|
"it does not boot"
describe this and im able to help u.
|
|
|
|
WTF?
Are you trying to tell everyone that p2pool users are BAD for bitcoin and suggesting they should configure p2pool to be BAD for bitcoin?!?
i.e. if their hardware sux, solve it by restricting BTC block sizes?!?
Sounds like p2pool is a bad idea for bitcoin since people are doing this.
Limiting transaction sizes to 32k means non-p2pool pools are WAY better for bitcoin that p2pool.
I guess everyone now has another reason to avoid p2pool ... with a standard pool we can know what the pool is setting for ALL blocks,
but with p2pool it looks like there are people who are GREATLY restricting the transaction size due to having crappy setups.
kano, there are two issues here: - users of p2pool with older versions of the client code, these are the ones that need to upgrade
- users of p2pool which have a standard ADSL and as such need to restrict block size since a 1 MB block that needs to be pushed out through a 64kB ADSL upstream connection can take a long time, even more so if it has to be sent to 50 different nodes.
I don't think that restricting block size is detrimental, I, as a miner, can decide what to include and what not. I coud, for example, leave unrestricted block size but ask for a 0.01 BTC fee and decide not to process fee-less transactions. spiccioli edit: ps. btw, my configuration reserves some space for fee-less transactions and high-priority ones. But your restriction says it is better for BTC, for people to mine on any of the big pools like OzCoin, EMC, BTC Guild, etc since they include more transactions in their blocks, and BTC is about committing transactions. Setting a restriction on transaction size because the pool sux, is not good for BTC it is BAD for BTC. Luke-Jr did this with Eligius for about 5 or 6 months - his restriction was even worse though, a maximum of 32 transactions per block. Sorry, there's no argument for doing it other than "I want to be paid more per transaction than the big pools are paid" There is NO "good for BTC" anywhere in that statement, only "BAD for BTC" This is again, why I'd like an on-going report about block sizes based on pools - i.e. show which pools are best for BTC - and this argument clearly says p2pool isn't. u get this totaly wrong, some guys did limit it but usualy bitcoind dosnt limit transactions! p2pool itself includes every transactions (even these without fees). if you would use these bitcoind settings for a centralized pool, the pool would suck too (like Eligius) but this isnt the pools software fault, its the faulty settings u set in ur bitcoind configuration. |
|
|
|
Im going to distribute the BTC in relevance to how helpfull they were. 2.5 BTC goes to: techmix, phr33, K1773R 1.25 BTC goes to: BkkCoins, dooglus (since his guess was right, even i did screw it up!) please leave me a PM with ur BTC address. Thanks for this contest, it was fun (especially at the start)  |
|
|
|
So the modified password was this?
"13a5Y+13a5Y=2x3a5Y(at least)\n"
(without the quotes)
that's correct! no its not, this is correct: $ echo "3a5Y+3a5Y=2x3a5Y(at least)" | sha256sum
41087438dbac5b77c3922cbe1f4d2f529ae3a4eb96a7534e4803361f1437f7e7 - |
|
|
|
what was the four char password?
dunno, the gpg passphrase is 41087438dbac5b77c3922cbe1f4d2f529ae3a4eb96a7534e4803361f1437f7e7 |
|
|
|
Damn It. Just found the key and it had been swept already!
Must have been just seconds....
5Hq96RktdCU3BL1U4b7Wxse2wWCiSRXierJdS68RE1Mf8BXphjg
I wonder if I could issue another spend with higher fees and have it go to me.... ha ha.
It's still unconfirmed.
yea was faster, as promised il distribute the 10BTC to all who helped. |
|
|
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
the privkey got cracked
K1773R
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQ3VurAAoJEG9KjkBCBMba/uUH/28vQfVQV/Y+3Cb5q0Bfd1Od
FIUpVbGebxq2OH+lrNI1QJitKRWxCe7iUrk4ORJybqb7XDkclDYBrDyvZ3n+A74p
m2v2ExsupVNFnIsv3HPvHezab4cXhmYDV2PTyM0/yUiGsliqqFAqDqi7tdVA3eDB
dmjpsGOe8GAOH2Eoh4p2cwu7geXmgOs3gRgCN9MOp2S+waZfeghX7Y3+pN2JRcPX
/nIO3gZuLC/oeIiahmxW9Efq8La8Ffw19m5I9zDdRf7vQ8TgMgjZ6jIFJ0GLuewR
eGmZ/M5UOfrphkS67uljBAHI9bGMCfucxeeLH8ovYTF8YYeKhRzUTNgCgQ3hezg=
=qkYa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|
|
|
Well it seems like option (1) is going to be what we'll go with so if you can hang in there for another few hours you could still get lucky!
