|
Pretty sure it was Foxpup's time machine.
|
|
|
|
-snip- Funny you should mention that, since the BCash fork is also used to prove yet another back dated forgery in CSW's documents: 4. The hidden, embedded content of previous edits additionally refers to the fork between BTC and BCH, two versions of Bitcoin, an event which took place in 2017. [PM34 at 25-26] And here's another great part of COPA's submission: g. Following, and in evident response to, the service of the Madden Report, Dr Wright has acted as follows:
i. He has sought to disclaim responsibility for the documents previously designated by him as Reliance Documents, including through his provision of extended chain of custody information (information he had previously refused to supply even in more basic form) in which he has for the first time suggested that the documents were handled by many unidentified further persons. He has thus sought to distance himself from documents only once their veracity has been called into question.
...
iii. He has sought to replace his Reliance Documents with versions he has supposedly “discovered” in hard drives and which he claims to be preferable versions. How convenient for CSW! As soon as COPA revealed that the documents he's been using in multiple trials over multiple years are complete forgeries, he discovered a few old hard drives containing better copies! What a coincidence! And what bad luck for CSW that he just can't seem to find a few old hard drives containing Satoshi's private keys.  |
|
|
|
as long as it's not a quantum computer running on cubits Further to hosseinimr93's corrections above, if someone did have a quantum computer of sufficient size and stability (which is a very distant threat), the most effective way to use that would be to attack the ECDLP of coins with known public keys, and not to attempt to brute force seed phrases from scratch. |
|
|
|
This is the same as the magic carburetor that allowed you to get 200 miles to a gallon of gas in your 2 ton truck, it just can't be done. You just need to use uranium instead of gasoline. just a minor thing to point out which is no one knows the size of the entire universe or if it is finite or infinite but i get what you're saying. some numbers are big to write down. for us mere mortals... Oh ok, you got me. Entire *observable universe then.  |
|
|
|
COPA have filed a document containing their analysis of CSW's "evidence", with explanations of why almost everything he submitted is a blatant forgery. You can find the document here: https://bitcoindefense.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/AmendedPOCandSchedule.pdfHere are just a couple of my favorite parts: 2. The document has been backdated. The document contains hidden, embedded Grammarly timestamps indicating its true date to be later than 18 August 2019 at 9:10am (UTC). [PM25 at 8-13]
3. Searching online revealed the presence of a very similar document uploaded by Dr Wright to the website SSRN which was created just a few hours after the Grammarly timestamp of ID_000199, on the same date 18 August 2019. That uploaded document (the “SSRN Upload”) was created with software that did not yet exist in 2007. [PM25 at 40-46] So not only is CSW completely unaware that computer files contain metadata which include such information as to when they were created and modified, but he also used software which didn't exist at the time he is claiming to have written these documents. Even his forgeries are utterly incompetent. Plenty more of the same sort of thing over a variety of his other documents: 3. The document contains embedded references to fonts including Calibri Light and Nirmala UI [PM25 at 20]. Those fonts were not yet published in 2008 [Madden Report at 165]. Further, the designers of those fonts have given evidence relied on by COPA in these proceedings that the fonts were not yet conceived of or designed by the purported date of this document. 3. Equations within ID_000227 were created with MathType software v6.9, a version dating from February 2013 which did not exist in 2008. [PM40 at 32, 42] 5. The hidden embedded text within the document includes references to a web page URL which did not exist until on or after 11 April 2019. [PM26 at 21] But then it seems at some point CSW does become aware of metadata, and thinks that changing his computer clock will be enough to fool it: 4. ID_000504 records an impossible edit time in excess of 41 days. In percentage terms, the recorded MS Word Edit Time equates to more than 100% of the time difference between the Created and Last Saved dates. This is consistent with the use of clock manipulation techniques. [PM28 at 5-6] 4. The document contains an impossible edit time of minus 13 years, 7 months and 4 days [PM9 at 70]. There is plenty of more evidence if you want to read through it, from CSW referencing events which hadn't happened yet, sending emails from domains he hadn't registered yet, linking to websites which didn't exist yet, and more. COPA even got the manufacturer of a physical notepad that CSW supposedly hand wrote notes on to provide evidence that they did not manufacture that notepad at the time CSW claims he used it. |
