|
If you are not using a HD wallet, anytime you sign a transaction, your wallet.dat will be unencrypted in RAM, or more specifically, the decryption key to decrypt the wallet.dat file will be in RAM, along with the private key(s) of what you are using to sign. If an attacker has access to your RAM when you are signing a transaction, all of your money is effectively stolen.
If you are using an HD wallet, anytime you sign a transaction, the private key(s) used to sign the transaction will be stored in RAM. An attacker could use the private key along with the xpubkey (which will always be in an unencrypted state), to be able to calculate the rest of your private keys in your wallet.
Also, an attacker is likely able to monitor what you enter into your keyboard, so they can get your passphraise anyway, so an attacker could simply copy your wallet.dat and use what you typed as your passphraise.
|
|
|
|
Less number of orphans means having x confirmations is more safe to accept, even when factoring in the difference in block generation time.
That being said, both coins have very low orphan rates, which are both negligible because of improvements in technology and generally small block sizes.
It sounds like you're saying that Bitcoin is, from a practical perspective, inferior in all ways that matter to users of a currency: - Nearly quadruple the blockchain formation speed - Equivalent security What am I missing? From a technical standpoint, you are correct. Users use bitcoin because of higher merchant acceptance, and higher exchange liquidity. |
|
|
|
The security implications are that Cloudflare can read everything you send to or receive from the server, including your cleartext password and any PMs you send or look at.
Is there an official .onion proxy of BitcoinTalk that bypass Cloudflare? We do sometimes get support request PMs. How about BitcoinTalk Pro accounts with monthly payments, private proxy without Cloudflare and captchas, bot access? Thank you. A Bitcointalk .onion was on my mind all week, together with other anti-DDoS mitigation ideas about which I hope to write up suggestions. It is also something I may perhaps, maybe, perhaps be willing to not only talk about (hint, hint). .onion sites already have less exposure to DDoS than sites on the open Internet. There have been plenty of .onion sites that have been DDoS'ed over the years. I know that Silk Road had a decent number of DDoS issues, and Ulbright apparently spent a decent amount of money fighting it. I am not sure if he implemented any of what you suggested though. |
|
|
|
How are you defining "abuse"?
For the purposes of this thread, I'm looking for campaigns that have an abundance of one line posters joining it or actively participating in it. The secondstrade and 777 casino signature campaigns were notorious for one liners, in part because they paid so little, which did not attract "quality" posters. Both these campaigns are already over. Many of the participants of these campaigns have been banned. I am also gathering data from campaigns that are already over, preferably ones that may have been seen in the past as campaigns that were abused by one line posters or suspected multiple accounts by one person. The GAW signature campaign openly allowed multiple accounts owned by one person. I would also like to say that I would be strongly suspicious of any campaign ever managed by Lauda, although a few accounts that I suspect to be his sockpuppets generally do not participate in his campaigns. |
|
|
|
|
I understand that the Gemini auction data will be used as the settlement price for the CBOE futures contracts. I don't think Gemini is actually facilitating futures trading.
In theory this will result in higher trading volume on Gemini.
|
|
|
|
|
How are you defining "abuse"?
|
|
|
|
No. The block interval depends on the difficulty of generating a block. The specification of Litecoin is for the block intervals to 2.5mins and for Bitcoin to be 10 minutes. For each difficulty adjustment, Litecoin attempts to make it difficult/easy to generate a block such that the time it takes between each block is 2.5 minutes.
There's no significant tradeoffs with the security. With the 10 minutes, there are less orphans than the 2.5 minutes block interval however.
So the only reason that bitcoin has a longer block interval time is because it wants fewer orphaned blocks? What are the practical tradeoffs between are fewer orphaned blocks vs. a shorter block interval? Less number of orphans means having x confirmations is more safe to accept, even when factoring in the difference in block generation time. That being said, both coins have very low orphan rates, which are both negligible because of improvements in technology and generally small block sizes. |
|
|
|
Can we have animated gifs?
No. Has this changed? I found a user who has an animated gif an as avatar. |
|
|
|
I would be more worried about them adding pretty sketchy altcoins in the last weeks. Altcoins like QASH or YOYO
should never be added on an exchange that wants to be taken seriously.
There is a reason why these coins are never added to Bitstamp, GDAX or Gemini.
All those exchanges have subjected themselves to regulators, which take months to approve additional trading pairs. |
|
|
|
|
I think technical support is most appropriate for this.
|
|
|
|
And if the Tor user pays the fee from non-P2PKH addresses (e.g., segwit P2SH addresses or multisig P2SH addresses), the Tor user can't sign the message using those addresses.
Sure they can. They can sign from the private key(s) used to sign the transaction. The public key associated with the private key(s) used to sign a transaction is public information once the transaction is broadcast. |
|
|
|
|
If I am understanding your concerns correctly, you are upset that prime dice is not giving you free money for nothing...
|
|
|
|
|
At least he was being transparent about it. Although one could argue this is effectively backing out of his auction commitments.
