 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 »
|
The seed and the PIN are generated in their site mytrezor.com
what makes me wonder if they have access to this sensetive info?
PIN is set by user and it is known by the Trezor device only. Your PC doesn't know it, because of the unique way you enter the PIN, see http://doc.satoshilabs.com/trezor-user/enteringyourpin.htmlThe same is true for the seed, when a new seed is being created entropy from PC and Trezor device is (provably) mixed in the device to get a new seed. Seed never leaves the device and is only displayed once on the Trezor screen during the initialization to let the user create a paper backup (24 words using BIP0044), that can be used in many 3rd wallets, see http://doc.satoshilabs.com/trezor-apps/index.html |
|
|
|
What version of Electrum are you using? I've heard that some versions are quite buggy with the Trezor so if you're running an older version I'd suggest updating to 2.3.2 and seeing if that helps at all.
I actually use the lastest version  |
|
|
|
|
I tried to recover Trezor seed on Electrum Windows, but when I tried to do so, Electrum does nothing (or crashes) after selecting Restore / Hardware wallet > Trezor, typing in the seed and clicking Next. My friend tested the same thing on Linux and it worked. Is it a bug? Any advice?
|
|
|
|
|
Please move APICoin (XAP) to asset section. It is issued on Mastercoin and it has the functionality as for example MaidSafeCoin. Thanks
|
|
|
|
Was really happy to have my Trezor arrive yesterday, sadly I've not been able to get it to work.
I've installed the browser plugin, plugged it into a USB port and get the positive confirmation noise. I then go to MyTrezor.com and it says:
"Device could not be opened. Make sure you don't have myTREZOR running in another tab or browser window!".
I have tried Chrome, Firefox and IE and also reinstalling the browser plugin. I've temporarily disabled any malware/anti virus that could be interfering. Nothing has helped. I'm on Windows 7.
Has anyone else had this problem?
Support say they have had other people with the same issue and are looking into it.
This problem is known, and as far as I know it is specific to Win 7 only, contact the Trezor support please |
|
|
|
Hi,
I noticed the strange thing.
The Trezor is device for signing all outputs and all outputs should be showed to me in screen and values of each output.
Is it correct?
But i noticed that when i send some money to addresses A, B, C (i did the transaction for 10 addresses) there was 11th output - it's OK, one address is change from my wallet.
BUT! The 11th address is not showed by Trezor (or 1st) - this is the change adress. So one address slips away from my eye. It's very strange.
How the Trezor decides that one address should not be showed (and value too!) to me when i sign the transaction?
I understood that it made may be for easy using. But i would know the algorithm for this decision.
May be there security hole? Can hacker tell to the Trezor that one X address from faked transaction is change address and after this the Trezor could not show to me this address and value in Trezor's screen?
I can imagine that the Trezor could get the change address as path of BIP32/BIP44 and inside itself can recalculate the address and after it decides that this address is a really my own change address and doesn't show one me and value for it. But i am not sure that this done same way. If there in protocol only bit for address (change/not_change) - it will be security hole for trojan.
I think the Trezor should show all outputs and value of each output included a change address. A change address could be showed with remark 'Your Change' or other way. Otherwise, the thought creeps in that the algorithm has a loophole.
How do you think?
And what does Stick or Slush think about this? I don't want to ask this to through ticket system because the Trezor project should be discussed publicly.
