Wenn du eine Nachricht signierst wäre nur darauf zu achten, dass du das entweder
1) mit einer legacy Adresse machst (beginnend mit 1..) oder
2) falls du Segwit verwendest, der Empfänger ebenfalls Ledger Live verwendet.

Man kann mit Segwit Nachrichten signieren, jedoch existiert bis dato noch kein Standard dafür.
Das bedeutet, dass jedes Wallet das etwas anders macht.

Nachrichten signiert mit WalletX können nicht mit WalletY überprüft werden, und andersherum.


Anstatt eine Nachricht zu signieren, könntest du ihn auch nach einer Adresse fragen.
Wenn dann BTC an diese Adresse gesendet werden, ist es klar dass es von dir kommt (sofern man für jede Transaktion eine neue Adresse verwendet).

First, you need to understand what a 'wallet' is.

A wallet basically is just a piece of software which manages your private-/public- keypairs.

A deterministic wallet says HOW it generates these keys.


Non-deterministic wallets generate random private keys and store them in a file.
Hierarchical deterministic wallets on the other hand have a long random number (a seed), which is mostly encoded into 12/24 words for easier backups.

All private keys are generated from this one seed.

It basically is a mathematical formula with the seed and the counter (index, number of priv key) as the input, and you get the private key (and therefore also the derived public key and address) as output.

MagicFormula (seed, index) -> private key from index X -> public key from index X -> address from index X

Troll or stupid ?  




No, you can't even calculate your numbers correctly.

A maximum of 12.195 transactions fit into one block.


Go and get some math lessons.




Yes, absolutely.

Doubling something is called scaling..  

You guys amaze me each time, how narrow-minded people can be. That's hilarious.




A cab has nothing to do with the bus.

So.. you are saying the LN has absolutely nothing to do with BTC ?  Please just agree on that and everyone will instantly see that you don't have ANY clue at all.




You can not 'increase scaling'.
Do you even know what scaling means ?

Or do you just use it as a buzzword ?




Absolutely.

LN is protected by bitcoins security mechanisms and some shitty altcoin is not protected at all.

Absolutely the same.


Same question as above:
Troll or stupid ?




That's EXACTLY what everyone (except for your franky troll) is thinking about you.




If that's what you really believe, you are beyond help.




That's really the most retarded comparison i have ever seen.


LN to BTC is not like a cab to a bus, but more like teleporting to a bus.
You can drive each route with the bus.. or you drive once to a teleporter, teleport as much as you want for nearly no money in nearly no time.
And at the end, you drive back with the bus.


You are delusional if you compare BTC/LN with a bus/cab. This literally makes 0 sense.



I understand why you got red trust for shittalking.
Your account here is worthless, and so is your opinion.

Instead of complaining "bla bla bla Lauda is abusing DT bla bla bla" and "omf omf omf forum giving red trust for truth omf omf omf", you should at least TRY to understand that everything you say and think is completely wrong.
Work on yourself. Work on your understanding of BTC / LN.




BTW, regarding your signature:


I had quite a big argument with Lauda regarding security of operating systems.
We had completely different opinions. And we didn't find a common ground.. but somehow.. i didn't receive red trust  

So, instead of blaming everyone else, start looking for the reasons in yourself  

This is extremely inefficient and probably will take quite some time.

The fastest approach would be some sort of a perl script. But since the there aren't too many entries in bitcoin-balances, a simple grep would be 'ok', i think:



This already is way faster than your bash script, however it is still far away from being really efficient.

Which operating system are we talking about ?

You should be able to get the latest electrum version working under windows 7 and most probably also on any linux.
I hope you don't have XP or Vista running..

Or are you on OSX < 10.11 ? In this case, your only option would indeed be to use a different computer or a bootable USB with a different OS.


As long as you have your seed (which you really should!), your coins can always be recovered.

What do you get when running the following


Do you get the same error message ?


The easiest probably would be if you simply use the AppImage.

However, if you still want pip for python3.6 to work, you might as well do this:

This downloads a python script, which contains pip as binary data.
It will install pip for the used python version.

Did you already found out where your external drive is mounted ? What is the path to your external drive ?

Search for the bitcoin folder on your hard drive and copy this exact path into the armory settings (bitcoin home directory).


If this does not work, do what HCP said, and copy the path into the armoryqt.conf file (inside of the armory directory):


If you somehow run into trouble, try to explain what exactly doesn't work as intended.

It would help us a lot if you could post your armoy logs.

Upload them to https://pastebin.com/ or any similar site and provide us the URL.

My guess would be that some configuration is wrong. Without the logs we can't say whether it is the directory or anything else. 

It can happen if the drive has been formatted.
If you want to recover sensitive (and valuable) information, you indeed shouldn't boot from this drive anymore.

The correct way to clone this hard drive without simply 'connecting' it, would be to clone it with an write-blocker in between the hard drive and the computer accessing it.

Write-blocker are devices which block any writing to the hard drive, but allow reading.
They can either be hardware-write-blocker (small devices, costs money) or software-write-blocker (partially free).

However, a simple way would be to mount the drive read-only in a unix system. Not as safe as using a hardware-write-blocker, but doesn't require additional hardware.


One should always create 2 raw images and only perform recovery on such an image. Never on the original drive.

This formatting is horrible to read.

If your computer is compromised and an attacker gains access to your credit card details, it will most probably be sold on a dark market, yes.


If you are setting up an offline computer (always offline, not even online a single minute), you basically do have a cold storage.
This already eliminates tons of attack vectors.

