Bitcoin Forum
December 19, 2018, 10:47:11 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.17.0 [Torrent].
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  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 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 ... 294 »
501  Bitcoin / Electrum / Re: Can't access the wallet on: September 23, 2018, 09:17:03 AM
1. Re-download and install latest Electrum. Make sure it's not corrupted by verify it's signature if necessary.
2. Download and choose install/repair "Microsoft Visual C++ Redistributable" (i'm not sure which version/year you should use), but most likely it's 2015/2017 version.

Download link :
1. https://electrum.org/#download
2. https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/2977003/the-latest-supported-visual-c-downloads
502  Other / Meta / Re: Bitcointalk need AI to control comments? on: September 23, 2018, 09:08:15 AM
AI has become buzzword and people think AI would solve anything, while in fact AI/ML need to be trained with lots of accurate data and lots of computational resources. Besides, detect and delete post with less than 75 characters only require simple programming logic such as if (this.length < 75) this.delete Tongue
Besides, there's weak correlation between character length and post quality.

What this forum need are less signature features for lower ranked member, higher merit requirement, forbid all bounty campaign or remove signature.
503  Other / Serious discussion / Re: Are we losing the Meta board? on: September 23, 2018, 08:59:50 AM
I've no idea why no idea propose the idea to make child board on Meta section? There should child-board for specific topic which is popular such as Merit, ban appeal and account recovery, when it's not popular anymore, threads inside child board can be moved to Archive or Meta section (without show all thread to 1st page obviously).
504  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Is anonymity the future for bitcoin??? on: September 23, 2018, 08:51:21 AM
No, because there are other cryptocurrency which focused on anonymity and fungibility such as Monero. Besides, most privacy (or other fancy) features would be rejected by majority of the community due to scalability trade-off.

But, there's few Bitcoin technology/features which could improve anonymity such as CoinJoin, Schnorr, MAST and LN without much scalability trade-off, in fact some of them improve scalability problem.
This article (https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitcoin-privacycoin-tech-making-bitcoin-more-private/) should give you good insight.
505  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Core 0.16.3 Released on: September 23, 2018, 08:37:30 AM
can all core fans now admit core are not perfect and diverse teams of multiple code bases all on the network as a consensual level playing field would have been beneficial than the monarchy core has became

expect drama similar to last years assert() but this time core being on the receiving end
and may core react as the opposite side of the argument of last years assert() drama last year

its time the community admit, its time to diversify the network and release core from a leadership(reference) position

diversity + distribution = decentralised network
distribution alone does not = decentralisation

(expect my post to get deleted as its not core friendly)

To whom you're talking to? The duplicate input vulnerability shouldn't be forgotten thread shows many people support another implementation/client, including few developer/contributor.

Awemany - Discovery and disclosure author (Bitcoin Cash developer)
https://medium.com/@awemany/600-microseconds-b70f87b0b2a6

Can anyone verify if it's true? wasn't the bug found/reported by an anonymous Huh



if people cared for the network more than a certain dev. they too would actually want
diversified codebases in consensus and decentralised
instead of a
monarchy 'reference' codebase and distribution.
as the two concepts are vastly different

but hey. some has a long way to go yet. and many have tried reminding them to learn about the network and code protocols but stil see some only reply protecting developers


Then why don't you start developing your own implementation or start running one of the other implementations available? I heard Mircea Popescu's "The Real Bitcoin" is the closest to "Satoshi's Bitcoin".

Or at least actively support/promote another implementation/client Roll Eyes
506  Other / Meta / Re: Cloudflare enabled onion services and Bitcointalk on: September 22, 2018, 06:20:07 PM
I truly didn't expect that since cloudflare and google seems hostile towards Tor users

I really hope theymos will add .onion service so i can say goodbye to store front, crosswalk, traffic light and fire hydrant Tongue
507  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Create a specific address (not vanity address) on: September 22, 2018, 03:39:23 PM
Thanks.

