|
From my short experience as a campaign manager, I know checking posts is a very good opportunity to also spread Merit since you have to read the posts anyway. And since you're managing a lot of campaigns, that would make you a good candidate to contribute to the Merit system.
|
|
|
|
Thanks for warning. So, I should post giveaways in games sections in case I decide to do one. Nope, still not allowed (unless you're giving away Bitcoin, or not asking people to post for it). There are people who haven't tried VPN and want to try They can just try Mullvad at any price: when making a Bitcoin transaction and getting a small amount of change (say 1000 sat, close to the dust limit and barely worth sending), use "send to many" instead and send that change to fund a new Mullvad account. That dust gets them 42 hours of Mullvad access, and should be more than enough to test it. |
|
|
|
Update:New and wiped Trust lists in the past week:
|
|
|
|
I want people to make this topic more active and every week/month I'll reward the ones who publish most genuine, helpful and informative guides/articles in this thread. Be careful not to turn this into a giveaway thread, that's not allowed. If I buy and give away Mullvad or IVPN's monthly VPN service to people there and someone does something illegal (not me, definitely), can that giveaway turn into a problem for me? If this would come back bite you in the ass, that means the VPN kept logs. So first of all, it shouldn't be possible to come back to you. But even if it's traced back that you paid for the subscription, and note that I'm not a lawyer, I see no reason why you'd be liable for someone else's actions. Just like their ISP isn't liable, just like the VPN service isn't liable. |
|
|
|
I do not have the impression that the authorities are so eager to sanction "official" banks that launder money from illicit activities They just get a fine and move on. In The Netherlands, banks process €16 billion criminal money per year. ING paid a €775 million fine 5 years ago, ABN AMRO €480 million 2 years ago. The Dutch government still owns 56.3% of the latter. How ironic is that? Using a database from a chain analysis company to filter out addresses so they can block out transactions, IP filter, and so on. I'm responding to the question of how a mixer might defend itself from government scrutiny. I don't think any mixer is going to implement them though, since the cost to run them is likely expensive and it might affect their branding too. This is literally what CoinJoin wallet Wasabi did. See Wasabi blacklisting update - open letter / 24 questions discussion thread. |
|
|
|
Lastly, since you are a taint proclaiming service, I had to add you to my Blacklist First, it is a blacklist in your opinion, for other people it would be a whitelist so thanks for including me. This explains why you ignored my post: The platform runs a scoring procedure for each incoming coin so to check its reliability and purchase it for its reserves. The service liaises with crypto stock exchanges and controls the money inflow around the clock – if the algorithm detects a shortfall it blasts notification messages to investors and quickly tops up the reserves. Coins with dark history are never let in. A mixer that promotes the taint BS and tells you Bitcoin isn't fungible? That's a first the second after Wasabi! Allow me to quote myself on the subject of "taint": I've seen several posts lately from people willing to treat Bitcoin as non-fungible because they believe some coins are "tainted". I'd say this is a severe threat to Bitcoin, and I wouldn't be surprised if governments use this because they can't stop Bitcoin in any other way. If people believe Bitcoin is "tainted", they won't accept it anymore. "We" should really inform people not to fall for this. Nobody would reject a dollar bill because it has previously been used in a crime, despite the fact that 85 to 90% contains traces of cocaine. Claiming Bitcoin isn't fungible is just plain stupid. You're attacking Bitcoin's fungibility while trying to use it to make your service look good. That's like misleading users who don't understand the basics of fungibility.
Hello again, I am working on the web, but I have taken time to read your second Bible, although the first included some lies, and your list is incomplete and unbiased. I already said in the thread that I'm going to use cloudflare temporarily (only difference since launch and it's temporary) the reasons are not your business, that's all, no need to make up conspiracies. The way a service responds to criticism tells you a lot about how they operate. In your case, it doesn't look good.