At the very least, this will likely cause some people to not want to bid on his future auctions.
|
|
|
|
Quickseller described a few things that can hold up withdrawals.
There are however a few things that can cause delays in withdrawing BTC from your bitfinex account. I have noticed that if you request one withdrawal and then request a second withdrawal prior to approving the first one (via the link you receive from them via email) then the 2nd withdrawal will take a long time to process.
If you are attempting to withdraw in excess of 200BTC in a 24 hour period, then any withdrawal that puts you over the 200BTC limit will take a long time to be processed because they need to be approved by an admin. I
This quote is no longer accurate. This was when bitfinex was using BitGo, which they stopped using after the August 2016 hack. They are now using a traditional hot/cold wallet setup. M I understand the withdrawal delays are in relation to malicious actors depositing small amounts over many hundreds of deposits, forcing bitfinex to consolidate inputs (thousands) in order to process withdrawals. I also understand that likely the same actors are requesting many very small withdrawals bumping up against the limits of what their wallet software can handle. It is possible whoever is behind this is wanting to force bitfinex to create many very large transactions causing blockchain bloat. It is also possible the entity behind this is the same entity who is behind the year long smear attacks on bitfinex, likely a competitor. |
|
|
|
I suspect part of the reason for the very low limits for 0 (and <15 activity) users is to combat PM spam, however one solution to this might be to force these users to solve a captcha when sending a PM.
ICO scammers have been botting the forum spamming users en masse trying to promote their crapcoins. Staff were getting hundreds of reports of unsolicited spam so it was a necessary step unfortunately. This is why we can't have nice things. Ahh, I wasn’t aware ICO advertisement spam was that much of a problem. I haven’t received any of those messages that I can recall (although I have received many similar spam emails from likely hacked email accounts who likely got my email from hacked databases). I’m not entirely surprised to hear this though. |
|
|
|
Bitfinex and CEX are sharing the same bank account with Bank Spółdzielczy w Skierniewicach (Cooperative Bank in Skierniewice). why do they share an account name?  Because they use the same bank... It's the SAME BANK ACCOUNT NAME (same company) not only the same bank !  Cex.io and Bitfinex are using the same bank account . You must not be very good at reading. Either that or you are being intentionally dishonest....probably both |
|
|
|
Also, any staff member can whitelist a new user, so there should not be any need to refer the new user to another staff member.
The question/issue is not necessarily regarding the forum/forum policy, but rather something about Bitcoin, a Bitcoin transaction of theirs, their wallet, etc. |
|
|
|
There are a fairly decent number of people that create accounts for the purpose of contacting people for help with technical problems.
Do you think the max PM per hour/day might be a little low for those with no activity?
No. If they truly have a legitimate need for a higher PM limit, they can always petition a staff member to whitelist them or simply buy a Copper Membership. They will have a fairly difficult time even petitioning a staff member if they are limited to 2 PMs per day. A new user would use up his two PMs by sending a PM to someone he believes can help him, get referred to a second person, PM that second person, and would subsequently be unable to answer any clarifying questions or advise if troubleshooting recommendations worked. I suspect part of the reason for the very low limits for 0 (and <15 activity) users is to combat PM spam, however one solution to this might be to force these users to solve a captcha when sending a PM. |
|
|
|
...
The CBOE et el., are not going to offer 24 hour trading, which puts anyone with an open position while the markets are closed at risk of the market moving against them, potentially to the extent they have negative equity in their accounts while the markets are closed. The circuit breakers will also make the futures market unattractive because traders may not be able to take advantage of some of the large swings in price, and may be unable to exit positions if the market goes a certain way.
...
Interesting viewpoint. However, I´d argue that the circuit breakers will prove to be less relevant than you currently think. As more (institutional) money flows into Bitcoin the market cap will obviously grow even further, which should result in less volatility. When BTC was having a market cap in the single-digit billions the swings were more extreme, because whales could easily move the price. These days the ecosystem is much more mature and the high market cap makes it more difficult to cause big price swings. E.g. years ago a 10M $ (worth of BTC) market sell would have easily caused a decline of 20-30 % and nowadays this would cause a less pronounced market move. Therefore I think that the circuit breakers at 20 % won´t really be triggered unless a really extreme event happens. It is not necessarily the circuit breaker in itself being triggered that is the issue, it is the risk of the circuit breaker being triggered. It is still fairly common for there to be daily 20%+ swings. You could also argue that the institutional money will make the price more stable, however "buy bitcoin" is a very crowded trade currently, so the additional institutional money may simply result in more people buying up bitcoin (being on only one side of the trade). There also still remains the issue of 24 hour trading (and potentially news) on the spot market. The price tends to move at all hours of the day, even if it is not a 20% swing, it will often be several percentage points. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
