|
My first tought: are you the owner of bc vault or being payed to promote them? I mean, did you really register an account on bitcointalk to give an answer to a question nobody has asked (AFAIK)
My second tought: i'd never jump in and buy an unknown hardware wallet, when there are several community-vetted existing alternatives that do the job quite well.
I used google to research this wallet, and other than the fact they claim to be the only one that offers secure backups, i don't see anything worth risking my coins over. And i wonder: why would you even make backups... Other wallets use a seed phrase which can be extended with a custom password in case your seed phrase gets discovered, this seed can be used to restore your wallet... usually you can just use a compatible software wallet in case the company goes out of business. At first sight it seems bc vault does not use this existing, community vetted, technology, so it actually needs you to make backups. To me, it seems they fixed a problem they created themselfs, then brag about the fact they fixed the problem...
|
|
|
|
|
Up until the point newbies seem to have registered just to bump this thread, I actually fought there was a small chance of this being a legit business....
However, each time a newbie jumps in just to say something positive (or neutral), your almost nonexistent credibility decreases even more...
|
|
|
|
|
If you post your question/problem while leaving out sensitive details, you'll probably get help for free... If you insist in getting private, payed help: escrow the amount you're willing to pay using a trusted forum escrow and pm me afterwards... If I can't help you ( either because the bounty isn't worth my time or because I don't have sufficient knowledge about the topic you require help with), somebody else probably will, so it's a good idear to setup the escrow anyways
|
|
|
|
I've seen this discussion going towards the financial side of running a lightning node... Just to make sure no urban legends get created, i decided to share my own statistics.. Just some background info: I've been running a lightning node from before reasonably good lightning node explorers were around... Basically from the moment the first relatively stable beta version of c-lightning was released (once a week i still build c-lightning straight from the head branch on github). I've used lightning-charged on top of c-lightning and a homebrewn payment system on top of lightning-charged for a long time. Recently i retired my own code and lightning-charged, and put btcpay on top of my c-lightning node. I've created hundreds of invoices and actually received +100 payments (so far). Now, for the actual, up-to-date, statistics of my node: lightning-cli listfunds | grep channel_sat
"channel_sat" : 41646,
"channel_sat" : 20200,
"channel_sat" : 1276,
"channel_sat" : 27012,
"channel_sat" : 0,
"channel_sat" : 0,
"channel_sat" : 105550,
"channel_sat" : 0,
"channel_sat" : 396,
"channel_sat" : 5285,
"channel_sat" : 0,
"channel_sat" : 0,
"channel_sat" : 0,
"channel_sat" : 0,
"channel_sat" : 0,
"channel_sat" : 0,
"channel_sat" : 0,
So... currently 17 open channels, 7 with funds on my side of the channel. Dozens of other channels have been closed since i started running a node. lightning-cli listfunds | grep channel_total_sat
"channel_total_sat" : 100000,
"channel_total_sat" : 5000000,
"channel_total_sat" : 16777215,
"channel_total_sat" : 100000,
"channel_total_sat" : 500000,
"channel_total_sat" : 500002,
"channel_total_sat" : 5000000,
"channel_total_sat" : 500000,
"channel_total_sat" : 9000000,
"channel_total_sat" : 9000000,
"channel_total_sat" : 4499630,
"channel_total_sat" : 1000000,
"channel_total_sat" : 5446466,
"channel_total_sat" : 409293,
"channel_total_sat" : 100000,
"channel_total_sat" : 85894,
"channel_total_sat" : 58108,
All of them have funds on the other side of the channel lightning-cli getinfo
{
"id" : "03301e633b25d769377bf75ce6b6ed2ec570270bc06c8c02bf33c5bd2aa47da098",
"alias" : "mocacinno",
"color" : "03301e",
"num_peers" : 25,
"num_pending_channels" : 0,
"num_active_channels" : 17,
"num_inactive_channels" : 0,
"address" : [
{
"type" : "ipv4",
"address" : "193.70.78.148",
"port" : 9735
}
],
"binding" : [
{
"type" : "ipv4",
"address" : "193.70.78.148",
"port" : 9735
}
],
"version" : "v0.7.1-172-gdbc0265-modded",
"blockheight" : 588181,
"network" : "bitcoin",
"msatoshi_fees_collected" : 0,
"fees_collected_msat" : "0msat"
}
yup... That's right... A grand total of 0 msatoshi in fees made during the months i've been running the node  |
|
|
|
