Bitcoin Forum
January 17, 2019, 07:59:28 AM *
News: The copper membership price will increase by about 300% around Friday.
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 [66] 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 ... 550 »
1301  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Fork November: Ledger wallet in "Legacy" or "Segwit" to get free coins? on: October 02, 2017, 02:01:58 PM
Ok so from what I've gathered and please someone confirm if this is correct, this is how you get ready for a hardfork:

1 ) Get all of your coins in legacy format addresses (the ones that begin with 1 that is)
No need to do that. Segwit2x is not disabling segwit.

6 ) Your wallet.dat is now empty
7 ) Move this empty wallet.dat into a full node client of the forked chain
8 ) Once you sync it, your coins will show up there
No, that will probably confuse the btc1 client. You should make and have a backup of your wallet.dat before you moved your coins and use that backup with the btc1 client after the fork.
1302  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Hitman Pro malware alert pops up after update to 0.15.01 on: October 02, 2017, 01:59:40 PM
Bitcoin Core often triggers malware alerts because it looks for a wallet.dat file (as it needs to to function) and contains mining logic in it. People have also intentionally flagging Bitcoin Core as a virus in many antivirus software in an attempt to get users to not use Bitcoin Core and to discredit it. If you have verified the download, then this warning is a false positive and you should ignore it.
1303  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Dumping private key from hex on: October 02, 2017, 02:40:02 AM
ok here what i did . sound like there some confusion here let's clear it out .

i created a new doge wallet DTBZuzsFoXxNu1gUPiwL7Yu64atUcsk7Tm .
Then dumpprivkey DTBZuzsFoXxNu1gUPiwL7Yu64atUcsk7Tm -- > QNoGCcEp6R86Ag5SNPoxVGkXMAx3L2Dedv6BkKJzCEoPSJzE8oLV
Then went here : https://walletgenerator.net/
This site show private key hex as : 0578AA4071328241247763B63134918892FFDA1E3C1DFE402F0A01D623B3FB97
opened hex editor searching for the string :
i found the string , as i said above all doge wallet private key has a start hex of 3081D30201010420   .

3081D30201010420 0578AA4071328241247763B63134918892FFDA1E3C1DFE402F0A01D623B3FB97


now when i do a base58 decode of the private key (QNoGCcEp6R86Ag5SNPoxVGkXMAx3L2Dedv6BkKJzCEoPSJzE8oLV)  here is what i get :

9E 0578AA4071328241247763B63134918892FFDA1E3C1DFE402F0A01D623B3FB97 (0134CC212A)


Here is the same procedure for another wallet :
New wallet : D6Rka31SFm8PnN2Cs9QWj5YcfzRpkXx6fw
Then dumpprivkey D6Rka31SFm8PnN2Cs9QWj5YcfzRpkXx6fw -- > QQToBX1SQBSuZo8ijsTLyL7cx9gn9QjK8s7XCBHXy8AUF2om1tNs
Then went here : https://walletgenerator.net/
This site show private key hex as : 3721D639228B9215C6BFF746CA163391CDBADB8566FC8FECB74871E8FAA24FE7
opened hex editor searching for the string :
i found the string , as i said above all doge wallet private key has a start hex of 3081D30201010420   .

3081D30201010420  3721D639228B9215C6BFF746CA163391CDBADB8566FC8FECB74871E8FAA24FE7

now when i do a base58 decode of the private key (QNoGCcEp6R86Ag5SNPoxVGkXMAx3L2Dedv6BkKJzCEoPSJzE8oLV)  here is what i get :
9E 3721D639228B9215C6BFF746CA163391CDBADB8566FC8FECB74871E8FAA24FE7 (015B6ADEE0)


I hope that you get the point all that i need now is to generate this (015B6ADEE0 or 0134CC212A ) for my own wallet .
I see. And where did the 2B come from?

