Crosspost von/zu https://www.coinforum.de/topic/4669-newbie-frage-zur-verfolgbarkeit-von-bitcoin-zahlungen/Hallo Forengemeinde! Ich bin in Sachen Bitcoin Newbie und habe eine Frage zu Verfolgbarkeit von Bitcoin-Zahlungen. Ich möchte Bitcoins sowohl für Zahlungen im "normalen" Bereich als auch für Zahlungen im Erotik-Bereich nutzen und das möchte ich natürlich fein säuberlich getrennt halten. Ich habe daher ohnehin schon zwei "Online-Identitäten" (zwei E-Mail-Adressen, zwei Kreditkarten usw.) die ich jeweils nur für das Eine oder das Andere nutze. zwei getrennte wallets sollten also kein Problem für dich darstellen. Um nun in beiden Bereichen auch mit Bitcoins zahlungsfähig zu sein, habe ich mir bei einer Bitcoin-Wechselstube (Clevercoin.com) , also bei einem Anbieter, bei dem man über ein Bankkonto oder eine Kreditkarte Bitcoins erwerben kann, zwei getrennte Konten angelegt. In den Konten habe ich als Zahlungsmittel jeweils eine der beiden o.g. Kreditkarten hinterlegt.
Wenn ich nun Erotik per Bitcoin erwerben will, so habe ich mir das zurecht gelegt, erwerbe ich bei dem o.g. Anbieter über mein "Erotik-Konto" und über meine "Erotik-Kreditkarte" Bitcoins und sende sie dann von dem Anbieter aus (der/dort wäre ja dann sowas wie mein Online-Wallet, korrekt?) an den Verkäufer der Erotik. Mein Kreditkartenunternehmen weiß dann, dass ich Bitcoins über den o.g. Marktplatz erworben habe und der Marktplatz weiß, wohin ich diese gezahlt habe (aber noch nicht was ich dort gekauft habe).
Da du nie passend Bitcoin kaufen können wirst durch die Kursschwankungen würde ich eine entsprechende Wallet empfehlen. Soweit aber richtig. Da mein Kreditkartenunternehmen bei "normaler" Kreditkartenzahlung weiß, wenn ich ein Playboy-Abo über die Karte abschließe, wird es aus meiner Sicht bei dem o.g. Ablauf nicht "schlimmer" als es bislang ist, nun weiß eben der Marktplatz, das ich ein Playboy-Abo erworben habe und das Kreditkartenunternehmen nicht mehr.
Wenn der Marktplatz überhaupt die Bitcoin Adresse einem konkreten Service zuordnen kann. Die Chance dazu ist sehr gering, zumindest ist es nicht ohne weiteres möglich diese Zuordnung herzustellen und der Marktplatz wird vermutlich auch besseres zu tun haben. Was mich hier aber interessiert: Was kann man aus den auf dem o.g. Weg gezahlten Bitcoins ablesen, auch zukünftig? Und darüber hinaus: Liege ich richtig, dass meine beiden o.g. Identitäten nicht anhand der Bitcoins in Zusammenhang gebracht werden können?
Klar, bei dem Marktplatz habe ich mich für beide Konten mit Klarnamen, Perso usw. registrieren müssen, DIE wissen, dass ICH hinter BEIDEN Konten stecke. Aber sonst kann das niemand in Erfahrung bringen?
Oder ist der gesamte Ablauf, den ich mir zurechtgelegt habe, totaler Murks? Bin für jede Antwort und jeden Hinweis dankbar!
TJ
Naja, es gilt das selbe wie immer. Das weiß erstmal "nur" der "Serviceanbieter". Die Frage ist, wer ist das und das ist für Außenstehende fast nie zu wissen. Gibt es da z.B. Studenten in Call-Centern mit Zugriff auf die Daten vom Service und gleichzeitig mit Zugriff auf diverse andere Daten? Es ist relativ üblich das für mehr als eine Firma gearbeitet wird um die Mitarbeiter beschäftigt zu halten. Wie sieht es mit gelangweiltem und/oder schlecht bezahltem IT Personal aus? Was genau wird bekannt wenn jemand dort einbricht und die Datenbank mitnimmt? Ich denke es ist gerade mit Bitcoin einfacher das Risiko einer Zuordnung signifikant zu reduzieren indem Du soweit wie möglich dich als Person (egal welche) von den Bitcoin trennst. Das kannst Du z.B. durch bar kauf von Bitcoin oder indem du die Bitcoin zwar über einen Service kaufst danach aber durch einen "Mixer" oder "CoinJoin" anonymisierst um nur ein paar Methoden zu nennen. Die Frage ist eigentlich nur wieviel Aufwand du betreiben möchstest und wovor du dich schützen möchtest. |
|
|
|
but you tend to post several times in a row
For the resolving the specific problem i need it, and i use not the overquoting, just words about the argument. And now i see a comment about "video" on "live chat" from the model, who it translated is deleted. No, you dont need to reply several times in a row you can just reply in a single post. You wouldnt be the first person to get banned for this[1] and you wont be the last. There are already loud voices in meta to get you banned[2], might be time to take a step back and reconsider your posting style. [1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1365718.0[2] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1376971.0 |
|
|
|
|
Payment received, thanks.
