You can ask about the altcoins in that section. But in general and for most wallets take a look here: https://walletsrecovery.org/ it is a list of all the major wallets and the standard derivation paths that they. If you entered something different or did something custom then it's going to be very difficult and time consuming to dig it out. -Dave |
|
|
|
|
Also are you obligated to use the router your ISP gave you?
Here in the US (and in a lot of places in the world) they give you a really cheap one that works. BUT, you can go out to your local electronics store and get a much better one.
What is the make / model of your router? Might just be a setting in an oddball place that you have to find to set it.
-Dave
|
|
|
|
That address is just a mail box place. The ones that let you get a real looking address when you might not have one.  Not saying it's bad, up until the middle of 2021 one of the larger bandwidth aggregators in downstate NY was using one to ship out and get back $100s of thousands of dollar of routers a month. So many legitimate places do use those services. -Dave |
|
|
|
2022-02-20T19:10:24Z init message: Rescanning…
2022-02-20T19:10:24Z [default wallet] Rescanning last 724202 blocks (from block 0)...
2022-02-20T19:10:24Z [default wallet] Rescan started from block 000000000000000003***************************************************f60...
So it is rescanning the entire blockchain. The 00000003***** is just the hash of a block you can copy & paste it into any block explorer and it should tell you what block it is. 724202 is just about the last block so that is fine. Make a backup copy of the wallet.dat before you do anything else. Then make another backup. If it's not dumping an error into the debug file something is probably very corrupt with it. Try to salvage the wallet. A small discussion on it: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5345802.0-Dave |
|
|
|
Check the debug.log file in the data directory to see what is happening: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Data_directory#Default_LocationAs for the time it takes to open, part of the issue with moving wallet.dat files is that core will go through and scan the entire blockchain from the beginning if it has not seen that wallet.dat file before. Remember, it has no idea of what may or may not have changed and what transactions have been sent, so it's going to re-validate the entire thing. New wallets should not take that long as @LoyceV said, but there could be other things happening in the background slowing the machine up. What are it's specs? A new i7 is going to perform a lot better then a 6 gen old i3.... -Dave |
|
|
|
|
I know I have brought this up before, but:
We all want BTC to become more and more mainstream and we all want BTC to be used everywhere.
BUT, how much are we willing to give up to get it there?
In many places in the world credit & debit cards are just the way people spend money. Without getting into all the good and bad things and all the other stuff about them one thing they do do is allow for a large amount of purchase tracking.
I have a fair number of cards that I rotate though. Some are for certain things only others are more general use. Depends on limits, any cash back offers, and other things.
One of the cards I have is a Sears MasterCard issued by CitiBank. It was originally just a Sears store card, but when they imploded they changed it to a MasterCard.
It has a stupid high interest rate and the rewards it offers (CitiBank ThankYou points) are fair at best.
So I rarely use it.
The other day I got an email from them. Spend $500 a month in Gas / Restaurants / Food Stores and get 15X points back up to $600 a month in spending at those locations. Works out to about 12.5% cash back. Guess which card went into my wallet and I have been using to get gas and food :-)
My Amazon card gives me 5% back at Amazon. BoA has a card that gives 3% back on online purchases. Discover has the 5% back on different things every quarter and so on.
Coinbase has their debit card with 4% rewards (not in BTC but some alt) but beyond that there is not much.
Paying with BTC direct we get none of that.
I use BTC a lot, but there are also many many times when I could that I use a card instead due to the benefits the card offers.
BTC does offer some level of privacy
But giving that up, so banks / card cards can send us directed offers, will save you some real money over time. How far are you willing to go how much extra are you wiling to spend to really use BTC? With the Sears MC I mentioned above since I do spend more then $600 a month between gas / restaurants / food stores anyway I am probably going to net back over $225 in total for doing what I do normally. Best I could do normally would be $50 in cash back at best. Either way I can't do that with BTC.
But if a BTC debit card they are came out that would give you good benefits if you let them do a lot more invasive tracking, would you do it?
