|
In theory, if you have more than 50% of the hashrate and can keep that hashrate so you have enough time (the more blocks you want to overwrite, the more time it takes) to build your own chain which 'overwrites' the blocks, yes.
But practically this is NOT possible. That's the whole sense of an (immutable) blockchain.
These blocks also wouldn't be 'deleted'. They would represent a small fork. But nodes do still have access to these blocks. They are just no longer part of the valid chain.
The data (information) itself would still be accessible by these nodes.
Each miner who would try to do that (even if suceeded) would lose a ton of money. The network is conceived that it is more lucrative to keep the network running honestly, than to be malicious.
|
|
|
|
Hmm, now I have a question. If all transactions eventually need to be settled on the blockchain anyway, how does it affect the fees and the scalability?
There are only 2 transactions to be broadcasted: 1 when opening a channel and 1 then closing the channel. You can do multiple (off-chain) transactions between those 2 (on-chain) transactions. You will have to pay a negligible fee (which is way smaller than the on-chain fee) for routing the payment. This allows you to do X transactions (depending on the other party and capacity of the channel/route) for the fee of 2 * on-chain fee + X * off-chain fee (very small; currently 0)The bigger the amount of transactions, the cheaper each tx is (on average). 1. [... ]But my understanding is that HTLC requires a separate transaction output, does it not?
No. When someone decides to close the channel there will be 1 transactions (combining all previously made LN transactions) settled on chain. The TX mostly will only have 1 output (the address you withdraw to) 2. Scalability: I thought more scalability can be achieved by transacting off-chain, but if, when closing the channels, we must broadcast the same amount of on-chain transactions to spending funds from off-chain hash-locked outputs, won't it choke the blockchain all the same when we attempt to close the channels this way?
If this would be the case, yes. But since all off-chain transactions (via HTLCs) are being summarized to one transaction (last state is being published), this is not an issue. |
|
|
|
|
What should be the reason to have an ASIC built into a TV ?
If you are only watching a few hours TV per day and aren't running your hardware 24/7 you are wasting possible income.
If you are running it 24/7 you are wasting electricity since you can't be watching TV the whole day & night.
Additionally the ASIC has to be cooled. Thats way too loud to enjoy watching TV.
We have TVs and we have ASICs. But i really don't see a single reason to combine them. Thats most probably just a money grab.
|
|
|
|
Understood this part, using HTLCs is a brilliant idea. Just can't figure out this one edge case in my head: Now Bob is able to retrieve the X BTC using the secret R. And as soon as he does, the secret will become available to Alice as well.
What if Bob doesn't share the secret right away, but waits until Alice's channel with me expires (our channel with him is set up for a longer period of time), I take away all the funds in the channel with Alice (she can't do anything, because she doesn't know R), and then Bob publishes tx with R when it's too late for her but not too late for him, thus he also takes away funds from Alice in his channel? We've successfully defrauded Alice, haven't we? Alice can easily circumvent being defrauded by choosing a timelock (between Alice and Bob) < timelock between You and Alice. As i have mentioned in my example: Then, based on this you are going to create a HTLC with a timelock. This basically says 'I (you) pay X btc to Alice if she finds the secret R during the next Y blocks. If not, the funds return to me'.
Afterwards Alice (using the same hash) creates a HTLC with Bob where she pays Bob X (- fee) btc. The HTLC basically says 'I (Alice) pay X btc to Bob if he finds the secret R during the next Y-1 blocks. If not, the funds return to me'.
Your approach of defrauding alice would not have worked here. Since we are talking about bi-directional channels, the locktime is going to be decreased each 'hop'.
Edit: Hopefully, this is already included in the emerging LN standards.
From the whitepaper of the LN (source: https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf): 8.
By having a micropayment channel with contracts encumbered by hashlocks and timelocks, it is possible to clear transactions over a multi-hop payment network using a series of decrementing timelocks without additional central clearinghouses.
|
|
|
|
Well, I've signed the money over to her, and I signed it with my key. Now if she signs it and broadcasts it, 2-of-2 multisig is unlocked.
