Bitcoin Forum
January 19, 2022, 05:44:06 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 22.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 »
1  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: IOTA manual claims tracker (UNOFFICIAL) on: April 12, 2018, 09:12:26 PM
k_day and superresistant, are you guys still without your iota? Are you List 1? I am List 1 and also still without receipt of my iota.
2  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: IOTA manual claims tracker (UNOFFICIAL) on: February 19, 2018, 06:48:47 PM
Can someone tell me what is this finalization letter?
I didn't receive it, I am in list 1 and I did everything, including the KYC verification with CfB but my address is still empty.
Thanks

I am also a list 1 claimant. As of now, my status is the same as yours.
3  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: IOTA manual claims tracker (UNOFFICIAL) on: February 13, 2018, 03:46:18 PM
@cfb what about the other 19 doing everything as demanded? Any update for us? Any chance to be included in the actual reclaim distribution?

You should ask David.

Why is this an, "I dunno, ask David" thing? In June of 2016 I was told by both CfB and David that as long as I have my seed, I have my funds and will be able to claim them by July 2017.

I sincerely appreciate that CfB actually responds to messages, unlike David. But why should this rest entirely in David's hands and the other part of the Iota team take a stance of 'I dunno, it's not in my control'?

Dom doesn't seem to even be aware of list 1 Claims. And CfB takes a good guy bad guy stance. Are you guys not all part of the same Iota team?

I don't know, ask David? CfB, you know darn well that David despises every whiny passive investor who, in his mind, has done nothing to contribute and only complains about things. You know darn well that he won't respond to us.

If it is out of your hands, well, as part of the Iota team, why will not YOU ask David for us, and report to us some sort of status or plan on this? Don't you guys talk about other aspects of the project, for development purposes? Why is this different?
4  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: IOTA manual claims tracker (UNOFFICIAL) on: November 25, 2017, 05:55:58 PM
perhaps it is useful  Roll Eyes
5  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: IOTA manual claims tracker (UNOFFICIAL) on: November 19, 2017, 10:04:03 PM
I've been running the reclaim tool for a couple of hours now, it's still in the process of sending.

Change the node

And make sure Wallet >> tools >> "edit node configuration" >> min weight magnitude = 14

What seemed to work for me was changing Curl Implementation...
change to CCurl
6  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: IOTA manual claims tracker (UNOFFICIAL) on: November 14, 2017, 05:46:52 PM
For list 1 claimants with shorter and lowercase seeds...

I converted to uppercase and added 9's to the end of it to fill to new seed length of 81 characters. It seems some have just converted to uppercase.

Maybe it is likely that either is fine, but does anyone have a definitive answer?

I did successfully get through reveal phase to "Any reclaimed tokens will be sent to your address shown below. For security reasons, do not spend from this address until you receive all your funds." As of now, balance still shows 0.
7  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: IOTA manual claims tracker (UNOFFICIAL) on: November 01, 2017, 07:03:55 PM
I finally did get a confirmation. It took less than 10 minutes...

I tried a different computer, that didn't solve it.

I think what it was is switching the Curl Implementation. Apparently Webgl 2 uses the graphics card but may not work on some computers, or so I gather.

I switched to CCurl. Hitting Save and then attempting to reattach was not enough, it still wouldn't confirm...

For anyone having the same problem, I think it may be necessary to switch to CCurl, then Save, then close and restart the wallet and start the Recovery Tool process over again.

I now have a hash that shows Status Confirmed on the tangle explorer iotasear.ch/hash

Hopefully this helps anyone with the same issue.
8  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: IOTA manual claims tracker (UNOFFICIAL) on: November 01, 2017, 02:10:09 AM
redecision, did you get past "Proof transaction pending" to a confirmation?

I've tried to Reattach 5 different times (after letting sit for a couple hours), trying 4 different Hosts, over the last 30 hours and cannot get past "Proof transaction pending".

I'm on List 1.

I'm wondering if others have received confirmation, or see a Status on iotasear.ch/hash that shows confirmation.

My Status, when searching the hash, shows "Failed - Invalid".

