Anyone here tried and tested cryptostorm.is VPN service?
Actually it's first time i heard this VPN service. But looking at the guide, i find it's annoying the guide (for various OS) only meant for OpenVPN even though they support WireGuard. Less technical user better use Mullvad which offer more guide and user-friendly application. Anyone here tried and tested cryptostorm.is VPN service?
I see them popping out more recently, they have open source code, no registration, no kyc and they are accepting cryptocurrency payments.
Interesting, I had never heard of them, but apparently they have been running for 10 years[1] - Question #7. I did quick check and it seems to be true, https://web.archive.org/web/20130926232935/https://cryptostorm.is/. |
|
|
|
If Raspberry Pi might fit your needs, have you consider Mini PC (e.g. Intel NUC) or Handheld PC (e.g. Steam Deck)?
I hadn't considered that option, but it might make sense to buy a cheap used Steam Deck and replace the OS. Would definitely not raise eyebrows at airports, since it's such a popular gaming device. It might even be possible to airgap it by removing the wifi and bluetooth modules, considering how easy it is to replace the SSD: https://www.tomshardware.com/video-games/handheld-gaming/how-to-upgrade-steam-deck-ssdAs reminder, the cheapest type (64 GB storage) should be enough for Linux and Electrum. And be careful you might get stolen Steam Deck if you decide to buy used ones[1]. [1] https://www.pcgamesn.com/steam-deck/second-hand-market-concerns |
|
|
|
And never ever download the Bitcoin core from the snap store either
Some Linux user don't like snap, but do you have any specific reason for saying that? After all, it's published by Bitcoin Core developer and mentioned on https://bitcoincore.org/en/download/. |
|
|
|
Snap already have poor reputation on Linux community and this discovery will make it worse. And after looking at link you mentioned, it could be avoided if Canonical simply check whether who submit the application have same name/company with the one who create the software. Never download wallets like Exodus, Electrum, etc. from the spap store, the chances of being phished are extremely high. Never download any wallet outside of their respective official websites.
In addition, your suggestion also apply when you download software from flatpak/flathub. Some software on it isn't created by the original creator. For example, Wasabi Wallet on flatpak isn't created by zkSNACKs[1]. [1] https://github.com/zkSNACKs/WalletWasabi/issues/12595#issuecomment-1974175418 |
|
|
|
Relevant discussion thread, Can avarage block time calculated in every 2016 block be manipulated?. If you generated and run sufficient Bitcoin nodes with an altered internal clock, then other nodes could connected to it, then the "Network-adjusted time" which is the median of timestamps returned by all nodes connected to you, could be adjusted to an arbitrary time where the difficulty algorithm is weaker.
Honestly i have doubt Bitcoin Core (and other full node software) would simply accept timestamp from other node when the difference is too big. |
|
|
|
--snip--
The latest round of Bitcoin Lightning discourse appears to have been kicked off by longtime bitcoiner John Carvalho, who was once one of Lightning’s biggest champions until he tried building software solutions on top of it. His recent interview with Vlad Costea caught the ear after Carvalho derided the “complexity and fragility” of the protocol.
“Going through that experience has made me realize that the design is kind of a joke,” Carvalho said. “We can make it work. We can do our best, but all of the narratives that came with [Lightning] in the first couple years were really exaggerated.”
--snip--
IMO it just means he didn't do much research on LN's technical detail. Although i agree some narrative were really exaggerated. For example, few people used to claim as main/universal scaling solution when LN actually designed for micro-transaction and LN user still need to pay on-chain TX fee to open and close channel. |
|
|
|
Calvin Ayre won't be wasting more of his own money on something that will never make him a return on his investment.
Do you have source for that statement? I just checked coingeek (BSV propaganda website) and it seems Calvin Arye just write another propaganda yesterday. march 15th Good bye everyone. This is my last post before I take off on an adventure I have been planning for the last year. I have now handed this account over to a team that will work with the BSV Blockchain Association, London Blockchain conference and other organizations dedicated to educating on how Enterprise Blockchain brings together and completes AI, IoTs, Web 3 and other areas of Big Data.
