Can we find out which online wallet a particular bitcoin address belongs to?I keep my coins at blockchain.info and some coins at Zebpay,Is it possible for someone to identify which address belongs to which of above wallet or any wallet?
When you send Bitcoins from blockchain.info wallet you should see on the public records of the address on blockchain.info, under transaction which sending Bitcoins from that address (red amount) first seen from IP address as blockchain.info, while when you send Bitcoins from Zebpay it should be random IP address. But if you just received Bitcoins and never spend, you cant say it is blockchain.info wallet address While that is true for blockchain.info payments I could create a TX and broadcast it via blockchain.info. It would show the same info you described. There are many ways to find things out, but there also ways to obfuscate the information available. |
|
|
|
Hi Shorena! I'd like to know how much will it cost for 1jacee or 1jACEe?
1jacee with exact case - 0.0002 btc 1jACEe with exact case - 0.0002 btc whichever is found first of the two - 0.0001 btc (I could also do this twice for 0.0002 btc which would give you a 50% chance to have both prefixes and a 50% chance to have the same prefix twice) both (requires two pubkeys) - 0.0003 if you agree send me a PM with the public key(s) and payment to the address in the OP. |
|
|
|
Why should the other person have the newly created address if he's not able to get the latest wallet file? The copy of the wallet file that person has does not automatically update.
I already explained to you that there are pre generated hidden addresses. Please explain how you "create a new address". If you talk about hitting the button that says "+ New", well fucking done you just risked someone elses coins because you have no idea what you are talking about. |
|
|
|
I understand and I'm trying to appeal to common sense from everyone on this board. This affects all of us and the crypto we're trying to promote. My argument is not legal vs illegal, I'm talking about how we are being perceived when we allow these kind of statements (terror support). No matter how you slice it, someone who displays that symbol is a supporter and whoever allows that display is a sympathizer. No way around it. All I'm asking is that we consider what we allow ourselves to be associated with. That's all.
I agree with the fact that it probably isn't beneficial when trying to appeal to newcomers to the site. However, Bitcointalk (seems to) really push for freedom of speech, and I suppose this avatar would fall under that. Very sad to hear. I guess I'm in the wrong place with the wrong people. There is no way anybody can rationalize allowing display of this symbol without being considered terror sympathizers. Does anyone have a swastika as their avatar here? I'm for freedom of speech and Im not a "terror sympathizer". Maybe you are on the wrong forum. I havent seen an avatar, but there are at least a couple of fascists. |
|
|
|
Thanks for the link. I've read the first several pages, it says tera and services are scam sites. I don't believe it list trust wothy sites on the first page? No, but it gives you good criteria on what you should look for. |
|
|
|
-snip-
If this ISIS avatar is illegal in several countries around the world, then either block those countries IP addresses from accessing this site so this guy can keep his avatar, or ban his avatar.
Alright, while we are at it, lets ban bitcoin. Its illegal in several countries as well. The argument is not legal vs illegal, the argument is about us (as a group) working on public perception about something we believe in (crypto). Self regulation will go a long way to improve global adoption and to get there we need to win public opinion. Allowing criminals and terrorists in our midst will not advance that perception in any way. Why even consider allowing it? If you start to give up freedom for security the terrorists have already won. Baning the symbol will change nothing, but sweep it under the rug. |
|
|
|
-snip-
If this ISIS avatar is illegal in several countries around the world, then either block those countries IP addresses from accessing this site so this guy can keep his avatar, or ban his avatar.
Alright, while we are at it, lets ban bitcoin. Its illegal in several countries as well. |
|
|
|
Not true. There are huge number of combinations of characters after 1jacee... which makes it easy for anyone else to create the same prefix in a short amount of time
Well you are right but not everyone that I know, knows how to make a vanity address plus I don't see much people using the name jacee. I just think it will be more convinient to identify if I was the one who sent the coin if the address contains my name. You should still check the address, its too easy to create a new one with 1jacee, like 1jaceeuKwijUPpm8VdEFFGH1eqCqJENeD (no I didnt keep the private key) Yea, that's the one I read but I was looking for a way to directly create one with my smartphone but I guess there is no way to do that. No, smartphones dont have enough computing power anyway. If the wallet you are using on your mobile allows importing priv key, then yes its possible. But making of vainty address on mobiles is not something I've seen before I am using mycelium wallet and I saw that there is an import option so I think it will work on this one. With that being said, contact shorena or DannyHamilton via PM if you run into any problems. Shorena also provides a free(for small vanity chars address generation) vanity gen service
Thanks! I will send either of them both to ask if they can make one for me. Another question, are there any other more technicalities with these vanity address that is different from a normal bitcoin address which was randomly generated? I mean, are there any other more precautions to follow in securing a vanity address other than the obvious way of securing a random generated btc address? Its just randomly generating private keys, calculating the address for the private key and see if its matches the search pattern. You can let someone else do the heavy work with the split key method. There is more about that in my thread -> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1257817.0 |
|
|
|
There is a chart in blockchain.com for total transactions by the time. is it possible to calculate it untill a block number ?
