Summary of the story: Met this girl, seems to be interested in me so on and so forth. Number is based in HK but comes from China. Was willing to help me by giving me inside information on investments via cryptocurrency and is willing to walk me through it. Instructed me to use Huobi app to exchange fiat currency to USDT. After that using the USDT to deposit into an electronic payment wallet trading site ( http://electronicpayment88.com/index.html#/login). I did an internet trustworthiness check on both and came up with not many issues. Huobi is valid and security seems good with a large number of traders using it. The electronic wallet was a bit suspicious so I did a test and transacted a small amount between both platforms TO test the legitimacy of it. It passed as well. Can anyone tell me the legitimacy of these USDT (CoinTimes, key2018) Much appreciated. It is probably a scam. There are many signs. You are new so you don't recognize them, but for anyone that has been around a while and has seen these scams so many times, it is pretty obvious. - While Huobi and USDT are reasonably legitimate, electronicpayment88.com was created just a couple weeks ago and so it is likely to be a scam. They will probably just take your money.
- Nobody has insider information on cryptocurrency investments except scammers, either because they are making it up or they are trying to manipulate you. Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pump_and_dump
- They are preying on your greed. Are you really a serious investor and in it for the long haul, or are you just trying to take an advantage of some once-in-a-lifetime opportunity?
|
|
|
|
There are some criticisms of the theory. "It was made according to the conditions of the time, it is now rotten. Because technology has improved. We can produce more food." I think this is a narrow view.
I agree, but I think it is partially correct. I think one flaw in the theory is that the production increase is assumed to be linear, even though the labor pool is assumed to increase exponentially. Bitcoin is limited to 21 million. About 40% have not been moving for many years. Total supply will decrease as people die. 21 million (*10^8) This number looks huge. Actually it is still scarce. Just like the resources in the world. The limited supply of bitcoin makes it valuable in the short / medium term. Can the Malthus Catastrophe be seen in bitcoin in the long term?
I don't think it applies. Other than being lost, bitcoins are not consumed, so there is no danger of running out. The problem is that a satoshi might eventually become too valuable to be useful. The trade volume increases geometrically. But the number of bitcoins remains constant (or decreases over time). In this case, bitcoin ceases to be an active means of payment for commerce. Because, a currency whose value is constantly increasing and decreasing in number is not used in trade.
It's not that simple. The values of all currencies go up and down, yet they continue to be used.The issue for Bitcoin is the high volatility in its price, but I assume that the volatility will drop to acceptable levels as adoption increases. |
|
|
|
I have to say that this thread has been enlightening. I honestly had no idea how powerful these algorithms can be. BurtW posted last summer about how he and his daughter were looking at the Pollard Kangaroo algorithm. The results they reported did not seem impressive, so I lost interest. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5173445.0 |
|
|
|
Yes exactly our purpose is a crypto app that generates address'es for users for their websites like e-commerce's but every user needs to withdrawal their balance, for example, I checked this website coinremitter.com and they generate address' es then the user can withdrawal, so for withdrawal our back-end should create transactions, is it right? The user gives your software an extended public key from their wallet and your software generates addresses using that key. No withdrawal is necessary because the coins are sent directly to their wallet. The private keys remain in the user's wallet. I and some of my colleagues want to work on a crypto payment processor website like this https://coinremitter.com/in our country, there is no web app like that I strongly suggest that you look at the BTCPay Server project: https://btcpayserver.org/ and on github: https://github.com/btcpayserver. |
|
|
|
I'm a software developer but I'm new on bitcoin or blockchain programming
I want to implement a bitcoin-based web app that creates address'es for users and just makes transactions.
Did we need to have our full node for creating transactions?
Could we confirm and create transactions over DNS seeds?
I assume that by "payment processor" you mean software that will generate addresses that can receive bitcoins and verify that the bitcoins have been received. You don't need to create transactions in order to receive bitcoins, but you do need a node in order to monitor the block chain so that you can verify that the bitcoins have been received. DNS seeds are used to find other nodes. You need other nodes in order to receive transactions and blocks so that you can verify payments. Mastering Bitcoin by Andreas M. Antonopoulos is a good source for basic information. You can also view the source of projects on Github such as bcoin, bitcoin, and libbitcoinUnfortunately, We didn't find any useful resource for Architecture, for example how I should store user's private keys?
You must not store private keys. You will get hacked and lose bitcoins. Instead, a user provides you with an extended public key that you use to generate addresses for the user. |
|
|
|
@odolvlobo i have a question.
You gave me public keys whose private keys are in the range 8000000000000000:ffffffffffffffff
So those you previously brute force this range.
if you have all keys in this range why you do not take transaction #63 from bitcoin pazle?
