I did find a bit of a hackish way to check if a vector of unsigned chars is a "prefix" of a CKeyID:
How about this? bool isprefix=true;
unsigned char* keyidarr = (unsigned char*) &keyid;
for (unsigned int i = 0; i < vchID.size(); i++)
if (vchID[i] != keyidarr[i]) {
isprefix=false;
break;
}
The 'break' will stop the loop as soon as it finds a difference without needing to check isprefix each time through the loop. You could get rid of isprefix all together, and just check whether i == vchID.size() after the loop is done. Iff that's true then it's a prefix: unsigned char* keyidarr = (unsigned char*) &keyid;
unsigned int i;
for (i = 0; i < vchID.size(); i++)
if (vchID[i] != keyidarr[i])
break;
if (i == vchID.size()) // it's a prefix ...
Edit: I meant to say that I was meaning to help you out with this about 12 hours ago, but when I went to check on my testnet instance it was dead, and crashed every time I tried to restart it, so I spent today tracking down and fixing the bugs that caused that instead. |
|
|
|
I've been on JD chat and it doesn't seem to me that Masterp4 is the same person as Master-p on this forum.  Fair enough. I don't know if I've ever read anything written by Master-p on this forum until today. |
|
|
|
This scheme was modified, but I have not edited this post (will do it soon). Actually, step 2 and 3 was combined in one, so the buyer and seller funds are sent to the MultiSig address at the same time and in the same transaction. OK, so that gives you a way of 2 people safely transacting without the need of any escrow. Very nice. There's still a slight issue: The buyer locks up twice as much as the seller. If I pose as a seller when I have no intention of selling, I can get you to lock up 2 BTC of your funds while only locking up 1 BTC of mine. As soon as you lock up your 2 BTC I tell you I'm a scammer, and that I need a 50/50 split to release the coins. You have to choose between getting back 1.5 BTC or nothing. Which would you choose? Maybe some people would sacrifice the 1.5 BTC just so the scammer takes a loss. But I expect most people would agree to the 50/50 split because it's in their own best interest. |
|
|
|
I have a question about a clam private key.
For bitcoin:
1. you have a 32 byte random number
2. you append 1 to 0x80
3. sha256 the result of 2
4. sha256 the result of 3
5. take the first 4 bytes of 4 and append to 2
6. base58 encode 5
Whats different for clamcoin?
The only difference is that the 0x80 becomes 0x85 in step 2. Note that for DOGE it's 0x9e and for LTC it's 0xb0. |
|
|
|
the best way to play pocket aces in poker is just act like you don't have it. for example like you just call and check. let other players be aggresive and when the river come go all in and enjoy your winning.
That sounds like a great way of winning a lot of small pots and losing a lot of big ones. |
|
|
|
thats non sense in my opinion, there is no strategy that would let anyone win money from casinos in a long run because if there were such thing it would be unprofitable for it to exist as people would win all the money from the casino
It is still possible to make a long term profit playing blackjack in some casinos. If you win too much they'll ask you to stop playing. |
|
|
|
Still not fixed after 48hours, just asked the other support agent and he said it will be fixed within 3-5hours.
Previous support agent said within a day and now other support agent said within 3-5hours.
Lets see and wait whether my issue will be fixed in the next 3-5hours or not.
still pending, 56 hours
Any comment from betcointm? Two separate players both waiting more than 48 hours for a withdrawal doesn't sound good, especially when seen in the light of all the previous scam accusations against the site. I really don't want to have to leave negative trust feedback and be accused again of attacking a competitor site, but what's going on here? |
|
|
|
I figured Master-p here and masterp4 on Just-Dice were the same person, so checked the Just-Dice logs to see how active he has been there.
How? It's my site. I have access to the server logs. Or do you mean why did I think they were the same person? Only because their names are very similar. |
|
|
|
3-of-3 is no use because the scammer can hold the funds hostage.
This is much better than lose the funds (give them to scammer). If you need full protection here is the scheme. I hadn't seen that thread before. I replied here saying why that scheme wouldn't work. |
|
|
|
Reliable purchase/sell (also applicable for accounts) escrow scheme in which seller and buyer can't have any motivation to cheat each other (tested on DOGE): 1. Escrow agent creates 2-of-2 MultiSig address from Buyer and Seller pubkeys. 2. Buyer sends 2x coins to MultiSig address (buyer collateral + buyer payment for goods). 3. Seller sends 1x coins to MultiSig address (seller collateral). 4. Seller sends goods to buyer. 5. Buyer receives the goods and informs the escrow agent. 6. Escrow agent prepares 1x coins tx from MultiSig address to buyer (buyer collateral) and 2x coins to seller (seller collateral + buyer payment for goods). 7. Buyer and seller checks and signs tx, 1x coins goes back to buyer and 2x coins goes to seller. Seller is interested to send the goods to buyer because he can lose an amount equal to value of the goods. Buyer is interested to release the funds after getting the goods, otherwise he can lose an amount equal to value of the goods. Collateral will encourage both sides to be honest, and if something happens with the parcel to conduct a thorough investigation and find consensus. My first question to this would be why we need an escrow agent at all in this scheme. He has no power and doesn't do anything that the buyer or seller couldn't do. My second question is what happens if the seller is a scammer, and doesn't send any coins in step 3? The buyer has just lost 2x his coins and has no chance of getting them back if the scammer doesn't cooperate. The scammer can make a transaction paying 1.9x coins to himself and 0.1x coins to the buyer. The buyer has to choose between signing the transaction and getting 0.1x coins back or not signing it and getting 0 coins back. |
|
|
|
from now on, the campaign manager, the escrow provider as well as the owner of that site should start storing funds in a multi-sig wallet where if anyone goes AWOL, two others can simply approve themselves and send the funds out to the participants. Although it's a tedious process, it'll possibly be the perfect process for running a secure signature campaign.
