Are you saying that they can only do a proxyban on a brand new account? So it won't ever affect this account?
The proxyban fee only applies to creating new accounts. You will never have to pay the fee for using an account. How evil could it be if they only want less than 2 cents? I mean, what's the point? If someone did something evil why such a small punishment?
It is to prevent spammers from creating more and more accounts. |
|
|
|
Pardon my Linux illiteracy but would the "armory_0.94.0_amd64.deb" release be compatible with Ubuntu and it's derivatives (specifically, LM Cinnamon)? If not, would there eventually be an Ubuntu release?
It should be compatible with ubuntu. Do I just simply double-click on the .deb package to install it just like a tar.gz package? Yes. It should open up the Ubuntu software center and you should be able to install it from there. |
|
|
|
How are you using it with Electrum? Did you create a new wallet with the "restore a wallet or import keys" option? That is the only way to import the private key.
No, it's not. "Wallet -> Private Keys -> Import" works aswell. (Unless the private key exported from blockchain.info is in some odd format electrum doesn't accept that way.) Yes that's what happening, the format of the private key exported from blockchain.info is not recognized by electrum. I also tried it on www.bitaddress.org >> wallet details Same error, private key unrecognized. Oh, yeah, I just checked, Blockchain.info does not seem to be using the right format for Private keys. Private keys will always start with a 5, K or L. I'm seeing them start with 7 in my bc.i wallet. |
|
|
|
How are you using it with Electrum? Did you create a new wallet with the "restore a wallet or import keys" option? That is the only way to import the private key.
No, it's not. "Wallet -> Private Keys -> Import" works aswell. (Unless the private key exported from blockchain.info is in some odd format electrum doesn't accept that way.) I'm using Electrum 2.5.4 and I don't see that option, just sweep and export. |
|
|
|
I tried almsot everything, ok? I rebuild database like 3 times? Can you imagine how much patience and time it consumed?  It's not just corrupt... I dont have ideas anymore... 2x factory reset of armory, 3x rebuilded and rescanned database. Uninstalled Bt core and armory like 5 times. Changing directories... I am exhausted. No, you have not done everything nor have you done what I suggested. Rebuilding the database is not the same as resyncing. Rebuilding simply means that the data already on the disk is organized by the software so that it can use it. Resyncing means that you are downloading the data to the disk again. Resyncing will start it clean and remove corruption while rebuilding leaves the corruption there and that corruption causes problems. Ok, so let me be more specific... I deleted 2 times old database and started from begining... Satisfied? Oh sorry... I am little bit annoying, because I am frustrated . Did you try deleting specifically the folder named "blocks" in the Bitcoin Core data directory? Deleting the databases won't help in your case. |
|
|
|
If your address was created on the old blockchain.info wallet, with the new one, you should be able to export the private key and use another software to sign a message. If you go to Settings > Addresses and click on "Manage Addresses" next to the Imported Addresses option, you will see a list of addresses from the old wallet. Then click on export private key to get the private key of your address and sign a message with it.
Yes I managed to go to "Manage addresses" and copied the Private key for that address, however when I paste it in the Electrum software, it doesn't recognize it, any ideas? How are you using it with Electrum? Did you create a new wallet with the "restore a wallet or import keys" option? That is the only way to import the private key. |
|
|
|
the HK round table, had agreed to put forth a 2MB block limit incress in ~1 year's time i thought they had added it to their road map. But Core doesn't seem to have a road map. we can find clues here and there. https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011865.htmlat some point the capacity increases from the above may not
be enough. Delivery on relay improvements, segwit fraud proofs, dynamic
block size controls, and other advances in technology will reduce the risk
and therefore controversy around moderate block size increase proposals
(such as 2/4/8 rescaled to respect segwit's increase). Bitcoin will
be able to move forward with these increases when improvements and
understanding render their risks widely acceptable relative to the
risks of not deploying them. In Bitcoin Core we should keep patches
ready to implement them as the need and the will arises, to keep the
basic software engineering from being the limiting factor. They do have a roadmap, right here: https://bitcoincore.org/en/2015/12/23/capacity-increases-faq/. What was agreed at the HK roundtable was that some core developers would propose and implement the a block size limit increase. However, this isn't guaranteed to make it into Core because it is the proposal of specific people not of the Bitcoin Core developers. |
|
|
|
I tried almsot everything, ok? I rebuild database like 3 times? Can you imagine how much patience and time it consumed? It's not just corrupt... I dont have ideas anymore... 2x factory reset of armory, 3x rebuilded and rescanned database. Uninstalled Bt core and armory like 5 times. Changing directories... I am exhausted. No, you have not done everything nor have you done what I suggested. Rebuilding the database is not the same as resyncing. Rebuilding simply means that the data already on the disk is organized by the software so that it can use it. Resyncing means that you are downloading the data to the disk again. Resyncing will start it clean and remove corruption while rebuilding leaves the corruption there and that corruption causes problems. |
|
|
|
Pardon my Linux illiteracy but would the "armory_0.94.0_amd64.deb" release be compatible with Ubuntu and it's derivatives (specifically, LM Cinnamon)? If not, would there eventually be an Ubuntu release?