I didn't brute-force the private keys. I generated them randomly and gave you their public keys. |
|
|
|
|
Market cap = price x money supply
You must have misunderstood the trader.
|
|
|
|
Congratulations on finding those private keys. They are correct. I am impressed. However, ... You guys are so smart here, I even feel awkward. Then answer me 3 simple questions: #1 Question . Let's imagine and take for the fact that I have a RAM for storing 2 ^ 255 public keys And I make a table of baby steps by this size. Those it’s enough for me to take 2 Giant steps to break the entire range 2 ^ 256 in 1second. What speed will I have in that case? If you answer 2hashes/s. I will call the orderlies and will laugh for a long time.  #2 Question . For example, I have a very small table of baby's steps. Let it be 10 values. And I take 100 giant steps per second. What speed will be in this case? #3 Question . There are 2 factories that produce cars. The first factory does everything .. from wheels to the trunk and engine. And the second one does only large-assembly cars. The first plant will produce 100 cars per month. The second is also 100 cars. Those due to the fact that the second factory does not make a car from atoms, but of large parts, we can’t say that it makes 100 cars a month?  You are not doing 2.2 PH/s. You aren't even doing hashes. The problem here is with your terminology: - You aren't hashing, so you are using the wrong unit.
- You aren't being clear on what you are measuring.
#1 The "speed" 1 one key per second. #2 The "speed" is 100 steps per second. #3 Yes |
|
|
|
[Give me public key what ever you whant and give me start private key with whom I can find public key for 1 day with speed 1Ph/s
this will drop options with tables 2 ^ 31
10 15 checks/s for 1 day is 8.64x10 19 (4AF0A763BB1C00000 16) checks. If you can actually do that, you should be able to check all private keys between 0x49dccfd96dc5df56487436f5a1b18c4f5d34f65ddb48cb5e0000000000000000and 0x49dccfd96dc5df56487436f5a1b18c4f5d34f65ddb48cb5effffffffffffffffin less than 6 hours. But, I'll give you a whole day to find the private keys for these 16 public keys. The private keys are randomly distributed in the above range. If you can do that, I'll be impressed. I don't think that you can find 4. 0459A3BFDAD718C9D3FAC7C187F1139F0815AC5D923910D516E186AFDA28B221DC994327554CED887AAE5D211A2407CDD025CFC3779ECB9C9D7F2F1A1DDF3E9FF8
04A50FBBB20757CC0E9C41C49DD9DF261646EE7936272F3F68C740C9DA50D42BCD3E48440249D6BC78BC928AA52B1921E9690EBA823CBC7F3AF54B3707E6A73F34
0404A49211C0FE07C9F7C94695996F8826E09545375A3CF9677F2D780A3EB70DE3BD05357CAF8340CB041B1D46C5BB6B88CD9859A083B0804EF63D498B29D31DD1
040B39E3F26AF294502A5BE708BB87AEDD9F895868011E60C1D2ABFCA202CD7A4D1D18283AF49556CF33E1EA71A16B2D0E31EE7179D88BE7F6AA0A7C5498E5D97F
04837A31977A73A630C436E680915934A58B8C76EB9B57A42C3C717689BE8C0493E46726DE04352832790FD1C99D9DDC2EE8A96E50CAD4DCC3AF1BFB82D51F2494
040ECDB6359D41D2FD37628C718DDA9BE30E65801A88A00C3C5BDF36E7EE6ADBBAD71A2A535FCB54D56913E7F37D8103BA33ED6441D019D0922AC363FCC792C29A
0422DD52FCFA3A4384F0AFF199D019E481D335923D8C00BADAD42FFFC80AF8FCF038F139D652842243FC841E7C5B3E477D901F88C5AB0B88EE13D80080E413F2ED
04DB4F1B249406B8BD662F78CBA46F5E90E20FE27FC69D0FBAA2F06E6E50E536695DF83B68FD0F396BB9BFCF6D4FE312F32A43CF3FA1FE0F81DF70C877593B64E0
043BD0330D7381917F8860F1949ACBCCFDC7863422EEE2B6DB7EDD551850196687528B6D2BC0AA7A5855D168B26C6BAF9DDCD04B585D42C7B9913F60421716D37A
04332A02CA42C481EAADB7ADB97DF89033B23EA291FDA809BEA3CE5C3B73B20C49C410D1AD42A9247EB8FF217935C9E28411A08B325FBF28CC2AF8182CE2B5CE38
04513981849DE1A1327DEF34B51F5011C5070603CA22E6D868263CB7C908525F0C19EBA6BD2A8DCF651E4342512EDEACB6EA22DA323A194E25C6A1614ABD259BC0
