-snip-
If you're conducting business in a legitimate way, then no one's "voice", not even a DT member's, should have any effect on your business.
Realistically, it does though. As long as the Trust Rating is not being abused,
What would be an abusive rating for you? then no one has any say over having a rating removed other than the one who gave the rating (and Theymos, but that's not the point). As far as I can see, there is nothing unreasonable about negging someone for participating in account trading, as I am also of the opinion that there is no legitimate reason to buy accounts on a public discussion board. (And no, trying to earn BTC from posting is not a legitimate reason.)
You can have that opinion, but it does not change the fact that is valid reason for many others that engage in account deals. |
|
|
|
One noob question :
Signing a message is possible even offline.
Does it mean, it is not being stored in blockchain then how it is universally verifiable at any time from anywhere ?
Yes, the blockchain mainly stores (different types of) transactions. Signed messages are similar to signed transactions as both are signed with a private key. A signature and the data it signed can be verified with the public key. When signing a message the signature code includes this public key. Thus with a valid signature you give the other person all data they need to verify its legitimacy, no other sources like the blockchain required. Its possible to do this over any kind of data structure and you could use a transaction to store a signed message on the blockchain. It would not give you a significant advantage over other data storage methods (e.g. this forum), besides that it would be very difficult to delete. |
|
|
|
Repeated repairs have done nothing, unfortunately. I no longer trust Multibit HD.
If I install a different client, e.g. Bitcore, would I be able to import the existing wallet?
No, you will have to send all your coins over to the new wallet. I wonder if that would fix it?
Bitcoin core does not seem to have this problem. Did you try updating to 0.5? |
|
|
|
-snip-
Same result, in php it works but not in terminal/ssh with bitcoin-cli.
I previously tried specifying datadir... same results.
Does it work if you specifiy the full path to the bitcoin-cli? e.g. (your path may vary) /usr/bin/bitcoin-cli getinfo
|
|
|
|
I've been meaning to get a hardware wallet but still not sure whether I want to go with a Trezor or Ledger Nano S yet. For now paper wallets will work but they aren't the most convenient method. .. you should consider some sort of offline system. This must not be a hardware wallet. It could be a paper wallet or an old laptop
Why do you say it must not be a hardware wallet. Must not in the sense that it can be something different, not that its disallowed or discouraged. Is a hardware wallet really less secure than a paper wallet or offline system? I thought the hardware wallets had protections that would work even if you were on a malware infected PC?
IMHO a hardware wallet has the advantage that its clear how the data is transfered to and from it. The biggest risk for a paperwallet is its creation and use on possible insecure system. Similarly advanced malware can move to a dedicated laptop over USB, even though I doubt this would be used for common users its still a potential risk one should be aware of. |
|
|
|
Do you use a hardware wallet yourself? I'm not sure if those are available in my country. I don't even have 1 btc but the issue of security does make me uneasy.
Also for multi-sig vaults, they use that for accounts that have multiple owners right? Would it be any useful if I'm the sole fund owner? I remember making a Coinbase account that I ended up not using when I discovered buying and selling is not available in my country. Just started learning about btc then and it happened that coinbase was the top result when I searched for wallet
Id stay away from Coinbase, multi sig as a service is not the holy grail either. The idea is that the service holds a key and you own two. One of your is kept offline and one with the main wallet. The key the service holds serves as 2FA. You usually unlock it with either a phone 2FA, SMS or JubiKey. Im not sure which method CoinBase uses, but 2FA varies greatly in security. Espencially SMS-2FA was recently shown to be easily circumvented.[1] At the very least make sure you understand its limitations.[2] If you just started with bitcoin make sure you are familiar with how the wallets work, use strong and unique passwords. If own more than a month salary in bitcoin you should consider some sort of offline system. This must not does not have to[3] be a hardware wallet. It could be a paper wallet or an old laptop. Again, make sure you know the limitations of each approach, as neither is 100% and has its risks involved. There are plenty of threads here about that subject. [1] https://www.wired.com/2016/06/hey-stop-using-texts-two-factor-authentication/[2] https://krebsonsecurity.com/2016/09/the-limits-of-sms-for-2-factor-authentication/[3] fixed in-head translation |
