Please do not hijack other people's threads with your own question/issue. Make a new thread instead. I have split your post into a new thread for you.

---

Check that your router is forwarding post 8333 to the right IP address. It sounds like it is set to forward port 8333 to your laptop's IP address, not your Raspberry Pi's. The router does not automagically know which IP address it should forward a port to, so you must tell it.

The SHA256 of the file on virustotal matches that in the SHA256SUMS.asc file, so the download is legitimate. The executable is fine and safe. The detections on virustotal are false positives. Bitcoin Core is often flagged as a virus because it looks for a wallet.dat file (so usually considered a coin stealer) and it contains mining logic (so also considered a bitcoin miner). These are true, but are also integral to Bitcoin Core functioning properly; it is the software the makes the wallet.dat file that many viruses try to steal. It also contains logic for mining blocks, but this is only for testnet and regtest networks now. If you have verified that the sha256 of the file matches the sha256 in SHA256SUMS.asc and you have verified the PGP signature in SHA256SUMS.asc, then the file is safe and not a virus.

That is off topic for this forum. I don't know why, as I don't use litecoin. It would be better to ask that question in the altcoin section.

Update your source code to the latest version from litecoin's github repo and then build it.

If 6btb.com is the website which has your "personal deposit address", then that is the service that you are using. Since they are just a service, you do not have control over the spends from 1Eh6Me7Kvq3sxVd7AVMBU1vJHtgiw2TYQe (nor are you supposed to). The address belongs to the service, and if they need to send Bitcoin to someone, they may choose to spend the coins from that address. This does not mean that they are stealing your money; rather they have recorded your deposit in their internal database system and credited your account on their system. The Bitcoin now belongs to them, and they owe you the amount that you deposited. If you withdraw from the service, you will likely be paid from addresses which are not your "personal deposit address".

What wallet or service are you using?

The activation of BIP 91 itself could cause a chain split since it requires all blocks after it activates to signal for segwit. Since only 80% of the hashrate supports segwit2x, these is a possibility that the remaining 20% won't be signalling for segwit following BIP 91's activation and thus cause a chain fork (their blocks would be invalid without segwit signalling).

A couple of corrections

BIP 148 will activate SegWit by November, not necessarily in November.

Note that the split will possibly happen when the Median Time Past is after August 1st, so the split would likely happen ~1 hour after midnight UTC as the MTP is usually 1 hour behind real time.


You should also include information about Segwit2x which will activate segwit via BIP 91 and then hard fork 12960 blocks after Segwit is activated.

No, they are not different; they are the same. The "official" UASF binaries can be found here: https://github.com/UASF/bitcoin/releases (and these are the ones linked to from other places).

Possibly. There may or may not be chain split; it depends on whether enough miners support BIP 148.

No one knows. That requires us to be able to predict the future, which is literally impossible. No one can say what will or will not happen until after August 1st.

Choose whatever wallet you want to use. Just check that they are supporting the proposal you support and that they have proper protections in place to ensure you are following the chain that you want to if a fork happens.

Asking about UASF or BIP 148 is off topic for this thread.

No. Bitcoin Core does not support any current UASF.

Compiling is the process of building an executable from source code. It has nothing to do with supporting or not supporting a proposal in Bitcoin. You can compile a version of Bitcoin Core which has BIP 148 support. You can also compile a version of Bitcoin Core which does not. You can also just download and install the pre-compiled versions of those software.

Bitcoin Core does not support BIP 148. This is simply a fork of Bitcoin Core maintained by supporters of BIP 148. It is frequently updated with the latest changes from Core (as new releases are made) and a small patchset with the BIP 148 stuff is applied on top.

Any consensus rule change requires that all software must have their source code updated, recompiled, and released as a new version (it must have proper versioning, otherwise users will be confused). This is usually done on the developer's side as they will publish pre-compiled binaries for you to download and install.

The latest versions Core will be able to read any previous wallet format. The wallet format is forwards compatible (something created in the past can be read by stuff made later) but not backwards compatible (something created now may not work on previous versions).

No, breaking (by break I assume you mean a pre-image attack) SHA256 or SHA512 will not effect your private keys at all. SHA256 is not used in anything related to key derivation. SHA512 is used in key derivation, but you don't actually know the SHA512 hash unless you have a private key from the wallet, and even then, you only know half of the hash, not the full hash, so you can't find the preimage which would be the parent private key. These hash functions really are not involved in hardware wallets at all.

The blockchain has nothing to do with your public and private keys. Hardware wallets really only deal with ECDSA public and private key pairs. The blockchain data and anything about the blockchain will not effect the security of your keys. The only thing that can expose your private keys is a vulnerability in ECDSA itself and your own stupidity.

It's actually horribly hacky (and I didn't realize this until I read the code).

The redeemscript is actually a blob of data which is pushed to the stack first. Once the script (input and output script, no redeemscript) is interpreted once, the verifier checks if the scriptPubKey was a P2SH script (of the form OP_HASH160 <hash> OP_EQUAL). If it is, it pops the first item from the stack (which will be the redeemscript) and interprets that as a script and runs it. So the input script only consists of pushes since the redeemscript is really just a push of X bytes and is only later actually treated as a script.

Bitcoin works via creating outputs and spending from outputs. When you create an output and no transaction has spent from it, then it is an unspent output. If there is a transaction which spends from the output, then it is spent.

Outputs have a certain script, and usually these scripts (but not always) require someone to produce a digital signature which verifies with the public key which hashes to the hash specified in the output script. These outputs are pay to pubkey hash outputs and are represented as addresses beginning with a 1. The people who can spend from an output are those that can create an input script which, when concatenated with the output script of the output it spends from, must verify to true. Otherwise the transaction is invalid.

It's important to note that only input scripts containing pushes are standard.

No. ASIC stands for Application Specific Integrated Circuit. They are, as the name implies, Application Specific. The circuitry in an ASIC is designed only for performing one hash function, so unless the altcoin uses the same hash function as the ASIC is designed for, then you won't be able to mine different altcoins with an ASIC. It's important to note that most altcoins do not use the SHA256d hash function that Bitcoin uses.

No

If you are using a version older than 0.96.0, you won't see the addresses in the wallet properties dialog if you haven't actually "used" the address (i.e. clicked the Receive Bitcoins button). However the wallet still knows about those addresses and should be able to sign for them.

This topic has been moved to Trashcan.

Duplicate