Well, I've signed the money over to her, and I signed it with my key. Now if she signs it and broadcasts it, 2-of-2 multisig is unlocked.
That's why Hashed Timelock Contracts are used in the payment channels. Example
Alice opens a payment channel to Bob, and Bob opens a payment channel to Charlie.
Alice wants to buy something from Charlie for 1000 satoshis.
Charlie generates a random number and generates its SHA256 hash. Charlie gives that hash to Alice.
Alice uses her payment channel to Bob to pay him 1,000 satoshis, but she adds the hash Charlie gave her to the payment along with an extra condition: in order for Bob to claim the payment, he has to provide the data which was used to produce that hash.
Bob uses his payment channel to Charlie to pay Charlie 1,000 satoshis, and Bob adds a copy of the same condition that Alice put on the payment she gave Bob.
Charlie has the original data that was used to produce the hash (called a pre-image), so Charlie can use it to finalize his payment and fully receive the payment from Bob. By doing so, Charlie necessarily makes the pre-image available to Bob.
Bob uses the pre-image to finalize his payment from Alice |
|
|
|
What if she refuses though after I pay to her? Is there a way to make it atomic and trustless? What if she refuses after you pay to her on the current protocol (forget about LN)? The problem is that someone might not want to route your payment because it has an impact on every channel that takes part in routing. You can set the fees really high if you don't want to bother with re-balancing your channel in the future. This should not be a problem if you have only one channel open. I have read it once again, I described a different problem. What if she refuses though after I pay to her? Is there a way to make it atomic and trustless? If so, can anyone point to the description of low-level protocol implementation of this?
You would have to find another route and you would get your money back. We can't force people to route your payment, we can observe the same thing by looking at Bitcoin mining. Mining pools can choose which transactions they want to include in the block (e.g. the ones with higher fees) |
|
|
|
At any rate, anything better replacing Lightning's "penalty system" would be a plus for the network. What OPcodes are proposed to be soft forked in by the way?
According to this document, BIP 118 describes the new flag that is needed for eltoo to work. The NOINPUT flag applies to every segwit signature verification opcode; OP_CHECKSIG, OP_CHECKSIGVERIFY, OP_CHECKMULTISIG, OP_CHECKMULTISIGVERIFY. |
|
|
|
there is no such thing as an electrum default wallet. where did you download electrum from? check your browser history and tell us.
What he meant was that he swept the coins which were associated with the paper wallet's private key to his newly generated wallet in Electrum. The first wallet file is always called "default_wallet". |
|
|
|
So I created a new wallet using the same seed key and I've tried to send the funds over I set the amount to "0.028" to transfer the entire amount, but I get a message about insufficient funds in the account.
You have to pay the transaction fee therefore you can't send your entire balance. Instead of typing in 0.028, click "Max" and adjust the fee slider. Also, I get a message about "should this transaction be replaceable?" - not sure what that means
RBF (Replace-by-Fee) transaction can be replaced with another one that pays higher fee only if it is still unconfirmed. It's quite useful especially if you set your transaction fee too low. |
|
|
|
What happens if a newer version or a better hardware wallet comes out and you want to sell your old wallets to fund your purchase of the newer models? This is why ledger built in software to check the integrity of the device and why people are allowed to re-sell their devices. <The software will just tell you that it was used before>
There will always be people who decide to buy an used device in order to save some money. I doubt that an ordinary user knows that in TREZOR's case it would be a good idea to reflash the device. Both TREZOR and Ledger are very unlike to release more new models in the near future. Ledger Blue and TREZOR T introduced features which some people might consider as useless and increasing the possible ways of breaking the device. That's why older models will still be available. By the way, Ledger's Secure Element checks if the software was modified on each boot. The same thing is done on TREZOR by the bootloader which cannot be reprogrammed. |
|
|
|
This is a good decision, what is the price of such a device-for example, at least, and how are you going to implement it?
TREZOR has been available for sale for quite a long time. They even released a new model with completely rewritten software, larger touchscreen and micro-SD slot. You can order it from their official shop. The first model costs 89 EUR and the other 149 EUR. I am surprised that you haven't heard of it. |
|
|
|
Seems to be no point to this as the # is too small to matter, are you sure this is correct?
(amount * feerate / 1000000)
(.1 *0.00001 / 1000000)
I don't think that it is wrong. The Lightning Network is meant to have low fees. If you want to charge more for your routing work no matter what the amount is then change the basefee. Since any channel might need re-balancing in the future, one should charge more for big amounts of bitcoins. You can set the feerate to be much higher but keep in mind that other nodes might offer lower cost for the same work. |
|
|
|
Are you saying you are now charging 0.00001 bitcoin per transaction. (Which is the default.)
Which is at the moment the equivalent of 0.06 US$ per transaction.
Is this per each LN transaction?
The total fee charged is basefee + (amount * feerate / 1000000), where amount is the forwarded amount. |
|
|
|
What is watch only address and from where i can get my private keys in blockchain to transfer the bitcoins to other account? Does the non-spendable bitcoins can be used?
Watch only wallet can be used for preparing transactions that will be signed on an air-gap computer or simply for viewing the balance of your addresses. Here you can see how to export your private key from Blockchain.info wallet. If you decide to use Electrum then save your seed in a secure place - it can be used to recover your wallet. |
|
|
|
The only way to find out if the Lightning Network is working, is to try it out. Some people complain about unsuccessful payments while others are excited about how fast and cheap they are. If you don't want to bother with syncing up a full node then use one of the mobile wallets which you have posted. There are quite a lot of shops which accept Lightning Network payments so you can easily test it by yourself. Take a look at this topic in which I tried to answer the most common questions regarding the Lightning Network. |
|
|
|
Is it really possible for someone to deduce your private key if you use the same public key more than once?
