Every year, services that freely accept bitcoins are becoming less and less. I'm not saying you are wrong by any means, but I have not experienced this personally. It might be because I have never used centralized exchanges which require KYC or any service using payment processors such as BitPay which also require KYC or perform blockchain analysis in the first place. Certainly the places I spend bitcoin in person locally all tend to accept it directly and without a third party payment processor. In the end, it all turns into a complete headache, because if, as you say, we leave those services that implement such checks and look for alternative ones, then we start to face other problems. For example, alternative services do not have the products that we need, or they are available, but not as good as they were in the service that we had to abandon. That's kind of my point though. If we all continue to use these privacy invading services just out of convenience, then they will grow, dominate the ecosystem, and force out their competitors. If you want privacy respecting entities to thrive, then you need to actively seek them out, use them, support them, and encourage others to do the same, despite any initial inconvenience. If everyone moved from centralized exchanges to Bisq, for example, then the most common complaint Bisq gets about liquidity would simply cease to exist. |
|
|
|
but before RBF there was more trust of zero confirm compared to post RBF times Exactly. Trust. Not verification. Whatever happened to "Don't trust. Verify."? Accepting zero confirmation transactions has always been based on trusting the other party not to double spend the transaction. again RBF has made it much more easier to double spend, it used to be safer. but now its not safe It has only gone from unsafe to very unsafe. It was never safe. And before you rant some more about certain "people" trying to change the protocol, let me just quote Satoshi on the subject: As you figured out, the root problem is we shouldn't be counting or spending transactions until they have at least 1 confirmation. 0/unconfirmed transactions are very much second class citizens. At most, they are advice that something has been received, but counting them as balance or spending them is premature. |
|
|
|
The adoption we deserve. I have bitcoins, but they don't accept them from me, because these bitcoins do not pass some kind of fucking verification from a third party. All my crypto life I "dreamed" of such crypto freedom. Allow me to quote a post I made a year ago: Here's an analogy: I am a merchant. You want to buy some things from me. You try to pay with cash. I say "I cannot see the full history of this cash, so I refuse your money". So instead, you tap your debit card. I say "I cannot accept this money without knowing the full history of it". I demand access to your bank account so I can see where all your money comes from. You leave and come back with your bank statements, but I don't like what I see, so I refuse payment. You then try to pay with PayPal. I demand access to your PayPal account so I can see where all your money comes from. You unlock your PayPal account on your phone and hand it over for me to look at. This PayPal money looks OK to me, so I accept it. You then leave the shop and start telling all your friends "Make sure when you shop there you have all your bank statements with you so the merchant can look at them, and make sure none of your money comes from anywhere except your employer, since they can't trace those funds." Your friends all look at you like you are crazy, and then simply choose to shop with the merchant next door who doesn't do any of this nonsense. Whenever this situation comes up, with the discussion of centralized exchanges and privacy, it always seems that the default position is "Sacrifice all your privacy and let people spy on you so that you can use a centralized exchange". In any other financial situation that would be seen as utterly crazy, as I've just shown above, but for some reason with bitcoin people just accept this nonsense? The problem here is not mixers, or coinjoins, or Monero, or any other privacy technique - the problem here is centralized exchanges. If you don't want a centralized exchange to seize your coins, then don't use a centralized exchange. There are plenty of decentralized exchanges to choose from. The logical position when faced with entities which are stealing coins is not "I should bend over backwards and sacrifice everything to hopefully mean they don't steal my coins!", but rather to simply not use the entity which is stealing coins. Most of the power of authoritarianism is freely given. In times like these, individuals think ahead about what a more repressive government will want, and then offer themselves without being asked. If all bitcoin users, collectively, completely ceased to use and support any such exchange or other service which implemented such blacklists, then the whole provably nonsense concept of taint would simply cease to exist. The only reason that some coins can be deemed as tainted is because we continue to use services which fund the very entities who made up this bullshit. Any time you come across an exchange or other service which makes you pass some kind of fucking verification, as you say, then A) stop using them and find an alternative, and B) encourage others to do the same as well. This is the only way bitcoin will actually give us the freedom we are looking for. |
|
|
|
