-snip-
In theory this would allow you to use google's resources to try to "mine" addresses for possible brain wallets
No it wouldnt. It* would help does willing to learn to understand how exactly an address is made. If you want to farm brain wallets there are allready pages out there that are way more efficient. * "It" beeing the version that allows to create an address "by hand", if it is possible to do in a spreadsheet at all. |
|
|
|
|
Jetzt mal ernsthaft, wenn ich innerhalb von 24 Stunden meine Bitcoins verdoppeln könnte, würde ich dafür keine Homepage machen. Ich würde mir irgendwo 10 Euro zusammenschnorren die zu nem schlechten Kurs tauschen und die 0,03 BTC verdoppeln. Nächste Woche hab ich dann 3,84 BTC und die Woche drauf schon 491,52 BTC. Zu Weihnachten müsst ihr euch dann alle ne neue Währung suchen...
|
|
|
|
if you have the private key import that wollet to blockchain and then send the btc to other wallet
Why drag that aweful buggy online service into this? Just send the coins directly no need to get private keys online to a 3rd party. |
|
|
|
I tried nothing. I didn't even download it yet. I just thought Bitcoin Core is too bloated and I should save space.
Safest and easiest way is to just install multibit, get an address and send the coins via blockchain. You could also export the private keys and import them into multbit, but Id go for the blockchain. |
|
|
|
Apparently you have problems connecting to a node that is fully upgraded. try one of these and use addnode IP add from dev console to add them. last updated 2014.10.10
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IP - location - owner[1]- speed - info/stats page[2] - testnet
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
84.200.34.113 - Freinsheim, DE, EU - Newar - 1000 mbit/s - yes - no
185.45.192.129 - Amsterdam, NL, EU - anon - 1000 mbit/s - /node.php[3] - yes
213.165.91.169 - Germany, EU - shorena - 100 mbit/s - yes - no
50.7.68.180 - New York, USA - Newar - 100 mbit/s - yes - no
5.9.24.81 - Germany, EU - zvs - unknown - no - no
178.79.173.71 - United Kingdom, EU - zvs - unknown - no - no
107.155.104.194 - Dalls, USA - zvs - unknown - no - no
106.185.32.195 - Japan, Asia - zvs - unknown - no - no
94.242.57.173 - Russia, Asia - zvs - unknown - no - no
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] refers to a bitcointalk.org username or anon if requested
[2] same IP, port 80 or path/port given
[3] work in progress
|
|
|
|
|
on bitcoin? Which site are you using?
|
|
|
|
Hi Danny - I've learned a lot from your posts over the years. So much that I consider your statements semi-authoritative, pending evidence to the contrary. There is so much misinformation and misunderstanding and just plain incorrect statements in this thread, I don't even know where to start correcting them all.
Everyone who *thinks* they know how this works and has made a statment based on their belief needs to go get educated before they answer any more questions for anyone on this forum. You are just spreading misinformation and confusion.
This includes:
...
jbreher
...
I wonder if you might take the time to set me straight. I have made a couple of assertions in this thread. From a brief review, all I can detect that clashes with your statements is my use of the term 'reward' to indicate the coinbase reward, where you use the term 'subsidy' (you use the term 'reward' to refer to the sum of your 'subsidy' plus our shared understanding of 'transaction fees'): between the last fraction of a coin reward, and the transaction fees, it should cover the energy costs
I thought my usage made the distinction clear, so it must be the term itself for which I am being called out? If so, where is the authoritative glossary of 'approved' bitcoin terms? If not, what other errors have I committed? Thanks! Not that I can answer for Danny, but his corrections often remind me off my Math Profs. A lack of precision can be considered false and I value these corrections especially since english is not my first language and I indeed missuse words in a way that lacks said precision. I dont think its a specific list of words that is acceptable, but any words that are able to express the different concepts of fees and the subsidy for the fees while bitcoin is still young. @ jonald_fyookball: Sorry I missread. Probably because I read "last block" a few times before. |
|
|
|
correct me if I'm wrong but wont the last block reward be a single satoshi? (plus fees)
There. Is. No. Last. Block. But to answer your question: Yes the last reward that is not from Fees will be 1 Satoshi. |
|
|
|
That's great I find free hugs in this forum.
Can someone hug me please?
 |
|
|
|
-snip-
Thanks for the help! I see the file, but I'm still unsure how to use the import wallet functionality of multibit, but that's ok I'm not going to try in do it. I must have connected to a faster node because it took forever to do the first 51 weeks (from 2 years 51 weeks) but it's zipped through the last year quickly, I believe there are only 6 or so days left to update, 26+GB so far!
So good security would be to send the money to a multibit wallet and then password protecting it with upper and lower case numbers and symbols? I'm not all too worried about it as it is a fairly small amount of money (40 bucks or so) and I don't intend to have much more, but I am curious. Since multibit is on the fly does it take longer to update new transactions or the same as a fully synchronized bitcoin core? Honestly I rather not store 25GB+ of blockchain and multibit seems to have a consensus that it's a good BTC client.
Yes its best to just send your own coins to your new multibit wallet via the blockchain. Nothing to mess up that way. Just make sure the coins arrived before deleting the old files. Multibit has no local copy of the blockchain, but just asks others running bitcoin core for data when needed. Its synced in a matter of seconds that way. You might want to wait a little longer since Multibit HD [1] is in the late testing stages AFAIK. HD wallets allow you to make a single backup and every new address/key pair you generate will be covered by that backup. I'm really anxious for the 6 days to complete so I can tell whether I sent it to the correct address or not! I have one entry in the requested payments so I'm pretty sure I sent it to that single wallet.
