I looked through the transactions in the block explorer and couldn't understand the technical terms. In this example transaction what are Unit, Authors, Children, and Parents? Is the Unit like a Bitcoin transaction ID and the Authors like a Bitcoin sending address? https://explorer.byteball.org/#zD17W8iMLjb4Uxtt66NIcdhiCv9MCAtQFaBDY4jSXNo=Unit zD17W8iMLjb4Uxtt66NIcdhiCv9MCAtQFaBDY4jSXNo=
Authors
UGP3YFIJCOCUGLMJUFKLXLNYNO4S7PT6
Children
V1UF7jRtqFUDWsOxmSLz23rTs7s0azPbpiNrXncsH74=
Parents
EjR+BnqoiGywB7WIEpELtxjyLku2bVylF8EcAjVGteE=
KSy9G0vl4PdpqZb9VCLJ2pnZyDtcUT+gE30O3uaX9uE= Unit is hash of data unit, similar to bitcoin transaction ID, but unit can have more than just a transaction. Authors are addresses who signed the transaction, similar to bitcoin sending address. Children and parents are pointers to later and earlier units in the DAG (see the arrows between units). Thanks Also, in the advanced section of the wallet there was a string starting with xpub if I remember correctly. Is that like a Bitcoin public key, and is it safe to let others know it? <edit> This is the xpub string I referred to, and it is an extended public key for an HD wallet. https://github.com/byteball/byteball-merchantThe merchant runs as a daemon and it doesn't hold any private keys. Instead, it knows only the extended public key and uses it to generate a new receiving address for each order. xPubKey: extended public key of the home wallet that is to collect funds. To find it out, open the GUI wallet, click gear icon -> Advanced -> Wallet Information, look for "Extended public keys", double-click to select it (it starts with "xpub"), copy and paste into the conf. I only know of one problem for Bitcoin HD wallet extended public keys. You can safely reveal an extended public key, but if you also reveal one private key from any generated in the same HD wallet an attacker can calculate all the other private keys from that wallet. https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/deterministic-wallets-advantages-flaw-1385450276The problem is this: although you certainly can securely hand out child keys with no risk to the parent key, and you can hand out master public keys with no risk to the master private key, you cannot do both at the same time. The exploit for when that situation does arise is actually quite simple Does Byteball have this same problem with extended public keys and private keys? Is it safe to reveal your extended public key provided you don't reveal any of your private keys? |
|
|
|
I looked through the transactions in the block explorer and couldn't understand the technical terms. In this example transaction what are Unit, Authors, Children, and Parents? Is the Unit like a Bitcoin transaction ID and the Authors like a Bitcoin sending address? https://explorer.byteball.org/#zD17W8iMLjb4Uxtt66NIcdhiCv9MCAtQFaBDY4jSXNo=Unit zD17W8iMLjb4Uxtt66NIcdhiCv9MCAtQFaBDY4jSXNo=
Authors
UGP3YFIJCOCUGLMJUFKLXLNYNO4S7PT6
Children
V1UF7jRtqFUDWsOxmSLz23rTs7s0azPbpiNrXncsH74=
Parents
EjR+BnqoiGywB7WIEpELtxjyLku2bVylF8EcAjVGteE=
KSy9G0vl4PdpqZb9VCLJ2pnZyDtcUT+gE30O3uaX9uE= |
|
|
|
Great stuff, i agree that we need to get the crypto news outlets more aware of stratis to bring in fresh investors and userbase
If stratis adverts were placed on those crypto news outlets they might become more aware of stratis and start writing stories about it. The adverts would need paying for through either donations or from the dev. If the dev can't afford it he could put a request for donations in the OP. |
|
|
|
Hi new here.
I am confused. Are there two fedoracoin TIPS ?
One old and one new for Bter?
Yes. The old chain works better for profit (but this is a personal opinion.), it looks like someone tries to push it down atm. on Bter. Can be mined on Hash to Coins. So you have to watch which chain you are on. Did the first fedoracoin fork into two separate chains, only one of which is trading on bter? What exchange is the non-bter fork trading on, and why didn't the longest chain win? <edit> From OP: Q: Why a wallet-update that is causing a fork?A: At some point in the recent past an attacker started to orphanize every and all blocks of all other TIPS miners. The attacker was seemingly able to deliberatly orphanize any block or group of blocks he wished and claim them for himself. Ahmed aka mrbodz kindly provided a new wallet source based on latest Feathercoin sources that uses ACP, advanced checkpointing which counters this possible attack vector. Actually the new wallet would use the same blockchain as before, but would refuse to accept series of blocks that orphanize large numbers of previous (honestly) mined blocks. So as soon as the first attack started the new and improved wallet forked and stuck to the blocks of honest miners. Is bter refusing to upgrade to the new attack resistant wallet and its forked chain? |
|
|
|
... introducing the possibility to trade accounts too.
