The checksum is not meant for you and your eyes. It is meant for the application so that whenever a user enters the checksum incorrectly into that tool's textbox it can automatically detect if there were any mistakes in the input so that the application can inform the user that something is wrong.
but we still need a way to make sure we wrote it down correctly. and you just admitted as much. since just by looking at 12 words, you can't tell whether there is any discrepancy in them or not. also, they'll definitely know something is wrong whether the software detects it or not. when their balance doesn't show up. You seem to have made a solid argument against using paper wallets, particularly paper wallets in which the secret (seed) is written by hand.
to further counter your argument, it would be possible to manually check if the checksum is valid “by hand”. |
|
|
|
I was just curious on behalf of those that don't trust wallet software and wanted to be hardcore about it.
In general, I would say that you probably are not going to be better off "manually" selecting your seed. Many who attempt to generate a seed outside of a computer program will adopt a procedure that is not truly random and will generate a seed that is vulnerable to theft. Further, in order to spend your coin, you will need to use some software that is used to generate and sign a transaction. |
|
|
|
I noticed, a few days ago, that someone made a post in this topic. I noticed it as the topic was highlighted when selecting "Show new replies to your posts". However, I did not see who made the post and I also did not read the post at the respective moment. A few days later I remember about it and I come to check the topic, but it seems that whoever made the post, deleted it, as now the last post of the topic (excepting this one) is from July 24th.
Is there any way to see the deleted post? Maybe LoyceV can help somehow...? I am curious what the post was about (also why it was deleted).
More specifically: https://loyce.club/archive/posts/6135/61354460.htmlGreat post.
Please make a thread on how Erik Voheeres built his wealth by stealing bitcoins early with Feed Ze Birds.
Also potentially Roger Ver involvment in schemes that made people lose money and potentially lined his pockets (BitInstant, MtGox)... |
|
|
|
Yes, he's instrumental in crashing FTX, but is FTX and SBF guiltless?
I would tend to disagree that CZ/binance caused FTX to collapse. Based on the information I have read that I believe to be reliable, FTX loaned money to an affiliate for the purpose of speculative trading. The money lent was customer deposits that I understand were not interest-bearing, and reasonably should have been kept segregated (at a minimum from an accounting perspective) from other assets at FTX. The sale of FTT by CZ/binance was preceded by the run on the bank of FTX, but FTX would have been able to honor all customer withdrawals if non-interest-bearing customer funds were segregated. Even if one were to argue that it is permissible to lend out customer deposits that are not interest-bearing (which is an argument I disagree with), there was too much exposure to FTT, which is an affiliated altcoin. This argument requires looking at FTX like a bank (that loans out customer deposits), and having that level of exposure to a single asset is just reckless. In sum, it was SBF that ultimately caused the collapse of FTX, IMO. |
|
|
|
it is really not doing much more than repeating the points So do many users  My response is based on the assumption that by "users" you mean " people who write on the forum" Maybe, maybe not. There are a lot of posts that are sufficiently bad that it makes it difficult to believe they are actually written by real people. Sure, some people may not care to put a lot of effort into their posts, and some people may not be especially intelligent, but I find it hard to believe these are reasons why we have so many shit posts, given the scale of the problem. Looks a more than decent answers to me.
Do you think anyone can use this G-OpenAI platform to write posts in bitcointalk forum, and is there a way to detect this? Maybe we need to have some kind of detector for text written by bots, but I often think that some people are worst than AI after I read their posts  Posts written by a GAN (such as the one used on the G-OpenAI platform) can be passed through a discriminator model. A better solution would probably to group posts potentially written by a GAN with all other posts, and enforce the rules accordingly. Would the "post" that fillippone generated meet the criteria for not being removed by the moderators? Maybe, maybe not. I would lean towards no though. |
|
|
|
I am bringing this thread back from the dead as the recent overhaul of Google OpenAI platform made GPT available: https://chat.openai.com/chatLets’s see how it replies to the last message of this threads It seems to happen in the ETH threads in Altcoin Discussion/Speculation a lot.
They just seem to use text spinners and copy & paste (or use bots to write) the same replies over and over just exchanging certain words with other words with the same meaning. Some spinners can even change sentences around and all that.
It would be nice to have some board where signatures and avatars are not shown at all (and not counted for Sig campaigns).
It is not uncommon for people to use automated tools, such as text spinners, to generate content in online forums. This can be frustrating for other users who are trying to have meaningful discussions. One solution to this problem might be to create a board where signatures and avatars are not displayed, as you suggested. This would remove some of the incentives for people to use these tools, as they would not be able to promote themselves or their products through their signatures and avatars. However, it is also important to enforce rules against the use of automated tools in order to prevent this behavior from continuing.