You'd still have to think about how to transfer signed/unsigned transactions and the direct access to your computer (evil maid scenario).
If you have a concept for both of them (transfer / HW access), your coins will be extremely secured.


I am not exactly sure what you mean with your hard drive and the reformatting. Can you elaborate this please ?

Offensichtlich schon 

IMO this is more of a recommendation instead of forcing them.
And this is good. Bech32 has more positive aspects than negative.

Anything which increases the usage of segwit should be regarded as healty for the BTC community / network.




Or, we start demanding that user at least try to understand what they are dealing with.
Bitcoin is not like paypal. At least some small knowledge should be built around it.

And even if they don't.. they just need to search via google and will find more than enough threads dealing with the same problem.
Anyone who is capable of googling could fix this issue within minutes.

How did you come to the number of 25% ?

I believe way more transactions are effectively sending less than 100$.


Did you just 'count' all transactions with inputs of less than 100$ ? Because that would have been a mistake.
IMO it is pretty hard to get an accurate number.

If i have 1 UTXO with 1 BTC and want to send 0.001 BTC, the input will still be 1 BTC and probably not count towards your <100$ transactions ?
1 BTC has been transacted, but effectively only 0.001 because 0.999 went back to me.

We won't have this 'problem' of getting an accurate number when using the LN.


Based on this i believe way more than 25% effectively are <100$ transactions.

As already mentioned, yes.

This is not specific to firmwares. Updating is always the preferred way.
It is a trade-off between features/security and compatibility/usability.

The general consensus is to always update, since it has more pros than cons.




I have already replied to this:





Not necessarily, you can still update the firmware without 'touching' your coins.
Simply plug in the nano s and update.




Your can always access your coins in any other BIP39 compatible wallet, as long as you have your mnemonic code backed up (which you always should!).

Yes that's indeed true.

But since the smallest on-chain unit currently is 1 satoshi, upon closing the channel the balance is going to be rounded down to the nearest satoshi.
1.5 satoshi for example would result in getting 1 satoshi when the channel is being closed.

To fully have units smaller than a satoshi, a soft fork is still necessary.

"Profis" waren das sicher nicht.

Wer komplett ohne Verschleierung seinen kriminellen Machenschaften nachgeht (wie nach einbrechen der VPN-Verbindung sich einfach ohne VPN einzuloggen), kann bestenfalls als stümperhafter Laie bezeichnet werden.




Mir würden die "unumgänglichen" Fehler interessieren?
Welche waren deiner Meinung nach denn unumgänglich ?


Ausserdem schweifst du hier vom Thema ab.
Richtig gemixte BTCs können nicht zugeordnet werden war mein Statement. Ich habe noch kein Argument von dir gehört, was das widerlegt.

Ich hab das für dich gefixt 

Guter Mixer = Anonym.
Schlechter Mixer = Leicht auffindbar mittels Blockchainanalyse.


Bevor du deinen Unsinn weiter verbreitest, könntest du mir im anderen Thread erstmal antworten wie aus meinem Beispiel eine Verbindung zwischen Pre- und Postmixing hergestellt werden kann.

Wenn du das kannst, kannst du gerechtfertigterweise vor Mixern warnen 
Ansonsten.. bitte keinen Müll verbreiten, Danke.

Den Artikel hatte ich auch gelesen.

Lustigerweise, hatte heise am Anfang "biance" statt "binance" überall im Text stehen gehabt. So viel zu deren tollen Recherche.


Egal.. Ich verstehe nicht, was das damit zutun hat ?

Ok, die Leute, die sich haben schnappen lassen waren total verdummt:

Zudem haben sie offensichtlich einen extrem simplen Mixer verwendet (Prinzip: zahle X BTC ein, bekomme fast X BTC innerhalb von paar Stunden zurück).




Das was ich in meinem Beispiel erwähnt habe, ist kein "Taschenspielertrick", sondern genug um sich jeglicher Analyse zu entziehen.
Es kommt sehr stark darauf an WIE die BTC gemixt werden.

Das Beispiel, welches ich angebracht habe, wird von keiner Analyse erfasst, weil die 2 Transaktionen ganz offensichtlich in keinem Zusammenhang stehen. Sie stehen weder von der Menge her, noch zeitlich in irgendeiner Relation zu einander.


Wenn dir doch noch einfällt WIE man diese 2 Transaktionen in Verbindung bringen könnte, immer her damit. Da bin ich ja mal gespannt  

Nein, es ist sicherer.

Legacy transaktionen haben das Problem der Transaction malleability.
Für einen Endnutzer wäre das wohl eher weniger von Relevanz, aber dafür umso mehr für Börsen / Stores / etc..

Die Transaction malleability erlaubt es einem Angreifer, eine Transaktion geringfügig zu verändern (keine Adressen / Gebühr / Betrag, nur irrelevante informationen) um den Hash zu verändern.

Damit ist es z.B. möglich von einem Exchange BTC abzuheben, die Transaktion leicht zu verändern und zu broadcasten, und sich dann (nachdem die veränderte TX bestätigt wurde) an den exchange zu wenden und zu behaupten, die TX existiert nicht.
Wenn diese dann nachschauen, stimmt es, dass die Transaktion, die sie als Auszahlung angegeben haben, nicht existiert.
Dadurch könnte man eine Börse dazu verleiten eine neue Auszahlung zu veranlassen.


Das ist auch der Grund, warum das Lightning Network mit legacy nicht funktionieren kann.
Dafür ist SegWit absolut notwendig.