In addition, other scaling option (e.g. using LN or sidechain) needs on-chain TX to open LN channel or "peg" the coin on the sidechain. So very high TX fee would make those option not very attractive. I've never used any sidechain, and it seems like "wrapped" centralized tokens are much more popular than actual sidechains. Replacing central banks by businesses is not what I hoped for. |
|
|
|
To say that not reusing an address is mixing? Did they forget the step in which they make mixing illegal first? What if my wallet automatically creates a new change address? What if my address is no longer secure, and I need a new one? What if quantum computing makes every used address insecure? It sounds like politicians who have no idea what they're talking about. Unfortunately, that's valid for almost all subjects they get to decide on. Maybe we can get a government approved wallet that provides each of us with a government approved address, let's call it a Social Security Address (SSA), that will be the only address you can use for the rest of your life? We can all feel much safer that way! |
|
|
|
be careful whenever you upload images, especially from smartphones, to choose the correct images. Lol  Did someone accidentally upload his "private pictures"? |
|
|
|
so the real issue is why we would need to invent a new rather obscure algorithm to do a brainwallet when we could achieve the same thing by just increasing the length of our passphrase Every existing "classic" brainwallet is attacked by many people doing billions if not trillions of password hacking attempts per second. See Collection of 18.509 found and used Brainwallets. By adding BIP38 to the equation, suddenly an attacker would only be able to do a few attempts per second. It's not worth the electricity to even try. |
|
|
|
|
Thanks again for your flawless timing!
|
|
|
|
I haven't argued that rising the block size to 10-16 MB will eliminate Bitcoin. I'm just saying that it doesn't solve the problem, it only alleviates it. I think we can agree on this, but with one difference: I'd like to see the "breathing space" in more Bitcoin transactions, while you don't want it. I'd like to see more on-chain transactions until a more permanent scaling solution is in place. With block size 1 MB, it takes around 2 seconds to verify the block. When syncing Bitcoin Core (on not very recent hardware), I already see multiple blocks per second being verified. I recently did it on a 5 years old Xeon, and the IBD took 11 hours. That's 15 MB block data verification per second on average. |
|
|
|
I would argue he actually still is on DT1 because he has the ability to vote for DT1 members on the DT1 level. Its just that since he is negative, his trust ratings don't matter That's what I said. Then Timelord denied it. |
|
|
|
The best "cure" to the problem is to educate people that buying this crap is a waste of money and a con. At best, you can reach a very small percentage of them. If gullible people wouldn't fall for scams, there wouldn't be any scammers left. |
|
|
|
Actually, yes @BitcoinGirl.Club, you are DT1. After all those years, you still don't know how DefaultTrust works. What part of strike through don't you get? BitcoinGirl.Club: -5
|
|
|
|
Satoshi also envisioned the blockchain to grow by 100 GB per day, because that'd equate to "just the size of 12 DVD" That doesn't sound so bad at all: Long before the network gets anywhere near as large as that, it would be safe for users to use Simplified Payment Verification (section  to check for double spending, which only requires having the chain of block headers, or about 12KB per day. Only people trying to create new coins would need to run network nodes. At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to specialists with server farms of specialized hardware. A server farm would only need to have one node on the network and the rest of the LAN connects with that one node. ~ Satoshi Nakamoto completely ignoring the bottleneck in verification. He believed that the blockchain should be accessible only by server farms that generate new coins, everybody else should opt-in to SPV. Many Bitcoin users, including hardware wallet users, already rely on third party nodes by using a SPV wallet. If I have to choose between 1) a user keeping their coins on an exchange or using custodial LN and 2) a user keeping their Bitcoin in a SPV wallet that relies on several large server farms, the latter sounds more decentralized. Let's be realistic: there are 18,500 full nodes, and depending on which source you believe, 50 to 219 million Bitcoin owners. There are only 52.5 million funded Bitcoin addresses. Even if we take the lower number of Bitcoin owners, less than 0.05% of them run a full node. If we take the upper number of Bitcoin users, the large majority of them uses a centralized exchange and doesn't own their private keys. you expect a network with a well-defined and nonaligned with your preferences roadmap to adapt to your needs. I think a lot of Bitcoin users expect Bitcoin to scale at some point. |
|
|
|
Maybe I am missing something, but if you remember the passphrases used? Why couldn't you just use the passphrasees to generate the private key and address? You must have missed this part: my mind had added a character to my passphrase Now I can reproduce it again. I don't really see much value in knowing the details of the transaction if you don't know the private key Without knowing the address, I had to search the list of all funded addresses each time to see if I had the correct one. It added a manual step to the checking process. The reason I did this, was because I wanted to add heavy encryption to a brainwallet, what does that even mean though? i don't think you're really encrypting anything. encryption is typically encrypting a final output. your final output is a clear private key. The final output is produced from encrypted data. I don't see the point of going into semantics. so why not use warpwallet then? When I created this, I didn't know WarpWallet exists. And I'm not entirely sure I can trust it. I do trust BIP38 ( for this reason). it makes it more likely they will gain access to your coins than if you never published your "brainwallet algorithm". since according to you that's the only way they could come up with the same private key. Good luck with that  What you're suggesting is called security through obscurity: Criticism
Security by obscurity alone is discouraged and not recommended by standards bodies. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in the United States recommends against this practice: "System security should not depend on the secrecy of the implementation or its components."[9] I trust my passphrase to be difficult enough. now those are some pretty big statements you made there which i'm not so sure i can agree with. for example, if adding one more character is more secure than doing 10 rounds of encryption then i don't know what to say. except maybe we disagree.  If you don't understand that one random character added to the passphrase adds more "difficulty" than 10 rounds of the same encryption, I give up But here's a hint: First wallet was cracked in under 3 hours. [pwd: BarT]
