One more thing to add is that the supply of bitcoin is fixed, programmed, 6.25 BTC now, 3.125 BTC after etc., regardless of what's the demand the supply curve is constant, in contrast with every other asset on this planet. This makes it more vulnerable to the changes in the demand as there's no change in the supply that can counterbalance the equilibrium price. As for "price stabilization", what in the nature is stable to begin with? The USD isn't "stable, period". It's just stably decreasing. |
|
|
|
Αν εξαιρέσουμε τα 2 hardware (trezor & ledger) από hot wallets ποιό θα πρότεινες; (για desktop, όχι για κινητό). Αυτό είναι ένα από τα πολλά προβλήματα με τα altcoins, κάθε ένα έχει και δικό του software. Δεν έχω ασχοληθεί ιδιαίτερα, αλλά γνωρίζω πως εάν δε θέλεις να αγοράσεις hardware wallet μπορείς να εγκαταστήσεις το software του Trezor στο PC σου. ( Trezor Suite) Φυσικά δεν θα έχει την ίδια ασφάλεια, αλλά τη θεωρώ καλύτερη επιλογή από Exodus, Coinomi, Atomic. Πόσο μάλλον από το να τα αφήσεις στο exchange. Γενικά όμως αν κατέχεις altcoins, χάνεις από κάπου, είτε είναι ασφάλεια, είτε είναι ιδιωτικότητα (δεν τρέχεις full node για κάθε alt), είτε είναι οικονομική χειραγώγηση. Σημείωση: Το Trezor έχει ανοιχτό software και firmware. |
|
|
|
I do that now via Coinbase and find it very cumbersome. Whats the difference between Bisq and Coinbase? Im relatively new to all this. Bisq is a decentralized peer-to-peer network wherein you can find other people to trade with, using security deposits. Here are the advantages: - You avoid Know-Your-Customer (KYC) which is when you hand out your personal info to private companies.
- Your activity is private. There's no entity that's watching what you're doing. Trade takes place according to yours and your selected individual's policy.
- You don't have to trust an entity to hold your money.
- You can choose to trade from a variety of cryptocurrencies to national currencies hand-in-hand or/and via financial institutions such as Paypal.
You don't get the above benefits with Binance, Coinbase or any other centralized exchange. |
|
|
|
Ok so what I want to do is every month schedule the sending of 500 euros worth of BTC from my current account to my private wallet (Im using Ledger). How could I achieve this? So, why do you want an API? Why can't you just buy 500 EUR worth of bitcoin every month? Personal suggestion: Don't go with Coinbase, they're, along with Binance, the worst centralized exchanges out there. Use a DEX instead, such as Bisq. Read more. |
|
|
|
Αμάν! καλά που δε πρόλαβα να μεταφέρω  Λες να προτιμήσω κάποιο άλλο; Κοίτα, εάν έχεις διάφορα κρύπτος και αισθάνεσαι ασφαλής κρατώντας τα, γιατί εγώ προσωπικά δεν θα αισθανόμουν, σου προτείνω να αγοράσεις ένα hardware wallet όπως, πχ Trezor. Το Trezor είναι ανοιχτού κώδικα και υποστηρίζει πολλά altcoins. Είναι η πιο ασφαλής επιλογή που έχεις, καθώς οι υπογραφές των συναλλαγών δεν γίνονται στο PC σου, κι άρα δεν διατρέχεται ο κίνδυνος κλοπής κλειδιών από malware. Το αρνητικό είναι πως κοστίζει πάνω από 50 ευρώ (το Trezor One 85.56 EUR), αλλά μικρή η σημασία αν μιλάμε για μεγάλης αξίας κρύπτος. Προσωπικά δεν θα το προτιμούσα κι από θέμα ιδιωτικότητας, αλλά δεν ισχύει στην περίπτωση σου που έχεις ήδη δώσει KYC (υποθέτω) σε ανταλλακτήρια. Έχω coinomi και atomic αλλά δεν έχουν όλα τα νομίσματα Μακριά απ'το Coinomi. Έχει πιαστεί να στέλνει seed phrases (plain text!) σε εξωτερικό server. Επίσης κλειστού κώδικα με ύπουλους προγραμματιστές. Το atomic είναι επίσης κλειστού κώδικα, αλλά πέρα από αυτό, δε θα εμπιστευόμουν κανέναν developer που θα έκανε τέτοια δήλωση: Hey! Atomic Wallet utilizes many open-source components, like libraries, block explorers and so forth. We put a lot of effort and time to provide a good quality, reliable product for everyone. However, we keep part of our development in secret, in order to protect our users and ourselves from scammy copycats, phishing and bootleg applications. Δε ξέρω βέβαια τι σημαίνει κλειστού κώδικα. Σημαίνει πως δεν μπορείς να διαβάσεις τι κάνει το software. Εάν το software είναι open-source (ανοιχτού-κώδικα) μπορείς να διαβάσεις κάθε γραμμή, κάθε αρχείο, κάθε σχόλιο στον κώδικα. Μπορείς να επιβεβαιώσεις πως αυτό που σου λέει είναι. Αντίθετα, ένα κλειστού κώδικα πρόγραμμα δεν μπορείς να εξετάσεις αν συμπεριφέρεται κακόβουλα (π.