Klappt leider auchnich.
Mit -connect bekomm ich überhaupt keine Verbindung zustande, weder zu Dir, noch zu irgendeinem anderen Client (den ich mir aus bitnodes.21.co suche).
Gleiches gilt übrigens auch für -addnode, das klappt aunich.
Der einzige Node, mit dem ich mich so (connect/addnode) verbinden kann, ist der RasPi im eigenen LAN,
aber der baut halt auch keine Verbindung übers VPN-Netz auf, sondern nimmt den direkten Weg.
Das würde also als VPN-Umgehung alternativ zu meiner Tor-Lösung auch funktionieren, allerdings bin ich dann komplett vom RasPi abhängig, fällt der mal aus, ist auch gleich der Windows-Node offline.
Edit: auch interessant ist,
sobald ich Tor als Proxy angebe, klappt auch die addnode-Verbindung zu Dir.
Klingt als wäre was mit der VPN Verbindung/Config nicht in Ordnung. |
|
|
|
-snip- Nein! Ich habe den ersten Satz kategorienspezifisch angepasst.  Herp derp. Was den Rest angeht hat theymos gefragt was mit den Posts in BIETE und SUCHE passieren soll, seit meiner Antwort darauf (alles in Marketplace, wir sortieren dann, wo nötig, per report an phantastisch) ist erstmal Ruhe. Ist jetzt 6 Tage her, ich frag nochmal nach. |
|
|
|
I stated a few posts back that I will not accept a link to that page as proof for connections between addresses. Id like to be able to verify the information. Linking to walletexplorer makes it easy for the accuser and tedious for the verifier. I prefer the SHA-2 way, difficult to find, easy to verify. Others on DT might see this differently, its just my personal view.
You mean like how two Alts will create PGP Keys withing days of each-other as proof they are Alts? That kind of thing? I wouldnt not accept that either, yes. |
|
|
|
The guide seems reasonable, and nice to see some work being put into this.
Here is my method for secure cold storage:
4) I modify the private key by hand! I make about 7 changes, including deletions, additions, and substitutions. I also add a short word to make visual confirmation easy. I just make sure the key ends up being the same length as it started out.
i especially like the part i bolded. word could be a hint as to what that key/addy is for, contains, whatever. more work but more potential usefulness. Also a potential side channel, its probably not much, but a key with a word in it is easier to guess than a key thats entirely random. If you dont trust the crappy java prng, just use the one the OS provides. |
|
|
|
|
DNS macht, wie schon gesagt, keinen Sinn als Ursache. Seed nodes soltest du ja nicht mehr braucht. Jmd. hatte im englischen Bereich neulich auch Probleme Blöcke zu bekommen, wieso war auch nicht klar. Was geholfen hat ist direkt (mit -connect=IP[:port] starten) zu einem Knoten zu verbinden. Kannst gerne meinen (188.68.53.44) nehmen und gucken ob es was bringt. Ich guck ma eben ob ich noch aktuell bin.
Edit: Yo, bin auf 442808, wie bc.i und blocktrail.com auch.
|
|
|
|
I thought that it just showed all addresses in an HD wallet. Does it make mistakes sometimes?
As far as I know, you can't see if addresses came from a HD wallet. The addresses come from the private key, and it's the private key that is created in the HD wallet. I'm no expert, so I'd like to be corrected if I'm wrong on this. I think I've missed a couple of posts, are we talking about these types of wallets https://www.walletexplorer.com/wallet/4bd7a02ff825365c/addresses not being proof enough of connections? I stated a few posts back that I will not accept a link to that page as proof for connections between addresses. Id like to be able to verify the information. Linking to walletexplorer makes it easy for the accuser and tedious for the verifier. I prefer the SHA-2 way, difficult to find, easy to verify. Others on DT might see this differently, its just my personal view. |
|
|
|
Do. Not. Use. Private. Keys. Generated. Online. |
|
|
|
Danke für die schnellen Antworten.
Es könnte also theoretisch sein, dass eine Person eine Adresse generiert, die "verlorene" Coins enthält und er dann das Guthaben erhält, oder?
Es könnte also theoretisch auch möglich sein, dass 2 Personen gleiche Adressen erzeugt haben, oder?
Bei der enormen Anzahl an möglichen Adressen zwar SEHR unwahrscheinlich, jedoch theoretisch möglich?
Theoretisch möglich, ja -> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1683696.msg16937835#msg16937835Es ist in der Vergangenheit trotzdem vorgekommen, das lag dann aber an Implementationsfehlern beim Zufallszahlengenerator.  <3 Immer fein die Quelle mit angeben: http://xkcd.com/221/ |
|
|
|
Gebühr ist 20 Satoshi pro Byte, aktivier mal dynamische Gebühren. -> im "Überweisen" Reiter unten bei der Gebühr auf den Button klicken und dann eine Empfehlung auswählen. Alternative Schätzungen gibt es z.B. hier[1] und hier[2]. [1] https://anduck.net/bitcoin/fees/[2] https://bitcoinfees.21.co/ |
|
|
|
Thanks Shorena,
So then is there a problem when private keys are imported into Electrum? Didn't know if this thread is disclosing a bug in the latest version of Electrum, or if its a GENERAL thing that you can't sign with imported keys using Electrum. Hope this question makes sense. I have never had the need to import keys yet. I usually just create a new wallet. Trying to learn here.
