Bitcoin Forum
September 25, 2018, 04:24:30 PM *
News: ♦♦ New info! Bitcoin Core users absolutely must upgrade to previously-announced 0.16.3 [Torrent]. All Bitcoin users should temporarily trust confirmations slightly less. More info.
  Home Help Search Donate Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 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 ... 544 »
141  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Access Trezor using C# on: June 01, 2018, 06:30:31 PM
You would have to use the low level API directly. The high level libraries abstract this away, but without the high level library, you have to use the low level API. Or you can write some translation interface between Python and C#.
142  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: On Segwit not being backwards compatible question on: May 31, 2018, 10:47:31 PM
Technically, it was the miners. By my recollection, there were not many BIP148 nodes at the time -- no surprise since it was rolled out on such a hasty timeline. BIP91 was activated by miners, and it was hashpower -- not users -- who meaningfully rejected non-conforming blocks.
We have absolutely no idea whether BIP 91 was actually being enforced. There were zero non-conforming blocks found following BIP 91's activation. I highly suspect that BIP 91 was not actually being enforced by the majority of the hashpower or by users, they were simply signalling BIP 91 and following its consensus rules with threat of being kicked off of the network for not conforming being enough to get miners to follow the consensus rules. In the past with other soft forks, miners have actually signaled for a soft fork without actually enforcing its consensus rules post-activation; they were simply setting the correct version number. It just so happens that in most cases, miners did not create invalid blocks following the fork.

I believe this distinction is worth noting for posterity. The next time you guys plan on activating a UASF on such a rushed timeline, it may not work out so well.
The UASF really was not rushed. It happened with months of notice and a lot of users were joining in on it. Obviously Bitcoin Core did not release anything related to the UASF
143  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: On Segwit not being backwards compatible question on: May 31, 2018, 09:56:19 PM
bitcoin CORE, on august 1st  rejected any blocks that were not signaling for segwit.
basically bitcoin core rejected all legacy blocks.. thus bitcoin core did actually split AWAY from the past.
This is completely and absolutely false. Bitcoin Core at no point in time implemented BIP 148 or BIP 91 nor was there any release of Bitcoin Core which supported BIPs 148 or 91. All attempts to implement BIP 148 and BIP 91 into Bitcoin Core were never merged. There was no release of Bitcoin Core that contained any support for BIPs 148 or 91. All clients that did support it were software forks of Bitcoin Core and created by primarily (i.e. mostly) by individuals unrelated to Bitcoin Core (as in they have not contributed to Bitcoin Core before). While some Bitcoin Core developers did partake in the alternative implementations for BIPs 148 and 91, this does not mean that Bitcoin Core supported it nor does it mean that Bitcoin Core rejected non-segwit signalling blocks on August 1st as Bitcoin Core itself did not have code for that.
144  Other / Off-topic / Re: Not sure where to ask this question so here goes. on: May 30, 2018, 09:08:02 PM
So basically every website have a different certificates depend whatever certificates they have to authenticate?
and for example the image below is verified by DigiCert INC and bitcointalk forum is verified by COMODO CA Limited Am I right?

I am not sure what you mean by "have to authenticate" or "verified by".

A HTTPS certificate is issued by a Certificate Authority (CA). CAs include Comodo, DigiCert, Let's Encrypt, etc. The certificate for is issued by Comodo. For a CA to issue a certificate, they need to verify some information. The most basic verification is domain verification where the issuer asks the requester to prove that they control the domain the certificate will be issued for. This proof is usually by putting a specific string generated by the CA at a particular path on the website. The other kind of verification is Extended Validation which is what this topic is about. Extended Validation also verifies the identity of the requester and the certificate includes this identity.

Every website should have its own HTTPS certificate. If certificates are shared between sites, then there is risk for security issues.
145  Other / Off-topic / Re: Not sure where to ask this question so here goes. on: May 29, 2018, 10:09:52 PM
Those are the indicators for Extended Validation HTTPS certificates. Such certificates are tied to an actual legal entity and the certificate issuer has to verify that the legal entity is actually requesting the certificate before the certificate is issued.
146  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: DagCoin: a cryptocurrency without blocks on: May 29, 2018, 10:07:08 PM
Since people have taken to spamming this topic with nonsense, this thread will be locked.
147  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: When send to own wallet's address, listtransactions send, receive both printed? on: May 29, 2018, 02:45:38 AM
Yes, this is normal.
148  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY After x time of last transaction on: May 29, 2018, 01:26:35 AM
Thatís a shame.
Do you know of any way where i can have a multi-sig address which will allow one of the signers to use only their single key after a set amount of time after each transaction/update on the address?

