Try the file command on Linux: file wallet.dat
wallet.dat: Berkeley DB (Btree, version 9, native byte-order) Do we know since when wallet file use Berkeley DB? I recall very early version of Bitcoin Core have almost no external dependency. |
|
|
|
Many people are used with CEX, so i don't expect there'll major rise in P2P trading. It's more likely people will try to create bank account on different bank or even off-shore bank which doesn't forbid cryptocurrency-related transaction. Peer to peer is good and will be the best if any form of scam can be avoided which is not possible.
Face to face peer to peer is very risky because one can be set on trap and can be rubbed all because of trust. On the other hand, one can also be scammed if there is not a trusted person to stand as a middleman to make sure the transaction is done with any cheat because people can be funny at times, they can decide to go away with people’s money because they are anonymous.
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. |
|
|
|
I now see within guides that they mention that SSD has to be formatted to APFS or else there will be error.
Well I managed to download Bitcoin Core to my 2TB SSD with no faults as of yet and now looking to do the next step which is Ord Wallet however now have questions regarding do I keep going forward with my EXFAT format SSD or do I Format my SSD to APFS which would be erase of Bitcoin Core which took me 3 days to download.
What do i do?
It's true there are few reports that using exFAT on Mac OS to run Bitcoin Core cause corruption, such as https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/28552. So personally i'd recommend you to reformat your SSD to APFS. But if you have another storage drive, you could move downloaded files (created by Bitcoin Core) to somewhere else temporarily, so you don't have to redownload everything. |
|
|
|
--snip--
I apologise if the information I have provided has not been correct, I should have researched my responses in more detail. Regarding your commentary on my response to the "Comparing Inheritance Services": Whilst my commentary wasn't reviewing the provided inheritance services, my comment was related to the intent of the topic which is inheritance of cryptocurrency/bitcoin. It is true that using an inheritance service relies on the use of a third party which most cryptocurrency users do not want to do at all, as that is the intention of using bitcoin, being your own custodian of your own assets. Regarding your comment on the multi-sig wallets, I should have been more specific, I was actually referring to a 2-of-3 spend condition, not 3-of-3 spend condition. When I said "3 required keys" I mean as in, you need 3 keys in total, and it has to be odd, so that you when you have 2 keys it is a majority and meets the spend condition, the same way with a 3-of-5 spend condition, you need a majority of 5. There is 5 keys required in total to be created, which is odd, but you don't need to have a 5-of-5 spend condition, that doesn't really make any sense to me. I do not recommend this, and it is definitely dangerous - my post was not specific enough on the spend conditions, but I think there has been a quick assumption on your behalf. First of all, i appreciate you provide detailed response in this thread. Now i understand better what you're trying to say regarding multi-sig wallet. While it's true there are few assumption on my behalf, i doubt other reader would know you're actually talking about 2-of-3 spend condition when you didn't even mention number 2 (two). Regarding your commentary on my response to the "51% attack" post. This post is in relation to Bitcoin, not BCH or any other cryptocurrency where a different mining type like proof of stake etc could be applied. I am simply referring to proof of work in Bitcoin alone. A fork absolutely can occur based on a 51% attack. I am not referring to a soft fork that changes in the rules. One thing to keep in mind is that these forum threads are a discussion, they are not a statement of true fact and definition. It's important to be open to discussion on theoretical incidents. Yes my knowledge might not be perfect on all topics, but I don't believe that excludes me from being able to contribute to a discussion. I am open to being wrong and corrected absolutely.
I see. I usually term "block organization", but term "fork" is also valid term to describe 51% attack which create new chain (with most accumulated hashrate/work). And FYI, while such attack require 51% hashrate to ensure success, someone might try it with less hashrate on transaction with only few confirmation. You can use this calculator https://jlopp.github.io/bitcoin-confirmation-risk-calculator/ to estimate the success rate. Regarding your commentary on my response to "tails persistent storage", you are right and I was wrong about this. I have only last used Tails in the 2016 to 2017 period, and back then the intent of Tails was not to have any persistent storage at all. The intention of using Tails back then was purely anonymity and privacy, and to delete everything after you finished using the operating system. However, I was wrong about this and probably should have researched in more detail before contributing my comment.
I didn't use Tails back on 2016 or 2017, so i'll take your words. Anyway, it'd be great if you edit your posts to state that your previous statement is outdated. I am not a hacked account lol, I can happily provide any proof that is required.
