idea which one will actually get mined until one of them is mined?
If you use light wallet and managed to connect to server which relay full RBF transaction, it's likely your transaction will receive on miner mempool. Each node connect to at least 8 other node, so in average 4 of them will continue to relay your transaction. Yeah, it's a somewhat bad news for the services that were boasting 0-confirmation deposits. But they can use LN now.
It's also bad news for user who only occasionally spend their Bitcoin on such services. It's unlikely they'll bother use LN wallet or lock their Bitcoin on LN channel when they only make transaction once in a month. |
|
|
|
Are there are any snapshot of their ToS on internet? I'd like to check it if possible.
You can check them all at the bottom of their website, I haven't archived them or anything but hope they don't change it overnight. The website only show black screen on Tor Browser, so i was assuming it was down when i asked the question. But i just checked it with Chrome/Firefox + VPN and it loads fine. Anyway, i just archived the ToS page using online service. Here's the link, 1. https://archive.ph/iRVLo2. https://web.archive.org/web/20220623095835/https://www.bitlucy.com/about/terms-conditions |
|
|
|
Then read the Bitcoin white paper again, section 10 Privacy. It states: The necessity to announce all transactions publicly precludes this method, but privacy can still be maintained by breaking the flow of information in another place: by keeping public keys anonymous. A Coin Mixer can benefit this goal, since through exchanges it is possible that you can actually decrypt the owner of a public key. Coin Mixing prevents that. What does even "decrypt the owner of a public key" mean? Your public key exposed when you spend your Bitcoin. Besides, Bitcoin was never anonymous to begin with. Bitcoin is only pseudonymous. |
|
|
|
Lol, and what's up with that tweet? What are they celebrating exactly, their dwindling download rates? You're not going "to the moon" like that. Four hours since the announcement of their first transaction, and the retweets and likes aren't mooning either.  I wonder if they hire PR people who don't have much idea about Wasabi Wallet or privacy. It's also weird user no longer can choose UTXO for coinjoin process.
The automatic CoinJoin feature is a privacy problem by itself because it enables chain surveillance firms to analyze in batches all the UTXOs-candidates for a CoinJoin transaction. Once you sent coins to your Wasabi wallet and enabled this function, you basically agreed that all information about your transactions would be shared with third parties. If it were possible to choose UTXOs manually, as in the case of the old version of Wasabi Wallet, a chain surveillance firm would have to do blockchain analysis each time a new CoinJoin round starts, which is very inconvenient and time-consuming. With automatic CoinJoins, however, all UTXOs are being "filtered" in advance. nopara73 prove me wrong. Even without blacklist and surveillance on their coordinator, it's still questionable decision. Good software should enable both beginner have easy time (automated UTXO selection) while letting intermediate/advance user have control (manually choose UTXO). If they have concern user choose UTXO poorly, they better show warning and optionally show link to article/research about that subject. |
|
|
|
Besides privacy problem which already discussed, there's also concern about "auto-coinjoin" feature. I expect few user wont even realize their coin is mixed and blocked when they deposit it on CEX. It's also weird user no longer can choose UTXO for coinjoin process. Let's see how everything will work now, maybe we can use wasabi in some cases and test if it's working with coins coming from mixers and gambling, or it will be rejected. It's something like litmus paper test for coins  Great idea! I'll probably build a review campaign based on this idea. It'd be interesting how reviewer react about "auto-coinjoin" feature. |
|
|
|
No. To be specific, most wallet usually check whether the address has transaction history (rather than check it has balance). Since first 201 address has transaction history, most wallet would generate/show 201 address plus additional 20-30 address (based on wallet default gap limit). But in rare case where wallet use non-default derivation path, you might want to write down derivation path generated by Sparrow.  Source: https://www.sparrowwallet.com/docs/quick-start.html |
|
|
|
Coinbase Commerce seems to have lightning, and it's just 1% fee. Not too bad really. I always assumed it was custodial only.
Their service changed some time ago with little publication, so it's not surprising you only know the old custodial version. Thanks for the options, they look really easy to use. Will have a look at them.
Don't forget to look about they handle underpay, overpay or refunds request. I didn't find much about those on their documentation. They pull from block explorers:
--snip--
IMO it's weird choice since SPV protocol (such as Electum protocol and BIP 157/158) exist. True; I expected it to basically be BTCPayServer with neutrino backend or something similar. Which is what I'd probably do to get the functionality requested in the original post. Since that's exactly what those apps do. I just checked their release page[1] and found out initial release was only about 4 months. The project only have 3 contributor, so it's not very surprising they don't implement Neutrino or Electrum protocol. [1] https://github.com/CypherpunkPay/CypherpunkPay/releases |
|
|
|
Using "trap addresses" is the worst case, because there is no reason to do so. Also, it is more expensive than witness or OP_RETURN.