04D4E6FA664BD75A508C0FF0ED6F2C52DA2ADD7C3F954D9C346D24318DBD2ECFC6805511F46262E10A25F252FD525AF1CBCC46016B6CD0A7705037364309198DA1
0456B468963752924DBF56112633DC57F07C512E3671A16CD7375C58469164599D1E04011D3E9004466C814B144A9BCB7E47D5BACA1B90DA0C4752603781BF5873
04D5BE7C653773CEE06A238020E953CFCD0F22BE2D045C6E5B4388A3F11B4586CBB4B177DFFD111F6A15A453009B568E95798B0227B60D8BEAC98AF671F31B0E2B
04B1985389D8AB680DEDD67BBA7CA781D1A9E6E5974AAD2E70518125BAD5783EB5355F46E927A030DB14CF8D3940C1BED7FB80624B32B349AB5A05226AF15A2228
0455B95BEF84A6045A505D015EF15E136E0A31CC2AA00FA4BCA62E5DF215EE981B3B4D6BCE33718DC6CF59F28B550648D7E8B2796AC36F25FF0C01F8BC42A16FD9
|
|
|
|
You can try out to look in all of PK's on here:
https://[potential scam site]/
https://[potential scam site]/all-bitcoin-private-keys-list
https://[potential scam site]/
Bruteforcer? good luck with that.
Under no circumstances should you enter any of your private keys into any of those sites. With a private key, the site may steal the bitcoins held by that pivate key. |
|
|
|
✴ Scientists: L = Cl * A * .5 * r * V^2. Cd = D / (A * .5 * r * V^2) Cd = D / (q * A)Cd = D / (q * A). T2t Vala = Paper Plane!  ✳ Children: get a plane paper, fold it this way, refold, bend, fold again....................... = Paper plane! Who says we can't build a real plane without complex boring maths. And in the case of a real plane: ✴ Scientists: L = Cl * A * .5 * r * V^2. Cd = D / (A * .5 * r * V^2) Cd = D / (q * A)Cd = D / (q * A). T2t Vala = Real Plane! * Children: Nail some pieces of wood together .... Fall down, go boom! |
|
|
|
Have a certain amount in a paper wallet and i want to withdraw half of it.
Using an HD wallet on my mobile and i scan the private code of the paper wallet.
at this stage the private code has been scanned and it's on my device so its not really private anymore.
Am i missing something ?
Or the thumb rule is to withdraw all the amount from the paper wallet to avoid this situation ?
A paper wallet should not be reused. There are two issues. 1. The primary benefit of a paper wallet is physical security, and that benefit is gone once the private key has been scanned. 2. You cannot send an arbitrary amount from a paper wallet. The bitcoins stored at an address are stored in discrete amounts and you can only send those amounts. For example, an address may contain 10 BTC, but if the bitcoins were sent to the address in two transactions of 3 BTC and 7 BTC, you can only send 3 or 7 or 10 BTC. If you want to send 5 BTC, the wallet will send 7, but 5 will go to the receiver and 2 will go to a "change" address, and the paper wallet will now have only 3 BTC. See https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Change |
|
|
|
Thank you for the response and effort.
But I need to disagree with your statement
...
This is the bias influence I was trying (unsuccesfully) to describe.
Maybe a simple example to clarify. I have 7 apples in a row numbered 1 to 7. I then tell you that you can have one of the apples by picking a random number from 1 to 10. If you pick 2, you get the 2nd apple. If you pick 7, you get the 7th apple. But if you pick 8, I will use the mod operator and give the 1st apple. If you pick 9, I give you the 2nd apple. And if you pick 10 you get the 3rd apple. So your odds of getting apple 1, 2, or 3 are twice as high as getting apple 4, 5, 6, and 7. The mod operator introduces a bias towards the 1, 2, or 3rd apple.
So whether the 100 dice rolls method is better than 99 dice rolls is still unclear to me due to this mod operator bias influence with the 100 dice rolls to the lower 68.1% of private keys.
