--snip--
It definitely looks like he's just running his posts through ChatGPT. ChatGPT usually create more formal text though, although i know user can ask it to be less formal. Although on an unrelated note, all my transactions have 00000000 locktime which disables it.
Yeah. I mentioned risk of accidentally locked coin for long time since i recall it happened to someone on technical board. If you have the time, do stop by in the thread to leave your advice about this as it would be appreciated.
I already stopped by before creating this thread. But i couldn't think any suggestion that might be helpful, so i just left merit to post which is likely to be helpful. But this case is still weird because AI usually give better advice than the ones posted in the technical support section.
AI usually give bad/wrong advice when when the topic is really specific (like sequence number on Bitcoin transaction). |
|
|
|
If so, I imagine that this practice is more secure than the same process on an online machine, or is this an erroneous thought?
No. What matter most is the RNG source used by script/wallet software you use. Thank you. Having care of my sanity  , your suggestion is fine. But, let me give you a more complete view of the problem. My question is: can an offline computer generate the proven keys, the public keys and finally the addresses?If so, I imagine that this practice is more secure than the same process on an online machine, or is this an erroneous thought? Thank you Sanity check in Computer Science terms is a bit different from what sanity literally means. As I have already answered previously, you do not require an internet connection to generate private keys, public keys or their addresses. Again, so long as your OS has the required dependencies or the softwares (Electrum comes preinstalled in Tails), you can generate ECDSA private keypairs and your addresses.FWIW Debian ISO file also include Electrum. To be specific, debian-12.4.0-amd64-BD-2 include that (based on it's list file[1]). Or you could just include needed application/script on DVD or flash drive used to install the OS on offline computer. [1] https://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/current/amd64/list-bd/ |
|
|
|
This thread will serve as reference of user who spread false, fake or unhelpful information on technical board. Here are list of board i count as technical board. - "Development & Technical Discussion" with it's child boards.
- "Mining" with it's child boards, excluding "Mining speculation".
- "Bitcoin Technical Support".
If you decide to create a report, you're expected to explain why the post is technically wrong. Vague explanation such as "technical nonsense" or "it's impossible" isn't accepted. It's also acceptable to also include post which is technically wrong outside board i mentioned. Here is recommend report format, User:
Additional information (optional):
* Additional information 1
List of post:
[quote]
Post 1
[/quote]
Explanation why post 1 is technically wrong.
In case reported post edit or no longer exist, you can use https://ninjastic.space/ and http://loyce.club/archive/posts/ to verify a user actually create post quoted in this thread. But take note any post/thread could be edited after those website perform archival.
Below text is reference for trust feedback to user snuffman8 when initially creating this thread.Disclaimer: I create this thread primarily as reference for reporting his post and neutral feedback. Profile link: snuffman8Update: Moderator delete those post i mentioned below. You can use https://ninjastic.space/search?author=snuffman8 to verify my thread. List post with false/fake information: If you suspect the wallet.dat was created with an early version of Electrum, it might be a good idea to try using an older version. You can find historical versions of Electrum on their official GitHub repository. As for extracting private keys manually, the content in the wallet.dat file is encrypted and not easily readable with a text editor.
I recommend checking Electrum's documentation or community forums for guidance on compatibility issues and extracting private keys.
This is wrong since Electrum doesn't create wallet file with .dat extension. Considering the dynamic nature of the crypto space, it's challenging to guarantee absolute future compatibility. However, WIF seems to align more closely with your preference for direct compatibility with the Bitcoin protocol.
WIF isn't part of Bitcoin protocol. It doesn't matter whether you store private key in binary, hex or other format. The sequence number in your input is set to 2147483648. This value might trigger some network-related behavior, especially when combined with RBF. You may want to experiment with different sequence numbers.
The topic ask about invalid script, which isn't related at all. Suggesting using different sequence is also irresponsible where someone could accidentally lock their coin for really long time. It's also worth to mention this user is suspected of using AI on this post, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5456516.msg63518321#msg63518321. |
|
|
|
It is just a small program that I want to use to pay tribute to Chipmixer and make it. It is more used to exercise my programming ability. It is similar to why Chipmixer looks very similar, because I really don’t know how to do the front end of the website, so I copied their front -end code from a false Chipmixer website, and also reminded everyone that Chipmixer has been closed. The chipmixer that can be found now is a false website, and they will steal your Bitcoin
I hope you get some useful experience here. Anyway, even if you don't have front-end experience, re-using Chipmixer name and logo image without any modification seems to be risky. Of course, I have made some changes. Chipmixer will split all Bitcoin into a form of 0.002, such as 0.001, 0.002, 0.004, 0.008, 0.016, 0.032, 0.064, 0.128, etc. My Program divided into 0.001, 0.002, 0.005, 0.01, 0.02, 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.5, etc., I think this amount does not look so strange.