And yet the bitcoin protocol allows us to send funds to "trap addresses". Your statement is misleading. Bitcoin protocol only check whether the address is valid or not. So why you think that using "trap addresses" is better than OP_RETURN?
you're asking me why I personally think that? not a big fan of op_return since "Many members of the Bitcoin community believe that use of OP_RETURN is irresponsible in part because Bitcoin was intended to provide a record for financial transactions, not a record for arbitrary data" not a big fan of trap addresses either since i'm not the type of person to set fire to a $100 bill. You forget to quote this part, "Despite this, OP_RETURN has the advantage of not creating bogus UTXO entries, compared to some other ways of storing data in the blockchain."[1]. Each block header has 80 bytes. So heavy, isn't it?
I don't know man. This was a portable version of electrum and it went wild downloading blocchain headers. I think the filesize was a couple hundred megabytes before I just stopped the program and deleted that big file. I don't need that. If it's that big, it's likely you imported wallet with lots of transaction. Besides block header, Electrum also download merkle proof to prove the transaction on block[2]. It's cost when you don't want to blindly trust someone else. [1] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/OP_RETURN[2] https://electrumx.readthedocs.io/en/latest/protocol-basics.html#block-headers |
|
|
|
If you only care about non-custodial part, you can use 3rd party service such as Mycelium Gear[1] and Coinbase Commerce[2] where you give your master public key to them. [1] https://gear.mycelium.com/[2] https://commerce.coinbase.com/
How can they work without a node but BTCPayServer can't?, are they using a light node fallback?
They pull from block explorers: For each charge (invoice) CypherpunkPay picks two random block explorers to cross-check the payment arrival against. New Tor circuit (and so IP address) is used for each charge. User agent and headers are consistent with the Tor Browser. From the block explorer perspective it is not evident if this is CypherpunkPay or anyone else asking. It is even less clear which specific business the transaction belongs to (unless the amount itself is globally unique to your business, but then even running the full node would not help as Bitcoin blockchain itself is plain text). IMO it's weird choice since SPV protocol (such as Electum protocol and BIP 157/158) exist. |
|
|
|
There are different reason about their zero liquidity, such as
1. Chaincase only available for iOS device and still on TestFlight/beta phase. As for sakewallet, i can't even find their website.
2. Both of them has very little publication. I just heard existence of sakewallet from your posts.
3. Wasabi Wallet only use their own CJ server. If the software force user to choose CJ server which show several alternative, i expect few user would choose different CJ server.
1. Chaincase app coordinator is available for all platforms where Wasabi Wallet can run, or do you mean iOS users, in general, aren't that interested in making CounJoin transactions? As for sakewallet's website, I only found this: What i meant is very few people use Chaincase and even fewer people interested to make CoinJoin (probably due to 0 liquidity). sakewallet looks like is dead since their last tweet was on March 17. 2. Again, this only indicates that very few are really interested in finding alternatives to default coordinator.
Fair point, but how many Wasabi Wallet user know there's option to change coordinator? |
|
|
|
This is not about trap addresses, a.k.a. “burner addresses”. The stated goal implies a desire to store arbitrary data, and intentionally to defeat the purpose for which, after much debate, Core kept OP_RETURN with output data as a less-harmful way to store arbitrary data. Yeah but it all comes down to the fact that you can't enforce anything when something is an "opt-in" mechanism. Nice people might opt in but not so nice people don't have to and probably don't care at all the affects of their actions. Their actions probably do have affects. But they don't care about them. Fair point, but there are many reason to use OP_RETURN such as 1. Less overhead compared with abusing bitcoin address which has 4 byte checksum. 2. Easier to use. On Electrum, you just need to convert text to HEX using online tools and type OP_RETURN [HEX DATA], 0. 3. Many blockexplorer decode OP_RETURN output to text automatically. The stated goal is intentionally to force poor people in poor countries who are desperate for sound money to store and process oh-so-precious-snowflake graffiti on their <$50 nodes forever and forever. In the UTXO set.
poor people in poor countries may not even have a computer. and i would think are less likely to be running nodes than people that are more financially well off. the poor people probably use an app on their phone when it comes to bitcoin. come on now. It's limitation of P2P/decentralized system where you need to verify and store some/all data. But Bitcoin community already being conservative about cost of running node. |
|
|
|
I tested both these coordinators: they had literally zero liquidity, which is a clear indication that people either don't care about blacklisting or aren't aware they are being surveilled by a chainanal company.
There are different reason about their zero liquidity, such as 1. Chaincase only available for iOS device and still on TestFlight/beta phase. As for sakewallet, i can't even find their website. 2. Both of them has very little publication. I just heard existence of sakewallet from your posts. 3. Wasabi Wallet only use their own CJ server. If the software force user to choose CJ server which show several alternative, i expect few user would choose different CJ server. Makes me wonder if that is part of the problem. If you have to put some of your own BTC on the line and since a large amount of the funds for their coordinator did come from Wasabi themselves if they found themselves in a financial hole. And as much as we would like to think we are all good people and would donate to the cause we know that is not the case. Not defending what they did, just putting it out there to think about.
IMO if the problem is only money, they could increase coordinator fee or launch aggressive donation campaign. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
