You will not be able to have all the private keys since most of the keys are private, and the mentioned services are just for spamming with viruses.
It's perfectly possible to generate a private key that was previously generated by somebody else. Case in point: brainwallets... There once was a website that would allow you to generate a private key that was directly derived from a passphrase you entered. After a while, a white hat hacker proved that, using a simple dictionary attack, he was able to generate a lot of "existing" private keys, whose public key hash (addresses) were still funded with unspent outputs. I think the problem here is that people's minds are just not capable of understanding big numbers. Eventough the keyspace is not infinite, it is sooooo big in reality it's impossible to actually generate and scan the complete keyspace. People see numbers like 2 256 private keys that result in 2 160 addresses and think "hey, that's a number i can actually read, so there must be a program that quickly loops trough those keys and prints the ones whose public key hash is still funded". In reality, however, 2 256 is a number sooooo big, that this task is simply not possible. All sites like keys.lol are practical jokes. If you read the code pooya87 has posted, the joke becomes obvious: depending on keyPerPageCount, pageNumber can be as large as 2 256 Let's post some theory here... It's an absurd simulation that tries to make you see how unfeasible the discussion actually is... If you had an ASIC that (instead of creating hashes) generates private keys, and your asic generated at 100 Tk/s, your ASIC would generate 100000000000000 keys per second. Let's say you'd have 100 of those ASICs, generating 10000000000000000 keys per second... It would take those ASICs 3671743063080802746815416825491100000000000000000000000 years to generate the complete keyspace. I've googled around, and found this bloke who was optimising random string generation on an i5 cpu. His original program created about 6000 random strings per second... People in his thread optimized his code and were able to generate a bit more, but no-one was able to generate more than 10000 strings per second... So, even the story with 100 ASIC's that were built for key creation is completely absurd. I don't think you'll ever be able to build a farm that generates 10000000000000000 keys per second, and even if you do, the earth will be long gone before they even scan 1% of the keyspace... |
|
|
|
--snip-- So overall, the service is good and reliable, and for sure will continue using it, but the usability improvements would be really helpful  That's well and all... And it's true i haven't seen scam reports about this service so far, and that's a good sign... However, a long time ago i got payed by jambler to review their service, here's my report: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5140688.msg51237562#msg51237562The thing is, it seems like the jambler site admin didn't follow any advice i've given them... The site still uses cloudflare's MITM SSL, security headers are still missing, google analytics are still used, cookies are still missing flags,... Even worse, it seems components like jQuery have not been kept up to date, and are now lagging behind, exposing potential vulnerability's... I have no quarrel with the site admin, it seems he's trying to run an honest business (so far), and i've analysed one of their outputs and it seems (at that time at least) he was telling the truth about their mixing algo... However, the security of the actual site is not up to par, so i'd never consider to actually use this site untill these issues are fixed. At this moment, using jambler defeats the purpose of using a mixer... Why use a mixer if cloudflare and google are able to track every action you perform on their clearnet site? |
|
|
|
It looks like a ponzi... I personally would not invest anything with this site, defenately not ~$5000. However, it is just my gut feeling based on a long experience reading and having discussions with victims of ponzi's... I don't have any hard evidence. The red flags (for me) - Hidden whois info
- unrealistic profits (if it's to good to be true, it usually is)
- typical ponzi scam layout and wording
|
|
|
|
The domain was created on 2011-09-04 04:17:42 It has been in the wayback machine since somewhere around 2012 https://web.archive.org/web/*/bitaddress.org I have no idear why this information would be relevant to anybody tough... |
|
|
|
Thank you for the answer. I admit I didn't really quite understand everything needed for a person to get the tx confirmed, but I understand that there is still a possibility, and because of that possibility, it could be worth just sending a transaction that's 0 fee you don't need to confirm in 1 month, and see if someone will take it.
Do those miners set it up like that on purpose I wonder?