|
|
|
|
If you want, post the TX ID here so we can have a look at it. Maybe its just related to the fee. In your other thread you asked what a good fee was. That is currently a difficult question to answer, as it constantly changes. Sites like these[1] try to help. [1] https://bitcoinfees.21.co/ |
|
|
|
you cut off the end -000
hmm ALL my transactions end the same way
I guess we need to remove that then
strange that they would bother adding it if it just messes things up
THANKS
well it's getting late and im gona call it a night
Its a bitcoin core thing and it had a reason sometime in the past. I forgot what it was, but IIRC it was refering to some sort of numbering of transactions. Its just always '-000' for me as well. You can use "show transaction details" and copy from the little window instead or get used to remove 4 symbols at the end of every TX ID. |
|
|
|
The tech. information and discussions here are very valuable to me as a relative newbie, and I feel that if I keep getting posts deleted, then I risk a ban or suspension. I'm coming to the conclusion that I should keep quiet, and only contribute to the technical discussions.
I dont know bout that,last time a user Japa was posting some important/useful technical details and i couldn't find his thread when i needed.I think someone in staff does not likes excess technical stuff. Japa was just dumping links and other data. It was hardly usefull at the end, hence the thread was deleted. AFAIK they are banned. @Jet Cash: comments about where a thread should be or that its against the rules can be see as "offtopic to the thread" which would allow mods to remove those posts. I tend to just report the thread/post in question and unwatch it (or dont watch it in the first place). Humour is indeed difficult in an online environment and sometimes jokes get removed. I wouldnt bother about that too much unless you have posts removed constantly or in high numbers. |
|
|
|
|
I dont think big red letters is your problem, but you tend to post several times in a row. You might want to get used to the "edit" button.
Whether or not that was the problem here, I cant tell.
|
|
|
|
Not sure if this belongs here but could not find the other closest section to my query. The question is :Suppose that everyone in a group of N people wants to communicate secretly with the N–1 others using symmetric key cryptographic system. The communication between any two persons should not be decodable by the others in the group. The number of keys required in the system as a whole to satisfy the confidentiality requirement is The options are :
A) 2N
B) N(N – 1)
C) N(N – 1)/2
D) (N – 1)2Need this for a project I'm working on.Logical explainations appreciated. Sounds like Im doing your homework here. Oh well. We are using symmetric keys so each pair of people that wants to communicate need 1 key. If n is 3 and the names are Alice, Bob and Claire we get the following pairs. A-B A-C B-C All other possible pairs (like B-A) are doubles. I will leave it for you to find the general formular for any n. If you have trouble finding a solution start from 3 and ask yourself how many additional(!) keys you need to add for the 4th person. Repeat adding more people until you see a pattern and test for a higher number. |
|
|
|
The following is my understanding, the basis for my above statement, and may be incorrect. When Satoshi and other earlier designers of digital currencies worried about "double-spending" in their systems, I was under the assumption they were referring to an actual duplication of the digital currency in a standard transaction. Satoshi overcame this long lasting problem of duping in other systems, by creating the blockchain system. As a result, when an attempt at a double-spend occurs, it can't be considered a true or successful "double-spending" as before because only one of the spends will ever be valid, in the Bitcoin system. Before Bitcoin, there were two valid spends, aka a "double-spend". Prior to the blockchain, a double-spend's definition was the actual duping of the money. Now, you are saying the commonly accepted double-spend's definition seems to be only when anyone pushs the same outputs twice. According to the bitcoin wiki: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Double-spendingBitcoin protects against double spending by verifying each transaction added to the block chain
to ensure that the inputs for the transaction had not previously already been spent. By the above explanation, I assumed when "Bitcoin protects against double spending" it was in regards to my definition. When the explanation uses the term "double spending", I think the context is with my definition. Either I'm very wrong or giving this too much thought. In bitcoin, it is impossible to double spend in the conventional definition of the term. However the new definition of the term in the context of bitcoin is any transaction which spends the same inputs of any transaction that has already been broadcasted. OK, well I don't claim to be a Bitcoin expert, I only came upon Bitcoin in Late 2013. My understanding comes from what I have read previously. Maybe the bitcoin wiki page should be made more clear then. To me, it seems to use the term "double spend" incorrectly at times when trying to define it. It makes it seem Bitcoin "prevents" double spending, when according to the new definition, Bitcoin actually allows "double spending", but only one spend will be prevented from being confirmed. Is there a place online where a glossary of official terms for Bitcoin is available? Like what a "spend" is actually defined as. Edit: fixed typo and added the word "official terms"I think the wiki is fine and so is it to use "double spend" in a difference sense or with a different understanding and context. Hence my remark towards the context in which the question was asked. I think OP is aware that a traditional double spend is impossible with bitcoin. The way I've always thought of it is that a "spend" is not considered a spend until it is published on the ledger. If it is broadcast but not confirmed then it is only a "promise to pay" and nothing more until it is published. One should never accept a zero confirmation broadcast as a valid payment until it is published as a confirmed transaction in the ledger. Do we have a consensus here?
