Alright, so back to this thread five weeks later. Coding Enthusiast, your code works great; I'm just continuing this, because I now want to complete it straightly in my writing without using any external libraries. I've edited the modular inverse function, due to the assignments' parallelism as said by HCP. (I've also corrected the a>0 too)modinv should be working properly: public BigInteger modinv(BigInteger a, BigInteger m)
{
BigInteger prevy = 0;
BigInteger y = 1;
BigInteger q;
BigInteger oldy;
BigInteger olda;
if (a < 0)
{
a = a % m;
}
while (a > 1)
{
q = m / a;
oldy = y;
y = prevy - q * y;
prevy = oldy;
olda = a;
a = m % a;
m = olda;
}
return y;
} If I haven't made any other mistakes in EC addition, multiplication and doubling, then it must be on the curve's variables: string privatekey = "5"; // this is the private key in hex
BigInteger p = BigInteger.Parse("115792089237316195423570985008687907853269984665640564039457584007908834671663");
BigInteger[] g =
{
BigInteger.Parse("79be667ef9dcbbac55a06295ce870b07029bfcdb2dce28d959f2815b16f81798", NumberStyles.AllowHexSpecifier),
BigInteger.Parse("483ada7726a3c4655da4fbfc0e1108a8fd17b448a68554199c47d08ffb10d4b8", NumberStyles.AllowHexSpecifier)
}; This is what I run: BigInteger k = BigInteger.Parse(privatekey, NumberStyles.AllowHexSpecifier);
BigInteger[] point = ECMultiplication(k, g);
string x = point[0].ToString("X");
string y = point[1].ToString("X");
string public_key_uncompressed = "04" + x + y;
ECDSApublic.Text = public_key_uncompressed; And that's what I get: 0441721458CC97441B6C43006E2AE8050D55F8A200A22E067BA1D4F6C4E846B27AF5D0F2E457F91F826EC0412BEA2A13BADD81D5DB59009620EA2E56C927D6ED521 While I should be getting: 042F8BDE4D1A07209355B4A7250A5C5128E88B84BDDC619AB7CBA8D569B240EFE4D8AC222636E5E3D6D4DBA9DDA6C9C426F788271BAB0D6840DCA87D3AA6AC62D6 |
|
|
|
Thanks everybody for the answers. I don't know how to multiquote on this forum. You can't.  Electrum gives me only "bc1" address for deposit. So I think I have to somehow create a "legacy wallet" on Electrum, right? Yes, there is. If you're on PC click on View —> Show Console and then type on it: make_seed(seed_type="standard") Take the seed that it'll return you, click on File —> New/Restore —> Next —> Standard Wallet —> I already have a seed —> enter it —> Next and there you have it. A hierarchical deterministic wallet with only legacy addresses. |
|
|
|
|
— Let's have some fun.
I believe that the majority of the forum users want to see Bitcoin being globally adopted, including myself; I imagine people using it in their daily transactions for food, coffee etc. Lightning payments can tackle the scaling issue and the only thing left for Bitcoin to be used as a currency from the whole world is its mass usage. If the adoption rate increased so would the price's standability.
So, do you set a good example and pay with Bitcoin whenever you're able to or do you prefer not to spend your coins? I'll speak my personal view about this, in my country none of the merchants accept it and I rarely buy some hosting services from the internet. If they do accept it, I'll pay for it, but not because it satisfies me; it's just that I can't with PayPal. I'd prefer paying with PayPal for online services, because I may be scammed if they aren't popular.
Not sure why irreversibility is an advantage when you're paying an unknown person online. That's why I'd prefer having a third party for my online transactions.