Looks a more than decent answers to me. Haha. It is not wrong. If you look closely at the post it is replying to though, it is really not doing much more than repeating the points made by muenze and agreeing with them. All it really added was that the rules should be enforced. |
|
|
|
This is one example of why it is important to read the content of trust ratings, and review referenced threads. Those who received these trust ratings will have a better trust score, but anyone looking at those scores will see that the positive ratings are questionable and will act accordingly. I would also point out that someone engaging in many trades in which they send first is likely to be a safe trading partner, even if sending first in a small number of trades doesn’t indicate the same. |
|
|
|
I am happy to give back all my yields. Giving them all my principal would ruin me. Especially cause i went from Celsius to ftx.
If giving money back to both Celsius and ftx would make you insolvent, you are unlikely to be required to go into debt to repay both bankruptcy estates of Celsius and ftx. Even if you were required to repay certain amounts withdrawn, you would likely not be required to repay the full amount. Rather, offsetting would likely be used so you repay what you would have been clawed back, minus what you would receive after assets are distributed. My suggestion is to contact a qualified attorney who can give you advice for your specific situation. |
|
|
|
Another possibility which would be even more independent from the Bitcoin chain would be an algorithmic bitcoin-based stablecoin on a chain with smart contract functionality (doesn't have to be Ethereum-based). Such a chain could however not directly interact with the Bitcoin chain (only via atomic swaps).
I think those of us who saw Luna's implosion know what would happen if such a thing was repeated here. I understand that Luna did not have actual assets to back up its value. As long as the smart contract has access to the same number (or greater than) of assets, and the assets are valued similarly, I don't see a reason for a potential implosion. For example, if a smart contract were to issue 1 sideBTC in exchange for 1.001 BTC, and were to redeem 1 sideBTC in exchange for 0.009 BTC, the value of 1 sideBTC would always remain at approximately 1 BTC, and market transactions would most often make it so redemptions/issuances would be unnecessary.
In theory, it would be possible to create some layer 2 PoW (or PoS) chain on top of bitcoin's PoW. Transactions on the layer 2 chain would only be as secure as the PoW securing the L2 chain, and transactions between the L1 and L2 chain would be as secure as bitcoin's PoW. |
|
|
|
(as others have noted) It appears the OP is conflating transaction throughput with transaction speed. Throughput is the number of transactions that can be handled per n period of time, while transaction speed is the time it takes for a transaction to settle/finalize. The reason why bitcoin's transaction throughput capacity will be lower than Visa's is due to the fact that bitcoin transactions must be transmitted to everyone running a full node on the network (and each transaction is similarly stored by everyone running a full node), while Visa transactions only need to be transmitted to a Visa computer.
I might compare someone "swiping" their credit card at a merchant, and the payment processor (using the Visa network) telling the merchant the transaction was "authorized" to an unconfirmed bitcoin transaction. In most cases, the transaction will be finalized and will not be reversed, but there is still the potential for a reversal (or in the case of bitcoin transactions, a double spend). |
|
|
|
Pools could sell block space well into the future to companies who expect to need a lot of block space in the future. This will allow both the pool and the consumer of block space to have a more predictable revenue and expenses. This could be a risk to the mining pool: when they sell block space above market value, more miners will join their pool. But when fees go up and their long-term contract forces them to sell transactions under market value, miners will move to other pools. This will not be an issue if the pool has control over the miners (in exchange for the guarantee of more steady tx fee revenue). The point of entering into these types of arrangements is to ensure that costs/revenue are predictable over long periods of time. The "pool" could sell something similar to what we know today as a 'cloud mining contract', or the pool could own the hardware for its own account, or was in some other situation in which, this type of arbitrage would not be possible. |
|
|
|
We you figure out the amount you will be surprised because the number is really small if you compare it with visa transactions.
I don't think it is realistic to compare bitcoin throughput with the throughput of a major credit card network. Visa's transactions are stored in a centralized database. By contrast, all bitcoin (on-chain) transactions are broadcast and stored by every bitcoin user with a full node. Granted, LN will aggregate transactions together, but the decentralized nature of LN will not allow scaling to reach "visa" levels. It's a classic Sztorc "Trilemma" of scalability vs decentralization vs security, and the solution is to make a centralized* Layer 2 that is scalable and secure. Everything else is just a band-aid. *Note: The owners of this network will be the collective group of merchants who want to settle payments with customers. They would each have a partial ownership proportional to their percentage transaction volume on the layer, just like shares in a company. As thousands of merchants will want to use this kind of network eventually, that means that individual ownership of the total is so small that it can be considered to be decentralized. In theory, depending on how the LN topology evolves over time, it could eventually have similar throughput as Visa. In order for this to be possible, there would need to be a fairly small number of "banks" that many users open channels with, and each 'bank' is connected to each other (or is also possibly connected to a 'central bank'). This is somewhat similar to how the banking system works today but without fractional reserves (the 'banks' and 'central bank(s)' would need to have a lot of capital, or else they would be unattractive for users to connect to their nodes. Granted, LN will aggregate transactions together, but the decentralized nature of LN will not allow scaling to reach "visa" levels. Provided that both have potentially unlimited transactions per second, there's no point to continue arguing which one can serve better in speed. I don't think the LN topology will ever look like what I described above. It is clear that LN is much faster than Visa transactions in terms of the merchant receiving their money. I understand that merchants' agreements with payment processors vary, but I speculate that in a best-case scenario, merchants receive money in a number of days, although there is the risk of chargebacks months after the date of the transaction. The question of which setup is superior is not a technical one. Each setup has its own pros and cons, and the costs associated with fraud are borne by different parties in each setup. |
|
|
|
We you figure out the amount you will be surprised because the number is really small if you compare it with visa transactions.
