Got all of my plastics now. They sure took an interesting route to get to me (NY->NJ->CO->NJ->CO). From the package tracking: Aug 11, 2014, 5:45 pm Delivered
Aug 9, 2014, 9:40 am Available for Pickup
Aug 8, 2014, 4:23 pm Departed USPS Facility DENVER, CO 80217
Aug 8, 2014, 9:39 am Arrived at USPS Facility DENVER, CO 80217
Aug 6, 2014, 10:02 pm Departed USPS Facility JERSEY CITY, NJ 07097
Aug 6, 2014, 1:09 am Arrived at USPS Facility JERSEY CITY, NJ 07097
Aug 1, 2014, 11:51 pm Departed USPS Facility DENVER, CO 80217
Jul 31, 2014, 11:41 pm Arrived at USPS Facility DENVER, CO 80217
Jul 31, 2014, 2:08 am Departed USPS Facility KEARNY, NJ 07032
Jul 30, 2014, 11:55 am Arrived at USPS Facility KEARNY, NJ 07032
Jul 30, 2014, 12:46 am Sort Facility ISC NEW YORK NY(USPS)
|
|
|
|
So anybody got his wallet yet?
You do not have to read the whole thread. Just go back and read the last three or four pages. |
|
|
|
We can deny all we want, but where is the proof they are not involved and satoshi is
just a name. As far as we know Satoshi is just a name, and the individual may not even be
what we think they are. (Could be some guy in belize as far as we know)
sometimes the truth is right in front of us and we refuse to see it.
I don't know myself, it's an interesting take. I don't know who created it.
Neither do any of you.
We may not know who created it but we do know with 100% certainty that the CIA did not create it. This is certain because it was reported in the IB Times and they are 100% wrong 100% of the time. |
|
|
|
All of you are still talking about anonymity, while in the same moment most people don't give a shit about it. They just want a simple way to transfer and receive bitcoin.
NO. We are talking about privacy, not anonymity. They are different. Address reuse should be discouraged from day one. If someone does nto want to take the 15 minutes it takes to learn how to properly use Bitcoin then they should not use it. |
|
|
|
I think the whole thing about reusing addresses is just a precautionary measure to make it safer, but I don't think it's something you need to worry about.
Why? Explain yourself. I explained in detail above why address reuse is a bad idea and hurts Bitcoin, the idea of Bitcoin, the privacy and fungibility of Bitcoin, etc. Do the same with your off the cuff comment. I really don't see how it's realistically a problem at all. Then you obviously do not know what the hell you are talking about. |
|
|
|
I think the whole thing about reusing addresses is just a precautionary measure to make it safer, but I don't think it's something you need to worry about.
Why? Explain yourself. I explained in detail above why address reuse is a bad idea and hurts Bitcoin, the idea of Bitcoin, the privacy and fungibility of Bitcoin, etc. Do the same with your off the cuff comment. |
|
|
|
They just need a single address for people so they can donate BTC! They don't need to cover up their tracks, it's also a good thing for people to see that people really do donate BTC to them, so more people will follow!
The issues is not the privacy of Wikileaks it is the privacy of the people donating to Wikileaks. Because Wikileaks uses a single address, instead of separate addresses as they should, everyone that sends donations to them loses some amount of privacy. If the sender can be found then it can be proved that the sender sent money to Wikileaks. It is the senders privacy that is being hurt by their address reuse. |
|
|
|
|
BCX wants to take on the cesspool alt area. Why anyone would actually desire that totally thankless job is beyond me but that is what he has volunteered to do. Let him at it.
|
|
|
|
Reusing addresses makes it easier to trace payments or link an address to someone. If it's just a simple donation address, it doesn't matter if the address can be linked, since everyone already knows that the address belongs to, say, WikiLeaks
The main reason you should not reuse an address is because of privacy. The more times you use a specific address, the easier it is to potentially link your identity to that address. If you have a donation address, then privacy is not your goal. When you are receiving donations, the person donating the money obviously knows what cause they are donating to so this issue is not applicable. Not true, read the thread. Easily solved by giving out a different address for each donation. |
|
|
|
Spook1: what name should we use to publish this paper? Spook2: what if we translate CIA into Japanese? Spook1: that would be funny, OK let's do it. That is what is proposed?  |
|
|
|
Dear BitcoinTrezor Team!
