Am I good to go? Do I have your blessings?
The wording makes me feel a bit uncomfortable. Let's make things clear. Armory is FOSS, the common sense implications are that you are using the software at your own risk and that you can't hold us devs accountable for snafus. You also didn't pay me for my consult on this matter so you can't hold me directly responsible if stuff goes stupid. TLDR, I'm laying out my opinion, you figure out the rest for yourself. That said, I think Armory gathers enough entropy to create root keys as is, and that the method you propose will not reduce entropy, and in fact increase it. I think the extra entropy is overkill in this particular case, and past 256 bits entropy, quality trumps quantity. But that's only my opinion and you should definitely go with what makes you comfortable. Do with that what you may. From what I can tell, it also seems a bit like overkill (as I was saying above). Nevertheless this discussion has been really interesting and helpful. Thanks goatpig for the links and the writeups. Good luck with your storage wallet pf! |
|
|
|
being a vip means nothing you can buy the acc from people for like .02
Randall needs a fucking demotion and to stop playing favorites.
Its not a mods job to play favorites its his job to mute beggars
But dude, it sounds like that's exactly what you said he's doing: he muted me for "begging via pm"
Sometimes someone gets away with it, most-likely dude VIP or whatever will also be muted if he keeps it up. |
|
|
|
If the generator is simply counting up from 1 for example the key/address would not be repeated (but would still not be random).
This really makes me wonder what the lowest value private key is that has been used on the network. I guess I'd have to start iterating to find out (unless someone has already done this). I looked into this and made a little loop to generate bitcoin addresses from private keys. I didn't get very far at all before I found one which has been used. It looks to me like someone sends funds to the bitcoin address generated from the private key "1" every so often! Output of my script: A private key: 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001
The corresponding WIF: 5HpHagT65TZzG1PH3CSu63k8DbpvD8s5ip4nEB3kEsreAnchuDf
The corresponding bitcoin pubkey: 0479be667ef9dcbbac55a06295ce870b07029bfcdb2dce28d959f2815b16f81798483ada7726a3c4655da4fbfc0e1108a8fd17b448a68554199c47d08ffb10d4b8
The corresponding bitcoin address: 1EHNa6Q4Jz2uvNExL497mE43ikXhwF6kZm
A lookup of that address: https://blockchain.info/address/1EHNa6Q4Jz2uvNExL497mE43ikXhwF6kZmThat's a little surprising, right? Nope, try other numbers that people assign a meaning to (13,17,42,1337,666,8, etc.) and I assure you will find they have been used as well. Just for fun I made a wallet with the addresses derived from the private keys 1-100. It's empty at the moment, but it has an impressive log of transactions. 81 of them, the first one on Christmas Day 2013. |
|
|
|
Coinwallet is a non-existing company. So whoever started the first spam-wave hid in the dark. The same is happening since then a couple of time. For me it looks like someone is preparing and fine-tuning a much bigger attack. The timing for this is perfect, for while the attacker is hiding, a lot of other discussions are going on and therefor give room for a lot of speculations about the background of the attack(s).
You might be right about "fine tuning" but since these attacks cost more and more money, and I know that with each attack my mobile wallet was adding more fees to compensate, making future attacks even more expensive. It would seems like the "fine tuning" would just be upping the price. Ie, if you had skipped the fine tuning and just saved your money from the first 3 rounds you could have executed a much more damaging attack in the 4th round. Do you know what I mean? Also, given these little attacks and the fact that miners are making new rules to compensate, etc, it seems like you're also giving warning to the bitcoin community and preparing them. Again making your future attacks much less damaging than if you had gone in with just one fell swoop and done the deed that way. I know what you mean about coinwallet being anon-existing company, but someone was speaking up on their behalf and they were offering a rationale---even if it was a false one. These latest attacks haven't had any spokesmen, that I've heard about, and that seems a little weird, right? |
|
|
|
|
I believe threads which are intended to draw attention are allowed to do one daily bump, mods if this isn't true, please let me know.
I'm bumping this because every respected member who has looked over this situation is calling for QS to remove his negative trust on me. Tomatocage seems to be suggesting that I'm sort or collateral damage which shouldn't happen but he's "trusting" QS for some greater good. I require QS to address these concerns:
1) Everyone around you who you respect is asking you drop these false charges against me. Why not do so and move on, it will only help your reputation to learn to admit that you can be wrong.