I don't think it is realistic to compare bitcoin throughput with the throughput of a major credit card network. Visa's transactions are stored in a centralized database. By contrast, all bitcoin (on-chain) transactions are broadcast and stored by every bitcoin user with a full node. Granted, LN will aggregate transactions together, but the decentralized nature of LN will not allow scaling to reach "visa" levels. |
|
|
|
Perhaps most concerning, a survey published last fall found that 80% of Biden voters and 84% of Trump voters view elected officials from the other party as “presenting a clear and present danger to American Democracy.” It also reported that 41% of Biden voters and 52% of Trump voters favor red or blue states seceding from the Union to form their own separate country, with 30% Republicans and 11% of Democrats ready to resort to violence to save the country. That is approximately 20 million Americans ready to fight in a country with 400-plus million guns. And this data was collected before the overturning of Roe v. Wade and the recent FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago, both of which are currently being weaponized by political pundits.
The article itself is worth reading (from the standpoint of a conflict-resolution professional). I was reading that article but stopped once I got to the image/table titled "how we got so divided", which discredited the author. To address your quote from the article, and the theme of the OP -- money is ultimately what drives elections; money is needed for political advertisements, and for get-out-the-vote/voter outreach efforts. The most effective way to get money is to scare people into sending money; this is often done by describing the election as very important, and by labeling their opponents as extremists. |
|
|
|
This is a tricky question, but i think i have an answer for you... If you compare the hex key: 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 vs 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 You will get the next Uncompressed WIF - Base58 keys: 5HpHagT65TZzG1PH3CSu63k8DbpvD8s5ip4nEB3kEsreAbuatmU 5HpHagT65TZzG1PH3CSu63k8DbpvD8s5ip4nEB3kEsreAnchuDf As you can see the first chars are the same, so, if you want the first 35 chars to brute force the next 17 you could start from: 5HpHagT65TZzG1PH3CSu63k8DbpvD8s5ip4 I have to say that not all the keys you get will be valid ones, and this is a terrible method to bruteforce the privatekeys, you should learn about softwares like brainflayer. The private key is passed through a hash function in order to calculate the address. Given the output of a hash function, it is not possible to calculate the prefix of the input. If this were possible, the hash function would be broken. |
|
|
|
If I remember correctly, if/when Satoshi returns (as satoshi), his "coins" (on his profile, next to his posts) will become illuminated.
The forum was nowhere near as active in 2009/10 as it is today. I would refer you to the forum stats page. For example, in November 2009, there were only 37 posts made, and in December 2009, only 44 posts. By comparison, a recent visit to the patrol page shows 200 posts in about an hour and 20 minutes, and that only counts posts made by newbies. |
|
|
|
No - I want to know the calculation of first 35 characters in wif (compress or uncompressed) format remaining 17 will be find with brute force. A private key is not calculated from anything - it is simply a random number between 1 and (a little less than) 2 256. To convert from a raw private key to WIF, you first take your 64 character hexadecimal private key, add the 0x80 network byte at the start, at an 0x01 at the end if it is going to be a compressed key, add the first 4 bytes of the double SHA256 of this string at the end as a checksum, then convert all of this from Base16 to Base58. Reverse the process to go from WIF back to raw hex. But you are asking a question about a method you are (probably incorrectly) trying rather than asking a question about the underlying problem itself. What part of a private key do you currently have and in what format? Ok let me explain in another way. Here is the address: 1PaJvUDUKm3Xr4FJJZS53ooNFFZXVZk3v Here is the Public key: 02fd9507ccb8ea63c3b7011cc594f8049ebc0063df7cff6ac960d3442f91fd6b81 Now lets suppose this is the private key in Wif format starting with 5: 5KJyGeq5gngHP25WMwpNb2jGwRGGerdrasY7rBzKXFVBZ7ZkWBn Split into 2 parts First 35 characters : 5KJyGeq5gngHP25WMwpNb2jGwRGGerdras Last 17 characters : Y7rBzKXFVBZ7ZkWBn Now my question is that how can i Calculate the exact first part of this address. because i know if i get the first part then remining 17 will be find with brute force. I can rephrase your question differently: Given a random number between 1 and 100,000 how can you calculate the first 4 digits of this random number?Answer: You can't.
