TLDR: the .asc filename should be identical to the original binary with ONLY the .asc extension added for "automatic" verification to work.
It's also important to note that both files have to be stored in the same directory.
HCP and khaled0111 have explained the requirements for using automated verification, which (AFAIK) is the only way the graphical gpg programs work. However, those restrictions can be overcome by using the command line interface. In MacOS you'd use the terminal, or in Windows you can use PowerShell or a WSL instance. For example: gpg --verify C:\path\to\signature_file.asc C:\some\other\path\to\executable_file_with_a_different_name.exe  |
|
|
|
I seem to recall that post by YOSHIE (broken link,) but I don't recall if the evidence was solid enough for the mods to take action. Linking the addresses confirms what we all suspected to be a certainty, but unfortunately it doesn't change anything. The accounts are already red-tagged, and having multiple alt accounts in the 1xbit campaign wouldn't justify another tag since the campaign doesn't specifically disallow it. |
|
|
|
There's a language barrier, but Charles-Tim is not incorrect. In that case Charles-Tim has my full and sincere apology. I don't know what you mean by "backup code" but I'm assuming you're talking about the seed phrase. Every service which allows 2FA must provide a shared secret - this is how 2FA works. You use the shared secret and the current time to generate the 6 digit code which you enter, and the service in question does the same thing to check the code you provided matches the code they generated. This shared secret is usually presented as a QR code to scan with your 2FA app, but should also be presented as a (usually 16 character) alphanumeric string, which you are supposed to back up by writing on paper. If OP has this back up code, then he can import it in to any good 2FA app and that app will generate the correct codes for his 2FA Electrum wallet. I'm well aware of how 2fa works, I use it regularly for a variety of services, and again I apologize for misinterpreting what he meant by "backup code." And I also don't know what you're talking about when you say "in control of two private keys," but again I'm going to assume you mean seed phrases, which is wrong. 2FA Electrum wallets are indeed 2-of-3 multi-sig wallet, with TrustedCoin holding one of the master private keys. The seed phrase can be used to derive the other two of the three master private keys, allowing the funds to be spent from the multi-sig wallet without TrustedCoin's input. Yet another need for me to apologize to Charles-Tim. Of course he was talking about the master private keys, and I now I recognize that. I should have spent a bit more time trying to interpret his post before being a jack-ass. Which I was. @Charles-Tim, please accept my apology. It's not the first time I've been wrong, it's not the first time I've been a jerk, and it's not the first time I've been both at once... And I doubt it'll be last.  |
|
|
|
Your post contradicts the instructions you quoted. I don't know what you mean by "backup code" but I'm assuming you're talking about the seed phrase.
No, I meant 2fa backup. I posted a link up there for more clarity, did you read the link? If not, try to read the link, the whole guide for the recovery is there. And I also don't know what you're talking about when you say "in control of two private keys," but again I'm going to assume you mean seed phrases
I meant the 2fa wallet is 2-of-3 multisig, 3 keys are generated, while 2 are necessary for signing. If the TrustedCoin key signing is not accessible as the 2fa app is lost and no backup, the wallet can still be restored using seed phrase and transactions can still be made as the wallet owner's wallet controls 2 keys. TrustedCoin doesn't provide a second seed phrase, that would defeat the purpose of having them issue the second signature in the first place.
This is the link I included above: Restoring your seed from two factor authentication Electrum walletNothing like two seed phrase, but the wallet is 2-of-3 multisig which is still the reason the wallet owner can still be able to have access to his funds as his wallet controls 2 of the keys. Dude, proof read your own shit before clicking "post." You're constantly spreading misinformation on this forum. I used to think it was just a language barrier, but I'm starting to think that you're just trying to meet your signature quota. If you'd like to challenge my reading comprehension vs. your butchering of the English language I'll take that challenge any day of the week and twice on Sunday. |
|
|
|
Yes, Marquez is still leading on lap 28 and there are still 2 laps left which I think Marquez will stay in position 1 until the end of the lap.
~snip~
I didn't expect Marquez to win in Germany. I thought he would still be slower, but I was wrong. It's a shame that Qurtararo had to drop after the start, but luckily he was able to finish in 3rd position. Maybe this victory should be a warning to other team. It is possible that this marks a victory that will continue. With this victory Marquez will have a good mentality and confidence. Let's wait for the Dutch series Sun, Jun 27, at Circuit Assen. Marquez himself did not even expect to win the race IMO and it was a very emotional win for him. His last win was long time ago and today's race is like a sign that The Baby Alien is coming back. Sure it is a warning to other riders although the chance for Marq for the championship is low as the gap is too far with the leader Quartararo. The next races will be more interesting if Marq stay with what he has just shown in Sachsenring. Surprise also comes from KTM where Miguel Oliveira finished 2nd (start 5th) and Brad Binder finished 4th (start 13th) I didn't have the chance to watch the race, but I was only half surprised to see the results. I fully expected MarkyMarq to bounce back strong sometime during this season. And as per usual for Marques, no half measures. He bounces back and takes the 25 points. It's early enough in the season that he may have a chance at the title, but at this point he can't afford any mistakes, and he'll surely need some help. |
|
|
|
just restore it from your electrum seed (if you have it), open your electrum wallet (in desktop) > file > new/restore > click wallet with two-factor authentication > next > click already have a seed > click disable when asking 2fa.