Anyways, I see the problem. The 01 is actually part of the payload (i.e. the private key). It is a flag byte that signals that the private key should be used with a compressed public key. So the bytes you actually hash is
Code:
9E3721D639228B9215C6BFF746CA163391CDBADB8566FC8FECB74871E8FAA24FE701
Hashing those as bytes with sha256d (you can use a tool like http://www.fileformat.info/tool/hash.htm) yields the following hash:
Code:
5b6adee01d509671a81c129ab5395c906df775bb0520a633e862a62c76458f20
The first 4 bytes of that hash matches the checksum that you need: 5b6adee0
1304  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Re: Will it be possible to split SegWit2x coins from the current network? on: October 02, 2017, 02:08:36 AM
Yes. You can use the methods that involve double spending with different value fees, using locktimed transactions to split, and taint with outputs from coinbase transactions. These methods work to taint your coins to split them when no replay protection is available.
1305  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Dumping private key from hex on: October 02, 2017, 02:04:32 AM
so  should do checksum (sha256(sha256 (0x2b) and private key in hex) ) ?
Almost. Private key as bytes.

could please tell on the example above how to do exactly , i almost tried every combination , still  can't get the 0134CC212A
You are probably hashing it as a string, not as bytes.

Also, what led you to think that you need to prepend 2b and what led you to think that you need to append 0134CC212A? What makes you think that 3081D30201010420 signals the start of a private key? What makes you think that 0578AA4071328241247763B63134918892FFDA1E3C1DFE402F0A01D623B3FB97 is your private key in hex?

From what I can find, the byte you need to prepend is 0x9e. 0134CC212A does not match the 4 byte checksum for Base58 Check encoding as it is 5 bytes. The private key should also be much longer as unencrypted private keys are stored in the super long form DER format.
1306  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Dumping private key from hex on: October 02, 2017, 12:54:05 AM
Hello
could you please explain , what is the payload of private key or how to get it ?
The payload is the private key. The hex private key that you have represents the bytes of the private key. That is the payload.
1307  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Dumping private key from hex on: October 01, 2017, 11:54:48 PM
The hex you are looking for is a checksum. It is the first four bytes of the sha256 double hash of the version byte (0x2b) and the payload (your private key). This process is known as Base 58 Check encoding and you can read about it here: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Base58Check_encoding
1308  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Node gets stalled stop receiving connections on: October 01, 2017, 11:52:34 PM
Post more of your debug.log. The snippet you posted is likely to be irrelevant and does not provide enough information.
1309  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: pow change to fight off segwit2x attack? on: October 01, 2017, 03:58:39 PM
But there is a very likely scenario that Segwit2x will not be supported by the majority of users.
Yes, but the only scenario where Core makes a PoW change is if miners decide to stick to mining segwit2x while the rest of the community uses Bitcoin. If miners choose to not follow the users and don't switch their hashrate back to Bitcoin, then and only then would a PoW change be done.
1310  Bitcoin / Armory / Re: Looking ahead to the next ill-advised hard fork.... on: October 01, 2017, 01:04:21 AM
... This piece of the puzzle is easy and already well-understood. I had assumed that btc1 was going to insist on it's forking-block being over 4MB in weight, a simple and elegant solution to the wipeout risk.... They couldn't possibly be stupid enough to not do that, could they?
I believe that that is their plan, but there isn't a spec for anything that they are doing and that plan may not actually happen as they hoped so. Jeff Garzik has been repeatedly confused by/conflating block weight and block size such that the first time he tried to increase the maximum block size in btc1, he failed to do so because he had changed some constant related to block size not block weight. A lot of things in btc1 seem to be related to block size rather than block weight which is very stupid as segwit defines the limit by block weight and not size. So I wouldn't be surprised if Jeff Garzik failed to properly write code that makes a block have a weight greater than 4 million because he was thinking of things in terms of size rather than weight.
1311  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Re: Each wallet address unique or identical address in different currency exchanges? on: October 01, 2017, 12:56:44 AM
It seems that all this could be avoided if the addresses started with the symbol to identify the correct currency or at least the beginning of each currency should always be different than other currencies. This seems like a major flaw in the system.
There is no "the system". Each cryptocurrency creator can choose how to represent an "address"; there are no rules that they need to follow nor is there anything to enforce the altcoin creators follow certain rules. Yes it would be nice if all addresses for different currencies used different prefixes, but there are not enough characters (at least characters that most people are able to type) and sometimes altcoin creators aren't smart enough to realize that that has to be done.