Well as someone that runs a full node I can take this "promise to pay" (me or someone else) and keep rebroadcasting it until it is indeed confirmed. Under certain circumstances I do accept 0-conf payments as paid, e.g. when I know my end of the deal requires some hours to pass and Im confident the TX will confirm. All that nit picking aside, yes I think we can agree that a bitcoin payment is only done once it has at least one confirmation. A "double promise" sounds clunky though. |
|
|
|
I maybe going crazy  I installed Bitcoin-qt 0.12 on OSX El Capitan, started it, it starts syncing then I stopped it so I can change the datadir to directory on my USB HD... I open finder (I enabled to see hidden files) and go to ~/Library/Application Support/ but NO Bitcoin folder there !! did something change with 0.12? can't find any info about it. Please help... I don't know where to put bitcoin.conf now Not sure about your issue, but you cant change the datadir with the bitcoin.conf file as the file is within the datadir. You have to pass a path durring launch or create links. |
|
|
|
How about a decentralised trust system -snip- such as the one found over on thebot.net and hackforums.net
-snip-
How do these systems work in comparisson to here? he is basically saying to remove the default trust, nothign new, but his forum alone is a centralized environment, you can not have a decentralized system in a centralized environment, sound like an oxymoron to me Well theymos has suggested an improvement that would result in more diverse trust lists. It was voted on and not accepted though. The idea was to force users to build their own trust lists out of suggestions. I agree though the admins own the house and there will be no free state in it. |
|
|
|
According to https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions, there are currently 1800kB+ of unconfirmed transactions... Around 950kB are in each block, so not all of these will make it into the next block... (and more transactions keep piling up) Only the 50% with highest fees will get mined in the next block... if you put a low/zero fee, it might sit for days before confirming You can try clearing the tx out of your wallet and re-sending it with a higher fee (double-spend), or giving it the occasional bump so it stays in memory (default bitcoin setting removes stale transactions after 72 hours) I set up a relay if you want to try broadcasting the transaction from a different origin: http://services.moloch.net/broadcastThanks, but what's going on here is a little more perplexing. I, and others on here, have no unconfirmed transactions in our Transaction List, yet an amount still shows as pending. We are having a hard time even identifying which transaction this pending amount would relate to. And this issue only arose after updating to 0.12. Before updating, I had, e.g., 1 bitcoin showing up as my confirmed balance with 0 pending. Now, after updating, I show 0.8 confirmed and 0.2 pending. Do a -rescan. With the update to 0.12 came some changes to the wallet part as well. There might have been a hickup somewhere. |
|
|
|
Did it stop the trades? It will never but the Thinking to force them as far as you can just because "forcing for a good cause is Right" is what i am talking about. Im still not entirely sure how to handle the gift cards, but I dont like the idea of letting carders just be for a lack of evidence. How is this relevant here? I dont see anything related to (potentially) stolen gift cards.
Those are the risks for a third party interference and i linked that because you said i am "inhumane". Because you brought up the rape example. |
|
|
|
-snip-
a cultural difference that is in play,because it feels quite clear to me that there is some misuse of power.
or you are biased and your opinion should be discarded here. -> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1363981.0Edit: Allow me to clarify why I posted this. The discussion lacks good arguments as to why the two should be removed from DT. They are abusive is one argument, yet clear cases of abuse have not brought forth, besides for the gift cards. There is another thread discussing whether DT members should go against gift card sellers or not. I have a strong feeling that this (and the other two threads) are here for the same reason. Lutpin and mexxer-2 are new to DT so it is easier to attack them than others that took a stance against gift card sellers. It is in no way meant to attack or discredit you as a person, I think I just understood why this comes now and for what reason. |
|
|
|
That's not my case though. My memory is not eaten by any such thing as disk cache (GKrellm and htop account for it), it appears and is handled as taken by a program, as if Bitcoin Core was still running. To give you an idea, keeping Bitcoin Core open for about 8-12 hours results in a kernel panic because Linux just keeps allocating more and more memory to program usage without freeing it.
Could it be the number of unconfirmed TX that pile up in your mempool? If so, upgrade to 0.12 as it stops that (by default the cap is at 300 MB). |
|
|
|
|
I personally think its a shame that every single one of these threads end up like this. I found it very interesting to read that classic and core essentially have the same goals (2MB + SegWit) just prefer a different order.
|
|
|
|
Kleine Anmerkung zum ersten Post: Verschlüsselung ist immer ein SHA mit 2048bit
Soweit ich weiß wird mit PGP 2048 bit und AES 128 bit verschlüsselt. SHA(1,2,3) ist ohnehin nicht zur Verschlüsselung geeignet. |
|
|
|
|
I seem unable to finish without answering questions 6, 7 and 8.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