When you are composing transaction, you see on the right all output addresses. The change address is represented by path and it is sent by myTrezor wallet to the Trezor device as this path. This is why Trezor doesn't show anything, because it knows, it generates that address itself from the seed. You can pregenerate this internal address by using account xpub and the shown path on bip32.org. If you give this address to Trezor explicitly and fill in the right change ammount, you will have to confirm it on the screen as with every other external ouput. Trezor doesn't recognize it as internal address when it is not sent as a path to it. The same thing is when you send bitcoins bitween accounts in the same Trezor, you have to confirm them, since Trezor doesn't know they are internal with respect to the seed as well. Anyway, it might be good if user could somehow choose if the change address will be shown explicitly by clicking something like "Send Advanced". In this scenario, Trezor would also show something like "Confirm sending change to an internal address 3/1/18 = 1ase4er4wFASDFdasdfdfdf..." |
|
|
|
The answer you seek is just a few posts back: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=122438.msg8537393#msg85373931) Your coins are not lost 2) If you have a gap of more than 20 unused addresses your balance will not be correct until you use some of the unused addresses 3) Since the balance calculating algorithm stops after it sees 20 unused addresses all you need to do is send some coins to the unused addresses between your last properly summed address and the "lost" one in such a way as to make sure there are not more than 19 unused addresses between any two addresses that contain BTC I have a missing transaction. Here is what I did right before: I installed the btcreceive app onto my android. I then loaded the xpub code into the btcreceive app. Then I proceeded to test the app sending multiple transactions to the keys generated on the app. Then I opened the account tab on btcreceive and tried sending to some of the addresses there. All was well until I tried one of the addresses further down on the list in the account tab. I tried the m/0/44 address. I sent a total of 0.01btc. this transaction is showing up in the btcreceive app, but it doesnt show up on the mytrezor.com transaction list. So I tried to send another small amount from another wallet to this address again and this transaction is showing up. Both transactions are showing up on blockchain.info. https://blockchain.info/address/1CVHky4FZ4V5TN7DZSgaqwszRWg7iPrQfc. This has got me a little worried. What would happen if i had sent a larger amount of bitcoin? Would it be lost forever? Ok I tested out your theory. I went back and used up every single address before m/0/44. My trezor is still showing the incorrect balance by 0.01btc. The balance on BTCReceive is showing correctly. So I'm guessing the only way to recover this lost btc would be to restore my seed to wallet32 app then send it somewhere else? I hope this is not the case. What happens is your Trezor gives xpub to myTrezor web wallet and the wallet asks backend BoP server for all your transactions. The one you don't see is missing in the list provided by BoP. It is clearly there when visible both on blockchain.info and on btcreceive. I assume there is some glitch in BoP, which is unfortunate, but there are three things that can happen: 1. Issue fixes itself when BoP is restarted. 2. BoP developer fixes the issue if you report it to satoshi labs. 3. BoP will find your transaction without doing anything. Have you tried "Forget device" and replug? Concerning "recovering" the BTC: If you had more choices of wallet software then you could use any of those and there is high probability you would not see the same glitch you see now. If myTrezor does not see the transaction then Electrum probably would, because it uses completely different stack. You should not be worried about your funds, because you can always recover them using other software that is being developed and will be here soon. But there is some risk you will be blocked and need to wait until the bug is fixed / infrastructure is there. The BoP can't see it because it follows BIP0039 standard where the gap limit is set to 20, see https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0044.mediawiki#address-gap-limitWallet software should warn when the user is trying to exceed the gap limit on an external chain by generating a new address. What happens is that 3rd party wallet are not BIP0039 compliant in this detail, which cause confusion in compliant wallets like myTrezor. The remedy is as follows: fill the gap limit with several small transactions, so that the difference in path of two transactions in the account is always less then 20. In this case we have payment on the address 44. It should be enough to send 0.001 BTC to address number 15 and 30. |
|
|
|
It looks like mytrezor got fixed, but the transaction that was stuck in my wallet, did get sent and I already sent it from different wallet, so I am out a $100. UGH
I will be updating my negative trust rating feedback accordingly.
You don't know how to confirm a transaction on the blockchain? Maybe you should learn before you use Yes I can't confirm a transaction on the blockchain, when A) you don't have the TXID and B) it is group address that doesn't do refunds. $100 is not a big deal to me, but still it is wasted money. Really, with all the respect, you don't need TXID, you just need that address you sent the bitcoins to, and put it in the search field. If you were able to send the transaction again from different client you provably must had known the address, so you could check if the prior transaction went through or not. |
|
|
|
Just testing my new Trezor to better understand it. I sent myself 50 mBTC. Then I sent 15 mBTC to another address in my Armory account. On the blockchain, I can see that the 15 mBTC went to the right address, and it looks like the change went to a different address. On my Trezor, the account shows the right amount (35 mBTC), but I can't find that change address anywhere. Where is it? How do I keep track of exactly which addresses have what amounts of BTC? Or am I not supposed to?
Also, is there a tutorial anywhere on how to interpret the BIP32 Path: m/44'/0'/0'/0/1 data?
Thanks
Change address went to address at path m/44'/0'/0'/1/x, where x is the last free internal (change) address, see the second pitcure of Wallet32 https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.bonsai.wallet32&hl=csThe difference here, is that receiving addresses are shown while change addresses are hidden from user. This might change in the future, because it might confuse some users. |
|
|
|
Can stick/slush to add checking option to show current receiving address not only in computer but in the Trezor's screen too
P.S. I don't want to write here about this problem anymore. I wrote 4-5 posts about this and zero reaction from developer. Did you contact their support? I wrote them about this missing security feature of showing receiving address on the Trezor's screen and they replied in very fast manner: this feature is already on their radar. And I've seen somebody else here claiming the same as I do... |
|
|
|
So we'll be able to use the Trezor to essentially "store" both Bitcoin and Litecoin in the future?