So what is stopping someone from using brute force to generate billions of addresses and checking them against for balances and storing keys for dumping later?

Basically because there's 2^160 possible address while AFAIK super computer only can generate about 2^32 address/second which means time needed for address collusion/bruteforce is 2^(160-32) seconds. CMIIW.

I can generate the adresses on a separate chain.

The only way to know valid address that isn't exist on blockchain is by generate the address

How? AFAIK you don't need blockchain to generate address, all you need is script/software which contain proper CSPRNG, base58 encoder/decoder and collections of cryptographic hash/signature (ECDSA, RIPEMD-160, SHA-256, etc) library.
508  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Create a specific address (not vanity address) on: September 22, 2018, 03:15:57 PM
The only way to know valid address that isn't exist on blockchain is by generate the address
But the chance 2 wallet the generate same address is almost 0 and if compared with other things, the chance you got grand price in lottery/grand ball is far higher.

Also, looks like you're confused the meaning of on-chain and off-chain since process of creating address is done outside the blockchain, specifically device used to generate the address (whether it's on-chain or off-chain)
509  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: The duplicate input vulnerability shouldn't be forgotten on: September 22, 2018, 08:09:49 AM
Perhaps all large Bitcoin companies should be expected by the community to assign skilled testing specialists to Core. This vulnerability could've been detected through more sophisticated testing methods, and currently a lot of companies don't contribute anything to Core development.

I doubt this will happen since some exchange/services hacked because security hole which isn't related with Cryptocurrency directly. This might work on DEX which is open source and a bug would be fatal.

Perhaps there should be more support and acceptance for running older versions, or a LTS branch, or a software fork focused on stability.

LTS branch/version should work well since some open-source software/OS use similar way and it works well. IMO Newer LTS version only need to be released when there's major upgrade such as P2SH, SegWit and Schnorr.

I do not think that it would be constructive to turn to any of the full node total-reimplementations like btcd, which are very amateur in comparison to Bitcoin Core.

Surely it's very risky since there's higher chance accidentally make new bug, especially if it's done on different language. But that doesn't mean i'm against alternative implementation/client.

I don't know exactly how this can be prevented from happening again, but I do know that it would be a mistake for the community to brush off this bug just because it ended up being mostly harmless this time.

From this bug and 0.8 upgrade bug, IMO there should be draft/plan to upgrade/backroll the network quickly in case critical vulnerability is found or exploited.
510  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: 1 second block time - what will happen ? Pros/Cons on: September 22, 2018, 06:36:33 AM
Too many orphan to the point nodes confused which block is the longest/have their own longest chain (have most PoW) which makes the coins is not usable (or require extremely high confirmation to be secure in best case).
You might want to see https://www.fastcoin.ca/ which have 12s block time and see how bad is it.

Additionally, even latency, handshake and receive/sent signal between nodes can reach 1 second if one of them nodes have slow internet connection. Zero-confirmation (with checking to several nodes/explorer to see any double-spend attempt) is better option.
511  Other / Meta / Re: THEME FOR THEYMOS on: September 21, 2018, 02:41:28 PM
The system of merit doesn't work. My example.

By design, rewarding the user with merit occurs when it will be useful for the forum and all cryptocommunity as a whole. A good comment or an interesting topic - and other users will gratuitously appreciate the efforts of such a user. It doesn't work! Where money keeps rolling, there is no place for philanthropy. Merits don't give simply just like that. Merits are selling.

Yes, you must write a good comment or create a useful post. But tentatively you must agree with the seller of merits, that he "appreciates" your efforts. Otherwise, your topic will drown in the world of spam BTT. Youíll say that's not so? Well, let's play this game.

Here's an example of my topic, that I created specifically for this experiment.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027519.msg45 .. - English forum

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5025367.msg45 .. - Russian forum

If after this article they aren't removed, you will see them. The topic in the Russian thread was listlessly supported. Apparently, itís difficult for the philistine, who came to do the signature, but he's not using his head for thinking. The topic in the English version simply drowned without the attention of society.