I can't find an account market on the bitsquare website. Is it showing in the app but not the website? |
|
|
|
guys,anybody use this big China exchnage? www.dabtc.com ? i have some yuan stock so i may use hem to buy btc there..  You are expert at the leo coin's cases. But I don't ever think if you don't think will use HUOBI rather than dabtc. for me personally, i prefer with huobi because huobi is much bigger than any of china market and beside that huobi have big volume and fast transaction although it will be confuse for the first time to trading in huobi. Huobi has much higher Bitcoin and Litecoin volume than dabtc. I would choose huobi if I wanted to trade Bitcoin or Litecoin on a Chinese exchange. Apart from those two coins dabtc only has seven additional altcoins, and they are low volume markets. If I wanted to trade altcoins on a Chinese exchange I would choose btc38 because it has higher volume and more markets.  |
|
|
|
Nodecoin already exists.
Node.js is easily confusable with nodecoin. There are still discussions about doing a takeover and reviving it, or a new coin using the old coin's name. There was briefly another coin called nodecoin. This is its ANN thread. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=860761.0 |
|
|
|
Many people complain about limiting to the "richest" people, why so? in real life the people have more money will be easier to make more than those with less money. It's not really the unfairness.
It's not really unfair? like provable math wise or you mean just average people common sense wise? sometimes you have to see through the eyes of the average person who will reason without doubt that rewarding those that are already super rich with the lions share is not fair at all. If you wish to start a poll on the main board discussing it and sampling opinion then go ahead. I am certain you will not find many in the alt section will share your views. Since your main initial market will be the altcoin traders then this is the market that is important to you. This has been discussed MANY time before in the alt main board and the vast majority are very much against new coins being distributed like this. Without nulling the top 2-5% of BTC wallets you can ensure this will have the "unfair" tag attached to it in the future. It is a major criticism which has been voiced in this thread a great many times already. Why not eliminate this criticism or reduce it and not have to beg the big icos and exchanges to do the right thing. The random snapshots will stop them breaking down their wallets to smaller amounts. The only thing here is the dev can not be accused of gaming it for his gain especially since unless he is a btc super whale or has agreements with those that control a substantial amount of BTC then he could end up having less than any whales that decide to claim or any exchange that does not play ball. Not sure either of those things is a great scenario. The worst aspect for him really is having other large ICO funds dumping BB on the exchanges to fund rival projects. I mean jl777 saying he will not pocket the money but rather fund komodo with it is fair enough what else could he do other than not claim (if he even said this anyway) but how is that good for BB? How can you "nulling the top 2-5% of BTC wallets"? If you do so, people can easily split BTCs into different wallets and make the requests, you won't be able to achieve your goal at all. The big icos often have their Bitcoins locked in multisig wallets that the devs agreed to keep their coins in. They agreed not to move Bitcoins out of those addresses without permission from their communities. However, they can easily use those addresses to claim BB, they made no agreement with their communities about claiming BB with their ico addresses. Our dev could easily miss out the waves, lisk, and komodo ico addresses, and those coin's devs can't move Bitcoins out of them without breaking the promises they made to their communities. If the accounts are locked, how do they make the micro payment to confirm their address? they can't obtain the signature from their escrow in this case. Most of those ico addresses are multisig addresses which can sign a message instead of making a micro payment. Each of the private key holders needs to sign the message, but that could probably be arranged. The ico buyers would start complaining if all the Bitcoins suddenly moved out of a dev's address, but they probably wouldn't notice or care if that address signed a message to claim BB.
It is possible to use multiple private keys to provide multiple signatures on a message. This is what a multisig address requires.
|
|
|
|
Many people complain about limiting to the "richest" people, why so? in real life the people have more money will be easier to make more than those with less money. It's not really the unfairness.
