If anyone found precisely the same private key as yours, he would never deposit any bitcoins on the corresponding public address, thus he would never tend to keep it safe. The first thing he would do is withdraw existing balance to another address, over which he would have full control. So, if you still scared of someone finding your private key, use hierarchical deterministic wallets (HD-wallets) in which you will only have to keep a seed phrase that is used to derive private key/public key/address for each payment.
HD wallets are not any significantly more secure as compared to the non HD wallet. While it is true that a HD wallet allows you to have a higher entropy as compared to just bruteforcing addresses, the Bitcoin public key that is generated (ECDSA) already gives 128bits of entropy. That, by itself is sufficient enough. BIP32 allows you to go above and beyond that level but it is just redundant. It would be exponentially harder to bruteforce seeds with higher security but it doesn't offer a significant advantage over any keys that has >128bits of entropy. |
|
|
|
Annoying warning as in the enter password dialog?
It's necessary for Electrum to ask for your password as the seeds/private keys are stored in an encrypted format even when you can see the balance. Electrum doesn't store the password for longer than necessary and they need the unencrypted private key to sign your message.
Oh, okay. If that's so, I will put a very easy password so I can do it quickly. Thanks for the fast response. If you don't want to encrypt your wallet with a password, just go Wallet>Password and leave both field blanks before clicking OK. It'll remove the password from your wallet. |
|
|
|
|
Annoying warning as in the enter password dialog?
It's necessary for Electrum to ask for your password as the seeds/private keys are stored in an encrypted format even when you can see the balance. Electrum doesn't store the password for longer than necessary and they need the unencrypted private key to sign your message.
|
|
|
|
I actually did. Apologies if the way I phrased it sounded like I was implying that you're the one assuming that mixers are only used by scammers. Point still stands. I don't believe 13k Bitcoins is a huge amount, relative to the amount of Bitcoin mixed regularly. Scams are bound to happen and mixers only helps to improve the privacy. If anything, this would just be a good indication that it is hard to trace Bitcoin and that privacy would be improved with the use of mixers. It could provide a justification for the government's resistance but it would be beneficial from a consumer stand point. Standard Chartered (and various other major banks) had a huge money laundering scandal and it doesn't seem to have affected the consumer market that much. |
|
|
|
|
Cryptos in general are designed to help to create a decentralised currency such that they are inherently harder to trace and are better able to preserve the privacy of users. Mixers are just a way for users to better improve their privacy and that is totally reasonable.
It's foolish to assume that all of the users of mixers are engaging in illicit activities and it is also unreasonable to stop crypto mixers just because a portion of its users are doing something illegal. Fiat is also often used to commit crime and no one has the intention to dump fiat and adopt some other currency.
|
|
|
|
|
The version is very very old. Try backing up your wallet.dat and installing a new version, preferably 0.20.0.
|
|
|
|
|
0.
As long as the transaction is valid, it will be confirmed at some point in the future. The main concern is that if another transaction emerges which spends the same inputs which would invalidate this transaction.
1 sat per byte is not uncommon and it should take maximum a week or two to be confirmed. Be rest assured that it will definitely be confirmed.
|
|
|
|
You cannot say NO and then say it is NO only for the average Joe.  The answer should be ...YES, but you have to apply strict measures to be 100% anonymous. You are also looking at this from the angle of someone hosting a node and not the average Joe that learnt how to make a secure Paper wallet.  Throw Paper wallets and Mixers together and you have a better chance to stay anonymous... until you use those bitcoins at a regulated exchange or a third party service where your real identity is linked to your payment or delivery of goods. It definitely isn't absolutely impossible but it is in a sense still fairly hard to ensure 100% anonymity. Bitcoin in the first place is not designed around the concept of anonymity but rather to enhance anonymity. Sure, moving coins around mixers would help your cause but it doesn't mean chain analysis isn't totally out of the picture, the mixer won't go rogue and reveal your origin and destination addresses. There are just too many points of failure as compared to the cryptos that were specifically designed to focus on privacy. Unfortunately, no matter how much one values its privacy, Bitcoin is probably not the best crypto for the job. |
|
|
|
technically you can. why? 2 words: Satoshi Nakamoto.
It's arguable that the things that Satoshi has never actually implicated his real life identity. His likely use of a VPN/Tor has probably made it much more difficult for people to trace him. His involvement in Bitcoin was primarily on the development and his use of obfuscation techniques probably helped his anonymity tremendously. I doubt that would be the use case of an average joe when they use Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Why? Does anyone forbids you?
Nope. It's a technical limitation. Connecting to all the nodes requires a huge amount of resources in the first place. Node discovery will not allow you to connect to all the nodes at once. Some nodes would not accept new connections due to the connection limits or just outright don't allow certain IPs to connect. Sybil attack is a term whereby an attacker would utilise all his nodes to connect to a huge amount of network nodes. You can connect to most of the nodes like bitnodes but there are still thousands of nodes which doesn't accept incoming connections. The fact that you can't connect to all of the nodes means that you'll never be able to tell which IP relayed the transaction first. |
|
|
|
Short answer: You cannot. The main characteristic of Bitcoin is it's transparency and it wouldn't allow anonymity to go hand in hand with it. At best, you can be pseudonymous. Anyone is able to trace the movement of Bitcoin on the network as it is easily accessible. Even in the case of mixer, they do help you to improve anonymity but it is still not guaranteed. A huge part of it lies with the user's practices. Both nodes and wallets use, leads to an ip address where information can be found.