(using Light Wallet 2.5.3 on Windows 10 64, switched original seed to Upper Case, and appended with 9's to 81 characters)
9  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Best way to explain to someone how private key is not exposed... on: January 14, 2016, 07:37:39 PM
I think the part she really got stuck on, the part where I couldn't give a good enough answer, was:

"Well if I have to enter my "password" to spend it, then somebody is gonna be able to see it, right?"

Of course, this perspective is coming from the way that we trust a centralized party, who stores our password, to log-in to an online account of some sort, where it is decently likely that the centralized party does indeed know, or have the ability to retrieve, one's password.
10  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Best way to explain to someone how private key is not exposed... on: January 14, 2016, 12:09:41 AM
What is a good analogy to use to explain to someone who is new to Bitcoin?

I attempted by trying to say that it's like a combination lock; where you first assume the lock is only usable if it's unlocked. You can pass the lock around, publicly, and nobody can use it, everyone can see it. Then, when it comes time to spend it (use it), it's only the owner of the key that knows the key, and it can be taken out of public (offline) unlocked, then put back into public and used (spent). In this example, the key is never at risk of being exposed in public.

Does someone have a better or cleaner analogy to use to explain to someone (ehhm, my 60 year old mother)?
11  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: "Pseudo anonymous" on: August 07, 2015, 05:54:08 PM
When you say "my address" (not plural), I wonder if you are aware of the fact that you can have as many different addresses as you like? Completely unlinked and unrelated to eachother?
I'm pretty sure they aren't "completely unlinked and unrelated to eachother".

But a coin will either be anonymous or transparent (or the option to choose one or the other per-transaction); no in-between. Is that not a correct statement?
No. For example, here are a few 100% transparent transactions.



The 2 BTC on the left was mine. Now, which addresses on the right still belong to me? Nobody can tell.

Note that pretty much all wallets are HD nowadays. There is no mixing or other obfuscation trickery at play here, this is just normal default wallet behavior.

Quote
Convince me why I shouldn't be concerned about lack of anonymity.
I hope the above picture explains why this is completely infeasible. Still, if you're really paranoid, you might look at Monero's cryptonote protocol. That's 100% anonymity built in right there.

To me, the diagram you show actually depicts exactly what I'm concerned about. I understand that with zero information it doesn't directly enable someone to immediately lookup the name of the owner of the addresses and identify the transactions. But, does it not just become a matter of piecing the puzzle together, filling-in known information, and then some deduction that reveals the missing information?

So, as a holder of a bunch of different addresses, over time, as information becomes known about the other addresses in the tree, then my unknown addresses, through deduction, become more and more known, closer and closer to 100% known. Does not this imply that I would have to keep a constant monitor of my addresses to check, today, how "compromised" my anonymity is?

Right now, today, pseudo anonymous is very close to anonymous, and very far from 100% transparent. In the future pseudo anonymous approaches 100% transparency. No?
12  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / "Pseudo anonymous" on: August 06, 2015, 09:59:54 PM
"Pseudo anonymous" as it relates to cryptocurrency seems a silly term to me. We might not see it right in front of us now, but in a future world that uses crypto as accepted day-to-day currency, the idea that full-financial-transparency would be accepted and adopted widely... It just seems absurd to me.

It's reasonable right now, it kind-of works at the level of transactions that Bitcoin is currently used for, and it works because of the lack of useful tools widely available to view transaction records. But the future would have websites where anyone could lookup anyone elses full transaction history, their entire spending and earning life.

The only "pseudo" part about it right now is there because of the lack of tools currently made available. But a coin will either be anonymous or transparent (or the option to choose one or the other per-transaction); no in-between. Is that not a correct statement?

The "mixing" solution is just a work-around.

Is there really the need to explain all the reasons why a world where every person, every business, every transaction in the world is made available to public view would just never work, never be widely accepted and adopted? It has nothing to do with enabling criminal activity. It has a lot to do with disabling the ability for the criminal to acquire targets.

Currently, our fiat transactions, aside from physical cash-to-hand, they are "kind-of" safeguarded by the centralized banking system, in-terms of some level of anonymity. You can't walk into the bank and ask the teller to show you your neighbor's financial transactions of last week. In the de-centralized dream many of us hope for, there will be no central authority to keep some necessary level of privacy. Anonymity must be built-in to the currency.

