[TrojanDropper.Dapato.yae]

Hi!

I came over this post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2096081.0 and was inspired to make this command line tool to be able to hide text in plain sight. I just love the idea of splitting something up in parts, and where you need a certain amount of parts to be able to get a secret back. So, perfect for a bitcoin wallet. Do like 10 minimum needed, and 50 shares and put them all around. Nobody has any idea what they are for. And you need 10 of them to get the secret. Or something.

I'm working on another larger project (which I will post about very soon), and thought to include this tool there. However, I figured, why not start with giving this away for free to show that I'm a giving person. And also, to start building up trust and hope that as many as possible can join my larger project later. I can't wait to open it up to the public! Anyway, more about that later. Now more about this tool.

In the spirit of trust, I put the code up here: https://github.com/Chillance/gsssa
Not perfect, as it was just thrown together in a short period of time. But it should work. Please go ahead and test it out.

I've also build binaries for your convenience:
gsssa_linux_amd64 - https://virustotal.com/#/file/be5c05c3a36e4d9602f33252c3666356c4d8d550d8d0979d6671d0d3dc37f3af/detection
https://ufile.io/uf17v

gsssa_windows_amd64.exe - https://virustotal.com/#/file/a60617be6745fc8b23987a25a42271373a9474dd7eaf740c74fce84fcc4d1799/detection Ok, so this one reports TrojanDropper.Dapato.yae for some reason. I run Ubuntu and the binaries are build through Docker, so I'm guessing it's a false positive. Same file here using another service: https://virusscan.jotti.org/en-US/filescanjob/n4g4r7ulq6
I asked in IRC and someone said:

"Cylance often triggers when it sees binaries it's never seen before"
"also, we're now seeing some Go malware in the wild, so it's likely picking up on common strings across all Go compiled executables for windows"

I will skip this for now. You can build from the source code, or let me know if you want me to put the binary online.


Here is an example run. I use the defaults of 2 minimum, 3 amount of shares, but you can change this with the --min and --amount parameters. After creating the shares, I remove "Share 2". And as you can see, it still works to get back the "secret". For now, a new line in the share there is important. And yes, there will be more words on longer secret. I know, it might be a pain to write it all down by hand which I would have preferred myself too. Oh well, might be something to solve in the future.

~$ ./gsssa create "my secret sentence"
# Share 1
assume another atom adjust attract believe athlete attitude ball bulb base apple boss blossom bulk broccoli blossom abuse bring acquire betray brass blur bacon above amateur blind bachelor bomb bench any artefact
board answer birth budget barrel basic bird become banana bring alcohol banner boat absurd assume anxiety ankle aspect angle before arrest boss animal around bring alone alone area aerobic avoid buzz baby

# Share 2
broccoli author boil acquire budget budget because aunt between abstract auction apology blind actual black alert arrive action already balance brother brush bubble boring board address bleak balcony area brain bench bundle
ball brother battle apart blind bless believe about attitude bleak bounce age age busy addict cabbage act balcony assault alter breeze bring bottom battle around balance atom absorb awake across brief attend

# Share 3
anchor album accident cabbage barrel brain allow alien april address brass arch addict among bundle become asthma beach axis arch busy axis april any arctic away bind brother because affair august air
bamboo angle attend artefact auto blood broken arrow boy alpha before brother below body balcony absurd attract arrest barely abuse assist aspect blast bicycle bachelor behind bench balance average acquire buffalo awkward

# You need 2 shares out of these 3 shares to be able to get your secret back.

 The file "shares.txt" is now created with above shown information.

~$
~$ vim shares.txt
~$
~$ cat shares.txt
# Share 1
assume another atom adjust attract believe athlete attitude ball bulb base apple boss blossom bulk broccoli blossom abuse bring acquire betray brass blur bacon above amateur blind bachelor bomb bench any artefact
board answer birth budget barrel basic bird become banana bring alcohol banner boat absurd assume anxiety ankle aspect angle before arrest boss animal around bring alone alone area aerobic avoid buzz baby

# Share 3
anchor album accident cabbage barrel brain allow alien april address brass arch addict among bundle become asthma beach axis arch busy axis april any arctic away bind brother because affair august air
bamboo angle attend artefact auto blood broken arrow boy alpha before brother below body balcony absurd attract arrest barely abuse assist aspect blast bicycle bachelor behind bench balance average acquire buffalo awkward

  ~$
  ~$ ./gsssa reveal
RESULT: my secret sentence

Thank you.

Hi,

I wanted to run this by you and see what you say.

What if we scrapped money altogether and just gave everybody what they wanted?