Ok, I'll try. Unlike others, I've been trying each key manually as I've not been able to get any of the bruteforce programs working. (Arch Linux/CPU issue maybe) I think I've managed to solve your first clue though. JohnTheRipper works everywhere, i even explained how to use JohnTheRipper with ur GPU! I know I've read your post. I don't have a GPU, just a laptop. Everytime I try JTR, I just stays at: "Guesses 0" currently trying nasty on a budget server I'm renting out. EDIT: nasty fails also. Oh well. With your first clue "at least" I was taking a stab that it might be >= as in "greater than or equal to" "at least" Guesses 0 means 0 valid passwords found, as soon u see Guesses 1 u cracked it! |
|
|
|
Well it seems like option (1) is going to be what we'll go with so if you can hang in there for another few hours you could still get lucky!
Ok, I'll try. Unlike others, I've been trying each key manually as I've not been able to get any of the bruteforce programs working. (Arch Linux/CPU issue maybe) I think I've managed to solve your first clue though. JohnTheRipper works everywhere, i even explained how to use JohnTheRipper with ur GPU! |
|
|
|
ok, back to 0, heh
zvs, would you mind trying this in you bitcoin.conf? #Maximum size, in bytes, of blocks you create:
blockmaxsize=32768
#How many bytes of the block should be dedicated to high-priority transactions,
#included regardless of the fees they pay
blockprioritysize=4096
#Minimum block size you want to create; block will be filled with free transactions
#until there are no more or the block reaches this size:
blockminsize=8192
#Fee-per-kilobyte amount (in BTC) considered the same as "free"
#Be careful setting this: if you set it to zero then
#a transaction spammer can cheaply fill blocks using
#1-satoshi-fee transactions. It should be set above the real
#cost to you of processing a transaction.
mintxfee=0.005
This way you're mining blocks of 32kB max, you can also lower it till you find a good spot, but this way you're still helping the BTC network.  spiccioli would this do it? past_shares = list(tracker.get_chain(share_data['previous_share_hash'], min(height, 100))) tx_hash_to_this = {} for i, share in enumerate(past_shares): for j, tx_hash in enumerate(share.new_transaction_hashes): if tx_hash not in tx_hash_to_this: tx_hash_to_this[tx_hash] = [1+i, j] # share_count, tx_count for tx_hash, fee in desired_other_transaction_hashes_and_fees: if tx_hash in tx_hash_to_this: this = tx_hash_to_this[tx_hash] else: if known_txs is not None: this_size = bitcoin_data.tx_type.packed_size(known_txs[tx_hash]) if new_transaction_size + this_size > 50000: # only allow 50 kB of new txns/share break new_transaction_size += this_size new_transaction_hashes.append(tx_hash) this = [0, len(new_transaction_hashes)-1] transaction_hash_refs.extend(this) other_transaction_hashes.append(tx_hash) anyway, ok, i'll set it to 50000 i haven't been running merged mining, unfortunately.. i would have liked to have the 100 namecoins merged mining would cause more DOAs, I'd think.... because you'd have to be running namecoind, ixcoind, whatever else on the same machine as bitcoind... No, MM is solo Mode and dosnt add Orphans/DOAs. If you find a share who is higher or equal the diff of the MM AltChains youl simply submit a block to your local daemon (namecoind here) and thats it, only BTC mining is being p2p, MM is solomode. |
|
|
|
after reading 10 pages, I guess I'll keep on reading instead of trying to solve the "riddle"... :-"
just in case ur interested: For those who dont have enough hashing power, u can send me patterns per PM and il test em, if they match u get a portion of the 10BTC (going to distribute it fair to all who helped, including me).
|
|
|
|
How would I go about determining what the associated public key is? Can I use the openssl command? Something like: echo -n C4BBCB1FBEC99D65BF59D85C8CB62EE2DB963F0FE106F483D9AFA73BD4E39A8A |openssl {some parameters here}
Damn, this is exactly what I've been trying to figure out all day as well No luck here either. openssl dosnt support this. Yep, all three of us were noticing that. Any useful suggestion on how to get a public key from a command line terminal on a Mac given a 256 bit private key? armoryengine.py would be the solution! Where do I find this program, how do I trust it (is the source available?) and what is the usage? Something like this? echo -n C4BBCB1FBEC99D65BF59D85C8CB62EE2DB963F0FE106F483D9AFA73BD4E39A8A | armoryengine.pl -genPublicKey |
|
|
|
How would I go about determining what the associated public key is? Can I use the openssl command? Something like: echo -n C4BBCB1FBEC99D65BF59D85C8CB62EE2DB963F0FE106F483D9AFA73BD4E39A8A |openssl {some parameters here}
Damn, this is exactly what I've been trying to figure out all day as well No luck here either. openssl dosnt support this. Yep, all three of us were noticing that. Any useful suggestion on how to get a public key from a command line terminal on a Mac given a 256 bit private key? armoryengine.py would be the solution! |
|
|
|
How would I go about determining what the associated public key is? Can I use the openssl command? Something like: echo -n C4BBCB1FBEC99D65BF59D85C8CB62EE2DB963F0FE106F483D9AFA73BD4E39A8A |openssl {some parameters here}
Damn, this is exactly what I've been trying to figure out all day as well No luck here either. openssl dosnt support this. |
|
|
|
The installer cannot be ran in Windows 8 because of Windows SmartScreen, which cannot be fully disabled.
