0.9 bitcoin got lifted off the uncompressed address 20 minutes after they deposited it. The other possibility is that this is a particularly stupid brainwallet, rather than flawed software. that will never happen with dice rolls no matter how bad the dice are biased. True, but you are simply trading one set of potential vulnerabilities for another. Just because thus particular one is impossible with dice, does not make dice inherently better or safer. |
|
|
|
|
It doesn't even have to be something expensive like a car or yacht. The criminal in question could quite easily just start spending those 24 BTC to cover their daily expenses, groceries, gas, bills, etc. We never ask merchants to ask for the history of the fiat they accept, and we never raid them and take away bills in their registers which was once used by criminals.* Why would we accept this treatment for bitcoin?
*This is despite the fact that due to serial numbers, bills can be traced precisely, and I can say with 100% certainty that a specific bill was used in a crime, whereas this is impossible as soon as bitcoin has been split or consolidated, as you can no longer say which bitcoin is which.
|
|
|
|
but my question is what are the chances of someone cracking PIN with some external software/hardware attack? From a pure numbers point of view, Ledger allow the lowest number of guesses (3), with a PIN between 4 and 8 characters. This gives a lower limit of 1 in 3,333 and an upper limit of 1 in 33,333,333. Passport allows 21 guesses but with a longer PIN between 6 and 12 characters, giving a lower limit of 1 in 47,619 and an upper limit of 1 in 47,619,047,619. So it compares favorably. If you are talking about an attack which can bypass the PIN counter, then whatever the PIN counter is set to is irrelevant. |
|
|
|
That currently works only because Bitcoin is not widely accepted by merchants, so regulators simply couldn't enforce stupid regulations on everyone. All the more reason for the community to send a message now and stop using any service which enforces taint or demands KYC, before such requirements become too widespread to avoid. The only remaining possibility then would be to meet each other live in person with Cash Fiat and Crypto. I've done this more than once. Yes, there are risks involved, but there are risks involved with any method of trading and I find face to face to be both easier and safer than many other methods. People buy goods and services face to face billions of times a day around the world, and the vast majority of transactions proceed without issue. |
|
|
|
And now with all the changes to their services it becomes a huge risk for anybody dealing larger sums of money through them. My understanding is accepting PayPal is always a risk, since it is trivial for the buyer to initiate a chargeback. It's for this reason that good DEXs such as Bisq don't support PayPal as a payment option. I would advice everybody to move all his money away from PayPal as soon as it arrives, don't let anything sit there for a few days. It makes no difference. Have a look at the quotes from their User Agreement I shared in this post. If they want to seize your money or reverse a payment, they will take it from your PayPal balance. If your PayPal balance is empty, they will pull it from any of your linked payment methods, including bank accounts or credit cards. If they still can't take your money, they'll send debt collectors after you. Whether or not the money is in your PayPal account is irrelevant. If you use PayPal at all, they can unilaterally decide to take your money. |
|
|
|
They are not the hacker, they haven't stolen but they have exchanged something with him and received that input. Won't it get them some hassle? It might, but the hassle comes entirely from the fact that the centralized platform they are using fundamentally does not understand how bitcoin works and is attacking bitcoin by perpetuating the nonsense that some bitcoin are worth less than other bitcoin. The hassle does not come at all from the bitcoin in question being intrinsically dirty, tainted, or any different to any other bitcoin. And as I said above, if you are ever faced with such a scenario, the correct answer is not to accept that the bitcoin you are trying to spend are somehow less valuable, but rather to find a different service which does not make such ridiculous arbitrary judgements. Well, the problem is with centralized services only. Precisely. Just use bitcoin peer to peer without going through a centralized third party - as it was always intended to be used in the first place - and any problems with taint or other made up nonsense completely disappear. |
|
|
|
|
Five explorers, five different block heights. Lol.
Looking again at the two I quoted before (which are the two which seem closest to the chain tip), they are again showing different blocks. Taking block 761,998, viawallet has an almost empty block from the unknown miner with a hash of 00000000000000000988466f0965faa0ad16c5208a6053ba4868c8ef17b3cde4, while whatsonchain has a qdlnk 4GB block with a hash of 000000000000000007765478946ed0cfeda56343ab956699bb39d1b9b44696d3.