like total comfirmed transactions at 399000 block .this block was generated in feb 18 . ı need exact value. ty
Sure, pseudo code: total_count = 0
for i = 0 to 399000 do
hash = getblockhash i
block = getblock hash
tx_count = block["tx"].size
total_count = total_count + tx_count
end
modify for your favorite language -> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/API_reference_(JSON-RPC) |
|
|
|
I've been really frustrated by the slow confirmation times too. I really hope the devs figure out something soon that will solve this problem. Hopefully something that will allow fast confirmations times and still be relatively cheap.
They have, at least the core devs. Core has a well working fee estimate for quite some time now. The most recent addition was the option to increase the fee of a unconfirmed transaction (opt-in replace by fee),but its not part of the GUI yet. That is not a solution. All that does is cause more network traffic (from people rebroadcasting new RBF transactions), making transactions more expensive for everyone, and *maybe* making "stress test"-like "attacks" more expensive. Raising fees is not going to allow more transactions to fit in a single block. Well yes, the underlying question is whether we assume that all "legit" transactions still fit into a 1 MB block or if the network is under attack (again). Judging from the analysis a few people posted, the vast majority of the transactions causing the hold up currently pay a 2 satoshi per byte fee. RBF (when implemented into the GUI) can help to retroactively increase the fee of a "stuck" transaction. It is just a band aid solution, bigger blocks will be needed regardless. |
|
|
|
Tank you for your answers!
The truth is that right now I don't feel like spending 2-3h working on this, so I think I will just by some bitcoins with fiat.
There is a reason faucets have a higher withdrawal limit. The current dust limit is 2730 satoshi, all payments below this amount will very likely not get confirmed, because they are considered "nonStandard". I wrote a bit more about that here[1] at #1. Buying is probably the fastest option as even as little as 1 USD is way over the dust limit. [1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1044399.0There is a site to see for each day the current dust limit? -snip- The dust limit does not change daily. It is based on the "minimal relay fee". The formular is 546*min_relay_fee/1000. Since the minimal relay fee is currently 5000 satoshi you end up with 5*546 or 2730 satoshi. While this value can be modified by each node operator, I suspect only a few do. The last change was with 0.11.1[1] 5 months ago. [1] https://bitcoin.org/en/release/v0.11.1#minimum-relay-fee-default-increase |
|
|
|
-snip-
At this point the transactions have been sent already with the forced fees.
Right now I want to send the entire balance (0.035BTC) of 12oWtmuwHipw9rC9BYUuMGWMWB3RxMsxUN to 1TtxVxWQwXCcdrbzXFQZGnrBP8oSVjYwP
And again same problem when I add a manual fee. When I tick the box send without fee, it will send it witout a fee. But when I want to include 0.0001 as fee it comes up with 0.00001XXXBTC.
I want the raw transaction to include a fee of 0.0002BTC that will be deducted from the total 0.035BTC.
Thanks for your help man. Really appreciate it.
