In this post I wasn't looking for a replacement for a wallet, but for a block explorer - only with a little bit more privacy. If you use a block explorer, you also have to trust the provider of the service to deliver you the correct data. And of course the type of service I was thinking about should provide you all necessary data to check that, including blocks / block headers all the way down to the genesis block.
The actions that you describe mimics an SPV-type of implementation closely. Since you mention that you are looking for a service that provides you with all the blocks / block headers, then you can just enable txindex on your full node, which indexes the transactions and you can run a block explorer on top of that.. Ideally such a service should provide a web interface where you could enter the timeframe (e.g. you remember that you should have received a transaction between day X and day Y, so you would download all the blocks in-between). So the service provider doesn't have to know the exact blocks. Once the blocks are downloaded, you could then cut off the connection to the Internet and process the data offline via a JavaScript interface, e.g. searching for addresses and transactions. Or directly process it with command line tools or so.
That'll be exactly like how SPV works. You would be looking for a more resource-heavy SPV, which could work if there is a demand for it. The reason why this would be more privacy friendly than a SPV wallet is of course that on the SPV wallet the block data are on the server and you query addresses/transactions (which are then known by the server), while in the service I was thinking of, the server would only known the blocks you're requesting. Indeed technically it would be similar to BIP 157/158, only presented in another way and with more data analysis features.
Yeah, I think generally the key issue here is resource tradeoffs. Indexing more blocks requires more resource, and it would probably start to look more like a full node after awhile. Anyhow, would it be better if we use a blockexplorer with Tor, but only query one address with one circuit? Since you are essentially linking each address to one circuit only, I assume it would leak practically no usable information? |
|
|
|
I don't think that is meaningless. Of course you have to compare the previous block hash included in the first block of your chunk with several sources (e.g. at all block explorers you know if you're paranoid  ). But if you know e.g. that you received a Bitcoin transaction one day before, but want to check the correct amount without having to fire up a SPV wallet (which potentially may expose you to Electrum server privacy attacks) then such a service may be quite neat as you can check all blocks of the last 24 hours approximately. You do all the analysis on your own device, without exposing the addresses you own, and without needing a full node. You need to know the exact block hash to download, and having the block itself doesn't provide any form of security, which is why SPV wallets require at least the block headers. Having the block headers still doesn't give you any good information about the required transactions. This means that you must know which are the blocks to download, which means you also have to trust someone to tell you the exact blocks and download those. In essence, I'm describing an SPV wallet; its probably easier to use an SPV wallet and start querying random addresses to obfuscate your actual address. Also if you want to do some onchain analysis of certain blocks on your own (e.g. to look for hints which addresses could belong to a single wallet) and you know approximately the timeframe where you're searching, that would also be an use case for such a service.
In the end, that kind of service could basically enable everything a normal block explorer can (even what walletexplorer.com does, i.e. search for "connected" addresses which may belong to the same wallet), only that you need slightly more resources on your device, but far away from the resources you need for a full node.
If you want to index all the transactions, you need a full node. If you only want to know a subset of them, you need to get your information from someone that is running a full node. Else, you would be randomly searching the blockchain, without any validation which opens you up to a host of eclipse and sybil attacks. There were several wallets which implemented BIP157 and BIP158 which supposedly provides more privacy than an SPV wallet. |
|
|
|
Can you link to some sources about that? No issue, I only think the contrast between your post and for example @ranochigo's is quite notable  I don't consider those points as it doesn't answer the topic so it is quite a different evaluation. I'm also refraining from analyzing what conforms to the Bitcoin's values because it can be rather subjective and is likely not the focus for most Bitcoin users. By the way, I wonder if a service exists which lets you query a full node freely on a web interface, i.e. where you can download chunks of blocks instead of querying addresses, and then search the data offline for e.g. transactions and addresses. I guess some block explorers may allow that via API but a web interface would be nice for "quick and fast" queries.