This seems to be the case every time I check. Just endless conflicting blocks and stale chains. Reorgs within reorgs.
|
|
|
|
Try telling that to all the people who are using shitcoins like ethereum, that now have 52% of all blocks being OFAC compliance, it's growing all the time according to mevwatch.info, and now it has built in censorship for transactions! Shitcoins gonna be shit. A mining pool (MARA) tried this OFAC compliant nonsense on bitcoin once, and it lasted a grand total of about 10 blocks before they had to reverse their decision. As it should be. I sure don't like this, but closing my eyes won't change the fact that people can run into problems if someone catches them with coins coming from some hacks and exploits. People can run in to problems if they use centralized platforms which treat bitcoin as non-fungible based on entirely arbitrary guesswork. It has nothing to do with the bitcoin themselves, and everything to do with the centralized platform. One solution is to stop using centralized exchanges and services, that will reduce potential problems, but you can't avoid them totally. You can absolutely avoid them totally. I've been buying/selling/trading/using/saving/spending bitcoin for years. I'd wager I'm in the top 1% of bitcoin users in terms of actually using bitcoin as a currency, almost daily. Every single one of my coins has been mixed, coinjoined, or otherwise obfuscated. I have literally never once had a problem with someone refusing one of my coins or demanding KYC or any other such nonsense, precisely because I refuse to do business with anyone who attacks and undermines bitcoin's very existence by treating it as non-fungible. Here's an analogy: I am a merchant. You want to buy some things from me. You try to pay with cash. I say "I cannot see the full history of this cash, so I refuse your money". So instead, you tap your debit card. I say "I cannot accept this money without knowing the full history of it". I demand access to your bank account so I can see where all your money comes from. You leave and come back with your bank statements, but I don't like what I see, so I refuse payment. You then try to pay with PayPal. I demand access to your PayPal account so I can see where all your money comes from. You unlock your PayPal account on your phone and hand it over for me to look at. This PayPal money looks OK to me, so I accept it. You then leave the shop and start telling all your friends "Make sure when you shop there you have all your bank statements with you so the merchant can look at them, and make sure none of your money comes from anywhere except your employer, since they can't trace those funds." Your friends all look at you like you are crazy, and then simply choose to shop with the merchant next door who doesn't do any of this nonsense. Whenever this situation comes up, with the discussion of centralized exchanges and privacy, it always seems that the default position is "Sacrifice all your privacy and let people spy on you so that you can use a centralized exchange". In any other financial situation that would be seen as utterly crazy, as I've just shown above, but for some reason with bitcoin people just accept this nonsense? The problem here is not mixers, or coinjoins, or Monero, or any other privacy technique - the problem here is centralized exchanges. If you don't want a centralized exchange to seize your coins, then don't use a centralized exchange. There are plenty of decentralized exchanges to choose from. The logical position when faced with entities which are stealing coins is not "I should bend over backwards and sacrifice everything to hopefully mean they don't steal my coins!", but rather to simply not use the entity which is stealing coins. Most of the power of authoritarianism is freely given. In times like these, individuals think ahead about what a more repressive government will want, and then offer themselves without being asked. |
|
|
|
yes true but in this current bear market they might having huge loss since the second biggest coin ETH can't be mine and the price of the energy keep touch higher high when inflation and war explode
Ethereum's proof of work algorithm was different to that of Bitcoin's, so Bitcoin ASICs could not be used to mine Ethereum and vice versa. Ethereum becoming more centralized with PoS is irrelevant to Bitcoin's hashrate. And as we know from multiple studies and reports, the majority of bitcoin mining utilizes renewable energy, the price of which is entirely unaffected by Russia limiting gas exports and similar events. |
|
|
|
Thanks for your response. In short, with all the possible supply chain attacks out there, we want to encourage that customers only purchase Passport from us or from an official reseller. If it was possible to reset Passport to factory state, I think we'd see a lot of used devices on Ebay and such, and I think that sets a bad security precedent.
There's no way to factory reset Passport even if you know the PIN – you can wipe the device and create/restore a seed, but you cannot ever reach the "Welcome to Passport" setup screen. I take your point about not allowing a factory reset back to the Welcome screen, but I'm not sure this fully explains the requirement to brick the device however. Since you can already wipe the device and return to the restore a seed option, then surely you could just implement a similar wipe once you hit the 21 PIN limit? That way you keep the exact same protections against resetting to a factory state, while also not forcing users to buy a new device if they accidentally brick their wallet. |
|
|
|
Since when I start using Computer, it is windows that I have been using so I can't use another operating system. And there was a time when you couldn't use Windows either. "I can't use it yet" is not really a reason to never try anything new, since anything new will be, well, new. Linux is no more harder to "get the hang of" than Windows is. They have the same interface, and since I have not use them I will prefer windows to them. Which is why I suggested Linux Mint. If you do an image search for Linux Mint, you will see the interface is very similar to that of Windows (as well as being completely customizable to your own personal taste). Still, if you are dead set on Windows you should at least upgrade to a non-insecure version, since continuing to use a very outdated Windows 7 risks the security of your coins. |
|
|
|
How are you going to divide the block subsidy (not the block reward/fees) among multiple participants? Why would a mining pool only divide the subsidy between all participating miners in their pool and not similarly divide the fees? If the total block reward is 1 sat and 0.5 BTC in fees, then the mining pool will divide the full 0.50000001 BTC between all the miners. |
|
|
|
not sure what other methods you had in mind though. Either flipping a coin or using Bitcoin Core on a clean, airgapped Linux machine. without any control over that process, someone could maybe affect the outcome slightly (introduce a bias). True, but even if they do, such a bias will be eliminated by using von Neumann's algorithm as above. |
|
|
|
Given, there was no data collecting at the time I made the switch from BTC into ETH and back, then the only possibility to reconstruct the trace between the two blockchains would be ...