|
|
|
is this ok? -----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
This is nrm4bits from bitcointalk.org and today is December 26th, 2016 and i posted this in the trhead https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=990345.0 and this is my first try of signing a message
-----BEGIN SIGNATURE-----
1Ja7PcNAQPQrFHEPyHvP7WRsqQcds3Na7t
H+IBSvjfb6o/xV91wNKOLczBLMHDzwVa159FJ4qhLsoOdNRDrAYl/Gd0cd1BIser0IkYZvHQGLjDTg/7BZhSJbo=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
edited: added the tag code Yes, I could verify the message. |
|
|
|
-snip-
may i ask why you are running 2 nodes. are they on 2 PC's in two locations.. or one of them on a datacentre one on pc.. or both data centre
Same someone also running 2 noes, one is in a datacentre running 24/7 without wallet, the other is a home node with a wallet. my issue is that if everyone runs only bitcoin core, (no code diversity) and all run it from amazonaws, (no location diversity) where all nodes are pruned and unable to allow new nodes to sync. bitcoin become limited to being just a relay network that begins to crumble when new nodes cant join because existing nodes dont allow full syncing or have inbound connections closed. I agree. i see no point in people paying $20 a month to some data centre when out of 7billion people.. or even just 2 million that are using/have bitcoin. can easily run a full node from home.
So why advocate that they may only do so when opening their ports otherwise they are harming the network? (I havent seen you do this actually, I just really want to hammer down my bullshit point). Its probably enough for 1 out of 10 do this. Home run nodes have specific problems though, which is why I pay for a datacentre one. For one they are usually not online 24/7 and can cause issues with other services like VoIP and streaming. On the other hand you have ISP related issues, like quickly changing IPs (e.g. 24 hour DSL disconnects) that rendes it irrelevant whether or not you open the port as you are no longer found on the old IP. Whatever the issue may be, let as many people run a full node of their choosing. I dont care if its core, unlimited or any other of the countless full nodes. yea theres a few hundred or a couple thousand that say they cant. but that doesnt stop the majority that can. its like saying lets not let activision or blizzard release any new online games because some people cant play the game
if core want to be the centre/core of bitcoin then they should concentrate on being a full node and stop all the wishy washy pruned/litenode stuff.. leave that for electrum/multibit to play with.
pretending that not upgrading, or running pruned mode, or not having inbound connections is 'fine' is putting people into a false sense of security and wasting their time.
A pruned not does not require you to trust the electrum server(s). Maintaining a trustless wallet is a good reason to run a node even if you disk and available data volume is small. people who want to be full nodes need to know the darn assed truth about what's involved.
teaching people that anything below say 18-74 connections means that some nodes wont be getting the block data in the next hop, so that the recipient from you might be having to pass it around because you have not passed it around as much yourself.
yes its minimal disruption.
but a healthy network is about being a strong network where its all uptodate and verified efficiently. and should one supernode go offline there are enough other supernodes to cover everyone getting the data efficiently.
i understand core want to dominate and be the centre so that users can just be crappy litenode relayers.. but thats stupidly centralizing the network where litenodes do not have independent network involvement but are just a shadow/false pretence illusions of decentralisation.
i dont see any reason to incentivise nodes if the only reason people want to run a node is for a pay day
Me neither, as you and countless others have said, even if we could solve the "prove you are a proper full node" problem, it would introduce another cost. i dont see any reason to incentivise nodes if people dont understand what a FULL node intels
I disagree, let everyone that wants run a full node and let them learn as they go. Dont make this a boring licence shit, where you first need to pass a test in order to run a full node. Not that you can anyway. Let people fall into the rabbit hole and figure shit out. Some might stick around. i dont see any reason to incentivise nodes if core devs want to be the gate keeper main supernode and then have weak shadow nodes pretending to be full nodes even though they have not upgraded or have upgraded but then decided to turn off certain settings because they feel someone else can do the work for them
Software that defines a protocol is a problem, yes. It requires every other implementation to follow all quirks the reference implementation has. Replacing it with another software is not a solution to this problem though. |
|
|
|
-snip-
I dont trust you and I dont trust your negative ratings.