You can't download the chunks of blocks since they would be meaningless without having the blocks before it. It would also be the best practice to validate all the blocks as well. To query transactions like a blockexplorer, you need to index all of the transactions, which is not what Bitcoin Core or any other full node does by default. Otherwise, mempool.space would be a pretty nice solution for a self-hosted explorer. |
|
|
|
Blockchair is one of the longest standing one with a clear privacy policy that respects your privacy: https://blockchair.com/privacy. However, there is no way at all to prove that they don't collect any information, and thus you should always assume that your privacy is compromised when you're using a third party service. An easier way for your privacy to be compromised is to use ISP, or perhaps even VPNs/Proxy. They don't exactly preserve your privacy and it the traffic is easy to analyze by an intermediary. Using Tor would be advisable to mitigate this, and with the rotating identity, you can probably preserve your privacy better with the onion service anyways. |
|
|
|
|
Just a quick add on as well: Mining doesn't become too expensive.
The blockchain is governed by the difficulty, which can be thought of a function of the amount of hashrate there is or the profit that is gained from mining. Those who find that it is not profitable to mine will drop out and result in a drop in difficulty, which makes mining relatively easier. The reverse happens if it becomes too easy.
However, it is a real possibility that Bitcoin becomes insecure if there isn't sufficient reward. This would be a problem, possibly in the far future but I'm sure that the increased throughput and adoption in the future will still allow mining to be compensated well enough.
|
|
|
|
|
In theory, Bitcoin is a hedge against inflation because of the deflationary property. In fact, any assets that can outpace inflation would be a hedge against inflation; ie. Stocks, Precious Metals, etc. This would be assuming that the demand of the asset remains consistent.
In the past, Bitcoin has gotten quite a push for mainstream and institutional adoption. These are key factors pushing Bitcoin value and I wouldn’t use them as evidence for now. We should observe a longer timeframe before we can make a good evalution.
|
|
|
|
|
It isn't proven, contrary to the responses in this thread. Bitcoin's prices has largely been on the uptick since its inception mainly due to the adoption by the major players and/or governments. It would be incorrect to formulate an opinion solely because of that. Conversely, Bitcoin has largely been influenced by the general market trends; downtrend in the market typically results in lower crypto prices, and vice versa.
However, Bitcoin holds the specific characteristic which is a good hedge against inflation. Assuming that the demand remains constant, the decreasing supply would in theory result in Bitcoin being more valuable.
|
|
|
|
Another of my concerns was the NFC technology as mentioned; haven’t seen some videos on social media where NFC enabled devices were just brought close to card holders bags and possibly their pockets and have transactions confirmed raised concerns for me
NFC is quite secure, and moreso with the fact that the environment that the user is using it in probably doesn't allow for any subtle eavedropping. Cloning the NFC doesn't prove to be useful because its encrypted data and they have proven it before. It is secure enough. However, I personally wouldn't want to introduce another attack vector. It would still prefer for my HW wallet to be wired and for the data transfer to be more secure. IMO, blind signing is the biggest drawback for me and it really helps for me to be able to physically confirm my transaction details on a separate device. Tangem provides no protection against this, nor for your environment to be perfectly safe. |
|
|
|
|
It's bound to happen eventually. Bitcoin and crypto cannot be stopped and countries have learned to embrace it and find ways to utilize it effectively. The first step in this direction was when ETFs and big funds started including it in their portfolio. Since Bitcoin is woven into some of the biggest economies in the world, it'll be dumb to not try to find ways to utilize it as well.
|
|
|
|
But here’s the question - if the IMF is truly focused on helping countries and stimulating their growth, then why is it so scared of a technology that can provide economic independence and a new level of financial freedom? Bitcoin isn’t just an investment - it’s a tool for those seeking an alternative to outdated systems.
And yes, aid is important, but can’t we also think about long-term sustainability? To me, this isn’t just about “stacking sats,” it’s a strategic choice. Time will tell.
Bitcoin doesn't provide economic independence or financial freedom. The variability of Bitcoin prices means that the economy is directly exposed to the huge fluctuation of Bitcoin prices, and that is a problem especially when the Bitcoin prices can potentially fluctuate 10-20% in a single given day. This exposes the monetary system to unnecessary risk. In addition, this also further exacerbate the issue of giving up monetary control and reducing the ability of the country to enact economic policies through their monetary system. This has both short and long term repercussions, and they aren't good for a country that small and reliant on foreign aid. It's perfectly fair for IMF to be wanting their debtors to be pursuing known and safe areas of economic growth. This provides a more sound reason for them to continue lending to such countries and directly reduces their reliance on similar foreign aid in the future. Here's a quick reality check: Poverty is rampant in El Salvador, Bitcoin hasn't helped much in their development of the GDP. In fact, even if they were to put all their funds in Bitcoin and Bitcoin were to become far more valuable, the effect would be one-off and it is obviously not sustainable. In comparison, the historical development of countries has shown far better results. If you want to try a new, radical and unproven method to improve your country's economic standings, you should use your own money. The ground sentiments in El Salvador is that their life hasn't improved, and that they are not convinced that Bitcoin is the solution. Don't call out IMF if you want to continue to buy Bitcoins, they can lend to whoever they want. They can seek another willing lender if they would love to continue stacking sats. |
|
|
|
However saying there is no conspiracy at all might be too simple as IMF mostly requires countries to follow certain economic rules that can be tough on their people and poor countries do not always have other options.