Not in the future, that's something what's built into TREZOR since beginning. There just was no UI for Litecoin yet, but it changes with Electrum-LTC... And yes, thanks to BIP32/BIP44, one seed can contain unlimited count of altcoins, so you can store all your cryptocurrencies on one TREZOR. This reminds me of something: "Thousand altcoins in your pocket." Who said that?  |
|
|
|
|
It is possible to delete imported address with private key from encrypted wallet without entering the password. I dont know how this is possible - it shouldnt be that way. The private part of wallet should be encrypted so it should not be possible to mess with it without password.
|
|
|
|
|
I just spent 5 day or so upgrading to Bitcoin Core 0.9 and Armory 0.90.99-4 before succeeding to get on-line again. The major and only problem was that after initially upgrading just to Bitcoin Core 0.9, Armory 0.9 always got stuck while building and rescanning the block data. I had to upgrade also to Armory 0.90.99-4 and do Factory reset before succeeding to come back online.
This is really unsatisfactory state, since the Armory ability to create off-line transaction is totally dependent on its active on-line status. What would I do in case of some emergency during those 5 days. What if I need to transfer coins as soon as possible due to a possible paper backup breach?
I think there is a need for option of creating the unsigned transaction on other platforms while signing it by Armory off-line. If I could create unsigned transaction on Blockchain.info, that would be really great. Or even to have utility in Armory to build the unsigned transaction by collecting the inputs and amounts manually from whatever trusted source - in expert mode of course.
This would really help to make transaction in times when there is any problem with Armory online status.
What do you think?
EDIT: By the way new version with secure download and automatic torrent bootstrap helps a lot and it is actually much faster than ever before: After doing Factory reset I was able to be online in some 10 hours.
|
|
|
|
|
Ok. I got it now. I thought the whole address (all unspent outputs) has to be emptied each time there is spending transaction. This is not the case, since what has to be spent as a whole is just single unspent output. That's it.
|
|
|
|
I have found weird transaction formation at address https://blockchain.info/address/16peP4A3ybiLspV4t3iHjd97DSNEJiKFR9, which I really dont understand based on what I know about the transaction rules: A) 13:15 - incoming transaction 0,00061245 BTC (confirmed in block at 13:17) B) 13:45 - incoming transaction 0,00053198 BTC (confirmed in block at 13:45) C) 15:10 - outgoing transaction 0,00053198 BTC (confirmed in block at 0:26 next day) D) 21:18 - outgoing transaction 0,00061245 BTC (confirmed in block at 21:19) As I understand it the wallet balance after 13:45 should be 0,00114443 BTC, so any spending transaction after that time should empty whole wallet. And not just 0,0005... or 0,0006... And what is the actual order of transactions? A-B-C-D based on blockchain receiving time, A-B-D-C based on the block time or A-D-B-C based on logic Any idea?  |
|
|
|
|
I don't if somebody has already done this, but I think it would be very interesting to see, in historical number analysis when buying mining hardware was actually better that buying bitcoins directly. For the purpose of analysis I would asume that the miner is a longterm believer in bitcoin, so he tries to accumulate as much bitcoin as possible and he keeps all revenue in bitcoins. When in history were miners better off than direct buyers?
