I think the better way to put it would be that I'm offering my approx 1000 previous posts for some minimal amount of payment. I understand completely if you're not interested. I guess it's just that for me, I'm not having a lot of time these days to read the forums and so I figured I may as well remove the advert and have less clutter on the boards (unless you want to pay me something to leave it up  ). I would also like to get paid for doing nothing. Don't be so stingy. Join a campaign like bitmixer that doesn't require any minimums if you're not going to be making many or any posts. At least there's nothing to worry about and then if you do make any posts at least you'll get something for them. I can't see any reason for going after sed like this. It looks to me like he has removed his signature and moved on. How is that stingy? Wouldn't it be stingy of him if he had stuck around in the campaign taking up a spot that someone else could have taken but not posting? FWIW, I can see his point here, I'm surprised that it's not worth something to advertizers to have signatures up on older posts. However, I also understand that a campaign manager probably isn't in a position to make that decision. |
|
|
|
Bleh. What's your use case? Bitcoin uses strong crypto because it's money. But you should still use strong crypto for customer data. What are you trying (not so hard) to protect?
There is this (false) concept called security by obscurity, and it sounds like what you're aiming for here. If someone knows what algorithm you're using, they could easily brute-force these keys. Protected anything of value with it, and you'll get rainbow tables of priv => public keys get published pretty quickly, meaning everyone already has a copy of all possible private/public keys. You can buy 2TB hard disks which have all the possible encryption keys for GSM - which is stronger than what you're suggesting here.
And perhaps you'd suggest keeping the algorithm secret. That doesn't work for crypto - everything about a strong cryptosystem can be known besides the private key in order for data to be secure.
Why even bother with cryptography if you don't care if the data is exposed?
One use case which I think would be valuable would be simply for teaching purposes. If you could find a public-private key pair just to illustrate the old "alice wants to talk to bob" scenario with very small numbers, that would help simpletons like me to understand the concepts better (perhaps). I was taught that keys are based on extremely big prime numbers so using small ones that are easy to break should be ideal for teaching purposes. Right, or points on a curve in the case of bitcoin. I'm not also interested in the OPs question just for my own education, what are the smallest numbers x,y that I can use as a public, private key pair just to run the encryption/signature/verification algorithms by hand. Fungus, your point about seing how easy that'd be to crack is also valid. |
|
|
|
In this case my fence is vulnerable too:
malicious hacker could paint "sudo rm -rf /" on it and somebody could copy-paste into terminal.
Please tell me the INTERPOL phone, i need their help
^^ This is too funny! But in all seriousness, is there anything more to this complaint than this. Surely there are as many ways to distribute malicious code as there are information channels. If they're saying that bitcoin is malicious because it can be used to transmit code (which might be malicious) then HTTP is also broken (and so is InceptionCoin's fence). Surely there's something more to this kaspersky article than this. EDIT: I somehow missed this in my first reading Because the targeted machines are downloading the block chain anyway because the operators are running bitcoin nodes, this means no traceable additional communications channels are needed. Because the block chain is from-everywhere-to-everywhere, it's very hard to trace the commands to their source, even if the channel is noticed.
That does make it a little more reasonable (I hope there's not already a program on IC's computer which copy-pastes the OCR of whatever's painted on his fence already running ). |
|
|
|
Firstly, an escrow's job is to protect all parties involved, including themselves.
Quickseller had already verified the account statistics, seller was ready, all necessary terms had been met. The buyer was waffling for unknown reasons. For Quickseller to take control of the account first is an unnecessary risk for the seller, and also a risk for himself as a reputable escrow.
Sure there's a risk that the seller doesn't actually control the account, but that's the whole purpose of the escrow. The reasons the OP gives for not wanting to fund the escrow address are shady at best (he basically says he doesn't trust quickseller, then why is he using him as escrow?).
Taking control of the account first is a risk that should be avoided, any good escrow will know this.