It's Eclair's fault. I am not sure about c-lightning, but LND allows users to set the closing transaction fee through --sat_per_byte parameter. Even if the implementation supports a certain feature, clients also have to implement it. What was the recommended transaction fee at the time? @LoyceV pointed out that Eclair Mobile overcharges for the closing transaction depending on the mempool state. I have a c-lightning node, and i quickly looked up the man... It does look that, without editing c-lightning sourcecode, you cannot set the fee for the onchain closing transaction... I never even tought about this problem, i very seldomly close a channel, and when i do, i have never tought about changing the fee... LIGHTNING-CLOSE(7) LIGHTNING-CLOSE(7) NAME lightning-close - Command for closing channels with direct peers SYNOPSIS close id [force] [timeout] DESCRIPTION The close RPC command attempts to close the channel cooperatively with the peer. If the given id is a peer ID (66 hex digits as a string), then it applies to the active channel of the direct peer corresponding to the given peer ID. If the given id is a channel ID (64 hex digits as a string, or the short channel ID blockheight:txindex:outindex form), then it applies to that channel. The close command will time out and return with an error when the number of seconds specified in timeout is reached. If unspecified, it times out in 30 seconds. The force argument, if the JSON value true, will cause the channel to be unilaterally closed when the timeout is reached. If so, timeout will not cause an error, but instead cause the channel to be failed and put onchain unilaterally. Unilateral closes will lead to your funds getting locked according to the to_self_delay parameter of the peer. Normally the peer needs to be live and connected in order to negotiate a mutual close. Forcing a unilateral close can be used if you suspect you can no longer contact the peer. RETURN VALUE On success, an object with fields tx and txid containing the closing transaction are returned. It will also have a field type which is either the JSON string mutual or the JSON string unilateral. A mutual close means that we could negotiate a close with the peer, while a unilateral close means that the force flag was set and we had to close the channel without waiting for the counterparty. A unilateral close may still occur with force set to false if the peer did not behave correctly during the close negotiation. Unilateral closes will return your funds after a delay. The delay will vary based on the peer to_self_delay setting, not your own setting. On failure, if close failed due to timing out with force argument false, the channel will still eventually close once we have contacted the peer. AUTHOR ZmnSCPxj <~redacted~> is mainly responsible. SEE ALSO RESOURCES Main web site: https://github.com/ElementsProject/lightning 04/30/2018 LIGHTNING-CLOSE(7) |
|
|
|
I guess it's biggest drawbacks are: - The learning curve (pretty steep)
- The software: most of it is still in alpha or beta phase... This doesn't show a lot of trust from the dev side (at the moment)
- Not enough open channels to relay all payments effectively
I've been running a site that accepts LN for a rather long time now, and so far everything works fine... But then last week i tried to get payed by a person i personally see as technically competent, and so far i haven't been able to get him to the point where he can succesfully make a LN payment. |
|
|
|
Thanks for your reply, I thought this - how can I change this?
rpcbind=192.168.1.11 in your bitcoin.conf At least, that should work... I'm not sitting behind my own desk at the moment, so i can't actually look trough the documentation right now  |
|
|
|
|
it's listening on the loopback address only...
127.0.0.1:19915 instead of 0.0.0.0:19915
|
|
|
|
|
Done...
I really appreciate the effort some people make towards getting those phising sites off of google, altough i sometimes wonder if it wouldn't be better if we just concentrated on making sure people started verifying signatures... Offcourse it's idle hope to actually think the average user will ever question any link he found using google, let alone verify anything at all...
|
|
|
|
I agree with everybody so far, but decided to write a small list of potential problems (adding a few idears of my own, next to the idears already mentioned by other members) so the OP can check them all off untill he finds out what went wrong - You fell for a scam and aren't actually using coinbase, but a phising site instead
- You forgot to actually create the transaction from your coinbase account (usually forgetting to click the button to actually create a transaction)
- Coinbase didn't broadcast the new transaction (yet) (this happens when you use centralised webwallets)
- You entered the wrong address when creating a transaction in your coinbase wallet (usually a copy/paste virus)
- The transaction you created in your coinbase wallet was rejected (for example due to dust outputs or insufficient fee)
- You're running a fake electrum version (did you check the signature?)
