Bitcoin Forum
May 30, 2024, 10:25:46 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 [171] 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 ... 317 »
3401  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Re: Error when building binary files under Windows 64/32 bit on: November 05, 2018, 10:16:09 AM
According to the thread you have linked:

[...]
Windows binaries will be in this folders:

~/bitcoin-0.16.2/depends/x86-64-w64-mingw32 (Windows 64 bit binaries)

~/bitcoin-0.16.2/depends/i686-w64-mingw32 (Windows 32 bit binaries)
[...]


Then, your error message:

copying packages: native_ccache native_protobuf boost openssl libevent zeromq qrencode protobuf zlib qt bdb miniupnpc
to: /root/bitcoin/depends/x86_64-w64-mingw32
bash: ./configure: No such file or directory[/sup]


So, obviously my advice still holds:

You shouldn't be installing bitcoin into your root directory. Use a user directory for this. Simply don't use sudo.


Did you even try it out before replying ?
3402  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Could a Quantum Computer derive a BIP32 seed from a public key? on: November 05, 2018, 08:59:01 AM
Well, that sucks. So I guess the only way to secure my xpub key for my Trezor is to only view my balance on an air-gapped computer, correct?

Not necessarily, but if you want to be absolutely sure that noone gets your xpub, then yes.
However, only the xpub is not enough to steal funds, it does 'only' destroy your privacy.



Hopefully, they don't come up with an affordable way run and maintain a  quantum computer capable of breaking traditional algos anytime soon.

Quantum computers aren't some kind of 'magic machines'.

They are comparable to normal computers, just that they don't work with bits (0 and 1) but with qubits (which basically just is a computer with more than 2 states).
They can not magically crack cryptography.

First there needs to be a prototype which can be run in a stable state. Then it needs to be further developed, because high end server are way more powerfull than a small quantum computer prototype (which doesn't exist yet).

Further someone would need to invent an innovative algorithm (for a quantum computer) which is capable of solving mathematical problems noone had ever an approach yet.


You really don't need to hope that they don't come up with an affordable way to run such a machine.
And not to mention the need of a proper algorithm to crack keys.
3403  Bitcoin / Electrum / Re: Bitcoin Cash Fork? on: November 05, 2018, 08:49:16 AM
I'll try to explain it as simple as i can:

Your wallet holds private keys. Each private key is associated to a public key.
Any coins are assigned to public keys on the blockchain.

In case of a fork, the forkcoin basically says "each public key which holds coin X will get new forkcoin Y".

So, if you had BTC at the time of the btrash-fork, the same public key has btrash associated to it.
Now, if btrash forks again (which is quite ironically), all public keys holding btrash will get btrashv2 associated with it.


As you see, it doesn't matter whether you 'claim' your coins or not. 'Claiming' in this case basically means to 'open the correct wallet and access them'.
3404  Bitcoin / Electrum / Re: Why am I receiving a negative? - electrum on: November 05, 2018, 08:43:30 AM
Essentially, you just wasted 0.00001600 BTC. Undecided

I wouldn't necessarily call that wasting.

In case of fees rising again to a multiple of the current fees, his UTXO's would have been worthless.
But now he still can use them with higher fees, since it is only one UTXO now.

Actually the only way to be able to use such small UTXO's is to consolidate them when fees are low, even though the percentage paid in fees is quite high :7
3405  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Re: Eduroam blocks tor, vpns and bitcoin core! on: November 05, 2018, 08:36:31 AM
Hmm.. you might also want to try to simply get a VPS (not a VPN) and tunnel your whole traffic via SSH to that server.

VPS's usually aren't much pricier than VPN's (it at all). It would be a bit more configuration, but basically it's the same as a VPN.
The only difference is that eduroam shouldn't have any IP blocks regarding some random VPS and that traffic to port 22 (ssh) has to be allowed.
3406  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Re: Cracked the wallet and stole the BTC on: November 05, 2018, 08:24:46 AM
recently I have create a wallet on blockchain.com.
after creation, I have given my wallet ID and password to my friend located in USA to check if everything is ok.
after he check for me, I have change my password and enable 2FA and backup phase which consist of the 12 words.
my question is, will he able to log in my account even after I have make the above changes?

This is not recommended. You should NEVER give anyone access to your coins.

Your friend could have also exported the backup phrase (the 12 word mnemonic seed).
This seed is everything one needs to access the coins.

I'd recommend to create a new wallet immediately !