Just check the balance of the address with one of the common blockchain explorers, like www.blockchain.info, www.blocktrail.com, btc.blockr.io etc. I thought you allready did that... [1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=305134.0 |
|
|
|
Size wise, for example: http://btc.blockr.io/block/info/256961 884.45 kB I don't think there are much more options other than to pay that 1% fee or wait (A year or so? Don't know.) until they're more mature. Big blocks yes, but big TX? 884KByte block with 3861 TX is still ~ 230 Byte per TX on average. Bc.i lists "largest TX" [1] but they refer to value not size in bytes. Would that even be possible? Would miners accept a TX that big? Why not? Miners are interested in fees per kilobyte. And of course reducing the number of UTXO in blockchain is God's work That is what I think as well. I have never encountered anything like that though, thats why I was asking for more inputs (no pun intended). [1] https://blockchain.info/largest-recent-transactions |
|
|
|
Bitcoin Core is the only full client for Windows I believe, at least with a GUI, but get a more recent one than v0.8.1-beta. Why do you use such an outdated one? There have been several major bug fixes since then and the protocol got bumped ahead too.
Well there is armory, but its build on top of bitcoind, so it kinda is the same. |
|
|
|
It will say whether a mod or the op removed it in the message you get informing you of the deletion, but that isn't a self-moderated thread any way.
And its not the poster asking but someone else. So OP would not get the notifications for Inaba. From the content I think its pretty safe to say that it was not removed by a mod. Unless it was a mistake.  |
|
|
|
once bitcoins are all mined. it is turned into PoS! Ironic isn't it?
No its not. Miners will still create blocks, it will still require work to create them, thus its still PoW. once bitcoins are all mined. it is turned into PoS! Ironic isn't it?
Actually, yes...it is. In regards to my initial question: How can the last coin be mined if there is no reward? Hence, there must be a reward in order for it to be mined. Rewards half over time, thus the total amount possible is 20999999.97690000 without a fork as was allready posted. If difficulty levels are theoretically at their historically highest levels in 2040...the cost in resources would be so high that the reward would need to be worthwhile for someone to justify mining it. Thus, the purchasing power of each Bitcoin would theoretically have to be such that despite the resources required to mine, it would still be profitable to do so.
Is there a possibility that LESS than 21 million coins will ever be mined? Probable?
No, that would require miners to stop mining, thus transaktions to stop getting confirmed, thus bitcoin to die. Or a fork, but everything is possible with a fork. If there are no more rewards, the fees take over. There are plans to increase the blocksize [1] over time to allow more TX per block, thus higher "income" from fees. [1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=813324.0 |
|
|
|
|
Hi,
recently someone posted in the german section about problems with bitcoin-core. We figured out that the problem is the 1500 unspend outputs from faucets transactions. They have a total value of ~0.25 BTC and bitcoin-core suggestes a fee of ~0.00232 BTC for the 232000 Byte size TX. I have never seen a single TX this big. Would that even be possible? Would miners accept a TX that big?
The other idea that came up is to make a raw TX without fee in order to fuse 3-4 unspend outputs in a feeless TX. This however will take some time. Any idea how long? How many inputs should be use per transaction?
Please spare me the "see faucets suck" post, I know that allready. And while this is a very good example why, its not the point of the thread.
Any other ideas to resolve this?
|
|
|
|
I'm thinking about my next enhancement. Any suggestions/requests?
There was a thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=816123.0 where someone asked about generating a BTC address by hand. Basic idea would be to start with a number as private key and go from there. I am willing; I will research it. Oh dear; per https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Technical_background_of_Bitcoin_addresses, it requires the SHA256 hash of 65 bytes. As it stands as of now my sheet only handles up to 55 printable ASCII characters. I will need to enhance it to handle one more chunk (medium effort) and binary/hex input (easy). You will also need RIPEMD-160, BASE58Check and be able to get a public ECDSA key from a private one. All sounds complicated on paper. Far worse; the very first step involves "Having a private ECDSA key" which looks to be crazy hard to do in a sheet.
From what I read [1] its "just" a number between 0x0 and 0xFFFF FFFF FFFF FFFF FFFF FFFF FFFF FFFE BAAE DCE6 AF48 A03B BFD2 5E8C D036 4140 which would be given as input by you. [1] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Private_key |
|
|
|
Is my private key the second number listed in the config file, "rpcpassword?" Bitcoin core seems to have less functionality or intuitive design than multi-bit! I just should've asked first what was best!
Nope the rpc stuff is there so armory can use bitcoind. There is no .key file in App Data->Roaming-Bitcoin. You can only export a receiving address in bitcoin core in comma separated variable format. No I don't need the BTC now - it's down to 50 weeks (1 week every 1-2 hours) so should I just wait until it's done, probably 2 day or so? After that I'll move the coins to multi bit and chill on it.  Thanks for everyone's kindness and guidance!! The file should be named wallet.dat and will have all private keys among other information. Edit: Why the hell does bitcoin core take forever, when multibit already says "online," it took like 15 minutes saying synchronizing then bam. Does it just not download the entire blockchain? How is that possible? What is the advantage of having the full one?
Multibit does not download the blockchain but queries it on the fly. Its not a "full node" like bitcoin core is, but relies on other full nodes to provide information if needed. These so called "slim" or "lite"/"light" etc. clients are still safe, they just work differently and need no copy of the blockchain. -snip-
It's better to not trust anyone in my opinion
If you dont trust anyone, why trust the core devs? And there are safe ways to use Core client, you just need to install it on a brand new machine witch has anti-virus and firewall on, generate an address print the private key and then just transfer the funds and then format several times that hard drive In my opinion this is the only method to do a paper wallet! All the options that tell you to have a machine that wasn't on the internet and you generate the private key off line are somewhere at 98% reliable! Why? Because you never know what the hell you installed  How do you know with bitcoin core? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
