|
With the news of Samurai Wallet developers being set to jail and having their lives permanently ruined, this thread seems pretty relevant. Luckily I do not work into anything that would be at risk of this, but you can see how the governments don't give a shit about your pro-privacy arguments.
Yes, you should have a right to not disclose your Bitcoin funds to whoever you are paying to, so using a mixer is the only solution for that, but governments have decided to threat anyone using them as dodgy by default. In this case they are going to jail and they will be bankrupt for life since they claim all the money that went through their software is money laundering by default. So basically they are screwed.
I wonder how long the will come up with some excuse to claim running nodes is money laundering too, while drones clap about the price going up with the ETFs. I always thought that BTC is increasingly useless unless it's KYC'd because governments are ruining any usage of it that isn't KYC'd, so if you don't have all the records, there is no incentive to do anything with it, since they don't provide any alternatives.
|
|
|
|
"Buying something" with BTC may be cool if you are dealing with small amounts. The moment BTC goes to 100k, 200k, 300k.. and your wallet is now 7 figures, and you continue to use it limited ot Bitrefill coupons and whatnot, it is a bit of a joke. You have all that money but you cannot really upgrade your life quality.
If you want to move and live on a better area, diversify in other assets, buy a better car, increase monthly expenses.. you can't do anything relevant with the money. A solution is needed and part of it is being able to interact with the fiat system in one way or another, thus the audit being part of it. There has to be a jurisdiction that isn't some dodgy non CRS country that would be ok to do banking with the funds.
I disagree. You can do anything you want, as long as you don't mess with other people's freedom and of course as long as you don't hurt someone. Why can't you buy a car with BTC? I think the reason is because the car company doesn't accept BTC as a payment. That's also true if you try to buy a car in the USA, using Norwegian Krone. If you are using cash, they will ask you to exchange it to USD first, before you can proceed with the payment. If you pay using a card, then the payment processor (Visa / Mastercard etc.) will do the exchange silently behind the scene and they will charge you for that. Finally, just a quick question. According to the quoted text above, is there any usage of Bitcoin that you like? Or is there a reason why you own it in the first place? My question isn't ironic, but it looks like you have plenty of "flaws" to accuse bitcoin for, but you have no positives to indicate. Am I wrong? You have to register your car with the government records the moment you get it, so even if you manage to buy the car, they will ask where the money came from. And they will definitely ask if you buy a property. Governments don't give a shit about our right to privacy. Look at the Samurai Wallet guys. They are screwed for life for making some open source software and users are also by default seen as suspicious. The whole thing is fucked up. I think Bitcoin is great and so on but when it comes to actually using it, it's very limited unless you want to KYC the stuff can do it. If you have a relevant amount and you can't properly KYC im not sure what's the point. You can't even pass it on your family since they will never understand how to sync a node, use download the source code, compile it, run Core, do the airgap raw transactions with 2 laptops, use Coin Control etc. So all this money will be lost with you when you are gone basically. It's crazy. Which is why I would rather try to KYC the whole thing and put it on the SP500. The problem is how to do that when your funds aren't easily KYC'd. |
|
|
|
Im not sure about your situation, but banks need a source of funds, an audit gives a sense of confidence to the bank. The bigger the amount the more you are going to need it. The thing is, the weed example was literal. It's not that im buying weed with the wallet and sent it to Silk Road or something. Let's say that you have a receiving address (like for a sig campaign to put an example) and the guy that sends you the money, bought weed, or the guy before the guy that paid this guy, and so on. These Chainalysis type softwares go back several hops.
Banks will not care about the hops those coins have passed to you before if you can produce at one point solid evidence that you got them in a legal way. The whole tainted thing is just some idiocracy created by ironically crypto companies in order to steal your funds, they will ask for that and that and then seize your coins and demand more and more proofs for god knows what evidence just with the hope of you giving up on those funds. But more important banks don't deal with BTC, they deal with fiat, and there is little to no importance for them what coins you have, they care about your worth in fiat and that's all! Those audits are for private deals, it's for companies trying to get loans on their assets, pass financial inspections, issue reports or try to get a listing, lock their funds in custodial wallets as collateral, and so on and on, your average bank will not give a rats' ass about your coins and neither will they be interested ever in dealing with your Bitcoin transactions history they will ask you for your strictly $ values, how much you earn how much you spend what's your company profit and assets! To convert your coins into fiat you have to first deposit them into an exchange, and this exchange will already ruin a Chainalysis type audit on your funds. If it triggers past a certain treshhold your funds may be frozen until you deliver source of funds. If you could get them audited, you could present this audit to them, you would have something ready in case this happens, vs going in without nothing. You may for instance have got payments for sig campaigns, and when you deposit them they show up that a number of addresses trigger the Chainalysis type tool they use. You explain that the funds are legal from a marketing campaign (sig campaign that's what it is basically) which may or not be enough. A third party that has audited your coins before going into an exchange would let you prepare with more time. As soon as that "tainted" banknote enters the banking system, you're fucked. They will freeze the money and the police will interrogate you where you got it from.