Well... I wouldn't count on it... If you just create a 0 fee transaction, it'll allmost certainly get rejected by the nodes you are connected to if you try to broadcast it trough them, or relay it to them. If you find a single node that still accepts a 0 fee transaction, odds are it'll just stay in the mempool of that single node untill it gets pruned after a couple of days since the odds are big this 0-fee-accepting node is only connected to nodes that reject 0 fee transactions... What i meanth is that if you want to create a 0 fee transaction and even have a very small chance of getting it confirmed, you'll have to find a "path" of 0-fee-accepting node(s) that lead to a 0-fee-accepting node that belongs to a miner... Only if you find such a path, you'll have a (very small) chance the miner will put your transaction into the block he/she is working on, and an even small chance the miner finds a valid blockheader... Finding 0-fee-accepting nodes is not easy to begin with... You can probably try to connect to as many nodes as possible and look at their versions, recent bitcoin core versions would have had to actively patch their node's code in order to accept 0 fee transactions (thus, the odds of them actually accepting said transactions is VERY small). Older core versions and alternative versions would (theoretically) have the highest odds of accepting 0 fee transactions. If you want to test out wether or not a node accepts your transaction, you'll probably have to create 2 nodes on 2 different machines, connect them both to the node you are testing. Then broadcast your 0 fee transaction to said node from your first node and see if the tested node broadcast the 0 fee transaction to your second node. If it does, at least you know the tested node RELAYS 0 fee transactions  Here's a small, non-technical, intersting reading piece about how transaction relaying works... It's interesting, but it does not offer a real "answer" in this discussion tough => https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Network#Standard_relaying |
|
|
|
It's good to see you taking your case to huobi, but like i said: do be carefull you're not attacking somebody innocent that has used a mixing service to regain some anonimity... I just read an interesting blogpost that might be relevant to this discussion, and the discussion link posted by Lucius ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5157460.0) https://googleprojectzero.blogspot.com/2019/08/a-very-deep-dive-into-ios-exploit.htmlTl;DR; version => vulnerabilities that were fixed in iOS 12 allowed hackers to gain access to iphone devices that merely surfed to an infected webpage... Nothing else: just visiting an infected webpage was sufficient to give the culprits full access to your phone (emails, files, passwords,...). There is nobody that can ever be 100% sure they're running a completely clean system... This does NOT mean that we can be sure there are no vulnerability's on blockchain's side... Just that everybody saying that they're 100% sure their system was clean, eventough they used it to visit blockchain.info (so it's an online system) is misinformed. I know the OP never said he used iOS, but other platforms might have similar vulnerability's. |
|
|
|
|
I have actually did this a few times myself... Eventough i do take extra caution to only reward merit to a post i agree with if the post is also well-formed and informative... I'd never merit a one line "i agree"-type of post, even if i agreed with said one-liner...
It's a grey area, this is not why merits were introduced, but by making sure the post i merit is also decent quality, i don't think i'm doing anything wrong.
|
|
|
|
I remember Dab was talking about a way. Something like this:
There is an email service (I can not remember it), you write an email, schedule it to send it to whatever recipient you want. You will set a periodic timer too. Say every two weeks or months whatever. If it's every two weeks then after every two weeks this client will send an automatic email to you and you will have to open it and need to click certain button/link so that it resets for the next week. Now if this email is not opened and certain button was not clicked then the client will send whatever email you scheduled to sent to your recipient.
You can talk to your closest one that they will receive an email with instructions to access the Bitcoins you have in case you have an accident or a sudden death.
Doesn't sound like a solid idear to me as it is... The email service admin (or any tech guy that works for the email service, even as an intern or an outside consultant) might be able to open the scheduled email and read the instructions... Would be a great way to have your wallet drained if you ask me. Not to mention any security vulnerabilitys that would allow a hacker to get his hands on those scheduled mails. If you found a rocksolid email service like this, the least you should do is encrypt the instructions using a very strong pgp pubkey, for which the privkey is helt by your recipient... |
|
|
|
I've been using an online wallet and I don't have a problem.
These kinds of sites have their own security, you can always connect your email, some have their 2FA, some even require a phone number and I am wondering how can someone access your wallet without you being notified of that. Two points to consider, it is either your fault or the sites fault but I don't think the site will just let someone use your balance without logging to your account.