You dont have to. #1 You can try to solve the issue with Lauda directly. #2 You can try to solve the issue with the person that put Lauda on DT. I assume after your "escalation" remark earlier you already know who that is. #3 You can remove Lauda from your personal trust network (by adding ~Lauda to your list) and maybe convince others to do the same. I think other staff members needs to step up and stop it or other ppl think its okey to abuse systems. Its simple as that.
Staff does not get involved in trust ratings. Feel free to take a look at the untrusted section of my trust page for some examples that are perfecly fine with the current system. Granted, no one gives a damn about these ratings, but an admin would not remove them either. Not even if they were considered trusted. If we want to have a nice forum and clean from spam and scammers it have to start from the top!
You can never entirely remove these. Spam is what the moderation team is here to handle, avoiding scamers is your personal responsibility. No amount of ratings from DT can change that. |
|
|
|
-snip- The return of the message on the Bitcoin Core Console: Private key for address 1HxeCXGT11wVwy78gsVrzFfkfdijQE9rct is not known (code -4) Proof: https://puu.sh/t0ZxE/6e005a3d9c.pngAlso, not sure if this can help, here are the transactions on the Bitcoin-Core: https://puu.sh/t0ZzM/67d3b8a63d.pngSee how the transactions are at the same time. Usually the change transaction would not appear on this transactions list. So very strange! Any idea why? True, this is what a send to two addresses unknown to the wallet (no private key) would look like. Considering the time the transaction took place its likely that the change key was one 100+ ofter the january backup. I assume you have used the machine since you formatted it? Maybe data recovery experts can help restoring the pre format wallet file. Also, the transaction is showing as "Output index: 1" not sure what is this, but the other transactions appear as "Output index: 0" Proof transaction: https://puu.sh/t0ZF8/112ee88917.pngThanks for your time guys! I really appreciate it! Hope I can compensate it! Just that its the 1st (ID 0) or 2nd (ID 1) output of the transaction.
Default is generating 100 adres when 101 backup again.
The milk is already spilled. |
|
|
|
-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-
---Address---
1BcBpd8weYM6Ue2X4KpJw8CwRYnSf74rU1
---Message---
Great effort put into the post.
---Signature---
IBZqdzaem4aG17sYEirjkvKQRvbC6EOs8KwIS8RmAqcBSIw3imbeZ8gkiubfoVoMUPovoN8SYFK8/ZktXOxdaCE=
-----END BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Even though I know how to sign a message I had to post this. Must have taken a hell of a long time to do everything. Thanks for the share, here's an extra bump :d
<3 thanks for reading it, the message verified just fine. |
|
|
|
Well you're right an as a real newbe I missed your post and now I am trying to cure. I've just tried to buy from someone in this forum who looked respectful and is now not delivering as promised. Any suggestion on what should be done?
Thanks
Open a scam accusation -> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=83.0Understand what you did wrong, do it better next time. |
|
|
|
Ich habe es selbst am Anfang nie geschafft an die 6 Minutengrenze zu kommen (wusste bis eben auch nicht das es so etwas gibt).
Ich komm manchmal immer noch an die 4 Sekunden Grenze, z.B. beim reports abschicken. |
|
|
|
I have a very large list of possible passwords and or phrases that may be contained within the password.
If Dave doesn't respond, you can try recovering the password yourself with btcrecover, however it will be more difficult and involves a bunch of reading to get it set up and running... The wallet had a rather unusual format, I did some testing with your software and it did not recognize the wallet format. Maybe the OP can get in touch with you, Id rather not share the data I copied here without their consent. |
|
|
|
-snip- -snip offtopic sideshow-
full nodes are full nodes for a reason.
They fully verify data, not fully fill the default 125 connection slots. im not talking about connection slots. im talking about being a full part of the network. more so im on about validation and access to full data. I know its been 4 days, but that was exactly my point. A full node does verify all data whether inbound connections are accepted or not.
but to answer your opinion when it comes to connection counts
the less connections you have the more hops(relays) data has to do to reach everyone
EG if 74 nodes had 74 connections each. the data will reach all nodes in one hop.. 74*74=5476
anything below 74 wont be enough to reach all the 5400 in one hop. some will require a couple hops
however there is a big leap with less nodes.
