Bitcoin needs to have 5 second confirm times, yeah you heard me right. (you ARE trying to CUT OUT middle men, not CREATE them RIGHT?)
...
Why don't you use your professional googling skills and look up why we can't have 5 second confirmation times. |
|
|
|
The Ethereum is in the correction phase at the moment. The price is below $10 now. I hope it is not dumped.
I wont be surprised if it goes down to 0.0018 BTC or less. That could happen. The price always overshoots. If the Ethereum is developed properly, the price will recover. The price is almost 0.018 now. It could go down further. I might average down in the next few weeks. The price could go even lower. The price is 0.017 now. So it is still going lower. Hope it will go up soon. I think by the end of April, don't be surprised if you see the price close to 0.008. The whales are moving on. |
|
|
|
Why speculate when you can ask this question directly?  |
|
|
|
Hello
i have 1 question.
Suppose i use two electrum wallets on two different machines one offline and one online.If i use offline machine to just sign transactions via electrum and then transfer the signed transaction to the online electr wallet on another PC for broadcasting.Am i safe?
Do i risk getting my bitcoins stolen?Can my private keys leak? and if so how's that possible?
If the wallet on the online machine is watch only, if you are not using a virtual machine and electrum the keys will not leak. There is always the risk that someone will break in and take the offline machine. A virus will most likely not reach the offline machine. No as i said i am not using a virtual machine. I am using a completely different PC that's running linux and my online watch online wallet is on different PC running windows so would i be at risk of this attack mentioned by the OP in this thread? or any other attack? The fact that you are signing on a offline wallet/computer, and then pushing that sighed tx on an online wallet/computer is irrelevant to the issue johoe is addressing. What you have done with your setup is attempt to prevent your offline wallet/computer from being compromised from malware and other malicious programs. Your setup it best for cold storage and etc. Very simply, the r-value issue talked about in this thread is related to when, in the tx signing process, there is a fundamental error within the wallet's code (usually random number generators not being random), which causes the potential of patterns to be seen when looking at all of that addresses output txs. A hacker or etc can potentially backwards engineer the private key for that address, thus stealing your btc. As a rule to prevent this: (1) use a wallet program that is known to be reliable, tested, and etc. (2) never send more than 30 txs out of a specific address, since a pattern could develop over time. (2) always, as habit, try to always use a new address after each tx (changes addresses, etc). The above "rules" are steps to help prevent this from happening. But i am using 1 address from years having transactions more then 100 on the same address. It's blockchain.info anddress.I never faced such issue that someone steals my bitcoin by backtracking the private key.Anyways,if I use electrum the RNG of electrum is reliable? The r issue from to multiple output txs (30 or more) is related to how many txs you sent out
from your address, not coming into it. As the number of txs (above 30) that leave your wallet increase, potentially it is easier for someone to find a pattern, and ultimately figure out your private key. This is a known issue with address reuse and that is why it is advised to use a new address after each tx. I do not personally know Electrum and its RNG, but it is widely used and respected. Others could chime in on this, but I believe it will be fine for you. And do yourself a favor and get a new address. |
|
|
|
Hello
i have 1 question.
Suppose i use two electrum wallets on two different machines one offline and one online.If i use offline machine to just sign transactions via electrum and then transfer the signed transaction to the online electr wallet on another PC for broadcasting.Am i safe?
Do i risk getting my bitcoins stolen?Can my private keys leak? and if so how's that possible?
If the wallet on the online machine is watch only, if you are not using a virtual machine and electrum the keys will not leak. There is always the risk that someone will break in and take the offline machine. A virus will most likely not reach the offline machine. No as i said i am not using a virtual machine. I am using a completely different PC that's running linux and my online watch online wallet is on different PC running windows so would i be at risk of this attack mentioned by the OP in this thread? or any other attack? The fact that you are signing on a offline wallet/computer, and then pushing that sighed tx on an online wallet/computer is irrelevant to the issue johoe is addressing. What you have done with your setup is attempt to prevent your offline wallet/computer from being compromised from malware and other malicious programs. Your setup it best for cold storage and etc. Very simply, the r-value issue talked about in this thread is related to when, in the tx signing process, there is a fundamental error within the wallet's code (usually random number generators not being random), which causes the potential of patterns to be seen when looking at all of that address's output txs. A hacker or etc can potentially backwards engineer the private key for that address, thus stealing the btc. As a rule to prevent this: (1) use a wallet program that is known to be reliable, tested, and etc. (2) never send more than 30 txs out of a specific address, since a pattern could develop over time. (2) always, as habit, try to always use a new address after each tx (changes addresses, etc). The above "rules" are steps to help prevent this from happening. |
|
|
|
Things has been developing and changing over time.
Quantem entanglement theroy has now proved inaccurate and it is now also confimred by the scientists.
Bitcoin has always been involved in new innovations.