Actually i prefer your choice of numbers. Although Chipmixer did that since it let their user split or join chips easier. FYI i can't access that link even after using few different browsers and connections. |
|
|
|
Hi, You can add zakservers.com to the list too, do not ask for KYC and bitcoin is accepted as a payment method, though only fully dedicated offshore servers are available along with domain names. I just checked your website and i'm not sure OP need dedicated server for fresh/new e-commernece which probably has relative low traffic. Anyway, while your website doesn't mention KYC, this part of your ToS might bother few people. At any time Zak Servers may demand Customer to provide proof of its identity. Failure to cooperate with this process is a reason for immediate termination of the agreement.
|
|
|
|
It seems to be tall task. I don't have resource to perform brute-force, but i have few thoughts. 1. It's possible the wallet.dat is encrypted twice (by Bitcoin Core and TrueCrypt). 2. Aside from hint you've shared. Do you remember how long is the password and which character you use? 3. If your password has relative small amount of possible combination, it can be brute-forced with modern high-end GPU. For example, RTX 4090 has speed ranging from 100 to 3500 kH/s depending on encryption type you use. Benchmark link (not mine), https://gist.github.com/Chick3nman/32e662a5bb63bc4f51b847bb422222fd. Assuming that the wallet.dat file is really yours and that you didn't bought it in the hopes of finding the password (who locks almost 3 bitcoin without noting down the password ?), I really don't see how you can achieve this.
Using TeraCrypt is non-standard approach, so i doubt OP is lying. Besides, Teracrypt was discountined on 2014 where Bitcoin price was about few hundred dollar which isn't big money for people who live on developed country. |
|
|
|
~
These are all unnecessary movements What prevents the admin from coming here and write this: Yes, LoyceV have acces to IP-addressesor No, LoyceV have not acces to IP-addressesAdmin very rarely respond to question or request. Even request to add new board with some support[1] receive no response from admin. And so far, admin only write 23 reply/thread on Reputation board so far[2]. So while nothing prevent admin from doing that, i don't expect admin bother doing that. [1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5434404.0[2] https://ninjastic.space/search?author=theymos&board=129 |
|
|
|
Usually this is where i suggest people to report such PM with reason "unsolicited/unwanted PM". But i guess you'd rather spend your time for something else. |
|
|
|
Tips agar proses IBD lebih cepat :
- Internet yang stabil
- Storage gunakan SSD
- RAM 4-8GB
- Setting dbcache 50% dari ukuran RAM
- CPU yang memadai (bukan CPU jadul)
Jika ingin melakukan custom directory menggunakan HDD tambahan, usahakan untuk selain folder blocks (yang berisi file-file *.dat) tetap berada di SSD (dimana default data tersimpan), oleh karena itu daripada menggunakan perintah -datadir=<dir>, lebih baik gunakan -blocksdir=<dir> sehingga untuk data yang dipindahkan ke HDD hanyalah folder block saja.
Total UTXO meningkat secara pesat sejak Ordinals eksis[1], sehingga dengan RAM 8GB pun proses sync tidak teralu cepat[2]. Dan jika cukup giat, dbcache bisa diatur sesuai dengan total RAM yang sedang tidak digunakan dengan catatan menyisakan beberapa ratus MB (sebagai total RAM yang tetap tidak digunakan). [1] https://statoshi.info/d/000000009/unspent-transaction-output-set?orgId=1&refresh=10m&viewPanel=6&from=now-1y&to=now[2] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5473480.0 |
|
|
|
Do we need another sidechain? Liquid and Rootstock already exist, while Drivechain still in development.
I think the crucial difference is the way how the sidechain would be to be implemented, according to the information available until now in the whitepaper. SatoshiVM is thought to be a rollup, this means it's not a completely independent sidechain but rather a method to bundle transactions so they occupy less space on L1 (but regularly injecting data on L1). While you're correct, most people only care whether how well it works and it's adaption (e.g. which wallet or exchange support it). And with no detail how "sequencer" (party who create block) is chosen, i expect many enthusiast won't bother trying SatoshiVM either. RSK and Liquid are currently federated, but afaik their goal is not to use rollup technology but eventually become completely independent sidechains with 2-way pegs, so apart from the deposit/withdrawal transactions, no information has to be stored on L1. This is of course a much more ambitious goal.
At least for RSK, Bitcoin TX also created on these occasion, 1. Merged mining, https://dev.rootstock.io/rsk/architecture/mining/implementation-guide/. 2. Powpeg/federator members update, https://dev.rootstock.io/rsk/architecture/security/. Although obviously it has no noticeable impact on TX fee or blockchain size. |
|
|
|
To get one confirmation takes about 10 minutes and costs about $15(about what it would cost for a $600 credit card transaction). That is not acceptable for most transactions. 6 confirmations would take at least an hour and more likely 2 to 5 hours.
Are you suggesting that Bitcoin is only good for transactions that take 6 hours and are over $600.
Aside from what other member said, there are 2 additional point i'd like to say. 1. Total confirmation requirement should adjust amount of money received. Many digital service i've used only require 1 confirmation. And before full RBF exist, few of them accept 0 confirmation, assuming my TX doesn't have RBF flag and has relative high fee rate. 2. Total TX fee isn't dependent on how much Bitcoin you sent. Merchants have to fund a liquidity channel with an amount that is appropriate for their level of business. This channel is with a third party provider. Let's just say your business does $10,000 in business per day. This would require you to tie up $10,000 of capital in a channel and keep it funded in order to accept Bitcoin.
