|
1761
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Segwit vs Legacy, fees?
|
on: March 19, 2021, 03:36:47 AM
|
Segwit usages begin with non custodial wallet usage and then choose a good non-custodial wallet that support Segwit address. Two first acceptances need to be done before other things can be done.
People can not control what exchanges do and accept but they can always save fees on their activities. They always have options to choose and Segwit is one of such. If they reject their control, they can not blame it on exchanges.
Custodial wallets can also support Segwit and save on the fees, so I'll argue that usage of non-custodial wallet is out of the equation. From what I've seen, most people actually don't bother to move their funds from legacy addresses after they receive it from their exchange. Mostly due to the fact that people hardly use Bitcoin for their normal payment and thus don't usually face an issue. If you're not going to give the user an option to use segwit addresses, then the user might be less motivated to use Segwit from the on-start and exchange might be contributing to network congestion as well. I personally wouldn't support them as the costs are usually borne by the user in one way or another. |
|
|
|
|
1762
|
Bitcoin / Electrum / Re: ELECTRUM SCAMMERS ?
|
on: March 19, 2021, 03:27:33 AM
|
|
You've gotten the error, perhaps google it first?
How are you sending the transaction? Is the transaction for which you're spending the funds from unconfirmed?
|
|
|
|
|
1763
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Segwit vs Legacy, fees?
|
on: March 19, 2021, 03:22:57 AM
|
You can send from one address to another, if you want to send to segwit from exchanges, it is possible irrespective of the bitcoin address you are using. There are some exchanges that only support legacy addresses, there are some that only support only compatible (3) addresses, there are some that support segwit (bc1) addresses, but segwit or legacy, the withdrawal fee are constant on exchanges. I will still also prefer segwit (bc1) addresses than compatible (3) addresees on wallets because of low fee.
If they don't support P2SH addresses, then it's probably poor implementation and I would rather people not support them. P2SH has been around since 2012, which is probably earlier than what most services were established. Withdrawal fees are usually the same for all address types when using exchange. The problem arises when you're trying to spend it. No matter what happens, you're going to have to spend more when you're spending your Bitcoins. As most wallets only support generating one of the three address type in the a single wallet, it's entirely possible that the user will end up never using Segwit addresses. |
|
|
|
|
1764
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Segwit vs Legacy, fees?
|
on: March 18, 2021, 03:49:03 PM
|
Transactions with Segwit addresses can help you to save fees. You need to check platforms you are using that they support Segwit or not support it.
You can use your Legacy or Segwit address to send your bitcoin to any type of address.
If you want to withdraw your bitcoin from exchange to a Segwit address, the requirement is that exchange support Segwit for withdrawals.
Supporting P2SH (which they obviously should) is probably sufficient. Using nested Segwit will allow for still a significant savings as compared to legacy addresses. I can't really see any disadvantages of using it, though there isn't a current standards for message signatures but that isn't exactly a dealbreaker either. |
|
|
|
|
1766
|
Bitcoin / Wallet software / Re: offline seed creation
|
on: March 17, 2021, 04:00:21 PM
|
|
Generating your seeds offline has no effect whatsoever. You're still going to be exposed to threats if your computer has ever been online or will be connected to the internet in the future.
If you're talking about generating seeds offline via the use of a clean air-gapped computer, that reduces the attack vectors available for adversary as the main method is through the internet. It should be possible with any wallets. If your wallet needs an internet connection to just generate wallets, then I'll be wary.
|
|
|
|
|
1767
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Probability of cryptocurrency apocalypse
|
on: March 17, 2021, 01:00:37 PM
|
Having written this, I probably want to explain not the technical, but the political and economic problem of bitcoin.
Bitcoin cannot be integrated into the existing centralized government system because governments cannot rely on third-party hardware and software, and people in government cannot trust each other.
Bitcoin can only survive in an anarchic environment or die.
Every government functions differently. It should be sufficient for them to engage someone to audit it regularly. If anything, SolarWinds just proves how easy it is to do something like this, if it gets to Bitcoin. Having government adopting Bitcoin is an unrealistic expectation, defeats the purpose of fiat in an economy and probably isn't desirable given that capital flows can't be controlled any longer. Technological barrier and security is honestly not their main concern. Bitcoin can survive in its current stage, you can't create vulnerabilities out of thin air; if you can sufficiently minimize the attack vectors, then there wouldn't be a big issue. |
|
|
|
|
1768
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Probability of cryptocurrency apocalypse
|
on: March 17, 2021, 12:32:16 PM
|
Are you absolutely confident in the security of bitcoin client that you use? Are you absolutely sure in the security of OS that you use for the bitcoin client?
Are you always confident that the binaries you download do not contain a backdoor?
Are you absolutely confident that when you download a repository from a github, you download the original code? Do you check the hash every time?
Are you absolutely confident that open source guarantees no backdoors inside? You probably read it all after downloading from github?
Are you absolutely confident re that your compiler does not have a backdoor built in to embed a backdoor? Are you confident that the compiler that built your compiler does not have a built-in backdoor?
Are you absolutely confident in your hardware?
One hole anywhere is enough to lose all your money. You cannot check everything. Organizations that will use cryptocurrencies will not be able to verify everything. Bitcoins are very easy to steal due to the human factor.