I don't think you're using hacked account either, so IMO there's no need to provide any proof. --snip--
I tried to send a group PM to you DaveF and ABCbits simultaneously but it doesn't seem to be working, so I will add my comment here. Regarding your allegation that my account is hacked DaveF - I simply recovered my old account and started using it. I am aware that having multiple accounts on this forum is not allowed so did not want to create a new account, plus I knew I registered this many years ago. Not sure what I can provide to revert your opinion on this. If there is anything I can to change your perspective, let me know. There is literally no reason for someone to try and hijack my account if it had no post history prior to this year. Additionally, my account's primary email address is not with a service provider which is vulnerable to password reset via SMS, so not possible for me to be a victim of a sim swap attack for account takeover, and secured with multi-factor authentication additionally. Thanks for the explanation. And FYI having multiple account actually is allowed by this forum. See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=703657.0, point number 18. |
|
|
|
sparrow has published a new release today version 1.8.5 includes the following new features: - whirlpool over decentralized soroban
--snip-- I didn't expect they'd implement it quickly. After all, Samourai only announce it on their wallet last month[1]. Another question I have (which I don't see answered on Sparrow site) is whether it's advisable to run the Electrum server on the same laptop that Sparrow (and Bitcoin full node) is running on. I remember reading somewhere (forget where) that doing that can cause security/privacy issues and it's better to run Electrum server on separate hardware. Is this the case?
At least for privacy issue, other people might say that since spying company could find out which node/IP address broadcast certain transaction for first time. In this case, configuring Bitcoin Core to use VPN or Tor should solve the issue. [1] https://blog.samourai.is/decentralized-whirlpool-stage-1/[/list] |
|
|
|
This is somewhat vague question, so i only could give vague answer such as, 1. Avoid using Windows OS if possible. 2. Verify the downloaded Bitcoin Core. https://bitcoincore.org/en/download/ shows how to do it. 3. Do not execute command on Bitcoin Core's console or RPC-JSON if you don't understand what it does. While lite wallets like Electrum offer convenience but I prioritize security.
There really is nothing like a lite bitcoin wallet. Closest example I can think of is a web wallet which is constantly offline and is very unsafe. He probably use term "lite" because Electrum doesn't download whole blockchain. It's definitely lighter than Bitcoin Core. |
|
|
|
It's not surprising, no business would be happy if there's proposal which state they'll need to pay more taxes. Miner should re-consider their long-term plan if this proposal shows many sign become law. cryptocrits "read full article" website has lots of pop-ups that want you to download crap... i dont recommend visiting his link
advice to cryptocrit: remove the crappy stuff your site tries to get people to download
In addition, why would OP put widget of bitcoin price chart on top of the page when the page itself is about news. Anyway, here's less worse alternative news source for this topic, https://www.dlnews.com/articles/regulation/bidens-dame-tax-could-destroy-bitcoin-mining-in-us/. |
|
|
|
Thanks for the feedback. Given that I am always showing the minimum price to use the inheritance features, I renamed the row to "Minimum Yearly Price" Thank you for creating this list. I find Liana is interesting since it's open source solution without dependency on third party. I also notice other service such as Jinca offer multiple pricing, while your list only mention "$45 69,428 SATS". So i would suggest you to mention that service have multiple tier/pricing.
Great, now it looks better and more accurate. That's an interesting list, but I don't think that I would ever rely on a third party service to deal with the problem of crypto inheritance.
How can you be sure that those "crypto inheritance services" aren't potential scams? Is there any real feedback from people, who actually used those inheritance services?
It's good being cautious, but it also shows you didn't check the list in detail. Currently the list only include non-custodial service. Is it so difficult to just give your wallet passwords and private keys to your heirs when you get old? I know that there are cases of sudden and unexpected death of the BTC owner, but there's nothing we can do about that. I guess that life insurance can solve the problem, but crypto doesn't have anything to do with life insurance.
It's difficult if you can't fully trust them not to steal your Bitcoin or make a copy without paying attention to security. |
|
|
|
This may be a hacked / sold account. Registered back in August 2015 but no posts until this year and then posting crap. Going to keep an eye on it to see what else happens. Just a very odd behavior. I also notice difference between registration date and first post. But i doubt anyone would bother hack old account without any activity. @ABCbits keep up the good work with doing this, gives others who may not have enough time the ability to keep an eye on some possible bad users.