If you insist on using an online wallet, create a new one and send your funds over.
If you don't explicitely want to use an online wallet, get a desktop wallet (e.g. electrum). Those are more secure and safer.

But you definitely shouldn't be keeping any coins inside of this wallet anymore.
3407  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: It is necessary to find one private key out of 10 million Bitcoin Addresses on: November 04, 2018, 04:06:44 PM
Maybe I found a vulnerability in an elliptic curve.

No, you didn't.



I derived a formula that can reduce the possibility of busting through PrivKey. Allowable search 2 ^ 256 can be reduced to 2 ^ 16 and all this is possible through my research.

No, that's bullshit. 2^16 can be checked within a few seconds. No reason for you to write this post if you could gain millions of BTC in the same time.

At least you tried.
3408  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Re: Error when building binary files under Windows 64/32 bit on: November 04, 2018, 03:23:28 PM
I collect Bitcoin client under Windows 64/32 and an error occurred.
[...]
I tried to collect on ubunt 14.04; 16.04; 18.04 64 bit

Do you want to install it on windows or linux ?

Your output shows that you were trying to install it on linux.

You shouldn't be installing bitcoin into your root directory. Use a user directory for this. Simply don't use sudo.
3409  Other / Meta / Re: [Anti-spam Suggestion] Forbid newbies to post URL's on: November 04, 2018, 03:19:28 PM
I am not sure I agree with the idea of limiting thousands of newbies because of the activities if a few.
Posting phishing or scammy links I believe would get your account nuked, and users are actively involved in cleaning up the forum these days by reporting such posts.

The thing is, that people are creating hundreds of accounts just to spam their link once per account.
They don't care if they get nuked. The whole purpose of those accounts is to get nuked after spamming their link.



Reviewing posts from newbies is a better suggestion, this would effectively eliminate spamming and those who break rules can be banned without their posts being made public.

Reviewing posts probably isn't possible with that much new posts daily.
Mods are already having a hard time moderating the rest of the topics. Additional reviewing wouldn't be practically doable.



Such restriction would hurt legitimate newbies who came here to announce their services for example. Ok, they can purchase Copper Membership? Yes, they can, but do you expect that many of such users will do that? I don't think that we should make forum not friendly to new users.

The majority of 'service announcements' from newbies are simply scam. Everyone who has a LEGIT business/service, would be ready to pay a buck for copper OR simply get 1 merit.




As writing this, new spammy site is being spammed:

Investments with maximum payback: 180% profitability, contribution for 3 months, deposit from $ 30. Interesting? Learn more! https://[SPAM]/?ref=DaeJ]
3410  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Is it possible for the block chain records to be compressed and rebased? on: November 04, 2018, 09:27:21 AM
only the recent 6/3 months record being recorded in main blockchain?

Yes and it's called pruning or prune mode


I think OP is talking about a mechanisms which creates snapshots of the blockchain (to keep the size smaller), not about the locally stored blocks (but i might we wrong).

IOTA is using this mechanisms, where a (centralized) coordinator creates a snapshot each X days/weeks/months.



@OP:
If you are talking about 'the' blockchain, then no. Bitcoin is not intended to function this way. Though, it is still possible in theory.

If you are talking about the locally stored blockchain on your computer (to save space), then yes (it's called pruning, as mentioned in the previous post).
You can read more about pruning here.
3411  Bitcoin / Electrum / Re: Bitcoin "lost", not accessible anymore. on: November 04, 2018, 08:57:02 AM
Something doesn't add up here.

You said you emptied your paper wallet -> samourai to have it on your mobile wallet.
The transaction you posted was done 25.11.2017. That's almost 1 year ago (why didn't you post it earlier ?)

And you have also mentioned that you were using android 9 beta. But the beta got released May 2018.
That's 6 months AFTER your funds got 'lost'.


Could you please explain this to me (preferably with a CORRECT timeline of all incidents) ?
3412  Bitcoin / Armory / Re: Will not accept my passphrase! any help please! on: November 04, 2018, 08:25:08 AM
So by doing what you describe... will it affect my prefork keys or wallet or anything of concern?

Your BTC (and your forkcoins) are assigned to your public keys (which need the corresponding private keys to be spent).

No coins are stored directly 'in your wallet'. All coins are assigned to your public key in the blockchain. And your wallet does manage the private keys.


