How did they remove the wifi chip? by the way, pi zero has no wifi at all.
What do you mean how? They simply desoldered the wifi chip from the board, and by the way newer version of Rpi zero devices does have wifi (only older version 1.3 doesn't have wifi), so better do your own research: https://www.raspberrypi.com/products/raspberry-pi-zero-w/It's not a fucking pack of peanuts and you could just remove the bad ones. WIFI chip can be removed from an ESP 32 is the first time I have ever heard. It's probably not the easiest thing to do.
|
|
|
Wi-fi is disabled in settings and I know people who are removing wifi chips from this device, they also did the same with RaspberyPi zero.
How did they remove the wifi chip? by the way, pi zero has no wifi at all.
|
|
|
I have flashed serveral TTGO T-displays for friends, as an entry-level device, I think it is the perfect choice. Nevertheless, I have noticed that the last two ones I flashed (I only have one available, I gave away the other one) do not "keep the data", I mean, I flash them, and set up a wallet with the recovery words, the PIN, and so on... but once turned off and on, you have to enter all the words again... Have any of you guys experienced that? I am on 1.0.29 firmware. P.S: I even wrote a post on this topic, and made a guide, in fact I made some ammendments and tricks on top of the videos the OP made. For instance, in some cases I did not get the bootloader prompt, but there are some commands to enforce its flashing. https://hideyourkeys.io/cheap-hardware-wallet-below-diy-guide/Is it the new 'stateless' mode where it acts like SeedSigner(another DIY project) so every time you turn off the device, it forgets things.
|
|
|
I think this TTGO has wifi connection embedded?  How can anybody use this to store your private keys? I'm pretty sure (though couldn't find a quick confirmation) that even when there's wifi hardware available, it isn't enabled, no driver loaded, no wifi initialized or explicitly disabled. It wouldn't make sense to have such an attack vector open when you can disable this potential connectivity. Or the other way round, if you fear such a DIY Jade could maliciously leak your wallet secrets via wifi, the code is open-source, as far as I've seen the firmware is reproducable. Inspect the code for shady stuff. The Jade clone can't guess your or other wifi's passwords. I have the same strategy with my DIY PiTrezor which I run on a Pi Zero W. As wifi and/or Bluetooth can't be used with a basically Trezor One firmware, there's a) no driver for wifi or Bluetooth in PiTrezor's firmware and b) I disable explicitly both wireless modules in the Pi Zero's boot config. That's safe enough for me and my PiTrezor is more an experimental project, no valuable wallet on it. I wish there was a DIY device that by default has no wifi at all...
|
|
|
I think this TTGO has wifi connection embedded?  How can anybody use this to store your private keys?
|
|
|
Foreword: I haven't tested this myself yet as I'm fine with a native Segwit wallet in Electrum that I personally use and you should be very careful and test it before actually moving funds into such a wallet. Use Testnet Bitcoins to check thoroughly and if you're also able to recover such a wallet! Have a look at: https://bitcoinelectrum.com/creating-a-p2sh-segwit-wallet-with-electrum/I have taken a brief look at the code of the Python script linked in above tuturial and at a first glimpse it looks OK to me. The quality of seed entropy should be similar to what Electrum itself produces as the script uses Electrum functions for its inner doings. Here's the Python script's code: https://github.com/AbdussamadA/electrum-xprv/blob/master/xprv.pyImportant note:You should create such extended master private keys only in an offline secure environment which you can later dispose easily. TAILS or booting a known secure and fresh Live Linux system into RAM-only is probably the best. TAILS is agnostic unless you save something in the persistent storage if you use that. A Live Linux system in RAM-only shouldn't store anything persistent on storage media. Make sure you've disabled all network connectivity. You should know and understand what you're doing when dealing with such sensitive data! This is quite interesting but at the same time scary when executing some guy's script creating private keys. Thank you anyway. I have taken a brief look at the code of the Python script linked in above tuturial and at a first glimpse it looks OK to me. The quality of seed entropy should be similar to what Electrum itself produces as the script uses Electrum functions for its inner doings.
How did you figure out it looks "OK" to you?
|
|
|
To create a Legacy address, open the Console Tab (View Menu -> Show Console). Type the following command line: make_seed(128,"","standard") Thank you for putting things together. I don't want to create a new wallet in order to have p2sh wrapped addresses. I was meaning to ask if there exists a command that can turn my existing p2wsh or p2wpkh into p2sh wrapped of them. Thank you anyway.
|
|
|
By default, a new wallet is configured to p2wpkh or p2wsh addresses. How in electrum am I able to see the p2sh-p2wsh or p2sh-p2wpkh addresses? (I don't mind doing it in the console) Just let me know how. Thank you.
|
|
|
Would you change your mind if you know Sparrow Wallet have these feature? 1. Connect to Electrum server. 2. Import and export Electrum wallet.
I typically don't like bitcoin software that's too big or too complex or too capable of handling too many things. I like it as simple as it can possibly be. And I don't like JAVA shit.
|
|
|
I would go with either Sparrow for desktop, or Unstoppable if you're looking for a mobile solution.