|
|
|
|
Well, is quite sure that prices at cex.io are in real bubble: I used mining calculator at http://mining.thegenesisblock.com/ with buying 100GHS at current price from cex.io for 4BTC (1GHS=0.04BTC), and I couldn't break even with higher monthly increase of difficulty than 32% per month, see http://mining.thegenesisblock.com/a/7908fc0daaIf used more appropriate increase in difficulty of 100% per month, I can break even after 6 months when I buy 100GHS for 2BTC (1GHS=0.02BTC) and after next 6 month the profit will be 0.04 BTC, see http://mining.thegenesisblock.com/a/2be83da502 I guess that market participants at cex. io dont use math. Any comments? Fixed percentage difficulty increase month over month over month. Maybe in 2020 the total surface area of Earth would not be enough for all the asic chips, needed to sustain that difficulty. difficulty is adjusted and can decrease... what happens nowadays is that minining power keeps increasing so new difficulty is always higher. i believe it should break someday People who use the Genesis block calculator do not realise that. They blindly believe that difficulty will increase to infinity by the same fixed monthly percentage. Don't get me wrong, I know the difficulty will level at some point in the future. Thing is that if it won't level in 3-4 months, current prices for GHS are too high (they are great for operators to resell uneconomical hardware to suckers and speculators on suckers). And since we don't see deceleration on the side of hardware yet, it is wrong to suppose that the difficulty will adjust any time soon: new more powerfull and relatively cheaper products are announced already throughout the 2014. What I expected in answer is somebody, who show me numbers: I bought GHS/BTC at this price and after 6 months I broke even (no referals counted) in terms of bitcoin and now I am getting positive cash flow only - you see it was real investment and I am not a sucker. |
|
|
|
Well, is quite sure that prices at cex.io are in real bubble: I used mining calculator at http://mining.thegenesisblock.com/ with buying 100GHS at current price from cex.io for 4BTC (1GHS=0.04BTC), and I couldn't break even with higher monthly increase of difficulty than 32% per month, see http://mining.thegenesisblock.com/a/7908fc0daaIf used more appropriate increase in difficulty of 100% per month, I can break even after 6 months when I buy 100GHS for 2BTC (1GHS=0.02BTC) and after next 6 month the profit will be 0.04 BTC, see http://mining.thegenesisblock.com/a/2be83da502 I guess that market participants at cex. io dont use math. Any comments? |
|
|
|
Added volume numbers. I'll get around to adding some new coins soon. Thanks to all who gave feedback and support over the last few days I'm doing my best accommodate everyone's requests. Hi, I do not know from where you get volumes but look at these values: http://cryptoranking.com/It is 100% correct based on Btc-e and Cryptsy. Something is wrong with your counter. I wasn't considering the USD crosses at BTC-e. Should be fixed now, thanks for reporting. Suggestion: show Ripple's market cap as the value per XRP multiplied by the total XRP released into circulation.
Bitcoin for example is shown as a current market cap calculated from the 12,180,975 BTC currently in circulation, giving us:
$9,287,262,579 = $762.44 * 12,180,975
However, if one were to follow the logic applied to XRP then the BTC market cap should be shown as the total number of BTC that will ever be in circulation, giving us:
$16,011,240,000 = $762.44 * 21,000,000
And for Litecoin:
$2,013,480,000 = $23.97 * 84,000,000
Therefore at some of its previous prices LTC's market cap would have exceeded Ripple's: the current chart's method of calculation does not account for this.
Although Ripple is centralised so its XRP are not mined but released by a central authority I think this process is functionally similar to that of mining other decentralised cryptographic currencies. Therefore in my opinion Ripple's market cap on the chart should account for the XRP that have been released to be consistent with all the other currencies on the chart.
I understand what you're saying, but that's not marketcap. At any time, the creators at Ripple can sell or distribute XRP whenever they want, unlike with Bitcoin, no one can sell the unmined coins. This is what they do with large company IPOs - when they sell shares, usually only a certain percentage is released to the public, but the marketcap is based on the the total amount. Also there is the logistical problem of figuring out programmatically how many they haven't released yet. Do you know of a way? I agree with objection to Ripple market cap. In fact, Ripple doesnt fit to the list of listed virtual currencies at all, since it is all premined. Perphaps more than 99% of XRP (anybody knows the exact number?) have never enter the market. There is no exact way how to assing the value for these XRP because they are held apart for market as creators reserves. The discrepancy can be seen in traded volume. Although XRP is second behind BTC with 1/3.5 of BTC market cap, the volume of XRP traded is 1/500 of BTC (discrepancy of 150x), while LCT is 1/16 of BTC market cap, the traded volume is approximately 1/14 of BTC traded volume. Based on todays volume, effective market cap is more like 5 000 000 USD than 2 600 000 000 USD. I disagree on comparison of the total number of XRP to the the total shares of company. Usualy company shares aquire the value in line with (future) profit of a company. Value of single share can be speculatively calculated based on (future) P/E model. XRP is more like a currency than a share. There is no profit which can be conected to single XRP, the value of XRP is decided by free market participants who trade and hold XRP according to their needs and views. When one entity holds 99% of all XRPs in reserves it is barely free market and the usual formula for market cap doesnt make sense here. Better, Ripple Labs should be compared to the FED. They hold 99% of XRP in reserves, while having the power of diluting the currency at will according to their monetary policy - which they surely have as essential part of their bussiness plan. For me, counting only XRP released to public, would work well, although I think there is no "best market cap" here to measure. |
|
|
|
|
