Can I find a wallet's seed phrases or private key, if I have the wallet's seedQR?
TL;DR: Yes. The seedQR contains the seed phrase and it is not encrypted. In my opinion, if you are going to carry around a seedQR (or a seed phrase in any form), it should be extended (i.e., have a "passphrase"). This will ensure that a person who finds your seed phrase will still not be able to access your bitcoins. |
|
|
|
There's a bit of a contradiction there. You wrote that you are revoking those addresses, but also that you are using those addresses. When you sign a message using one of those addresses, what are we supposed to do?  Simple: If you receive (p.s. You won't!) a signed message from those "revoked" addresses → ignore that message entirely and its sender! But you wrote: 3) to prove I'm the owner of those Bitcoin addresses.
If they are revoked, then they can't be used to prove that you are the owner of those Bitcoin addresses. |
|
|
|
...
The sole purpose of this signed message is:
1) to revoke my Bitcoin addresses @ bitcointalk.org
...
3) to prove I'm the owner of those Bitcoin addresses.
...
There's a bit of a contradiction there. You wrote that you are revoking those addresses, but also that you are using those addresses. When you sign a message using one of those addresses, what are we supposed to do? |
|
|
|
If you are the only one mining like satoshi then it doesn’t matter what speed your processor is running at.
There is a block every 10 minutes on average so in a given day there is 144 blocks. Back then block reward was 50 so in total about 7200 should be produced daily.
If satoshi was the only person mining that’s how much he could mine max per day. If another person with a similar set up started to mine with satoshis, the rewards would be split between the two.
Your hash rate and the difficulty determine the rate at which you solve blocks even if you are the only one mining. A 3 MH/s miner will mine 60 blocks per day when the difficulty is 1, even if they are the only miner. You will notice that in 2009 the average block time was higher than 10 minutes. Normally, the difficulty automatically adjusts in order to maintain a block time of 10 minutes, but there is a minimum difficulty of 1. In 2009, the total hash rate of the network was not high enough to find a block every 10 minutes at the minimum difficulty. In order to mine a block every 10 minutes with a difficulty of 1, you need a hash rate of about 7.2 MH/s. |
|
|
|
I understand I can sign a message Y to prove I own an address X that produces a hash Z. However is there a way to sign/verify to prove ownership of X without revealing X? This would be for purposes of establishing ownership in documentation now in case of audit later. I imagine in said document you could simply reveal Y & Z but in theory, an attacker could then cycle thru known addresses until one hash matches, so was looking to avoid this. Is the simplest method to just hash the revealed components one more time, withholding one of the inputs?
A simple way to do it is to sign a message and provide only a hash of the message plus signature. Then when you want to prove ownership, provide the message and signature. The hash proves that the message and signature are authentic. If that is not sufficient, then perhaps it can be done with a "zero-knowledge proof". A zero knowledge proof is used to prove that a statement is true without revealing the statement itself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-knowledge_proof |
|
|
|
I have always been interested in how difficult it was to mine BTC in 2009, but there seems to be no clear answer.
In 2009, the difficulty was 1. The number of blocks a computer could mine at the time varied depending on many factors, but a CPU miner had a hash rate of up to around 3 MH/s. With a difficulty of 1, that corresponded to a maximum of about 60 blocks per day, or 3000 BTC/day. In 2010, the difficulty rose quickly as more people began mining, and so the number dropped. By the end of 2010, the difficulty was around 15000, so that same 3 MH/s CPU miner only mined 0.2 BTC/day. BTW, the average time between blocks can be estimated with this: time in seconds = difficulty * 232 / hash rateSo, the average time to find a block for a 3 MH/s CPU at a difficulty of 1 is 1 * 232 / 3000000 = 1432 seconds |
|
|
|
I'm not arguing for or against numerology itself, however I will say that there is definitely reason for giving more weight to numbers than just their mathematical purpose.
Galileo, Tesla, Einstein, all of these minds became obsessed with numbers in some way. Galileo said that all of nature was written in the language of mathematics. Tesla had an obsession with 3, 6 and 9, and referred to "vortext mathematics", which relates to what the OP is doing with those numbers. Einstein of course... you should have all learnt from your institutional schooling.
I won't agree or disagree with posts like the OP as giving this much weight to numbers is indeed paying too much to pseudosciences. However, psychology was (and in some places still is) a pseudoscience and yet, see how far that has come to this day? I'd attack less, observe more, when it comes to pseudosciences.