As for the rest of the long address, are you saying that it would be exactly the same the entire long wallet address from start to finish?
No, the rest of the address will be different. This is because the prefix character is not a character that is appended to the beginning of an encoded address (which is why using a currency symbol won't work). Rather it is a specific byte that is appended to a hash that happens to result in a specific character when encoded in Base58 (which is the base/alphabet that most altcoins use for addresses because that is what Bitcoin uses). That byte is a version byte and it is also hashed along with the actual data for a checksum that is appended to the end of the encoded data. This whole process is called Base 58 Check Encoding; google it.

So to use a home address analogy, would sending a bitcoin to a bitcoin cash address be like sending something to your correct house address but having the wrong name on the person or would be be like sending something to  your address with the correct street number,street name, city, however putting the wrong state or country.
More like the latter where a different countries are like different coins.

I am trying to find if my online bitcoin only wallet which address I copied and pasted exactly has the bitcoin cash that was deposited to it. (bitcoin vs bitcoin cash) or if  the address belongs to someone who holds an identical address for bitcoin cash on another system. (Same phone number but different area code)?
The address belongs to you and whoever holds your private key. Private keys and addresses have a one-to-one relationship (well almost). The private key corresponds to a public key and the public key corresponds to the address. Your address on the Bitcoin Cash network could belong to someone else, but it also belongs to you. If it belonged to someone else, then they also can control your Bitcoin that is associated with that address. Whoever has access to the private key for your address has control over the Bitcoin/Bitcoin Cash/whatever altcoin it is associated with. Private keys can work across multiple altcoins because it is just a 256 bit number that is used as an ECDSA private key. The address and its prefix doesn't matter; that's just an encoding for the data.
1312  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Re: Each wallet address unique or identical address in different currency exchanges? on: September 30, 2017, 10:01:05 PM
Some use the same addresses, others use different addresses. The vast majority of coin addresses correspond to almost the same data though, just represented differently. Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash addresses begin with a '1' or '3' (and this has caused significant confusion and potential coin loss) while Litecoin's addresses begin with 'L', '3', and 'M' (the one beginning with a '3' has also caused confusion and coin loss).
1313  Bitcoin / Armory / Re: how to migrate from offline armory? cannot access my coins on: September 30, 2017, 09:39:57 PM
To get Armory online, you need to have installed Bitcoin Core and synced the entire blockchain.

To export your private keys, open Armory, go to "Backup This Wallet" and choose the option for "Export Key lists". This will give you a list of your private keys and some other information that you may want. The format for importing private keys into another wallet is "Base58 private key" (or something like that). You will also need to check the box for "Omit spaces in data" (or something like that).
1314  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: pow change to fight off segwit2x attack? on: September 30, 2017, 07:17:07 PM
From the sounds of what he said, if users want the Core backed chain and miners want 2x, he said a Pow change would be done.
That is what he meant but that is not what you said he meant earlier. However he (and many others) find that scenario very unlikely as miners would have a coin that has very few users and thus very little money to be made mining it.

My assumption in that situation is that the minority hash rate change would be vulnerable to a 51% attack by the majority, so a PoW change would be required to protect it.
Yes, it would be. However most Bitcoin Core developers aren't going to make a PoW hard fork just because the original chain has less hash rate. That would only happen if it has less hash rate and a lot of users (probably a majority of users). If the vast majority of users decided to use the 2x chain and called that Bitcoin, there won't be a PoW change done by the Core developers as most would just leave the project and stop doing Bitcoin related things.

As of now, a PoW change is not even a consideration to most Core developers as the situation that would require one is one that we find highly unlikely.