Sure this might sound like some pro-alt-coin rant, sure this idea was prompted by reading about some alt-coin features; but I'm not here to promote anything or bash Bitcoin. I don't have enough understanding of everything out there to convince myself they're not all scam pump-n-dump schemes, so I stay away. But, for months, I've been constantly thinking about what might be wrong with Bitcoin, why might it fail, what will it take to be adopted more widely? I want it to all be great and good and the future. I worry about the centralized mining concern. I try to educate myself on these type of potential walls that the technology might run into. Convince me why I shouldn't be concerned about lack of anonymity.
13  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Please explain to me the risk of leaving coin in an online wallet. on: July 23, 2015, 04:52:43 AM
Thank you guys for replying. There are some very informative comments; probably nothing of ground-breaking news to some of the Bitcoin vets on here, but I gained some knowledge and it has spurred some thought.

I acknowledge the "beauty of Bitcoin" is that it can be held, and it can be transferred, without any need for the trust in a 3rd party (bank or escrow). Basically it has the exact same benefits as cash-money-benjamins with the large added benefit of being able to send any amount almost instantaneously across the world (again, with no bank). This is amazing, it is. And it is the first thing I attempt to explain to one of my poker friends when they ask about Bitcoin. They say that you can basically do the same thing now with your online banking app, and I then attempt to explain how different, how beautiful it is to be able to do that, with no need for trust, with no need for a bank, with no government deciding when to add to the supply and indirectly impose tax-via-inflation on us all, etc.

You can tell me that "the best way to keep your Bitcoin secure is to keep a paper wallet (or an offline wallet)", yes, in the same way that (if I don't trust the bank) the best way to keep my stacks of cash-money-benjamins secure is to keep them in a fire-proof safe in my house. But neither of those options, for Bitcoin or for cash-money-benjis, plays very well towards the utility of the currency; plays very well towards the widespread adoption.

Where I'm coming from is this: These poker buddies of mine, the ones that have heard the buzz-word "Bitcoin", they represent the vast majority of people out there right now, "the curious ones". And I know for the tech-minded, it is not really that difficult to obtain, and hold secure, and use, Bitcoin. But for this group that represents the vast majority of potential users, it is too difficult and too easy for them to be scared away. It's far easier for them to use traditional banking with USD/fiat and the tools already there to do what they perceive as the exact same thing (an electronic transfer of funds).

But...

Once you've gone through the hassle of exchanging from USD to BTC, once you've got an address with some BTC in it, using an online wallet, like GreenAddress (or the handful of others out there), is ridiculously simple, user friendly; done right on my iPhone. The interface, information, and functionality of this GreenAddress iPhone app is super-clean, super easy to use and to explain to one of these curious friends. I can even show them, by giving, and transferring them some bits, how cool it is; their eyes widen, and they love it! (again, not trying to sell anything, I promise)

The problem is: I cannot confidently, or correctly, tell them that they could leave any significant amount of money in this online wallet without the huge risk of it being stolen. All of the intrigue, beauty of this whole thing, to them, they hear this and it's now instantaneously too risky, too complicated to keep their funds secure. Result: they don't buy-in.

Coinbase has implemented their "Vault" as a response towards the concern of trusting a third party with one's significant amount of coin holding. I'll be honest in saying that I haven't completely looked into exactly how it works, and decided if it truly is secure enough to hold a significant amount long-term, but the fact that there is huge effort out there happening to address the concerns and build the infrastructure is, of-course, intriguing.

GreenAddress (and I think some other online wallets) have started to utilize multi-sig (which I now understand there are actually two types; 2of2 and 2of3), and nLockTime, and pre-signed off-chain transactions (correct??) to build-in some pretty neat attempts at increased user control, decreased need for third-party trust. If GreenAddress disappears, I can still get all of my coin back! That is pretty sweet, no? Is it at the level where I can fully trust and transparently see that my coin is at zero-risk of being stolen? Probably not. It'd be interesting to hear more feedback from tryexcept (GreenAddress founder) on this.