-Dave
|
|
|
|
So, for those who do not know, Square (now block) is big into credit card processing and they also own CashApp I use cashapp. I also have their debit card. I was at a local restaurant the other day ( https://www.buffalogrilleli.com/ ) and they are using square for CC processing. I put in my card to pay (Citibank Sears MC running a 15% bonus cash back on restaurants more on this in another post https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5386484 ) and the terminal popped up with an enter your phone # for rewards at this restaurant. OK, I put in a Google Voice number I use for stuff like this. Got a text message on my phone about the points being added to my account, and poof the CashApp app saw the text and added it to it's list of bonuses and points with no interaction from me. The app wants to read text messages since there is nothing relevant on that phone I let it. So with all this going on, if you are really concerned with privacy would you want a hardware wallet from a company like this? Now I am saying the following, I don't give a shit at this point for me. *IF* I could go back in time I would have changed my habits about BTC & privacy and a bunch of other things 10 years ago. But I didn't, I'm known, and I am far to lazy to spend the time to put my privacy and anonymity back. I am on the old side of 50 and really have better things to do with my time. But, if you are using one of their hardware wallets and they can get that 1st breadcrumb of tracking data from something you did, they can probably track a lot more then you think. I can hear @o_e_l_e_o crying about the lack of privacy with all of this. -Dave |
|
|
|
I'm working on a personal project that requires fetching bitcoin balances for many addresses at once so I've been looking at APIs that provide this data.
Are you looking for anything more then just balances for addresses? Also, there are many open source block explorers that you can run yourself with very little setup. You will need storage space for the blockchain and database but beyond that if you can work with linux and some light database programming you can keep it all local. If the free tiers give you what you need then it's probably not worth it, but once you are paying to do it, it might be cheaper to do it yourself. Some of the nodes in a box that are out there will even do all the setup for you. You would have to configure some ini / conf files to have access off the node but beyond that, not much more is needed. -Dave |
|
|
|
|
I am going to go back to two things.
1) The saying 'There is no such thing as bad publicity':
It put Lightning Labs name out there and it put it in front of a lot of people who may not know about them But they do know about WEF
As a group here, since we think a bit differently about BTC, but others may see it as giving L2 solutions and BTC in general a boost.
2) We are all BTC enthusiasts here and understand it better.
The average person who saw the superbowl commercials last week and decided to check out BTC / crypto probably never saw this forum or even heard of it.
They do see press about the WEF.
Not saying it's good, just that it is.
-Dave
|
|
|
|
Still, they chances are too small.
Agreed that the chances are VERY small, but it's something to think about. We have to somewhat accept that the pools back end and management are 'secure' in the fact that they can't be compromised to do a 50% attack. However, since the back end of ALL of them are a deep dark secret, we don't know how secure they really are. If a state actor (or Dr. Evil) could get access to the pools themselves, then they don't need their massive mines (or volcano layer) all they need to do is compromise the back ends. And I got a full letter grade hit with a similar math thing dealing with resource allocation back in college, which was why I thought of it. 30 years later and it still bugs me.... -Dave |
|
|
|
Your numbers are off from mine. The tool he is using to make the numbers comes from a tool made by Greg Maxwell which you can access an archived version of here: https://web.archive.org/web/20181231045818/https://people.xiph.org/~greg/attack_success.htmlIt is implementing the equations found in "Section 11: Calculations" of the bitcoin whitepaper. Since p and q are probabilities, then if q is 0.1462, then p must be 0.8538. You can confirm this is you put in an attacker with a proportion of 0.49 of the hashrate. Since the honest network only has 0.51, then the attacker has a very high chance (98%) of being successful at overturning a single confirmation. If it didn't take account of this, with the attacker having 0.49 of the honest network's 1, then the chance would be somewhere in the region of 69%. What I was trying to point out was that there are 2 scenarios. One is the Government / Bond Villain. The other is a *miner* does it. If a large miner does it, say antpool since that is what was discussed, then the network math changes since the 'good' miners now have less hash power. The total hash power at the moment is 211.3 EH/s I am going to round that down to 200 for ease of math. And antpool has 14.6 % of that lets round that down to 14 once again for ease of math. 14% of 200 is 28EH/s once again, not perfect math but easy to see. If antpool goes and tries a 51% attack then it's no longer 14%, it's a larger % since you have 28EH/s going against what is now only 172EH/s -Dave |
|
|
|
As @cygan said by default Umbrel is running on TOR and you cannot disable that for now.