|
|
|
They probably just stick to calling it "master key" instead of "extended key". (well, that caused some confusion) Yeah, it's a bugbear of mine and something that pretty much all wallets (and most users) do. The term "master private key" should be reserved for the key at path m. Anything at a lower level than that is an "extended private key". The "extended private key" unique to a specific wallet is the "account extended private key". In the case of Electrum segwit wallets, then m is the master private key and m/0' is the account extended private key. |
|
|
|
So the question here: Is there some mechanics in the consensus of bitcoin to start accepting fees under 1 sat/vB ? example... 0.58 sat/vB Here is the relevant code: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/d9007f51a7480246abe4c16f2e3d190988470bec/src/policy/policy.h#L57static constexpr unsigned int DEFAULT_MIN_RELAY_TX_FEE{1000};The default minimum relay transaction fee, which is expressed in sats per KvB. So 1000 sats/KvB, which is the same as 1 sat/vB. This is not a consensus rule - nodes are free to change the settings on their mempools to set any minimum fee rate they like, including no fee at all. But to change the default it will be as simple as changing this one number. Change it to 100, and the default minimum fee drops to 0.1 sats/vbyte (although again, nodes will be free to change their own settings to anything they like). |
|
|
|
Under the hood, Electrum derives a "master private key" (m) from the seed and derive external and internal chains at (m/0 and m/1) for receiving and change address parent extended keys.
Then, the addresses which at (m/0/0~19 and m/1/0~9) for the initial 20 receiving and 10 change addresses. This is only the case for legacy wallets. Electrum uses m/0' (rather than just m) for single-sig segwit wallets, which has obviously been the default wallet type for some time. 2FA (legacy and SegWit): m/1'/0/ This is not quite right either. Electrum uses the following: Legacy: m Segwit: m/0' Legacy multi-sig: m Segwit multi-sig: m/1' It will then append /x/y to the above derivation paths, with x being 0 or 1 for receiving or change, and y being the address index. For 2FA wallets, your three master keys are derived at m/0', m/1', and m, respectively. The final key at m is the one which is derived from your previous two keys and the hardcoded TrustedCoin key. |
|
|
|
What programming language is that? I'm learning JS and it doesn't look like that, probably doesn't look like a JS framework too. Is that a python? I'm just curious. The screenshot on the left is Javascript; the one on the right is Python. Yes, that's true; as there is no way to actually verify assets that users have deposited to an exchange. The solution is obvious - put your coins in your own wallet. Then it is trivially easy to verify every single satoshi you own. |
|
|
|
Wait wait wait. I'm just reading this in a bit more depth. We factored numbers with more than 101000 decimal digits, and the capital cost was less than $1,000. Because the formatting is messed up I originally read that as 101000, but it's actually 10 1000. There is not enough computing power in the entire world to even store a number with 10 1000 digits, let alone even think about beginning to attempt to factorize it. In fact, much like Graham's number, even if every digit of such a number was stored in a single Planck volume, the entire universe would be too small to represent such a number. But this man has factorized such a number on a mobile phone? Lol. |
|
|
|
I would suggest not engaging with Kruw and allowing him to derail yet another thread with his repeatedly debunked copy-and-paste nonsense. I've debunked the same post he has copy and pasted above multiple times over the last several months: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5286821.msg62413682#msg62413682https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5465398.msg62800032#msg62800032The fact that he continues to post it when it is blatantly false, means either he doesn't understand anything about coinjoins or he knows what he is posting is a complete lie. Either way, he is not interested in discussion and only in pushing his agenda. I've had him on ignore for months; I suggest everyone else does the same: It's been clear for some time now that Kruw is either incapable or unwilling to address the vast myriad of valid points made against Wasabi in this thread, and instead can only result to copious amounts of hand-waving and whataboutism. Furthermore, it's also clear that Kruw either does not understand how Whirlpool and JoinMarket work, or he does understand but deliberate lies about them to spread his narrative.
