you can send it immediatly but better to wait about half an hour or to get atlest 6 confirmation because some websites and softwares reject txs with low or low confirmations It is impossible to "reject" incoming transaction  I guess whats missing is "to be used as inputs". E.g. core default behaviour is not to use unconfirmed TXs as inputs. |
|
|
|
WHY NO PAYOUT  Looks like master-P was sold in august and the new owner decided to no longer be available. |
|
|
|
I guess we have fundamental different views. Your suggested security simulation is just that a simulation. It will not stop any scams, it will just cause more hassle for everyone. Most of your arguments remind me of politicians. IS attack? Ban crypto! Does it help? Who cares, we did something.
Got scammed by a newbie? Limit marketplace to Jr. members! Does it help? Who cares, we did something.
We are among strangers here, act accordingly.
At least I am suggesting something which half the forum would agree with (especially now when master-p fucked us all). What are you doing other than commenting on my thread & making me explain you because you are too ignorant to understand and/or see anything on your own? Eating ice cream and disagreeing with you. I dont have have a better solution in order to criticize yours. |
|
|
|
-snip-
Suggestions are always welcome.
The brute force way: Start @ ~607809 (multiplied the last known value by 1.7) convert to hex, create addresses, check if one address matches the next in turn. What would be the best tool to attack this in a brute force way while we all think on something better or discover a easier way? Some GPU bot would be the best to brute force it, like shorena was saying. Need to code one, but I'm not in the mood now  Anyone out there doing it? Or maybe there is something existing? I think the best existing tool currently is yours or otherwise private. I would think the best way would be to modify (ocl)vanitygen according to BurtW's suggestion. You would need to limit the random number generator to a certain amount of bits and keep the rest. |
|
|
|
I wouldn't sell my account for 100BTC even... How someone could screw over the community after trying to help it is beyond me. If the account was sold or not doesn't really matter...the original Master-p is responsible in my opinion.
Agreed. Selling your PGP key is never ok... It is supposed to prove your identity. Selling your account as an escrow provider is shady enough, selling your PGP key along with it is downright perpetrating fraud. I can't believe I even need to state this, but I will never sell my PGP key, forum username, or my public Bitcoin address key. I will also never act as an (assumed 3rd party) escrow for trades involving myself. If I ever do any of these things, you can consider this contractual documentation that I will not press charges against anyone who finds me and punches me in the face. Quoted for future reference (I hope not), can you PGP sign it? Id sign something similar, just because I applaud the notion. |
|
|
|
The efford was done here though. So do I understand you correctly that this is a bad example to discuss because you have no way to prevent this?
Let me rephrase that: You say you have no way to prevent someone that is willing to put in efford in order to scam?
I would like to challenge your IQ now. This question just made me feel sick about you! Can you please tell me your age? No, its irrelevant. Are we even discussing at the same level? Did I ever say on this entire thread that taking precautions/implementing rules would mean that nobody would ever get scammed?
On separate note: I myself have been scammed thrice.
Once a person hacked a trusted person's account & used his identity to make me send bitcoin 1st. Though it was just $10.4 worth of bitcoin
2nd time the guy charged back $60 saying it as unauthorized transaction after I sent him BTC
3rd time PayPal fucked me by reversing the $140 to the sender and then that person turns out to be a con artist.
I guess we have fundamental different views. Your suggested security simulation is just that a simulation. It will not stop any scams, it will just cause more hassle for everyone. Most of your arguments remind me of politicians. IS attack? Ban crypto! Does it help? Who cares, we did something. Got scammed by a newbie? Limit marketplace to Jr. members! Does it help? Who cares, we did something. We are among strangers here, act accordingly. |
|
|
|
And to be honest with you, I don't believe you. I believe you're just in to dupe those that know less than you into buying your 'app + database' for 1 BTC each.
Oh man, I don't really care about that. Look, I will edit the post and remove that line. ...and you did. I henceforth apologize for what seems to be my incorrect assumption regarding your motivation. At least Im not the only one. See the other thread for more. -> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1306983.0 |
|
|
|
-snip-
try to find solution for this.
-snip-
Good idea, lets take the master-P issue as an example. How do you think this could have been prevented even if selling accounts was verboten(!) here? The sale was hidden and it included all commonly used ways to identify someone here, including PGP and bitcoin private keys, as well as a mail address. ^^You want to know what the difference is between providing an effortless, liquid market vs. scammer having to put some effort into his scheme?
@shorena: I guess you got your answer The efford was done here though. So do I understand you correctly that this is a bad example to discuss because you have no way to prevent this? Let me rephrase that: You say you have no way to prevent someone that is willing to put in efford in order to scam? |
|
|
|
I see a pattern but I do not think it will help much.
My conjecture is that the sequence number (the BTC amount) simply states the number of random bits in the private key.