-snip-
I know Lightning is under mad development so please correct me if I am wrong about this.
I'm not an expert in Lightning, but this definitely does not line up with my understanding of it. Perhaps someone with more experience and knowledge will stop by and enlighten us both. Would it not be possible for the merchant to allow individual customers to fund channels directly with them? In that case, wouldn't it be possible for the merchant to supply 0 funds (or perhaps just a small token amount) to each of those channels? This may not be an OPTIMAL solution, but it is at least possible, right? Other solutions should be possible as well (such as the merchant opening a channel with the exchange that they use to convert received Bitcoins into local currency, since they'll need to make that exchange regularly anyhow). I don't remember whether LN specification let only one party (since another party supply 0 satoshi) create an on-chain transaction (which open LN channel) to HTLC/PLTC address with script agreed by both party, but otherwise it's possible. Although it bring question whether the customer willing to pay TX fee to create new LN channel. |
|
|
|
--snip--
If the price of Bitcoin dumps, shouldn't we get lower fees ? Even if it goes up for a few more months or even years who knows, there's a point where we will get small tx fees. Both panic buy and panic sell could happen, so it's not strong guarantee we'll get lower fee (either in terms of fiat or sat/vB). In addition, attack by creating many transaction (when it's not needed) might happen regardless of Bitcoin price changes. |
|
|
|
That project use different GitHub account, so no wonder i didn't know about it. While the UI application seems to be user-friendly, the installation process[1] would filter many Bitcoiner. [1] https://jamdocs.org/software/installation/Why on earth would you use a web interface and expose your HTTP port in order to do a coinjoin? Not only does it come with the usual risks of bots infiltrating your network with malicious packets and spam, but it also allows them to potentially use a vulnerability to steal crypto located inside the JoinMarket wallet. That's good point. While i don't play to try Jam for now, it could prevented by using firewall with advance rule. There is nothing wrong with the Qt interface of JoinMarket.
It depends on what we count as wrong. Although it can't denied the UI doesn't look as good as many modern application or website. |
|
|
|
|
I'm sorry to hear such this bad news. I'll miss reading your technical explanation/discussion. Although if you intend to fight until last second, have you consider to join clinical trial which aim to cure that chronic disease?
|
|
|
|
Why are you trying to make it as if they're some super evil group of people who control planet Earth lol at the end of the day most people here are just having fun exposing scum or marketing, etc on bitcointalk.
LoyceV it does not expose spammers, it only knows how to ignore applicants for adding to whitelists. All spammers pay an evil fee in bitcoins and bypass Loycev's control. While honest applicants get f*cked At time of writing this post, mempool.space suggest $2.87 (48 sat/vB) for no priority and $4.19 (70 sat/vb) for low priority. I wonder how many spammer bother spend Bitcoin for both evil fee and TX fee when the TX fee usually is higher than evil fee? And what can they (people who can whitelist) do if spammer willing to pay evil fee? |
|
|
|
It's valid concern, although it's also reason people suggest to bookmark where you download the software and optimally verify GPG signature.
The first thing that comes to my mind is, for example, Update the Trezor suite or Trezor firmware. At some point, a pop-up appears with a link to download a new update. If I remember correctly, it happened that the new update brought some bugs (which were otherwise quickly corrected), so for this reason, I usually refused and waited with installing the new version. I believe that the vast majority of users immediately install the new update, without checking if everything is ok. I get your concern. Although if the software only connect to reference or official server, it's unlikely you'll download malware (which is topic of this thread). As for new bug introduced by the update, we only can hope the software creator perform more through test. |
|
|
|
-snip-
It should be 10, not 11. BlackHatCoiner is correct, 11 is the maximum possible outbound peers. Here's Bitcoin's current " net.h": github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/net.hThe lines MAX_OUTBOUND_FULL_RELAY_CONNECTIONS, MAX_BLOCK_RELAY_ONLY_CONNECTIONS and MAX_FEELER_CONNECTIONS all count toward the maximum outbound connections. Thanks for the correction with source code reference, i totally forget about feeler connection. Although FWIW it's primarily used not to relay TX/block[1]. [1] https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/112248 |
|
|
|
Am I running a full node? You should be downloading blocks, yes. Do you use Bitcoin-QT (the GUI of Bitcoin Core) or bitcoind (the daemon)? If it's the former, does it seem like synchronizing? If it's the latter, does the terminal contain progress, cache, UpdateTip, new best etc.? Strictly speaking the full node is a node that allows incoming connection on port 8333. "Full" refers to verification, and both incoming accepting and outgoing only nodes verify everything. Nodes that allow incoming connections are just more helpful in terms of bandwidth. In addition, it doesn't have to be port 8333. And talking about firewall, OP should also check firewall on their router and configure port forwarding on the router if needed. Literally the only difference between an inbound and an outbound connection is which node initiated it. Once the connection is made, they function identically. Another difference is that by allowing incoming connections, you get to establish up to 125 connections by default, whereas with listen=0, up to 11. It should be 10, not 11. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