It's the same thing with satoshis (each one has a serial number based on the order in which it was mined, that's how Ordinal NFTs are created). BTC is electronic cash (which has pros and cons).
Tainted banknotes are like a hot potato. The last person who gets them and decides to deposit them in a bank is royally fucked.
This argument actually strengthens my opinion that cash and bitcoin are both fungible. If you are afraid, the solution is super simple: (1) Don't deposit the cash in a bank, just use it to buy something. (2) Don't send your BTC to a CEX, just use it to buy something. Well in fact: (a) Self-custody your bitcoin. (b) Use it as it's supposed to be used, as a cash system.
Just to make some fun, I hereby volunteer to accept any coins anybody thinks are "tainted". If anyone is desperate to get rid of them, I am here. That's a joke obviously, in case anyone is super sensitive and gets mad about it 
"Buying something" with BTC may be cool if you are dealing with small amounts. The moment BTC goes to 100k, 200k, 300k.. and your wallet is now 7 figures, and you continue to use it limited ot Bitrefill coupons and whatnot, it is a bit of a joke. You have all that money but you cannot really upgrade your life quality. If you want to move and live on a better area, diversify in other assets, buy a better car, increase monthly expenses.. you can't do anything relevant with the money. A solution is needed and part of it is being able to interact with the fiat system in one way or another, thus the audit being part of it. There has to be a jurisdiction that isn't some dodgy non CRS country that would be ok to do banking with the funds. |
|
|
|
you happen to hold some coins that were used to buy weed I haven't had a bank audit my wallets, but if you know you may "have to" go through this in the future, it may not be a bad idea to use a different wallet to buy weed  Or anything else you don't want the bank to know, I can think of a enough legal purchases that are none of their business. Im not sure about your situation, but banks need a source of funds, an audit gives a sense of confidence to the bank. The bigger the amount the more you are going to need it. The thing is, the weed example was literal. It's not that im buying weed with the wallet and sent it to Silk Road or something. Let's say that you have a receiving address (like for a sig campaign to put an example) and the guy that sends you the money, bought weed, or the guy before the guy that paid this guy, and so on. These Chainalysis type softwares go back several hops. So if you go there and dox your wallet in order to be able to do anything with it, and you have blacklisted addresses, they are now tied to your wallet. The company keeps these records, they may do nothing with it or who knows. The thing is, blacklisted addresses now exist next to your dox. That is the problem. I was told that there are different ratings of how riskiness for banks and depending on the rating it may or not be a problem. So if you have like 1MM worth of payments through many years, the payments are already on the wallet, you cannot cherry pick this or that address. You have to give them the entire transaction history and get the wallet audited. If it's good to go then you can do some actual investments beside buying groceries on Bitrefill or whatnot. That's why I was asking if someone has any experience dealing with these companies at all. |
|
|
|
|
It seems more common these days that a bank will request a sort of an audit on your funds before they ever touch their records. However, I can think of many ways how that would go wrong. Namely, you send them your transaction history in the form of a text file (not them directly, but through your accountant/lawyer) but then you happen to hold some coins that were used to buy weed or whatever else, as you cannot know who paid you and where the coins came from if you just accept BTC payments in general. So what would be the implications? In order to operate with coins that do not come through your average Coinbase purchase you are going to need to pass these audits. It just seems risky to me considering you have no control over previous transactions and you'll be adding your dox next to your addresses, not great for privacy but otherwise you cannot do anything relevant with BTC besides smaller payments. Has anyone gone through these audits to use your capital in a company, to reinvest etc? If anyone has experience dealing with these firms I would be interested to know your experience.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't understand how can anyone vote for Biden while holding any stack on BTC. If you are serious about this and want to not see the project sabotaged, then you want to put people in power that will lobby for your interests, simple as that. Biden, Warren, AOC and co think they will get more votes being anti Bitcoin and pro Bitcoin, so even if I don't like Trump because he is a clown, I would vote for him at this point. At least he has shown a predisposition to not be hostile against Bitcoin. If they want to go on and vote democrat then they will not have a right to complain when the mining industry in USA collapses and that would suck since investing in Bitcoin miners is a great way to get extra alpha on bullruns.
|
|
|
|
Under Linux, I use the standard ".bitcoin" directory in the user's home directory. I have not changed the location of the directory at all. I start the bitcoind with the command: That should do. If I accidentally start both at the same time, can this lead to data corruption?