For instance IMF is wary of El Salvador Bitcoin choice because they prefer stable investments for development like building roads or schools as compare to these digital currencies. So while IMF wants to help its methods and expectations can clash with new ideas like using Bitcoin and El Salvador is facing this and my country Pakistan is facing now after announcing 2000MW electricity for Bitcoin Mining.
Again, poor countries are not forced to hold their currencies in a certain currency. In fact, any country that is less well off is likely not going to do so, because it doesn’t benefit their monetary system. This is not a conspiracy either. You practically outlined the clear reason why IMF is against this entire proposal in the first place. Sustainable economic growth is not achieved in the long term by being exposed to unnecessary risks with uncertain returns. IMF is absolutely right in enforcing this and there is no argument that Bitcoin could be better than developing their subpar economic system. This isn’t a gamble that anyone, much less a country that is so heavily reliant on loans and aid should take. |
|
|
|
This is not true, there are sometimes exploits that can be used or manipulations through the software to trick the user. It is better to do things with clean devices. You save little money for a lot of added risk. Why not avoid this if you can?
Sure. That's probably a good idea as well, but IMO it gives a false sense of security to the user as well. Refurbished wallets with OS wiped is safe as well, in fact, if you're buying a new laptop, you should also wipe the OS. Spyware and bloatwares are common with the new laptops. There should be a few key principles that are reiterated to the users for most of the HW wallet users. - Not exposing your seeds to third parties, or devices. - Checking the addresses and amount thoroughly to ensure that the amount that is being sent and the address is correct. For reputable HW wallet manufacturers, these are sufficient. Exploits are rare, especially software-based exploits because of how the HW wallets communicate with the computer. Social engineering is far more common in comparison. |
|
|
|
|
Ideally, and in most scenarios, it is probably not necessary to use a clean environment with a hardware wallet. The hardware wallet is designed to defend against these external threats well. In view of this, a refurbished one is more than enough. You should wipe it and install your own OS as well.
|
|
|
|
Maybe the IMF does not want El Salvador to be an example that every country will follow because it will clearly make any country able to quickly pay off the loans that the IMF provides and is considered the profit that comes from the bubble. From here we already understand what the IMF task is like and what is clear is that they are worried if the influence or example of El Salvador becomes a new benchmark in the global financial industry.
Anyone who has some knowledge of IMF works understands that the interest rates that they charge are far lower than the global benchmark across the financial institutions. IMF doesn't think that El Salvador can pull themselves out of poverty by using Bitcoin, or similar investments. They are meant for the development of their country, and purchasing Bitcoins doesn't help with that at all. IMF would love to have countries to pay off their loans ASAP, because both sides stands to benefit. They aren't loan sharks and this is a conspiracy that is clearly disproven. |
|
|
|
On the other hand, it’s strange that the IMF demonizes BTC so aggressively, while other assets like gold don’t cause such a reaction. If a country wants to hold part of its reserves in BTC that’s also a form of diversification. Especially considering that many countries have lost trust in the dollar as the sole reserve asset.
Maybe it’s not just about economics, but also geopolitics? Because Bitcoin is something that isn’t controlled by traditional institutions, and that scares them.