You didn't create a signed transaction and sent to her. The whole process starts with the recipient (Bob) creating a secret R and sharing its hash with the sender (you). Then, based on this you are going to create a HTLC with a timelock. This basically says 'I (you) pay X btc to Alice if she finds the secret R during the next Y blocks. If not, the funds return to me'. Afterwards Alice (using the same hash) creates a HTLC with Bob where she pays Bob X (- fee) btc. The HTLC basically says 'I (Alice) pay X btc to Bob if he finds the secret R during the next Y-1 blocks. If not, the funds return to me'. Now Bob is able to retrieve the X BTC using the secret R. And as soon as he does, the secret will become available to Alice as well.
Now the only concern is that if Alice-Bob channel expires earlier than Bob-Charlie's, Charlie can maliciously withhold the preimage until A-B channel expires (and Bob can't take Alice's funds, because he can't provide the correct preimage to form the unlocking script, and Alice takes them all because the timelock expired), while Charlie publishes the preimage in time after that to grab Bob's payment;
You might want to read this: https://softblocks.co/lightning-network-in-depth-part-2-htlc-and-payment-routing/The 'Broken channel'- and 'Rerouting'-part should clear your concerns. |
|
|
|
If I want to pay Bob, and I have opened a channel with Alice, and she has an open channel with Bob, it seems straightforward: I pay to Alice, she pays to Bob.
What if she refuses though after I pay to her? Is there a way to make it atomic and trustless?
It is not like you are sending Alice the payment and hope that she will send it to Bob. The funds get locked in a multi-sig. If Alice would 'refuse' to pay Bob she wouldn't gain any advantage since she can't get the funds out of the 2-of-2 multisig. When a channel is open you are basically sending signed transactions back and forth. If an malicious actor 'breakes the rules', an earlier state is going to be published, which depending on the case, can lead to the attacker losing all of his coins. This leads to no trust being required into the 'middlemen' to process the payment. To get a slightly more detailed explanation, visit https://thecoinoffering.com/learn/what-is-the-lightning-network/ and scroll down to the part with 3 people involved. |
|
|
|
Look, on my online Desktop PC I want to send bitcoins to somewhere. They usually provide me with a QR Code which I would have just scanned with my Android watch-only wallet, export (save) the transaction file, and then signed it on my offline cold Storage notebook, then I'd again export it back to my Android (or PC's ) watch-only wallet for broadcasting.
That would be quick and fine!
Well, you can skip the mobile phone and it will be even faster. 1) Create unsigned transaction on your online PC and display the QR 2) Scan the QR code with your offline computer 3) Sign the transaction and display the QR 4) Scan the QR code with your online computer 5) Broadcast the transaction But you could also (if you don't have webcams or don't want to use them) do this: 1) Create unsigned tx on your online PC and display the QR 2) Make a photo of the QR code with your mobile phone 3) Move the photo onto your offline PC 4) Use a QR code reader software on your offline PC to decode the data 5) Import the unsigned TX into electrum 6) Sign the transaction and display the QR 7) Do 2) - 5) with the signed tx from your offline pc -> online pc 8] Broadcast the TX The second approach is more time consuming and requires a software to extract data from QR codes installed on your online AND offline PC. I, personally, would choose the first option for dedicated offline storage. |
|
|
|
|
Definitely adoption.
Bitcoin never was meant to be regulated by the government.
Satoshi created bitcoin as a currency to be independent from any government or governmental regulated financial system.
Regulations may bring in new investors. This might drive up the price (short term). But for bitcoin to really succeed and be an established currency around the world, mass adoption is needed.
Regulations can help here, but are definitely not required.
Adoption without regulation can work pretty well. But regulation without adoption won't let bitcoin succeed in the long term.
|
|
|
|
When I use "settxfee" can't send btc. (use RPC)
settxfee does accept one parameter (the fee) in bitcoin per kilobyte. If you want to set the fee to 5 sat/B, you'll enter 0.00005 (5 sat/B => 5000 sat/KB => 0.00005 BTC/KB). So, the command to set the fee to 5 sat/B would be: bitcoin-cli settxfee 0.00005
How can adjust max fee?
Exist command like "setmaxfee"?
If you want to set a 'fixed' fee (independent from the size of the transaction; not recommended), you will have to use the CreateRawTransaction call and build the transaction yourself (fee = inputs - outputs). You can read more about this call in the documentation: https://bitcoin.org/en/developer-reference#createrawtransaction. |
|
|
|
I import keys which i have and it does so and says successful, but then throws out a error and crashes....
