Would receiving mining payments sent to the trezor or ledger wallet be good or bad?
Receiving payments, especially regular payments, directly to a hardware wallet is better than to an online wallet IMO. Depending on what you have in mind (privacy?), you could have the BTC sent to a different wallet each time (burdensome)... OR You could just arrange to quickly send your payments (after receipt) off to a mixing service and then on to your hardware wallet. (I do not get mining payments, but I do get Sig Campaign payments, and the latter above is what I do) Depends on how many payments per day your Trezor is receiving to a single account. If you are receiving many payments per day you could develop a problem with Trezor synching see this post at reddit. How to fix: "The speed is limited by number of inputs you are spending. Trezor has to stream each input transaction into the device to check that the indicated amount of input is correct. This is security feature which prevents certain type of attacks, so it cannot be left out. In your case, you have hundreds of input. If you are receiving a lot of transactions on daily basis, it is good practice to send received bitcoin to another Trezor account when you collect around 50-100 transactions. This way you will defragment and collect the input and your coin will be ready to spend fast." |
|
|
|
Just read the whole Interview and i think that i knew most of the things before, I'm collecting to buy one as i think it is the most secured hardware wallet at the moment, but the cons is the high price. I have both KeepKey and Trezor and really do not use the KeepKey much. The Trezor works with my phone and Trezor lets you create passphrase protected hidden accounts. KeepKey does not. I do not feel you are gaining any security by using KeepKey over Trezor. If you just like the looks of the KeepKey you are getting a basic hardware wallet with PIN protection only that works very well with Multibit HD. Nothing wrong with that at all, but you lose some of the advanced functionality only Trezor and BitLox have at this time. Just take the time to make sure the hardware wallet you buy meets your needs. |
|
|
|
Once again, it's videos from BitLox. Someone said I didn't have any videos of the Bitlox doing transactions, so I guess I'm overcompensating.  Here's one on doing transactions in the "expert" mode. I think this is cool, because you get to see and can verify all the raw hex that flows back and forth. Plus you can do your own verification before anything is sent to the network, or heck, you can turn off your network access once the transaction has been built, so that before it's signed, you're on an isolated system. Cut and paste the signed transaction then submit it any way you like after verifying. Anyways, here's the video: https://youtu.be/3qhFZmGsDosYou mention at the website that it is possible to set up hidden wallets on the BitLox. Is this done by using passphrases like Trezor? A hidden wallet is set up exactly like a normal wallet. You can create a PIN for your wallet on the device via the keypad (the host only initiates the creation of a wallet) up to 20 characters long 0-9 a-z A-Z. No sensitive data is EVER created on or transmitted from the host app. What differs is that this wallet is not enumerated when a wallet listing is done, it has no unencrypted part, so the wallet (if one were to examine the data block in which it sits) is indistinguishable from the random data that is used to initialize the wallet space (all 1s, all 0s, random, random, so every bit gets flipped at least once). When you create the wallet, you choose the index, a number between 51-100. The device only uses this to initialize the space, after that it has no knowledge if there is a wallet there or not. To access a hidden wallet, you must address it directly by index, such as "load the 67th wallet". If there is a wallet there, and the PIN is correct, it decrypts and is a usable wallet. If the PIN is incorrect OR there is no wallet there, it decrypts to gobbledygook. Same behavior for wallet there/bad PIN and no wallet actually there. Full deniability. bit Brute force attacks are stopped by having a "global" counter for wallet attempts. We can't keep track of what wallet numbers were successfully loaded or not, as that might imply the existence of hidden wallets (if they are there). So if _in aggregate_ 3/5/7 bad attempts are made to load a wallet (expert/advanced/standard setup) the device immediately resets and a 45/30/15 minute delay to re-enter is imposed. Further bad attempt cause the lockout time to grow exponentially [ edit - I just checked the code, sorry, it's the device and transaction PINs that go exponential.] (the wallet lockout times are deliberately harsh but not ridiculous, as they are reset by a correct device PIN entry). Lockout time is evaluated BEFORE the device PIN is evaluated, so you MUST wait. The only way around the delay is to wipe the entire device via the duress PIN "911" (which causes an immediate wipe of the wallet space) or to reflash the device. Thanks for the reply! I did manage to find the link to the BitLox user manual which is very good. I think you are the only bitcoin hardware wallet vendor other than Trezor who has taken the time to write up a comprehensive user manual. I had to navigate to http://bitlox.io/support to find the user manual, perhaps consider a direct link to the manual from the menu at your main site bitlox.com? iPhone users finally have a bitcoin hardware wallet that works with their phone. |
|
|
|
Once again, it's videos from BitLox. Someone said I didn't have any videos of the Bitlox doing transactions, so I guess I'm overcompensating. Here's one on doing transactions in the "expert" mode. I think this is cool, because you get to see and can verify all the raw hex that flows back and forth. Plus you can do your own verification before anything is sent to the network, or heck, you can turn off your network access once the transaction has been built, so that before it's signed, you're on an isolated system. Cut and paste the signed transaction then submit it any way you like after verifying. Anyways, here's the video: https://youtu.be/3qhFZmGsDosYou mention at the website that it is possible to set up hidden wallets on the BitLox. Is this done by using passphrases like Trezor? |
|
|
|
Would anyone here buy a disposable hardware wallet that is programmed ONCE, and then cannot be programmed with a different private key. Instead, you just toss it and buy a new one if you want a different address. It would only have a single address, but I could still see this having some use.
