this is the full lenght private key which i saved ...
In that case, it's the right length to be a private key encrypted using blockchain's "second password" method. You won't need the main password, but you will need the second password. Did you make any changes to the "Debugging" settings in your account? In particular, if you changed the "PBKDF2 Iterations" setting, you will also need that. |
|
|
|
iaZDY ...
this is my key - i changed some letter with X
That looks like an encrypted blockchain wallet, except that it's too short. Is it longer than this? (don't post it here...) If this is the only form of backup that you have, you will need your two passwords to gain access to your funds. If the password was long and random as you've said, there's no way to retrieve or guess it... |
|
|
|
I'm not sure how the second password works exactly
In short: bc.i wallets are json files. The "main" password AES-encrypts the entire file (including all addresses and private keys), which is then base-64 encoded. The "second" password, which is optional, AES-encrypts each individual private key. I assume the point is to allow logging into bc.i with your main password from untrusted locations to check your balance without having to risk your funds (as long as you don't type in your second password of course). |
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure you know what you have, but I could be wrong...
This "private key" that you have, how long is it? What are the first 3 letters? If it actually is a private key, then it will be easy to help you import it. If it's something else, it may not be easy (or possible)...
|
|
|
|
I have a bitcoin core wallet which says it is 1 year 49 weeks behind, how long on a I7 3.8ghz 64bit quad core until it is no longer behind?
I figured it would have to catch up until it finally finds the deposit I made into the wallet in that app?
With it being that far behind, it would almost certainly be faster to delete the blocks and chainstate directories and start from scratch with a bootstrap file. (Bootstrap info is here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=145386.0; latest available bootstrap torrent is Armory's, and a link to it can be found here: https://s3.amazonaws.com/bitcoinarmory-media/announce.txt) |
|
|
|
Okay, tried to update armory through the .deb file 13.10.
I'm running Linux Mint 16 petra.
it gave me an error and told me I had to run sudo apt-get install -f from the terminal.
It wouldn't let me open a terminal window, so I restarted the system.
Instead of booting to the Linux Mint logon screen, it now gives me the Ubuntu 13.10 startup screen but never gets to logon.
I went into linux mint recovery and did the sudo apt0get install -f from there, but rebooting the system still gives me a stuck screen that shows ubuntu 13.10.
Any ideas?
I would guess (just a guess though) that something was messed up before you installed the new .deb, and that installing the .deb triggered something. In other words, it seems unlikely that this is an Armory issue... I don't know much about desktop environments/X on Linux, but maybe this will help. After booting, switch to a terminal screen with Ctrl-Alt-F1 and log in. Take a look inside these logs to look for anything suspicious: less /var/log/syslog
less /var/log/boot.log
less /var/log/Xorg.0.log
Like I said, I probably can't help, maybe someone else here can... my honest opinion: you're probably better off seeking support in a Mint or Ubuntu forum. |
|
|
|
why do we get this on version check: cypher@ubuntu:~$ bitcoind getinfo
bitcoin is very out of date and has been removed.
Please see upstream sources at https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/
or the PPA at https://launchpad.net/~bitcoin/+archive/bitcoin
cypher@ubuntu:~$ bitcoin moved to the ppa you have to install then you can use apt-get PPA and 0.9.3 already installed and running. Why don't "bitcoind getinfo" return version info like normal? Do you have both bitcoin-qt from the PPA and bitcoind from the Ubuntu repo installed? Do a "dpkg -l bitcoin*", if you have both "bitcoin-qt 0.9.3" and "bitcoind 0.3.24" installed, then do a "sudo apt-get upgrade bitcoind" to upgrade it to the PPA version. |
|
|
|
Gender has nothing to do with scammers, that's all I'm saying.
Well, you're wrong.  Most of the BTC scams are done by men. Often men pretend to be women to make it easier to scam. I've no doubt this is true, but at what point is it acceptable to use statistics such as these to make libelous claims such as "you're a scammer"? |
|
|
|
I will never do that, send my picture or phone number to anyone here
Then clearly you (just like fabiola) must be a scammer.  [that was sarcasm/irony, and not personal...] ... , especially since I got scammed myself months ago buying a miner (not on this forum, on eBay), and *maybe* for a second time now if butterfly labs don't deliver. That's almost Ģ4k mate, not funny. I know I'm not the only one who's been scammed and I understand why you guys are so scared of scammers, I am too! But it has nothing to do with gender.  you have my condolences, for whatever they're worth... I know it was sarcasm/irony but it still hurts to be called a scammer
I was trying to make two points: (1) although there's a need to prove yourself before being trusted, there should be no need to prove yourself to avoid being called a scammer; (2) even though both fabiola! and samaricanin have not "proven" themselves by sending pics to someone, only fabiola! was called a scammer (due to her gender). Sorry if the way I tried to make these points inadvertently caused offense... |
|
|
|
Fair enough, I get it, I'm reading the "I'm in love" thread right now.
Ps. Who the hell is King Vod and how do I get him to verify me as legit?
I'll need you to PM me a picture of you holding up a sign that says "Vod". You need to be topless so I can prove you are a female. (Since you don't know me, I'll tell you I'm joking. The way I usually catch scammers is first I verify "she" has a cell phone and willing to send a picture. Then I contact her randomly sometime over the next week or so when I see her online. I give her a specific pose (thumb on nose for example) and ask her to send me a picture within a couple minutes. Usually that is too fast to arrange to have a female friend pose.) Have you ever done this for a guy before? Have you ever offered to? You mean have I sent a topless pic online to a guy before? Lol yes, to an ex boyfriend but never to a stranger. Uhh... no I wasn't asking you that question, I was asking Vod if he had ever "verified" a guy before... |
|
|
|
Fair enough, I get it, I'm reading the "I'm in love" thread right now.