So, to answer your question: No, it will not affect anything. After restoring with the root key, your wallet will hold the same private keys again.
3413  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Re: how i find from my bitcoin address the bip32 root key? on: November 04, 2018, 08:18:09 AM
You might want to start off with explaining what you want to achieve (or what happened).

If you only have the address, you can't get any sensitive information (private key, bip32 seed, xpub, etc.. ) out of it.

The only way to get the bip32 root key (master private key; xpriv) is to have the master public key (xpub) and one child private key.
With this information, you will be able to calculate the xpriv.

Besides that, there is no option.


What happened ? Did you somehow lose it ? Why do you have access to ONLY the address ?
3414  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Re: Best storage methods on: November 04, 2018, 08:13:29 AM
5. Once you get a seed, a lot of pepole seem to write them down however I think personally that that's a bad principle, you could put it on a bitlocker(ed) pendrive instead and it will be safer there...

Please, please.. do NOT use bitlocker.

Bitlocker is:
  • Closed source
    You don't know what it is really doing
  • known to have vulnerabilities
    They had A TON vulnerabilities in the past. I wouldn't exclude that there are still many more included
  • made by microsoft..

If you want to create an encrypted drive on windows, use VeraCrypt (the successor of TrueCrypt). It is open-source, maintained and more secure than bitlocker can ever be.


Even though i don't agree with you that a digital backup is better than a hand-written one (since electronic devices can always break easily), i heavily discourage from using bitlocker. For the sake of your privacy AND security, switch to VeraCrypt.
3415  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Re: Eduroam blocks tor, vpns and bitcoin core! on: November 04, 2018, 08:02:59 AM
Unfortunately i don't see an ideas besides of the already mentioned ones (use electrum or get a VPN provider which accepts port 22, 80 or 443).

Another option might be to find an open wifi, without port restrictions.
You could hide your PI somewhere there (plugged in to a source of energy of course) with SSH open.

Then you'd simply route everything through this PI (and the public wifi).

But honestly, i wouldn't recommend this. This could get you in some trouble, theoretically.
3416  Other / Meta / Re: [Anti-spam Suggestion] Forbid newbies to post URL's on: November 04, 2018, 07:58:03 AM
I'd include juniors in the restriction as well. One merit is too easy to get.

The point is not to forbid any newbie to post links. Just to stem the massive amounts of spam.



scammy links to ICO's or whatsoever
If scam is the issue, why don't we restrict people to post ICO ANN here? Aren't they scamming more? Lots of new ICO is launched daily and people lose thousands of dollar.
I'm agreed with you but if you consider scam, restricting ICO ANN will be more effective.
Also, because of those ICO ANN thread, spams are increasing too.

ICO Announcements are in a sperate sub. If people decide to browse that sub, they decide to see this spammy rubbish.

I didn't want to suggest restricting what people are allowing to post. Just spammy ICO shit in all the other subs (e.g. technical support, bumping 2 year old threads).



The issue would be all the people who became copper members in order to participate to bounties. If you include them, they won't be able to post their weekly reports (facebook links, twitter links...)

I, personally, wouldn't include them because those spambots are creating standard accounts (non-copper) for spamming.
Those people aren't THAT retarded, to pay for creating an account simply to have their link displayed somewhere for 10 minutes.

I'd assume that copper members aren't just created to spam 1 link and leave.



One question which comes to my mind is whether only juniors are scammers?  And what if the scammer is senior member?

 Smiley If Junior Members are banned for signature then It will motivate members like me to rank up.  So at one point of time it will be beneficial to us though it tastes bitter presently. 
I agree S_Therapist why not ban ICOs?  because lots of people are being cheated via ICO scams.

Of course not only jr. are scammer.

What i have said is that i would restrict newbies from posting URL's.



If spam is the issue, then why not ban the website they're linking it to? Or, if they're doing it repeatedly, then just ban them altogether? No better way to keep the forum out of spammers than to filter and restrict their posts and/or ban them from the forum, right?

Probably because there are multiple new websites created daily which are then spammed here across unrelated threads.
I think it would be way more effort to ban each site, than to simply restrict newbies from posting URL's. But both is a good approach.



Do you mean to make the links posted by newbies unclickable? Or for the forum to just wipe out any link that newbies post? Either way, both of them have their pros and cons, and a copper membership could solve the problems for newbies. But I could only see this happening if the issue of newbies spamming URLs on a VERY LARGE SCALE. 

Not only unclickable, but also removed. Like it is happening with suspicious links (www.[suspicious link removed].com etc.), just for every URL from newbies.
IMO this spam is getting out of control.

