|
In case you need to kick a low quality poster or spammer please consider my application:
Username: neurotypical
Current Post Count: 1251
Current Rank: Hero Member
Bitcoin Address: 16wubmbWsguDm7irHPgjd4vRDr2fY4yj9s
Will change sig and avatar if accepted.
|
|
|
|
|
I would like that free Hero spot. I speak native english and actually know how bitcoin works so consider it.
Username: neurotypical
Current Post Count: 1249
Current Rank: Hero Member
Bitcoin Address: 16wubmbWsguDm7irHPgjd4vRDr2fY4yj9s
|
|
|
|
I'm not massively up on this.
What is it about functioning futures markets that makes an ETF that much more likely? Because the normal markets are just as muddy and impossible to police as when the SEC disposed of the idea last time.
Even if they really, really wanted to approve an ETF there was simply no way they could do the job they're appointed to do.
I think we are still very far from an ETF, if ever. The SEC said that they would not support an ETF because "bitcoin cannot be regulated". This is of course an irreconcilable position. In which point bitcoin will be "regulated enough" so that the SEC will approve for an ETF? it's ridiculous. If bitcoin becomes regulated enough for an ETF to happen, bitcoin failed. So no, I don't expect an ETF to ever happen, unless the SEC adjusts their idea of what regulating bitcoin is. If they mean exchanges then maybe, but at a protocol level nothing can be regulated. |
|
|
|
|
Note: If a hardfork that doesn't support segwit happens, you would not receive your coins that are sitting on segwit addresses.
For example, let's say someone that doesn't like segwit creates a new fork (such as BCash) after segwit activated, you wouldn't receive the coins sitting on segwit addresses since the resulting fork does not support segwit.
Im not sure if you could fork the current legacy chain without segwit tho, but technically you wouldn't receive the coins if possible.
|
|
|
|
I want to have my wallet on the full node. It wouldn't be a node that runs 24/7, just 20 minutes a day to keep it synced, in case I need to transact quickly so I don't need to have it opened for hours until it syncs for several days.
Any i5 or i7 laptop (gen 3-4 or higher) with an SSD. The major bottleneck in a laptop is going to be IOPS, thus storage. I highly recommend not using a HDD if you want it to be quick at syncing as described. I think 20 minutes a day connected to the internet in an a laptop that's made all of spyware free software and hardware isn't a realistic surface attack, and I would be ready for any forks instead of having to move your stuff from some cold storage device into the wallet (i dont consider anything but paper wallet or air gapped machine as realistic cold storage)
Either you don't have enough funds in that machine to make it worth attacking it by Intel, NSA & co. or you're using Bitcoin wrong (i.e. high amount on a online machine). If you're going to use this for most day-to-day transactions, then investing in "anti-spyware hardware" is a waste of money IMO. But I don't see the downfall in using hardware that isn't prone to getting spied through ME or proprietary BIOS or other surface attacks. Sure, it is slower since it's older, but it's safer, a core2duo with 8MB ram should do the job. At the end of the day you are going to need to run your own full node to broadcast your transactions if you really want to use bitcoin as bitcoin and not as something else in between paypal and bitcoin, and if this full node is in a machine that is blinded against all that crap then it's positive. Sure, ideally I should learn how to sign transactions in an airgapped computer, but I still didn't learn how to do that. For now, I would use the node as a wallet, and again, 30 minutes-1 hour of daily online exposition in a laptop that would only be used to keep the node updated for that amount of time.. the surface attack is very low when you are using one of these laptops. Eventually I would learn about the airgapped stuff. Putting all my bitcoins in a single paper wallet is dumb and i don't trust these ledgers and trezors. |
|
|
|
after Download bitcoin core and get .dat file so what is best software to open it (i use google and find many tools )also how can view it only (can exchange it from .adt to .txt  )? also how open it with web wallet or only work with download version ? Never open a wallet.dat with anything that isn't the native client for said wallet.dat file. So for example if your wallet.dat is a Bitcoin wallet, then open it with Bitcoin Core or whatever client that generated that file. If the wallet.dat is Litecoin's wallet.dat, use Litecoin Core... etc Never attempt to open it with a text editor, online or anything else. |
|
|
|
1) Whether you're being spied upon or not, is irrelevant when you're running a node that has no wallet. Data transferred over the Bitcoin network is not encrypted anyways. 2) You should not run a node on a laptop. 3) You can buy a used system that is 5-6 years old, e.g. some Quad Core or an early Intel i5 or i7. Pair that up with a Linux distro and a 1-2 TB HDD. Disable the wallet interface of the node and run it. But who cares? Ten year old laptops are basically free.
