Thanks for the reply MICRO, but I'm suspicious about your information because it seems vague and lacking in detail. For example, you say that something is impossible but I think you mean infeasibly improbable. Yes, that's what they meant. Note that for all practical purposes, you can consider that to be on the level of 'impossible'. I.e. say you roll a million dice - is it possible that you'll roll a 4 on all million? Sure, it's possible. Now consider that the issue we're discussing here is several magnitudes more difficult still  Since I'm looking for details and proofs, I guess I find myself still wanting. Nonetheless, the point of your reply is noted: apparantly reducing the address space by a prefix is insignficant. You would have to look for technical discussions about finding collisions for the private key in general. The fact that the address starts with a vanity doesn't actually 'reduce the search space'. I.e. you can't say 'generate only keys for which the address starts with this vanity'. The way it works is that it generates a whole lot of keys, calculates the address, and then checks if that address happens to start with the desired vanity. If you could do it the other way around, then 1SomeVan1ty is every bit as vulnerable as, say, 1x3pqDdtUza - a non-vanity (well, unless somebody considers that to be a vanity, of course) - and thus all Bitcoin addresses would be vulnerable. In addition, while you can possibly get a collision on the address, you still can't spend from that address unless you have the correct private key. So even if you do happen to get a full match on the address, you might still not have the correct private key to go with it. (addresses are hashes of the public key, which have a smaller space than the public key, so at least there's a greater potential for a collision on the address) Thanks, this fills in a bit more of the info. FWIW, the probability of rolling a "4" 1 million times in a row is infinitely greater than 0. Something with a probability of 0 is impossible. Something with a probability greater than 0 is not impossible, no matter how small. IMHO, conflating impossible with improbable really muddies the waters in these kinds of discussions, so I'm trying to avoid that. Anyway I understand now that the search space isn't reduced, only the answer space. So vanitygen has to look blindly through the same candidate set no matter how much you constrain the space of correct answers. Also, thanks for the clarification about the relationship from the address to the public key. |
|
|
|
I want to ask a question which will probably get people calling me stoopid or whatever but here I go:
Is there a danger of another person using vanitygen with the same input you gave it to generate your public/private key? For example, assume I created a vanitygen address:
1Vanity...
Someone sees my address and correctly assumes I generated it with vanitygen:
./vanitygen 1Vanity
They now just have to run ./vanitygen 1Vanity and wait a while until they get my public/private keys.
Is that right or wrong?
I guess my assumption here is that while the space of possible random btc addresses is so large, the space of vanity addresses for a given prefix is smaller and perhaps dangerously small? Also, I don't know how vanitygen searches the space but perhaps it's likely to find the addresses for a given prefix in a similar order each time?
Thanks for any insight. You guys are smarter then me.
Its not dangerous at all. Its impossible to find whole bitcoin address. In order for somebody to get private key for ur 1Vanity addy he would need to copy ur whole addy like 1Vanity15af4a5df63adf5645adf... Not only 1Vanity coz there are ALOT of addresses that can start with 1Vanity. Its imposible for somebody to find key for ur 1Vanity addy , he can make alot of addresses that start with 1Vanity but they wont be the same as urs. Thanks for the reply MICRO, but I'm suspicious about your information because it seems vague and lacking in detail. For example, you say that something is impossible but I think you mean infeasibly improbable. Since I'm looking for details and proofs, I guess I find myself still wanting. Nonetheless, the point of your reply is noted: apparantly reducing the address space by a prefix is insignficant. Can anyone fill in the numbers to make this clear? Second point seems implied in your answer but isn't explicit, apparantly vanitygen is going to generate matching addresses in some pseudo random order. Also, I decided to put this to the empirical test. Now running vanitygen with 1Micro |
|
|
|
|
I want to ask a question which will probably get people calling me stoopid or whatever but here I go:
Is there a danger of another person using vanitygen with the same input you gave it to generate your public/private key? For example, assume I created a vanitygen address:
1Vanity...
Someone sees my address and correctly assumes I generated it with vanitygen:
./vanitygen 1Vanity
They now just have to run ./vanitygen 1Vanity and wait a while until they get my public/private keys.
Is that right or wrong?
I guess my assumption here is that while the space of possible random btc addresses is so large, the space of vanity addresses for a given prefix is smaller and perhaps dangerously small? Also, I don't know how vanitygen searches the space but perhaps it's likely to find the addresses for a given prefix in a similar order each time?