A few days ago i had to report at least 10 of such spams, which were bumping year old threads.



I disagree sometimes newbies need to post a link for scam accusations or account reactivation for ban appeals. Implementing this will only give scammers more opportunities to scam newbies thus they cannot even provide links.

Exceptions can be made (e.g. scam accusation). This wouldn't hurt the idea, i believe.



Far too extreme for a newbie. Not every newbie is a bot and looking to share shady and scammy links. Some newbies are genuine and looking to grow with the community as they learn and if you impose such it simply means new members are not welcome.
How will a newbie able to post from an external source if they not able to share a link of my source? won't it earn them an automatic ban for "plagiarism''?

Sometimes a newbie may need to ask for Help/support with reference to Links or Some other Newbie may be willing to help with reference using a link but can not do so because they can't post links. Now how does that help the community to grow?
Much as we need to get rid of Newbie bots, we should also consider that there are genuine newbies.

It's not that hard to receive 1 merit.
So, if people are really willing to learn etc.. they also will earn 1 merit.

And it shouldn't hurt to wait with posting links until then.

Beginners- / Spam accusation-  subs could be excluded from this rule, maybe.



This is easier said than done. Spammers would just post ‘bitcointalk dot org’ instead of a actual link and search engines would still pick up the text of the link. The underlying reason why these spammers post these links isn’t to get forum users to click on them, it is to get search engines to recognize that bitcointalk has the link displayed on one (many) of its pages which helps the search engine rankings for the link.

Wouldn't this already be way less effective in terms of SEO ?
3417  Other / Meta / [Anti-spam Suggestion] Forbid newbies to post URL's on: November 02, 2018, 08:24:39 AM
Based on the last few 'spam attacks' (for example: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5061448.0) of newbie bots posting some shady and scammy links to ICO's or whatsoever,

i'd be interested in hearing what you guys think about restricting them from posting URL's at all ?


My suggestion would be to remove the whole [url] tags, including the link inbetween AND any link posted without [url]-tags (similar to the 'suspicious link removed' message).


IMO there is no necessity for a newbie (who didn't even receive 1 merit) to post any URL.
3418  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Why not increase the block size? on: November 02, 2018, 08:12:58 AM
The problems with their argument is this, Bitcoin Cash has proven 8mb is doable without any major issues,

Btrash bcash didn't prove anything.

The transaction volume on bcash is so extremely low, that blocks are always empty. They even would be called empty with 1 MB block size.

The last 10 blocks have a median size of less than 50 KB. That's 1/20th of the old legacy bitcoin block size. Honestly.. that's a joke. Dogecoin has more transactions than btrash.

Saying bcash has provem 8mb is doable, is delusional.



There other argument is increasing the blocksize won't really scale, the problem with that is they don't need to scale to match visa, they only need to scale to match what bitcoin requires, which 8 mb would handle easily for the foreseeable future.

Please explain:
How can increasing something by a linear factor be called scaling ?

Spoiler: It can't, because that's not scaling. That's ignoring and postponing a problem.



LN will eventually enact a fractional reserve system like the Banks are used too.
It was their diabolical plan all along , IE: The Banks that were funding bitcoin development.

Dafuq. Did you smoke too much weed or where do these retarded conspiracy theories come from ?  Roll Eyes
3419  Bitcoin / Electrum / Re: Electrum createnewaddress gap limit question (receiving lots of payments) on: November 02, 2018, 08:04:27 AM
2. Create your own payment processing system (cost = time and possibly also $ if you have to contract out)
Can you give an advice from where we should start? What is taken as a basis for developing it?

You take core and build everything else on-top.

You can use whatever language you prefer. Core's functions walletnotify and blocknotify will help you to achieve what you are looking for.
They call a script specified by you after a transaction has been received (with the tx id as parameter).
3420  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Output transaction earlier than input as possible? on: November 01, 2018, 08:42:33 PM
That's not possible.

Both transactions have been included in the same block.

Blockchain.com is known to display buggy (and wrong) information. Proper block explorer show it correctly.

For example:
https://blockexplorer.com/address/1PvHDgp5qARvSN7tj27TYAAvmDjgNV9Asm shows that both transaction have been mined Mar 8, 2014 4:51:53 AM in block #289481.


Whenever you come across weird information on blockchain.com, try another explorer.
Pages: « 1 ... 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 [171] 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 ... 317 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!