- Electrum isn't connected to a node
- You opened the wrong electrum wallet
Some of these things look trivial, but i'd still advice to check them all off... |
|
|
|
Actually, you should take a look at our project called Torque https://torque.cash, we're currently rebranding and the mobile miner is coming with real mobile mining. The pow also changed to a CPU friendly algo to make it more profitable for smartphones and other devices which run android (like a car.... it works) What do you mean by "like a car... it works"? Congrats on your project, but a little explanation might come in handy, especially for those of us that won't just click any link posted on this forum. The only way i can imagine this working is if your project is completely closed source using a propriatary hashing algo as POW algo, and if you only release closed source mining software for android mining on a closed source pool with closed source binary nodes and closed source wallets. In this case, your plan would work, but you'd force people to actually harm their phones while mining... If you open source the mining software or the node software, what would prevent anyone from mining with a "decent" (non-mobile) cpu which would be superior to any mobile cpu both in actual hashrate as in hashes generated per Joule. As soon as people start using desktop or server cpu's, the difficulty would skyrocket and everybody burning their phones while mining would see their income plummet. |
|
|
|
I came across a dude whose post gave me a bad gut feeling, it was somebody that never posted in the english subsection and suddenly gave a half decent respons... Offcourse it was plagiarised  I decided to use google search for part of the phrase he plagiarised, and found about ~12 hits of people that posted 1 of 2 variations of the sentence ~snip~
The objectives of this project are clearly explained with reasonable facts
~snip~
link to the search pageI have no idear if they're plagiarists, or just an account farmer copy/pasting worthless crap to increase the activity of their account... But since i didn't want to report all posts one by one, i decided to post the link to the search form instead |
|
|
|
they cant because the nodes act as medium to the network while they send signals to the chain, and the network react to this so the miners are clean and safe to get this siginals and buld blocks on the chain ..
very simple dude*
Sorry to say, but this makes very little sense... With the explanation you've given, you shouldn't have added the "very simple dude*" remark at the bottom... I guess your heart is in the right place, but it takes a lot of imagination to make something meaningfull out of your comment. A full node is a program that is connected to other full nodes to form the network. Each full node verifies all new blocks and transactions it receives directly from users, directly from miners or indirectly from other nodes. When a received unconfirmed transaction or a new block got verified and is valid, the node relays it to other nodes it's connected to. The node stores the new valid blocks in his copy of the complete blockchain stored locally and the valid unconfirmed transactions in his UTXO set. If the node is owned by a miner, the miner can use the node to get the hash of the header of the last valid block in the blockchain, an address whose private key is owned by the pool operator, the current target and unconfirmed unspent outputs to fill the block, build the merkle tree to go in the new header (and cash in on the fees that can be added to the coinbase transaction). Offcourse, in reality, there are functions built in to the node software that makes these queries a lot easyer than querying all this data seperately. As for your post: Nodes do not act as a medium, they form the network Nodes do not send signals to the chain, they relay new (valid) blocks and unconfirmed (valid) transactions Nodes do not make miners clean and safe, they just reject invalid blocks and transactions and are used (sometimes directly) by miners to get all the data they need to start hashing As for the question asked by the OP: i agree with the other posters... If your country decides to block a port, there are ways around it that can be used with varying levels of success: proxy, VPN, VPS, Tor, using an SPV wallet, changing the port,... HOWEVER, you should know the reasoning behind blocking a certain port before you can try to find a workaround... If your country blocked the port because crypto is illegal in your country, it might be a reasonable idear to consult a lawyer before implementing a workaround... |
|
|
|
I doubt the existence of virgin bitcoins. The laundering happened to all bitcoins as well as all fiat currencies, so there is no point in it
Virgin bitcoins = unspent outputs created by coinbase transactions (virgin bitcoins isn't a technical term, but the previous posts in this topic made it clear what the OP was trying to say). They exist, they're real, it doesn't matter whether or not your doubt their existence. I find the rest of your post hard to follow, i have no idear which message you're trying to convey. Maybe you can try to reformat your sentence? |
|
|
|
Whether you like it or not cloud mining is the only mining solution for mobile phones unless we have a POD(Proof of Data) algorithm in the future then it might work on phones
I have no opinion about this one way or another... I just have a problem with the word "mining"... It makes newbies (and some more established members) think they're actually using their phone to mine, this is false. They're getting some tokens to run a non-mining app on their phone. I have no idear what those apps are doing, but one thing is sure: they're not trying to find a hash of a blockheader that's under a certain target... I also don't like people advertising cloud mining projects. I've been in this community for a relatively long time (allmost 5 years) and i've seen dozen of cloud "mining" companies. Most of them turn out to be a ponzi or a plain scam. The few that are not a ponzi or a scam sell 100% of the risk for a small part of the profit. In the case of certain coins designed for mobile phones i can understand the fact that putting out a fake miner and distribute tokens accordingly might be one of the only options for fair distrubution, they still should have chosen a different terminology for their app tough. |
|
|
|
|
I've heared this rumour before, but other than removing any taint, i don't think it'll be usefull for actual money laundring... It's been said before: people laundring money will probably setup fake businesses to do this (see pooya87's post).