Can you provide a link to the scientific papers that the physics community are relying upon for this reversal, Bitcoinpro? Or should I expect more postings with you alts? |
|
|
|
its not a story i got a high distinction in university for advanced mathematics  |
|
|
|
...
 |
|
|
|
Quantum entanglent is made up
Quantum entanglement has been long known and provable since the 1940s. |
|
|
|
In bitcoin transaction the fee is paid by sender exactly opposite of PayPal where receiver pays the fee or is deducted from the amount he receives.Can it be possible in bitcoin too?Is there a way in bitcoin transaction that fee is deducted from or paid by receiver?
In Bitcoin, a fee is paid to the miner as incentive to include the unconfirmed transaction, into their next found block. There is no way to actually have the "receiver pay the miner's fee" as to how Bitcoin actually works. As said by other users above, to effectively do what you are inquiring of, you would need to still include the miner's fee, but reduce the total amount of bitcoins (by the miner's fee amount) that you wish to send to the receiver. So simply, you would be shortchanging the receiver and advise them that you deduced the miner's fee from what was owed. |
|
|
|
...
EDIT: To prove ownership, you can sign a message with 1HGXq5Spi6NNXFKuQFfDDcYZmzTczKJi4b. This address doesn't seem to be compromised yet. Note that this address has also been exposed and should not be used any more.
After looking at some of the tx going into and out of one of the compromised addresses, it seems to me (but of course in Bitcoin we can never really know), the address's connections may have some associations with a few different darknet markets. So, if the above is true, I assume we will never hear from the true owner of the compromised addresses and learn what was the wallet used and the cause of this reuse issue. |
|
|
|
Headline should really be: "Craig Wright claims to be Satoshi Nakamoto and returns to sell out Bitcoin to the corrupt financial system." |
|
|
|
Newbie post a link to simple looking website asking for coins... seems legit.
Though your skepticism and caution is justified, that site is the "official" bitcoincore website. See the Github here: https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoincore.org |
|
|
|
OP_RETURN is a special operation primarily used to record information in the blockchain. blockchain.info is unable to parse the transaction because it doesn't conform to any transaction template that blockchain.info understands. This is correct. The user is probably adding messages into the blockchain. There used to be a site where I could read all the messages, but I can't find the link now. |
|
|
|
possibly sending bitcoin from the earliest possible wallet, which I think is the coins generated in the 1st block after the genesis block. I suppose it still dosn't prove identity, but it would be pretty impressive.....  It would definitely add to some credibility, but I would prefer that Satoshi didn't move any of his coins. If he did that, it could cause unknown effects on the bitcoin economy that may be irreversible. I do not believe the real Satoshi Nakamoto would want to destroy users investments and his experiment. If Bitcoin/bitcoin should fail and die, it should do so on its own merits, and not by the creators hand. Such an intervention, to me, seems counter to what Satoshi created Bitcoin/bitcoin for. Craig Wright has purportedly made statements that he: "wants to take control of bitcoin back".
...
If Satoshi registered that domain himself,he must have given his personal info to domain registrar (a prerequisite to register any domain).Does it means,that domain registrar has information about Satoshi?
Satoshi most likely used a VPN and TOR. In addition, he used an anon website registration service, see Theymos quote below. |
|
|
|
Oh god, here we go again... So who are the funds in the hot wallet from? Exchange fees?
It was most likely exchange fees plus their own personal btc held for when users "shapeshift" an altcoin to btc. It is not individual users btc, except maybe for those users that transactions were pending at the time. |
|
|
|
How to evaluate a claim that a certain person is Satoshi Nakamoto
...
I believe this is the correct path by which we should determine the truth in these situations. This is a fair and understandable approach that the community and media should be guided by. Good work. |
|
|
|
... Thoughts?
...
Word on the street is no one in the bitcoin community who is actually respectable gives a shit. This happens every 3 months or so and now we are waiting for this one's "big reveal". Someone should tweet the writer of this article and thank him for another copy & paste story. |
|
|
|
At that price you could also sell an unlimited number of coins. He is likely just buying them as he sells. A common practice on localbitcoins.
The trade limit at Localbitcoin cannot be set to any price unless you have enough bitcoin to covers it at your localbitcoin wallet. If not, The maximum trade will adjust to the value of the Localbitcoin wallet balance. e.g. if you selling bitcoin at $420 and you have 10 bitcoin at your Localbitcoin wallet, and you set the maximum trade limit to 10,000, Localbitcoin website will adjust your maximum trade limit to $4200 because you don't have enough bitcoin to cover your maximum limit. I'm not sure that is true. I think whatever trade limits you set will be visable in your ad, whether you have the funds or not. But if I am incorrect, then that localbitcoin users is stupid for keeping that many bitcoins within their system. He is asking for trouble. |
|
|
|
...
This was very well researched and discussed a few months ago, search the forum you'll find more information about this hoax.
Yes. A few months back there was much discussion about him, and much, if not all, was debunked. He claimed to be Satoshi Nakamoto to the Australian government to explain his bitcoins that may or may not have originated from ransomware payments. He claims to be one of the first miners. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
