Hello guy, let's say someone sent me his private key.
is there any way to secure the bitcoin, don't let him to use the bitcoin on the shared private key?
without making a new transaction to the new wallet?
-- no hacking its just security question
Thanks
A private key could be encrypted as is done with paper wallets. But it would be very wise to do this with a freshly generated private key, not one that had an unknown history. |
|
|
|
If people have not learnt their lesson from the mybtgwallet.com theft, they'll never learn...  Of course it is a scam. Any website asking for private keys or wallet seeds to "claim" coins is a scam. PT Barnum (I think) once said "There's a sucker born every minute." Doesn't matter if they learn or not. But Barnum entertained them while taking only small amounts of their money.... |
|
|
|
....
I claimed my btg with success..
regards
Question. I set up Ethereum wallets in September for three of my relatives and put some bitcoin in them. They have had no activity, hence they all only have one key pair of interest. One later set up 2FA - I am not sure if this was done before or after the 10-24 fork date. Now I'm getting around to helping them with the BTG retrieval. The non-2FA wallets are easy. The one that was converted to 2FA - if this was done AFTER 10-24, wouldn't a pre 2FA seed word set work to recreate the one private key that is of interest? (not sure how a conversion to 2FA works but it seems it would require a new seed word sequence and hence an entirely new set of key pairs) |
|
|
|
" Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced Thursday he plans to study cryptocurrencies and other decentralizing technologies as part of a larger bid to improve the social networking service he co-founded."
How can crypto help Mark Zuckerberg to fix Facebook?
We can argue about Proof of Work versus Proof of Stake (POW vs POS). But nothing can help Piece of Shit Facebook. The right question is how quickly a blockchain implementation can move Facebook back into the dark closet where it's close cousins lie. Myspace. Friendster. |
|
|
|
-) A compromised USB stick could still grab your private keys from the airgapped device while copying the signed transaction for later transmission using the online device.
Signed transactions can be easily trasnferred via QR-codes, I did this with Electrum and everything worked well. The problem is to transfer unsigned transactions, which can also be done via QR-codes, but would require a dedicated digital camera and a software that can decode them from images. But I think the risk of malware getting into air-gapped system via USB stick is very small. As you may know, Intel has been exposed heavily in the past few hours with 2 different exploits that can deliver pretty scare results if used maliciously
Hardware wallet are probably unaffected, which made them more appealing than airgapped computers in my eyes: https://twitter.com/pavolrusnak/status/948863100194836480Without camera GITHUB style source code, it's impossible to know that the camera isn't sending your scan data somewhere and for example many phone QR scanners routinely do just that, not to steal from you but to track your habits and look the code up in their database. It's a small step from that for a minor two bit consultant or employee working for the company that did the app to check incoming QR data for crypto address data streams, and then you are screwed. For USB it's trivial to put data into an encrypted package like a zip file for the short time it moves via the USB thumb drive. The latter method is demonstrably secure. |
|
|
|
...
But such features could be found in many implementations other than LN.
And these could be layered on top of many coins - for example, Bitcoin Cash....not just Bitcoin.
I thought SegWit capability was a mandatory requirement for the Lightning Network? Bitcoin Cash has not activated SegWit. Therefore I don´t think the Lightning Network would be able to function on top of Bitcoin Cash. Why would they deploy a solution like the LN anyway? Their whole narrative is based around how on-chain scaling is the superior solution to scaling Bitcoin. If they would introduce a 2nd layer scaling solution they would lose their main value proposition. I am only pointing out that "for many blockchain based crypto currencies" additional layers may be added, such as "mesh network transaction systems of the LN variety." Thus it is INCORRECT to debate merits of LN vs BCH. It does not matter that people are trying to impress you that you should debate it that way, or that it is a valid comparison. You might consider those to be political motivations and arguments. They are not valid arguments from computer science or database theory. |
|
|
|
Laptop: Dell Studio 15, Intel® Core™ i7-720QM mobile processor (1.6GHz, turbo up to 2.8GHz, 6MB L3 Cache)
OS: Windows® 7 Home Premium, 64bit
Graphics Card: ATI Mobility Radeon™ HD5470 1 GB
Hard drive: Serial ATA 500 GB
In 2015, I gave my laptop to the computer service for inspection and cleaning. Nothing special. Standard procedure advisable from time to time.