χ., αν στέλνει private keys σε server, αν παράγει κλειδιά εντός ενός μικρού εύρους αριθμών, αν χρησιμοποιεί αδύναμη κρυπτογραφία κ.α). Προσωπικά θεωρώ λάθος να λέμε ένα κλειστού-κώδικα wallet software "non-custodial", αφού δεν ξέρεις αν κάποιος άλλος έχει πρόσβαση. Υποπτεύομαι μήπως δεν έγινε καλό κατέβασμα (παρότι από την επίσημη σελίδα) και θέλει απεγκατάσταση; Αλήθεια δεν έχω ιδέα. Πρόσεξε όμως πως αν κάνεις απεγκατάσταση χωρίς να έχεις backup, τα έχασες τα χρήματα. |
|
|
|
αφενός δεν μου έδωσε τις 12 λέξεις κλειδιά Δημιούργησες νέο πορτοφόλι και δεν σου έδωσε τις λέξεις ή προσπάθησες να κάνεις export τη φράση από ένα ήδη υπάρχον πορτοφόλι; Επίσης, υπάρχει κάποιος συγκεκριμένος λόγος που έχεις επιλέξει Exodus; Το πρόγραμμα είναι κλειστού κώδικα και είναι, επομένως, ενάντια της διαφάνειας, που είναι βασική αρχή σε αυτόν τον τομέα. |
|
|
|
try restoring from seed in a fresh wallet file
I restored with master public key, same thing happens. Would you mind telling us the exact OS you use while having this issue? Linux Mint 20.3 Una I suggest try to reinstall Electrum but this time uninstall it first and delete all Electrum data and folder under Appdata then restore your wallet again with your seed backup then test it again. - Deleted .electrum directory, restored the mpk, nothing.
- Reinstalled Electrum 4.2.1, nothing
- Uninstalled, Electrum 4.2.1, installed Electrum 4.1.5, it worked.
So, yeah. Apparently there's something going on with 4.2.1. Perhaps it's related with my Electrum server's version?  |
|
|
|
you've picked Electrum for LTC. Hadn't noticed that. I updated the OP. I'll add that it might be that using the same server in both clients might work. I don't use it at the same time, if that's what you're saying, but it should neither be the cause, even in that case. Have/had you received multiple transactions that are unconfirmed? I only broadcasted one transaction. It just wasn't from the same machine. |
|
|
|
I'd noticed Electrum did this before, but I didn't know what was the issue and it magically got fixed later. Now, that I'm facing this problem again, I know what probably causes it: The unconfirmed transaction(s). I just broadcasted a tx few minutes ago, from another computer, and it can't startup the wallet on this one. It synchronizes 'til 56/56, but then it immediately starts from 0/56 and redoes this whole process. That's, I presume, until the transaction gets confirmed. This is the only error in my log file: ERROR | interface.[192.168.2.2:50002] | Exception in run: RequestCorrupted('heights of confirmed txs must be in increasing order')
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/home/angelo/Desktop/Electrum-4.2.1/electrum/util.py", line 1163, in wrapper
return await func(*args, **kwargs)
File "/home/angelo/Desktop/Electrum-4.2.1/electrum/interface.py", line 498, in wrapper_func
return await func(self, *args, **kwargs)
File "/home/angelo/Desktop/Electrum-4.2.1/electrum/interface.py", line 521, in run
await self.open_session(ssl_context)
File "/home/angelo/Desktop/Electrum-4.2.1/electrum/interface.py", line 671, in open_session
await group.spawn(self.monitor_connection)
File "/home/angelo/Desktop/Electrum-4.2.1/packages/aiorpcx/curio.py", line 297, in __aexit__
await self.join()
File "/home/angelo/Desktop/Electrum-4.2.1/electrum/util.py", line 1258, in join
task.result()
File "/home/angelo/Desktop/Electrum-4.2.1/electrum/synchronizer.py", line 83, in _run_tasks
await group.spawn(self.main())
File "/home/angelo/Desktop/Electrum-4.2.1/packages/aiorpcx/curio.py", line 297, in __aexit__
await self.join()