You're continuing to quote the post where an individual consciously decided to consolidate Whirlpool coinjoin input with toxic change. I have used Whirlpool with Sparrow, and I have never had my toxic coins consolidated with my coinjoined. The post doesn't even demonstrate that. It only demonstrates unmixed change being consolidated with other unmixed change. If you know what you are doing, there is nothing wrong with this. I do this literally all the time. Let's say I withdraw 0.1 BTC from Exchange X and Whirlpool it. It creates some unmixed change. Next week I do the same thing. The week after, the same thing again. There is minimal privacy loss from consolidating those three unmixed change outputs together to feed back in to Whirlpool, since all three are already linked together and to my KYC data as held by Exchange X. Samourai and Sparrow prevent you from consolidating unmixed change with coinjoined outputs, as you say. Not only that, but in the example Kruw keeps bleating on about, the unmixed change on P2WPKH addresses is consolidated with outputs on both P2PKH and P2SH addresses. The user in question has manually crafted these transactions and moved them between different wallets for signing, or has exported all the relevant private keys and imported them in to the same wallet. This is absolutely not a case of Whirlpool being flawed or there being any privacy leaks at all. This is quite obviously a case of an advanced user who knows exactly what they are doing. |
|
|
|
Why are legit casinos buying stolen email addresses in the first place? They are not supposed to be sketchy. The casinos themselves probably didn't know. A data broker will have got their hands on the data in the first place, then started selling it to advertising companies as "Crypto users who are also interested in gambling". The ad companies which these casinos employ will have bought the data and used it. CZ's best bet is to freeze those output addresses and have Stake negotiate with those hackers (Ramson, as usual), since I don't believe it's feasible to reverse already confirmed transactions (which I haven't seen before). It's completely feasible. There are only a handful of BSC "nodes" (if you can even call them that), and all of them are owned and operated by Binance. Binance can do anything they like with the BSC network and all the assets on it. Reverse transactions, seize coins, burn coins, shut the whole thing down. |
|
|
|
More specifically, you can read how the suggestions are calculated here: https://github.com/mempool/mempool/blob/827b0f6ad1c419e79d1a5cfa55b74b9c993a4748/frontend/src/app/docs/api-docs/api-docs.component.html#L199Snipped and reformatted for easier reading: High Priority. This figure is the median feerate of transactions in the first mempool block. Consider using this feerate if you want confirmation as soon as possible.
Medium Priority. This figure is the average of the median feerate of the first mempool block and the median feerate of the second mempool block.
Low Priority. This figure is the average of the Medium Priority feerate and the median feerate of the third mempool block. Consider using this feerate if you want confirmation soon but don't need it particularly quickly.
No Priority. This figure is either 2x the minimum feerate, or the Low Priority feerate (whichever is lower). Consider using this feerate if you are in no rush and don't mind if confirmation takes a while.
In all cases, the suggested feerate is adjusted lower if any of the mempool blocks involved in the calculation are not full (example: if there is only 1 mempool block that's less than half-full, Mempool will suggest a feerate of 1 sat/vB—not the median feerate of transactions in the block). As I said earlier in the thread, I think those estimates are bit on the high side. At the moment, the "No Priority" fee of 16 sats/vbyte still puts the transaction less than 1.5 MvB from the tip, which is not what I would call "No Priority". |
|
|
|
///static const unsigned int MINPROOFOFWORK = 40; /// need to decide the right difficulty to start with
static const unsigned int MINPROOFOFWORK = 20; /// ridiculously easy for testing This is what you can find in November 2008 version. Interesting, thanks! So although he did set the difficulty higher initially, this must have been changed prior to the genesis block being mined, since the new lower difficulty is already specified in the genesis block's block header. He couldn't have mined the genesis block and then changed the difficulty afterwards since that would change the nBits field, change the hash, and therefore invalidate the block. |
|
|
|
Because Satoshi first set 40-bit difficulty for mainnet, and 20-bit for testnet. And then, he changed it from 40 to 32 bits. Do you have a source on that? The nBits field for both the genesis block and block 1 (and many subsequent blocks) is 0x1d00ffff. All of these blocks have the same target: 0x00000000ffff0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 That same target is also hard coded in to Core: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/6f03c45f6bb5a6edaa3051968b6a1ca4f84d2ccb/src/kernel/chainparams.cpp#L54. How could the genesis block have a lower target than the one specified? |
|
|
|
|
Of course they are going to say "User funds are safe". If they came out and said "Uhhh, we no longer have enough money to pay everyone back", then they trigger a bank run which rapidly leads to insolvency. So whether or not users funds are actually safe, that is what they are going to say.