The one started last wont be able to use the data directory and will not proceed to start. I will definitely need to study this and do testing with testnet wallet. I guess to do the whole thing properly, I will need to create a wallet from pre-HD era (what was the latest version before HD was introduced? 0.12 perhaps) and get some testnet coins there, so I can replicate the entire process safely without screwing up with actual keys.
You can create a copy of your current wallet.dat, load it as another wallet then do the instructions with it. Using migratewallet also automatically creates a backup of the original wallet.dat. But yeah, it wouldn't hurt to test it in TestNet, you can even go for " RegTest" so you wont have to sync if you do not have a TestNet setup. You're right, you can use v0.12.1 to create non-HD wallet. Hi, im downloading debian and im going to be installing the OS first, then compile Bitcoin Core from the source. Just to be clear, there is no way to create a 0.12 era (non HD) wallet on the latest version? because then I will have to start building 0.12. Once I build 0.12 and its installed and I get the wallet, do I compile the latest version and install on top of this existing folder isn't it? so I would need to be sure to get the wallet to test properly. Im gonna get some coins from testnet and test the migration with testnet wallet, im assuming it just works the same when you do it with the real wallet. |
|
|
|
A few simple points: 1) Even if it does happen, it wont be Bitcoin, so it wont matter. A fork of Bitcoin is not Bitcoin. Bitcoin works no matter what the price, and even a large drop in hash rate has no real effect on that - as expected, and as we saw, when china shutdown mining. 2) The magic 51% number rears it's head yet again  Pools mining against lower points in the active chain will be obvious. So it would become immediately clear what pools not to mine on. Excluding higher paying transactions means less mining reward in your block. Excluding the lowest paying transactions, when block space is at a premium, is how Bitcoin works. Messing with that means less bitcoin reward for mining. (Which is what StratumV2 is trying to make happen - stay away from V2 - they're probably backed by the gov't since they are helping to do this) 3) It's the current us gov't that's trying to damage Bitcoin, not sure why anyone in Bitcoin would want to keep them in power lol Im not into politics but it evident now that whoever is from the US and supports bitcoin while voting for Biden has some sort of massive cognitive dissonance of Stockholm syndrome going on, otherwise I don't get it. This people have a clear agenda to tie Bitcoin and crypto as something that funds terrorism and "white supremacy" while forgetting about how everyone that lives in countries where inflation is making everyone poor uses BTC to survive. They don't care, they are mad that people got rich from getting in early and they didn't, so now they want to ban it. If anyone wants BTC to survive at a mainstream level, then pro-Bitcoin lobbying is non negotiable. We need people supporting BTC and miners at the political level, otherwise we are going to see Biden, Warren, AOC and co make Bitcoin unusable for US citizens and miners kicked out of the country, again, at a mainstream level. Obviously BTC will survive no matter what, but if we want huge valuations, we need institutional support. The ETFs are a good step in this direction, but don't forget that the ETFs can be used against self-sovereign BTC users that do self-custody, since they can concentrate the funds there then ban BTC from the hands of individuals. Stay alert because that is coming. It just happened in the EU. |
|
|
|
|
But does this mean ANY amount is now banned if it's done through a private self custody wallet? because they are talking about limits on cash transactions (which they lowered from 3k to 1k as far as I can tell) but they do not talk about any limits on crypto transactions, so the way I see it is that ANY amount is now banned, and only basically institutions and registered businesses can legally transact?
Wouldn't this basically mean that people with crypto that have it in self custody cannot sell? since the transaction to the exchange would be illegal. Now that's funny.
|
|
|
|
Should a mining company focus on increasing a stack of Bitcoin that they can display in public as a way to showcase ability to save in BTC and as well as show confidence in trusting BTC as a way to keep your treassury by hodling it instead of cash, or should a company in the mining field just focus on mining as much BTC as possible, including selling the BTC you mine at any rate in order to keep expanding your hashrate and do not even hold any?
