How safe is it ?
How safe do you want it to be? |
|
|
|
So, being new here in general as well as this thread I may just be ignorant but I have to ask.
If the goal of this project is to find collisions and the best way to find one is if an "owner" comes forward claiming their wallet was stolen by LBC, then why is the LBC only searching addresses that have balances "up to 1 Satoshi"? Especially given that the average bitcoin holder has a balance of 2 bits (0.0002 btc)?
I get the whole "we are searching for collisions, not trying to crack wallets" but it seems to me that you get just as many abandoned wallets with small balances as you do with large balances and that the ideal search space should be in the average balance range of 2 bits. (For that matter I would crank the number up to the 20-150 bit range considering that a guy with $20 or more in it is a lot more likely to seek out why his btc have gone missing)
I have read the entire thread as well as have used the search box and Google, however I have yet to come to an answer for this seemingly obvious question.
Edit: According to the "trophies" page the balances are 0.1 to 79 bits (0.00001 to 0.0079 btc) not 1 Satoshi? Regardless the question remains the same.
OK, so now that I know you are using the archaic term "bit" to mean $0.125 I can answer your question. You are saying why not look at addresses that have a least a "bit" (at least $0.125) of money in them. But LBC is searching for addresses that have "up to 1 Satoshi" (should be "at least 1 Satoshi") in them. Since by definition 1 Satoshi is 0.00000001 BTC, at today's price of about $10,000 USD/BTC 1 Satoshi is worth about $0.0001. So there you have it. LBC is searching for addresses that contain at least $0.0001, you want to look for addresses with at least $0.125, therefore LBC is doing more than you are asking for. Did I answer your question? |
|
|
|
Hello Guys. I was thinking about Clams and I find an interesting idea.
Since Clams have an anonymous developers maybe it will be good to do an anonymous transactions.
In another words put in Clams protocol Zcash?
How do You think?
Is it possible?
Interesting article. It looks like Zcash is not all it is cracked up to be... |
|
|
|
Nice project can't wait to use  Did you buy one? |
|
|
|
Hello everyone,
Is it normal to clam client have only 2 connections?
And has anyone else had a problem withdrawing the clams from the exchanges (poloniex, yobit)?
Cheers,
Vladimir
I currently have 24 connections. Have not tried to use polo or yobit lately. Thanks Burt, But you must have clams already? Yes. "Many" I got for free and I also purchased some when they were very low. |
|
|
|
Hello everyone,
Is it normal to clam client have only 2 connections?
And has anyone else had a problem withdrawing the clams from the exchanges (poloniex, yobit)?
Cheers,
Vladimir
I currently have 24 connections. Have not tried to use polo or yobit lately. |
|
|
|
just found out i have 100s of clams, but the wallet takes forever, been on 20 weeks left for hours
Congratulations! 20 weeks took me about a day to sync! If you're using the windows client ... I had to restart the client several times to complete the sync. Is the 100s of clams reward for 20weeks holding clams? In order to claim clams you have to own the private key to a BTC, LTC or DOGE address that held a balance on May 12th 2014. That is more than 20 weeks in the past... You get 4.60545574 CLAM per address so MrPiggles must have over a couple dozen or so addresses from that time that contained BTC, LTC or DOGE in order to claim "hundreds" of CLAM. |
|
|
|
just found out i have 100s of clams, but the wallet takes forever, been on 20 weeks left for hours
Go back about four posts and read about the easy way to download using the bootstrap files. |
|
|
|
|
Please add the ability to split out and claim our Bitcoin Diamond. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
yes, but those were different times. Satoshi had no competition, and the adopters were all tech enthusiasts and visionaries. Now there are around 1000 coins, 99% of them being absolutly shit
Check out this list of new shit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bitcoin_forksCrazy number of forks since the Bitcoin cash showed how easy it is to make money out of thin air. |
|
|
|
For those interested:
Cool. |
|
|
|
Theoretically LBC only needs to search from private key 2 0 through 2 160 in order to find all possible Bitcoin addresses. This is because there are 2 96 public/private key pairs that map to every Bitcoin address. Assuming the aliasing is even remotely evenly distributed then by the time they get to 2 160 they will have exhausted all possible Bitcoin addresses - so they will not need to search from 2 160 through 2 256.
|
|
|
|
With the power requirements to run the BTC network continually increasing... what is the long term solution? It doesn't seem viable that it can go on forever like this. Anyone have good insight? It's easy to just assume... "well there will be cheaper energy in the future" or "BTC will just switch to POS".... I guess I'm looking for answers with a little more substance and detail. Thanks!
This problem has been an issue years back. Miners are quite aware of this issue in the first place that's why asic mining was born. Using asic consumes less power but with big hash power. However, the issue still arises that's why pool mining takes into action. By mining in pools, mining became more efficient. But the issue is still there. Bitcoin will not turn into a POS because of this. Bitcoin will remain a POW but power consumption will still be a problem. Maybe an upgrade to asic will be a way to deal with this but we all know that this would be just temporary. There is no permanent aid to this. Sooner or later, we will see only major miners will exist due to this issue. In the long term mining efficiency (CPU, GPU, ASIC, pooling, etc.) only affects the difficulty, not the total power consumption. Total power consumption is not reduced by more efficient mining. |
|
|
|
The other thread is depreciated? So, being new here in general as well as this thread I may just be ignorant but I have to ask.