Listen to the question and answer for yourself: https://youtu.be/nSRoEeqYtJA?t=1h30m1s
1315  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: What is the blockchain technology? on: September 30, 2017, 06:40:25 PM
1. How do they work? How blocks are organized?  Are there any miners?
Generally private blockchains are based off of the existing blockchains that cryptocurrencies used. They use some form of PoS or PoW which means that there may be miners or stakers. Private blockchains may also be permissioned which means that blocks and transactions need to be signed by specific parties.

Are they at least slightly more decentralized than traditional solutions?
Perhaps. Some ideas for private blockchains seem just like a traditional solution but way more inefficient (i.e. using a blockchain as a central database that requires central authority to read and write from it). Others are more decentralized where the parties using the blockchain need permission to use it, but those who are allowed to use it do so in a decentralized manner like with Bitcoin.

2. Why blockchain? Does it solve any problems?
Blockchains are best used when there are multiple parties that wish to do something together but don't necessarily trust each other. Private blockchains can be used for doing things between businesses (that may be competitors so they don't trust each other). It can solve some problems that rely on trusting some middleman and potentially reduce fraud.

Is this more efficient than traditional solutions?
Generally, no. Centralized solutions are generally far more efficient than decentralized solutions. However that requires trusting someone and usually involves a trusted third party. Businesses may opt to use a private blockchain because it cuts out that trusted third party reducing the need to trust others and also reducing costs.

Are there any benefits for customers?
Probably not.
1316  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: pow change to fight off segwit2x attack? on: September 30, 2017, 06:30:28 PM
What do you mean they aren't considering it. Greg said he would if he had to here:

https://coinjournal.net/greg-maxwell-prospects-segwit2x-bitcoin-developers-may-leave-project-succeeds/
Where does he say that in that article? The only mention of a PoW change is a brief paragraph at the bottom without a quote from Greg that says
Quote
Maxwell noted that a change to Bitcoin’s proof-of-work algorithm (SHA-256) would “make sense”. The Blockstream CTO does not view SHA-256 as a defining trait of the Bitcoin system, and he noted that it may need to be changed in the future for security reasons anyway.
There is no plan for a PoW change because of Segwit2x and most Core devs are not even considering it. We might have to change the PoW in the future for other reasons.
1317  Bitcoin / Armory / Re: Looking ahead to the next ill-advised hard fork.... on: September 30, 2017, 04:19:31 PM
Their current proposal (not yet merged into the btc1 repo) is to have opt-in replay protection by marking transactions containing an OP_RETURN output with the string "RP=!>1x". This is still just a proposal and is not finalized. The github thread about this discussion is here: https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/pull/117 (and its a complete shitshow).
1318  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Re: Problem with Bitcoin Core Wallet, stuck in synchronizing on: September 30, 2017, 04:00:56 PM
yep that's what i want to do except i won't delete folders manually just use the uninstall function
That won't do anything. No need to uninstall. Uninstalling does not touch any of the Bitcoin Core data so it won't make a difference if you uninstall and reinstall. Go to the Bitcoin Core datadir and delete the folders named blocks and chainstate or rename them to something else. The path to your datadir is listed in the Debug Window (Help > Debug Window).

Backup your wallet.dat file which will be found in the datadir as well.

When you do all of this, make sure that Bitcoin Core is shut down.
1319  Bitcoin / Armory / Re: Bech32 new address format and Armory on: September 30, 2017, 03:58:11 PM
AFAIK bech32 is only for v0 native SW scripts. I'll get it in there at some point.
bech32 works for all segwit versions. It encodes the witness version number.
1320  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Lightning Network Question: Cost to open / close a channel on: September 30, 2017, 03:56:40 PM
So if you use such chain for multiple payments and one participant in the chain closes prematurely, it is as if no payment has happened? Or is anything preventing this scenario?
No. Each send acts individually. If you make 3 payments and are in the middle of a fourth when one party in the chain closes a channel used in the payment, then only the fourth payment does not go through. The rest remain untouched. Note that this scenario can only happen if the preimages for the HTLCs are not available to everyone which means that the payment is not yet complete.
Pages: « 1 ... 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 [66] 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 ... 550 »
Bitcointalk.org is not available or authorized for sale. Do not believe any fake listings.
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!