The system of merit works. My example.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4686439.msg42288508#msg42288508
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5029325.msg45717195#msg45717195
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4980960.msg44928914#msg44928914

You only look at few sections, the system works very well on most section.

Or users have nothing to say?

Users already do that on another thread, time to DYOR.

Edit : looks like OP intentionally ignore my post, even though he respond to all posts above and below me. Not surprising though.
512  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Re: Running bitcoin core 16.0.1 looking to upgrade to 16.0.3 on a mac on: September 21, 2018, 02:07:23 PM
I download 16.0.3

You had a typo there.

I am not sure why you need to empty your wallet and clone your hdd.
You can just install the new version and everything should work just like it did before.

Dude I always fear loss of info.

So I did a screenshot  of my choices   and I simply can not recall what option to pick

keep both bitcoin cores  or replace 16.0.1 with 16.0.3

I don't see any reasonable reasons to keep older version, just replace it with newest version. Even if you're paranoid, verify the validity of the installation and backup wallet.dat should be sufficient.

Also, there's no report that wallet.dat, blockchain or chainstate corrupted/missing after upgrade 0.16.3
513  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: When Schnorr will be added? on: September 21, 2018, 11:44:21 AM
Looks like i misunderstood, however what if all miners use non-SegWit nodes, others use SegWit nodes and there's transaction from/to Bech32 address? AFAIK this will make such transaction never confirmed/included by miners.

If all of the miners decided to run non-Segwit nodes, I'm sure that would hurt the market value of BTC, and hurt their bottom line. I am sure there will eventually be at least one pool that will relent and go back to verifying segwit transactions. Or someone in this space will create a new pool that does run a segwit node. Since that pool would be paying out slightly more due to the transaction fees, many miners would switch to that pool. Other pools would probably be swayed to abandon their little boycott and start mining segwit tx again.

Interesting theory, but there are few things that i don't understand/agree,
1. Why would price of BTC hurt? I don't see anyone would dump Bitcoin (whether it's from pro-SegWit/anti-SegWit), unless they don't care about price of BTC/losses
2. I don't see correlation between SegWit transaction and higher fee transaction since SegWit have lower transaction size (which leads to less fees), unless SegWit supporters intentionally do that to attract people who actually don't care about the boycott OR block is far from full and mempool only contains SegWit transaction.



It's far simpler than SegWit, there's even less reason for controversy around it, and it won't be done using the BIP9 process which caused SegWit's unnecessary delays. I could see the Schnorr softfork completing next year.

So in order to add schnorr signatures, we will not go through another dramafest of mining wars fighting each other with hashrate signaling different things?

If I remember correctly satoshi used in the past softforks that didn't need mining signaling (basically a UASF? but there wasn't a name for it back then). Im not sure why segwit took that route. Was it simply to allow miners to have their say with their hashrate or was it because of technical reasons that needed it to be implemented that way?

That's because SegWit developer use "anyone-can-spend" and remove signature part of transaction as method for backward compability where it can be used to steal Bitcoin if majority nodes/miners don't support/use client that support SegWit.
And this is one of the argument used by opposition used to stall/disrupt consensus years ago.

AFAIK Schnorr don't use similar method for backward compability.

Im aware of the segwit controversies and why it caused that. My point is, there are very conservative people in bitcoin and will basically reject forever anything that isn't a legacy transaction (addresses which begin with 1 only, and nothing else, as valid bitcoin transactions).

There is people that say the incentives to do an attack on segwit aren't there, and other's say that on a long enough timeline, the incentives will align and only these holding their coins in legacy addresses will be safe (therefore, the incentive to keep your coins in legacy addresses is already formed, unless you believe this to be nonsense and you are sure it will never happen)

I doubt their number is big enough to disrupt Schnorr implantation/activation
514  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Trying to get a deeper understanding of atomic swaps on: September 21, 2018, 11:01:12 AM
Hi together,

I finished my thesis now and have some results.