After receiving it from the computer service, during use, the laptop quickly warmed up like never before. After two weeks, the motherboard of the laptop burnt. I am an average computer user and I had no idea what could have happened. Interestingly, the computer service was closed down. In the meantime, I only pulled out the hard drive from the laptop, which turned out to be undamaged and all files were saved.
Currently, I am assuming that during the service, a malicious software could be installed on the laptop to mine cryptocurrency, maybe bitcoins, maybe another crypto. I do not know, I just suspect. Fortunately, I still have this hard drive and I would like to check somehow if this suspicion might be right. And if so, are some cryptocurrencies kept on the hard drive?
I will be grateful if anyone can give me a clue how to check it out.
Thank you in advance for any help.
I would wager the fans were not hooked back up as a cause of the mb failure. This would account for all that you've seen and is a possible alternative theory to mining software being installed. |
|
|
|
With the lightning network transaction, times should be similar to bitcoin. I don't think so how it'll perform with more and more transactions though.
https://lightning.networkInstant Payments. Lightning-fast blockchain payments without worrying about block confirmation times. Security is enforced by blockchain smart-contracts without creating a on-blockchain transaction for individual payments. Payment speed measured in milliseconds to seconds. Scalability. Capable of millions to billions of transactions per second across the network. Capacity blows away legacy payment rails by many orders of magnitude. Attaching payment per action/click is now possible without custodians. Low Cost. By transacting and settling off-blockchain, the Lightning Network allows for exceptionally low fees, which allows for emerging use cases such as instant micropayments. Cross Blockchains. Cross-chain atomic swaps can occur off-chain instantly with heterogeneous blockchain consensus rules. So long as the chains can support the same cryptographic hash function, it is possible to make transactions across blockchains without trust in 3rd party custodians. It's worth noting that these features are features of a category of mesh network style payment schemes. OF WHICH LN is the one we know about and expect to be implemented. But such features could be found in many implementations other than LN. And these could be layered on top of many coins - for example, Bitcoin Cash....not just Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
No, the 8MB blocksize is not the only difference...... “Bitcoin Cash” also has the advantage of having “fired Core”. Who needs developers? Instead, they have a clique of promoters who lack sufficient credibility to sell used cars, but do have plenty of money to manipulate the market and prop up their pet scamcoin. Also, they have the domain name “bitcoin.com”—which never had anything to do with Bitcoin, according to Satoshi. But to me, the most important feature of “Bitcoin Cash” is centralization. The network is safely under control of a nanny named Roger Ver (or more likely, his handlers). Why, it’s comfy as a padded playpen!...... Maybe. But centralization is a direct result of ASIC, first and foremost. Bitcoin has sufficient real world problems, it may not be helpful to argue against alternatives. Perhaps better to attempt to understand them, their various advantages and disadvantages. |
|
|
|
No data stays secret for ever.
The most glaring error with "brain wallet" is the many various ways we have of spelling virtually identical words, capitalizing or not, hyphenating, punctuating... This makes it possible to "remember" a brain wallet and still not be able to type it in and get it right. What is "remembered" is fundamentally imprecise. Hence I think a predefined word list is a Very Good Idea with anything that would have the beginnings of BrainWalleticity. Next I'm going to say the last word needs to be a checksum. Keeping on going, looking like I'm reinventing Bitcoin Improvement Protocols, doesn't it? |
|
|
|
If person A wants to buy something, person B is in the middle and Person C is the receiver, then B first pays C, so he actually 'lends' money to A
Actually he doesn't. B pays C at the exact same time that A pays B. So there is no lending as B is never short of his money. As soon as the hash preimage for an HTLC is known to the world, all parties in a route are instantly paid because the HTLCs can be then settled at the same time. But the key here is that average Joe doesn't have a lot of money to finance payments for others (average Joe takes credit, he doesnt give it). So that's a huge problem in the decentralized mesh. I honestly don't see how this could work without any big centralized nodes like banks. In fact I think that's just the natural way it will evolve: people will open payment channels with big parties (=banks) to ensure that they can actually pay people. You don't want to divide your money over 20 channels and only have 5% of your money per channel. So it seems only natural that banks would become central in LN, it's both more efficient and effective.