Either way, although I'll continue to point out to other users in this thread all the reasons they should avoid Wasabi, there is no point continuing to argue with Kruw.
Anyone who wants to see the truth about Wasabi coinjoins being demixed, Wasabi doxxing their competitors, and Wasabi funding mass surveillance, can simply read the Wasabi thread. Any time he copies and pastes the same old nonsense again, just reply with a link to this post. Back on topic here: It is entirely fair to warn people that zkSNACKs are directly funding the enemy. |
|
|
|
Just didn't payed attention on the derivation path of my electrum wallet once i created it. It is a standard wallet, nothing additional. Open your wallet, click on "Wallet" in the top bar, then "Information". Your derivation path will be displayed at the bottom of this box. For a standard segwit Electrum seed phrase, it will be m/0'. If you have imported a BIP39 seed phrase from elsewhere, it will be m/84'/0'/0' for a standard segwit wallet. Suppose i have to recover it someday, i should go with m/0'/0 derivation path once asked, and my funds gonna be there? If it's an Electrum seed phrase you don't need to worry about the derivation path. Electrum will only ever recover a single wallet at a preset derivation path for each of its seed phrases. |
|
|
|
Much of what that Twitter account has written is inaccurate. Have a read of my thread about this piece of legislation here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5471353.0They're rolling up their sleeves and cracking down on what they see as potential hotbeds for money laundering - Bitcoin Mixers. "Mixers", as defined by this legislation, covers pretty much everything which isn't a fully KYCed centralized exchange. It covers mixers, P2P trading, DEXs, non-KYCed CEXs, casinos and sportsbooks, and more. Even simply "creating and using single-use wallets, addresses, or accounts" should now be classed as "mixing" according to FinCEN. - With this move, the U.S. government is drawing a line in the sand, effectively choosing security over privacy. They are choosing neither security nor privacy. This does not make anything about bitcoin more secure. They are choosing mass surveillance. - Money laundering is not merely a domestic issue. It's a global menace. It's also largely a fiat problem, with fiat money laundering being many orders of magnitude higher than bitcoin money laundering. But banks which launder trillions of dollars only get a slap on the wrist since they launder money for the politicians passing these draconian laws. - The threat to the U.S. and global financial systems appear to outweigh these considerations.
- A compromise needs to be found, and fast. The only threat to the global financial system is bitcoin itself. This isn't about finding a compromise - this is about FinCEN trying to protect themselves and the government from the continual decline of USD. "This serves as a crucial reminder that the ultimate consequence of manipulated currency is coercion and control, leading to the erosion of individual rights and freedoms." This is the most accurate thing they have written. This isn't about privacy or security of preventing money laundering or stopping terrorism or any of the other bullshit that FinCEN will try to sell you - this is about mass surveillance, coercion, control, and the erosion of your freedom. |
|
|
|
Anton Guzhevskiy, the chief operating officer at Australian cybersecurity firm ThreatDefence, also challenged Gerck to prove his claims. "I've shared an RSA-2048 public key and a corresponding private key encrypted by this public key. If you can decrypt the private key, you can sign some piece of text with it, which will prove that you are in possession of the private key," he said in a response to Gerck's post on LinkedIn. "Can you do it?"