If bitcoin becomes widespread there will be a great interest in finding and creating such vulnerabilities
I'm almost certain that most people would be answering no for the most parts. Reading the source codes line by line is not feasible; Windows is not open source and reading the codes of any Linux distribution is tedious to say the least. If you are that paranoid, then it would be difficult for you to feel safe. That is unfortunately how Bitcoin actually works and the truth is that you can probably never be fully secure. The only thing that most people can do is to try to reduce the attack vectors and its possible surfaces; cold wallets isolates itself and preventing communication to the outside world. Generating sufficient entropy yourself puts RNG problems out of the equation, though you'll have to trust that the process to convert it to a private key isn't compromised. If you are actually that paranoid, then you can probably take some time trying to learn and read it. Not going to comment on how many people would actually do this, but it is a way to eliminate most doubts. |
|
|
|
|
1770
|
Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: risks of sharing Watch-only wallets
|
on: March 17, 2021, 11:35:04 AM
|
I share my public key with a lot of untrusted third parties or unprotected devices. And the following questions arise in my mind:
If you share your master public key, the BIP32 one, it can be compromised when an attacker has both that and one of the child private key generated from its corresponding master private key. If my computer contains viruses, is there a risk of modifying watch-only data and inserting a suspicious public key? I mean, scammer adds their address when I click deposit.
Incorrect new transaction sign request created. scammer will change my sign data request.
I'm assuming you're talking about an air-gapped wallet setup? There is a reason why most hardware wallets also have a screen on the device itself so the user can check the address again to see if it has been changed. Otherwise, there is no real risk of exposing your addresses (or public keys), they are pretty much available publicly when you spend the coins anyways. You cannot change the address of a signed raw transaction without invalidating it. |
|
|
|
|
1771
|
Bitcoin / Electrum / Re: Strange Electrum 4.0.9 console message
|
on: March 17, 2021, 11:10:11 AM
|
This is just fucked. So apparently its possible to log everyone's IP address from an SPV, and there's a real danger of this happening when the server is picked randomly.
We should host our own bitcointalk Electrum SPV with no ASCII art or other distracting stuff, maybe a single line saying "Unofficial bitcointalk ElectrumX server" on console initialization so people know it's us.
Of course. It's quite widely known that Electrum is the absolute worst from the privacy aspect, and SPVs in general, with few exceptions. If you're relying on any server for any information, it is safe to assume that there can be some form of logging, be it through the IP or by collating the addresses. Don't think it's wise to be using "Bitcointalk" as a branding (even if it's official or not); most of the servers are run by people that has been doing so for a long time. If you truly care about privacy and security, then run your own server. You cannot guarantee if someone is not logging your connections, even if it's accidental. |
|
|
|
|
1774
|
Economy / Web Wallets / Re: Problem sending from blockchain.com
|
on: March 16, 2021, 11:52:58 AM
|
These transactions you showing me are from March 5, it is not what I sent today.
Yes, I know. Those two transactions spends the same inputs and thus 'conflicts' with the transaction that you just sent. That explains why blockexplorers are not displaying your transaction; the transaction conflicts with another transaction in their mempool and their node will not accept and display it. |
|
|
|
|
1776
|
Economy / Web Wallets / Re: Problem sending from blockchain.com
|
on: March 16, 2021, 11:23:55 AM
|
Both of them are not detected in any explorer.
Blockchain made some mess with my account. I think i work with bitcoin 6 or 7 years, I never seen something like that.
If Electrum didn't throw an error during the creation or the broadcasting of the transaction, I can't see how Blockchain.com could've messed up an address like this. At the bottom right corner, is the bubble green or red? Try clicking on it, uncheck "Select Server automatically" and select another server but right clicking and selecting "Use as server". If not, then go to the transaction details and go to Export>Copy to clipboard and go to https://blockchair.com/broadcast, paste and click Broadcast transaction. Be sure to select Bitcoin of course. |
|
|
|
|
1778
|
Bitcoin / Electrum / Re: Strange Electrum 4.0.9 console message
|
on: March 15, 2021, 04:14:53 PM
|
|
It's from the server that you're connected to. They can display any arbitrary message. It was probably put there by the owner for revenue from any referrals. SSD is the available disk space of the Electrum server you're connected to.
|
|
|
|
|
1779
|
Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Concern about RNG
|
on: March 15, 2021, 04:08:12 PM
|
I don't understand. Why is electrum better than iancoleman? What part of security does electrum offer that differs from an html page with javascript?
I concur, in normal scenarios, they are both safe. Browsers are however another security risk as you won't know how it'll behave while the seed is being generated. Not that I really dislike it, just that using Electrum can probably achieve the same thing. I'd like to make another question regarding iancoleman: When you run a javascript script from your browser, is it stored on your memory or hard drive? For example, electrum mnemonics can be found on the wallet file.
Iancoleman's script cannot control how your browser function; entirely possible that the browser caches parts of the webpage and accidentally reveals your seed phrase. Not that big of an issue if you choose to do it offline and wipe your drive again after using it. |
|
|
|
|
1780
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Re: Bitcoin Input with all address type
|
on: March 15, 2021, 04:00:12 PM
|
that's a shame though because this could have been a very good feature for wallets, maybe more in a couple of years ago than now but still a good one.
people usually need both address types, the segwit one to decrease their fees and the legacy one to receive payments whenever the payer cannot pay to a segwit address.
having the ability to generate different addresses from the same seed in the same wallet (without needing extra work and importing individual keys) could be very useful.
Not really, nested segwit would be more than sufficient. The version bit (wrongly referred to as checksum by me, sorry) helps with normal users that aren't really that techsavvy, helping them to restore the wallet correctly years down the road. I don't think there's really any issue with separating the different address type as of now, would be confusing for some if suddenly different address types starts to spawn in the same wallet. Anyways, it's not impossible to implement but they were fairly reluctant previously, or so when I was searching it up previously. There's an open github issue on this though: https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/issues/6016. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