I agree with you that there is a bias, but doing an extra roll never increases the odds of a collision. Remember, the comparison is between the odds of a collision in two methods, and not between the odds in the outcomes in any single method. Lets use your your example because the numbers are smaller and it is easier to demonstrate the comparison. In this case, p is 7 and you are rolling either 1 or 2 5-sided dice. 1 die method| Outcome | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | | Count | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | | Probability | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
What are the odds of a collision? For the numbers 1-5, the odds are 20%. For the numbers 6-7, the odds are 0%. 2 dice method| Outcome | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | | Count | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | | Probability | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
What are the odds of a collision? For the numbers 1-3, the odds are 20%. For the numbers 4-7, the odds are 10%. In the first method, an attacker choosing a number randomly will have a 14% chance of picking the right one, but a smart attacker will choose a number in the range 1-5 and have a 20% chance. In the second method, an attacker choosing a number randomly will also have a 14% chance of picking the right one, but a smart attacker will choose a number in the range 1-3 and still have a 20% chance. This demonstration can be proven mathematically, but it is a lot of typing and I think the example is clear. |
|
|
|
bitcoin no longer meets the requirements of some consumers who need to be able to pay quickly and inexpensively. Be realistic.
FTFY I use Bitcoin to buy gold online. It is better than any other form of payment for both the customer and the merchant. Bitcoin is not intended for payment.
Bitcoin is not a person. It has no will. It cannot have an intention. When you say, "Bitcoin is not intended for payment," you must specify who has that intention. Without that, your declaration is worthless. |
|
|
|
To be even more clear:
Defrauding people by re-org attacks on blockchains is not double-spending because it doesn't inflate the coins in circulation, it is just a fraud!
I see what you mean. When you restrict the meaning of double-spending in that way, then can I agree with you. But what you call a "misinterpretation" is really a different understanding of the word's meaning. If you modify your approach, you could reduce the confusion about your point. Miners are reliable as far as:
1- Provably, they are not inflating the supply of bitcoins by breaching the regulations built into the protocol.
2- There is proof that any incoming fund to a wallet approved by miners, comes with an equal deduction from the ledger maintained by them.
3- There is a safe threshold for the number of confirmations where the costs of rewriting the blockchain outperform any criminal incentive for defrauding users by orders of magnitude.
I agree that those are major challenges to sharding. I look forward to your solution. |
|
|
|
|
That's not what "decentralized" means. Decentralized means that nobody controls it. Communism is based on a centralized economy. Capitalism is decentralized.
|
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin is not a perfect solution to the double-spending problem, so there is always a threat.
The security of Bitcoin depends on financial incentives, specifically the assumption that the participating parties try to maximize their financial gain and that they act rationally to achieve that goal. The security can fail in cases where that assumption does not apply. A double-spend via a 51% attack can never be dismissed as impossible.
Two plausible examples:
Bitcoin could be doomed if a country decides that Bitcoin is a threat to national security and is willing to spend whatever it takes to dominate the hash rate and destroy Bitcoin via double-spends and DOS.
In 2014, ghash.io achieved more than 50% of the hash rate and could have performed a double-spend. Normally, a pool would not do that because it would mean the end of the pool as miners would desert them. But suppose ghash.io decided that they wanted to become famous for being the only pool to successfully execute a double-spend via a 51% attack regardless of the consequences. In the end, it turns out they really had nothing to lose because they lost all of their miners anyway. They didn't do a 51% attack, but they could have and they might have been motivated.
|
|
|
|
|
In my opinion, the best narrative so far is that Dave Kleinman is Satoshi, and that Craig Wright and (perhaps) others were also involved somehow.
Mr. Kleinman is gone and the private keys are lost. That is why nobody has proven that they are Satoshi, why his coins have not been touched, and why Craig Wright thinks he can make people believe that he is Satoshi, but instead he looks like an idiot.
It could be completely wrong, but I think its the best one out there right now.
|
|
|
|
What do you mean by "selling pressure"? Don't you mean supply? Also, bitcoins are not consumed. Bitcoins sold by miners yesterday are still available to sell today, so the supply is always increasing regardless of who owns it.
What I specifically meant by lower selling pressure: Miners' rewards per block are halved, hence fewer mined bitcoins could be dumped into the markets by the miners. Because some(or most?) miners needs to sell their coins to pay for electricity and stuff. Not sure which parts of my statements looked like I was saying that bitcoins are being consumed. I think we're misunderstanding each other here lol. I'll try to make my point clear. Miner selling pressure today is still selling pressure tomorrow (but not by miners) because bitcoins sold by miners today are available to sell by someone else tomorrow. So, in other words, the total selling pressure is always increasing. The halving may reduce the selling pressure by miners but it does nothing to reduce the continuously increasing total selling pressure. I hope that was clear and to the point. Now, in the end, if you want to say the the halving causes the price to rise, you must also include a caveat that you assume that demand is always increasing faster than the supply. The problem with that assumption is that it isn't. In fact, since the supply is predetermined, it is really the demand that affects the price, and not so much the supply. I apologize for the pain felt by the economics purists caused by my conflation of supply with aggregate supply and money supply, and demand with aggregate demand. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