2) Leaving multiple trust ratings from alts is considered trust spam. Please consolidate your trust ratings from your alts. You have currently left me negative trust with three separate accounts (note the only other negative I've received has been from tradefortress, who's lies you're currently echoing).
I guess what I want to ask the wider world is also this:
Have you guys noticed how all the dudes jockying for power echo each other's trust ratings like it's a job? They see that Vod (formerly) or Tomatocage leaves a negative trust then they drop in an echo. How is this helpful to the community as a whole? I see how it's helpful for the individuals---they can leave boastful posts saying I've neg-repped N scammers, but really they're not knowing anything about the situation, they're just echoing what others have found out in order to make themselves look good.
Then there's the self-promotion, because this forum often acts like an echo-chamber, we have QS shouting out about how good he is at catching scammers, but what scammers has he actually caught? I've seen him be wrong many times (me, ndnhc, worhipper_-_, possibly Twister, idk) and I've never seen him back down once he's been shown wrong. But weekly he posts about how when he's not on default trust, scammers are getting away with it. But what evidence is that this is actually true? It works like a rumor mill, he posts 1000 times a day, 10% of those posts are self-promotional, he leaves a million negative reps a day, most (all?) of them echos of what others have said or figured out, and then people start believing it. Tomatocage: you say you "trust" quickseller (despite the many times that he's obviously been wrong and depsite his intransigence and inability to admit mistakes and his fiery temper and vengeful attitude and his abuse of the trust system (by trust-spamming using alts)) because "he's good at catching scammers". Can you give us some evidence of this?
Quickseller: can you please leave me alone so I can stop having to defend myself against you? Please listen to reason and the voices of your peers, everyone on here is asking you to drop this fight. Ignoring the fact that you are wrong here is making you look bad.
Others on default trust: if TC and QS refuse to engage, I think it's time to ask you to weigh the evidence and consider putting ~Quickseller onto your trust lists until this can be resolved. It's completely unjust to have a guy with a scorched-earth policy who's been shown to be falsely accusing people more than once and who acts in such an immature and vengeful manner on default trust. Many people are scared to speak up against him just because of the power he now has and they don't want to end up like me with alts appearning every month to troll them and with false charged painted on their accounts. At the very least, if TC and QS will not continue the discussion in this thread, please speak up here if you're on default trust to discuss why you will or will not add ~Quickseller to your trust list.
|
|
|
|
Again, it is pure luck. We have between 5,000 and 7,000 rpm (rolls per minute) all the time, so anybody could win the roll bounty. It is true that maybe both were hunting for the Jackpot, but that is exactly what we are looking for, since only players with deposit > faucet can win the jackpot and we rather like to award the roll bounty to a depositor than to a faucet user.
How many of these exactly are from people who are playing with their own funds, and how many are playing with money from your faucet? This is important because I would suspect that investors would earn little/nothing from bankroll investments from people playing on faucets, although profit potential is real when players play with their own money. I think DaDice has seen a few high enough high rollers to force them to payout from their cold storage addresses. Can anyone confirm they have actually received a payout in excess of 20 BTC, and if so, can they post the TXID so an idea as to DaDice's various addresses be publicly known. Everyone should be aware that ACCTSeller is an admitted alt of Quickseller, who has been making a job out of trolling DaDice for approximately 2 months. Because he is an account trader/seller, he may be trolling with other accounts too. dadice: reply to ACCTSeller as you would to Quickseller. |
|
|
|
I have a feeling of being extorted for sending my money: Send us double the normal fee, or your transaction will be delayed indefinitely  It costs whoever is doing this 0.0002 for each transaction he spams. He cannot continue for long. Last time lasted for 5 days. I am not sending anything until the spam dies down. Yeah... maybe the new game is to start spam attacks occassionally for a couple hours. That way bitcoiners never know if their transaction might be caught in a spam attack suddenly. And maybe they pay more from the start then. At least it stopped now. Im too tired of these ... persons that i dont even want to get angry.  The first "stress test" over a month ago had a lot of hype and PR and discussion around it. It was clearly a move to influence the block-size increase discussion and we had an entity (coinwallet, i think) claiming responsibility. These recent ones are (I think) anonymous and therefore feel more nefarious. What's the point? Is it related to the block-size-increase discussion? Or is it just someone who wants to cause problems for bitcoiners? I have no idea and I wish we knew more about who is behind this stuff. |
|
|
|
Did they actually hire a campaign manager? I remember them posting a few weeks ago about wanting to hire one. I never saw any announcement about who had the job. You sure? The only thing I recall seeing them advertise for was for a customer support agent for their site,. I'm not completely sure. You probably recall better than me. I must have confused the call for a CS agent with the people on here calling for these guys to hire a manager. My apologies for the confusion. In either case, it seems they don't actually have a campaign manager. |
|
|
|
If it has the potential to become a Hero then you probably should be able to get 0.4 for it quite easy, but the potential activity would have to be verified by an escrow. I'd just rank it up then sell it and get the best price you can.