|
|
|
|
Electrum does not accept legacy deposits. It actually does; what it does not accept is legacy invoices. You can normally send BTC to a legacy address, what you can't do is generate one. May I ask why you want to generate one? You'll have to pay a greater fee for each transaction you make. The SegWit war didn't happen arbitrarily. But, to answer your question I think the Bitcoin Wallet, from play store, still allows you to generate those. |
|
|
|
Hash rate has dropped by over 60% in the last few weeks What? I saw it dropping from ~21 exahashes to just ~19. China's game plan about what?Do you really think that the Chinese government really cares that much about the cryptocurrency mining industry? I'm pretty sure, it does. The whole world faces a mania with cryptocurrencies right now. If the hash rate is really dropping and the miners are leaving China,that's great.We will finally stop paying attention to all the FUD coming from China and China will stop "banning" Bitcoin/crypto every week. It's not the country. I mean, I heard they went to Canada. Do you believe we'll not hear FUD from there? China has no benefit and no damage from kicking out all the crypto miners,because the miners influence over the Chinese economy is totally insignificant. China may indeed have no direct benefit from keeping their crypto miners, but I believe they could find their way to earn a profit or a tax by their power usage. |
|
|
|
I just want to see what the general consensus is about selling Bitcoin. The well-known Bitcoin advocate, Mr. Michael Saylor, has said that you should never sell your Bitcoin, you should hold it for a lifetime. Not just Saylor; almost anyone you ask, you'll get a similar response. And that is completely justified. We're living an epoch where Bitcoin isn't globally adopted yet and therefore, if you hold your coins, you'll most likely be richer in the future. The demanding will rise and so will the exchange rate of BTC/USD. Not to mention that comparing a long-term deflationary currency with an (soon hyper)inflated one will result in increase of its exchange rate. I see Bitcoin as a safe haven in the long term, just as gold. It'd have the lowest risk to hold it in contrast with other cryptocurrencies. Just to mention that Bitcoin has a $650B market cap and gold $10T. Judge this and act however you believe it'll end up in the late 20s. I don't see the point of HODLing it. If everyone adopts that mindset, then Bitcoin simply wouldn't grow in the long term. How can you justify it as a currency if the value arises from its potential to supplement or otherwise replace the financial systems? There will always be people willing to spend their BTC. Holding relies on that fact, including that it'll be globally adopted in the future. |
|
|
|
remember the question is
"does more seed words" Don't miss the forest for a tree; the title may say that, but in the original post, 20kevin20 asks if Bitcoin would be more secure if we extended the phrase with additional words. Therefore, we answer that an attacker will prefer computing 2 160 hashes rather than a range of mnemonics which exceeds it. Besides that, calculating a RIPEMD-160 hash takes less time than generating a BIP39 seed. having 10 seed words of 32000 library(d) is more secure than 12seed with with randomiser(b) or personally chosen(c) Again, if it exceeds the time 2 160 hashes would take, then the point is lost. |
|
|
|
Who or what determines the transaction costs of a coin. You do it. If you want your transaction to be quickly confirmed, you'll have to set a high fee, because you'll give a greater incentive to the miner. You can determine it in sat/bytes. The more inputs and outputs it has, the heavier it is and thus, the more sats you'll have to pay. Can the developer set this himself? The developers cannot set the fee of your transactions. However, they can set a default limit (in the source code) you can't recede. For example, you cannot pay 0 sats for a transaction, because most of the nodes will reject including anything lower than 1 sat/byte into their mempool, if I remember correctly. Note that it doesn't mean they're invalid transactions; they can be normally included into a block. |
|
|
|
Well, let me consider the hypothetical situation when one of the wallet has backdoor that give the adversary chance to steel my fund. In this hypothetical scenario, you're the owner of your funds; you don't divide your bitcoins' possession with someone else. If that's true, then you'll need to sign from both public keys. If you choose a wallet software to sign from both, you won't avoid the assumed backdoor. If you sign from different wallets, then the possibilities for funds' loss drop. However, isn't that a really complicated way to pretend that you're safe? If you have a wallet that contains malicious functions, you shouldn't even consider to use it for transactions. Not to mention that you'll lose your privacy, because theoretically the thief could access your master public keys. |
|
|
|
Dogecoin isn't abandoned, however there aren't many development activity on popular open-source DOGE software (such as Dogtecoin Core) and the community generally don't care about it. Tomayto, tomahto. I had tried all of them recently when Doge was doing its ATH pumps, but I never achieved to run my Dogecoin client. I may had made around 30-50 outgoing connections in which only 3-5 of them were sharing with me blocks. I just wanted a wallet, but I never accomplished to run Multidoge and due to my node's failure of syncing I had to install a closed-source wallet. Chose Exodus from the reviews; I didn't want to sell a significant amount of DOGE anyways. |
|
|
|
I was considering the aspect of the trust to developer(s)/team(s) that have responsibility for wallet. Multisig would help to safe my funds if the security design pertaining to particular wallet were failed somehow. If your wallet software failed to generate properly a multi-sig wallet, what makes you think that it won't happen to a single-sig too? I'm not sure that I'm following you. |
|
|
|