Im not sure about this. Some people like to see how a miner can hold onto a lot of BTC like MARA, but others seem to not care that much and just want max efficiency. For a public miner I guess whatever increases shareholders value the most is what works. Anyone has studied this?
Since power and labor are likely not paid in btc. They need to cash quite a bit of coins. So I would say a ratio of spare cash and a ratio of spare coins is better than all cash or all coins. Well maybe some employees would rather be paid in BTC than in fiat specially during a bullrun but who knows. It would be interesting to see how a Bitcoin miner would operate if it did as much as possible within BTC and never cashed out. Of course the electricity provider isn't going to want to get paid in BTC but perhaps the rest of the business could be paid in BTC. You could find a contractor to get the mining site from that is willing to get paid in BTC, you could convince your employees to get paid in BTC, you could even get the rest of expenses to be paid in BTC as long as it's not government related where you are forced to cash out to pay taxes. But I guess you will always need a % in cash. I think miners like IREN may be doing good in the efficiency and growth side but they hold 0 BTC and some investors do not like this so if I was miner I would focus on increasing BTC hodlings as well. |
|
|
|
|
Should a mining company focus on increasing a stack of Bitcoin that they can display in public as a way to showcase ability to save in BTC and as well as show confidence in trusting BTC as a way to keep your treassury by hodling it instead of cash, or should a company in the mining field just focus on mining as much BTC as possible, including selling the BTC you mine at any rate in order to keep expanding your hashrate and do not even hold any?
Im not sure about this. Some people like to see how a miner can hold onto a lot of BTC like MARA, but others seem to not care that much and just want max efficiency. For a public miner I guess whatever increases shareholders value the most is what works. Anyone has studied this?
|
|
|
|
|
The mining game all starts with electricity costs. Are you able to fund your operation in a way that will allow you to keep expanding with more and better (more efficient) miners? do you have existing cashflows or you would need to enter into debt?
Examine your assets and liabilities and try to predict what the expenses will be vs expected returns, if numbers check in then give it a try. And if you do go public, then I would advise against diluting shareholdings unless you have a clear path that explains why this temporary loss in price per share will be worth in the future, otherwise these things tire investors (see the ongoing MARA case, amongst many other public miners). But im assuming you just want to mine privately as a hobby.
|
|
|
|
I mean, the funds coming from ETFs are really showing its worth. I can see the excitement on everyone's faces that bought BTC. I also have benefited a lot from it, engaged in different events like the Welcome to bull run on Bitget, some farming airdrops on Binance and many more.
But then again, do you think this might back fire on us in the longer term? We all know what these men are all after is to be in control and that's why BTC came into reality cancelling all that making everyone their own Government of their assets.
This is not the first time we are seeing such things. Grayscale Bitcoin were there before Bitcoin ETF were later approved by the security exchange commission (SEC) and what happen when GBTC were been traded? There impact on Bitcoin was liquidity which was the Bitcoin they were buying ast the trusts funds were increasing but that doesn't threaten Decentralization, the security and the scalability, more like they were in their own world of Bitcoin(GBTC) and native Bitcoin was doing it own and the Bitcoin they hold that time wasn't upto 1% of the total circulation, I don't think this ETF will be able to manipulate anything other than the price. Whatever Blackrock or Microstrategy who are now the biggest holder of Bitcoin does, they can influence the price but on the properties of Bitcoin, they can't do anything and I hope they don't use investors Bitcoin like the way FTX did back then when they were using peoples fund and thinking of way to move the price further to recoup what they have spend within the company. Don't trust anything related to Bitcoin companies such as GBTC or any other Bitcoin ETFs. Im not worried about Blackrock or Microstrategy per se, or any of the other big players in the field, what is to consider is that they all fall under the same jurisdiction, the US jurisdiction. That is to say, they all have to follow US laws. So if the government decides to push for X or Y or Z fork that contains some feature they want, they would be forced to comply or else face penalties. At that point they either fold or move their business elsewhere. Here I can see Saylor winning since he has a lot more leverage in the full sense of the word when it comes to choosing how and where they run their business. With Blackrock im afraid they are stuck, if they aren't US agents since day 1 that is. |
|
|
|
They literally don't have control in the network of Bitcoin however they can manipulate the market since they have huge holdings that can be used in advantage to them either they wanted to buy more or they just want to make profit from their hefty investments. These institutions see Bitcoin to be the best and profitable asset compared to maybe other investments available around that is why they are jumping into it.
