|
the reference client does a nice job combining small outputs as inputs to new transactions.
That is, as far as I understand, it makes some effort to minimize the utxo set and the fee the user has to pay at the same time
|
|
|
|
|
Y4ZnZB4PtAZTvKah7ZtnTukgBG718YqvML
|
|
|
|
|
OP, in your scheme "cooperating" citizens don't give any more information to the "interpol" than if they were not part of the mix at all. That is, "interpol" could just as well ask them not to take part in the mix. The only difference they make is that people who want their coins anonymised have more uncertainty as to how many people are using the system for the same purpose.
|
|
|
|
|
The whole reason the block chain exists is to prevent double spends.
If anyone finds a "safe" way to accept 0-conf transactions, without sacrificing any other major features of bitcoin (pseudonimity, decentralisation), this would render bitcoin obsolete - just through away all the blocks in favour of one big pool of unconfirmed transactions.
If you are willing to forgo some of the advantages of bitcoin in order to accept 0-conf, then it becomes easy, for example:
- no pseudonimity: ask a customer to show his ID. If he doublespends, report to police.
- no decentralization: use "green" (trusted) addresses. This is already implemented on some exchanges, and works.
|
|
|
|
great, now 0-balance wallet URLs can be claimed as well. I managed to claim mine. for those still getting 404: copy-paste exactly this: www.instawallet.og/w/xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (with your wallet of course). If you copy-paste something else and then edit (such as removing extra /, as I did when copying the address by parts) then you get 404 |
|
|
|
|
OK I get, there's no form because the balance is 0. This has to be fixed! Boussac, please let those with 0 balance fill the forms, becayse the 0 is wrong for many
|
|
|
|
|
after doing the copy-paste trick the wallet shows up, but there's no form to fill!
Anybody else has the same problem? How is that supposed to work?
|
|
|
|
That's it, the money is "stolen" and I don't think owner is selling his house not because he is moving to Mexico, but because he wants to pay us back. lol.
no need selling a house. We know for sure that they have over 14000 BTC not stolen. Note also that instawallet has been around for years, since the time BTC was under 1$. People were losing their wallets URL during all this time. So lots of wallets with large amounts of BTC are not going to be claimed by legitimate owners. There are many unknowns here: how much wallets were "lost" this way, how much money was stolen, how much info the hacker was able to get... but from my guesstimante, the instawallet owners will have enough funds to pay to all legitimate owners that still have their wallet URLs. |
|
|
|
This. What info could we have that the hacker does not?
I can name at least one : the IP address(es) from where the wallet were usually accessed. He may know the addresses (if they are stored in the database) but he may have some difficulties submitting the claim from one of them. I hope (and I think) that Paymium will watch from where the claims are submitted and in case of doubt (TOR exit, known proxy) they will ask for more details from the one who fills the claim. tough luck then for those that were accessing their wallets through tor |
|
|
|
|
1) do you still have a database of outgoing transactions that were not broadcast?
For several hours before instawallet went offline, outgoing transactions had not been sent
out. Will you be able to process claims for those? (I'm an unlucky owner of one such wallet,
and it held over 50BTC, so I'm worried)
2) there's an additional way to prove ownership of a wallet: sign a message with keys for addresses that
were used to fund a wallet (not everyone has those keys, but some of us do). This can be useful
if more than 1 claim is submitted for the same wallet.
3) can you say how much funds were stolen?
|
|
|
|
|
PE7XUySLQJX3dHcY3CpT8SsRwpw6uLEAsK
|
|
|
|
It's probably that instawallet's 'hot wallet' wasn't large enough to empty all the big ones. Perhaps the hot wallet was drained and that's what tipped them off that there was a problem. Perhaps they refilled it a few times before noticing what was going on. We do know they had a 'cold wallet' which presumably held the majority of the coins.
I don't think the hot wallet was emptied. If you look at the transaction history of their cold wallet, 1FrtkNXastDoMAaorowys27AKQERxgmZjY
you see that 6 transfers totalling 320BTC were made *to* this wallet, just prior to its subsequent evacuation into 1LrPYjto3hsLzWJNstghuwdrQXB96KbrCy (together with bitcoin-central funds). You can also notice that this is a very unusual pattern for them to put money into cold storage: usually it's 1 transaction every few days; not several transactions in quick succession. What is more, among these 6 transactions, is the address of my instawallet, to which I transferred the funds about 6 hours before. (I was unlucky to try to tumble some coins through instawallet in the worst possible moment.) So from this it's quite clear that not all hot-wallet money were stolen. Probably the hacker accessed the database from where it was not supposed to be accessed, and that triggered the alarm. How many URLs he got and how many he tried to empty we don't know. |
|
|
|
Our database was fraudulently accessed,
Actually this doesn't even say that some coins were stolen. This doesn't look good. |
|
|
|
For the first 90 days we will accept claims for individual Instawallets. Your wallet's URL and key will be used to pre-populate a form to file the claim.
After 90 days, if no other claim has been received for the same url, your Instawallet balance under 50 BTC will be refunded. If several claims have been filed for the same url, we will process those claims on a case by case basis, under the presumption that the claim we received first belongs to the legitimate balance holder.
Claims for wallets that hold a balance greater than 50 BTC will be processed on a case by case and best efforts basis.
well, this means losses.  no information how much coins the hacker(s) were able to take. |
|
|
|
|
I'm wondering if I'm the only one who attempted to withdraw my coins from instawallet at the unfortunate day of 01.04?
I was not holding any coins there, but tried to tumble some. I sent the coins in, and as soon as they confirmed tried to withdraw
them. The wallet balance went to 0, but the coins never arrived at destination - the transactions were never broadcast.
Then in about 6-8 hours, instawallet goes down "for maintenance."
I'm afraid I'm even more screwed then those who were just holding their coins on instawallet.
Unless we all lose all, that is.
The coins from my deposit address were tumbled away into instawallet cold storage, and from there
to the address they claim to have "exclusive control" over. So they are probably
not lost. The question is whether I can get them back though.
|
|
|
|
|
those two big withdrawals are still "unconfirmed," for a few hours already. If this was a theft, the BC/instawallet guys should quickly try to doublespend with big fees.
|
|
|
|
|
I think there was a project of using it as a DNS for .onion domains.
It seemed to be an appropriate application, and potentially very useful.
I don't know what became of it though.
|
|
|
|
|
rJ4Kr1h6zNCToKH1LBGu7vWQTpiAjXbUqS
|
|
|
|
|
I'd imagine any sane person running a bitcoin client in Iran would do it through tor.
So those 9 or whatever points are probably not telling you much about btc adoption.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