LN devs crippled bitcoins onchain capacity/utility to promote users to move over to LN before LN was a proper beta working project Buddy, transactions included into blocks can't handle the entire world for global adoption whether they extended the block size or not. (Even if the block generation happened every 10 seconds with size > 10GB, which has other downsides) You have to tackle the problem from its root and it's been solved with LN; it makes Bitcoin operate more practically. Think about it. If I wanted to make purchases, buy coffee/food, electronic goods, other services etc, I'd have to make multiple transactions whereas they should be included into thousands of computers' disk. But, with LN the thing changes completely. We no longer broadcast our debts; we agree upon a final balance on our own ledger and once we're out of capacity we can send it to be confirmed in the main ledger. (And then we can increase our capacity and repeat again) And the best part: The system works and my money aren't controlled by a third party! I have 100% ownership of my funds. It's genius. |
|
|
|
Fiat is not backed by anything apart from the country that is issuing it and the "faith" of the people who use it. This is true, but I was pointing something else. Commodity money has intrinsic value, because besides of being used as a medium of exchange, it has other uses too, e.g golden coins. The dollar has no intrinsic value since it's authorized by the government and it serves only as a medium of exchange. So, should we say that a currency, whose purpose is to only to be used as a medium of exchange, has intrinsic value after all? While Bitcoin is very useful and many have characterize it as an electronic gold, I can't deny the fact that it has no intrinsic (essential) value; its purpose is to be used only as a currency and it satisfies no one who thinks otherwise. You should picture it in another way: Would a ledger of human debts, which is completely resistant to any authority!, have intrinsic value? |
|
|
|
Should I just right click the tx and use "abandon transaction"? Or try resending the same tx? If your transaction hasn't been broadcasted anywhere then yes. You should abandon it. Let me throw a tip; after you enter your paying address and click “Pay”, click on “Advanced” --> “Finalize” --> “Export”. After you've copied your signed transaction, open blockchair.com/broadcast and broadcast it from there. Generally, Dogecoin is an abandoned project, I'm surprised you accomplished on syncing your node. To me, it was never syncing. (1kbs/sec ↓) |
|
|
|
How can you win a lawsuit if you don't expose yourself? I mean, it doesn't matter if Craig won it or not; how can you accuse a person no one knows? Besides that, how can you prove to someone that you, indeed, wrote a whitepaper back in 2009 if you don't own the domain that firstly included it and neither a signed message from the public key that it was marked in bitcoin.org? Does he deny all that? Does he also deny the fact that Satoshi used to discuss in this forum? That that Satoshi was a “fake” one? I'm just wondering how he'd justify to me what really happened back in 2009. I'd really want him to somehow be forced to prove of being Satoshi. Gavin had said that he provided him a message along with a signature from block 1's rewarding address; no idea why he didn't announced it publicly.  |
|
|
|
Valid Point Algorand is still complete in 1 minute.  Algorand is still less secure than Bitcoin. Yes, this is really a problem. But there is no solution yet.
For what thing there is no solution? For the confirmation time or for the non-sense behavior of some exchanges? Depends on the wallet you've been using. Would you mind on sharing up on what wallet you had sent those coins from and where the wallet it would be passed on? I didn't read the previous replies, but why does the wallet software matter? Confirmations happen on-chain, with no third-parties involved and the fact that an exchange requires 10 confirmations is unrelated with the wallet's custody. OP, please share us the exchange name. |
|
|
|
I am not sure how reliable sites like https://howsecureismypassword.net/ are (don't enter a real password into in no matter what), but it says it would take 15 octillion years to crack it. Note that these years are probably referred to just hashing preimages until you've found a hash collision or the original password. But, if you went through the same procedure including the PBKDF2 rounds and the HMAC-SHA256/512 calculations it'd take much more time. You would get something like this: WCPFSODCRAIC iorehperogie While it's very long, it could be predicted. I'd advice you to use randomly generated passwords such as "N(s<qzGNHa>Cy>7)". The attacker's only option to steal your money would be by brute forcing, besides the $5 wrench attack. You can't predict this and thus, he'd have to go through pure brute forcing which is meaningless. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin currently has fixed supply of 21m coins. Currently, Bitcoin has a supply of 18,743,875.00 BTC, including the “gone for good” bitcoins, and it will reach 20,999,999.9769 BTC in block 7,140,000. You can call it fixed, but it is inflating with new coins everyday. Are there any advantages to having a reducing supply over time via burning. Advantages for who? For those who burn or for the rest of the Bitcoin users? Well, the Bitcoin users surely are benefitted since they have a commodity which is now scarcer. The people who burn them have their own purpose; usually they do it to earn some tokens. Probably many of them regretted for burning hundreds of bitcoins in the past. If yes, why hasn't this been implemented yet? Implement what exactly? If no, the follow up question is: are there any disadvantages to an increasing supply? Yes, the first one that comes in my mind is that it makes you poorer, because your money aren't worth the same they were before the increase. Note that this can be an advantage too; if you knew that your money won't worth the same in the future, you would spend it and thus, you'd keep the economy healthy. |
|
|
|
meaning all 8 billion people can now hold ~23 units of gold But, still, only 6.77 billion can hold 28 grams of gold. No matter the number of people who own gold, the 28 grams' scarcity will remain the same. Only if the supply increased, the scarcity would decrease. L2 does not work as intended, because when L1 is congested, then you cannot settle your L1 transactions. You cannot open and close channels without L1. You cannot send coins to someone who never used BTC when L1 is congested. You cannot close your L2 channel for one satoshi per byte when there are 100 MB other transactions waiting in mempool. So L1 is the block chain and L2 is the Lightning Network, okay I got it. In order to use L2, you need L1; does the same apply for L3 & L4? Would L3 need L2 to operate? To me, it seems that, by the way you wrote it, L3 is a L2 update (?). |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