18 nodes connected to 18 nodes connected to 18 nodes can reach everyone in 2 hops
9 nodes connected to 9 nodes connected to 9 nodes connected to 9 nodes can reach everyone in 3 hops
6 nodes connected to 6 nodes connected to 6 nodes connected to 6 nodes connected to 6 nodes can reach everyone in 4 hops
Thats an overly simplistic network structure and I would be very surprised if 4 hops have a significant impact on orphan rates (I suspect thats where you are going with this). -snip-
i personally dont see a reason to need 125 connections as a default but if everyone had just 6 connections.. they are just causing data to need to bounce around a bit longer then whats deemed most efficient.
Again, the argument I am against is not that better is not possible. It is. I refuse to believe and have yet to see an argument that a node that is not accepting inbound connections is harmfull to the network. The above was a nice though experiment, but it didnt actually lead to any harm towards the network. Maybe I just missed and you can ELI5. -snip-
and this is where i feel core are re-inventing the 'supernode' concept. using things like their 'fibre' brand.
lets say they have 80 specific nodes with 80 connections each . everyone gets the data in one hop.
leaving everyone else free to loop it through however many/little they want
though good for data migration, it does then make 'fibre' the gate keepers of data if they are the centre of the distribution network
IIRC the relay network was created to circumvent problems with the great firewall. Thats a very specific problem and has little to do with the average user running a full node.
-snip-
may i ask why you are running 2 nodes. are they on 2 PC's in two locations.. or one of them on a datacentre one on pc.. or both data centre
Same someone also running 2 noes, one is in a datacentre running 24/7 without wallet, the other is a home node with a wallet.
I agree, running full nodes is becoming a serious issue due to the size of blockchain and access speed and people who are willing to take this issue on themselves deserve some reward. But aren't they getting BTC for it, already? I thought if you ran a full node, you would profit from the network fee.
No, thats miners.
|
|
|
|
-snip-
IMO it's too bad that DT is not democratically elected based on actual policy..
I hope you see the irony in this considering its a thread about account sales.
-snip-
Really? I can not request to remove -ve trust? Could u please show me a rule for the same?
There are next to no rules regaring DT ratings, hence you can request whatever you want. Lauda has the same right to not give a fuck about your request though.
As someone that has discussed this topic with Lauda I see their stance even though I have a different one. I agree that leaving negative ratings on all (or most) account traders will results in trades beeing done with throw away accounts or off-site. Both makes scams more likely. Traded accounts with substantial positive trust ratings should be marked as sold in order to make scams with them more difficulty. At the same time I dont see it as a big issue regardless, as Salty said (paraphrasing what I understood as the gist of it): you shouldnt trust any account unless you can verify its still under control by the same person. Expecting the account to be traded will improve your personal anti-scam radar way better than any negative rating can. |
|
|
|
-snip-
I Want To Open My Own Investment Company....
Where People Invest There Bitcoin And Getting Double...
Where do you get the money from in order to double the investment? |
|
|
|
Coins einfach auf den Trezor senden und gut... wenn du den privat Key hast kannste das wie auch der andere Kollege machen. Wenn du den private Key hast lass die App einfach so wie Sie ist und benutze https://coinb.in/#newTransactionOben alte Addresse rein da wo Geld drauf is, Load drücken, unten die Addresse eingeben wo es hinsoll und welcher Betrag. Bei Fee sollte min. 0,0001 stehen bleiben. Unten den generieten Hex Kram kopieren und oben auf Sign gehen. Hex unten einfügen Key oben und auf Submit drücken. Den neu generierten Hex Code wieder kopieren und auf broadcast gehen einfügen und submit. Schon sind deine coins auf dem Weg Wink Ich würd meine privaten Schlüssel nicht ins Internet schicken. Electrum hat doch eine eingebaute Sweep Funktion, funktioniert die mit nem Trezor nicht? |
|
|
|
I just tried syncronizing 2 standard wallets, one in my laptop and the other one in my android smartphone. Both with the same seed and all sync plugins turned on. But can´t get them to syncronize neither. Please help.
Sync with the network? Does the laptop client show a green dot at the bottom right corner? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