Is there any kind of service offering automated 2-of-3 multisig? That seems like the obvious way forward here. The company wanting to pay for forum signatures creates a campaign on the site, the forum users each sign up for that campaign. Everyone provides an address. The site makes a 2-of-3 address for each campaign participant, holds funds in escrow, but can't steal them. If so, why don't people use it? And if not, I'd be interested in setting something like that up. It could charge a small fee, and give the fees to the people who lost out to this master-p scam. It would feel a bit icky contributing to forum signature spam, but I don't think that's ever going away anyway. |
|
|
|
If the seller and the escrow agent are the same person in 3-of-3 MultiSig transaction (buyer+seller+escrow agent keys), scammer will need the third (buyer) key to own the funds.
3-of-3 is no use because the scammer can hold the funds hostage. |
|
|
|
I figured Master-p here and masterp4 on Just-Dice were the same person, so checked the Just-Dice logs to see how active he has been there. I found this: 2015-12-20 11:48:42 - a private message, replying to someone pointing him at a master-p accusation thread: in a quick view he seems to be refering to a user that do escrow that use the nick of master-p, that is very similar to my nick and cause lot of confusion but he and I different persons. 2015-12-20 12:03:48 - a public chat message: <masterp4> for clarifications purpose, the bitcointalk user with the nickname of master-p is not me, my bitcointalk account is Masterp4 the same whole nickname that i use here. I've left Master-p negative feedback. With MultiSig You don't need to trust to the third party, to steal funds from the MultiSig escrow, the hacker need to compromise all parties involved, which is almost impossible.
Please don't use this as an opportunity to self-promote , every system is faulty in some aspects 2-of-3 multisig works fine as an escrow system. Have the buyer, seller, and escrow agent each hold one of the three keys. When the buyer receives his goods he signs a transaction releasing the funds, sends it to the seller who also signs it and the escrow is released without involving the escrow agent. In the event of a dispute the escrow agent can work with either the buyer or the seller to gain control of the coins. And so the escrow agent has no possibility of stealing the coins without the help of one of the two parties. The obvious risk is that the escrow agent and the seller may be the same person, in which case fraud is easily possible. It is however another good reason to ban the buying and selling of accounts on here which I've been banging on about for years.
You really can't stop the trading of accounts and more than you can stop the trade of heroin. You can make it against the rules but that doesn't stop it happening. One thing to learn for sure,what we call trusted DT members are not to be blindly trusted any more.
For what it's worth, my account won't ever be sold for any amount of money. |
|
|
|
First of all, thanks for great casino-platform!
I've seen that tere is a possibility to make a deposit in altcoins. Is it possible to exchange them inside the system?
That's a very good question. So good that swaverkut asked a word-for-word identical question a while back. Here's the answer he received: First of all, thanks for great casino-platform!
I've seen that tere is a possibility to make a deposit in altcoins. Is it possible to exchange them inside the system?
This will be a feature soon, yes. I've left you negative feedback for your ugly copy/paste spam. |
|
|
|
Can someone please explain how the poker tournament prizes work? I see 3 people registered for a tournament, and it's telling me the 1st place wins "100% + 1000mB guaranteed". Does that mean 100% of the prize pool plus 1 BTC?  Looking at old tournaments, it seems like the winner doesn't get the sum of those two things at all, and only gets the greater of the two amounts. So what does the plus sign indicate if not addition? Should the award be rewritten to say "max(100%, 1000mB)" to be more accurate? |
|
|
|
Always use two step authentication to protect your Google account.Also add you mobile number so that Google send you pin before change password attempt.
It's also worth pointing out that once you have set up 2FA using your phone you can switch it to use Google Authenticator instead. That way you don't need cell service to be available in order to log in from a new device. |
|
|
|
I just received this:  The "review your devices" button links to http://bit.ly/1Om71Rp which takes you to a fake google login page and asks for your google password. It appears to be targeting Bitcoin users, so be careful out there! |
|
|
|
even i wanna enter my withdraw address, i have to download a btc wallet and then waiting for sync my wallet for 3 days??
No, you don't need to sync anything to sign a message, you just need the address' private key. |
|
|
|
Something I can not quite understand why my antivirus activity is perceived as a purse suspicious activity. Other purses on my PC work
I guess there's something in the CLAM blockchain that your antivirus program recognises. That won't stop the CLAM client from working - you just need to tell your antivirus program to ignore the CLAM blockchain. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