CA is not writing for BSV, he handed his online accounts to a marketing teamCalvin Ayre
@CalvinAyre
Founder #AyreGroup and #CoinGeek.com. This account is managed by a social media team to share Enterprise Blockchain news and information.
their latest stupidity and false claim is: by the judge freezing CSW assets and those assets being BSV associated they are again now claiming BSV is bitcoin made by satoshi so pretending the judges freeze of CSW assets is proof of satoshi they keep forgetting that bsv came into existence in 2018 not 2009 Thank you for the information. It's really deceptive move though, average reader would wrongfully assume it's written by Calvin himself. --snip--
To be fair, I visited the BitcoinSV website today for the first time and now I am not shocked by the fact that it is popular. People are too lazy to double-check information and BitcoinSV promotes itself like an original Bitcoin, so I am not surprised if many people got trapped by that. On their timeline, it's written that Dr.Craig Wright is the creator of Bitcoin who was using the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto, then it says that he got very explicit because Bitcoin was used by criminals and it's a very populist statement because people believe that it's used by criminals. In overall, he is a liar who lies to everyone. Many altcoin or token website have similar appearance or marketing word with BSV website though. |
|
|
|
--snip--
The backing mostly coming from Calvin Ayre which will not be there anymore now that it has been announced that Craig Wright is NOT Satoshi. "Craig Wright = Satoshi" was they're only leverage against the community to fool people into believing that Bitcoin Cash SV is therefore the "real Bitcoin". Calvin Ayre won't be wasting more of his own money on something that will never make him a return on his investment. Do you have source for that statement? I just checked coingeek (BSV propaganda website) and it seems Calvin Arye just write another propaganda yesterday. P.S. i don't include link since i don't want to give free backlink and bumping their position on google search result. |
|
|
|
A laptop-sized airgapped device is also unsuitable, as another feature I seek is maximal portability, something that could fit into a commuter-size backpack along with my main laptop and other items when there's no room for extra luggage. So, I'm looking for something that combines the best of both worlds, the portability of a purpose-built device and the non-conspicuousness of an airgapped all-purpose device such as a laptop. For example, a Raspberry Pi might fit the bill, as long is it can run Electrum. Would that be possible, or are there other ways of making such a device?
If Raspberry Pi might fit your needs, have you consider Mini PC (e.g. Intel NUC) or Handheld PC (e.g. Steam Deck)? |
|
|
|
Now, the way to conduct this attack would either require purchasing 51% of the existing compute power from miners (e.g. AntPool, etc), or purchasing new compute power, at 100% of the current available compute used by miners, thereby doubling the available compute of the current 100% to 200%. This is probably more likely as it would make no sense for miners to sell their hash power to a state actor who had the intention of destroying Bitcoin. Realistically they would only be successful an at attack by introducing new compute and doubling the overall supply.
I don't think there are any mining pool which offer to sell hashrate from it's miner. While there are marketplace (such as NiceHash) where you can buy/sell hashrate, the amount obviously not enough to perform 51% attack on Bitcoin. And buying new ASIC to match current total mining hashrate isn't realistic either. Aside from the cost, there's limited amount of ASIC they could buy within short time. However even then whilst 51% could be required theoretically, forking Bitcoin would require much more compute, like 60-70% or more. Just look at Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin SV, and the other forks that exist as examples why.
Wrong, theoretically total mining hashrate doesn't matter. The forked coin can run with far smaller hashrate. And if that forked coin switch to PoS (or other similar algorithm), mining hashrate isn't even needed. |
|
|
|
I hear a lot of agreement here. There is an exploit that needs to be fixed and doing so would get Bitcoin back on track. How do we get this change in a BIP and added to the development cycle?
See https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0002.mediawiki. But even if it's approved (as in get a number), it doesn't necessarily mean Bitcoin Core (or other software) will implement it. For example, Bitcoin Core never implement BIP 39. |
|
|
|
I'll need to delve into the core internals to see if I can optimise chainstate activity.