File "/home/angelo/Desktop/Electrum-4.2.1/electrum/util.py", line 1258, in join
task.result()
File "/home/angelo/Desktop/Electrum-4.2.1/electrum/synchronizer.py", line 180, in _on_address_status
result = await self.interface.get_history_for_scripthash(h)
File "/home/angelo/Desktop/Electrum-4.2.1/electrum/interface.py", line 986, in get_history_for_scripthash
raise RequestCorrupted(f'heights of confirmed txs must be in increasing order')
electrum.interface.RequestCorrupted: heights of confirmed txs must be in increasing orderI DuckDuckWent it and it turns out that it has to do with monotonicity of heights? |
|
|
|
I'm surprised a bitcoin evangelist like Andreas didn't say anything about the utter fatuity that is "tainted coins". The things he explained is what's a tainted coin and how to make them "clean" by doing K+1 hops, which is not the kind of behavior I'd expect from him. It'd be much more reasonable to say "Don't deal with folks who don't want your privacy", instead of "This is how you'll deal with folks who don't want your privacy". So, what happens once exchanges begin requiring more stuff to mark your coins as "clean"? What if despite K+1 hops, they also want from your transactions to not be included into the same block(s), as that'd show you're cheating? What if they start asking you to tell them where did you find your coins? Et cetera. You shouldn't try to make them "clean", but refuse to accept they're tainted, which means, to say no to the exchange. |
|
|
|
I don't think this is correct. Oops, should have put a "less" there. |
|
|
|
Not until they substantially raise difficulty; which requires mining 2016 blocks in 1/2 week (4x faster than expected) for every quadrupling of difficulty. So a 1000-fold increase requires over 10,000 blocks. But time, if it's ruled by one entity, can be faked. The Proof-of-Work timestamp cannot be cheated if there are other miners and you don't control most of the hash rate. For example, say you want to fake your block's timestamp, to benefit yourself from lowering difficulty, by setting it 10 hours ahead. Since the median time of the past 11 blocks isn't complied with it, your block is going to be rejected. But, if you're the one who chooses the median time of the past 11 blocks, since you mine them, you can fake things out. |
|
|
|
Ok, this is how you, or generally people who educate themselves by reading conspiracy theories, view banks and how they rationalize their participation in this scam. That what you described is a classical misconception about banks. Now I am going to explain to you what the facts are. See? You don't care what other people think. You've told it enough times that you can't imagine a world without debt; without middlemen granting loans, borrowers etc., but this community shows you that this world of free trade and freedom of choice exists. There can be transaction settlement, exchanging, trading without debt. Besides, transaction establishment existed long before debt became a thing. As far as I've read, there's completely nothing irrational from NotATether's post, but it's nullified, because it doesn't encroach the way you understand money. So, this is a legitimate business of creating debt, investing in debt, and settling debt. Debt isn't a bad thing, by default. Borrowing money can surely have a positive impact, and there should be. Debt redistributes money into the economy, incentivizes people to become productive, works as an investment whether that's from private companies or from the government itself, helps people acquire a house to live etc., but you're naive the least if you deny the downsides. It's an instrument that causes asset bubbles, impinges on the low-income groups due to high interest policy, leads to bankruptcy, causes inflation etc. |
|
|
|
Thank you for your patience I'm somewhat confident that makes sense to me. Would you say then that the 2 options are equally secure in terms of being randomly guessed/hacked?