When you generate a private key, you generate a random number (the scope of potential numbers is much larger than in my above example). Once you have the private key, in order to get the address, you have to perform a number of one-way hash functions (along with other calculations) on the private key. To ask how to calculate the first x characters of the input of a hash function based on the output is effectively asking how to break the hash function. |
|
|
|
Pretty crazy that the US government hates Elon so much that they wouldn’t subsidize Starlink for Ukraine. This just makes Elon look better in my opinion, as he was the bigger man even while Ukrainian politicians call him names and our own government won’t even mention his company’s name. I’m glad Elon is on the side of common sense. Seeing people hate on him really shows that it doesn’t matter how awesome and successful you are. Someone will always complain.
I think it is more the Biden administration and mainstream democrats that hate Musk. Musk is very pro-freedom, and authoritarians do not like that. His buying Twitter, and promising to make it more transparent and more free-speech-focused isn't helping his cause. Space X is not a charity, it is a for-profit business. With all the billions of dollars worth of military equipment going to Ukraine, paid for the US taxpayer, it is not unreasonable to expect the US government to help pay the bill for Starlink. They are paying for everything else. I agree that SpaceX isn't a charity and that Elon doesn't owe Ukraine anything. It just goes to show that he's the bigger person when it comes to Elon and the US Government and that Elon is willing to dip into his pocket (and those of his investors I guess) to pay the $20,000,000 per month bill that servicing Ukraine is currently costing. I'm sure at some point the DoD will pony up something so that they can say the helped pay the bill, but Elon has said he doesn't even care anymore. He's fine paying the $20,000,000 per month to keep Ukraine connected to the internet during these turbulent times. I remember reading somewhere that Musk announced the stopping of SpaceX giving free internet services to Ukraine after critical comments by someone in the Biden administration. I don't remember where I saw this, so I am not sure its reliability. If true, the two events are likely related. There is an argument that SpaceX was giving free internet access to Ukraine as a marketing gimmick. The news made headlines, and I am sure that many looked into using SpaceX internet service that had not previously done so. It is also possible that SpaceX was not generating enough additional paying customers for it to make sense for them to continue giving Ukraine free internet service. |
|
|
|
One thing that is missing is a user-friendly and safe method to back up your Lightning node. Unfortunately, and oppositely to layer 1, you can't back up your wallet in a piece of paper. It is required to have both the hsm_secret (which can be represented as a seed phrase, and recovers on-chain funds), and lightningd.sqlite3, which is the database of commitment payments and revocations.
You need to back up the latter every time you make a payment, and hence, it has to be done automatically. One option is to have a separate external device, along with the blockchain hard drive, that will just keep the back up, in case the hard drive stops working. The problem is that, even if you do this, you can't restore your funds somehow, because you need to access the Bitcoin Core. Hard drive not working means blockchain not syncing. But access to Lightning is provided given that blockchain is syncing.
What happens in that case? Do I have to wait until it re-syncs the entire chain from a new hard drive? In poor connection areas, or in poor CPUs this can take up to 2 weeks. Recovery of funds from uncooperative channel closure might not be sufficient, even if it's 2016 blocks, security speaking.
You can backup your private keys (hsm secret) on a piece of paper. This is what must remain private, as it will allow anyone with access to this information to spend your coin via LN. A current listing of commitments and revocations needs to be backed up, but the damage resulting from this information being made public is limited to your privacy. This means that you can backup this information in the cloud without risking the theft of your coin. In the case of the latter file, it can be recreated as a series of SQL statements, but I don't know how long that can be. It is more compact than moving around the SQLite file directly, and is less susceptible to corruption.
There are a very limited number of operations, so you don't need the actual SQL statements. All you really need is a CSV file (or series of CSV files) that contain enough information needed to create the SQL statements. For added redundancy, you can also have a script that parses your CSV file(s) and converts the information into a SQL lite DB, as part of your backup. |
|
|
|
You have missed the first 35 characters of your private key and now you want to calculate them? Am I getting you correctly? If so, there is no solution for that.
If you had missed a few characters, you could find them through brute-force method. But there is no way to brute-force a private key with 35 missing characters.
No - I want to know the calculation of first 35 characters in wif (compress or uncompressed) format remaining 17 will be find with brute force. Unless the person who generated the private key did so with flawed RNG, or they otherwise leaked information about their private key, it is not possible to know any portion of a private key, given a public key, or an address. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