Remember it isn't Blackrock's money. They aren't making profit from ETF directly. They are only making profit from charging fees for the ETF. The money in the ETF is clients money. People keep acting like the Blackrock ETF is Blackrock's money and they can do whatever they want with it to try to manipulate the market lol. Some of ya'll need to look up what an ETF is. None of this is Blackrock money. They just buy and sell based on the buying and selling of their clients. They are simply a middleman for clients who want access to bitcoin as an investment. Say it with me: "THIS IS NOT BLACKROCK'S MONEY" lol Some of you would be so much less worried about irrelevant things if you learned some basic stuff before you started worrying. Blackrock has no control over the Bitcoin network because that simply is not how Bitcoin works, and they aren't even buying any of the Bitcoin in their ETF because that's not how ETFs work. Stop worrying over nothing. The problem is that they can try to use their huge BTC holdings, even if in behalf of their clients, in order to push an agenda. If you look up at the pdfs that they presented to file their entries into the SEC and whatnot, they include disclaimers which basically say that you are going to be forced to follow whatever hardfork they want to make, clients of IBIT do not have any say on the hardfork direction. So they will try this again. They want of course the fee to make money, but they will also use this to try (again) another hardfork attempt. Anyone that does not see that this whole ETF thing is an attempt to fork the network is being deluded by number go up euphoria. |
|
|
|
|
Everything is being frontrun clearly by now:
1) ETF narrative: This was a sell the news event but then the mass buying started, I think nobody predicted so much of an inflow activity and they were expecting the GBTC exodus to dwarf actual demand thus creating another dip but it went 2x instead
2) The halving: The 4 year cycle is still at play, but due the ETF, it is being accelerated at an insane pace. Is this sustainable? we shall see. Who knows, maybe it's the first time ever that we do get an ATH before the halving BUT also the first time we crash below the ATH, so we have to remain vigilant. In my opnion one should be invested anyway just in case it just keeps going higher and there are no more chances to get it below current prices.
I think the market will remain overall bullish unless there is a recession that crashes the sp500, or unless there is some newer drama with BTC being banned at the wallet level, or something with miners, something like that which im sure will come sooner or later.
|
|
|
|
|
When I started this thread I wouldn't have imagined ETF inflows being this high. Looks like Blackrock is determined to become one of the biggest holders in Bitcoin. To me it is clear now that what I said will happen sooner or later. Either by accident or in purpose, we will see some sort of hardfork attempt by the ETFs that are US based, perhaps forcing any other US soil hosted custodian to follow, very likely actually, they then will try to do an ESG Bitcoin fork or what have you. It is just a matter of time. The question is, how will the community react to this. We are letting in a bunch of people that will not care about the consequences in the network, they will just want their money back. Best case scenario some sort of class action is done against them and the conflict is resolved, if not then it will be another Bitcoin was as seen in previous hardfork episodes were all attempts failed.
|
|
|
|
Subs are created due to demand but this is far too niche for an entire board. Just create a thread for this specific thing and see how popular it is. Maybe in the future there could be a board for bitcoin related stocks/ETFs or maybe a general stocks and investments board or something but right now there obviously isn't enough demand.
Yeah, I already tried in there: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5487122.msg63739683#msg63739683As you can see, it got buried fast in seconds. The speculation subforum is just BTC price predictions basically, any sightly offtopic stuff goes unnoticed. It is what it is. I would really like to find some people with experience on this field. They are mostly on twitter I guess, but there's a lot of pump and dumpers and it's hard to find some legit shareholders that do due diligence when investing and know the fundamentals. |
|
|
|
The wallet contains several addresses, like 100, with annotations that describe the transaction. As far as I know there is a system in place now (PSBT) that works to make this process of offline signing and watch only stuff faster and safer than screwing around with importing keys. But I would really need a step by step tutorial to not get anything wrong. Also the wallet was from around 0.8.0 era, however newer versions were used, around 0.15. So now it would be going from there to the latest version.