I know it sounds ridiculous, and everybody would just go for 100 cars and 100 fancy houses, but if you think about it, if you could get everything you wanted, all those things wouldn't be as valuable anymore, and it would lose it's "richness" appeal and people would be bored by it after a while and just settle with what they actually needed. Don't we have all the technology and resources to make this happen? It could also mean less crimes would happen then too.

Sidenote: I love the idea of bitcoin so I don't really want to ruin bitcoin, but hey, maybe we could go there with bitcoin somehow...

Hey,

I was wondering if anyone here know a payment service that makes it possible for people to use their credit card, and where payments ends up as BTC in a wallet of mine?

And then that it could go back to customers card from BTC too, when doing refunds.

I know, with BTC fluctuating as it does, it might be quite risky, although, it could also mean that at the point of refund, the BTC value increased so the refund doesn't cost me anything. Obviously the customer only gets back the same value in their currency as they paid initially.

I'm asking because that way, people don't have to buy BTC first, but they can use their card as they normally do. Obviously this service should be PCI compliant, and I would also like to not having to deal with the cards at all. They are handled by the service.

Thanks!

Hey!

What is the best way to send BTC back? One way I'm working on right now is using one address from the input in the transaction, but that isn't 100% reliable and safe. I suppose it's only a problem if there is more than one input. This is related to https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1770958.0 but this is more about actually sending BTC back to users.

I want it to be easy and anonymous if wanted too, but I'm not sure how to go on about it beyond using the same address that was send from. If someone want to use a different address for me to send to, I need a way to confirm it's the same person from another address. I suppose signing a message could work here.

It's tricky because I was thinking using one address for everyone to send to. However, that limits what I can do on my end regarding sending back correctly. If I generate a new address per user and create a unique link, then users can enter a new return addresses that way, but I was hoping to just use one address for people to send to, to make things easily transparent. And also because using one address makes it so much easier where I don't have to generate extra addresses and keep track of that. So, I'm not sure what approach I should take here.

This is basically a combined issue. The way I see it, there are two options:

1. Using a single address where I then send back to to one of the inputs (how to confirm it's correct one?). Not much overhead with this, but not sure how would would make sure it arrives properly if there are many inputs. Easy transparency since everyone can look up this address people send to. Although less good with anonymity. Easy for me to just use Electrum and better control over private key. Users specifying a different return address can work, but requires more work on users end to sign a message or whatnot so they can confirm one of the input addresses are owned by them.

Edit: Main point here is also so that users can easily see how much I have received, and not only trust my word on it.

or

2. Create one (or more) unique address(es). Better anonymity. Users can specify another return address easier. But, more overhead on my part, and would probably be better to use a online wallet since I need to create new addresses for users. Little less of transparency, although if I expose all addresses so people can look it all up, it would basically be like if I had used one address I suppose.

What do you smart people here say about this? What do you prefer? Other comments?

Thanks!

Hey!

I know there are other threads on this already, but I wanted to ask anyway to get your input on this.

So, I'm working on something where I want to be as transparent as possible regarding the project itself, but also provide anonymity for the users, and thought that having one address to deposit to would be a good idea because of how easy it is for everyone to see how things are by it. However, reading here:

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Address_reuse and here https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3euuka/still_confusedwhy_is_it_not_secure_to_reuse/

I noticed that it it might not be the best way of doing it. Now, it is easer code wise, as I don't need code to generate new address and all that comes with that, but a new address per deposit would seem much "safer" regarding the users anonymity. However, with a new deposit address per user, would make it harder to be as transparent. I suppose there would be no escape from it either way. I mean, either use one address or expose the other "single use addresses", for how else would people be able to see how the project is doing without having to trust whatever I say, right?

What would you prefer?

The section about "Accidental loss" is also a bit scary. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Address#Misconceptions is also a bit enlightening. I assume using the same address for everyone to deposit to would be safe, even if it's more of a "accidental feature". I mean, people do it all the time, and that works fine.

I just want to make sure everything is properly done here.

Thanks for your input!

[Select a wedge to bet on (join or new)]

https://www.btccake.com

Features:

Player VS Player
0% House edge
Bet with Bitcoins
Live Chat
Only 1% fee taken from the winnings, rest goes to the users!


How it works:

1. Select a wedge to bet on (join or new):




2. Place bet of choice:



Notice the updated information:



3. Done

When time is up, a winning wedge will be chosen, and if you are on it, you will get your share!
Note that in the example above, I would increase wedge 2 from 44% chance of winning to 46.15%, and if that wedge would win, I would get 0.01166667 BTC.