We'll be able to help you way easier if you can provide us the error message. And maybe some further information (e.g. your OS, version of electrum, how much RAM, ..). However prior to that it shows the balances as non verified and then when i open up the client after the crash it doesnt show what i just imported...
Are you running the installed version or the portable one ? If you are running the portable one, where is it located ? would earlier versions perhaps allow this if im hitting some kind of max limit on import?
Probably not. AFAIK there is no limit on imports. With a lot of address/private keys the import windows will freeze for a few seconds (e.g. with 1000+ private keys). But it should still work. There is no hard coded maximum amount. You may be running out of RAM ? How much RAM does your PC have ? |
|
|
|
|
That's a weird question with no clear answer.
Do you get an error when signing a transaction (e.g. 'operation not valid with the current stack size'), or why are you asking this question ?
If you somehow encounter an error and want to get a detailed helpful reply, you should include every necessary information into your post.
In case of you getting 'operation not valid with the current stack size' when signing a transaction with core, you are somehow either missing private keys to sign the TX or the script verification failed for any other reason.
Are you trying to sign a multisig tx ?
|
|
|
|
|
IMO it is not relevant at all whether the SEC will approve an ETF. And i honestly also don't believe this will happen (yet).
I am not understanding the call for an ETF. Bitcoin was created to be a free decentralized currency.
Why people want the approval for an ETF from the government is beyond my imagination. The only reason i can think of is the hope for 'new money coming in'.
The times to get rich quick with simply holding bitcoins are over. I am confident that the BTC/$ price will rise in the future. But hoping for another bull run and/or to get rich with a few bucks invested is just delusional.
However, at some point the SEC will approve an ETF. They can't ignore the calls for an ETF forever.
But it might just not happen this year. IMO that's perfectly fine. I wouldn't expect a big jump in price after an approval/denial too.
|
|
|
|
Unless we all want to lie to ourselves, in most places now, cryptocurrency is not being used daily for life stuffs and all we are just so keen about is the profitability in the long run.
Actually, people in Venezuela already started using cryptos to transfer money. Their currency is losing value much faster than BTC can drop. It is being adopted there currently. People are using bitcoin, dash or nano to buy food/clothes/water or to charge their phone. They have completely lost the faith into their national currency and started USING crypto. While it is true that all cryptocurrencies seem to be just a speculative object in most countries, this does not apply to all countries. And i am sure there will be more countries whose financial system will collapse. People in these countries might start adopting towards crypto too. |
|
|
|
Different wallets serve different purposes. You can't simply choose 'the best' wallet. If you are concerned about your security, either get a dedicated offline computer only for crypto storage. You will need to learn how to create raw transactions, move them to your offline machine, sign them, move them to your online pc and broadcast them. If thats too much hassle for you (and/or you don't want to store a big amount of cryptos which you never would be allowed to lose) you might get a hardware wallet. They generate/store the private keys in an isolated environment. A hardware wallet would be perfectly fine since it is convenient and secure. Another option (which is way less secure) would be to use a desktop wallet (preferably not on your every-day-windows-pc). Take a look here to choose a suitable desktop-/mobile- wallet: https://bitcoin.org/en/choose-your-walletRegarding exchanges, you should only use exchange to deposit, trade, withdraw your funds. Never store them there longer than necessary. I would advise to use one of the 'biggest' exchanges. They are not guaranteed to be more safer, but have a better reputation and already defended multiple attacks. |
|
|
|
I wasn't able to find the source code on the website ( https://coolwallet.io/). Am i right in assuming that this wallet is completely closed source ? And that the customer has to trust a company (without much trust rating yet) to build proper hw wallets + code ? 190$ seem to be quite a lot. Especially since it almost entirely is made of plastic. And 2 hours charging for '20 operating cycles' doesn't sound that good either. |
|
|
|
@OP If you feel your question has been answered, please lock your topic in the lower left corner of this thread (click 'lock topic').
The seed in question is not a bip39 seed
You obviously weren't even able to read the OP properly: If you would have clicked on the link, you would have seen that it indeed is a BIP39 seed. No one is claiming cross wallet compatibility and you can't rely on that.