It's not really unfair? like provable math wise or you mean just average people common sense wise? sometimes you have to see through the eyes of the average person who will reason without doubt that rewarding those that are already super rich with the lions share is not fair at all. If you wish to start a poll on the main board discussing it and sampling opinion then go ahead. I am certain you will not find many in the alt section will share your views. Since your main initial market will be the altcoin traders then this is the market that is important to you. This has been discussed MANY time before in the alt main board and the vast majority are very much against new coins being distributed like this. Without nulling the top 2-5% of BTC wallets you can ensure this will have the "unfair" tag attached to it in the future. It is a major criticism which has been voiced in this thread a great many times already. Why not eliminate this criticism or reduce it and not have to beg the big icos and exchanges to do the right thing. The random snapshots will stop them breaking down their wallets to smaller amounts. The only thing here is the dev can not be accused of gaming it for his gain especially since unless he is a btc super whale or has agreements with those that control a substantial amount of BTC then he could end up having less than any whales that decide to claim or any exchange that does not play ball. Not sure either of those things is a great scenario. The worst aspect for him really is having other large ICO funds dumping BB on the exchanges to fund rival projects. I mean jl777 saying he will not pocket the money but rather fund komodo with it is fair enough what else could he do other than not claim (if he even said this anyway) but how is that good for BB? How can you "nulling the top 2-5% of BTC wallets"? If you do so, people can easily split BTCs into different wallets and make the requests, you won't be able to achieve your goal at all. The big icos often have their Bitcoins locked in multisig wallets that the devs agreed to keep their coins in. They agreed not to move Bitcoins out of those addresses without permission from their communities. However, they can easily use those addresses to claim BB, they made no agreement with their communities about claiming BB with their ico addresses. Our dev could easily miss out the waves, lisk, and komodo ico addresses, and those coin's devs can't move Bitcoins out of them without breaking the promises they made to their communities. |
|
|
|
Many people complain about limiting to the "richest" people, why so? in real life the people have more money will be easier to make more than those with less money. It's not really the unfairness.
It's not really unfair? like provable math wise or you mean just average people common sense wise? sometimes you have to see through the eyes of the average person who will reason without doubt that rewarding those that are already super rich with the lions share is not fair at all. If you wish to start a poll on the main board discussing it and sampling opinion then go ahead. I am certain you will not find many in the alt section will share your views. Since your main initial market will be the altcoin traders then this is the market that is important to you. This has been discussed MANY time before in the alt main board and the vast majority are very much against new coins being distributed like this. Without nulling the top 2-5% of BTC wallets you can ensure this will have the "unfair" tag attached to it in the future. It is a major criticism which has been voiced in this thread a great many times already. Why not eliminate this criticism or reduce it and not have to beg the big icos and exchanges to do the right thing. The random snapshots will stop them breaking down their wallets to smaller amounts. The only thing here is the dev can not be accused of gaming it for his gain especially since unless he is a btc super whale or has agreements with those that control a substantial amount of BTC then he could end up having less than any whales that decide to claim or any exchange that does not play ball. Not sure either of those things is a great scenario. The worst aspect for him really is having other large ICO funds dumping BB on the exchanges to fund rival projects. I mean jl777 saying he will not pocket the money but rather fund komodo with it is fair enough what else could he do other than not claim (if he even said this anyway) but how is that good for BB? Agreed, the dev should eliminate all the Bitcoin wallets from the big icos and exchanges from the snapshots. Most of those addresses are public, and strictly speaking the exchanges don't own the coins in their cold wallets, their customers own them. The ico addresses have already made their devs millionaires, they don't need more money from BYTEBALL to fund development of their coins. |
|
|
|
I have noticed a very serious security breach in electrum desktop wallet. I have set a password to secure my wallet, but it is of no use.
While adding new address, it asked for a password, i pressed cancel even then new window to enter the private key appeared and i was able to add new bitcoin address without the password !
I then tried to sign a message with the new address added to the wallet. It asked me for the password, i again pressed cancel, and to my surprise the sign/verify window still appeared and i could successfully sign message with that address without even entering the password.
I have not tried this with a bitcoin transaction though.