Nobody disputes that nature can be expressed by mathematics, but numerology is to mathematics as astrology is to astronomy. Also, smart people were also wrong about many things. For example, Newton was also into alchemy. |
|
|
|
|
The term "compressed private key" is a misnomer. A "compressed" private key is not compressed as the name states. It is actually the public key that is compressed (by removing unnecessary information).
Instead, a compressed private key is just a private key with additional data that tells the wallet to use the compressed public key to generate the address.
An uncompressed private key does not have that extra data, so the wallet knows to use the uncompressed public key.
|
|
|
|
|
The video repeats a common misconception. Contrary to what the video says, the halving does not reduce the supply. The supply is always increasing every block until it reaches 21 million.
Also, to say that each halving has triggered a significant increase in the price is another common misconception based on nothing more that cherry-picking the data. Not only are the increases that people like to point to happenning 1 to 2 years after the halving, but all of the other significant price increases that don't correspond to the halvings are conveniently ignored.
|
|
|
|
|
I suggest that we retire this thread. There is no longer anything unique about GBTC, now that it is an ETP and there are a dozen others just like it.
|
|
|
|
I want to have the guarantee that my private key will always be usable, even in a long time when I eventually decide to spend the Bitcoins.
There is no guarantee, but it is very likely that your private key will always be usable even if the software dealing with private keys becomes obsolete. First: - A seed phrase is not a private key. A seed phrase is used to generate private keys.
- A private key is not a wallet. A wallet manages private keys and typically uses a seed phrase to generate them.
If those two points aren't obvious to you, then read this: Important terms that are frequently confused.Hardware wallet: The hardware wallet seed phrase can only be used to recover my funds if I have a dongle from the same manufacturer as the hardware wallet.
That is not true. If the seed phrase is BIP-39 compatible, then any wallet that supports BIP-39 will be able to use it. And if BIP-39 becomes obsolete, then there would be nothing stopping you from making your own software to support it. HardBIP32 + BIP39: it seems like the most practical and interesting solution but I don't really understand if the BIP39 standard has been officially recognized by Bitcoin protocol/Bitcoin Core.
BIP-32 and BIP-39 are not part of the Bitcoin protocol or consensus rules. They don't have to be "officially recognized" because nothing about Bitcoin is "official". FYI, Bitcoin Core does not use BIP-39.Seed phrase Electrum: I don't want to depend on Electrum, its developers and the future of that software. I only want to trust the Bitcoin protocol.
Like BIP-39, the Electrum seed phrase protocol is not part of the Bitcoin protocol. However, it is not widely used so if you are worried about it being supported in the future, then you probably shouldn't use it. WIF: ...
WIF is just an encoding format. There are many ways to encode a private key, and converting a key from one encoding to another is pretty trivial. So, if you consider this to be a solution, then perhaps there is no problem to solve. |
|
|
|
I was aware of this website. However i don't feel comfortable typing a mnemonic online, even for testing purpose with low balance.
You don't have to use funded addresses. Just check that the generated key pairs are the same. |
|
|
|
I checked the balance of the Child key m/0/0, m/0/1, m/1/0, m/1/1... They all have a zero balance  So my question is: how to get a list of the address corresponding to non zero balance from the seed of a HD wallet? I don't know much about the modules you are using, but typical paths look like: m/84'/0'/0'/0/index m/44'/0'/0'/0/index Also, you can use https://iancoleman.io/bip39/ to check you code with test mnemonics. |
|
|
|
Cryptographically secure hash functions are irreversible so that ciphertexts can't be decrypted by running the function in reverse. But none of the data in a block is encrypted, so the block hash is just a checksum, and shouldn't need to be cryptographically secure. Am I wrong?
A hash function does not do encryption, but still your question is valid. My understanding is that a secure hash function is not strictly necessary for mining because any flaw would presumably be exploited by all miners, and that would simply increase the difficulty. Edit: However, as Pooya87 points out below, a less-than-secure hash function introduces problems related to block chain integrity. |
|
|
|
FROM A TELEGRAM BOT I HAVE BEEN MAKING INVESTMENTS ON THE WEBSITE WWW.WTN32.ICU,
As others have said. It is a scam. In order to recover your money, you will need to identify the scammers. I HAVE BEEN TALKING TO ETHICAL HACKERS AND OTHERS BUT OF COURSE THEY ALL ASK FOR A LOT OF MONEY IN ADVANCE AND PASSWORDS FOR EVERYTHING TO SUPPOSEDLY VERIFY THE ACCOUNT WITH SOFTWARE AND WITHDRAW COINS
Those "ethical hackers" are probably scammers too. Don't give anyone any money or passwords. |
|
|
|
Unimpressive. A model is cannot be made simply by fitting a curve.