Thanks for you device! I ordered it (anywhere in a way now)
But one question please.
You use nice protected way for enetering PIN code in computer which can be infected by virus/trojan. It's keep my PIN safe from keylogger and mouselogger.
But i have read your the Trezor documentation and if i right understand your device has the one vulnerability.
If i lost my trezor, i go to your site "mytrezor.com", to connect new device to bridge and now i should enter seed words through computer.
If my computer to be infected a some trojans could catch entered words of seed and immediatly after this steal all bitcoins from BIP32 wallet.
Can this happens? As i understand you don't have same protected mode for a word entering?
As workaround of this could be present a seed not by words but by 0-2047 digits. BIP32 words presented as 2^11 digits, right?
You could be replace seed words by digits but the recover process could be use your PIN mechanism (random keyboard in trezor's screen).
What do you think?
Thanks!
If this ever happens to me here is what I would do: Get a new Trezor and set it up from scratch with a new seed (no security problem there) Enter my old seed into wallet32 Immediatly send all the BTC to the new Trezor Yes, I am vulnerable for a brief time there... Rethinking this I would not do it this way. It is safer to carefully use the recovery procedure on the Trezor and then move the coins to a new seed. |
|
|
|
I wish there was an alternative way to recover the Bitcoin in case of hardware failure or other abnormality. Instead of having to wait for another Trezor to come in.
The wallet32 android ap works great for this and it is also a great "everyday" android wallet. I have tested it for 12,18 and 24 word recoveries and others have tested it with a password. |
|
|
|
Dear BitcoinTrezor Team!
Thanks for you device! I ordered it (anywhere in a way now)
But one question please.
You use nice protected way for enetering PIN code in computer which can be infected by virus/trojan. It's keep my PIN safe from keylogger and mouselogger.
But i have read your the Trezor documentation and if i right understand your device has the one vulnerability.
If i lost my trezor, i go to your site "mytrezor.com", to connect new device to bridge and now i should enter seed words through computer.
If my computer to be infected a some trojans could catch entered words of seed and immediatly after this steal all bitcoins from BIP32 wallet.
Can this happens? As i understand you don't have same protected mode for a word entering?
As workaround of this could be present a seed not by words but by 0-2047 digits. BIP32 words presented as 2^11 digits, right?
You could be replace seed words by digits but the recover process could be use your PIN mechanism (random keyboard in trezor's screen).
What do you think?
Thanks!
If this ever happens to me here is what I would do: Get a new Trezor and set it up from scratch with a new seed (no security problem there) Enter my old seed into wallet32 Immediatly send all the BTC to the new Trezor Yes, I am vulnerable for a brief time there... |
|
|
|
Why the hell did you post this? Isn't it enough that he and his army of sock puppets post the same shit day after day? Or, are you just yet another one of his socks? If you are not one of his puppets prove it by deleting your OP. Now. Are you talking about the IB Times reporter? Why would he try propagating his views in this forum? No one would buy them anyway.... No, I am talking about you. Why did you post this shit when the report himself, though his army of socks, already posts links to everything he writes in that shithole ibtimes (which he owns) here on this forum, usually multiple times. I am asking you to delete this thread. |
|
|
|
Reusing addresses makes it easier to trace payments or link an address to someone. If it's just a simple donation address, it doesn't matter if the address can be linked, since everyone already knows that the address belongs to, say, WikiLeaks
Until WikiLeaks is found to be a "terrorist" organization and eveyone who sent them money a suspected "terrorist". Using a static address would allow at least some of those that sent money to Wikileaks to be hunted down. |
|
|
|
|
If someone wants to "play nice" and support Bitcoin, the idea of Bitcoin and the Bitcoin network they could/should:
1) Run a full node
2) Stop reusing addresses
3) Maintain their privacy
4) Use coinjoin, exchanges or actual mixers to continually mix and thereby equally taint all coins
5) Stop using/reusing vanity address
6) Stop publishing static deposit addresses, give each customer or donator a different address every time
7) Use deterministic key pair sequences for all periodic payments (this means mining payouts too!)
eight) Keep your bitcoins safe, every loss due to a hack is a public black eye on the whole experiment
|
|
|
|
|
It may not be a problem for you personally and I agree that most people do not think about it or care about it. But remember that every single person that can be "outed" can be used to "out" others and those can be used to "out" others, etc. So by having a lot of people not caring about their privacy it reduces the availability of privacy for those that do.