Correct answer.
You should already have backup of your electrum on paper or in digital form, and that can be private key or backup phrase.
I don't think you can set up TrustedCoin 2fa with an imported private key. It must have been a seed-phrase HD wallet, and I doubt that he backed up individual, funded private keys from and HD wallet.
The electrum wallet 2 factor authenticator type make use 2-of-3 multisig wallet for signing, one signing from you wallet, and the other signing from TrustedCoin. But if you lost your 2fa app and you do not have the backup code, you can still be able to make transactions on your electrum wallet because you are in control of two private keys, all you need to do is to restore you wallet. Use the below guide to restore your wallet. Restoring your seed from two factor authentication Electrum walletEven if TrustedCoin is compromised or taken offline, your coins are secure as long as you still have the seed of your wallet. Your seed contains two master private keys in a 2-of-3 security scheme. In addition, the third master public key can be derived from your seed, ensuring that your wallet addresses can be restored. In order to restore your wallet from seed, select “wallet with two factor authentication”, as this tells Electrum to use this special variety of seed for restoring your wallet. Your post contradicts the instructions you quoted. I don't know what you mean by "backup code" but I'm assuming you're talking about the seed phrase. In order to restore the wallet you need the seed phrase, there's no way to do so otherwise. And I also don't know what you're talking about when you say "in control of two private keys," but again I'm going to assume you mean seed phrases, which is wrong. There's only one seed phrase that's needed to make or restore a 2fa wallet. TrustedCoin doesn't provide a second seed phrase, that would defeat the purpose of having them issue the second signature in the first place.
@OP, I hope you have the seed phrase that was created when you set up your wallet, that's the only way you'll be able to restore your coins. I also recommend that you don't use TrustedCoin 2fa. If you're concerned about the security of your coins you should buy a hardware wallet. The fees charged by TrustedCoin will more than pay for a hardware wallet, which is much more secure, and leaves you and only you in control of your coins. |
|
|
|
I think they should hide this behind a check box in the options menu, just like they do for the advanced preview screen.
That would be an improvement. I agree that the invoice expiration feature is about as useful as tits on a boar, and doesn't really add any value to on-chain transactions. Anything communicated by that feature could easily be addressed in whatever agreement arrived at by the individuals initiating the exchange. IIRC the feature showed up in the gui around the time the dev team was implementing Lightning features, which have legitimate uses for request expiration. Maybe it was just as easy to add the subscripts to on-chain requests, and here we are. In actuality I find the whole Receive tab to somewhat useless. I just use the Addresses tab to keep track of my used, labeled, and unused addresses. |
|
|
|
Outputs are scripts, addresses are scripts as well.
Thanks for the clarification, makes perfect sense. Nevertheless, I don't think that the blockchain should be used as someone's personal notepad. Seems like a dick-move... Or perhaps a bit more accurately, a cunt-move. |
|
|
|
Recently the Electrum team started providing 2 sets of signatures from 2 of their developers, I suppose to make things safer and more decentralized.
I suspect you're correct. That would make things more decentralized, and it's a good plan going forward to keep things transparent. If (god forbid) anything happened to ThomasV and suddenly the team had to use someone else's key to sign releases it would raise a lot of questions. Especially if that someone (like Ghost43/SomberNight) was an anonymous figure. Anyway, I browed to the Electrum download page today and noticed the following, for some reason the MacOS releases are still signed only by ThomasV:  I also noticed that two sets of signatures are available now. I don't believe that was the case when I downloaded version 4.1.2.  |
|
|
|
|
Going to another country might not be necessary. Check for communities in your country and state that operate their own power infrastructure.
A few rural counties in my home state have their own hydroelectric system that they use to generate power for their community at drastically discounted rates in comparison to the rest of the state. They often sell surplus power to the big power companies and use that income to amortize the maintenance and operation costs, thus keeping the power rates affordable for the local communities.
|
|
|
|
|
There's no rule stating you can't have multiple accounts. You can have as many as you want, as long as you follow the rules. If someone is proven to have multiple accounts that are being used to mulit-post or bump threads then the rules are enforced as if it was only one account doing that. If one account gets banned for breaking the forum rules, then all remaining accounts are banned as well. When an account is banned the biological entity behind those accounts is banned.
|
|
|
|
|
I've never tried this, but you might be able to use the "Task Scheduler" to set up bitcoind to run as a background service. The gui isn't very taxing on system resources, and if you setup the gui to minimize itself to the tray on closing, it's essentially the same thing.