This seems to be a personal error, it is not possible that it was the fault of Blockchain. I also use Blockchain and there are no problems while using this wallet. Bitcoin will not move on its own if no one controls the address and most likely it is because of hackers. The money moves 2 times in two different addresses and stops at this address 1L5tLc6ayc3RXAyicHRv2c2uSNVJzoP4Yp That's a wallet belonging to Huobi... I'd contact their support department and ask them to look into this transaction... However, since the funds moved 2 times, it's perfectly possible the thief used a mixer... Just to summarise: 1FgpbfQ8nVMS523Btnyv3rxhF7YxtiEdr7 belonged to you... The thief robbed you in tx 4d412c58ab3dba8a138557e41e9ace1c8b36ee3d44107a930c8f31f0198d2b93 and funded what is most likely either his own address or an address belonging to a mixer => 1PdXxtu8Laq773RXT5q5pp6qtaG3HvSw2r The unspent output created by the thief was combined with unspent outputs funding the following addresses: 1MXVwghCaz7yPvuyJU35yQdQHnpA9ea8PA (0.06180723 BTC - Output) 1H6htL41r9v8nAAZdpmaxw35kyjCewS9um (0.04020064 BTC - Output) 1H6htL41r9v8nAAZdpmaxw35kyjCewS9um (0.35708617 BTC - Output) 1JHLWuWsDqYwxzrjYcxZ6K7Feiv5R9SyvF (0.03159732 BTC - Output) 1PdXxtu8Laq773RXT5q5pp6qtaG3HvSw2r (0.03435393 BTC - Output) 1DbovmqydEvgFjLPfA6brASV98cmEy8gy2 (0.13459853 BTC - Output) 1MXVwghCaz7yPvuyJU35yQdQHnpA9ea8PA (0.01590557 BTC - Output) 1Q2qYzdeqd1KJdRJwMBqjft9mnMzc98fdp (0.01895248 BTC - Output) 1M7T8LZeJopJMffYRcpvviFvb11eKMLb1j (0.03038733 BTC - Output) 1Q2qYzdeqd1KJdRJwMBqjft9mnMzc98fdp (0.00673544 BTC - Output) 1FWSCxbScSfwrdetudCqArD5VND71JfPiy (0.0296867 BTC - Output) 1Q7SmKLD5Vs597oBZBAaviSzTfLwkZbXLd (0.11753431 BTC - Output) to fund 1L5tLc6ayc3RXAyicHRv2c2uSNVJzoP4Yp 1L5tLc6ayc3RXAyicHRv2c2uSNVJzoP4Yp belongs to huobi... So somebody is exchanging those funds, either to other altcoins or to fiat... If huobi requires KYC, the police should be able to either find the thief, or the person who was unlucky enough to use a mixer and end up with the thief's funds after mixing... |
|
|
|
Sorry to butt in but does this mean that it is not possible at all anymore to get 0 fee transactions confirmed?
Because as user above puts it, you can possibly sign and broadcast the transaction, but since nobody will confirm it, it's just not worth to do it anymore? Why do people still try?
Somewhere around 2016-2017, i witnessed people creating 0 fee transactions and getting them confirmed. As long as a single miner runs an old node, a patched node or an alternative node (like btcd) that is configured to accept and relay 0 fee transactions, AND still uses the old, deprecated priority mechanism you can always try to setup a patched node and connect directly to this mining node, then create a 0 fee transaction and get it broadcasted to this miner's node... However, at this point in time, you'd need very specific and detailed info about which miners would be running such a patched and alternatively-configured node, my guess would be there aren't many of those miners left. And in the odd chance you do get a 0 fee transaction in his/her node's mempool, and your transaction has very high priority (and the miner still reserves a space in his/her block for high priority transactions), the miner would still need to find a block header whose hash is under the current target (ie solve the block). Odds are small, very, very, small... But i don't think they're absolute 0. |
|
|
|
I've been using an online wallet and I don't have a problem.
These kinds of sites have their own security, you can always connect your email, some have their 2FA, some even require a phone number and I am wondering how can someone access your wallet without you being notified of that. Two points to consider, it is either your fault or the sites fault but I don't think the site will just let someone use your balance without logging to your account.