-Dave
Thanks. |
|
|
|
Hello everyone, I am a macOS software developer. I am currently developing an open-source software to safeguard users' clipboards ( https://secureclipx.cleanclip.cc), aiming to protect users' assets from the influence of malicious software. I am currently gathering information on attack methods used by malicious software through the clipboard to enhance the capabilities of my software. Could you please provide any existing attack methods related to the clipboard? Have you tried researching common way to track or modify clipboard of Mac OS? Here's an example from quick google search. On a macOS system, there are two commands that can be used to extract clipboard data, osascript, and pbpaste. This technique is quite well-known and documented at this point and is built into popular exploitation frameworks such as the EmpireProject’s EmPyre, a Python-based exploitation framework which works with macOS. also provide many resource about clipboard on Mac OS. I don't think most member can provide details which aren't mentioned on those link i mentioned. |
|
|
|
|
Thank you for creating this list. I find Liana is interesting since it's open source solution without dependency on third party. I also notice other service such as Jinca offer multiple pricing, while your list only mention "$45 69,428 SATS". So i would suggest you to mention that service have multiple tier/pricing.
|
|
|
|
User: SickDayInBitcoin inheritance is a complex topic for sure. Whilst there may be services out there, the problem of relying on a third party to act as an intermediary still persists and a lot of people do not want this, myself included. The solution really is just using a multi-signature wallet where say you have allocated cryptocurrency for each child. For example if you have 3 children, you have 3 wallets, all require 3 keys, so you have 9 keys in total. You distribute the keys with a trusted person such as the executor of your estate, like a family member, but you only include 1 of the keys with them for each wallet so they can't actually do anything with it. You could hide 1 key in a written will, or in other methods so when you are deceased your children will inherit the necessary keys to access the wallets.
1. This is partially off-topic response since it's 1st reply on a thread with title "Comparing Inheritance Services". 2. His suggestion to create 3 multi-signature wallet with 3-of-3 spend condition (since he said "all require 3 keys") is dangerous since you'll lose access to the Bitcoin even if one of the key is lost. There are two different attack chain scenarios that advanced persistent threats, or nation state actors could attempt:
1) A 51% attack targeted at controlling 51% or more of the total mining power to fork Bitcoin and create a new primary Bitcoin chain.
2) A quantum computing attack on the cryptography supporting Bitcoin itself.
Whilst both are attack scenarios which can be considered, I think your thread focuses the point of discussion on the 51% attack.
Now, the way to conduct this attack would either require purchasing 51% of the existing compute power from miners (e.g. AntPool, etc), or purchasing new compute power, at 100% of the current available compute used by miners, thereby doubling the available compute of the current 100% to 200%. This is probably more likely as it would make no sense for miners to sell their hash power to a state actor who had the intention of destroying Bitcoin. Realistically they would only be successful an at attack by introducing new compute and doubling the overall supply.
However even then whilst 51% could be required theoretically, forking Bitcoin would require much more compute, like 60-70% or more. Just look at Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin SV, and the other forks that exist as examples why.
1. You don't need 51% hashrate to perform a fork. In addition, you don't need any hashrate if the fork also replace PoW with something else. 2. BCH perform fork even though it has far smaller hashrate than BTC. It's also true for BSV when it forked itself from BCH. 3. AntPool is mining pool, not miner. Besides, AntPool and few other mining pool already offer accelerator service. That means they'll harm their own service by letting someone else use their miner's hashrate.
Below reply wasn't created on technical board, but still give inaccurate technical information. I know there is a way that you can upgrade an offline usb with Tails by cloning from another usb with the latest version.
My question is: by using this method, would you only upgrade the OS without any other changes in configuration? Would the persistent storage of the offline usb be preserved entirely?
Thx!
The intention of Tails is not to be a persistent operating system, so nothing should actually be stored on the USB. It should only simply have a copy of the version of the Tails operating system. The best thing to do would be simply overwrite the entire USB with the upgraded version of Tails you are seeking to use. Whether or not use another USB to do this is irrelevant. 1. Tails offer persistent storage feature, https://tails.net/doc/persistent_storage/configure/index.en.html. So it's okay to store data on USB which contain Tails. 2. Tails provide upgrade feature without overwrite, https://tails.net/doc/upgrade/. |
|
|
|
is it indeed only one entity doing all the spam?! I'm not sure, but it looks like it: exactly the same fee, exactly the same transaction, often using the previous outputs as inputs, and broadcasting them in batches.