Hey Bitcoiners!

I thought I put this out there more officially now when I have tested the site for a while. (You can read more about it here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=680412.msg7715245#msg7715245 )

Briefly about the site:
This game is all about the users. I only take 1% fee from the winnings. Users basically bet on a wedge. Then when time is up, a wedge is selected, and those on that wedge wins the pot.


Now, don't deposit anything ridiculous high. Just small amounts. Actually, feel free to test with play money first (You get 10 PlayBTC automatically). I still want to test it out and let it grow with time, earning trust and just make it fun. I also plan of taking what I earn and add bonuses. And I would also love to get feedback on this. Yes, sections such as "Find Cake" and "Statistics" aren't implemented yet, but hey, great opportunity for feedback there.

Alight, my site is here:


I've created this for BTC: https://www.btccake.com/cake/2565bf1195673e39e718c6d9efe03d8c211c2dca477206de160e816bccd8368c
And this for PlayBTC (playmoney): https://www.btccake.com/cake/31317a9b37877dfcb03dda9d0fe10c96a4ad54477dbcd2ff9b8cafb476726d1b

They both have same parameters so you can see how it works.

(and you can create your own with your own parameters, which is one unique thing with the site)

How to play:
1. When you arrive to the site an account is automatically generated. Save that unique URL somewhere! To lock it down further, add password and email (and confirm your email). Yes, I've taken many steps to securing the site.
2. Click on a cake of interest.
3. Click on a wedge (or button for a wedge).
4. Place bet.
5. Done.

(Yes, I will update this post to make it look better)

Hey folks,

I'm working on an idea which I plan of releasing in a week or so hopefully.

But, I'm having trouble deciding what method to use.

There are basically 2 ways you can do a bitcoin wallet payment solution.

1. Have one address which everybody sends to, and you use some magic to figure out what address the payment came from and you can send money back to.

This way the address is completely public and everybody can see what happens quite easily. However, there are restrictions as to what wallets people can send from. And might be a bit trickier to get working properly as I don't have much experience using this method myself, so I'm not sure how reliable it is to get users send addresses from the transaction information.

or

2. Create unique addresses for users to send to. Before doing this, you can just let the user specify which address that the user would like to get money to.

This is more of a controlled way to keep track of who payed what, and easy for users to specify where the money should come back. And, they can send from whatever wallet they want to. However, it's hard for anyone to see a total as one can do with the first one. I guess, one actually could just show all those addresses, and sum it up though.

What method do you guys prefer? First method is convenient, but again, you have to be careful with from where you send. And second is more controlled but less transparent (although one can make it more transparent by showing those addresses publicly as well).

Thanks,
Chillance

[Now, I only want users that will help me out and don't waste my time by just withdrawing after they got it. I want you to use this money to bet with, so I can see how my project handles more users.]

All 10 have gotten their bitcoins. So, I don't have more to give out this round. However, I'm yet to see all use theirs, so if they don't I can move that over to someone else more interested in helping me out.



Hey guys and girls!

Here is a chance for you to win bitcoins for free! I want to test my site with more users, so I though I will give the first 10 people 0.01 BTC which you play with, and the result out of that will be that winners will get more than 0.01 bitcoins! You have absolutely nothing to lose here because you will be playing using my money. And, whatever you win is yours.

Now, I only want users that will help me out and don't waste my time by just withdrawing after they got it. I want you to use this money to bet with, so I can see how my project handles more users. (Maybe I just lock withdraw for those users until time is up for the cakes).

So, if you are serious in helping me out and placing a bet read on.

As you can see in the other thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=680412.0 I've been having some great progress, and before I post in gambling making this project more official, I'm looking for a few more people that can help me testing this out. Besides, my site is all about user volume, because I only take a small fee from the winnings! There are ALWAYS a user or users who wins! And in my mission trying to test the site, get feedback and get more traction, I thought this promo could help out. It's really no risk to any of you.

So, this is how this will work.

• You go to https://www.btccake.com (and an account is created if you haven't been there before).
• You go to your profile. (Upper right in the dropdown).
• Change the name if you want by clicking on it.
• You then post your name here.
• I can then look you up, create a deposit address and send you 0.01 BTC to that deposit address.

I disabled "generate deposit addresses" button temporary because I really don't want to clutter down the site with many unused addresses because of this promo. I will enable it again in case someone want to join in anyway though. But for now it's off to keep it nice and clean.