I reckon the wallet needs to be converted to a new format or something. I would first make a backup. I would really like to get the whole thing explained within the same post to not have different bits of information all over the place so I can follow it properly. The thing is, if you haven't set an HD seed to your wallet in versions >0.13, the wallet remains non-HD even after using v0.15. This isn't recommended to use since newer keys beyond the keypool that it will create cannot be re-created in the online machine ( vice versa) since those aren't generated from an HD seed. Migrating it into a " descriptor wallet" will work but there'll be hundreds of single key descriptors since those aren't linked with each other, there'll also be newly generated HD ranged descriptors of each script type for receiving and change. Creating a watching-only wallet based from those ranged descriptors should be easy but including the single key descriptors would be troublesome ( but doable). If you want to proceed ( you'll have to, if you want to use future Bitcoin Core versions): The first step is to migrate it into a descriptor wallet using the command migratewallet: - Close Bitcoin Core and update it to the latest version, make a backup of your wallet file.
- Start Bitcoin Core and go to "Window->Console", select your wallet in console's drop-down menu if you have more than one wallet.
- Enter the command migratewallet and wait for [executing] to finish, it'll be replaced with "wallet name and backup path" once it's done.
This process will take a few minutes since there'll be hundreds of descriptors to create. - After that, the wallet is now an HD descriptor wallet and you can proceed to create the watching-only wallet in the online machine.
For the Setup of watching-only wallet and PSBT workflow, follow this guide by TracaChang: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5392824.0 ( already in step-by-step format) Notes: Start from " listdescriptor" step in the offline wallet since you already have a wallet, and you'd have to import all ( now) 8 parent descriptors if you want to be able to use all 4 available address types. You should also import the single key descriptor(s) of the funded address(es) to be able to update your balance: - If you already have a funded address list, get each address' descriptor from the offline wallet with: getaddressinfo <address>
- The "desc:" should look like this: pkh([01234567]041dd9c5ae0921....e79ed5039c56f94a641aa9)#1111zzzz
- Import all of those to the online watching-only wallet using importdescriptors command in this format:
importdescriptors "[{\"desc\": \"descriptor_1\", \"timestamp\": \"0\"},{\"desc\": \"descriptor_2\", \"timestamp\": \"0\"},{\"desc\": \"descriptor_3\", \"timestamp\": \"0\"}]"
Each descriptor is separated by a comma.
example (importing two descriptors):
importdescriptors "[{\"desc\": \"pkh([01234567]031dd9c5ae0921....e79ed5039c56f94a641aa9)#1111zzzz\", \"timestamp\": \"0\"},{\"desc\": \"pkh([01234567]031dd9c6....6f94a642)#2222yyyy\", \"timestamp\": \"0\"}]"Now the fun part, if you have/want to import all those 100 single address descriptors, you'll have to import them using the instructions above. So instead of just the funded ones, get all the descriptors from the offline wallet's listdescriptors command and import them to the watching-only wallet. The ranged descriptors still require the range, active, internal, etc. to be specified ( refer to the instructions in the link). But honestly, it would be simpler if you just create a new air-gap setup using the instructions in the link instead and send all your bitcoins there. Finally, some extra privacy, explain how to run it through a VPN or Tor. This should cover it all.
I'll leave this to others. Thanks for input. I will definitely need to study this and do testing with testnet wallet. I guess to do the whole thing properly, I will need to create a wallet from pre-HD era (what was the latest version before HD was introduced? 0.12 perhaps) and get some testnet coins there, so I can replicate the entire process safely without screwing up with actual keys. I don't even know what descriptors are. I remember reading on PSBT files. The idea was that you do the transaction, then it creates this PSBT file that is loaded on the watch-only wallet, and you simple open this file there and you can broadcast the transaction without screwing up with the console by manually inputing raw transactions isn't it? I get this, but I need to read up on descriptors etc. Addresses are also mostly legacy addresses, is this relevant? Someone mentioned making a new wallet and sending the coins there, I will not do that, so I need to do this with existing addresses. So im going to need 1) The last version with non-HD wallet to create the wallet and get testnet coins there (unless there is a way to generate an old school wallet in the latest version) 2) Get the testnet coins in different addresses 3) Do the whole migration of the wallet into the new format and descriptions thing which right now is a mess that I have to study to see what's really going on during the process 4) Make some PSBT file and broadcast this in the other laptop on testnet This is going to take some days since I have to sync the blockchain again for the watch-only laptop will report with results once I get the stuff setup. |
|
|
|
Im looking for a tutorial that explains step by step how to do a setup with 2 Bitcoin Core. One in an airgapped laptop that always remains offline and has the wallet.dat with the private keys, another laptop that is online and has a watch-only wallet.