It maybe is a technically impossible feat, to create a transparently-provable-zero-trust-necessary-online-wallet, but I guaranty that if it is created the result would be adoption, and to-the-moon, as you guys say.
14  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Please explain to me the risk of leaving coin in an online wallet. on: July 17, 2015, 11:29:44 PM
So I'm a poker player. I first heard of Bitcoin when it was at about $5.00, because of online poker. I ignored it and didn't research and really learn about it until the Dec 2013 peak. I'll be honest, the initial intrigue to me came about from all of the "get rich quick" stories, the famous $10M pizza order, things like that. I bought a good chunk at several different times, during and after the MtGox stuff was playing out. But, until recently, I never really used it for anything, never even transferred from one wallet to another.

I don't intend to install complicated software on my computer. I'm certainly capable of diving in, doing things the hard way, and learning how to do it this way, and I certainly appreciate the beauty of the fact that Bitcoin doesn't require the trust of a third party. But what has got me super-re-intrigued again was when I decided to use GreenAddress to receive a transfer of coin. I promise you that I have zero affiliation with that company, and I'm not here to spam or advertise. I researched different online wallets; someone had posted a link to a site that lists the comparative differences between the popular wallets (maybe someone can post that link again)...

What I'm trying to say, in a long way here, is that by using this wallet, I finally see, in a tangible way, the amazing and simple utility that Bitcoin can have. Sure, everyone on here talks about all these complicated nuances of the way it technically works, argues over an understanding of the intricacies, but the bottom-line, for most of the remaining potential market, the future users of Bitcoin, it has got to be simple-to-use, and it has got to have a high perceived sense of security.

It appears to me that GreenAddress has gone a long way to attempt to provide a high sense of security, utilizing the multi-party addresses, the ones where the address starts with a "3" instead of a "1" (maybe someone can explain better than me), and this "nLockTime" which gives you sole access to your coins if GreenAddress goes away.

So, what I am wondering, and hoping someone can further explain to me, what are the basic risks to leaving any relatively significant amount of coin in an online wallet, such as GreenAddress, for any long period of time? Is the risk someone hacking into their servers and gaining access to your coins? Does this multi-party address resolve that concern? Is it the risk of GreenAddress having fraudulent internal compromises? Is it the risk of them no-longer being around in the future? I totally understand that the safest way to hold coin is to have a "paper wallet", but what are the specific... or what is the most likely way that an online wallet would be stolen, my private key exposed?
15  Economy / Service Discussion / Tell me about Gliph on: February 11, 2015, 01:17:52 AM
I hold bitcoin with Coinbase. Attempt to put aside the larger discussion over the long-term safety of trusting any third party with one's bitcoin and I think that Coinbase is a huge step towards opening the door for the not-as-tech-savvy user to obtain, hold, and use bitcoin. I know that this is not new groundbreaking news.

Gliph just released a major update to the iOS app. I'm intrigued about Gliph. It seems to me that the idea and simplicity of it (basically enabling an easy way to text message "money" to someone without a bank involved) is another giant step towards wider-spread adoption. I would like to know opinions or experience regarding the safety of logging into your Coinbase account via the Gliph app, or via Gliph on the web. And I would like to hear your opinion on Gliph in general.

I have yet to actually use Gliph. And I'm not affiliated in any way.
16  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Why I see bitcoin as a ponzi scheme on: December 23, 2014, 05:12:45 AM
All the money, in the end, is a consensus and protocol among its users. A child will not accept gold in exchange of his candy, since for him that consensus has not been reached.

It will take a long time to form a widely accepted consensus of bitcoin's payment and wealth store function.

Excellent. Copy, paste, save.
17  Bitcoin / Wallet software / iPhone Wallets on: June 19, 2014, 04:34:18 PM
I haven't seen much feedback about Coin Pocket. Talk to me. It looks simple enough. Can I trust it?

Other iPhone Wallets?