It's the exact same as when the likes of FTX, BlockFi, Celsius, Voyager, et al. said "Everything is fine" in the days and weeks before going bankrupt. If they are honest then all they do is speed up their own demise.
And for all the coins stolen on BSC, could Binance not just reverse those transactions since BSC is 100% centralized?
|
|
|
|
funniest part is people say double spending was possible since 2009.. yet there were no large scale complaints of zero-confirm back then. It's almost like there weren't any big bitcoin services back in 2009.  The whole of 2009 only had 219 transaction which weren't coinbase transactions. where the only main successes is to pushtx a second tx directly to a pool that subsequently bypasses standard policy of 'first seen' to add the second tx before the first tx is used in a block No, it isn't. As I've already mentioned above, a race attack does not require cooperation from any pool. its done to force people not to accept risk/trust of using the mainnet for zero-confirms of any amount anymore You can still accept zero confirmation transactions if you personally want to do so. Doing so was never safe. |
|
|
|
Blockchain rollbacks and suspensions, say, don't look like something that should happen on a truly decentralized blockchain. Absolutely. And the second most popular crypto in the world - Ethereum - has done exactly that. When the wrong person acquired some ETH, a small group of individual reorganized the entire chain to reverse that from happening. That's the whole reason there is a fork called Ethereum Classic. It was started by a group of people protesting against the complete centralization of Ethereum. And let's never forget that Binance wanted to do the same thing on Bitcoin to reverse one of the many times they were hacked. Of course the community told them to GTFO. The only true decentralization is Bitcoin, all others aren't truly decentralized There are a handful of projects out there that are truly decentralized, such as Bisq and JoinMarket, and one or two other coins, such as Monero. |
|
|
|
Why are you still trying to spread this lie after you already found out that the "wasabistats" Twitter account is flagging remixes as false positive merges? This was already decisively proven to be a hit job account: https://twitter.com/Kruwed/status/1642612625883164672You only have to read the rest of that Twitter thread to see your "decisive proof" is nothing of the sort. I also don't know why you continue to quote that post of yours when I've already pointed out several times that it fails to deanonymize a single output: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5286821.msg62413682#msg62413682. Please try to confine your Wasabi spam to the appropriate thread. |
|
|
|
On mainnet those vending machines are not instant and need to wait up to 3 confirmations of the TX. 3 confirmations is unnecessary for the amounts being spent at a vending machine. No one is going to attempt to reverse 3 blocks worth of block subsidy and fees for the price of a one dollar chocolate bar. One confirmation would be sufficient, but Lightning would be better. Without confirmations all UXTOs can be double spending with FullRBF feature. No. As I said above, without confirmation all UTXOs could always be double spent. Full RBF just standardizes the process. Let me change it, I used to use imgur and always used lower size images, but sadly that hosting is not longer working on bitcointalk. Just include a height or width parameter in the img code. For example: [img width=800]https://www.talkimg.com/images/2023/09/03/mSaMD.jpeg[/img] |
|
|
|
Since you didn't mention your local currency I would suggest you to trade in your local currency through Binance P2P exchange. Given that OP has said he doesn't trust centralized exchanges, then anything to do with Binance is a non-starter. Binance P2P is still completely centralized, and still requires you to sacrifice your privacy, complete KYC, and hand over control of your coins. The one you ask here is more risky and if I am the one who have that, I will rather choose exchange than people I don't know if I can trust especially dealing with huge funds. Any decent peer to peer exchange has protections against scammers. Bisq uses a 2-of-2 multi-sig escrow, while AgoraDesk uses an arbitration bond system, meaning scammers cannot run away with your money or your coins. I have traded peer to peer for years and have never lost a single satoshi, whereas the number of people who have lost everything on centralized exchanges is innumerable. LBC and LC have both shut down Oh yeah, forgot about that. LBC have been dead to me since they went zero-privacy full-KYC all those years ago. |