Sorry, but this logic is flawed... It's not because you didn't have a problem with online wallets (yet) that they're safe to use. It's perfectly possible for a hacker to get his/her hands on the xprv, the seed phrase or the derived private keys (sometimes even without using the gui), in this case no email security, sms, 2fa, biometric security will help you... As soon as a hacker can derive private keys belonging to addresses that "belong" (for a lack of better terminology... When using online wallets, your funds belong to the wallet company) to you and were funded, he'll be able to rob you (even if the online wallet goes down). Bottom line: "if you're not (the only one) in controll of your private keys, you're not (the only one) in controll of your funds", this is true no matter which company, which 2FA measures, which guarantees,... |
|
|
|
|
I really, really, really don't like any online wallet, exchange wallet, casino wallet,... Basically any wallet that doesn't make sure you're the only one in controll over your private keys, is open source and has a sufficient recovery scenario in case they ever dissapear is a big no-go for me...
So, in this case, i'm defenately NOT defending blockchain.info/com. However, i do urge you to see things from their perspective: how many emails do you think they get on a daily basis about people that have been hacked and try to blame them for their loss? I'm pretty sure 99,9% of those cases actually involve a user installing malware, falling for a phising attack or exposing their seed/private key/blockchain credentials. If a helpdesk employee gets 1000 complaints, and 999 of them are a PICNIC (problem in chair, not in computer) problem, it's pretty normal that he misses the 1 actual complaint.
That being said, blockchain has been around for a long time, never having met you, i'd also jump to the conclusion that the odds of you running a vulnerable system, having a malicious plugin, running a virus, having your credentials or seed phrase stolen somehow are larger than the odds of a vulnerability in blockchain's system. Mind you, i'm talking about odds, not certainty's... Like i said, i have never met you, i have no proof, i haven't seen anything about you => It's just statistically speaking from my rather lengthy experience in this community, i'd say the odds of the problem being on your side are bigger than the odds of the problem being on their side...
I try not to victim blame... It doesn't really matter if it was blockchain, a virus, a plugin, an OS vulnerabilitly... It was awefull for you to lose your funds, and it's defenately somebody else's fault (i'm not being sarcastic here!).
Anyways, it was a rather expensive lessen for you, i'd recommand to switch to a more secure wallet... Pop $100 and buy a hardware wallet. If not, take an old pc, remove the network card and install a cold (air gapped) wallet. Or learn about paper wallets (do be carefull, you need to take caution and follow the proper procedure to create one of those)
|
|
|
|
I'm not going to go into detail about the scam accusation originally posted, it seems many other members have already gone into grave detail... I don't know the site in question, nor do i know wether or not it's a scam... However, i noticed the person who was the subject of the scam accusation has made dead threats against a person who he identified with both first and last name, aswell as detailing how he would kill said person... Eventough it seems he has now deleted said post? EDIT: found the original in the archived thread hereIn my country this is completely illegal and you can actually be sent to jail, even for posting things like this on a public forum. Is there anybody from Hungary who can verify if this is the case for hungarians aswell? Or is this forum under US jurisdiction, in this case the subject of the accusation might fall under us law (i'm pretty sure making death treats against somebody is illegal in the US aswell). |
|
|
|
I've never seen this error message... Some things do come to mind: - Did you setup 2fa? If you did, you should have been shown a popup telling you that 2fa is provided by a thirth party and it is a PAYING option... I myself have never used 2fa within electrum, so i have no idear whitch error message is shown if you don't have enough funds to pay the 2fa fee
- Are you sure you downloaded electrum from the official site?
- Did you check electrum's signature?
- Are you running the latest version?
- Are you connected to a node (green button in the right bottom corner)
- Are you sure the transaction funding your wallet is confirmed?
- Are you sure the problem is spending from electrum? It's not the person that sold you the btc that is telling you he cannot fund your address (for example due to scammy behaviour on their side)
|
|
|
|
Here you go... This should work (as long as you have a linux box with all dependencies installed). It's cd ~
git clone https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/
cd ~/bitcoin/src/wallet/
sed -i 's/static const CAmount DEFAULT_TRANSACTION_MINFEE = 1000;/static const CAmount DEFAULT_TRANSACTION_MINFEE = 0;/g' wallet.h
sed -i 's/static const CAmount WALLET_INCREMENTAL_RELAY_FEE = 5000;/static const CAmount WALLET_INCREMENTAL_RELAY_FEE = 0;/g' wallet.h
cd ~/bitcoin
./autogen.sh
./configure
make
cd ~/bitcoin/src
./bitcoind -daemon -mintxfee=0
But even if you edit the sourcecode and run the modified version, you probably won't receive any 0 fee transactions, since all other nodes you are connected to will reject said transactions, hence they won't broadcast them to you... This will only work if you're connected to other old or patched nodes that accept and relay 0 fee transactions, or if you use your node to broadcast your own 0 fee transaction... In the latter case any other node you relay the 0 fee transaction to will probably reject it anyways, and no miner will probably touch the 0 fee transaction. It's not because it's technically possible that it's a wise idear to do this |
|
|
|
Will give electrum a try may be latter.
