 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 »
|
|
Из больших парней вроде бы Coinbase тоже отказывается выплачивать ETC своим пользователям.
|
|
|
|
You can't mix and match versions of Electrum for cold storage. Old versions signed transactions HighS while the new one signs LowS. Update your offline wallet to the same latest version as your watching only online Electrum.
Thanks for you help attempt, but you misunderstood the problem a bit. I updated of course the offline client understanding that it's the signature part of the transaction which makes it to be rejected by the network. |
|
|
|
Do not worry about the addresses in the offline client...
Create the TX with a watch online 2.5.4 client. The sign with the 2.5.4 offline client.
Just download the 2.5.4 tarball and extract the tarball then run ./electrum from the directory. No need to install anything...
Thanks a lot! It helped, I was trying to sign with an Electrum 2.5.4 a transaction created by Electrum 1.9.8 assuming that they should be identical except the signature part (especially given that 2.5.4 successfully decodes transaction created by 1.9.8 ). It turned out they are not. Thanks again. Out of curiosity, would you mind to explain what's the difference between them. I took a look at json files and 2.5.4 version doesn't contain "input_info" field, but 2.5.4 shouldn't pay attention to that field anyway, since 2.5.4 version doesn't contain it. |
|
|
|
|
Just in case. To make my description more clear.
I successfuly signed the transaction by my old offline Electrum 1.9.8 wallet, but this transaction isn't accepted by Electrum servers (I suppose), blockchain.info also rejects it saying something like "noncanonical signature, high S", something like that.
The address from which I wanted to spend is 13'th in the list of receive addresses of online client, predictably I don't see it among the first 5 addresses which offline client shows. And now there is no 'sign' button when I load the transaction from file in the offline client.
Edit. More details, may be they are important. In order to upgrade the offline client, first I tryed to run the setup script: 'sudo python setup.py install', but it exited with an error. Then I just launched the client with 'python electrum', it launched OK, but I got the described problem.
Edit 2. Is there a way to see more receive addresses in the offline client? If they continue to be different from the online client, then probably different clients generate different keypairs from the same seed.
|
|
|
|
On the offline rig...
1. Tools - Load transaction - From file
2. Sign TX
3. Save TX
Then sneakernet the signed TX back to online (watch-only) and broadcast it.
Given that I already tryed to broadcast it, but from Electrum 1.9.8, signed by Electrum 1.9.8 do you think I don't know that? |
|
|
|
|
I had an offline/online-watching-only wallet of version 1.9.8. Recently i tryed to spend some of my BTC and got a "your wallet created a transaction which is no longer accepted by bitcoin network, you need to upgrade to 2.5.x" or something like that message. Since I didn't want to upgrade, I tryed to broadcast my transaction via blockchain.info, but it also told me that my signature is non-canonical.
So I decided to upgrade. The watching only part of the wallet was upgraded without problems. I see all my addresses with their respective balances. Since the offline part of the wallet is not supposed to ever be connected to any networks, I downloaded the sources distribution, unpacked it on the offline computer, launched. But I cannot sign my transaction. There is just no 'sign' button. Fortunately I see some of my addresses, so I suppose the master private key is intact. Where it is stored btw on a Linux machine? But the address from which I want to spend isn't among the first several addresses, so I suspect, that my offline client just doesn't know that it has private key for that address. Am I right?
And another thing looks weird. While the first 4 receive addresses coincide in online and offline clients, the 5'th address differs. I don't see the 5'th address from the offline client in the list of receive addresses in the online client nor I see it among change addresses. All 6 change addresses that I see in the offline client coincide with the first 6 change addresses in the online client.
Please help.
P.S. The online client runs on Windows.
And I've found out where Electrum stores wallet files. I'm not an experienced Linux user, being accustomed to Midnight Commander I didn't know that ls without arguments doesn't show those special folders whose names begin with '.'.
|
|
|
|
But some of them at least don't openly state that they will buy their own coins at the last moment, when there is enough info for them to calculate how much BTC they need to transfer from their left pocket to their right pocket, to get desirable share of their tokens.