Thank you but no. I am a die hard electrum fan.
|
|
|
I wanted to ask if Electrum allows to generating p2tr addresses. (i don't mind using the console). Let me know.
|
|
|
I wonder if these transactions have ever been included.
|
|
|
These pools are not centralized because they store their block rewards in a custodial service, i know it sounds 'weird' that all 9 of them chose the same custodial service, Cobo, but it is not for this reason that they can be called centralized.
Pools are by definition centralized, it's a domain name, a person or a group running it, they make the decision, they make the calls. What we have here is by no means decentralization, we have 9 businesses having the same custodian, mining directly to their partner, and if this deal was possible one might have to ask what else is going behind the scenes. These big mining pools are the only ones that becomes centralized they have 47% of the total hash rate meaning it's still not centralized there are 53% of the total hashrate is still on decentralized pools and other miners can still mine on other pools if they don't want to mine on a centralized mining pool. ViaBTC and foundrydigital are not included on the list so they don't have full control of all pools yet you can also mine on your own and deploy your own pool if you have a mining farm.
You know too well that foundry is a closed pool, you can't just mine there without them approving you as a parent and with minimum hashrate requirements. So the alternative to those is actually a bit worse .. This is exactly the point i am trying to make and worries me. Apparently, for those who say it's not or it won't matter, they are either naive or vicious, or maybe both. If bitcoin is no more decentralized which it is becoming, what's the point of it in existence at all?
|
|
|
Apparently, people in this community don't want to talk about this HARD truth. They either are very optimistic about things that are going bad terribly quickly or they just don't want to talk about this. In my opinion, centralization in mining is now a very pressing issue.
|
|
|
Op, what do you mean by wake up and do the right thing, i know there is a risk of centralization when few pools control most of the hashrate and now their rewards is stored in a custodial service. But i don't see any reason to press the panic button yet, BTC is still decentralized, and the custodial service cannot control the network just because they have a large amount of BTC's. BTC can only be centralized and pro censorship if most pools start blacklisting addresses and censoring utxo's, but i don't think that is likely to happen.
Look. There are centralization in many ways, among which the mining centralization is the worst one. And this is where we are exactly heading. Very sad.
|
|
|
If Dashjr was using a passphrase there would be little chance anyone could get access to his bitcoin, even if they had his seedphrase. Your passphrase should be stored only in your head IMO.
There is no seedphrase. Bitcoin core doesn't have seedphrase.
|
|
|
"Faulty" because even if most nodes wont accept a replacement of it by default, there's no stopping anyone to remove it from their mempool and accept the replacement instead. It's a race on which one to reach the miners' (pool or solo) node to get included to the blockchain. It's also up to them which transaction to include to the block their mining. If more of saying "it may not be replaced" than "it will not be replaced".
It was mainly used by centralized service to implement zero-fee deposits with low risk on their part but since they are custodial, they are still in control of what their users can withdraw from their service in case the unconfirmed transaction is replaced. In your case, you mustn't assume that it's safe.
And speaking of mempoolrbf option a.k.a. "full-rbf". If a node enabled the option, it will accept replacements regardless if nSequence field of the transaction is 0xffffffff or 0xffffffff -1. I've tested this before and I can say that it's now easy to replace an unconfirmed transaction without opt-in-rbf flag as long a you can broadcast the replacement to nodes that accept it. (with the right conditions)
i think it makes a lot of sense here. Question: is there a way i can make sure that my broadcast transaction in the mempool won't be replaced by anybody? (someone may have the same private key i have) Or is it still a race like you said? Thank you.
|
|
|
is everybody really taking the piss? Another boat accident.
Yeah a boating accident where the FBI is involved and asking people's data. Do you have any idea what would happen to Luke if the Feds notice he was lying? (that's if he was lying which I doubt) He won't be seeing any day light for a long time probably. People already mentioned that shit a year ago. This is not a prank on a bitcoin forum, that's real life. When you lie to the authorities there will be serious consequences. Is there anyone who lied to the FBI and still got away in history? Sure. the question would be, is it worth it? The amount mentioned in the OP was $3m at that time (216 btc, $15m now), is it worth going to prison to save $5m tax monney? Would ya? Would yaaa?
Also don't do post bursting (post one after another without someone else says something first), that's against the forum rules. Thank you for the tips on the post bursting. Well, FBI will investigate this case if you don't let them? He could tell the public he lost funds and not turn to FBI? Who said he has?
|
|
|
is everybody really taking the piss? Another boat accident.
i guess he had reasons to want to keep funds on legacy and not move them to segwit via seeded passphrase hardware wallet
i found that a surprising revelation too at the end of new year after his endless segwit promoting activity years prior
even i wonder what his reasons were for someone so segwit "pro" to avoid using it and prefer to hoard coin on legacy his big mistake was not using legacy, it was re-using the same wallet from september-december thus exposing the keys to his online home-use PC
what are the reasons you think he's not using segwit but is a segwit activist at the same time?
|
|
|
|