The only reason I can imagine someone wanting to do this is for security on a shared computer, ie, you don't want others who are using the PC to know that bitcoin is running on that machine. If you are doing so just to bolster the network with another node, you can disable wallet rpc functions in the bitcoin.conf file.
|
|
|
|
307F 4C76 B112 4A20 24F7 01BA 9BFD B7FF 5CE0 CEAA
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
2021-06-19
This is vv181(327124) from bitcointalk.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iHUEARYIAB0WIQQwf0x2sRJKICT3Abqb/bf/XODOqgUCYM5b8gAKCRCb/bf/XODO
qo4FAP0Vxthdvb3P3HjsyqV38IPNHrU/lIvnxYLv4x4Aswh+egEAx8T2mI02Uupm
3JIiJDB8y4W2mIjGT6RFDdm8y2qt1AA=
=/I28
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----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=lL7y
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- I verified your signature, and I've confirmed that it was made with the key belonging to that fingerprint. Edited the fingerprint to match the format.
You're formatting is still fubar, there are two spaces between these two segments: "24F7 01BA" It really doesn't matter though, I wouldn't edit your post again. Anyone who wants to verify a message signed by you will be able to see that the fingerprint is accurate. |
|
|
|
~
From now on, new Electrum releases will be signed with this new key:
~
Thanks for the link. Are the releases also signed by ThomasV as has been the case in the past? Sorry, I'm traveling for business, and don't have the opportunity or time to check. |
|
|
|
Thanks for the heads-up, but I'm not feeling the warm fuzees getting my PGP updates from Twitter. Here's a link to SomberNight's GPG key page on GitHub: https://github.com/SomberNight.gpg |
|
|
|
The two commands expects an address and does not parse scripts (OP_return)[1], while the GUI does[2]. Could you not call the same method as is called through the GUI? I have seen other methods that are not GUI commands be called this way and I'm not familiar with python. That was my initial thought. I would assume that gui functions are a set of predefined commands that can by manually configured in the console or or cli. As for requiring an address, wouldn't OP_RETURN require one as well? I'll admit I've never used it (see below,) but I was under the impression that it required a fee, and some bitcoin to burn. I hope you know that bitcoin blockchain is not a message storage database. Yeah, I really don't want to upgrade all my node hard drives any sooner than I have to. Use ETH for that kind of stupid shit. It's blockchain is a clusterfuck already. |
|
|
|
My main motivation behind this post is to have my backup in two pieces to protect against a physical intrusion. A 24 word seed with higher entropy has no benefit over a 12 word seed if the physical backup is stolen. If I break the 24 word seed with 256 bits into two 12 word parts, can I safely store them in two separate locations like I can with the seed extension? Of course you can store your extension separately from your seed, regardless of it's length or the origin of the words. As Leo mentioned above, it's actually recommended. If you want to, you can generate two 24-word seeds and store them separately. |
|
|
|
|
@xmready, I've used a 12-word seed as an extension in the past. When I was a younger bitcoiner I thought that would double my entropy, but I've since learned that it does not. Take a look at hosseinimr93's post above, he is showing you how to generate an honest-to-goodness 24-word seed with double the entropy of a standard 12-word seed. I also advise against using the same pool of words (i.e. Bip39 word list) for your extension, just to add an extra level of security.
|
|
|
|
in Austria there is a 3 G rule, tested, recovered or vaccinated That's awesome news. It's good to see some folks apply common sense, it's been far too uncommon the last couple of years. I've been thinking about booking travel for the Thai or the Malaysian GP, but decided to put it off until next year just in case restrictions don't get lifted. The dates for American and Argentine races are still pending. It's odd the American GP hasn't been scheduled yet. It's held at the Circuit of the Americas in Texas, and if I'm not mistaken Texas has lifted all restrictions.
For the next GP in Germany, the difference of 14 points from Zarco seems that Quartararo must appear without errors so that he continues to lead the standings temporary.
There's still a lot of the season left to go, only a third of the races have been run so far. Anything can happen, but I wouldn't mind seeing Quartararo, Zarco, Miller duke it out all season. |
|
|
|
This silliness was debunked hundreds of years ago: But soft! What light through yonder window breaks?
It is the blockchain, and bitcoin to the moon.
Arise, fair bitcoin, and kill the envious alts,
Who are already sick and pale with grief,
That thou, their forbearer, art far more fair than they.
All kidding aside, most alts that have been around for a while do have a use case. Litecoin, is often more affordable to send, and lighter on equipment for hosting a node and mining; Monero has the ability to obfuscate transactions; ETH is good for smart contracts, and therefor tokens. They all have their various issues whether with security, expensive fees, volatility, regulation, availability, or adoption. Bitcoin has proven to be secure, resilient, and adaptable. Segwit, and most recently TapRoot have contributed in keeping fees lower. The next biggest blockchain, ETH has a host of issues, in my opinion. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