I want to have an address that requires 2 people to sign for outgoing transactions. But if after 30 days nothing has been done with the address at all a single user can sign a transaction. But if there is ever anything such as an incoming or outgoing transaction the 30 days is reset.
That is impossible to do. Bitcoin does not work that way. First of all, Bitcoin does not actually use addresses or accounts on the technical level. It is just UTXOs, and UTXOs have a script that is generated from an address. A UTXO is not aware of any other UTXO and finding other UTXOs that have the same script (i.e. the same address) is computationally expensive.
149  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY After x time of last transaction on: May 28, 2018, 04:46:36 PM
I could make it so not just 30 days, but 30 days from last transaction.
No, you cannot.
150  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Help Me Recover My Bitcoins. on: May 28, 2018, 04:55:32 AM
Well... this falls into the "unlikely" category then I guess... unless both Electrum and Ian Coleman's Mnemonic tool are not validating BIP39 seeds properly...
.. Well ok then. Electrum does validate BIP 39 seeds properly, and, AFAIK actually follows the BIP 39 spec to the word.

In other news... the OP has told me that they are using a Trezor T... apparently the "T" defaults to using a 12 word seed (unlike the Trezor One), hence my confusion about 12 vs. 24 word seeds. OP has also mentioned that they had not used Electrum prior to trying to fix this issue. Unfortunately, this puts us back at square one. Undecided
The seed is likely a BIP 39 seed then.

So this is what we know:
  • 12 word BIP 39 seed
  • BIP 49 derivation path is default (m/49'/0'/0')
  • Came from a Trezor T
  • OP used Trezor web interface

Did OP use any other accounts besides the default account?

I'll take a look through the Trezor code and docs to see if there is any unexpected behavior like generating with different purposes or coins or whatever.

One last thing. Litecoin's P2SH addresses used to also start with a 3. So for segwit, a Litecoin address looks identical to a Bitcoin address. Is it possible that the key was generated on the Litecoin derivation path somehow?
151  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Core 0.16.0 Released on: May 28, 2018, 03:40:38 AM
I have just installed bitcoind 0.16 in Linux. How can I get the seed of the HD wallet ?

I dont have nor want bitcoin-qt, only bitcoin-cli
Use the dumpwallet RPC command. Do bitcoin-cli dumpwallet <filename> where <filename> is the name of the file you want the wallet data to be written to. Open up that file as a regular text file. At the top of it will be something that has the master private key (an xprv). Somewhere in the file will be a private key with the hdkeypath listed as "m". That is the seed. Note that the seed is not a phrase; Bitcoin Core does not use mnemonics (which are often misnamed as seeds).
152  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Help Me Recover My Bitcoins. on: May 27, 2018, 07:50:28 PM

Well that's the really curious thing... this 12 word seed shows up as "valid" according to BIP39 wallets??!? Huh So this combination of words is apparently a valid BIP39 seed... AND a valid Electrum SegWit seed... Shocked
Is this really possible? Huh
Both formats use different schemes to calculate the checksum, is it possible for there to be anintersection between both?
It's possible, but it's also rather unlikely.

BIP 39 wallets are not supposed to just accept any seed. Rather they are supposed to warn you if a seed is invalid. However some wallets may not be implemented in this way and may not actually be checking the validity of a seed before using it. I suspect that is actually what is happening here.
153  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / MOVED: My IP address is showing on Lightning Network Explorer Testnet need help on: May 27, 2018, 02:27:51 PM
This topic has been moved to Trashcan.

154  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Help Me Recover My Bitcoins. on: May 26, 2018, 04:40:04 PM
I think it might be possible that the OP doesn't actually have a Trezor seed.

OP gave me a seed that is only 12 words long... and I thought that Trezor seeds were 24 words by default? Additionally, their seed is detected by Electrum as being a valid Electrum "SegWit" seed!!?! Huh Huh

I've tried the most likely derivation paths... and nothing seems to work. Aside from BCH and LTC... were there any other coin types that used "3" addresses? I'm trying to figure out how the OP might have got a "3" address without it being a Bitcoin one.