Correct. However, do you like running software on very sluggish hardware? I know that I do not. Just don`t put your "real wallet" on that node and just run it whit 0 bitcoin balance.
Just disable it completely, see my point 3. I want to have my wallet on the full node. It wouldn't be a node that runs 24/7, just 20 minutes a day to keep it synced, in case I need to transact quickly so I don't need to have it opened for hours until it syncs for several days. I think 20 minutes a day connected to the internet in an a laptop that's made all of spyware free software and hardware isn't a realistic surface attack, and I would be ready for any forks instead of having to move your stuff from some cold storage device into the wallet (i dont consider anything but paper wallet or air gapped machine as realistic cold storage) |
|
|
|
Hi, I had no drive space on my computer because of sync so I copied the Bitcoin folder from appdata to another drive. I finished the resync successfully . Problem is I had 0.98 bitcoins now showing 0.51  in my wallet. any ideas appreciated Thanks Alot Are you sure that you didn't copy the wrong wallet.dat or something? If you are sure it's the same wallet, was it synced before you ran out of space? Maybe you spent 0.47 BTC and you didn't sync it? These are the only two possible explainations to be honest. |
|
|
|
I think the impact of tether on the price is vastly overrated. Let's say tether is being used for fractional reserve-like practices. So what? We are dealing with the dollar all the time. BTC/USD is also compared against a fractional reserve currency. You can't stop these practices. Tether is a tiny amount of the money pot in bitcoin anyway. People comparing an hypothetical tether crash with Mt Gox 2.0 are out of their mind. |
|
|
|
|
You have not seen anything yet. Next year everyone will fork their own version of bitcoin, and it will only make altcoins more irrelevant, since some forks can be bitcoin-friendly (like Bitcoin Gold) if they don't pretend that they are the real Bitcoin, and they don't use the same hashing algorithm (which would be damaging for the real bitcoin if the fork got any traction). Ideally, another address format should be used to to not confuse people.
If these 3 criteria are meet, a fork can be friendly.
And then add in sidechains later on, and alts will get crushed while BTC goes 6 figures.
|
|
|
|
It all seems pretty to real me... and there's no conspiracy, there are actual chips there doing weird things while you sleep. Creepy. What is AMT?
Intel Active Management Technology (AMT) is hardware and firmware technology for remote out-of-band management of personal computers. It allows someone else to monitor, maintain, update, upgrade, and repair a computer. Out-of-band (OOB) or hardware-based management is different from software-based (or in-band) management and software management agents. Purism Librem computers avoids CPUs that have AMT (or as Intel calls it vPro enabled), and do not use Intel based networking, thus disabling this capability at the hardware level. However this does not change what the ME is capable of, which is why having a freed ME is so important to the Free Software Foundations Respects Your Freedom certification.
What is the ME?
The Intel Management Engine (ME) is a separate independent processor core that is actually embedded inside the Multichip Package (MCP) on Intel CPUs. It operates all-by-itself and separate from the main processor, the BIOS, and the Operating system (OS), but it does interact with the BIOS and OS kernel. It is a black box of mystery code at the lowest level, in ring -2, with complete control over every part of the system.
This website claims to have laptops that are free from this... not sure about that: https://puri.sm/products/ |
|
|
|
|
Following my "best linux distro" to run a node, what laptop would you recommend to use said node?
It is well known that somewhere around 2006 or 2008, intel started putting a chip inside the actual CPU that basically was a backdoor that still works even when you turn the computer off and does god know what. The point is, I wouldn't call any computer released past that date as safe from spying. I wonder if AMD also suffers from this in modern computers? from what i've heard that is a big yes, which puts it into an huge problem: We have stuck with old hardware, which is very annoying to deal with since syncing the node becomes even slower, and we can't even know if these pre 2006 or 2008 or whenever the ME started, are safe, but I guess it's better than nothing. I assume there are no alternatives to Intel or AMD, so what can we do?
|
|
|
|
Well I still think that using OpenBSD would probably be the best option and that objectively it is very trivial to use an OS without a GUI, as I believe GUIs are just there so it looks nice. I don't see many reasons not to go through slightly more effort for better security when you are already switching to Linux, but it doesn't matter that much anyway. Ubuntu should be just fine and it has good community support so you will be able to search the Internet for any problems you might encounter. Also you can download Ubuntu with different GUIs if looks are important to you, like a Gnome variant. Installing drivers was always difficult in Linux so I don't recommend doing that, as that is harder then doing anything that was mentioned above, altho even that is not that hard and can be done in like a dozen of commands in like 10 minutes. But still, using Ubuntu should be just fine for someone who doesn't like command lines.