Thanks for any insight. You guys are smarter then me.
|
|
|
|
Thanks bitcoininformation, can you say a little bit about what you mean by "distributed fairly"? I could think of several distinct distribution systems which might be considered "fair". Oh yes sure. I would simply distirubte the funds based on post count, quality and how much you should have gotten. I don't know exactly how (I do have something in mind, which I will have to write down), but I will come up with a good working system and I will let you all decide if it's fair or not. If not, we will think of something, together.  I'd look forward to the discussion once you actually write out the system (which I think would be a good idea). The only thing about what you just said which stands out to me as potentially problematic is your judgment of "quality". Anyway, in order to avoid vague talk, I'll wait till you write down the specifics before I comment further. Also, hopefully OP will turn out trustworthy and it would never come down to this. |
|
|
|
nembie want to ask 66 freeroll starts every how many hours?  It pops up after the previous one finishes. Because that time can vary depending on how people play, there's some variation. You just gotta keep an eye out if you wanna play the freeroll. |
|
|
|
==========Message to sign========== I, BitcoinInformation, am currently in control of 1.0625BTC, which have been send to me so that I can keep them in escrow for this campaign. The coins that have been escrowed are enough to pay 25 Full Member if they posted 50 messages. The calculation for this is ((50*25)*0.00085). If XBTec fails to pay up these funds will be used reimburse the participants as far as possible. These funds will be fairly distributed among the participants. If XBTec pays up, these funds will be returned to him without any fee's. Donations are welcome though. This messaged will be signed by the address that contains these funds (13te3WeK1r6GxCyWuWYV). If you have any questions, do ask. ==========Signed message========== HLF9MPHlNXpPen0lFlo64GBqq705nEOlipD6cbV5UfOw7qsQA4Ygj2DF0gRaWF974LMuLx/5F+DZUlgPBbwcG6w= ============Signed with=========== 13te3WeK1r6GxCyWuWYVDZaADfUYySAutCThanks bitcoininformation, can you say a little bit about what you mean by "distributed fairly"? I could think of several distinct distribution systems which might be considered "fair". |
|
|
|
Looks like this campaign got immediately overrun by the Jr Members. Most of the ads will be small font / no color!
OP, if you are considering adding reserved spots for Hero/Sr Members -- as some other campaigns have -- I'd like to reserve a spot. Please let us know! I could start tomorrow. Thanks!
OP, same for me. I'd be interested in reserving a Sr. Member spot if you would like to have more folks with color, larger font. Like Marbit, I'd be willing to start tomorrow (tuesday). Just let me know. |
|
|
|
|
I'm potentially interested in signing up however I have a few things I need to clarify:
1) OP says I need a full week in order to qualify for payment and that weeks begin on Monday.
** This is Sunday, so if I hear back from you tommorow and add the signature before end of day (PDT) Monday, will I qualify for the last weekly payment next week?
You can see why I'm interested in this one, if you say "no" then I'd be waiting a week and 6 days for my first payment.
2) Do you allow other signatures (like minersource does)?
Looking forward to your replies.
|
|
|
|
|
Still got spots available for this campaign? I'm looking for sig sponsors currently, trying to do a roundup of what's out there.
|
|
|
|
|
I find this so confusing. You're making an advert for WindowsTMand you say it's not for profit? I'm sure there's some explanation, but isn't WindowsTM like the most canonical example of for-profit? I think they do plenty of their own advertizing, do you work for them?
|
|
|
|
|
I also never got confirmed. I signed up in the thread and sent a PM the same day.
48 hours later no word from OP, I removed the ad from my sig space because I don't allow advertising for free in my signature.
My complaint isn't as bad as many others but I also found this service to be questionably run and I advise people to stay away from it.
|
|
|
|
Look at Ranlo 
It is nice to see that ...
So, apparantly they need to take giant fonts away from newbies too. I thought that removing link signatures was going to be enough .... |
|
|
|
|
IMHO, folks still working with this campaign are doing the rest of us a disservice. It shows advertisers that they can fail to pay everyone, fail to confirm ppl, fail to reply for days etc and there is no problem. ppl will stay w them and their ad is shown around the boards. I think when an advertiser treats ppl this way there really should be a mass exodus from the campaign in order that advertisers see the importance of professionalism wrt concerns of sig partners.
|
|
|
|
The Howzar account was banned for PMing people to try buy their accounts, something which he'd been banned for before on a different account. His banning wasn't for anything malicious and was unfortunate really. He ran the campaigns pretty well and I'm sure you would too. If people are unhappy with certain campaigns they just shouldn't use them. Plenty more to choose from.
