O.K. so I appreciate and agree with both replies. It is true that I won't be writing down the Brain Wallet's Private Key anywhere so there really is no need for a password.
Trust me. There won't ever be any brain wallets created by me from parts of literature. I already understand how that is a very very bad idea. But I do like TryNinja's idea of using a part of literature with a Password added. Although a part of my brain still says that is a bad bad idea.
If you treated the SALT like a password would the address really be fairly secure even if you did use a printed piece of literature? Somehow I don't think so.
I'm cool with no password for the Brain Wallet. Just wanted to be sure I wasn't missing anything.
Now to make and stuff it with a bit of coin.
Wait a second. Nobody is saying that the standard brain wallet is a good idea. Anything that a person can easily remember is vulnerable to brute-force attack, though I think that using a PBKDF might make a difference. Check these out first: Collection of 18.509 found and used BrainwalletsWould a brain wallet based on a password hashing algorithm be secure? |
|
|
|
With a brain wallet, the key is memorized. There is no need to encrypt it, because nobody has access to it. Anyway, encrypting it would make it impossible to memorize.
Not necessarily. Some people use parts of books, personal stuff or just picked words to generate their own brain wallet "custom seed". This may not be the safest thing, but some people do it anyways. Adding a password would be like a second part of the seed. If you use a part of your favorite book, you can then add a quite-easier-to-remember password (like mike123) to "protect" against someone finding the seed. Does that make any sense? That's a good point. In the OP's case, then there is no need for encryption because the "password" is just part of the brain wallet seed. Also, what you described is a form of brain wallet that seems even safer than a paper wallet (as long as the details are easy to memorize). |
|
|
|
This exactly. If ever Roger did purchase Purse, I wouldn't be surprised if he did something similar with the type of "marketing" he did with his bitcoin.com website. Something something "bitcoin core for slower transactions" and "bitcoin cash for faster transactions".
Roger is already a major shareholder in Purse.io. |
|
|
|
If the supply reduces, and the demand still high, the price can follow to increase high.
never knew that , i thought halving have a different impact but i search that again and found out that its true . it really reduce supply .
No. The halving does not reduce the supply. I wish people would stop repeating such a gross misunderstanding of basic economics. The supply consists of the bitcoins available for sale. The total number of bitcoins increases until it reaches 21 million. As the total number of bitcoins increases, so does the supply. The halving reduces the rate of this increase. The halving reduces the production. If that is not convincing, then consider what will happen when the number of bitcoins reaches 21 million and the subsidy is 0. When the subsidy is 0, then will the supply be 0? Will there be no more bitcoins for sale? |
|
|
|
|
You explained the difference, so it is not clear what you don't understand.
With a paper wallet, you write down the private key, encrypting it first with a password prevents someone who sees it from knowing the actual private key (unless you write down the password too).
With a brain wallet, the key is memorized. There is no need to encrypt it, because nobody has access to it. Anyway, encrypting it would make it impossible to memorize.
|
|
|
|
|
You made a long list of observations, hypotheses, and speculations, but you never stated your theory.
BTW, a good theory describes a very concrete and unambiguous relationship. It is supported and confirmed by past observations and its ability to predict new observations. Do you have a good theory?
|
|
|
|
Keep in mind that the purpose of salting is to prevent the results of two hashes (or encryptions using the same key) of the same message from being the same. The salt is different for each hash and it does not need to be secret. For example, suppose that two users have the same password. If the hashed passwords are not salted, then anyone with access to the hashed passwords and who knows one user's password knows that the other user has the same password. It also prevents an attacker from precomputing hashes of passwords. To answer your question, a longer salt is better because it increases the attackers search time. But in your case, since the seed is never reused and the entropy already exceeds 256 bits, salting has no benefit. In fact, a simple SHA-256 hash of the seed is sufficient because the entropy of the seed exceeds the maximum entropy of the private key. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_(cryptography) edit: added wikipedia entry |
|
|
|
|
I don't know what your goal is, but it might be useful to remember that bitcoins don't have to come from an address. Also, expecting bitcoins to come from a particular address might be problematic because the sending wallet generally decides which address(es) to use.
|
|
|
|
In bitcoin core the default transaction fee is 0.0002 BTC/kB
I see that I can change that number. What stops me from doing it 0.00000001? Does it affect my transaction? Beginner here.
Miners try to make as much money as they can, so they choose which transactions to include in blocks based on the fees. If you pay more than others, they will choose your transaction before those others. If you pay less, they will choose other transactions first, and it might be a while before they get around to yours. |
|
|
|
You don't because the private key is invalid. |
|
|
|
An apple is not corrupted when a corrupt person buys it.
How I see it is that what you said is valid as long as that person does not buy many apples and continues trading them. In other words, if he doesn't corrupt the "apple chain" then yes, your apple won't be corrupt. Bitcoin is amoral, i.e. it has no will and it is independent of the people that use it, so it cannot be judged as good or evil any more than a rock. While corrupted people may use Bitcoin, the system itself remains uncorrupted. On the other hand, you may consider the users of Bitcoin to be part of the system and its corruption comes from the corruption embodied by its users. If that is the case, then your position is a tautology and moot -- If Bitcoin consists of corrupted users then it must have corruption because that is your premise. Perhaps we are arguing over semantics. I believe your question in the most abstract sense may be this: Under what circumstances would you be willing to participate in a system together with people that you consider immoral? |
|
|
|
|
An apple is not corrupted when a corrupt person buys it.
|
|
|
|
If the law demands that a dangerous criminal be destroyed, it will be lawless to violate that law. GOD is limitlessly more superior to any law. HE is the perfect JUDGE and knows what the dangerous criminal/criminals are capable of if they remain unchecked.
But, Isaac was not a dangerous criminal. He was Abraham's innocent and beloved son. If HE asks me to destroy someone who will blow up our planet tommorow, I believe he will make me see reason why the evil person need to be destroyed. HE will never destroy the innocents.
And if he tells you to kill all the infidels, or lock the doors of a mosque and burn it down with everyone inside, you would do that too? HE will never destroy the innocents. I have read in the Bible where people who disobeyed the order of the ALMIGHTY GOD to destroy evil people where tormented by evil they refused to destroy.
No, he never brings plagues or fire down on innocent people, and he never kills everyone in a city because someone decided to dump the ark there. Abraham most likely knew he was being tested by GOD hence the use of the words "GOD will provide what we will use for the sacrifice" when confronted by his son. A holy man will hardly lie to people.
But "mostly likely" isn't good enough because if he didn't know, you must change your interpretation completely. He told Isaac that God would provide a sacrifice because he had to lie to his son to get him to go along with it. If he told his son the truth, then how would the story have gone? So, he knew GOD will ... never hurt an innocent child.
Oh? Exodus 12:29 |
|
|
|
I appreciate how you comprehended the scripture. To my understanding, it's all about the test of faith for Abraham.
The interpretation must be limited to a test of faith because the actual details demonstrate the evil and narcissistic natures of God, and we can't reconcile that. It could also be all of these: - a test of loyalty -- Do what I say no matter how wrong it is.
- a test of morality -- You were going to kill your son, an innocent person whom you love, without question. You obviously have no sense of good or evil.
- a test of fear -- Genesis 22:12 “Do not lay a hand on the boy,” he said. “Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, ..."
|
|
|
|
|
If I were Abraham, I would have said "F. U. Yahweh. I don't want your blessings. I'm not going to murder my son just to make you feel superior. That's pure evil.".
Let me ask you, if God ordered you to murder someone, why wouldn't you question your faith?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