If the goal of this project is to find collisions and the best way to find one is if an "owner" comes forward claiming their wallet was stolen by LBC, then why is the LBC only searching addresses that have balances "up to 1 Satoshi"? Especially given that the average bitcoin holder has a balance of 2 bits (0.0002 btc)?
I get the whole "we are searching for collisions, not trying to crack wallets" but it seems to me that you get just as many abandoned wallets with small balances as you do with large balances and that the ideal search space should be in the average balance range of 2 bits. (For that matter I would crank the number up to the 20-150 bit range considering that a guy with $20 or more in it is a lot more likely to seek out why his btc have gone missing)
I have read the entire thread as well as have used the search box and Google, however I have yet to come to an answer for this seemingly obvious question.
Edit: According to the "trophies" page the balances are 0.1 to 79 bits (0.00001 to 0.0079 btc) not 1 Satoshi? Regardless the question remains the same.
You are confused. The bits mentioned on the trophies page refer to the search space, not Bitcoin value. Here is what you need to know: 1 Bitcoin = 1 BTC 1 Satoshi = 0.00000001 BTC 1 BTC = 100,000,000 Satoshi On the statistics page here: https://lbc.cryptoguru.org/statskeys per day: 282.21 tn
total keys generated: 19498.14 tn
pages on directory.io 152329.19 bn
search space covered: 54.11 of 160 bits
search space in 1y: 56.77 bits Means: tn = trillion bn = billion search space covered of 54.11 bits means LBC has tried 2 54.11 private keys (about 19,441,647,535,076,223) search space in 1y: 56.77 bits means at the current rate they will cover 2 56.77 private keys in the next year. On the trophies page you mentioned that "bit" was used. I only see one reference to the word "bit" and it is: A manual revisit of the 38-42 bit search space revealed these private keys Which simply means they were searching private keys with values from 2 38 through 2 42Where are you getting your very confusing definition of "bit", trying to make it equal to 0.0001 BTC ? I have never seen that in all my years. There was a push to call one millionth of a BTC a "bit" in the distant past. But that really is not what you are talking about here. Are you trying to use the antiquated definition of 1 bit = $0.125 ? That would be really strange. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin mining is a sustainable way to earn bitcoins, eventhough the energy consumption would only get higher, we would have probably been able to mine all bitcoins before it becomes a unsustainly source for earning bitcoins.
Bold predictions for the year 2140 (when the last Bitcoin is mined) from a newb. |
|
|
|
Some ideas on how it could work:
- Read through the connection data (phone,email etc) from key figures of the Bitcoin community to gain insider knowledge
- Infiltrate core development and replace Bitcoin key figures with NSA staff
- Discredit respected members of the community
- Kill people, if they don't corporate.
Are core devs discussing this possiblility of a large scale infiltration and how to avoid?
As crazy as it may sound, the NSA can send a giant computer virus that will target the blockchain. Bitcoins need the blockchain, so when the blockchain is in jeopardy, then the NSA got us on our balls. But this will definitely take a couple of years to do so as of now, we can take advantage of bitcoins. In other words you have no idea of what Bitcoin is, what a blockchain is, where the blockchain resides, how Bitcoin works, or pretty much anything you just blabbered on about, right? |
|
|
|
Ah, well then I guess someone would suggest those things. But I see no path to a takeover yet. Although I would love to see banks lose a billion dollars trying.
+1 because that could be exactly what's happening in the BTC futures markets right now - if they're able to short BTC down below $10k, then I think we'll see abandonment of the BTC Kore chain. In which case Bitcoin Cash assumes the lead position. And Wall St. is left bagholding! I do not understand what you mean by "short BTC down below $10k". It sounds as if you are saying that the existence of the BTC futures market allows "them" to manipulate the BTC price and force it lower? Exactly how would that work? |
|
|
|
Hello friends, does anyone have a blockchain.info account from 2014? .
I really need it.
Call me on the telegram: @Xee_Love
Mine is much older than that. Why? |
|
|
|
Just checked coinbase, and don't see bitcoin cash there anymore.
Anybody else can confirm this?
Bitcoin Cash buying is listed as ’unavailable’ for me. Bitcoin Cash is available, up and running on Coinbase's GDAX platform. You can buy/sell Bitcoin Cash there to your heart's content. If you have a Coinbase account simply log into GDAX with the same credentials to access your GDAX account. |
|
|
|
Guys
do you think tremor can be scam ? i heard the news they worked with FBI to implement some code inside
anybody can express the opinion in details please
Total BULLSHIT. The source code is open source. Download it and read it yourself and see if there is anything wrong with it. BTW it is Trezor not "tremor" |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