Then use the bitcoins you get to play on either:

https://www.btccake.com/cake/c4a5f5a9ea6ce242905f503c8ee6b57c528571bc21bd7b0a4d0c49b66cfee34a
and/or
https://www.btccake.com/cake/40ffa75c766780eeeae2e270598605b93d8bf48828966dffe6998c29d32567ca

Play however you want with how much you want, and on whatever wedge you want. You can join forces with anyone, or take your own wedge. Totally up to you and what I think will be some of the fun with this! You can join forces to increase your chances. Or, you can try to go on your own and win more.

And then whatever bitcoins you win is yours!

The first cake ends Christmas, the other New Year. I would also appreciate any kind of feedback or comments.

Also, SAVE that unique URL of yours somewhere. Or, add and confirm your email. Just in case, so you can recover your account if needed.

Hi,

I'm working on a bitcoin site, but its getting delayed because of external problems.

I'm creating new addresses using getnewaddress, however, blockchain's "receive API" creates yet another address which is tracked but doesn't help me, as I already created a new address. I do this way because then I can track what addresses belongs to which user, as they are linked to the same account, and I'm not relying on any other service. Actually, this is how it works in bitcoind.

getnewaddress -> 1bitcoinaddress1

vs

/api/receive -> 1bitcoinaddress2 (which apparently points to 1bitcoinaddress1)

So, according to support, I should use https://blockchain.info/api/api_websocket . But, to get balance and amount of confirmations, I should use https://blockchain.info/api/blockchain_api .

I know there are some other sites as mentioned here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=575651.msg7361747#msg7361747 but I'm trying to work it out properly using blockchain.info, as they do have websocket and all other good stuff. I asked support, but they said I should post here and see what you guys have done "the best way".

Anyway, what I'm wondering here is, have anyone here got any experience here, and can tell me how I can get the total balance, and confirmations for addresses the easiest way using blockchain.info when a new transaction accurs?  I basically just want to avoid polling, and get some kind of notification of a transaction, and then be able to check the balance and confirm by some amount of confirmations that the transaction is OK.

Thanks,
Chillance

[0.178]

Hey guys and girls,

I was one of those that also lost a sum on the MtGox odeal. And, because who knows when and how much I will ever get back from the loss, I wanted to take action and start something, trying to get some of it back.

I'm also so fed up with all the scam sites out there, so I wanted to create something reliable and trustworthy. Sure, it may take longer earning money when doing it that way, but I'm in it for a long run. Hopefully people will think this is fun and fair so that it can grow with time. Besides, if this keeps giving me some of my lost bitcoins back, I gladly work on it more and keep it up forever.

So, now after more than 2 months of work, I have created what I call "BTC Cake". I'm using Go, Bootstrap, JQuery and among others, BigJS javascript library, to make sure the amount is correct. That is, there should be no rounding errors for real values. However, I'm still in beta, so there is probably still things to fix, which is why I post here. To get feedback and testers. And, maybe even a UI designer. Everything is created by me from scratch! And, I must say that Go is so wonderful to working with. Saved me a lot of time, and, it's so reliable. I love that it's strongly typed, garbage-collected and has explicit support for concurrent programming. Makes it quite perfect for this kind of thing. I really want to make sure everything is calculated correctly.

So, what am I talking about? Well, here is a screenshot of part of the site:

Basically, there is this "cake" where you can bet on a piece/wedge. The result will be based on a secret server salt and users provided salt, which means everybody affects the end result. There will always be a winner, as I only take a small 1% of the winnings. That is, I'm no bank, and the users will get most of the bitcoins. I might add something like some kind of bonus system later on, if this is successful enough. I mean, I can create "bonus" cakes with a chance of winning house money. Anyway, that is for another day.

Note that in the above image I've circled one of the neat features. Here it shows that if that bet of 0.05 BTC is placed, the chance if winning increases from 36.36% to 56.25%, and the user can win 0.03888889 BTC (besides getting his/her initial bet back that is, so total back will be 0.08888889 BTC)

Winning can be quick, depending on the time set, so you don't have to wait for months. Also, cakes can be created by users, so it's up to you what parameters will be set. Also, you can play with play money (PlayBTC) too, so you don't have to use your real bitcoins. I will do something with PlayBTC such as having a timelimit on getting more, so it can't be abused and that it will have a meaning and you just can't get infinite of it. It's free otherwise. This way PlayBTC will have some meaning and it can be fun to play with too.