if you know the link to profile, you can calculate it yourself. Lol, that is true. Didn't think about that though if he sells it I'm sure he'll do so under a different account so they would still need to check to make sure what he's advertising is true. Maybe someone could go through his posts and work it out but I have no desire too thats for sure. Shame there isn't a bot that can easily caluclate it for you. I have a bit of 'banked' activity but probably not enough to go to Hero. I'm just going to wait and see when it stops updating. When you guys are talking about the "banked activity" are you referring to a situation in which your account has less posts than activity points but the posts you have are spread out over the 2 week periods such that the account's activity will climb as soon as you post. Or are you talking about the opposite situation where you have more posts than activity and as soon as another 2 weeks passes you get 14 more activity points (as long as you post at least once during that time period)? I could see either situation being called "banked activity" but they're quite opposites. |
|
|
|
Uggghhh I can't get my address off the phone, I can't see it.
The wallet keeps saying "Dogecoin wallet has stopped working" when I try to edit to see the whole address
Maybe I should just forget trying to get clams from that.
Thats a problem with many wallets, especially for smartphones. They try to make it simple for the average user but make it annoying for experienced ones. I dont like the mindset behind. At least it should have a pro checkbox. Well I finally was able to view one address and I "dug" it in JustDice.. turns out I do have clams! So I might have more than I think from other change addresses.. Now I just have to figure out how to get or "backup" the file off the phone, what a pain. That's good news. Also, keep in mind that many of the mobile wallets (especially from a few years ago) tended to use the sending address as the change address so you may not have many in there (or you may, IDK). If your phone is rooted then it shouldn't be too hard to at least get the data files from the app pulled. Then you'll have to see what format they're in. I've played around quite a bit on android phones so send me a PM if you need advice. Good luck! |
|
|
|
Banks going on about how Bitcoin is useless but the blockchain is great..
Paypal advertising sending money across boarders claming speed and security..
Can you smell it in the air?
hahaha and this is just the beginning, last day i was talking with one of my friends about it, they are trying now to distract people about the blockchain, i mean that i fell that now the good news is that now we have a good tecnology, is like the blockchain is good and the bitcoin is bad, why?  btw instead of that they are going to create his own coin LOL..... I saw this pic someone posted: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3eznm7/how_many_here_own_bitcoin_american_banker/click on the pic to see it big. Its a conference on bitcoin and the blockchain, and tons of bankers were holding Bitcoin  Ultimate sign to hold on to your BTC like theres no tomorrow. That is very interesting, although if it was a conference on bitcoin and blockchain then I guess it's not really a surprise that many people who showed up are bitcoin hodlers. I'd be super-curious to see such a picture at a non-bitcoin banking meeting---but then that's very unlikely to be asked at a meeting unrelated to bitcoin, alas. |
|
|
|
Did they actually hire a campaign manager? I remember them posting a few weeks ago about wanting to hire one. I never saw any announcement about who had the job. For the campaign manager:One of your signature wearers, The Bad Guy is living up to his name, scamming and laughing at his victims, and being paid by you for doing it. Are you happy about that? Shitmedia.io
The Bad Guy = THE SHITSCAMMER.COM. Pay what you Stole Nooooboooody cares. Baby, I love you. Thanks for 0.75 BTC, I will buy some bitches and porn for that  No Worries, but at least everyone on this forum knows that you are shitty Scammer, and you will not scam anyone else LOL! I already bought a new one for your money, I'm posting with this only because of the signature I have. |
|
|
|
You're also forgetting about things like how a die may not have even weighting on all sides, thereby biasing every throw you make. So, to "guarantee" X amount of entropy for die throws isn't quite as simple as it looks at first glance.
Which is why the deck of cards is preferable. The question is simply: Will this guarantee a 256-bit additional entropy from the die or not? And if not, how many extra die throws would be required?
I guess this is sort of a maths question. I don't know how to calculate it, because I don't know precisely how the cursor points map into raw entropy bytes, etc.