I don't like Ubuntu's bloated default GUI, too resource consuming. I will try both Lubuntu and Xubuntu and decide. I was recommended not to use Mint, it had some security concerns in the past. About OpenBSD... too complex without a GUI. Not having a GUI may give someone not experienced too much power if you type in the wrong command. I will just encrypt the linux partition it and use the node as a wallet. I don't see any other way to keep using Bitcoin Core to transact that isn't a pain in the ass. |
|
|
|
.....
Yes, that's right, I don't trust Trezor, and I certainly don't trust an SPV wallet no matter if it's called Electrum or anything else.
The HD wallet on Core cannot be generated through a seed, but since I don't know the details, I choose to stay under the old non HD format for now.
It's important to not get overly complicated or confused. Here's the simplest way to create perfectly safe cold storage. Load some wallet like Electrum or Core. Put some bitcoin in a single adress using this wallet. First a small amount, then a larger, then a larger still. Verify that the coin is in the blockchain at the address. Now make a backup of the wallet.dat, the seed words, the passphrases, and triple check that you have them right. Delete the wallet, the blockchain, and the browser you used to check the blockchain. You are now done. You have coin on the blockchain, and cold storage of the access methods (s). Now build another wallet for incidental purchases. It would be easy to maintain only 1 address in a cold storaged wallet, but this is very bad advice when it comes to maintaining privacy. Ruling out Electrum, I would need to keep that 1-address wallet.dat file from Bitcoin Core. So everytime I send coins to my cold storage, they all would end up in a single address, which means it could be analized to find out how much BTC you own. You have to avoid this. You don't want a lot of BTC showing up on these "rich addresses" things (I don't have as much by any means, but it is still a mistake to do that privacy wise). Also if you delete Bitcoin Core you couldn't test if your wallet.dat has been corrupted or not (files can corrupt over time). |
|
|
|
No.
The quantity of addresses is MUCH MUCH TOO BIG for humans to ever use them up. The probability of two humans ever having the same properly generated address in all of human history and future is effectively zero.
What about the bitcoin address collider experiment thing, where they have claimed to find up to 3 different addresses with funds on them? I remember reading about this, but I can't find more details. The website of this thing is: https://lbc.cryptoguru.org/aboutThey seem to have passed the 1000 trillion mark. |
|
|
|
|
I put the idea of changing the 10 minute block time at the same level as attempting to change the 21 million coin total supply limit.
It will never gather enough support. If it is hard to find consensus in changing the block size, imagine these other terms.
It would also not solve anything. Checking on the blockchain more often would create more problems if anything.
|
|
|
|
Are there things like staking pools or at least online staking wallets? Something that would allow users to upload their funds and have them staked online? PoSWallet had that, but after they wanted to make their token a "non-utility token" I do not trust and support them anymore.
I know it somehow defeats the idea behind PoS, but that would be the same argument for PoW pools, wouldn't it?
Poswallet may have screwed up in the past with their security hack, but they solved it pretty decently. They are working on something called TPoS (trustless-proof-of-stake) which supposedly allows you to stake several coins in a decentralized way. You can make them questions in the Q&A and win 100 POSW if the question gets selected. More updates here: https://twitter.com/poswalletI would keep an eye on this project. Even Bitcoin screwed up in the beginning. Im willing to give them a second chance. The price has bottomed so things can only get better at this point. |
|
|
|
|
Anyone knows if the different Ubuntu flavors (Lubuntu, Xubuntu, Kubuntu...) are maintained at the same speed as the original Ubuntu LTS?
I have seen Lubuntu, it's really cool and lightweight, would be perfect to run a node. Xubuntu is also lightweight, but with better GUI, a good compromise between lightweight and minimalist GUI. Then there's Trisquel, which also looks easy to use and is FSF approved, but im not sure if it's easy to install like Ubuntu, and if it will get updates constantly.
Are updates automatic or manual?
I think im close now to deciding one, and I think I will stick to running the wallet as a node and only fire up the Linux partition everyday for a while to keep the node updated so when I need to transact I don't need to wait hours for it to catch up. If you open your node just 20 minutes a day or something, you can keep it synced on the daily. I don't think this will pose a realistic risk. I will not be even opening the internet browser on there. I can still browse with windows since my windows partition contains nothing of value anyway.
|
|
|
|
..... is there a way to create a "symbiosis" of the Electrum wallet and Bitcoin Core (or something like that), so that to sign transactions safely on ANY(doesn't matter which Linux distro, or even Windows) ALWAYS offline system, and afterwards actually broadcasting it with one's own Bitcoin Core full node.