It would only cost maybe $5 per wallet, so you could have 5 of them for pretty cheap, and then just get a new one if you need a new address (they wouldn't be HD, obviously). It would be like the old paper wallets, but way easier and more secure to spend from. Would anyone buy it?
Not when I can get a Ledger HW.1 including shipping for less than $20. |
|
|
|
|
Ledger disadvantages: must be initialized using a secure computer or the Starter. If using with a wallet on your phone you must use the security card to verify transactions. Cannot passphrase protect accounts as with a Trezor.
Advantages: low cost. If you use with your laptop you can pair with the Ledger App on your Android phone to authorize transactions avoiding use of the security card.
Ledger is a good way to get started with bitcoin hardware wallets at lowest cost.
|
|
|
|
Scare tactics, trying to convince miners with false claims that Classic supports a PoW change because luke-jr managed to submit the pull request in Classic github calling for a PoW change. jtoomin closed it. Then gmaxwell suggested that changing PoW in Core would be on the table if miners adopted Classic. sipa reminded everyone that changing PoW in Core is really off the table. |
|
|
|
I just tried to install the new update to the bridge on my PC laptop and it is giving me some weird error. Anyone else having this issue?
Does the internet browser need to be shut down prior to installation?
No issues here. Are you using Chrome? I noticed the myTrezor.com site had updated but was not asked to update the Trezor Chrome extension. Yeah, I noticed that too. Not the chrome extension...the Trezor bridge...wait that's not the same thing is it? Also..1 more question (probably a dumb one), the dropbox extension doesn't sacrifice any security does it? I don't think so. Trezor says "All user-added information is fully encrypted by a key derived from TREZOR device before being uploaded to the Dropbox folder, effectively preventing data leaks or misuse." I thought the bridge was only for Firefox and Safari? |
|
|
|
I'm hope the Chinese decide to stick with Core. I think we need to address the "Core" of the problem instead of splintering off into factions.
Any attempt by core to pick up the pieces and get back on track will be a too little too late act of desperation similar to the content of the OP. Those who think core continuing with their fiasco will somehow be a boon for say goldcoin or litecoin or crypto in general are living in fantasyville. Considering that bitcoin in its current technical state is not broken, splintering the community into different factions and bitcoin into different brands seems extremely counterproductive. The fact that Coinbase and Circle Pay are so quickly ready to jump aboard the bitcoin classic Titantic is also cause for concern. It seems to me that the core developers have the cooler heads and are being conservative and well intending. I think divided bitcoin will be conquered, but united it will stand. I think it's a classic divide between techies and marketers. Techies still treat it as if it's a testnet, marketers treat it as core of their business and want exponential growth YESTERDAY! But it is naive to expect that miners will support anything that would render their ASICs useless. Greg Maxwell was the one to say that if a fork happens where miners go to Classic, that he will push through a change to the POW so current ASICs are incompatible. Sounds to me like with that out there now, miners would be safer going with Classic. Is that what you are insinuating as well? I'm pretty sure GMaxwell never said that. He was asked to comment on the feasibility of such an action, and he confirmed that it could be done, hypothetically. That's all. If Classic was successful with miners luke-jr proposed PoW change which was dismissed by Iriez and sipa see http://bitcoinstats.com/irc/bitcoin-dev/logs/2016/01/20#l1453313394.0 |
|
|
|
I just tried to install the new update to the bridge on my PC laptop and it is giving me some weird error. Anyone else having this issue?