I fully respect everyone's right to protect themselves and set their own terms. Nevertheless, if I ask you to do business with me on my terms, and you say "no I need you to use my terms". Then when I walk away am I doing something shady? Maybe so, in that you might consider anyone who doesn't accept your terms to be shady, but really think it's going quite over the top to go on an put a permant marker on someone for simply saying "no that's not what I'm in for". I've read too many threads in the last week where Quickseller jumps all over over somone and calls them an idiot if they disagree with him. This obviously affects my opinion here too. If I knew him to be a calm and levelheaded person then I'd think, wow he must have had great cause to mark woshiper with negative trust. However, as I've seen his quick temper flare before, I tend to think that worshiper may be telling the truth here. In any case, I realy think this speaks to some of the brokenness of the Default trust network. People join a bitcoin forum to learn about bitcoins, only a small subset are going to read through the details of Meta and how a trust system works. Yet the majority are going to be influnced by "Trust: +3" in green or "Trust: -3 Trade with extreme caution!". In my opinion, default trust should be either removed (people who want to participate in the trust network can start adding people to their trust lists) or else pruned back severly to only perhaps Theymos and one or two of the Staff. I think this would help reduce a lot of drama over big personalities who end up doing a good trade with one of the blessed (level 1s on default trust) and then end up in default trust themselves on level2 and go around willy nilly dropping red tags on people. |
|
|
|
Follow up, it seems that I didn't even have to use the wallet tool or the python program that btchris linked me to in order to extract the seed from the HD backup. Good ol' tr was enough to do it (at least in one case that I tried). Andreas' helpful instructions for recovery use `tr -cd' to print only the printable characters and delete the rest from a decrypted wallet (he then pipes this to awk and prints the first field to see if it's the java package name org.bitcoinj.production). Well, if you leave off awk and put it into a file (or use less) you can look at the other printable characters in there pretty easily: $ cat decrypted-wallet-backup | tr -cd [:print:] | less
Once I realized that this seed is in there in plaintext, it's pretty easy to find in your favorite hex editor (xxd) or even just opening the file with vi. Thanks again for the great software (andreas) and the helpful resources (btchris)! My next adventure will probably be generating keypairs from these seeds but for this I'll have to do a bit of reading on the HD algorithm (and possibly study the source from bitcoin wallet for android!). So, I'll take that up in another thread if I get stuck. |
|
|
|
It seems pretty universal in this thread (and I agree too) that backing out of a deal because you don't agree to everyone's terms is certainly not a breach of trust (no harm was done and no money/info was lost) and doesn't deserve negative feedback.
-snip-
If you bothered to read the entire thread, instead of just spamming your signature with shit posts, you w, ould see that the OP did have his conditions met. The issue is not that any money was lost, the issue is that he was trying to steal information (either that or he was hoping that I would not respond quickly and the seller would agree to not use escrow - and when I did respond quickly, he wanted to use some flimsy excuse not to use my escrow services with the hope that the seller would agree to trade without escrow). Oh yah, you must be right here. It has to be the case that I am an idiot and I didn't read and so is everyone else who disagrees with you. You know you're dealing with a fragile ego when "you didn't read and I hate you" is the automatic reply to someone who disagrees with you. And look, another idiot! Quickseller is surrounded by idiots. What can he do? (I know what I can do, 2nd time this hothead calls me an idiot this week, 5th time I've heard this guy calling other people he disagrees with idiots just recently---I just used the ignore button so that I don't have to read any more "constructive" replies from this guy who accuses everyone else of "spamming their signature".) Good luck Quickseller, see ya in the funny papers. |
|
|
|
Never heard of these "units of evil" before, is there anyway we can check what our current level of evil is? Don't think i should have any on my account, never been banned before.
Is there a sticky relating to this?
Yah, I feel the same way. While the fact that I can post and whatnot obviously means that I don't have too much evil. I'd love to know my evilness just for trivia. Who knows, maybe I'd pay a fee just to become atoned completely. I have a little bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Bleh. What's your use case? Bitcoin uses strong crypto because it's money. But you should still use strong crypto for customer data. What are you trying (not so hard) to protect?
There is this (false) concept called security by obscurity, and it sounds like what you're aiming for here. If someone knows what algorithm you're using, they could easily brute-force these keys. Protected anything of value with it, and you'll get rainbow tables of priv => public keys get published pretty quickly, meaning everyone already has a copy of all possible private/public keys. You can buy 2TB hard disks which have all the possible encryption keys for GSM - which is stronger than what you're suggesting here.
And perhaps you'd suggest keeping the algorithm secret. That doesn't work for crypto - everything about a strong cryptosystem can be known besides the private key in order for data to be secure.
Why even bother with cryptography if you don't care if the data is exposed?