As for Cloudflare, it has strict policies on the privacy of its users. That's cute. Here's the opinion of Bitcointalk's Administrator: a man-in-the-middle in your HTTPS Cloudflare is very probably an NSA honeypot |
|
|
|
Any idea how minimum satoshis should a UTXO contain in order to be spendable so that fees don’t exceed the UTXO balance ? maybe fees in the future will be so high ? You can't know the minimum spending balance per input ("input" types easier than "UTXO") without knowing the future fee, which you also can't know. I always use coin control (in Electrum or Bitcoin Core). For each transaction I make, I manually pick the inputs that best fit the purpose based on transaction fee and privacy (linking inputs together). If fees are low, I consolidate more and smaller inputs, if fees are high, I use as little inputs as possible.
Maybe it's a good start to play around with fees on Testnet: get some coins, start Electrum with " --testnet" option, and create some transactions. Send some to yourself, learn how to use "send to many", send some back to the faucet, and see what happens to the fee and your Coins tab. On the Coins tab, manually select the inputs you want to use (the process is a bit different on the latest version of Electrum). |
|
|
|
Or just feed your string to /dev/urandom instead. I believe you can do that with echo "example" >> /dev/urandom, although i don't know whether it's proper way to do it. I didn't know you can do this. Stack Exchange) suggests feeding it with basically a microphone or webcam. To quote: This is still big overkill. I've never worried about this. |
|
|
|
Topics which belongs to Off-topic boards can be moved to that board through user reports too. Off-topic board: Off-topic - "Other topics that might be of interest to bitcoiners" Whenever I visit the board, I end up reporting some "insubstantial topics", which then get deleted. There's rarely anything interesting for Bitcoiners. Why you will need to create a thread that you allow off-topic. It makes no sense. There's no discussion possible if people respond with completely irrelevant statements (example: "I just had coffee with my breakfast."). |
|
|
|
How about 9428367110839506348425063820855586539232765? Looks random, right? Except that it's part of the first million decimals of pi. The same with seed phrases: you can create one based on a Shakespear book. The seed will look random, but it's created deterministically. You can only tell it's not random once you find the source. The issue here is there are potentially trillions of text inputs to analyze, so it becomes largely impractical to test the seed phrase against all of them  That's why it's impossible to check if a seemingly random string was created randomly. This would seem "sufficient" to me. Thoughts? Of course, it's a lot more effort than just using a generator, and you're liable to leave a trace of all the research being done here (and maybe that's part of the point), but as a thought experiment, I don't see how a system like this or something similar could be vulnerable to bruteforce. I'd say it's unlikely to be brute-forced. But I still don't see the point: if you want to create your own random, just flip coins. If you want it to be something you can remember and reproduce later to restore your seed, then the examples you gave are terrible. Chances are you forget parts and can't find back all details. The interesting question to me, isn't whether the result could be raw bruteforced, but rather is it demonstratively worse/lower quality/less random/less entropy (semantics in this regard aren't my strongpoint, choose the appropriate term) than a CSPRNG SW-generated phrase. Why not use both? Create your own string, and simply add it to a random coming from a random number generator. Kinda like the way Split key vanity addresses are created. As long as at least one of the strings is random, the result is random. |
|
|
|
She had an outage on her automated messages, probably tied to the cloudflare debacle. It's probably something related to flux capacitors. Ummm... I've been locked up for two weeks now and Foxxy's got the only key...
Help? No help is coming. Good luck  |
|
|
|
Sure, but don't you make it, in the very least, more secure if you exclude numbers like 1, 10, 888, 2^256 / 2 etc.? No. It's just as secure. Being 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% more secure doesn't matter. It's just a waste of programming for something that's never going to happen. |
|
|
|
One thing I never understood is what sets the barrier between looking random and being random. For example, number 888 has the same chances theoretically to be picked between 1 and ~2^256, but it shouldn't, even if the process was completely random, because anyone playing with strange numbers can compromise the key. So you don't want a completely random process, you want one that generates randomly looking numbers If you pick a number between 1 and 2^256, you don't have to worry about "border cases". The search space is large enough to be absolutely sure it won't be 888 (I mean: 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000888). If you're a bank handing out 4 digit PIN codes, you may want to avoid codes like 0000, but that's only because the search space is very limited. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
