Have you installed the Bitcoin Cash app on your ledger nano s through the ledger manager chrome application?

Now that Bitcoin Core, Electrum, and Samourai Wallet (and possibly others) support bech32, could you please again consider adding support to withdraw to bech32 addresses? I do not believe that this would be a cause of concern because the deposit addresses would remain nested P2SH segwit addresses, so the bankroll and user funds couldn't be identified from blockchain analysis.

Nested P2SH addresses (3......) are also one byte per output more expensive than creating bech32 outputs, and 23 bytes more expensive per consumed UTXO when used as input.

These features are best added while fees are low, so that when fees inevitably rise again, YOLOdice would already be prepared.

That looks like a terrible hardware wallet that is only in concept stage with many design flaws thought up only to find a bullshit reason to have an "ICO" and make money. I would not trust a cent with a "hardware wallet" that can connect to the internet and has a built-in GPS.

What wallet software are you using? Keep in mind that Bitcoin transaction fees are based on size, not amount. This means that the kind of transaction you're describing would likely be quite expensive fee-wise (but still cheaper to do it now while fees are low).

Also note that what you're describing is not transaction batching, but utxo consolidation. Transaction batching is when you take many amounts you are already sending out and send them in the same transaction. UTXO consolidation is when you take many inputs that belong to you and consolidate them into a single one.

That's a very interesting point. I'm wondering if there simply haven't been big enough players that have been referred by other users for this to matter.

Why would they give you money for any of this? Last time I checked most people don't have an "our domain was compromised" giveaway.

But Bitcoin did need fixing. The fees were becoming outrageously high, and we needed a transaction malleability fix. Segregated Witness brought both of those.

What you show in that picture is a private key in hexadecimal format, but it has nothing to do with SHA256 or any hash function. (Hash function output is usually represented as hex, but just because something is in hex does not mean it is the output of a hash function). What you want to do is take a private key encoded in hex, and re-encode it in WIF in both compressed and non-compressed mode. I'm not sure why you would want 1,996,000 Bitcoin addresses, half made from compressed keys and half not, but it's unlikely that anybody has made a script to do this. It could be done though.

I should stress that if for whatever reason wherever you got this data from was public, or you could believe that there's even a small chance that someone else would have access to the same list of hex data you have, that using that data as Bitcoin private keys would be a very, very bad idea because somebody else could use that data to generate the same private keys and take any money you would have sent to those addresses.

Even still, there are much better ways to generate large numbers of addresses with Hierarchical Deterministic wallets. I highly suggest you look into those.

The Ledger CEO stated in the thread you linked that any "vulnerability" was massively overstated. They just want people to update their firmware.

Are these hex addresses raw private keys? Or are they something else? If you just have a hash of something, I don't see how that could correspond to a Bitcoin private key.

In general, you will be limited by the weakest link. In most cases, it's going to be the write/read speed of your disk. However, if you use AES(Twofish(Serpent)), then it's possible on lower-end machines that the CPU won't be able to encrypt/decrypt the data as fast as the hard drive can read it, in which case yes, it will slow you down.

Also you should keep in mind that tasks that were disk heavy before are now disk/cpu heavy. So syncing the blockchain would probably be slower, because a lot of the time spent syncing the blockchain is your CPU verifying the transactions. If your CPU is being torn between verifying transactions and handling disk encryption for the transactions being written to disk at the same time, I would expect a slowdown.

Correct. If they set certain options and not others, their bets will be visible from certain areas but not others.

Image link

Ethan, you might be able to use instructions from this reddit thread to do something about this, but for such a small amount of money I'm not sure it's worth it.

I'm happy with the solution that bustadice uses, but I'm still in search for the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow that would be a fully trustless zero-knowledge on-demand RNG. Something where nobody has to trust any number of people and could be used to make games fair for both players and investors.

I'll offer to audit this script. If alia wants to send it to me then I will go through it and analyze how it works and post my analysis about it here without revealing its inner workings. I don't plan to bet money with it, instead to analyze the code.

As far as proving that you are the forum user, I think a post would be good enough. I think that using a dynamic DNS provider with a hostname that has your username or something very close would also be enough. So you could get mysteryminer.ddns.net, set up the update program and then never have to touch it again. (Just set externalip=mysteryminer.ddns.net in your bitcoin.conf).

I'm perfectly able to make entirely valid observations about the claims that you have made without needing to see your script.

Additionally, these very sites that you're betting on attempting to prove your script are "100% math based" and run using "stupid equations". That's how the entire provable fairness system works, using cryptography and statistics, two very important fields of math on which you are very intent on dismissing as they tend to go against your claims. But hey, if you want to ignore millennia of advances in human thought and just go "it just works lol" then be my guest, but I'm not going to remove my trust because the burden of proof is on the person making the claims.

I don't know man, look at all that empirical evidence. Who cares about words and theories and all that mathematical nonsense. /s

Of course. Betting on a 9.9x multiplier has a 10% chance to win, which would lose 90% of the time on average.

At a 1% house edge, which both of these sites have, the simple chance of 20% return is 82.5%. The chance of alia getting 18, 19, or 20 of these 82.5% chances in a group of 20 is as follows:



(For those unfamiliar, this uses the Binomial Distribution to find the chance of k successes out of 20 trials. Here we are interested in k=18, k=19, and k=20 so we sum those results).

This comes out to 0.294233 (rounded to the 6th decimal place), or 29.4233%.

So basically, the chance of alia's script working (according to the known laws of probability) are around 29.4%.

I have my doubts about the legitimacy of this because screen recordings can be faked, livestreams could have been pre-recorded and such, but I won't get any more into that in this post.