Does the internet browser need to be shut down prior to installation?
No issues here. Are you using Chrome? I noticed the myTrezor.com site had updated but was not asked to update the Trezor Chrome extension. |
|
|
|
with the situation until now it seems that we go to a hard fork without consensus. Each part continue to fight each other without an agreement.
This is very concerning. I'm starting to think it might be worth splitting everything we own up into multiple paper wallets. At least they're not reliant on one chain. Either way it doesn't matter since the coins you have now would be spendable on any possible chain. The private keys are not linked to specific chains or anything like that. Great info, thank you. How will we know if there is a hard fork without consensus? Will there be warning. What could happen to cloud wallets while this is taking place? thanks in advance.
Knowing the people who may hard fork without consensus, the fork would probably be announced with some warning, people would probably only be talking about the impending fork, and after the fact, they would probably also gloat over their "victory". For web wallets, they will go with whatever fork they want. Most will probably announce ahead of time though. Right now it is important to take possession of your private keys. I would move any bitcoin you have on a web wallet, Coinbase or exchange to a Trezor or other hardware wallet you trust. |
|
|
|
First of all, if this is the wrong section for this, sorry, let me know where I should post it. Now, there's a friend of mine that used version 1.9.8 and didn't check his wallet in a pretty long time. He had a grand total of 39 BTC in it for some time. A couple of days ago he opened his wallet only to find a transaction from December that sent the cash to an unknown address. From the looks of it, the person that took the money waited for one confirmation and then sent them through some mixing process. Which means any chances of recovery are basically zero. The question is - how could this have happened? He had the wallet secured with an unique password. The first thing I thought was a vulnerability in Teamviewer that did the rounds some time ago, but he never had TV installed. Then I thought some sort of trojan/virus/whatever, but he claims to have had antivirus/firewall software installed and active at all times. As far as I can see, there are only 2 possibilities left: he either has a rootkit on his computer or somebody that had physical access to his computer did the deed. The second option is more unlikely, since he is careful about who he lets on the computer and what they do. However, maybe there was some sort of vulnerability in that version of Electrum that I don't know about. Any ideas? [edit] - he says the wallet was online all the time and that his computer is on most of the time. Sounds like malware, has he used Malwarebytes to check his computer? I had a small amount of coin stolen from a password protected official client a year ago before I became serious about security. That incident caused me to move to cold storage. |
|
|
|
Since Purse.io came on the scene I use it for all my Amazon purchases, never had a problem or delay, free Prime shipping so two day delivery is standard. Caveat: I only use Purse Instant and show how I use it at this article. |
|
|
|
Developer Jonas Schnelli weighs in at an article at BitcoinBlog.de. I have provided a translation for those who do not read German. |
|
|
|
|
It is a little premature to dismiss Bitcoin Classic, the client has not even been released. Miners make the decision in any event. Miners clearly did not care for XT but want 2 MB blocksize now rather than later. If Classic gives that to them with a clean patch to Core the results could be interesting. Will just have to wait and see. I follow all this crap because I find it fascinating and the latest word on Slack is that Classic client will be released end of this month (which usually means two weeks later:) Time to stock up on popcorn.
|
|
|
|
|
Certainly there will be volatility and probably a buying opportunity. If a hard fork looks imminent it would be a good idea to get your bitcoin out of online wallets so you have control of your private keys. Use a hardware wallet like Trezor, Ledger or KeepKey.
|
|
|
|
|
I would quit worrying about banks and concentrate on China. Chinese miners are tired of waiting for a blocksize increase and are starting to support Classic. Just may be the push core devs need to fork to 2 MB first. This may be a case of first client to 2 MB blocksize wins.
|
|
|
|
Hi I'm thinking to start cloudmining , again . I already got scammed , twice  Hashprofit and Cloudminr . But i'm a stubborn guy , or maybe i'm just stupid  Which site do you advise me to invest , will be a small investment , you can post your referral link , please tell me how long you're there and why should i invest in that site and not other . (i'll take your reputation in consideration) Thanks for your help. IMO your only safe option is to buy S7 hash at Hashnest. As difficulty increases the other options will be underwater. Hashnest has already warned S3 contracts are close to being terminated unless bitcoin price increases soon. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