One more of these false accusations stated only to make yourself feel useful and you will be perma-banned from this thread. This thread is not even the sale thread of IOTA, but the general IOTA thread which should be focused around the software and community. As for your false claim: I will decide how much to buy based on a completely different factor. I don't want to become a big IOTA 'whale'. Marc De Mesel can actually back up this, he asked me a month ago how much I would purchase and I told him that I did not want to buy a big amount for myself as I wanted the distribution to be widespread, so the amount I would put in would be largely determined by how much was already bought. To me the distribution of IOTA and long term success is a lot more important than my own holding. And this bullshit about 'transfer from left to right pocket' is just that, bullshit. All our holdings are personal, not company ones. The funds will go to pay for development of hardware, software and community growth. There is an easy way to achieve those honorable goals without being accused in cheating, scamming, etc.: use burning instead of classical IPO. Like XCP did. |
|
|
|
It's perfectly OK however if the founders buy their token after the IPO.
How to enforce this? Every developer could promise to do so and use a middle man to buy during IPO without you knowing. Let's distinguish developers and founders: Let's call a 'founder' a person who has a share in funds collected in an IPO, and a 'developer' - a waged person who has no share in those funds, who will be payed for working on the project by e.g. founders.
You are right. Crypto IPOs are opaque. We can't be sure how much of their tokens respective founders bought from theirselfs.
But some of them at least don't openly state that they will buy their own coins at the last moment, when there is enough info for them to calculate how much BTC they need to transfer from their left pocket to their right pocket, to get desirable share of their tokens. |
|
|
|
IOTA founders are going to buy their own token at their own IPO, paying unknown amount of BTC to themselfs. They explicitly state it. They don't perceive it as cheating.
I cannot understand why this should be an issue, or even cheating. Too bad. founderBTCout = x BTC + founderBTCin
founderBTCsum = founderBTCout - founderBTCin = (x BTC + founderBTCin) - founderBTCin = x BTC (as xeelee said left pocket - right pocket)
and
foundertokens = founderBTCin * allTokens / (x BTC + founderBTCin)
wich becomes more, if more founderBTCin are spent, what doesn't matter, because they will get it back. So - theoretically - if they borrow and put 1 million BTC there, noone gets a shit any more and after they can give them back without a problem.
Iota, I am not against your purpose, but any argument against this? You have to admit, that this is a valid point of criticism. You demand trust in this case. We all know that this is not that easy and not the crypto way. |
|
|
|
IOTA founders are going to buy their own token at their own IPO, paying unknown amount of BTC to themselfs. They explicitly state it. They don't perceive it as cheating.
In your world, the public should have the right to invest an unknown amount, but developers should not be allowed to purchase any shares. It's perfectly OK if a developer participates in an IPO of a project which he will be working on.
And again: It's perfectly OK however if the founders buy their token after the IPO.
|
|
|
|
should be replaced with "to company".
Which consists of themselfs. |
|
|
|
Doesn't matter how much of their own token founders buy at an IPO, it is cheating anyway. The more the founders cheat, the greater the impact will be. NXT IPO btw probably was free of that, otherwise their IPO would collect more funds.
It's perfectly OK however if the founders buy their token after the IPO.
In this crypto world, so far, there are two ways for devs to own the coins from the crowd sale. One is the devs set aside a big chunk of the coins for themselves for the future development and awards. Another is to participate the crowd sale by themselves. Ethereum did both. They set aside a chunk of ethers for themselves and allow devs to buy in the crowd sale. But they set a kind of limit for their devs. However on one can monitor it. The Augur team did the same in their crowd sale. Iota team decideed to not set aside a chunk of coins for themselves and their devs have to buy if they want to own some coins. What else can you ask? Crypto IPOs are opaque. We can't be sure how much of their tokens respective founders bought from theirselfs. Let's call a 'founder' a person who has a share in funds collected in an IPO, and a 'developer' - a waged person who has no share in those funds, who will be payed for working on the project by e.g. founders. It's perfectly OK if a developer participates in an IPO of a project which he will be working on. So what do you claim as regards Ethereum? That their developers participated in their IPO, or founders? In any case a link would be appreciated. And again: It's perfectly OK however if the founders buy their token after the IPO.