Brute forcing all the master private keys is less difficult than brute forcing all the seed phrases, because there's a HMAC that has to be called, but it's meaningless, because brute forcing an address directly is far easier. |
|
|
|
I think I'm not fully grasping what you're saying. It's simple. Take this number: 0xc555eab45d08845ae9f10d452a99bfcb06f74a50b988fe7e48dd323789b88ee3 Can you prove there's no number such that once you use it as an input to SHA-256, it'll output the above? No, unless you try all the numbers, which are nearly infinite. That number is 0x10, but if you don't know it, you can't prove there isn't such number. You can neither prove 0x10 is the only number that'll output it. |
|
|
|
Whereas with a master private key that has no seed, there's only 1 thing to guess. You can't know if there's a seed that generates it, for the same reason you don't know if a burning address has a private key that isn't yet known. (Although it's extremely likely for every address to have at least one private key) A master private key is consisted of a private key and a chain code, both of which are 128 bits long. This makes the master private key 256 bits long. If the seed is 256 bits, then there a high chance for your master private key to have at least one seed phrase nobody knows. And there's also a nearly infinite amount of seed phrases, of any size, with a passphrase that can generate it. Post edited. |
|
|
|
And actually more secure (not by a statistically relevant amount but still technically more secure for this hypothetical) because of the fact that a seed phrase can be used to get the master private key, but a master private key cannot be used to get a seed phrase if a seed phrase does not exist? A master private key can also be used to derive a private key, but a private key cannot be used to get the master private key. This doesn't make the master private key less secure nor the private key more secure. Better example: A seed phrase is used to generate addresses, but addresses can also be generated without a seed phrase; just by hashing a public key. The former address isn't (and shouldn't be) considered more vulnerable than the former address, as long as the seed phrase remains secret.
Note that there's a high chance for your master private key to have a seed phrase, that isn't known by anyone. |
|
|
|
|
Hmm... Doesn't the danger remain?
Alright, so let's say we used SHA-256 for even blocks and Keccak-256 for odd blocks. Now let's assume SHA-256 is broken. Now all the even blocks can be generated at will, without (the same) work. The attacker can still use half of his computational power to reverse transactions. In fact, he can still cheat the entire bitcoin economy by solving blocks within seconds, censoring/emptying the block's content.
Edit: He can actually reverse transactions with much less hashrate than half of it. If he's broken SHA-256, he can create one block whose work equals thousands'.
|
|
|
|
Επίσης, κυκλοφορεί μια φήμη ότι τα ανταλλακτήρια δανείζουν hedge funds, τα οποία σορτάρουν το BTC Νομίζω πρέπει να περιμένουμε τα πάντα από τα ανταλλακτήρια, πλέον. Η Binance, πέρα απ'το ότι τρέχει μια απάτη ονόματι BNB, έχει πουλήσει κάθε στάλα ιδιωτικότητας σε διαφημιστές, πολιτικούς και σε επιχειρήσεις που αναλύουν την αλυσίδα, Coinbase & Binance πάνε μαζί κρεβάτι με Putin, το Huobi έχει παραδειχτεί πως είχε υλοποιήσει fractional reserve σύστημα και πως δάνειζε κι έκανε επικίνδυνες επενδύσεις με τα χρήματα των χρηστών, η λίστα είναι ατελείωτη. ΑΝ (λέω ΑΝ) το seed phrase μετουσιωθεί σε κάτι απόλυτα ασφαλές που δεν χάνεται εύκολα (βλ. microchip στο χέρι για αποθήκευση του private key), τότε μάλιστα, αλλά εκεί πάμε σε άλλα «μονοπάτια» (ίσως αυτό να είναι το endgame τελικά)... Μα δεν είναι η ασφάλεια του seed phrase, ή του PC/κινητού, που αποθαρρύνει τον κόσμο να χρησιμοποιήσει bitcoin, αλλά η εσφαλμένη αντίληψη για το τι είναι bitcoin. Οι περισσότεροι που θα ρωτήσεις θα σου πουν επένδυση ή "χρήμα του κάτω κόσμου" για τους εγκληματίες. Οπότε αν θέλουμε να μπει και η «γιαγιάκα» στο παιχνίδι κάποια στιγμή, ας μην περιμένουμε να γίνει αυτό με seed phrases (και μετά να κάνει χαρακίρι αν χάσει το χαρτί με τις λέξεις) Η ερώτηση μου είναι: Γιατί θέλεις η γιαγιάκα να μπει στο παιχνίδι; Εκτός κι αν η γιαγιάκα είναι μαγαζάτορας. |
|
|
|
But I believe the environmentalists are going crazy because most of the mining operations are for personal benefits rather than public benefits. I believe that's the main pain point for them. And what about the banking system? If they're sensitized about public benefit, they should begin a shut down campaign against the entire financial sector, which is by the way, one of the worst regarding this matter. Bitcoin uses energy for mining, while the banking system requires ATMs, credit/debit cards, transports, money issuance, skyscrapers for central and commercial banks, and these are off the top of my head. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