You can get a public key, and import it to create a watch only wallet. If you only have a private key, import it first, then extract the public address and use that address to import a Watch only wallet. With a Watch-only wallet, you can not spend your bitcoins. Use commands importaddress
importpubkey
The wallet is from Bitcoin v0.8.0 era, so it may require that the wallet file is also updated? Please provide details.
It is an very old version of Bitcoin Core and not recommended to use it nowadays. Satoshi Nakamoto was responsible for releases of Bitcoin Core v 0.1 till v 0.3.18 (links from Satoshi topics[/url]). v 0.3.18v 0.3.17v 0.3.15v 0.3.14v 0.3.13v 0.3.12v 0.3.11v 0.3.10v 0.3.9 rc1v 0.3.8.1v 0.3.8v 0.3.6v 0.3.3v 0.3.2.5v 0.3.2v 0.3.1v 0.3v 0.2From Bitcoin Core v 0.11.0, it's available there https://bitcoincore.org/en/releases/Bitcoin Core 26.0
Bitcoin Core 25.1
Bitcoin Core 25.0
Bitcoin Core 24.2
Bitcoin Core 24.1
Bitcoin Core 24.0.1
Bitcoin Core 23.2
Bitcoin Core 23.1
Bitcoin Core 23.0
Bitcoin Core 22.1
Bitcoin Core 22.0
Bitcoin Core 0.21.2
Bitcoin Core 0.21.1
Bitcoin Core 0.21.0
Bitcoin Core 0.20.2
Bitcoin Core 0.20.1
Bitcoin Core 0.20.0
Bitcoin Core 0.19.1
Bitcoin Core 0.19.0.1
Bitcoin Core 0.18.1
Bitcoin Core 0.18.0
Bitcoin Core 0.17.1
Bitcoin Core 0.17.0.1
Bitcoin Core 0.17.0
Bitcoin Core 0.16.3
Bitcoin Core 0.16.2
Bitcoin Core 0.16.1
Bitcoin Core 0.16.0
Bitcoin Core 0.15.2
Bitcoin Core 0.15.1
Bitcoin Core 0.15.0.1
Bitcoin Core 0.15.0
Bitcoin Core 0.14.3
Bitcoin Core 0.14.2
Bitcoin Core 0.14.1
Bitcoin Core 0.14.0
Bitcoin Core 0.13.2
Bitcoin Core 0.13.1
Bitcoin Core 0.13.0
Bitcoin Core 0.12.1
Bitcoin Core 0.12.0
Bitcoin Core 0.11.2
Bitcoin Core 0.11.1
Bitcoin Core 0.11.0
The wallet contains several addresses, like 100, with annotations that describe the transaction. As far as I know there is a system in place now (PSBT) that works to make this process of offline signing and watch only stuff faster and safer than screwing around with importing keys. But I would really need a step by step tutorial to not get anything wrong. Also the wallet was from around 0.8.0 era, however newer versions were used, around 0.15. So now it would be going from there to the latest version. I reckon the wallet needs to be converted to a new format or something. I would first make a backup. I would really like to get the whole thing explained within the same post to not have different bits of information all over the place so I can follow it properly. I need to learn to: 1) Get the old wallet from around version 0.15 opened properly running within the new version on the offline laptop 2) Get this a watch only version of this wallet safely running on the online laptop and making sure it does not contain any private keys 3) Sign a transaction selecting the desired utxos on Coin Control on the offline laptop which as far as I know it is now done with the psbt file 4) Send this file into the online watch only wallet and broadcast the contents of the psbt file so the transaction can be sent 5) Do this whole thing with reasonable privacy (using Tor or VPN) 6) Anything else useful I should need If anyone has the time please provide these instructions. I will be testing with testnet coins first. Any help is appreciated. |
|
|
|
|
Im looking for a tutorial that explains step by step how to do a setup with 2 Bitcoin Core. One in an airgapped laptop that always remains offline and has the wallet.dat with the private keys, another laptop that is online and has a watch-only wallet. The wallet is from Bitcoin v0.8.0 era, so it may require that the wallet file is also updated? Please provide details.
The tutorial has to explain how to set it up and how to do transactions safely using Coin Control. OS is Debian. Finally, some extra privacy, explain how to run it through a VPN or Tor. This should cover it all.
If anyone has a video or at least written format please let me know.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