|
|
|
Here are a few platforms to consider: LocalBitcoins, Paxful, LocalCryptos LocalBitcoins and Paxful are both entirely centralized and both demand full KYC. LocalCryptos has shutdown. If OP doesn't trust exchanges, then he isn't going to want to use a fake peer to peer site like LBC or Paxful which will still collect his data and invade his privacy. A better option would be pick a site from https://kycnot.me/?type=exchange such as Bisq or AgoraDesk and use that to find a reputable local trader. |
|
|
|
|
There exist torrents out there which you can find if you look for them. I'm not going to link them directly since I would not trust them, however.
The slowest part of the process is not the downloading, but the validation. If you perform the IBD through Core, it will validate as it goes. If you torrent the blockchain, then Core cannot start validation until your torrent is complete, and you will likely have to wait the same amount of time for the validation anyway. Given this, then I would be suspicious that any torrent of the blockchain would contain something malicious hidden inside since there is no real reason to have a torrent of the blockchain in the first place.
|
|
|
|
I opened this thread about Full RBF a year ago: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5403730.0So the question about this is: what do you think about FullRBF, does it allow double spend or not? Any transaction which is not confirmed can be double spent. This has always been the case. If I get you right the sender did an RBF to another address, that’s something i don’t think an RBF can do, because you can’t change the destination address using RBF. Yes, you can. You can change the destination address or addresses, add addresses, remove addresses, change the amounts, change the fee, anything you like. With the images from picture the transaction wasn’t RBF enabled and I doubt after making that transaction you can do that. Once a transaction is initiated without Full RBF enabled you wait for the confirmation or the transaction been dropped. You don't "enable" full RBF for individual transactions. It is enabled for all transactions automatically by the nodes which support it. That was less likely to occur before Full-RBF, with RBF disabled, as it'd require to convince a mining pool operator to double-spend your transaction, but currently it's just really trivial. There were other possible attacks which did not rely on paying a miner to mine your double spend, such as the race attack. |
|
|
|
However, do you have a source for your statement? It sounds too far-fetched that it's gathering your data and possibly abusing it. Their Privacy Policy: https://www.grammarly.com/privacy-policy#sectionSingleColumn_51qLjMIKnP2BOgokskyVEEThey collect "Account information" including your name and email, "Device information" including your IP address, location, and browser fingerprint, and "User content" including "all the text you enter". So yes, Grammarly is a keylogger, not just logging everything that you type, but linking it all to your real identity. If you do a quick web search, you'll find that lots of large tech companies and government departments have Grammarly and other such software blacklisted from all their devices. This should tell you everything you need to know. |
|
|
|
It would be interesting to know how Chainalysis acquire accurate data that has gone through Mixer services? As with everything else they do - they guess. Their guesses may or may not be accurate, depending on the service used to mix the coins. There are good mixers and bad mixers, Chainalysis have demixed Wasabi coinjoins in the past (which is how the DAO Ethereum hacker was identified), people can leak data via external methods such as browser fingerprints or IP addresses, and so on. Chainalysis are never going to willingly reveal their methods, because then they become easier to defend against. But as we've seen in this thread the government don't seem to care about accuracy at all, and only care about being given "data" which fits their preconceived conclusions. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