-the point of time and
-the amount of the coin (together with the coin market price)?
Right? Maybe. Or maybe the wallets you were using leaked your IP address. Or maybe you later check those addresses through a blockchain explorer or SPV wallet and leak your IP address that way. Or maybe those addresses are used again in the future and leak information that way. There are a lot of other sources of information that blockchain analysis companies can draw on. So if someone knows, that a particular BTC address is mine, and then I make some transfers to another BTC address of mine and only then make the switch to ETH, this person does not know, until which BTC address the BTC's are still under mine possession. Maybe. Or maybe your addresses can all be linked together because they are all part of the same SPV wallet. Or you look them all up from the same browser fingerprint or the same IP address. Or even the software you are using includes unique identifiers within the transaction data itself. If you are going to go through all this hassle just to avoid using a mixer (although I'm still not clear why), then why would you use anything other than Monero? |
|
|
|
|
Is there any reason you are absolutely tied to Windows? Any software you are using which only works on Windows?
If not, then I would strongly consider moving to good Linux distro. Not only will it be open source which Windows isn't, but it will be better in terms of security and privacy, it will be much lighter in terms of requirements, it will run faster, and you will easily be able to find and install any drivers or packages which you need. Even if you've never used Linux before, there are distros designed exactly for this purpose which are easy to install and use. Linux Mint is the closest to Windows in terms of look and feel.
|
|
|
|
Wait, what? Did they miss the part where this miner has the majority hashrate on the chain and is finding ~80% of all blocks? The only way the could "freeze" their block rewards is to convince literally every person and every service which still uses BSV to not accept these coins. They can't actually prevent the miner from moving their coins since they can just mine their own transactions with their majority hashrate. Or maybe they are planning to fork to a new algorithm which only accepts blocks from Taal? BSV is so centralized already then such a fork would literally make no difference, lol. Just fork to an Excel spreadsheet on CSW's personal laptop at this point. I'm also laughing at the fact that when Taal does manage to find a block, since it is 4 GB, in the time it takes to propagate across the network to the unknown miner, the unknown miner has often just found their own block in the meantime and orphans the 4 GB block. But tell me again about how big blocks don't cause any problems.  |
|
|
|
ps: I'm wondering how pools are going to divide 1 sat to multiple miners during 2136-2140. The block subsidy might only be 1 sat, but there are still all the fees to consider, which will result in a block reward far higher than a single sat and easily divided between multiple participants. Every miner, investor has own limit and when we have a majority of miners reach their limits, we likely witness a miner capitulation. That's not how it works. There will not be a mass capitulation like that. If an individual miner reaches their limit and turns off all their equipment, then by doing so they make mining easier and therefore more profitable for every other miner they leave behind. It's a self correcting process. |
|
|
|
Must this adversary (or any data collector) be watching me live, exactly to the time point, if I would make the swap with ETH? No, not at all. Given that both Bitcoin's and Ethereum's blockchains are completely public, anyone can look back at any point in the future and try to link your transactions together. Hence why you would want to use Monero. And if at that time point there was no data collecting and I have moved the ETH around, waited as long as possible before swapping back,
then in retrospect it would be the same with ETH like Monero?
Again, no. Since Ethereum is public, then simply moving coins around a bit is easily tracked, which again is another reason to use Monero, since such movements cannot be tracked. But as I mentioned above, given how complicated this is, and the many potential pitfalls, most people just opt to use a mixer instead. |
|
|
|
These codes simply represent groupings made by walletexplorer.com. It groups addresses together based on these addresses being used together as inputs in the same transaction, with the assumption that this means they belong to the same entity. Each group of such addresses is given a code if walletexplorer is unable to identify who that group belongs to. Last I checked, walletexplorer.com is quite outdated and does not know of many of the newer wallets belonging to various exchanges and services. You might have better luck checking out the following sites: https://oxt.me/https://www.breadcrumbs.app/ |
|
|
|
The already low block reward and the steadily falling prices have put a lot of miners out of business Nonsense. Hash rate is at an all time high, and indeed, has seen some of the fastest growth we've ever seen over the last few months. https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/hashrate-btc-sma7.html#alltimeI also think that this loan offer of Binance is like a wolf in sheep's skin, ready to take advantage of the mining company that has difficulty in maintenance. It's a win-win for Binance. Give out a loan to a struggling miner, using their assets as security. Either they pay back the loan and Binance make a profit, or fail to pay the loan and Binance take their assets, which will likely include all their mining gear, meaning Binance get to grow their own operation. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