One use case which I think would be valuable would be simply for teaching purposes. If you could find a public-private key pair just to illustrate the old "alice wants to talk to bob" scenario with very small numbers, that would help simpletons like me to understand the concepts better (perhaps). |
|
|
|
It seems pretty universal in this thread (and I agree too) that backing out of a deal because you don't agree to everyone's terms is certainly not a breach of trust (no harm was done and no money/info was lost) and doesn't deserve negative feedback. However, as others have also reminded us, the trust system is not moderated so really the only thing we can do in this situation is modify our trust lists accordingly: Sorry, worshipper, for your experience. I certainly wouldn't have gone through with a deal if I didn't agree to all the terms. |
|
|
|
THIS IS NOT A SCAM ACCUSATION
Why did you think it's a good idea to post it here? That sounds more like a "Service Discussion" to me. IMO ratings should be discussed via PM unless there's an issue affecting more than 2 BCT members. Doesn't this affect the future reputation of all three parties here (buyer, seller, escrow)? |
|
|
|
Not sure if the OP is asking to generate a keypair from a short passphrase as seed or if they actually want a very short length for their keys. The latter seems to be what they actually said but the former is more sane, I think. I suppose that it's possible in theory to do the latter just for learning purposes but clearly you wouldn't want to put anything valuable behind a 6 character key. |
|
|
|
|
Posting here because I want to see how this auction goes. Curious about the prices for these sorts of things and I want to check back here later on bumps.
Good luck OP.
|
|
|
|
I understand so with sendfrom it will always take the whole balance out of the account, generates a new address puts the change on that address. Is there any way to keep the change on the account your sending from? // Edit Got the solution1) Generate new address 2) Give address from 1) an account name (like ordernumber) 3) Move amount needed from main wallet to the account made in 2) 4) sendfrom account 2 the amount, after that the address you created will be empty // Edit 2 : Solution does not work. It does check the balance of account 2 and takes the amount in it (so it is empty after transaction), but it keeps sending from an address in an other account and generating a new address where it puts the rest on. I may be wrong, but I believe that if you use createrawtransaction and sendrawtransaction then you can specify the change address as one of the outputs and if you just use your original address as that change address then you'll avoid the client creating new change addresses for you. |
|
|
|
NEW: The example address
1xxxxxQkSqe6x1EnkG66ayMavz2cYV4zA
5JgkDpbk9ZrC42nFGhJoKj7k4w5v4b5hyWtR8dZvDKWNDUPhzam
Ha, I got totally confused by this one. I thought you were trying to hide the address but showing the private key. I was like "wtf, doesn't he know that the address is derivable from the private key?" I dropped the private key into ku ( https://github.com/richardkiss/pycoin) and what do I see: Bitcoin address : 12NugbnkyENs8iUEW5TzbzVZHAyvgY6LnS
Bitcoin address uncompressed : 1xxxxxQkSqe6x1EnkG66ayMavz2cYV4zA
Lol at me and a really fun address. Now I'm wondering who's found the address with the most leading xs. |
|
|
|
I have seen that there are no more freerroll any more  I'd like to play one in an european timezone, is there any plan for a future freerroll? there are hourly freerolls Oh good! I was away over the weekend and not keeping up with stuff. I'm hoping this has helped the emptiness a bit. If I get a chance, I'll jump on this evening and see what I can win (possibly deposit again too). Hopefully there's some action in the ring games section. |
|
|
|
I think i am the only person who has THIS avatar on the forum.  Aren't you just begging for someone to change that by posting like this? |
|
|
|
|
In re the point about small bets being delayed to prevent spam/network overload, I wonder what the threshold is for a "small bet".
|
|
|
|
|
Is land in Ghana the bitcoin equivalent of the Nigerian prince? I have to say I'm suspicious.
|
|
|
|
i want to try double spending coz some of my coins is stuck and not confirming for almost 2 weeks now
If a pool is using modified software then it is entirely possible they could decide to reject txs with zero fees and accept an alternative tx spending the same UTXOs that does have fees (although I'm not sure if any pool is actually doing this at the moment). You would have to be able to send such a "replacement" tx directly to the pool though as any standard nodes that have seen the first tx will simply reject the second as a double-spend attempt and not forward it to their other peers. If your coins are "stuck" this is typically due to having paid zero tx fees and the UTXOs are either of too low value or age to qualify to be included in a block (if you are running an old client it might keep sending out the invalid tx so you might want to look into how to get rid of the tx from your wallet if this is the case). Also the online gambling sites are not stupid enough to lose money from unconfirmed txs so this approach is not going to be a method to make money from them (it is only most likely to succeed for some small physical purchase if a store decides to accept 0 confirmations). how is that sending a replacement transaction? sorry i cant understand it clearly for i am not a techy guy  If I read him right he's suggesting that if your your coins are stuck because some paricular node has rejected your tx attempt and isn't forwarding it then you may be able to "fix" it by sending another tx with a proper fee. The idea is that first tx attempt fades into oblivion and the second one gets hashed into a block. "replacement" because the second attempt is meant to replace the first. It also seems to me that you could possibly simply replay the blockchain in a fresh wallet after importing your keys. The fresh wallet wouldn't know about the stuck tx unders the assumption that it wasn't broadcast to the network. I may be mistaken tho. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