If so, does this go for both sending and receiving txs?
No, that would be a catastrophe. You can reuse the same address as much as you want. If you are really concerned about your privacy then you should consider using a wallet which allows you to control your coins as well (e.g. Electrum which is also a light-client). Since Bitcoin transactions are basically inputs and outputs, you should worry more about not mixing specific addresses together. Here you can learn a bit more about coin control. |
|
|
|
As LN currently needs a full node to run, that would even introduce a new centralization risk: People could only open secure LN channels if they ran powerful hardware ... while in the future light LN clients may exist, I guess they will be less secure than those that work with a full node.
Wrong. Thanks to neutrino, anyone can run a Lightning Network node without setting up a full node. Neutrino is currently available in one of the most popular Lightning Network implementations - LND. Even Raspberry Pi 3 B+ is powerful enough to handle Bitcoin Core and Lightning Network node at the same time. Storage is the biggest problem in that case. No, Segwit has increased the maximum block size. The absolute maximum is almost 4MB, however, it is almost impossible to reach it because you needed 100% SegWit transactions of specific kinds.
Block weight would be more appropriate term. Take a look here. |
|
|
|
If I'm not missing something, this would make it mandatory for Lightning implementations to be aware of all chains that could emerge from hard-forks without replay protection, and to be able to broadcast "punishment transactions" into both networks (if using "LN-penalty"). Otherwise, Alice could scam Bob trying to settle the old channel state only at chain BTC2, if Bob is not aware of it.
Currently, we can't do much to protect ourselves. Hard-forks may break all available rules and there is nothing we can do to prevent any future hard-fork from being used like you have described. The only solution that comes to my mind is syncing up the Lightning Network node with multiple chains but that would require some code changes and it would definitely take up too much resources. I am one of those who don't care about hard-forks like Bitcoin Gold and Bitcoin Private and I don't bother with claiming coins on the other chains. Think for a moment if running multiple full nodes is worth the hassle of setting them up and paying for a server which is powerful enough. |
|
|
|
Yes, I added 1 more word to seed. Will it still work?
Yes, an additional word is called a passphrase and it should be supported by every wallet which allows you to import your seed. Electrum is a good software wallet - I don't really think if you will replace it with something else unless you decide to buy a hardware wallet. |
|
|
|
Yes no one donated it but I want to get private keys since I could want to switch to another wallet.
Actually, it's quite easy. Go to Wallet -> Private keys and select Export. This will show different private key for each of your addresses.  If you want to export your Master Private Key from which it is possible to generate all of your addresses then you have to do a few more things. Go to View and select Show Console  All you have to do is to input "getmasterprivate()" and then you will be able to copy your Master Private Key.  Do you have the 12 words which you were given while you were creating your wallet? They can be also used for wallet recovery and this might be actually more convenient than the process described above. |
|
|
|
|
I agree with Andreas that second layer solutions make hardforking more difficult. Lightning Network clients require their users to run a full Bitcoin node. What would happen if one of the channel's participants decided to follow some other hardfork? Would the other participant appear as offline in that case? You can still close the channel forcefully but this might affect the overall payment routing efficiency of the whole network.
I don't really think that it will make hard-forking completely impossible. Because of that, less hardforks might succeed in the future - possibly less airdrops, but the time before each important hardfork might have to be extended to avoid situations in which someone will not be able to update the node's software on time. There will be always one question, which chain is the right one? This might cause some disruption just like Bitcoin Cash did one year ago - merchants stopped accepting payments for some time.
|
|
|
|
@All: This is an outgoing transaction from the OP's wallet not an incoming one. See below.
A few days ago I got a payment[...]
[...] but when I check my electrum it looks like I got 0.0215 mBTC from that transaction [...]
These quotes suggest that it is an incoming transaction. OP thought that his wallet didn't show the incoming transaction properly. |
|
|
|
why does it say that the estimated tx value is 0.02 on blocktrail but however, i can't see the exact amount on my electrum wallet then? isn't it really weird?
what about these two addresses you mentioned btw? you mean the money is sent to some other persons by mistake/on purpose?
~0.02 BTC is the overall transaction value; however, only 0.0000215 BTC were sent to your address. The user who sent you these bitcoins had to spend one of his inputs and it looks like it was the smallest one he had. 3GS2wkwpqZcyyoWozfHXdURWCegtsCtx7L is a change address. Since the whole input had to be spend entirely, the rest of the coins were sent to the address owned by the same person. I can't tell anything about 1fdLZoSmYF2diNFqt7hNj1yFPxxHPXV9J, it might belong to someone else. |
|
|
|
Since it's a Peer-to-Peer network, it brings this level of flexibility, without harming Bitcoin's decentralization. Fees would remain cheap, and transactions blazing fast, while anyone would be able to open/close a channel at will. If successful, then Bitcoin could easily overcome altcoins by a long shot (including Bitcoin Cash itself).
It all sounds great but don't forget that opening and closing channels still force user to broadcast a transaction. At some point in the future, we might have problems with a large amount of transactions being unconfirmed. Solutions like SegWit and Schnorr signatures are going to help for some time by making transactions smaller. Channel factories could be used to create new channels from existing ones by replacing only two participants with a whole group. Unfortunately, this feature is not available yet. More layers can be build on top of the Lightning Network and they might be actually what ordinary people will use. Before that happens, Lightning Network still needs some tuning. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