Joe can pay the same person using multiple channels. If I have two BTC total split across 4 channels and I want to buy something for 2 BTC, I can send 0.5 via Channel 1 to merchant A, 0.5 BTC via Channel 2 to Merchant A, and so on. Merchant A will get 2 BTC from either one channel or from multiple channels, Either way, he gets paid 2 BTC and I spent 2 BTC and the transactions are guaranteed. If I funded a channel with say 0.5 bitcoin, how long might it operate independent of the blockchain? because whenever there is a clearing of the transaction routes back to the blockchain, there is a nightmare of a fee to pay. |
|
|
|
I foud the fake site just typing "electrum wallet" on google (i am using www.google.com.br) or just "electrum". To me the fake appears o top, above the correct site. Is the first site on this search.... That's probably an ad. It is common for scammers to pay Google so their fake website can be shown above the real website. The same happened with BitMixer and now is happening with ChipMixer. Everybody can help by reporting the website to google with this form: https://safebrowsing.google.com/safebrowsing/report_phish/The "don't care" and somewhat enabling attitude of Google is rather alarming. I just use google search for "Electrum" and get one of the fake sites at the top of the page,it is paid advertising and it is big problem for crypto community.Since Electrum is one of the most popular wallets we can only imagine how many people are deceived and lost their money. I will definitely report each of these fake pages and I hope Google will do something about that quickly.I do not know it is possible but they should not allow any advertising with "electrum" in the name of the site. I agree, that is for sure a big scam campaing the almost 3 btc stollen from me is at the same adress yet meaning the thiefs dont even noticed or used that. This people are making big money with this sites. In the moment the electrumsource.org don appear on google search but still on air, instead the first seite on this search is www.electrumsoft.org/. Already alerted google and now im making the properly report to local police. Thank you guys |
|
|
|
Forbes? Paywalled. Your bitch is that the bill didn't EXPAND 1031 to include crypto. Because it didn't ever have crypto in it. The IRS had defined crypto currency as "property" which meant that exchange was BARTER, which was taxable. Any other questions? |
|
|
|
That's positive news, but still not enough to cheer the market back up. I don't want to sound negative but even when Lightening Network is fully implemented, it'll be too late for bitcoin to win all the investors who already moved to support new cryptos. New cryptos are implementing features that are missing from bitcoin such as anonymity and private transactions. Bitcoin is already outdated. I'm not saying that bitcoin will die. I'm sure bitcoin will stay forever however, it'll slow down gradually until another coin takes its place as the main crypto-currency.
This really is not true. Various features / options can be implemented in the basic code, such as what we call for convenience "Bitcoin Core." Or it's equivalent for alt coins. But the presence or absence of those features has no relation to what features may be put on another layer. And that 2nd or even 3rd layer is required for exponential network growth. For example, can you conceive of a layer on top of bitcoin in which fully anonymous transactions were possible? There'd be a point of exit from the blockchain and a point of entry back to it, and that's all the info that would be available. What this means is that "features" in an alt coin does not imply it is "more advanced or superior" to bitcoin. Not in the least. |
|
|
|
....
they don't give the answer because they don't have any - that's the kind of 'experts' they are.
for me, they are just full of shit - what they do has zero to do with science and 100% to do with their beliefs driven by a subjective perception.
seriously, I am not aware of any hacking tool, or even a serious theoretical paper, that would successfully address a problem of brute forcing original sentences made by a human brain. make an original sentence (one that you can't just google) of ~20 words and I am betting all my bitcoins that no man armed with the fastest computer is going to brute force it before we both die......
That's your subjective perception. Try this view. Take 1000 humans, ask each of them to generate some phrase / sentence that will be used for "a password." Now take the results, the 1000 sentences, and submit them to brute force attacks using English grammar and a million or so common phrases. I wager we break 10 within a couple of weeks. Give them some time (e.g. one week) to create this password. That's unacceptable, right? How about you try this. Take 1000 humans, ask each of them to generate some phrase / sentence that will be used for "a password." Tell them that the sentence may be as long as they like, but you have a very powerful computer that will try to guess the password they came out with. Also tell them that if the computer will not guess their password in 1 year, but they still remember it, then they will be rewarded with $1000000. Now, good luck with cracking that!  Well, now you are shifting the goal post from your prior argument of "some English sentence with 20 words." It's easy to show that So what is your argument? A. That self-selected, human generated phrases within a certain length "might or could be" safe from attack? B. Or that they "are safe from attack?" (A) nobody would disagree. (B) is not defensible without narrowly constricting the domain and the premises. |
|
|
|
Also, I would like to say once again that when you say "submit them to brute force attacks using English grammar and a million or so common phrases", you don't really know what you are saying.