|
|
|
|
|
How NXT 2 phased transactions compare to Bitcoin script? Is it possible to issue some kinds of smart contracts in NXT?
|
|
|
|
For me it would a little bit a conflict of interest if the founders will invest a lot. Example, imagine the founders are just CfB and iotatoken. So the Bitcoin-Pott at the very end will get halved. 50% for CfB 50% for iototoken. Imagine now the average joe will invest overall 500 Bitcoin during the sale. And CfB and iototoken just decide to invest 2000 Bitcoin each. So Overall Investment 4’500 Bitcoin. CfB and iotatoken will controll 88% of all iota and the Bitcoin they invested the would get anyway back. Possible. So I think it would help if both are quite open about their own investments, because it’s somehow left pocket – right pocket, they don’t have really costs, if they throw something in the Bitcoinbasket – it’s anyway theirs.
As for how much I will personally buy: not sure yet, still waiting for the last day of pioneer to make the choice. I treat this choice as completley seperate from the project it self. Doesn't matter how much of their own token founders buy at an IPO, it is cheating anyway. The more the founders cheat, the greater the impact will be. NXT IPO btw probably was free of that, otherwise their IPO would collect more funds. It's perfectly OK however if the founders buy their token after the IPO. It's not cheating at all, get real. Let's quote this for posterity. IOTA founders are going to buy their own token at their own IPO, paying unknown amount of BTC to themselfs. They explicitly state it. They don't perceive it as cheating. |
|
|
|
For me it would a little bit a conflict of interest if the founders will invest a lot. Example, imagine the founders are just CfB and iotatoken. So the Bitcoin-Pott at the very end will get halved. 50% for CfB 50% for iototoken. Imagine now the average joe will invest overall 500 Bitcoin during the sale. And CfB and iototoken just decide to invest 2000 Bitcoin each. So Overall Investment 4’500 Bitcoin. CfB and iotatoken will controll 88% of all iota and the Bitcoin they invested the would get anyway back. Possible. So I think it would help if both are quite open about their own investments, because it’s somehow left pocket – right pocket, they don’t have really costs, if they throw something in the Bitcoinbasket – it’s anyway theirs.
As for how much I will personally buy: not sure yet, still waiting for the last day of pioneer to make the choice. I treat this choice as completley seperate from the project it self. Doesn't matter how much of their own token founders buy at an IPO, it is cheating anyway. The more the founders cheat, the greater the impact will be. NXT IPO btw probably was free of that, otherwise their IPO would collect more funds. It's perfectly OK however if the founders buy their token after the IPO. |
|
|
|
For me it would a little bit a conflict of interest if the founders will invest a lot. Example, imagine the founders are just CfB and iotatoken. So the Bitcoin-Pott at the very end will get halved. 50% for CfB 50% for iototoken. Imagine now the average joe will invest overall 500 Bitcoin during the sale. And CfB and iototoken just decide to invest 2000 Bitcoin each. So Overall Investment 4’500 Bitcoin. CfB and iotatoken will controll 88% of all iota and the Bitcoin they invested the would get anyway back. Possible. So I think it would help if both are quite open about their own investments, because it’s somehow left pocket – right pocket, they don’t have really costs, if they throw something in the Bitcoinbasket – it’s anyway theirs.
Moreover, probaly many crypto IPOs were already abused this way. |
|
|
|
If you intend to sell in a few weeks, don't bother, you will lose money guaranteed.
I can't agree. Who are we to judge? Anybody is free to invest as much money as they want for as long time as they prefer. Someone who bought NXT just two days ago, could sell today and make good profit. |
|
|
|
Seven people hold 90% of coins. They have received the coins almost for free. What is going to happen when one of them dump his / her stake ? They were for free. Price doesn't matter.
You are wrong, they are not seven. 90% of coins belong to a single entity. He/she/it just spreads those coins over many different accounts. To be seriuos, if you mean: there were only 7 initial stakeholders, you are wrong, they were 73. |
|
|
|
|