Ps. Who the hell is King Vod and how do I get him to verify me as legit?
I'll need you to PM me a picture of you holding up a sign that says "Vod". You need to be topless so I can prove you are a female. (Since you don't know me, I'll tell you I'm joking. The way I usually catch scammers is first I verify "she" has a cell phone and willing to send a picture. Then I contact her randomly sometime over the next week or so when I see her online. I give her a specific pose (thumb on nose for example) and ask her to send me a picture within a couple minutes. Usually that is too fast to arrange to have a female friend pose.) Have you ever done this for a guy before? Have you ever offered to? I will never do that, send my picture or phone number to anyone here Then clearly you (just like fabiola) must be a scammer. [that was sarcasm/irony, and not personal...] |
|
|
|
Fair enough, I get it, I'm reading the "I'm in love" thread right now.
Ps. Who the hell is King Vod and how do I get him to verify me as legit?
I'll need you to PM me a picture of you holding up a sign that says "Vod". You need to be topless so I can prove you are a female. (Since you don't know me, I'll tell you I'm joking. The way I usually catch scammers is first I verify "she" has a cell phone and willing to send a picture. Then I contact her randomly sometime over the next week or so when I see her online. I give her a specific pose (thumb on nose for example) and ask her to send me a picture within a couple minutes. Usually that is too fast to arrange to have a female friend pose.) Have you ever done this for a guy before? Have you ever offered to? |
|
|
|
Isnīt it theoretically possible to build a algorithm which makes actual asic miners worthless.
No. An ASIC is just a computer. It's more specialized than a general-purpose computer, but in the end it's still just a computer. Any algorithm that can be implemented in a general purpose computer can be implemented in an ASIC, there's nothing "magical" going on. A relatively simple algorithm, like SHA-256, can be implemented in a general-purpose computer, or in an ASIC, with relatively little cost. This makes mining relatively accessible (though not necessarily profitable) to everyone. A more complicated algorithm would take more effort to implement in a general-purpose computer, and likewise more effort to implement in an ASIC. In the beginning, this makes mining more accessible to those with general-purpose computers. If there's enough demand (if the coin in question becomes popular enough), then eventually the algorithm will be implemented in an ASIC, but due to it's complexity it will be accessible to fewer people. In other words, the more complex the coin, the larger the start-up costs, and the less accessible mining becomes. This is exactly the opposite of what I assume is your goal. |
|
|
|
Seems like they have at least the same understanding about the words I was using before and not like the ignorant guy DannyHamilton.
DannyHamilton has gone above and beyond the call of duty for a number of years now, providing detailed, thoughtful, consistently correct advice on this forum. He has a wide understanding of Bitcoin's operation and explains things in great detail, often even to users who are clearly unwilling to invest a fraction of the time reading his posts that he spends writing them. <clip> Not that my opinion accounts for too much... but YES, absolutely this ^^^At the risk of being argumentative, the problem of mining pools, or rather of poorly implemented mining pools, does exist. It's not something that I've pointed out, but rather something that gmaxwell (et al.) has pointed out many times ( most recently here). This has nothing to do with ASIC vs "ASIC-resistant", but it has everything to do with centralized mining, and the way in which most miners unfortunately choose to participate in it today. PoW concept itself is a doomed concept.
You're welcome to propose a superior alternative, but you must back that alternative up with more that just your personal opinion. |
|
|
|
What I like about it is that I can effectively store money in my head
Why is that useful? What I'm trying to ask is, why does this one purported advantage outweigh the security negatives? I'll bet we could come up with some cool sounding use case for it for which traditional wallets fail (I've been unjustly imprisoned with temporary access to computers but no access to paper, and with no friends on the outside, but still I want to let people send me bitcoins....) But are there any real-life use cases where a brain wallet would actually be an advantage, and not just a security risk? The biggest problem with a "brainwallet" is that "you need a good brain" to create it.
Fair enough -- you need to be good at creating impressively random stuff in your brain, and you need to be able to remember that stuff. The problem I continue to see is this: how are you sure that you have such a brain? We (humans that is) do a good job of overestimating our own abilities -- it's just human nature. This is especially the case when it comes to estimating our ability to create entropy. I may think I'm pretty darn smart... but who doesn't? I'm sure there are some people who can pull this off, and it's entirely possible that CIYAM is one of those people, but CIYAM would be in a large minority. If you can't be certain that you have such a "good brain", what would be the advantage gained by taking this risk? |
|
|
|
|
If you haven't made a backup manually, do you remember if you enabled this option (by default it's turned off): "Always Keep Browser Backup"?
If you don't have a backup, you're pretty much at the mercy of blockchain.info....
|
|
|
|
The point I am making is that in order for a BRain wallet to be secure it must be as Cryptographically unique as you can possibly make it and if you are going to use words, it will never have the randomness that a purely random Password will have.
Agree -- if it's not truly random, it's always less secure than a traditional wallet. In General there are Three main ways someone can attack your Passphrase or Pass word.
Disagree -- there may be three ways that you (or that I) can think of, but people who are more experienced/smarter than you or I may have many more ways. This is why the level of security of a brainwallet can't be well determined. Personally I like the Brainwallet concept
Why? What is it that you like, that makes it worthwhile for you to give up some amount of security? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