I mean "million or so common phrases" - fine, you can probably find "million or so common phrases", from books, magazines, news articles, and films..
But WTF does it mean "brute force attacks using English grammar"? It is a meaningless term. There is no such thing!
Such things as looking for the most common symbol, tagging it as the letter "e." BTCrecover has many examples of incorporating English grammar into password cracking. How many examples would you like? |
|
|
|
....
they don't give the answer because they don't have any - that's the kind of 'experts' they are.
for me, they are just full of shit - what they do has zero to do with science and 100% to do with their beliefs driven by a subjective perception.
seriously, I am not aware of any hacking tool, or even a serious theoretical paper, that would successfully address a problem of brute forcing original sentences made by a human brain. make an original sentence (one that you can't just google) of ~20 words and I am betting all my bitcoins that no man armed with the fastest computer is going to brute force it before we both die......
That's your subjective perception. Try this view. Take 1000 humans, ask each of them to generate some phrase / sentence that will be used for "a password." Now take the results, the 1000 sentences, and submit them to brute force attacks using English grammar and a million or so common phrases. I wager we break 10 within a couple of weeks. That's unacceptable, right? |
|
|
|
Although (brain wallet produced by human) --> seed key
is recognized and accepted as a bad idea,
f(brain wallet produced by human) --> seed key
where f is a easily remembered math procedure such as modulo(x), may form an acceptable key
that's ridiculous as f() is also produced by human. Not to mention that in order to get a 256 private key value from the memorable passphrase, you need some kind of f() anyway. WTF does it even mean that something 'is recognized and accepted as a bad idea'? Sounds to me like an argument brought by someone who has no arguments No, please try to think through these things. Your arguments say are A B C. A is not "ridiculous" because issue is discoverable key, and f() moves the human-phrase from determinable low entropy to high entropy difficult to determine. Yes I can pick method which is simple yet generates huge difficulty. (see EX f() ) B this f() is common knowledge, so an attacker always applies it as part of his algorithm. I refer to an f() which the attacker can only guess at. C Human phrases are in fact recognized and accepted as bad idea. Time to break these phrases is the proof not opinion EX f() Require user of a brain wallet to a four digit base 58 value "c" To increase entropy of the phases strip spaces from the phrase, than Apply simple function based on "c" to characters of the brain wallet. Brute force attack is now 58^4 or 10M times harder. And that's the "best case," where the attacker knew some sort of human-generated brain wallet was used. If attacker did not know that, he's out of luck. But show me wrong. I'm certainly not expert at this. |
|
|
|
If you don't mind me asking: Do you (a) harden your brainwallet using a script, similar to OP, or do you (b) rely on a technique that you can apply off the top of your head, without relying on a computer? (eg. a long passphrase that is not part of a known body of literature, changing / shifting letters around in a way that can be easily remembered...)
Both make sense when trying to avoid storing data outside your head, but (a) seems more secure while (b) gives you full flexibility regardless of whether you have access to your hardening script.
What does it matter?
However I hardened my passphrase, I'm not going to unharden it now by telling you about this. Although (brain wallet produced by human) --> seed key is recognized and accepted as a bad idea, f(brain wallet produced by human) --> seed key where f is a easily remembered math procedure such as modulo(x), may form an acceptable key |
|
|
|
Price is too high compared to other 12-c spiders on the US market with similar options which are selling for $140-160K.
I'm interested if you are willing to come down on price and accept payment in Bitcoin Cash. Refuse to pay with Bitcoin. Ridiculous fees, and confirmation times these days.
@ChironRegera What dickhead worries about a $40 fee when buying a $140k - $160k car. Answer - someone that cant afford the car. Putting the 140k into bch would also end up costing at least $280 if on an exchange that charges 0.2% for the trade. It will probably cost more so easier to just pay the 40... I need to buy the car just to make you bitches STFU. Beautiful car. Seriously though, I have no place to put it. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