The main problem with your "model" is that it changes over time. If you fit the curve in the past, you got different parameters. If you fit the curve next year, you will get different parameters. It's a useless "model".
1) We do that all the time in Physics. Here, for example, listen to this talk: I'm going to try no matter what to explain and spread the message, but have you ever heard of Kepler's Laws? How do you think he found them? By exactly fitting the log of the distance of the planets vs the logs of the time it takes the planet to go around the sun. This is how he discovered one of the most important laws in astronomy. Kepler's model of the solar system is still used today. Tell me again how fitting doesn't allow us to make a model? Fitting allows you to make a model, but a curve fitting is not a model. Kepler's Laws describe the characteristics of the orbits of the planets, but they are not the model itself. Here's another astronomical example. Hubble observed that the red shifts of galaxies are roughly proportional to to their distance. Here is the graph: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law#/media/File:Hubble_constant.JPGNote that neither the graph nor Hubble's constant are the model. They are observations that support the model of the the expansion of the universe. Likewise, your curve mimics Bitcoin's price over time, but it does little to explain its nature. It is not a model. Does your model provide any explanation of why the price behaves the way it does? 2) One can calculate the parameters of the fit with time. You can add more and more data to the analysis and then calculate the parameters. You can show that the parameters converge to a stable value with time. As you have more and more data the model becomes stable and that is what the model is after 15 years of data. I made a prediction 5 years ago using the same model and my model is basically the same after 5 years.
Your parameters are not converging to a stable value. Specifically, your n is not constant. It is falling over time. It was 5.9762 five years ago and it is 5.82 today. If you do the curve fitting for the first 5 years, I'm sure that n will be greater than 5.9762, and I predict that in 5 years it will less than 5.82. How does your model explain that? 3) The usefulness of the models doesn't depend much at all on the parameters changing slightly.
Perhaps "useless" is an exaggeration. I say "useless" because it explains nothing. Furthermore, like all tools based solely on back-testing, the fact that your curve fits past data allows it to predict the past, but it says nothing about predicting the future. |
|
|
|
|
Unimpressive. A model is cannot be made simply by fitting a curve.
The main problem with your "model" is that it changes over time. If you fit the curve in the past, you got different parameters. If you fit the curve next year, you will get different parameters. It's a useless "model".
|
|
|
|
Email from Grayscale: We are thrilled to share that today, January 10, 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has approved our application to uplist the shares of Grayscale Bitcoin Trust (BTC) (OTCQX: GBTC) to NYSE Arca as a spot Bitcoin ETF, and is expected to declare GBTC’s registration statement on S-3 effective as of 5:00 p.m. EST today. This approval will make it among the first such products to be brought to market in the U.S., as well as the world’s second largest commodity-based ETF and the world’s largest spot Bitcoin ETF.* GBTC shares will be listed on NYSE Arca under Ticker: GBTC.
Together, we have been working toward this milestone for over 10 years—the Trust first launched in 2013, became publicly quoted in 2015, and became an SEC reporting company in 2020. We are grateful to investors who have stood alongside us through this journey and supported us through the process of uplisting GBTC to a spot Bitcoin ETF. Today, GBTC holds 3.16 percent** of Bitcoin in circulation.
WHAT THIS MEANS FOR INVESTORS:
Shares of GBTC are expected to commence trading on NYSE Arca on January 11, 2024. Once GBTC shares start trading on NYSE Arca, GBTC shares will cease trading on the OTC Markets and will have automatically been uplisted to NYSE Arca as a spot Bitcoin ETF. Current GBTC shareholders do not have to take any action prior to GBTC’s expected uplisting to NYSE Arca.
Once the shares are listed on NYSE Arca, the Trust intends to issue additional shares on a registered basis under the Securities Act of 1933, and employ simultaneous creations and redemptions. Grayscale believes these changes will enable GBTC to more closely track the value of its underlying Bitcoin holdings, after deduction of expenses. |
|
|
|
It was a hoax people. According to Gary Gensler: The @SECGov twitter account was compromised, and an unauthorized tweet was posted. The SEC has not approved the listing and trading of spot bitcoin exchange-traded products.
|
|
|
|
|
The SEC says the announcement is a hoax and the account was compromised.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