Before that,
How to generate receive address in bitcoin core without use of "Request Payment".
The bitcoin core is not synchronized at all.
In QT (gui) you can always open the console (help -> debug window -> console) and enter "getnewaddress" If you run bitcoind => ./bitcoin-cli getnewaddress In core, it might also be interesting to make sure your full wallet is backupped properly... If it's a HD wallet only 1 backup is necessary, if it's non HD you should shedule regular backups... If you decide to encrypt a non-encrypted wallet, you'll also need to create a new backupset. |
|
|
|
Basically, you have an online, watch-only wallet. This wallet does not contain your private key(s) or xpriv, but only your addresses or xpub (or ypub). The watch-only wallet is online, thus it can scan the new blocks for unspent outputs funding addresses that can be derived from your xpub. The online wallet can be used to generate new transactions spending these unspent outputs, but since the watch-only wallet does not contain your private key, it cannot be used to sign these transactions. That's why you also need an offline (air gapped) machine. This offline wallet does contain your private keys (or xpriv/ypriv). You need to generate your unsigned transaction with the online wallet, transfer it to the offline wallet for signing, and then back to the online wallet for broadcasting. The offline wallet does not need to be sync'ed, it's only used for signing premade transactions. I've tried this setup with core and electrum in the past. Electrum has a how-to on it's official site: http://docs.electrum.org/en/latest/coldstorage.htmlIf you have any questions, don't hesistate to ask them |
|
|
|
I agree 20 quad core PC's? On NiceHash that has the potential to earn you $400 to $600 per week, depending on Bitcoin prices at the time. Calculation based on a $10,000 BTC price.
Get those bitches mining!!!
I disagree... Proof: 1 i7 hashes at 67 Mh/s (source: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Non-specialized_hardware_comparison#Intel) 20 i7's = 20 x 67 Mh/s = 1340 Mh/s = 1.34 Gh/s = 1.340.000.000 h/s Average dayly income= (((((Hashrate (hashes/sec) * average block reward * 600 * 65535) / 2^48) / Difficulty) * 6 * 24) In your case (((((1340000000*12.5*600*65535)/2^48/ 10183488432889) * 6 * 24) = 0.000000033 (3.3 satoshi's per day => 0.0003 dollar per day => you'd have to mine for 9 years to make $1... Given you ignore the block reward, diff increase or price decrease ) How on earth did you calculate the OP would ever make $400 to $600? |
|
|
|
|
I feel sorry for you, however, you do realise that, when banned, you're only allowed to make 1 thread discussing your ban. As soon as you post outside this 1 thread (or make a second thread), you're evading your ban.
Offcourse, this is a grey area, since both threads are created for the sole purpose of appealing your ban... However, strictly speaking, at this moment you're breaking the rules... Wouldn't it be better to close this thread and bump your original appeal?
|
|
|
|
IF you have a new mac, and downloaded electrum again, you either had to move your wallet files, or restore your wallet from the seed phrase. If you just downloaded electrum on a new system and ran electrum for the first time, electrum will probably have generated a brand new wallet (just an educated guess). - Just go to View => Show addresses
- A new Addresses-tab should appear, open it...
- right click the first address => copy address (or go straight to "view on block explorer", the downside to this method is that you'll be more or less bound to the block explorer that's defined in your general preferences)
- If you copied the address instead of directly going to "view on block explorer" open your web browser, either search for "bitcoin block explorer", or just surf to blockchain.info or blockexplorer.com, paste the copied address and search
- repeat for the next couple of addresses
- maybe try a different online bockexplorer just to be sure
If no block explorer finds any history for the first couple of addresses, it's RELATIVELY safe to assume you just created an empty wallet... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