Before I started my full node I had been doing it easily, comfortably and safely with the Electrum wallet.
All this reduces to is generating transactions off line and then inputting them into a computer with a wallet such as Bitcoin Core. Hooking Electrum into one end and hooking "full node" into the other is two levels of specificity without any tangible benefit. Spendulus, I've noticed if I say the Earth is round, you will say that is not quite true. You are always looking to find faults in my words  The greatest benefit with the Electrum scheme is that the online system's wallet is "watch-only". The real wallet that can spend money never goes online. The idea is to have a full bitcoin node installed in a decent system like a linux partition that you don't use for much other than to have the full node so you lower the surface attack (and not use Electrum because it's not ideal, some consider HD wallets unsafe). Then, you would have something that's completely sealed like an airgapped laptop, and you would do the actual signature there, then you save this information in an USB or something and then relay it into the network with your full node. The problem is I dont really know how this method works. How do you make the offline transaction, then pass it on the full node linux partition safely? The way to lower attacks would be to have the "full node" NOT online all the time as a full node, which in and of itself invites attacks. Open ports and all that. As for the offline machine, those methods are well documented at least for legacy Bitcoin. But why not use a Trezor or other such hardware device? Certainly they qualify as very low hassle, high security and "off line." I don't really trust Trezor, they keep adding unnecessary cluter specially with the new Trezor T which raises surface of attack. I also don't trust the concept of "seeds" in general, or anything that could spawn all of your private keys thought a single passphrase. Can't you sign transactions offline with the Bitcoin Core wallet in an airgapped computer, then move this into another computer with another Bitcoin Core and relay it to the network? But maybe this is unnecessary and considering im not going to be running the Bitcoin Core wallet as a node 24/7 and only boot the Linux partition when I need to transact or create a new receiving address... I should be safe. I would need to encrypt the Linux partition tho, otherwise when I boot in Windows the wallet files could be accessible if my Windows partition gets hacked. So you don't trust the seeds or word list, but Electrum uses them. As does Trevor. Core has the HD flag today, but doesn't seem to have deterministic stuff implemented. This explains the overall theory. There's a link at the bottom on how to do it with Electrum. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/How_to_set_up_a_secure_offline_savings_walletYes, that's right, I don't trust Trezor, and I certainly don't trust an SPV wallet no matter if it's called Electrum or anything else. The HD wallet on Core cannot be generated through a seed, but since I don't know the details, I choose to stay under the old non HD format for now. |
|
|
|
..... is there a way to create a "symbiosis" of the Electrum wallet and Bitcoin Core (or something like that), so that to sign transactions safely on ANY(doesn't matter which Linux distro, or even Windows) ALWAYS offline system, and afterwards actually broadcasting it with one's own Bitcoin Core full node.
Before I started my full node I had been doing it easily, comfortably and safely with the Electrum wallet.
All this reduces to is generating transactions off line and then inputting them into a computer with a wallet such as Bitcoin Core. Hooking Electrum into one end and hooking "full node" into the other is two levels of specificity without any tangible benefit. Spendulus, I've noticed if I say the Earth is round, you will say that is not quite true. You are always looking to find faults in my words The greatest benefit with the Electrum scheme is that the online system's wallet is "watch-only". The real wallet that can spend money never goes online. The idea is to have a full bitcoin node installed in a decent system like a linux partition that you don't use for much other than to have the full node so you lower the surface attack (and not use Electrum because it's not ideal, some consider HD wallets unsafe). Then, you would have something that's completely sealed like an airgapped laptop, and you would do the actual signature there, then you save this information in an USB or something and then relay it into the network with your full node. The problem is I dont really know how this method works. How do you make the offline transaction, then pass it on the full node linux partition safely? The way to lower attacks would be to have the "full node" NOT online all the time as a full node, which in and of itself invites attacks. Open ports and all that. As for the offline machine, those methods are well documented at least for legacy Bitcoin. But why not use a Trezor or other such hardware device? Certainly they qualify as very low hassle, high security and "off line." I don't really trust Trezor, they keep adding unnecessary cluter specially with the new Trezor T which raises surface of attack. I also don't trust the concept of "seeds" in general, or anything that could spawn all of your private keys thought a single passphrase. Can't you sign transactions offline with the Bitcoin Core wallet in an airgapped computer, then move this into another computer with another Bitcoin Core and relay it to the network? But maybe this is unnecessary and considering im not going to be running the Bitcoin Core wallet as a node 24/7 and only boot the Linux partition when I need to transact or create a new receiving address... I should be safe. I would need to encrypt the Linux partition tho, otherwise when I boot in Windows the wallet files could be accessible if my Windows partition gets hacked. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