Alright, lets see what we have. This -> https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/address/12oWtmuwHipw9rC9BYUuMGWMWB3RxMsxUN/transactions/in/0tells me that you have one unspend input here -> https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/tx/040a4aadd58794ab0360af01cd30112898371f46a6a8a96e4122102d21038d83worth 0.035 BTC. So we have the TX ID and vout 0 (because its the 1st output of the TX and those writing code tend to start counting at 0) Receiving address is 1TtxVxWQwXCcdrbzXFQZGnrBP8oSVjYwP and a 0.0002 fee leaves us with 0.0348. Putting that all together gives us[1]: createrawtransaction
"[
{\"txid\":\"040a4aadd58794ab0360af01cd30112898371f46a6a8a96e4122102d21038d83\",\"vout\":0}
]"
"{\"1TtxVxWQwXCcdrbzXFQZGnrBP8oSVjYwP\":0.0348}"
core responds with: 0100000001838d03212d1022416ea9a8a6461f3798281130cd01af6003ab9487d5ad4a0a040000000000ffffffff01c0193500000000001976a91405162fb9ce600faed971c98ebb1993682cd4e8a688ac00000000
which is your unsigned raw transaction. You can verify it with: decoderawtransaction 0100000001838d03212d1022416ea9a8a6461f3798281130cd01af6003ab9487d5ad4a0a040000000000ffffffff01c0193500000000001976a91405162fb9ce600faed971c98ebb1993682cd4e8a688ac00000000
in order to sign it you need to unlock your wallet. Lets assume your password is 'passw0rd' and you want to unlock your wallet for 60 seconds. walletpassphrase passw0rd 60
sign it with: signrawtransaction 0100000001838d03212d1022416ea9a8a6461f3798281130cd01af6003ab9487d5ad4a0a040000000000ffffffff01c0193500000000001976a91405162fb9ce600faed971c98ebb1993682cd4e8a688ac00000000
and broadcast it to the network with: sendrawtransaction the_hexcode_that_was_returned_after_you_signed_it
[1] If you do this with your own wallet you can just use: listunspent 1 9999999 "[\"1address\"]"
it directly shows the TX IDs and vout to use. |
|
|
|
|
I have questions:
#1 what does "misuse Bitcoin" mean? Blockchain graffiti?
#2 what do you mean by interventing a Mt. Gox-like situation? Controlls? Forced revearsal of payments?
#3 that question is clear
#4 that question is clear
#5 In contrast to a government issued crypto currency?
|
|
|
|
-snip-
BTC was based on anonymous and freedom not that others will tell you what to do.
So only your freedom to run shady "investment games", but not cryptodevil's freedom to warn others about it? Thats not freedom. of course he have the freedom to warn others but spam is not the same. If you think its spam, report the posts. If you think the ratings are spam (they are not) open a thread in meta and ask the mods to remove them. |
|
|
|
-snip-
BTC was based on anonymous and freedom not that others will tell you what to do.
So only your freedom to run shady "investment games", but not cryptodevil's freedom to warn others about it? Thats not freedom. |
|
|
|
Why is there so much fuss over someone who has a flag as their avatar? Just let him do what he wants, why are you guys giving him negative trusts just for having a flag as his avatar? This is really fucked up.
Just so we are on the same page. Isis cut off the heads of Innocent people to get media attention. But, hey, thats free speech. Wana talk about the crimes done in the name of the great britian flag union jack[1]? Having the avatar of a flag is not the same as beheading people, which is not possible to do on this forum anyway, so whats your argument again? [1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=554884 |
|
|
|
-snip-
Please educate me...
Is there a particular reason you keep repeating that phrase? Did they paid the fee for a proxy ban? You just pulled 3 ponzi operators out of (I guess my rating history). I dont know, I dont understand what you are trying to say. I told you what I understood and you said "I didnt say that". So please, rephrase your "fact" clearly. What? Speak clearly, it sounds like you assume the only route to scam people is to spam. Let me clear it for you... I didnt say that i assume that its the only way,i just showed you ways how they do it... Please educate me... No, you did not. But lets just assume they create a new account to created a ponzi afterwards. That ponzi would fail and they scammed people. What does that have to do with whether or not they create an account over an IP and had to pay a fee to lift a proxy ban? |
|
|
|
Well, they are not useless but I suggest you not to use them anymore if someone else has access to the wallet file and password and thus having access to the private keys.
I haven't used Core myself yet but you should be able to just create a new address and then move the bitcoins to that address. That other person shouldn't have access to your newly generated address if he/she doesn't gets a new copy of your wallet file. You don't necessarily have to dump the other addresses, just don't use them anymore.
That describes useless to me. Any funds send to those addresses will be available to anyone who can use the private key. @OP, create another wallet from scratch, there's no point in keeping your old address even for signing. You should still be able to create a new address which won't append in the wallet file of the other person then. It's not like it automatically updates, assuming Core is not using xPub. As someone else already said, core keeps (by default) 100 addresses pregenerated in the wallet.dat file. If someone else has the file they also have these 100 hidden keys. They will e.g be used for change. Your solution is plain dangerous. A completely new wallet file can easily be created by just renaming the old file when core is closed. Sir, your problem is that you simply don't understand what I'm saying. I never said anything about using these 100 addresses which Core creates by default. But sure, just creating a new wallet is an option too and I never said it wasn't. Dont Sir me, Im no knight. You said "create a new address". Please explain how to do so securely without risk that the other person also has the same address. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