You can select "More info" in the SmartScreen and run the installer. ah win8, win is already a pain but win8? im sry 4 u  |
|
|
|
Securing the distro is another issue as is securing the computer (will be discussing that in another thread after this) and although I agree a program rather than a bash script would be better if you have a secure computer (the most important thing) and a distro that you trust (not quite as important really as the script is running programs that can be tested).
Turning this into something more "Gavin's grandma" friendly would be quite hard - but I have some ideas about this.
The first being to have a list of meta-password logic templates (such as "math equations", "sewing patterns", etc.) and after you choose the logic template you would then supply the "variables" (let's say at least a couple of numbers) and then it would create a specific password script line (to replace the one in default template).
So from a menu I select: Math Equations
then from a sub-menu I select: x+y=z
and type in values 1, 2 for x and y and it might then spit out:
$password+$password$password=$password$password$password
if u want to create a secure distro u should implement this: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1732927/signed-executables-under-linuxcombine the signed stuff into ur hashing algo, therefore if someone puts in differents binarys and would be able to disable the signed binary enforcement of the kernel, your algo would change and u wouldnt be able to de/encrypt anymore (or atleast not correct, u can always en/de-crypt to garbage). EDIT: simple rule based on this: the longer it takes to hash 1 round, the longer it takes to bruteforce it (assuming there are no design flaws) |
|
|
|
Thanks - so if did this: opassword=`echo "($password $password $password)" | sha256sum`
# This strips off the trailing space and dash from sha256sum.
opassword=`echo $opassword | awk -F ' ' '{ print $1 }'`
for i in {1..99} # NOTE: Also change the # of iterations here.
do
password=`echo "$password $opassword $password" | sha256sum`
done
password=`echo $password $opassword | awk -F ' ' '{ print $1 }'`
how would that change things? would take atleast twice as long (ignoring the decreased iterations) since u got twice string concat and shasum, your first awk is useless since u can take the full output and reuse it. if u really want to create something secure u shouldnt do it in bash since ur depending on the binarys of the distro, if someone puts malicious binarys in your $PATH every effort would be useless. create your project in python (since every linux distro includes it per default) or C (best way since u can specify much more and its much safer). EDIT: for performance reasons, use cut instead of awk. |
|
|
|
its just his guess how long we need, i need around 1 min per sweep (creating wordlist and bruteforcing it).
Oh - must have got confused by all the stats - so if the script was changed to this: password="${password}+${password}=${password}${password}@L3AsT"
opassword=$password
for i in {1..999}
do
password=`echo "$password[$opassword]$password" | sha256sum`
done
Could you give me an estimate of the sweep time? bruteforce time: same since its still a GPG key based on sha256sum (still, this dosnt matter since we want the approx for a full sweep) creating the wordlist would take 1000-10000 times longer than what we got now. 1k (compared to 1 as we do have it right now) rounds of sha256 and string concatenationg, this takes tons of CPU/GPU cycles. think about it like this: bitcoin is sha256(sha256($work)), now my GTX580 GPU can hash at 150-170 MH/s. double the hashrate and you got rougly single sha256 round 300MH/s. divide by 1k and u get 300k/s. 300k/s only for the sha256, without the String contatenation and so on. lets be fair and say if everything could be moved to my GPU (hashing, wordlist, bruteforcing) you would be able to get around 10-100k/s (il take 50k/s). since the password is still 4 char alphanumeric it would be a wordlist with 14776336 hashes, this means it would take around 295526 Seconds or 82 Hours for 1 sweep! if the salt is unknown too (as now) it would be almost impossible to do in it a matter of time, not even to talk about that it wont be worth it. these are all just guesses based on my knowledge, good question are always hard to answer. A good question is based on facts, since these are unknown i cant give u a perfect answer and i dont want to wait some days for it to complete and dislike to write such a tool. il hope this is good enough  EDIT: this is only correct if u got the sha256 of the password, otherwise it would be MUCH slower since it would have to do the GPG stuff too. sha256 around 300MH/s for me (aprox), GPG around 400k/s. (factor of 1.1k). EDIT: for example, pipe 1 concat string into all these hashing tools in a chain: sha1sum sha224sum sha256sum sha384sum sha512sum md5sum cksum this would create a insane password (including ur for loop) which would be mostly uncrackable. |
|
|
|
If I could extract stupidity from forum posts, fill it in bottles and find a buyer, I'd be sitting on a gold mine right here.
il pay u 1 BTC for that  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