It should be compatible with ubuntu. |
|
|
|
Is this legit and why would I get this? I thought we could have more than one account on Bitcoin Forum.
Yes, it is legit. Yes you can have multiple accounts here. You get this because the IP address of your computer has evil points. Evil points are assigned to IP address ranges based on the behavior of previous accounts that were created by or used that IP address. What is proxy/VPN/Tor exit node?
These three are various methods that people use to hide their IP address. The users data is routed through another server and the data appears to come from the server's IP address. |
|
|
|
|
If your address was created on the old blockchain.info wallet, with the new one, you should be able to export the private key and use another software to sign a message. If you go to Settings > Addresses and click on "Manage Addresses" next to the Imported Addresses option, you will see a list of addresses from the old wallet. Then click on export private key to get the private key of your address and sign a message with it.
|
|
|
|
Try 0.94
Use a Blocks path with only ASCII characters
Ultimately, send me your blk00000.dat so I can look at it.
How and where should I send it? Can you give me email adress? Ok.. 0.94 now crashes after downloading last few blocks... Awesome... I have most secure wallet and my bitcoins are gone forever I guess.. The problem you appear to be having is that Bitcoin Core has corrupt blocks. This is something that Armory cannot fix. Rather you need to go to the Bitcoin data directory and delete the entire "blocks" folder. Then start Bitcoin Core and let it sync. Since this is a full resync, you will need wait a while for it to redownload all of the blocks. No your Bitcoins are not gone forever. They are only gone if you delete your wallet. |
|
|
|
|
If you are referring to lightning network payment channels, they still use bitcoin transactions. The way that lightning works is that the channel is really just a transaction that is never broadcasted and replaced over and over as transactions in the channel happen. When the channel is closed, that transaction is broadcast to the network.
Because that transaction is a bitcoin transaction but I'd not broadcast until later, it still must use OP codes.
|
|
|
|
If I create a thread, can I post something like "all posts after this post must follow this new local rule" and will that be enforced by mods as local rules in the Op are?
If you mean, if you post in the OP "All posts must be in this format" or "No posts about this topic will be allowed in this thread" Then yes, that is a local rule to the thread, and people violating that rule will have their posts removed if reported. If you mean to make it complicated and say "all posts after post #3 must be *insert rule*" that is probably a little unnecessary. I mean like the thread already has several posts already and I notice a trend in those posts that I don't like, e.g. they are posting about a related topic that I don't want the discussion to be about. Then I post a new post (e.g. post #34) with something like "all posts after this one cannot be about X topic". |
|
|
|
|
If I create a thread, can I post something like "all posts after this post must follow this new local rule" and will that be enforced by mods as local rules in the Op are?
|
|
|
|
But not all nodes will update to recognise segwit. If a non segwit node receives the two records that signify a segwith transaction, then won't it accept the payment record, but reject the signature record as an invalid type. It will accept the payment record as valid because the signature will be blank ie. anybody can receive.
Yes, but for a full node that is segwit capable, it WILL receive the witness data. Once segwit updates, running a full node without segwit should not be optional and is less secure since that node cannot verify the signatures of segwit transactions. |
|
|
|
It's an older computer I built years ago, still runs XP. The OS could be an issue, but I doubt the hardware is (decent proc, plenty of RAM and hd space). One of these days I'll get around to building a new machine. I also need to turn my old laptop into a Linux machine, that would be the one to run my node ideally I think. But in the mean time I would love some ideas what was changed in 0.12 that now makes it unusable on my computer.
The problem is XP. There are known problems with 0.12 with XP. See https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/7674 and https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/7639. However i don't think it will be fixed since XP support from Microsoft has ended and thus fixing an XP only problem is not worth it to the core devs. See https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/7681 for the discussion about that. |
|
|
|
This is not correct, right? Miners (and relay nodes running new software) will have to include the signatures in the extension part of the block and send the whole block out to other miners (and to relay nodes running new software). The extension record can be omitted only when a miner or relay node sends a block to a simple client. Right?
Yes, you are mostly correct. The witness data is sent to nodes that have the proper service bit set. When segwit activates, nearly all of the miners will have this bit set so they will be receiving all of the witness data. The data will be omitted if the node doesn't have that service bit. I understood that the miners would have to validate the signature "extension" to guard against attempts to hijack the payment. Because of this, all miners would have to support segwit. However, they don't include the signature data in the mined block ( if they did it would be even larger than current sizes). They don't need to re-transmit the signature data, and probably won't as the extra processing time could lead to their block being orphaned. The signature data is validated by archive nodes, and other miners of course, and if it is invalid, then the block will not be accepted. I think it is optional if a wallet holder wants to run a pruned node, a full node, or a full node with archiving. No. You are incorrect. The signatures are required to validate a block. Full nodes need that data in order to verify the block. If the node announces that it supports segwit, then it will receive the witnesses to validate them. It is not optional for any full node. For reference, a full node is any node which fully verifies all transactions and blocks it receives. This includes pruned nodes and "archiving" nodes. |
|
|
|
|
What coin?
BTW this belongs on the altcoin section.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