You *do not* need to use port forwarding it all just goes through the TOR network for connections to the outside world.
However, you should have more then 1 connection.
-Dave
Are you sure Umbrel with Tor will have many inbound connections? Not 100% sure since I have tinkered with mine a lot, all I can say is mine DID before I took it offline last month. Take a look here: https://community.getumbrel.com/t/is-there-a-way-to-increase-the-number-of-peers/5150 You might want to post a question there too and see. The community is active and willing to help. Side note, before opening ports make sure you understand the security implications of letting ANY inbound traffic into your network. -Dave |
|
|
|
|
As @cygan said by default Umbrel is running on TOR and you cannot disable that for now.
You *do not* need to use port forwarding it all just goes through the TOR network for connections to the outside world.
However, you should have more then 1 connection.
-Dave
|
|
|
|
for example if the owner of the hash rate tries to reverse a transaction with 3 or less confirms probably he can have a high chance with reversing such transactions. Let's take AntPool as an example, which is the largest mining pool at the moment. They own 14.62% of the network's hash rate according to btc.com. (30,990.56 PH/s) AttackerSuccessProbability(0.1462,1)=0.301662
AttackerSuccessProbability(0.1462,2)=0.109282
AttackerSuccessProbability(0.1462,3)=0.0409805
They have a 30.1% chance of reversing the last block, 10.9% for the last two blocks and 4% for the last three. In other words, it becomes extremely unlikely, even for the largest pool to reverse your transaction if you wait for >=3 blocks. I don't think this attack happens easily like that. It has never happened to Bitcoin before and no, it isn't easy. Your numbers are off from mine. When you did the 14.62% of the network calc did you remember to drop that amount from the network itself? Remember it would only have 85% of the hash rate it has now since they would be off doing their own thing. Either way it's just about impossible and would destroy much of the value of BTC so there would not even been an economic advantage for any of the big pools to do it. -Dave |
|
|
|
|
The other thing to keep in mind is that to do most deeper attacks say just past one or two blocks, which even now is just about impossible, would take a government or Bond Villain amount of resources.
Miners, power for the miners, massive cooling for the miners, support staff and the hidden volcano layer to hold all the miners. And so on.
-Dave
|
|
|
|
Not your keys Not your coins. I really think every APP and wallet should start with that. Let people know that yes you can keep your BTC anyplace they want. But, if it's not local to them then it's not theirs. I just bought some BTC to trade, and I left it on the exchange. I know the risks. How many people do not?  -Dave |
|
|
|
On the 1st post of the support thread the zombie issue is mentioned. Take a look: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1764803.0I asked about the hardware you were using 1st just to make sure that you were not plugging them into an non-powered hub and a RPi3 or something..... Should have mentioned that post. My bad. At a guess the previous owner messed with the voltage potentiometer. Good luck. -Dave |
|
|
|
so i have a bunch of 2pac usb miners. running cgminer and followed all the steps. starting up the miner everything looks great. then just seconds after issues start to happen. this is for all the 2pacs. i have 3 newpacs, start them all all run run. after about 5 minutes one stop working and the other 2 continue to work fine. im so baffled. did i buy all burned out miners? any help and suggestions would be grateful!!! here's photos.     not sure why the images are showing as links and not images..... Because new users can't post images. With that being said, what do you have them plugged into. The USB hub might not be able to power all of them or the power supply you are using for the hub might not be up to the task. Can we get the info on that. Also, what PC hardware are you running it on, and is it doing anything else at the time? -Dave |
|
|
|
|
A lot of the nodes in a box / pre-configured builds are on Tor or have a 1 click tor activate. Umbrel and raspiblitz come to mind. I think MynodeBTC does it too, not sure if it's in the free version or not. So if someone is spinning up a bunch of them for whatever reason it could be it.
And just to say it again, it will hide the fact that you are running a node, all your transactions are still public.
It's amazing how many people I have to explain that to.
-Dave
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