Maybe it's time to significantly raise the dust limit. This transaction creates more than 1000 dust inputs. Or maybe several people use same script/software which create TX with static or poor fee rate choice algorithm. Maybe it's time to significantly raise the dust limit. This transaction creates more than 1000 dust inputs. I recall the dust limit was lowered from about 5460 satoshi to 546 satoshi some years ago, partially due to rising Bitcoin price. Unless Bitcoin price decline significantly, i don't expect dust limit will be raised. |
|
|
|
It is about fairness to the people of earth. (Especially all those on the internet)
1. Not everybody is a programmer.
2. New programmers find C incredibly hard to understand.
This apply to all cryptocurrency, even when the implementation use different programming language. 3. Critical financial information was left out like:
3.1 Bitcoin halving (nasty supply shock after 4 years, repeats each 4 years, leaves late comers fighting for bread crombs)
3.2 Maximum supply (no more new/cheap supply for future generations, unfair/time discrimination)
3.3 Difficulty adjustment (while mentioned, too vague, drives up cost for future generations/unfair)
Aside from what other member said, the whitepaper comes out first before source code. It's possible Satoshi didn't think about the detail when Satoshi write the whitepaper. 4. Early adopters received more coins then late adopters (unfair)
They also take more risk/uncertainty. And such statement applies to various technology and investment. |
|
|
|
inb4 XMR ban (built-in mixer)  That would require different definition or criteria of "mixer". Nice to see that personal vendettas are ruining decentralization for us all.
We as a society really don't deserve anything anymore.
Jambler isn't decentralized though. They don't use that term either on their homepage or FAQ. |
|
|
|
--snip--
It is a complete abuse of merit. But even though you have posted it here for a long time, no action has been seen from DT members against it so far. --snip-- I recall theymos discourage giving trust feedback for merit abuse, so don't expect DT will take action. Although i expect those abuser would be ignored by some members, which means they will receive less merit from them. |
|
|
|
~ If Rune users want cheaper transaction fees for their Rune-shitcoins, then USE LIGHTNING!
Or better yet, if they actually want to develop anything and not just scam people they should create a separate and stand alone blockchain and use that to create whatever they want and stop exploiting the Bitcoin protocol  It's worth to remind you already can create NFT/token on LN using either Taproot Assets or RGB protocols. But using sidechain should be better option since you could avoid creating any transaction on Bitcoin blockchain. That's the "what", not the "how". How do you convince NFT users to stop using on-chain Bitcoin?
IMO it's mostly not technical issue. If they still prefer using Bitcoin to create NFT even though it has slower confirmation time and far higher TX fee, there aren't many other option. |
|
|
|
They're just trying to screw him even harder so the stain that's on his name sticks even more and would linger more than it should, they need to implicate that he did lie about a lot of his claims that he's the person behind the legendary user Satoshi Nakamoto, definitely not a bad idea if you ask me for the court and COPA to do that, that way, there's no way that they can make mistakes that Craig and his team might exploit to make the case against him a bit weaker thus having more chances of lighter sentencing. It's a good thing that this fiasco with Craig is almost over, I'm getting tired seeing this as headlines on crypto news, it's not a fun story to read and it topples over those that really need some attention, I hope that he does change as a person after this is all over, lying really won't get you so far, it's difficult to keep it up and once you're busted, it's difficult to get out of it.
I don't like CW and I never believed he was Satoshi, but I also don't want him to continue being attacked. We have the results, CW is just Faketoshi, that's enough for the market. The best way to punish a fame seeker is to make him forgotten in the history of the crypto market, not to keep mentioning him to give him more media exposure. I don't even want to write his full name! I've also removed BSV from my watchlist, it should rest in peace with CW's notoriety. But don't forget there are some damage remaining (e.g. Bitcoin whitepaper on bitcoin.org still blocked for UK visitor) and BSV holder doesn't seem to care much about that CW is faketoshi. update: after the march 27th order to freeze assets to the total value of £6m... to avoid asset freezing the sum had to be paid in full to the courts .. a third party paid £6m to the courts which the courts are holding onto whilst COPA calculate their costs. the court acknowledge that someone that is not CSW paid the £6m on april 12th copa filed and the court agreed to a second order to freeze accounts of CSW and 2 businesses to a total value of £1m, again giving CSW the chance to pay in full (by the 16th of april) to avoid asset freezing there will be a further court update on the 26th of april https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/bitcoin-high-court-london-b1151135.htmlI find it's hard to believe a third party actually pay £6m for faketoshi. Although i also wonder if faketoshi manage to make a loan and use it to make payment under someone else name. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