Im not sure if I ever signed a message with an imported key before. I could however recreated the issue just now. In general electrum should be able to sign with those keys the same it does with keys derived from the wallet. From the error it seems that the code for this[1] is never called. As it throws a different error. [1] here: https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/blob/ac5929684699a458b4599b8c6e2dc65519ba94f7/lib/bitcoin.py#L560 |
|
|
|
Since we are in the Electrum forum I assume you are using Electrum for the signing attempt. I am asking a question as much as giving an answer in this post. It is my understanding that Electrum uses the SEED of the wallet to authenticate the signature. I am thinking (but I am unsure) that Electrum doesn't view the private keys as what is needed to sign an address.
I am totally watching this thread because I have always wondered what the answer to this question is! My guess is you sign with seed not private keys in Electrum. [popcorn]
You cant sign with a seed. |
|
|
|
Because the site says: The last posting from your IP was less than 360 seconds ago. Please try again later. The thing you were trying to post was saved as a draft. This limit decreases substantially as your account becomes more established.
This is impossible, because my last post on the whole forum was in October.
Login counts as "posting" in this sense. You should be able to post in the thread 5 minutes after this one just fine. |
|
|
|
I see you - and others - consider this as proof. Just a heads up, unless there are transaction IDs that show the actual linking of the address, I do not trust the page enough to leave negative ratings. I left ratings for all other connections to Candy. I thought that it just showed all addresses in an HD wallet. Does it make mistakes sometimes? I dont know I dont use it, but to verify the connection I would have to click through up to 2778 transactions (in this example). It might sound lazy, but Im not gonna do that before I leave a negative rating and Im also not going to leave one just because someone said so (as in without checking the data myself). |
|
|
|
-snip-
In several occasions, i've seen senior/legendary members giving the same answer as was given only a couple posts earlyer. I often wondered if these individuals didn't take the time to read all responses before they replied to the thread, untill i noticed they were wearing a sig similar to yours: a cig to promote their own ignore list. So it became obvious: these users just ignored members that were giving fine answers, so they didn't realise the correct answer was already given, and they just "spammed" (for a lack of a better word) the original thread.
-snip-
Spam is against the rules, no matter the rank or personal ignore list. Probably best to report these users same as other spammers. |
|
|
|
-snip-
8*4.4 < 60
While the number is 35.2 GB that only counts for confirmed blocks. You would still burn through multiple times that just for the download part of your internet usage because of relaying of unconfirmed transactions. Good point. If your montly cap is 60GB, you are out today. I hit 60 GB or more on 13 days out of the last 30. This is with 80-125 connections, so you can reduce the number, but Im pretty sure you are already at or over 60GB monthly.
-snip-
Agreed, but then you are using 90to100% of your total monthly bandwidht to run a Bitcoin node and there will be nothing left for anything else. ^hmmm^ So, NO internet surfing, gaming, downloads, email etc. etc. How can people justify that, when you share that internet access with other familiy members? In first world countries competition between Internet service providers, lead to very competitive offerings. I often move between 1st world and third world countries for work, and I can tell you, we suffer when we are away from home base.
The internet access in third world countries is expensive and capped because the total availlable internet is limited. < 1 or 2 inter-continental fiber links >
Let me rephrase that with the above in mind: how can you run a full node today under these conditions? |
|
|
|
I see you - and others - consider this as proof. Just a heads up, unless there are transaction IDs that show the actual linking of the address, I do not trust the page enough to leave negative ratings. I left ratings for all other connections to Candy. |
|
|
|
Hi! I'm Cateciva! I'm here to answer any questions you may have for me if you think they'll help you become more acquainted with BTC! Several years ago, I started holding bitcoin. About 20 to be exact. I had forgotten all about bitcoin until I heard the news BTC was up to almost 1k which means my coins are worth $15k! I'm super excited to share my success story for any beginners here, so ask away! I'm very generous with BTC, so I can even donate to you. I'll only donate half a coin. Anything higher is an investment.
Ask away!
Sounds like luck to me, what makes you qualified to give investment advice? |
|
|
|
Danke für die schnellen Antworten.
Es könnte also theoretisch sein, dass eine Person eine Adresse generiert, die "verlorene" Coins enthält und er dann das Guthaben erhält, oder?
Es könnte also theoretisch auch möglich sein, dass 2 Personen gleiche Adressen erzeugt haben, oder?
Bei der enormen Anzahl an möglichen Adressen zwar SEHR unwahrscheinlich, jedoch theoretisch möglich?
Theoretisch möglich, ja -> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1683696.msg16937835#msg16937835Es ist in der Vergangenheit trotzdem vorgekommen, das lag dann aber an Implementationsfehlern beim Zufallszahlengenerator. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