I put everything I accomplished in a git repo, so everybody can view my results. At the moment there is only the german thesis, but I will try to translate it within the next days.

I hope my work is usefull to somebody.

Git: https://github.com/noobWithAComputer/detect-atomic-swaps

Greetings.

Nice work, even though i barely understand the topic, looking forward for English version. Also, just to be sure, has it been tested or peer reviewed?

You might be interested with Anonymous Atomic Swaps Using Homomorphic Hashing

I'm very sorry, that I was not able to translate it within a few days as I planned... And as it seems atm, it will take a few more weeks, as I have a lot on my table right now...

I hope to get it done this year, but I won't make any promises. Sorry Sad

Don't worry about it, take your time Smiley
515  Other / Meta / Re: Latest drivel on bitcoin.com about bitcointalk.org on: September 21, 2018, 07:44:47 AM
But they are welcome to the banned plagiarists, account farms, bots, shit-posters and other rule breakers.

I doubt they're interested with that forum since i don't see any signature space (or similar) below user's post. Or maybe they will since many of them say this forum is censored and centralized Huh

Maybe i should ask their admin too add signature space and allowing signature/bounty campaign since it could help user's financial condition.
516  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: clone a coin on: September 21, 2018, 07:25:50 AM
Some coins source code (including bitcoin) have it's own script for unit testing which means you need to install library/IDE required to work with the source code.

But, maybe you (and myself) should familiarize ourselves with (automated) Unit Testing first.
517  Other / Meta / Re: [TOP-200] Members who support newbies - Thanks! on: September 21, 2018, 06:51:54 AM
My username on the list? That's unexpected Shocked. But i give merit solely based on post's quality/usefulness (and recent post history for low-ranked member).

Good work though, since we could find merit abuser easier while knowing generous member.

Edit : looks like OP just fix the list and my username isn't there anymore.
518  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread on: September 21, 2018, 06:41:40 AM
Is Bitcoin Cash also developing a layer-2, off-chain solution that would "sit" on top of the base layer? I believe that would make a stronger debate for the development of the Lightning Network. It is something that the big blockers might not admit.

https://twitter.com/jihanwu/status/1041691310367760384?s=21

Quote
BCH will continue its roadmap to build electronical cash on base protocol and encouraging permissionless innovation in layer-2. I see lots of buidlers are working so hard! Fake Satoshi can never stop us.

What would be the point of bigger blocks?


I'd bet they would make their own 2nd-layer which might be clone of LN/Raiden Network and forcing 0-fee on it's protocol, then claim they have better on-chain and off-chain scaling.

But i wouldn't listen to people with lots of controversial. I wonder what's opinion of actual BCH developer/contributor.
519  Bitcoin / Alternative clients / Re: Ledger Nano S safe? on: September 21, 2018, 03:07:40 AM
I think they would have to bruteforce your PIN..

AFAIK Ledger Nano S do factory reset (remove private key & seed as well) after 3 invalid PIN attempt.

Can you bypass the user interface by connecting/mounting the disk (somehow) then have access to the file system and private keys stored there?

Check https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/73708/how-are-ledger-nano-s-private-keys-protected or https://www.ledger.fr/2015/03/27/how-to-protect-hardware-wallets-against-tampering/

TLDR : the storage chip actually have it's basic OS where you only can get signed transaction of the stored private key and you must know the password/PIN.

CMIIW
520  Other / Meta / Re: Captcha without javascript on: September 21, 2018, 02:55:33 AM
That depends on how the admin/owner of the site configure their Security preferences. By v2 default setting, user must enable JavaScript in order to interact with ReCAPTCHA
But since this forum use CloudlFlare, i doubt it's possible unless Cloudllare allow it's client to configure that preferences.

References : https://developers.google.com/recaptcha/docs/faq#does-recaptcha-support-users-that-dont-have-javascript-enabled (assuming the FAQ is up-to-date)
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 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 ... 294 »
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!