Simply because that is not the goal of IMF. IMF’s purpose is to try to provide aid to countries that needs it the most and to help them with their economic growth where possible. Bitcoin, or any other form of investments, ie. precious metals are not meant to simulate economic growth in the long term. If you require aids and loans, you have better priorities than to be stacking sats. Don’t act like the victim when you’re called out for it. Of course, there are no issues when developed countries like the US proposes it. |
|
|
|
|
You can do any of the above and they have the same effect. GUI and bitcoin.conf is probably the easiest and ensures persistence. Just don’t allocate too much memory for dbcache or you’ll run out of mmeory.
|
|
|
|
|
A lot of Bitcoiners actually don't understand what's going on and paints IMF in a bad light. Now, El Salvador needs loans from IMF and that is the core issue. They have the rights to dictate what the country should do with the funds. It's perfectly normal for them to be able to dictate what should be done with the money and what shouldn't.
Primarily, IMF's goal is to help countries through financial aids and loans. To do so, the country themselves must be able to implement sound policy to achieve long-term and sustainable growth. Agree to the terms if you want their aid, if you don't want to agree to theirs, then there is no good reason why you should kick up a fuss when they refuse to commit to the loans.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the acceptance! Here’s the updated address.
Username:ranochigo
BTC Address (bech32): bc1qwhfkxyjmpyaptvht942ft6wdv5ln6j8kuh5n2t
|
|
|
|
Operator is a start, but (I haven't used it) indeed seems to be quite limited according to its description at OpenAI's page. There is an interesting document from 2023 by Hjalmar Wijk which specifies some criteria for systems which could really make a difference to today's "programmed" tools and really perform manipulations and create new "dangers". The document may be outdated already but I think it gives a good overview of what a ARA capable AI should be able to do. They would need to first fulfill some basic tasks which are not too far away (some tools should partially already be able to do that): - be able to browse the Internet autonomously (that's what Operator can do), setting up virtual server instances (like AWS) and an own email address - set up and operate a Bitcoin wallet to make payments (because the authors consider that it's easier to operate a crypto wallet than any other kind of e-wallet, e.g. because of captchas, "liveness" tests and similar stuff) - find information like e-mail addresses of other organizations - set up a LLM like GTP-J on its own AWS instances - basic debugging - basic scaffolding, allowing it to think "step by step" But then they need also some advanced tasks which are more far away from the PoV of the document author, such as: - Earn money in some way, either by completing easy freelancing work, or by spreading malware. - Inferencing on a LLM on its virtual server - Training AI models autonomously - Guide humans to perform tasks, e.g. setting up a website, impersonating a human I believe even a system which can "only" perform the easier tasks of the first group could achieve the market manipulation via social networks I decribed in the last post. Such manipulation is already done today in some way, but is extremely basic without real AI intervention and requires a lot of human effort too (people operating bots on X or Telegram etc.). Now if the system is able to freelance autonomously or spread malware and thus could buy premium social network accounts for example, then I think the distinction between reality and manipulation would become more difficult. But I still think it would take less than a day to detect such a manipulation. Yeah, that's the thing. Humans are the biggest threat. AI is not going to be a threat, because people always think of AI from the POV of sci-fi movies. Thing is, humans can and are already able to do that. There is practically nothing that a human being who is somewhat knowledgeable or, even worse an organization with significant capability can do that an AI mentioned in any of those papers can. AI, at the present day is really not as smart as people think they are. LLMs, or even the Operator that is mentioned is still a fairly limited AI, which at its core, functions on math, and probability (attention mechanisms form the bedrock). I'd argue that humans, are the biggest threat. AI would probably not be a threat, if at all. AI won't be doing anything that the human doesn't want it to, because the LLMs that we have today doesn't allow it to think, and a little known fact is that reasoning models are still infact not the AI thinking. People are just too caught up with the hype and marketing and they end up believing in this entire fantasy about AI. |
|
|
|
While it may not be able to do it with Bitcoin (since it's way beyond gpu miners), it "can" do with gpu mining ones, which means, AI uses gpu mainly and nvidia as well. So if AI companies like openAI, realizes a way to make chatgpt smarter, and figure out a way to mine at a much higher hashrate than what they normally would, and use their gpu power to do it, they can take over any coin that is possible to be mined.
That's not a branch of AI, but rather a branch of magic dust and imagination  . GPUs are designed to be fast at parallelization, any improvements or exploitations (?) to that will come from GPU manufacturer, or chip designers (for eg. ASICBoost back then). ChatGPT CANNOT compute hashes, faster than regular machines, and in fact, AI cannot compute hashes, unless you're using a model which also allows code execution. For which, that defeats the whole idea. You should understand more about AI and what it can or cannot do. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