Check it out:
The 0.001 BTC output used a 1 bit key (already claimed obviously)
The 0.002 BTC output used a 2 bit key
The 0.003 BTC output used a 3 bit key
etc...
The 0.019 BTC output used a 19 bit key
So I would claim the next unclaimed output uses a 51 bit key.
So, there is no pattern? Its just getting more and more difficult to find a solution? Might be time to get something written for GPUs. |
|
|
|
-snip-
Suggestions are always welcome.
The brute force way: Start @ ~607809 (multiplied the last known value by 1.7) convert to hex, create addresses, check if one address matches the next in turn. |
|
|
|
-snip-
try to find solution for this.
-snip-
Good idea, lets take the master-P issue as an example. How do you think this could have been prevented even if selling accounts was verboten(!) here? The sale was hidden and it included all commonly used ways to identify someone here, including PGP and bitcoin private keys, as well as a mail address. |
|
|
|
Thanks for the replies. I think I posted a misleading title, sorry guys. What I want to do is to create a new wallet on a different computer. I'll keep this one as a main wallet. In fact the other computer (the "new" one) is a chromebook, but setting up a wallet on that will be a different story I expect. Is the disk large enough to fit the blockchain? I have little experience with chromebooks, but I understand that they mainly want you to store data in the cloud, so you can easily switch devices without hassle. If you have enough space to run bitcoin core with a full blockchain, creating a new wallet (with new addresses) is as simple as renaming the existing wallet.dat file. If core starts without finding one, it will create a new one. |
|
|
|
Mine says 57.3Gb , but there are some other associated files as well.
Yeah, its closer to 60GB now than to 50 GB, but 100 GB still a while away. I recently did an estimate because the disk they want to shoot into space has 100GB for the blockchain and IIRC it would hold for another ~400 days. |
|
|
|
Hi,
Is there any way to recover ONLY the spending pin of my bitcoin wallet(schildbach)?
I remember the password of the wallet but I don't remember the spending pin.
The PIN is only numeric with a number of the digit that start from 4 until 6.
I think a possible brute force attack.
Thanks.
Yes, btcrecover can do that[1] with --android-pin. [1] https://github.com/gurnec/btcrecover |
|
|
|
You could have started with. instead of. So just for the fun I created this bot that brute forces Bitcoin addresses.
-snip-
I think the bot found the puzzle. Probably missed that between the "I hacked bitcoin claims". My bad. Enjoy the puzzle. |
|
|
|
You could have started with. instead of. So just for the fun I created this bot that brute forces Bitcoin addresses.
-snip-
|
|
|
|
I have a client who has passed away. His Bitcoin investment was $10,000. How do I liquidate his account for his surviving family?
You cant. There is no account, either the person left notes how to recover the BTC (passwords, how to operate the wallet they used) or they are lost forever. |
|
|
|
|
In other words: In your attempt to search the ocean for treasure you checked the first few molecules and found traces of loot. You now think these traces mean you are close to the big thing, while in reality you only found the traces of idiots from the past that though it was a good idea to put their treasure at the edge of the ocean. They are wiser now and use randomly generated spots for their loot.
|
|
|
|
-snip- until the addresses 50 (1MEzite4ReNuWaL5Ds17ePKt2dCxWEofwk) it was already cracked by someone. Any ideas what's the formula behind the generation of these addresses? The prize would be ~32 BTC The first 32 bit are known to be vulnerable, due to bad RNG. Someone wrote a paper about it. AFAIK No founds have been stolen. What you found is nothing special, you are no the first and you will not be the last. The first 100 (in decimal) private keys are known "brain wallets". Don't come here mocking my comment just because you are a Hero Member. You know so little about this I wonder if you actually managed to write the code for this. Trying to attack me personally (or rather the account Im posting from) will only make you more silly. Your outputs clearly states Biginteger PVK value: 3, 7, 8, 21, 49, 76, 224, 467, 514, 1155, 2683, 5216, 10544 Read again my comment and check the facts.
Fact, the numbers above are within 10544/2 160*100 = 7.21*10 -43 percent of all possible version 1 addresses. They are the first few pages on directory.io. The first 100 private keys on that sequence are not known as you say, otherwise the addresses until the address 100 would be spent already.
I know there is a formula behind those addresses, someone just needs to find out.
I did not talk about a sequence. I talked about the integers from 0 to 99 converted used as private keys as well as the integers from 0 to 2 32-1 used as private keys. |
|
|
|
-snip- until the addresses 50 (1MEzite4ReNuWaL5Ds17ePKt2dCxWEofwk) it was already cracked by someone. Any ideas what's the formula behind the generation of these addresses? The prize would be ~32 BTC The first 32 bit are known to be vulnerable, due to bad RNG. Someone wrote a paper about it. AFAIK No founds have been stolen. What you found is nothing special, you are no the first and you will not be the last. The first 100 (in decimal) private keys are known "brain wallets". |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