Nodes knows the IP addresses of each other and it is possible for a node to predict the IP address for which a transaction has originated from but it is nowhere near accurate. For someone to be able to track this accurately, one has to connect to all the nodes within the network and that is impossible. |
|
|
|
|
Stale or orphan? You probably won't get reliable data on stale blocks since reference client doesn't usually accept blocks that are stale.
If two blocks are generated at the same time and a block is built ontop of one of them, then the other block gets orphaned. Its much more common to see these. Blockchain.com does have a page for Bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
Thanks. It's much easier to back up 12 words than a long private key for a single address, isn't it?
In my opinion? It's the same thing. Most people don't want to use the same address over and over again, mostly for privacy reasons. A seed offers much more leverage and convenience over backing up the many addresses generated when you spend your funds. |
|
|
|
Someone have the curl syntax to send from one address to one wallet?
I see this example:
{inputs:[{"wallet_name":"alice", "wallet_token":"YOURTOKEN"}], value: 5000000}
But this is example to use as inputs and id like to use a wallet for outputs, i tried a lot of combinations without success, someone can help?
Hmm, CMMIW but I don't think you can send the coins to a specific wallet instead of an address. Wallet tokens are not meant to be exposed and they don't have off-chain transactions this could easily expose the keys that is contained within the wallet. we did this method in our site: instead of using unique address for each user, generate addresses for each deposit and tell users to send payment only one time to each address and change address after a successful payment. this way you do not need to check balance of all addresses every time. you just check one when they deposit and then show summary of all addresses balance from db.
Most people won't read what you put on the site and just assume that the addresses are reusable. You'll have a bigger headache trying to transfer out the funds that were accidentally sent to old addresses than to just monitor all the addresses that was generated in the first place. |
|
|
|
|
Newbie jail was a thing in the earlier stages of the forum. Newbies were previously only allowed to post in one specific section and was allowed to post in the other parts of the forum after a specified number of posts. Needless to say, it did help with the spam by limiting it to a section but given that bounties, ICOs and signature programs were not popular back then, the effects wasn't very significant.
By limiting the topics that those with a lower rank can post in, they would probably just spam up the forum with replies until they are allowed to open new topics. I imagine that account trading could also rise due to this.
|
|
|
|
I think he was smart to do so. I would suggest some DT1 members do so.
It is late and I am tired but I may consider doing it in the morning.
It is said he owns 1,000,000+ btc and he just lets it sit.
It is not very trustworthy for him to have done this deliberatively as he could case huge damage to the market with cashing out those coins.
In a way we are all at his mercy.
What would happen to BTC if he simply went to block 10 and moved it? Followed by block 11 and just moved about 10 blocks a day for a few months in a row.
Awful lot of power in 'his' hands.
Hmm? Honestly, it doesn't really matter if you trust him or not. The account is locked and it can't be unlocked without Theymos's approval. It really doesn't matter whether you exclude him on your trust list or not since he's most probably not going to leave trust rating or anyone else. I also can't see how the fact that he's not touching his coins constitutes to him being untrustworthy; if anything, it's more like him doing us a favour by not moving them. Distrusting him solely based on this seems to be a bit extreme?  |
|
|
|
My bank allows me to transfer to other accounts instantly with zero fees. Many other banks offer you similar features.
Bitcoin is incomparable to centralized ways we currently have and one can assume that any new national digital currency will take Bitcoin over when it comes to aspects centralization can improve.
Might not be the wisest idea to keep promoting Bitcoin for fees and speed when national digital currencies show up in the market. Would be a little dead end for Bitcoin at the time and fewer people truly care about decentralized aspects of some cryptocurrencies than many think.
It's quite rare to have banks doing international bank transfers without fees in terms of the exchange rate and stuff. Bitcoin does offer a lot more advantage for it's fees and the exchange rate savings. It's pretty uncommon to see those transfers being done in 10-30 minutes either. I agree that it's not the best for cryptos in general to be promoted this way but its really the main thing the general public cares about. |
|
|
|
If you will make a vanity gen addy then do it by yourself because they are some online services who offer vanity addys, but it isn't a good idea to let them generate your private key.
Split key generation is safe. If you were to use an online service, find one with split key generation available. It wouldn't be possible for anyone to spend the funds from your vanity address without your part private key. Avoid those who generate the entire private key for you at all cost. There are quite a few scam sites which will capture your private keys. |
|
|
|
One final question them, before ditching this idea: What if "the list" was integrated with the blockchain itself? Not a separate and centralized database. But if you had the option to "burn" (expose) your private key on the blockchain, for all to see - wouldn't that accomplish "it"? Toasted public addresses as a part of the public ledger.
Which would require people to store it. Given the fact that the storage is scarce right now, it isn't a good idea. The limitation of this idea doesn't revolve about how storing a private key in a decentralised manner or not. It's that there are too many concerns regarding the leaking of private keys that prove this idea infeasible. |
|
|
|
|
Ledger and Trezor are the only two companies you should consider if you want to be safe. Ledger is probably the most popular one given it's sleek look and strong recommendations. Trezor does support loads of coins and is priced roughly the same as a Ledger (the base version at least).
I don't really favour any other companies as they are either too new or just not good/too expensive.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