That would be tall task when Bitcoin Core is already most performant software[1]. Gocoin also have fast performance, but it loads all UTXO to RAM while Bitcoin Knots is just modification of Bitcoin Core. I checked: It's 14 times faster than the SSD in my laptop. I really need to upgrade some day. "Up to" is misleading though. And with your laptop, you're limited by speed of the storage port. SATA III only offer speed up to 500MB/s. [1] https://blog.lopp.net/2023-bitcoin-node-performance-tests/ |
|
|
|
Bitcoin SV is ranked 62nd out of all listed cryptocurrencies on Coinmarketcap. Super impressive result if we consider that this is a shitcoin run by a scammer that proves again that too many people are dumb. I wouldn't be shocked if Craig Wright confiscates many Bitcoin SV and we will see shocked customers (they deserve to be fair). BSV rank is partially because he still have some backing, but it's also true some people are dumb or crazy for buying BSV. Anyway, if he decide to perform confiscation stealing and considering BSV is fork of BCH where BCH is fork of BTC, i bet he'll steal BSV from old address which supposed to be owned by Satoshi to make another false claim that he's Satoshi. |
|
|
|
And what is quite new at the moment is the Rune Protocol, which is still to be developed with the aim of better anonymity.
Making using Bitcoin Easier because it doesn't have to enter a long wallet address and is friendly enough for new users, is simpler, more efficient and more secure.
Although the development of Ordinals and Runes is still in its early stages, I also do not deny that with the presence of Ordinals alone the state of the Bitcoin network is getting denser so that transaction confirmations will take longer.
This is first time i hear Rune is being developed with anonymity feature. Even Casey blog[1] doesn't mention that. Can you share source or proof of that anonymity feature? It's not that new either since it's supposed to be launched soon[2]. [1] https://rodarmor.com/blog/runes/[2] https://decrypt.co/221962/bitcoin-runes-launch-at-the-halving-heres-everything-you-need-to-know |
|
|
|
We should use upload our post elsewhere and share it's short link to preserve our total merit  . It's going to take a shitton of shitposts to get myself into negative numbers. Maybe I need to take up plagiarizing entire chapters of War and Peace.
You could just use AI random text generator to achieve that. |
|
|
|
This could be interesting not as a replacement for the existing mechanism, but as an addition to it. However, participation in the token market should not be mandatory.
Here's how I see it. If a miner wants to attract additional funding, they sell space in future blocks. There could be demand for this. For example, if I know I'm planning transactions on May 1st, I might be interested in buying space in a block today at current prices, assuming it will be mined on May 1st. It's like buying a futures contract for inclusion in a block.
--snip--
As additional form of income, many pool already offer their service though. For example, paid acceleration service and including non-standard TX (such as Mara Slipstream and Luxor OrdinalHub which let you create Ordinal TX with size more than 100 vKB). |
|
|
|
It's one of few times where i'm glad i choose conservative distro like Debian. It's also crazy it took months before it's detected. Didn't Debian import it in their packages as Ubuntu? I just checked my Debian device and it seems they include xz by default. But based on my experience, Debian usually is slower to upgrade their package compared with Ubuntu LTS. Basically it contains a backdoor to completely bypass your SSH authentication. All signs point to it being planted by a malicious actor running the project. It is undetectable by sanitizers and fuzz testing tools. I bet state actor? Maybe CIA or similar. A rare case of an open-source project being compromised... imagine if this happens to a Bitcoin wallet. I can see that could happen on unpopular wallet software or library used to sign transaction. Imagine if someone compromise signing library to create signed TX with specific k value range. |
|
|
|
You'll change behavior of Bitcoin script which depends on block height as it's spending condition. LN's HLTC depends on block height., which give additional reason to reject this idea. Sure this is possible but these type of proposals were presented about maybe 10 years back. You need to remember if you do this then the block chain size will increase and so will the required bandwidth. So what will happen is that it will take more resources to secure the network by node operators. Eventually the resources will be too much so node operators would stop providing the service.
The solution to this problem is to leave the main bitcoin network as is and just use l2 when you need to do frequent transactions. This way you can store your main balance on the main chain and from time to time keep some on some l2 which you spend daily.
Roughly it's just 2x increase. I expect Bitcoin node's hardware can handle that, unless it uses old Raspberry Pi or very old PC. There's not much complain about it when SegWit increase maximum block size from 1MB to 4 million weight unit. |
|
|
|
|
Since you ask this question under Bitcoin's board, you should know that Bitcoin doesn't use RSA, but ECDSA cryptography instead. As for RSA value you mentioned, i believe you only can obtain n and e value.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