"There is a publication delay, and I do not control that," Gerck responded. Says it all really. This sounds like CSW all over again. Ask for a signed message as proof, which would be trivially easy to provide if any of the claims were true, and instead be told that we have to wait for some paper or evidence to be published which will "totally prove it".  I won't be holding my breath. |
|
|
|
-> I would like to know why especifically this setup is not reliable, as I've seen some posts about it, cause for me is a great one... but i will appreciate your comments on the problems of it  It's a good set up, but there are some things to be aware of. As Loyce points out, this isn't necessarily a cold wallet unless you make it so by running it on a permanently airgapped machine. A temporarily disconnected machine is a distant second. Ideally you would run this on a permanently airgapped machine, paired with a watch-only Electrum wallet on your main computer. Secondly, be aware that Tails has no persistent storage unless you configure it as such. With no persistent storage you are completely reliant on your back up to access your coins. Make at least two, and store them separately. And lastly, the version of Electrum which is bundled with Tails is not frequently updated. Tails is currently bundled with Electrum 4.0.2. If you want to use the most recent version for any reason, you'll need to download and verify the standalone appimage. |
|
|
|
Could you share some details? I took all my hard drives, hardware wallets, paper wallets, steel engravings, and other back ups out with me for my semi-regular camping trip. I think it's good for them to get some fresh air now and then and feel the wind in their circuits. I like to sail to a secluded island in the middle of a nearby lake where I definitely haven't buried my 8 tonnes of gold (which were previously in my basement until I also unfortunately lost that in a tragic boating accident). Unfortunately my boat sank since I hadn't bothered to repair it after it sank three months ago, and I lost everything, including the map to the gold I don't have. I'm not too beat up about it because I hadn't accumulated too much since I last lost all my keys in the aforementioned identical accident three months ago. |
|
|
|
I don't think so. Here is why...
In order for this to happen, adding the seed phrase should create 4 accounts (deposit, premix, postmix, badbank) and send the coins to the deposit account. I think the deposit account lives under the default derivation path, so technically perhaps it wouldn't need to "send" the coins to this account because this is also the default derivation path for the cold wallet. So let's say I create an airgapped Sparrow wallet, set it up to be a coinjoin wallet so it creates the usual four accounts, and then from my hot Sparrow wallet mix coins directly to the xpub of the cold postmix account. A year later if I bring that cold Sparrow wallet online, then the previously coinjoined UTXOs will already be in the postmix account. Would Sparrow detect that and allow me to continue to coinjoin them? I have added the seed phrase to a cold wallet I had and it didn't generate the 4 accounts. When I imported my seed phrase, it didn't actually become a hot wallet. I was unable to sign transactions without using my HW. Essentially, I had a hot wallet where I could see the seed phrase, but I couldn't use it as a hot wallet. I had to sign using my HW instead. You can add the four accounts manually by opening your wallet, clicking on the "Settings" tab, clicking "Add Account..." and scrolling down to "Whirlpool Accounts". If they are there then of course you can coinjoin a bit more Yes, but then you would have to pay the pool fee and the Tx0 fee again, which would necessitate you either joining a smaller pool or consolidating some UTXOs together to stay in the same pool, which negates the point of doing this in the first place. I want to keep coinjoining as if nothing has happened. |
|
|
|
If you do, their forum representative will tell you the software is open-source and that they make donations to the Human Rights Foundation and the TOR project. Absolute peak whataboutism stupidity. SBF made a bunch of charitable donations too. Should we therefore excuse his mass fraud? I tell you what - if you send me 10 BTC, I'll donate 1 BTC to the HRF and keep the other 9 for myself, and that will be totally fine and not at all shady. But, they are looking to or have SOLD their services to big business. Those are the paying customers. That is what they want. Not just sell their services, but potentially sell the entire company: https://nitter.cz/SamouraiWallet/status/1708068554208117028#m'If you use our service your coins are private and clean' so pay to use our service. Except that's not true, and there are numerous examples of Wasabi coinjoins being demixed and numerous examples of centralized exchanges still discriminating against coins form Wasabi coinjoins despite their cooperation with blockchain analysis. |
|
|
|
|
Here's a question I haven't been able to find a straight answer to - can you bring the cold storage online and continue remixing for free?
Let's say I generate a new wallet on my airgapped computer, import the relevant xpub in to Sparrow, and mix a few coinjoin outputs to this cold wallet. A year later, I want to spend these coins, but I want to coinjoin them a bit more first. Can I import the seed phrase for this cold wallet in to Sparrow (making it a hot wallet), have Sparrow detect the UTXOs as coinjoin outputs, and pick up exactly where they left off and keep remixing?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