By "adding new address" do you mean you created a new wallet and left the password blank when it asked you to create one? The dialog box says "enter nothing if you want to disable encryption".  That's not a bug, it's a feature. If you don't want to be forced into entering a password every time you send Bitcoins then you miss out the password when you create the wallet. I can't find an option in the GUI to add a new address, I think you can only do that in the console through the command line. |
|
|
|
if i backup the wallet file(private keys) is such backup enough? i plan to restore it only like once a month from usb to maybe to check balance and maybe sometimes make a few transactions
I have lost coins stored on USB flash drives when they broke down. You should also back up to another option like a CD. It's not only old USB flash drives that break down, it's new ones too. I bought two identical drives, and one had broken within a month. The controller chip had broken inside it, which stopped windows from recognising it, so I couldn't try using data recovery software to get my private keys back off it. Backing up the private keys in multibit classic is fine unless you want to start using them in multibit HD. Unfortunately there is no option that I know of to import a multibit classic private key into multibit HD. Nevertheless you can import a multibit classic private key into other wallets like electrum or core. IMO multibit HD should have an option to import multibit classic keys because people expect backwards compatibility. |
|
|
|
is currently very difficult to do arbitrage. exchange price difference is not too far away. so that the benefits will only be discharged at a cost of inter-exchange shipping fee. it would not be profitable.
It is just risky. Whole arbitrage is risky business, you can earn smth but im not sure risk is worth reward. Anyway, with price spread bigger and bigger more and more people playing this game. Self adjusting system  There are traders using bots to arbitrage, but they risk losing money if an exchange (like Bitfinex) gets hacked. They have to use multiple exchanges to arbitrage, and the more exchanges they use the more risk there is that an exchange they are using gets hacked. To make money from arbitrage a trader needs to hold a lot of money on each exchange, and if it gets hacked he could lose it all. |
|
|
|
Zerohedge suggests the ECB is more concerned about people using bank notes than Bitcoin. It suggests the ECB wants everyone to use only debit and credit cards with traceable transactions. That's not a realistic proposition considering the debit and credit card networks are sometimes faulty and unavailable. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-19/ecb-wants-curb-bitcoin-use-over-fears-it-may-lose-control-over-money-supplyIn short, while the ECB would love to ban cash which is a major stumbling block to the bank's NIRP strategy, its proposed alternative is not virtual currencies, despite various such suggestions most notably by the BOE, but merely retaining currency if entirely in electronic form, think only debit and credit card transactions, which in turn allow every single operation and transaction to be tracked (and taxed) by both the central bank and local governments with pinpoint accuracy. |
|
|
|
This thread gives a list of ICOs, scam ICOs, and new coins. It's not terribly active but can be a useful warning of scams, which helps identify the good ICOs from the bad ones. Picking a profitable ICO is more difficult than picking a reputable ICO though. https://www.cryptopia.co.nz/Forum/Thread/493 |
|
|
|
Some people say shit coins (synthetic Bitcoins) work 1000X better than real Bitcoins, but it sounds suspicious to me. These synthetic trees capturing carbon 1000X better than real trees sound similarly suspicious to me. |
|
|
|
|
It's good news that Russia now officially allows Bitcoin, but most Russians didn't seem to care if it was banned or not. Yobit exchange is run by Russians, and its never looked like it was going to close because of threats Russia might ban Bitcoin. It's got an option to view the site in Russian, so it must have plenty of Russian users who were never afraid of a Bitcoin ban.
|
|
|
|
We will update with a new TA on the other post soon..
TA is BS. TA works if you know some basics. Is not BS  TA is nice to know, knowing some basic patterns and such helps a lot, when devising a trading strategy / understanding the market. i mean if you have no idea how to paint support / resistance lines, and you trade purely on how you FEEL price will move your gonna have a bad time.... unless you simply buy and hold for the long term, but thats not trading thats investing.... and thats easy, Investing 101:buy and hodl. Isn't there a trading expression called painting the charts, which means a whale manipulates the market to make the charts look like a well known pattern is emerging? After all the TA guys trade based on that pattern the manipulative whale screws them all. TA is BS if someone paints the charts. |
|
|
|
not to long ago, at bitfinex's Hong Kong office....
sure thing Ted!
Security of user information and funds is our first priority.
Every detail is analyzed to avoid security holes. We pride ourselves on being the most secure Bitcoin exchange. Good, from now on, we know that losing roughly around 120K bitcoins it's something to be proud of.  Not even dignity is available anymore. That security page is quite disgusting. The only security will come from the complete closure of the exchange They are trying to cover themselves with a risk disclosure statement. The fourth bullet point in it says you have to be aware there is a risk of the exchange getting hacked leading to you losing all your coins. It's no wonder they put their security statement bragging about how secure they are on a different page. https://www.bitfinex.com/riskRisk Disclosure Statement
...
Exchange Risk (Counterparty Risk): Having Digital Tokens on deposit or with any third party in a custodial relationship has attendant risks. These risks include security breaches, risk of contractual breach, and risk of loss. Participants should be wary of allowing third parties to hold their property for any reason. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