There's about 16 bits of entropy in each mouse pos considering the average size of the dialog and that the position is relative to the dialog's top left corner and cannot exceed the bottom right corner. With the added timestamp, I'd say you get another 8 bits so that's ~24 bits per keystroke. I appreciate that some folks with some details knowledge of the maths have shown up to help educate us . Entropy is information, information is represented in bits, I get this much. The mapping from real world events into the amount of information they contain in bits isn't always as clear to me. I wonder if you can show us how youfrom came up with the figures you gave: 16 bits from the mouse position, 8 from a timestamp. Thanks! |
|
|
|
their blockchains will work like Intranets today. it will not affect "our" bitcoin internet of money.
"Permissioned ledgers and closed, centralized blockchains such as Eris, Hyperledger, Ripple etc., rely on trust and central key holders."
Er, I cannot imagine the point of having a centralized block chain. Having a centralized block chain would probably be pointless because no one will ever, ever lend their power to calculate algorithms and confirm transactions without even seeing what they're doing. Well I guess banks are just fooling themselves in harboring the block chain tech but using it against its original intended use (transparent transactions and trust-less system.) I agree with what seems to be your main thrust that decentralization and trustlessness are crucial. However, even a centralized blockchain allows data to be indelibly recorded (as long as the blockchain is published publically) because future blocks incorporate the hash of previous blocks. This coulds also be useful for deciding which "buy order" arrived first in the case of trading. Again, I agree that decentralization is important and crucial for a public project like bitcoin, but I can see utility in a centralized blockchain, just not as great a utility as a decentralized one. |
|
|
|
Wow, looks like I finally got lucky on this front, I sent and received some BTC yesterday. Last two times these "stress-tests"/spam-attacks happened I was caught up in the middle of it waiting for a confirmation for hours. |
|
|
|
As you say /usr/share/X11/xkb/rules/base isn't a file that bitcoin can alter (unless you run bitcoin as root, for some reason). I don't know enought about xkb to understand fully what's going on. (I understand the syntax error you pointed out, but) why are those btc strings in this file? FWIW, in my distro (debian jessie, using LXDE), I have those btc strings but not the syntax error. What's your distro? Hi, I stumbled over the following error message after installing the current version (0.11.0) of Bitcoin Core for Linux32: Error: No components returned from XKB rules "/usr/share/X11/xkb/rules/xorg"
Error: Couldn't look up rules 'xorg', model <model>, layout <layout>, variant <variant>
Qt: Failed to compile a keymap
After bitcoinqt has started, keyboard is not working inside of bitcoinqt. The solution for this is simple since it is not a bitcoinqt-problem ( http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/interest/2013-October/009303.html): - open "/usr/share/X11/xkb/rules/base" or similar
- search for line "btc5113rf btc5126t btc9000 btc9000a btc9001ah btc5090\"
- insert a space between "btc5090" and the "\"
save it and you are done. Bye, cu |
|
|
|
|
I'll go for 26th August
1waLNutzCh3DuwCvHcHmFgGg6vsLiWfn4
|
|
|
|
|
I signed up for one. That's a very cute little book and I hope I get one (it said allow 60 days after I submitted a shipping address).
|
|
|
|
-snip-
There isnt any need to start all over this thing again. The negative trust is some sort of warning and not a sole guidance as people are free to proceed at their own cost. Bringing this matter over and over again wont change any rating of Dadice because if they want their rating to be changed, all they need is to sign a simple BTC address which they refused . Furthermore, if you got a site that you suspect as a scammer than you will just need to PM few guys on default trust, it is not likely every one of them going on a patrol in scam accusation I think it's quite well and good for fox to question what QS is doing here. His vitriol regarding dadice stands out and makes one ask why. Yes, others on default trust have neg-repped dadice, but QS shows up in the dadice thread semi-regularly and trolls, and takes opportunities to call them a "scam site" on unrelated threads as well. Now he's bumping a month old thread twice in once day. I think it's fair to ask why. |
|
|
|
Some guy just went from 0.08 to 140 BTC apparently according to chat & user lookup...
Woah
You are talking about tratten, right? Interestingly, he has a luck of only 99.4%, so probably he wins most of his big bets and lose most of his small bets. From the site's point of view, that's suspicous. But from the gambler's point of view, that's exactly what you want. I sorta hope he walks away and retires. 140BTC is no small amount. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