I am not saying that people who use one single vanity address for every one of their Bitcoin transactions and publish the fact they use, have, control, buy, sell, spend BTC and thereby publish how much they have, how much they spend, where they get it from, and what they spend it on are doing anything wrong per se.
It is just that by being that free with all their personal information they do reduce the privacy of everyone they deal with directly and by extrapolation then the privacy of the entire system.
All that in fact is not what I belive to be Bitcoin's biggest problem. By reducing the privacy of the system we increase the possiblity and probability that one day fungibility may be reduced or destroyed. That is my biggest concern.
|
|
|
|
|
So multiple sends to a single address do not affect security and multiple spends from a single address does affect security to a certain extent because now the public key is published.
Now the other concern related to address reuse is privacy.
Ideally for privacy you would only use an address once and never reuse it. This is because then it becomes much harder to match specific Bitcoin addresses to specific people/entities. So, in your example, it would be pretty hard for Wikileaks to claim that they do not control that address after so many years of advertising that they do in fact control that address.
Now note that every single transaction that has ever sent BTC to them is now recorded forever in the blockchain.
So, if for example you gave to them from an address that can be tied to you then the fact you gave to them can now be proven and that might make you a "terrorist" or whatever...
To help maintain your privacy and almost more importantly to help maintain everyone else's privacy, ideally you would never use an address more than once. Once here is defined as one transaction into the address (which can come from one or many addresses in the one transaction) and once to spend the entire balance at the address (which can go out to one or many addresses, including your "change" which should go to a brand new address).
This whole privacy issue is tied closely to my pet issue: maintaining the fungibility of Bitcoin.
See my signature.
Burt
|
|
|
|
...are there sites like WikiLeaks that have been using the same address for years: http://blockchain.info/address/1HB5XMLmzFVj8ALj6mfBsbifRoD4miY36vThe above address has been receiving and sending out transactions since 2011. I have heard that by sending funds from an address, you lose an additional layer of protection and so if a method of cracking the single encryption now protecting your address is discovered, any bitcoins stored in such a used address could be stolen. But how feasible is this scenario? It is true that before you send from a Bitcoin address the only thing known is the Bitcoin address, which is the triple hash of the public key. Now when you send from an address you basically publish the actual public key in order to spend them. So after spending from an address not only is the hash of the public key known, but the actual public key is now known. In order to steal your BTC from the public key they would have to be able to calculate the private key from the public key. If they can do that then your BTC, my BTC, everyone's BTC are gone even before they are taken because the entire system has been cracked and all BTC are worthless. In other words, not something I worry about. And secondly, I have also heard that it is a bad idea to make multiple deposits into a single address since that also qualifies as reusing an address. But how would it be possible then to make a paper wallet to store 1 BTC in if you have multiple addresses with 0.01 or 0.05 BTC in them each? Say for example you sell a whole bunch of low-value items and generate a new address for each transaction, how would you then pool these funds together without reusing an address by making multiple deposits?
First of all, multiple "deposits" into one brand new address do not have any effect on security (see my next post for other concerns). To answer your question directly you can send from all the addresses which contain small amounts into the one brand new address in order to collect all the BTC into one address using one single transaction. This one transaction would then be the one time you sent BTC to the address. And do multiple deposits affect the security of the encryption? If not, then why are multiple deposits considered a bad idea? Or aren't they?
Multiple deposits do not effect security, but see below. Apologies for the newbie-ish questions. It feels a bit weird posting in this section of the forums since I'm a senior member. You'd think someone who has been on the forums for so long and has more posts than Satoshi would be an expert by now but unfortunately, I'm still pretty far from it.
No problem. |
|
|
|
I guess people are too lazy to try themselves, even with step by step images, direct links and free apps to try...  bingo. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