Any ideas guys? Huh
Electrum uses its own seed format which is different from the BIP 39 format that basically every other wallet uses (included Trezor). Such seeds should not be valid on a Trezor. Furthermore, if Electrum recognizes it properly as a Segwit seed, then the seed is most definitely an Electrum one as their seeds distinguish between segwit and non-segwit. Has OP tried using the seed in Electrum? The derivation paths that should be tried are m/49'/0'/0' (BIP 49) and m/44'/0'/0'/ (BIP 44).
155  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Can LN support Multisig Wallets. on: May 25, 2018, 04:00:08 PM
Support in what way?

LN already uses multisig; you have to fund a multisig address in order to create a payment channel.

For the commitment transaction outputs themselves, you can modify the scripts so that it is multisig. However the current protocol does not support this.
156  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Question about LN routing at 1 Million TPS on: May 23, 2018, 11:06:01 PM
From where is you get that LN use the Onion routing (It did not read anything about it that says it uses onion routing).

It wasn't part of the original proposal, but it's mentioned in this Lightning Labs presentation, for example:

Apparently the idea was first brought up here:
It is now part of the official Lightning Network specification:
157  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Re: Bitcoin Core private keys on: May 22, 2018, 09:58:22 PM
assuming both RPC pass and wallet passphrase was compromised (or not set at all)
wouldn't listreceivedbyaddress reveal all funded addresses in the wallet?
Yes, it would.

But it would also just be easier to just send yourself all of the coins in the wallet instead of getting their private keys.

If an attacker were able to get the dumpwallet output, they would then have the keys for all of the keypool keys and the master private key and HD seed which means they can then know all of your future addresses too. That is much more dangerous.
158  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: The Beginning of Bitcoin on: May 22, 2018, 09:48:30 PM
1. Was the genesis block mined or just set somehow?
Both. The genesis block needed to be mined as it must have a valid proof of work. However it is not a block that the network mined but rather satoshi mined it and hard coded its value into the Bitcoin source code.

2. How did it all actually start? Did Satoshi share the first bitcoin software to a group of interested individuals?
Satoshi posted the Bitcoin whitepaper to the Cryptography mailing list. He also registered the domain ( was taken at the time) and hosted the whitepaper there. A few months later, Satoshi announced the first release of Bitcoin on the same cryptography mailing list. The source code and the binaries were hosted on

3. Did he announce a particular point in time to start mining? Or perhaps he had to mine by himself for a period of time before other people jumped in?
No. There was no start time to mining. Mining could be done by anyone who had the software, including Satoshi. The first block after the genesis block was mined later the same day, possibly by Satoshi. Satoshi certainly did mine by himself for some time, but other people were also mining. It is difficult to know which blocks were mined by Satoshi and which blocks were mined by someone else.

4. How long did they have to mine empty blocks?
The first transaction was block 170

5. With only a handful of nodes at the beginning, did they have to set a particular type of network communication between them?
The network protocol is largely the same as it is now. The same message types are used and the format is very similar. To find nodes to connect to, the original client would connect to an IRC server and post its IP address there. New nodes would connect to the same IRC server and retrieve IP addresses to connect to. There was no method to tell the software to initiate a connection with a specific IP address.

6. Did it ever happen that (during this initial phase) the network was off line for some time?
Yes. There were periods of time where blocks were not being mined (a few hours usually).
159  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Where are functions: Add transaction, Sign transaction, Check transaction ... on: May 22, 2018, 07:50:40 PM
SignSignature is the one that sign a transaction with private key no ?
No, ProduceSignature is. SignSignature is not actually used outside of tests.
160  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Where are functions: Add transaction, Sign transaction, Check transaction ... on: May 22, 2018, 07:36:11 PM
By Add Transaction i mean: Create a new transaction.
Follow the code for createrawtransaction. If you are interested in how the wallet works, then follow the code for sendtoaddress

Transaction is checked first and added to Mempool waiting for miners no ?
Yes. However the checking and adding to mempool are done as part of the same function. The AddToMemoryPool function will call the various checking functions for checking a transaction and then add it to the mempool at the end. It also performs its own checks for the additional conditions of adding a transaction to the mempool (e.g. conflicts, replacement, transaction fee, etc.).
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 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 ... 544 »
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!