Second wallet was cracked in under 10 hours. [pwd: grAce]
Fourth wallet was cracked in under 2 days. [pwd: pxrmg]
Third wallet was NOT CRACKED in two years. [pwd: zLwMiR] |
|
|
|
no person in their right mind would just go and ask chatgpt questions and copy and paste them into forum threads just for free. It's the modern version of shitposting account farmers. Some even manage to earn Merit with it. |
|
|
|
I see what you did there. Although I expect the total number of Bitcoin transactions excluding the ones spamming data to be less than the total Litecoin transactions. Approximately 20% of the total Bitcoin transactions were 100% of the Litecoin total. For this to hold true, more than 680,000 Bitcoin transactions have to be "spam" according to you. I can't (easily) find hard data, but I've seen many blocks that are for 90% filled with data transactions. I call (almost all of) those spam. In transaction amounts, the small data transactions make up an even larger percentage. So 80% spam transactions seems plausible to me. But more importantly: I don't want to have to move to altcoins, and I'm guessing I'm not the only one. I do have some small amounts for small transactions, but I'd prefer to use Bitcoin for that. If to accomplish it, you'd have to turn Bitcoin to an altcoin, would it be worth it? Because, that's what you'd do by tinkering with the block size. This risk has already been taken. This solution has already been implemented and tested by many altcoins. This community even had a cultural war a few years ago, and split. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to use other networks that align closely to your preference? What's "Bitcoin"? I remember blocks being temporarily limited from 30 to 1 MB by Satoshi in the early days, to reduce spam and blockchain growth. Ever since the creation of altcoins, it looked like they are only created to make the creator rich, by taking market share away from Bitcoin until it's high enough to sell. All that market share could have been Bitcoin. I'm surprised to see you argue that I, a Bitcoin user, should move to some shitcoin, just because some spammer created a shittoken on Bitcoin. I just checked Mempool Goggles: at least 90% is data spam. The Bitcoin users who now switch to some shitcoin won't come back to Bitcoin, and the merchants who gave up accepting Bitcoin because of high fees won't restart doing so when fees drop temporarily. Bitcoin needs a long-term scaling solution with reliable transaction fees. I hate to say it, but I'm glad my bank doesn't suddenly charge me €50 when I pay at the supermarket. |
|
|
|
Of course, this should not happen. So far, all payments have been successful. We will remove the error as soon as possible. Can you please send me your BCH address and we will transfer the amount to you again. I kept the browser open, tried again, and it worked now. Your payment added 5.5 hours to my VPN. Everything worked in Tor browser, without captcha. 10 sat vB looks fine for me... it is likes that for a month already. You can't pay $1 per transaction to send $0.05. @Donald_Buck: you should probably start your topic with this: The project is not a student project, but takes place as part of research work on the topic of crowdsourcing at the University of Stuttgart. Even better if you can add more information about your project. You may reach a more fitting audience in Micro Earnings, although I'm not sure if altcoins are allowed there. |
|
|
|
Now, seriously, were you doing an experiment (for fun) ? Kinda  Personally, if I used something like that, I would definitely keep the phrases in paper backups What's the fun in that? I wanted it to be more than a hypothetical "I remembered it". If I would have written it down, I would have looked at it and never known if I could recover it from memory alone. Another flaw in this whole thing is "inventing your own method". It is never a good idea specially when it comes to cryptography related stuff. There are a lot of things that could go wrong, from small bugs that could not be reproduced when trying to recover to serious bugs that could be categorized as security flaw. Yep, I agree The reason I did this, was because I wanted to add heavy encryption to a brainwallet, and at the same time avoid the brute-forcers who can attack all "standard" brainwallets at the same time. Now, there's WarpWallet for that. but in his case it's not because it is cryptographically weak. its because after a few years, you won't remember what the I did: I wrote down the steps, and that's not a weakness in the system. I've posted my steps here, it now serves as an additional backup of the steps I took, but doesn't help anyone to gain access to my coins. you could have just eliminated the bip38 part since the final step was just hashing some string to get the private key. anyone else finds any other string with the same hash they don't need to reproduce your bip38 step at all but i think your premise is you think your string is the only one that anyone could ever use to get that hash. it's an assumption. It's a very good assumption! You're saying anyone could use any different random number to gain access to your Bitcoin address. Duh There are about 2 96 valid private keys for each Bitcoin address. If anyone could find them, Bitcoin wouldn't exist. to get even more security why not iterate this entire procedure 10 times? taking the output of step 3 as the input to step 1. If that would be necessary, they would have included 10 more rounds in the BIP38 protocol. Adding just one more character to the BIP38-passphrase adds much more "strength" than doing 10 rounds of encryption. |
|
|
|
People are becoming more entrenched in their worldview. There was a time, when presented with compelling evidence, reasonable people could change their mind. But nowadays that's becoming an increasingly rare trait. I don't think that changed. What changed, is the attention given to the people you call brainwashed. Example: the flat earth guys. Everyone knows it started as a joke (after all, I've been told the earth is a cube), but they're still getting attention. Unfortunately, as always, drama sells. |
|
|
|
The project is not a student project, but takes place as part of research work on the topic of crowdsourcing at the University of Stuttgart. This made me curious. However, after clicking around trees for 5 minutes, this is what I got:  |
|
|
|
This silent system, does it also applies to the balance that might be available on an address? Bitcoin doesn't change, the blockchain with all addresses is still public. But nobody else will know which address received a transaction that belongs to a "silent" address. There is no silent address on-chain  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