I've got poker tonight. They're used to hearing me talk about Bitcoin (probably sick of hearing it). But I need to show my not-so-tech-savvy iPhone buddies a tangible real world utility example of some bitcoin action.
18  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / One (future) bitcoin should be equivalent to one (current) µBTC on: May 15, 2014, 06:07:19 PM
I know it's been a topic going back for a while now; basically where the decimal point is. This whole debate over deciding what everyone should call a µBTC is, of course, driven by the fact that the decimal is in a poor location when it comes to easing the adoption of more-and-more not-so-mathematically-inclined people.

I think the two following points are givens for anyone pondering this issue: 1) Even for a decently mathematical person, it takes a few moments longer to double-check things when working on the right side of the decimal. There is more potential for human error when not working with a smaller base unit. 2) The silly perception that "one bitcoin is so expensive" is, no doubt, also hurting the adoption rate.

For a while there, it seemed that many were focusing on "what should we call 1 mBTC". I think it is wise that we are looking potentially even further ahead, and attempting to decide "what should we call 1 µBTC".

I think most agree that the best name we have for any unit of Bitcoin is "bitcoin". And by "best", I mean the name that even people who have maybe just begun to hear "Bitcoin", or what a cryptocurrency is, can very easily relate to. The problem is that the name "bitcoin" is already taken (widely accepted) by what is a relatively large unit (1/13,000,000 of all in existence, 1/21,000,000 of all that will ever be). Yes, one-thirteen-millionth is a very large unit in this case; too large for the majority of practical discussions for buying and selling goods or services.

I realize that all that I have said so-far is fairly elementary for most of you concerned about this. I'm just attempting to summarize what is driving this whole "naming" issue we face. I do believe that it is a problem, and I do believe it is hindering the potential further adoption of Bitcoin.

As far as naming a µBTC, I'm all-in-favor of simply what will roll off the tongue best, and so I lean towards "bit", regardless of the concern that it is already a unit of measurement for data. However, I still do not think this is ideal. I think that, ideally, "bits" would just be the slang term people would use instead of saying the more proper word, "bitcoins", and that they would be of equivalent size to one-another.

Because of the great decentralization of Bitcoin, we face a huge problem in implementing any sort of change to what has become the current standards. The only real current standards being the metric prefix system of naming. This metric system of naming is great and fine to have for formal use, it is universal, and should and will remain. But it is really very poor for actual practical casual usage and discussion (the like-minded goal we all have).

The potential way of attempting to implement any naming change (or naming addition), that I heard discussed, would be to attempt to name a future date, such as Jan 1, 2015, and see if by then we could get enough of the players on-board to work the name change into the GUI of much of the supporting software out there; the exchange fronts, merchant sites, etc. I'm not too savvy on it, but I don't think this involves changing the actual calculations that go on in the backend, just the unit in which things are displayed. It is still a huge challenge to get towards any consensus, this I do realize.

In my opinion, we should acknowledge what we preach; that we are still in the relative infancy of Bitcoin. And that we should shoot for what really is ideal.

Conclusion (and for TL;DR)
Ideally (IMO) one current µBTC should be one BTC. One current (2014) micro-bitcoin should be equal to one (2015) bitcoin. The market cap should be (effectively) 13 trillion BTC (rather than 13 million BTC).

A) Ignoring the difficulty of implementation, is this not ideal? If it is not ideal, explain why.

B) Is it just too difficult, approaching impossible, to really implement?
19  Economy / Speculation / Re: What spurs the next run? on: April 18, 2014, 10:36:20 AM
...The average person who had heard of btc has only heard negative things about it; hacks, stolen coins, drugs, nerds, etc.

Nerds are a negative?  Angry

The average coolguy secretly envies the nerd's intelligence and would love to profit from all of the nerd's hard work without much real effort or understanding. So, I list Bitcoin's association with "nerds" as a positive thing.

What really is going to be a driving factor towards greater adoption is when these nerds implement ways to make it simple for the coolguy (average idiot) to figure out what buttons to press on coolguy's smart phone to actually use these fricken things. Word on the street is that the nerds are working on this  Cool
20  Economy / Gambling / Re: BTCprince.com - Play or Invest (1% House Edge) on: March 16, 2014, 06:46:26 PM
Isn't it "Quadruple" not "Quadriple"?!

No upper limit?! Even the Bellagio has a max bet.
Pages: [1] 2 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!