I will have 2 main ideas going:

• First one is simple. The cake is split into 2-10 wedges (can easily be increased if it will make sense further down the road). Users bet on a wedge, which will in turn increase the change of winning as you can see in the red circles in the image. After time is up, a value is calculated. This is based on a secret server salt, and users provided salts. This means, noone will know what the result will be. I can't cheat as I don't know what users will use and a hash of the "secret salt" is shown when the cake is created, so anyone can see that this never changes. And, users can't cheat, as they don't know what the secret server salt is before the time is up. The resulting value can be confirmed and calculated any time after time is up. I even provide a handy page showing it all. Anyway, this value is used to figure out which wedge won, and the BTC is shared among the winners equally depending on size of bet the user made.
  
  It's cool, because every cake can be created by a user, so if you really want to go crazy and be a chance taker, you can set maximum bets to unlimited, and thus, with a cake with 2 wedges, one wedge can be 0.01 BTC, and the other 10 BTC, giving the one with 10 BTC a 99.90% chance of winning. So, it could be an easy steal for the 10 BTC group. Or, a really lucky 0.01 group sharing 10 BTC. Set limits if you don't dare such cake.
  

• If the cake is full (1 piece/wedge), the idea is this: With the bet, a user provides a number between the range specified. Then, the bets with the value closest to the result wins. Everything shared fairly. As there are some limits you can set on a cake, the sharing among winners can be interesting.
  
  However, I'm not sure how the BTC amount will affect how much that user will get. One idea was to change the "distance" from whatever you think the result will be to the result. However, this makes it so much easier to win if I say made the distance half if you bet double than others. What would be most fair? Obviously, if everybody bets the same amount, it's easier, as the amount won is purely based on the guessed result.
  

So, in my goal in making this fair I have a couple of questions for you guys.

Say we have 2 wedges/pieces, and the range is 0-360. To make it fair it will be like this:

Wedge 1 wins 0-180.
Wedge 2 wins 180-360.

Note though that 180 is shared. Now, since I'm using real numbers, odds for that happening is really really really really low. However, if it happens. Who wins? Wedge 1 or 2?


Same with 3 wedges.

Wedge 1 wins 0-120
Wedge 2 wins 120-240
Wedge 3 wins 240-360

Again, shared winnings. What do you guys say? Who wins at 120? At 240? Again, the chance of that happening is so low it's almost impossible, but still. I want to make it fair!


I'm also not totally sure what amount of BTC will do for the other idea, where you guess the result.

This is how it is currently. Imagine 5 users bets 0.1 BTC each. And we end up with this, sorted by shortest distance in percent (inverted as shorter should give most):

  Pot: 0.5

  User 1:  0.1*1.78 = 0.178 back in total.

  0.322 BTC left in pot.

  User 2: 0.1*1.62 = 0.162 back in total.

  0.16 BTC left in pot.

  User 3: 0.1*1.43 = 0.143 back in total.

  0.017 BTC left in pot.

  User 4: 0.1*1.40 = 0.140, but only 0.017 left so he/she gets all in pot.

  User 5: Gets nothing.

What do you guys think of this? I like this because many get more than initial bet. Note though that this is easy as all bets are the same. But what if user 5 bet 0.2 BTC? What would be most fair?
(Note that my fee isn't withdrawn here yet to make the calculations easier. I prefer doing this way first to make this correct. Then it's easy to just take the fee before doing those steps.)


So, what do you guys think of my project? Feel free to give me comments, suggestions.

Best Regards,
Chillance

Hey guys!

So, I was really first about to ask ocminer (dogepool.net) what is going on with my DOGE coins not ending up on Cryptsy. Thing is, I first send a small amount (by cash out), and then the auto triggered and send a bigger amount. Problem is though, that the second huger amount hasn't arrived at all at Cryptsy. The first one I got "Pending Deposit" for, and did arrive many hours later, but not the second one. Not even "Pending". It's the same address, so I was about to ask if there was a way to figure out what is going on.

However, apparently I have to post something long here first, before I can do anything else on this forum, which is why this post is here. So, I figured, I can ask if anyone here know a way to check amount of confirmations or whatnot for a transaction made. I suppose it could be done when sending from the local client, but if I send directly from the pool to Cryptsy? How to check then? Reason I do this is that I don't want to pay extra for sending first to me, and then a fee to get it to Cryptsy. Seemed unnecessary to me, but maybe this is a lesson that it's better to send to yourself first?

I would like to know what you guys think and how I can investigate further what is going on? It looks fine in the pool, but nothing at Cryptsy...

Edit: Well, that took long enough. I just now noticed the second batch in "Pending" in Cryptsy, so I guess everything will be fine... only took 15+ hours to arrive there...

Still interesting to know what methods there are to see that status of a coin during transfer...

Thanks,
Chillance