Trying to buy an account isn't malicious, but harassing/annoying people who most likely don't want to sell it is. Also, doing something that you have been punished for before is malicious. Anyway, I have no idea how he would run this campaign, nor can I imagine him running it. I'm not sure if you know what malicious means. There's nothing malicious in politely and inoffensively messaging people in an attempt to buy their accounts, nor is the process of buying them in this particular case, but it was deemed as spam/unsolicited mail, not that I'm condoning what he did, but it wasn't malicious in any sense of the word. Lol, not sure if *you* know what malicious means. Nothing sounds malicicoius when you throw 'politely' and 'inoffensively' in front of it. Consider: """ The alleged robber politely and inoffensively offered to take all the money in an exchange in which no one would be harmed. """ You may be right that one can cast spamming as innocous solicitation, but someone else will say it's a fraudulent use of the network and forum resources. What's malicious or nor comes down to the motivations of the individual who allegedly purpetrated the acts in question. That is, we'll never know. Very few people will admit to malintent even if they will admit they've broken rules. At the end of the day, flagrantly breaking a rule more than once boils down to the same thing as maliciousness, imho. It shows a disregard for the community which I believe intails malintent (which is a synonmym for maliciousness). |
|
|
|
|
Does anybody know what it means to "sum-up"?
The OP says 0.15 BTC for senior members with 50posts minimum but then says this weird thing about 'sums-up' without any definition.
|
|
|
|
I used betcoinsports, I'd give a 2. It was ok.
Issues:
* I didn't get a chance to bet on the game I wanted to because I had to have my deposit confirmed by hand before I could place a bet. Why couldn't they use instant deposits for sports betting like a dice game, you simply send your bet to an address and get the winnings back after the game if you win? (That's what I had hoped for anyway).
* Out-of-date info, the FAQ said minimum bet was 0.01 BTC, in fact it turned out to be 0.001 BTC.
* incorrect units, having bought in for 0.003 BTC, my balance in the casino said 3USD which isn't correct.
* confusing interface, the wrong units made things confusing, but also you have to log in, and then log in again in order to find a line on a game.
I don't think this site is a scam, but it has serious issues. I wouldn't bet there again.
Thank you! If you decide to try out the new site and change your score remember to let me know here. Updated 6/3 Will do. While it's certainly good news that they're trying to improve the situation there. I doubt I'll try it again. I may wager a bit on the FIFA world cup this summer, but mostly likely I'll try out a different site. |
|
|
|
Starting post: 61
BTC address: 1Ntu6PJ1wSLxq9LHv27BEJybXqe55Zi6Mn
jjc326, not sure this is a good idea for you. i tried to join about 3 days ago and no confirmation from OP that I was in. I removed the sig because i'm not advertizing for free. i think you may want to see if this campaign actually straightens itself out before you put the sig. or that' s my recommendation anyway. |
|
|
|
|
hey bitmixer,
My old deal ended, wanting to come back to bitmixer campaign for now. I replaced your sig and went to the signup. I entered my uid and I see "active" but also "FAIL". Since I'm trying to rejoin, I think it's expected that I didn't have your signature in the last seven days.
Fails:
May 28 Signature not found
May 29 Signature not found
May 30 Signature not found
May 31 Signature not found
June 1 Signature not found
June 2 Signature not found
June 3 Signature not found
What should I do about this? I'll leave your ad in my sig space for 48 hours while I wait to hear back from you guys. After that I'll have to remove it because I have a no free advertizing in my sig space policy that I have to maintain.
Looking forward to hearing from ya.
|
|
|
|
|
I used betcoinsports, I'd give a 2. It was ok.
Issues:
* I didn't get a chance to bet on the game I wanted to because I had to have my deposit confirmed by hand before I could place a bet. Why couldn't they use instant deposits for sports betting like a dice game, you simply send your bet to an address and get the winnings back after the game if you win? (That's what I had hoped for anyway).
* Out-of-date info, the FAQ said minimum bet was 0.01 BTC, in fact it turned out to be 0.001 BTC.
* incorrect units, having bought in for 0.003 BTC, my balance in the casino said 3USD which isn't correct.
* confusing interface, the wrong units made things confusing, but also you have to log in, and then log in again in order to find a line on a game.
I don't think this site is a scam, but it has serious issues. I wouldn't bet there again.
|
|
|
|
|
Ritz paid me in full for last month, but I agree that his tactic of removing posts with even the slightest bit of criticism leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth. [note: this was done to me when I criticized the details of one of his "giveaways" when the casino was first being promoted on these boards] Secondarily, whenever anyone leaves him negative feedback, he often threatens legal action and apparantly does very aggressive things like call people on their home numbers when he's able to dox them successfully.
He paid well and I got my money so I'm not leaving any negative feedback but I'd agree that his tactics on this board are aggressive and imho unfortunately tolerated by most because of his high rates of pay during his sig campaign (which I, admittedly, participated in).
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