The act of getting payed trough the coinbase transaction is relatively straightforeward tough: just rent some hashrate and mine on p2pool. They pay out their miners trough the coinbase transaction. However, the company you rented hashrate from will make some profit, they'll know your ip and they'll know the transaction that's been used to pay them for the hashrate. Also, the p2pool operator you're working with will take a certain profit margin (unless you setup your own node).
It'll be far from impossible for a 3 letter agency to track you down...
In the end you'll end up with a sizeable portion of your funds gone, but you'll have address(es) funded with coinbase transaction. NOT good for money laundring, good for removing taint.
PS: p2pool pays using the PPLNS algo and they don't find that many blocks regularly (they sometimes hit a dry spell)... Mining with them is partly gambling. If they find a block after you've submitted a lot of shares, you'll get more funds than you'd have gotten with a different pool (you'll make a profit), if they don't find a block shortly after you stopped mining, you might end up getting nothing at all...
|
|
|
|
Thank you so much for your reply. I got it.
I was planning to build a web mining community.
Do you have any suggestion, how do i start with it?
No idear, but if it were me, i'd probably start by building the framework, make sure everything works flawlessly, only then i'd find other interested people to join the community.... One thing is certain, you'll need a lot of people joining your community if you want a shot at breaking even. |
|
|
|
Thanks for reply.
So it is possible to achieve such result if you have the pool of community to mine together?
solo mining will never achieve such result.
Do correct me if i am wrong.
That's correct, if you have a big pool... The average time between two XMR blocks is 2 minutes, the block reward ~2.5 XMR and the price at this moment ~$85/XMR. This means that, if you'd be the only pool owner, and nobody solo mined, at this moment you'd have an income of ~55800 XMR/month (31 days) =~ $4.7 million USD/month. So if you'd controll about 1/19th of the hashrate, you could have an income of about $250.000/month... This is BEFORE paying your electricity bill and hardware!!! I have no idear if coinhive controlls this much hashpower, but i certainly wouldn't dismiss the idear... Solo mining... find your hardware here: https://monerobenchmarks.info/plug those numbers in here: https://www.cryptocompare.com/mining/calculator/xmrBut basically, if you have the best GPU, at current difficulty and XMR price, you'd stand to have an income of ~$500/year, burning a truckload of electricity in the process, so you'll have to have nearly free hardware and cheap electricity if you actually want to make some profit. |
|
|
|
|
no way to say for sure wether this is true or not... However, it's an article talking about coinhive mining >$250.000 in total over the course of a full month. Coinhive mines monero, which is about the only "established" coin that's still profitably cpu-minable (by people that have a low electricity rate, decent hardware AND enough knowledge to set everything up).
The fact that coinhive is a well-known brand that has thousands of users, mining a cpu-minable coin from the browser, i wouldn't be supprised if the sum of the mined coins exceeded 250.000 each month, so i'd defenatly not call this one busted without further investigation...
Afs for your title: i don't think mining monero using your browser is the best option for a miner... I'd defenately use a standalone mining software, and i'd defenately suggest you run all profitability calculations before you even attempt this (profit depends on your electricity price, hardware, hardware price and setup... It's easy to mine at a loss), and by solo mining you'll defenately not make anything near $250.000, if you're lucky you'll make a couple of bucks each month
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