 Compatibility is a big pro regarding BIP 39 seeds. You can definitely rely on that since multiple wallets do use BIP39. And even if you don't want to rely on other wallets, you always can simply download tools to convert from BIP39 to private keys. To add to the above to use it as a bip39 seed you have to turn off checksum checking and that also means that typos in seed entry/seed notation can go unchecked. Then there's the question of the derivation path. You have to note that down too. So overall if you make a copy of the wallet file it'll contain everything that electrum needs to know to recreate your wallet and you don't have to rely on an human's getting it right.
The derivation path is not that hard to find out.. Legacy: m/44'/0'/0'p2sh-segwit: m/49'/0'/0'native segwit: m/84'/0'/0'Its not really necessary to write it down.. this information can always be found with google within 1 minute. A copy of the wallet file has a way higher chance to get corrupted than a proper handwritten backup. Such a backup is inalienable. While a backup of the file definitely is faster to restore, it is no way that reliable. |
|
|
|
18 four-letter non-words (stuff like "ejeg" and "nanw") and a password that I wrote down back in, must've been around 2012-2013.
BIP32 (mnemonic code) got proposed 2013-09-10. Unfortunately i am not familiar with such kind of a seed. Especially not from 2012/2013. It might be a modification of BIP32 with a custom word list ? But i guess you would remember if you would have used something uncommon to backup your coins? I don't currently have access to the hard-drive with the wallet file on it, but I think it was a Bitcoin Core wallet.
Core did not (and still doesn't) use a mnemonic code to backup the private keys. If you have got these words from your wallet as a backup, then you didn't use core. Is there any way I can get my wallet back from this information?
Only if you know what kind of a seed it is and how to derive the necessary information. The hard drive is still accessible, but it's at my parent's house in another state.
If you have really used core, all you need to do is to copy the wallet.dat file and move it to a fresh install on another computer. I would suggest to first make an exact(!) copy of this drive. Then only work on the image of the drive. Depending on the amount of bitcoins stored in this wallet, you don't want to risk anything which could lead to a loss of your funds. Accessing the drive could clear up any doubts regarding the wallet you have used. This seems to be the best way without knowing which wallet used this type of a seed. |
|
|
|
Sorry, its version 11.8 which I upgraded to the latest now.
But the latest version is 0.16.2. Where did you download core from ? What do you mean by "buggy" tools to extract the keys from the wallet.dat? Are they not safe to use?
Well, if you do make a backup of your wallet.dat, you can't destroy anything. But pywallet hasn't been maintained for a few years now. This means that it might fail dumping all necessary private keys. While it is not unsafe, it does not guarantee to retrieve all of your private keys. "extracting the private key" - do you mean that I have to put the wallet.dat backup from this computer to another and exchange the wallet.dat file with the one in the bitcoin folder?
The easiest probably would be if you move your wallet.dat to another computer with core installed (into the data directory, usually located in C:\Users\USER\Appdata\Roaming\Bitcoin). Then you will be able to dump the private keys using these commands: walletpassphrase "YOUR_PASSWORD" 600
(to unlock your wallet for 600 seconds) dumpprivkey "YOUR_ADDRESS"
(to dump the private key) Note: Do not delete ANY wallet.dat files. Only rename them. This way you can't mess up and accidentally delete the wrong file. |
|
|
|
Im trying to find my private Key in Bitcoin Core 11.2 on my Macbook
There is no version 11.2. Are you talking about 0.11.2 ? In this case you should upgrade to the newest version (0.16.2): https://bitcoin.org/en/downloadBut make sure to make a backup/copy of your wallet.dat before upgrading, just in case (usually located in ~/Library/Application Support/Bitcoin/). I have changed some settings in the Program so it opens up every time I start the Mac and there is a popup saying "unable to reach Port 8333". Then it closes again... There is NO option opening the command line for bitcoin core.
Are you able to start core manually? Does it always 'crash' ? Or only when run on startup ? You don't need to wait for core to completely sync until you can dump the private keys (assuming it does not crash). Is there another way to find my Private Key? Can I just put my wallet.dat into electrum?
There are a few (buggy) tools available to dump private keys out of a wallet.dat. But you can not simply open the wallet.dat with electrum. You will need to export the private keys via the console ('Help' -> 'Debug Window' -> 'Console'). |
|
|
|
Do you have prime account?
You may first read the OP before asking questions: I'm using my personal Amazon account to purchase the goods and it will be shipped within the US using Amazon Prime (free 2 day shipping).
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
