Bitcoin Forum
August 19, 2018, 10:18:32 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.16.2  [Torrent].
 
  Home Help Search Donate Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 [351] 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 »
7001  Other / Off-topic / Re: SSL Certificates on: September 15, 2010, 05:15:23 PM
I don't trust CACert's security, so I don't allow them to hijack all of my TLS connections (which adding them as a CA does). I've removed a few dozen built-in certs in Firefox because I don't trust those companies (GoDaddy is a commonly-used one that I've removed).

There's no harm in MyBitcoin using CACert, though, since I can just treat their specific cert as self-signed and allow it. StartSSL would probably be better, since it's accepted in most browsers.

Quote from: The MadHatter
You can get FF to do this by mucking with the preferences and a plugin called "Certificate Patrol".

Certificate Patrol only monitors certificates that have already been accepted by the browser. Firefox's handling of untrusted certificates is poor -- I frequently get vague errors about untrusted certs (with no information about which cert is causing the trouble), and it's impossible to autoupdate if you don't trust certain CAs.
7002  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Message Encryption as a built-in feature? on: September 14, 2010, 07:04:39 PM
You could use your Bitcoin keys for authentication, but ECDSA doesn't support encryption.
7003  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: When to backup / What to backup on: September 14, 2010, 06:53:42 PM
Quote
I still have the address and key, so shouldn't the transaction be replayed when I parse all blocks again?

Due to a bug or an attack on the network, blocks might be rewritten. Honest generators will rebroadcast your transaction for you if this happens, but this system might break down as well. It's very unlikely, of course, but you might want to account for this in situations requiring very high security. I wouldn't bother with it if I were you; I just wanted to mention the possibility.

Quote
The means by which transactions get transported are the blocks, right? There's no out of band communicating of transactions between clients?

That's right.
7004  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Message Encryption as a built-in feature? on: September 14, 2010, 05:56:43 PM
You could attach an already encrypted text to it, right?

You could, but any MITM could modify it / steal your coins...
7005  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: When to backup / What to backup on: September 14, 2010, 05:52:12 PM
You need to back up after sending bitcoins and making new addresses.

The wallet contains local copies of all sent and received transactions. If the network loses one of your transactions, you'll rebroadcast it. Transactions shouldn't ever be lost if you're waiting for a few confirmations, but if you're paranoid you might also want to back up after received transactions.
7006  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Message Encryption as a built-in feature? on: September 14, 2010, 12:42:04 PM
BTW, are the messages attached when sending bitcoins to ip addresses currently clear text or encrypted?

They're not encrypted, and there's no authentication, so you shouldn't send to an IP over the Internet.
7007  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Running without wallet on: September 13, 2010, 06:29:07 PM
You just need the private key.

1. I send coins to an address.
2. I transmit the private key for that address to you.
3. You can now spend anything owned by that address. You could send the entire balance to a new address and then discard the key.
7008  Other / Off-topic / Re: The best file compressor on: September 13, 2010, 12:36:40 PM
FreeArc and NanoZip also have incredible compression ratios. They're not quite as good as PAQ, but they're much faster.
7009  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Losing Critical Mass and Call to Action on: September 13, 2010, 06:50:20 AM
Hummm, well, I didn't have any luck finding how to determine what constitutes as an address examining the c++ code, but here's a PHP function that should work as expected:

Code:
<?
function is_bitcoin_address($address) { return preg_match("/1[a-zA-Z0-9]{33}/", $address); }
if (is_bitcoin_address("17NdbrSGoUotzeGCcMMCqnFkEvLymoou9j")) echo "yes";
else echo "no";
?>

Bitcoin excludes a few normal characters for the sake of readability, and a Bitcoin address can be either 33 or 34 characters long. It's:
1[1-9A-HJ-NP-Za-km-z]{32,33}
7010  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Announcing: BitLaundry -- decorrelated payment service on: September 12, 2010, 11:25:13 PM
If you don't use the block chain, then you eliminate double-spending protection. A could make two pooled transactions to himself using the same coins.

Also:
- Why couldn't an attacker just insert 10,000 nodes into the network and record all messages? It's pretty easy to do.
- What stops whoever signs the outgoing pool transactions from just sending them to an address he controls? The network can't verify that he's sending to the correct addresses unless they've seen the transaction that A made, which removes the anonymity aspect.

If you don't think I understand your system, explain exactly what every member of the network would be doing in this system. For example:
1. A creates a transaction like this: "txIn: previousTransaction; txOut: SEND_POOLED B_PubKey amount".
2. A transmits the transaction to his peers.
3. His peers do Huh
7011  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Announcing: BitLaundry -- decorrelated payment service on: September 12, 2010, 07:00:21 PM
gumtree:

How do people who collect from the pool prove to the network that they have the right to do so? The sender will need to say to the network, "This person can remove x coins," but this is equivalent to a normal transaction.
7012  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Printing bitcoins : could it work? on: September 12, 2010, 01:15:28 AM
QR-code should decode to something like

      bitcoin://17NdbrSGoUotzeGCcMMCqnFkEvLymoou9j

because there are plenty of non-bitcoin QR-code users out there too.

Zarutian wrote a proposed Bitcoin URI scheme for this kind of thing, and I made some modifications. Here it is:
http://pastebin.com/VsBbmXQx

According to that, you would use something like:
x-btc:addr=1NXYoJ5xU91Jp83XfVMHwwTUyZFK64BoAD?theymos;store
This says "Store 1NX... in your address book under the label 'theymos'".
7013  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Won't let me send coins because it requires a transaction fee? on: September 10, 2010, 05:57:59 PM
The fix, for those interested: if any change would be less than 0.01, it is "thrown away" by adding it as a transaction fee. Someone else will get it when they generate a block. Maybe someone will manage to collect enough of them to form a usable cent.
7014  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Won't let me send coins because it requires a transaction fee? on: September 10, 2010, 02:31:12 PM
So I lost a penny in it. My question then, that transaction fee, then goes to the next block? Or the one before the one I generated?

You didn't pay a transaction fee. You have .01000010 in your balance; you just can't spend it. The network would accept it if you sent the entire 0.01000010 to another address (you can't break it apart), but the Bitcoin interface doesn't support such high precision.

Quote
Since fees apply to transactions less than 0.01, adding a transaction fee should be at least 0.01 right?


That's not network-enforced. Transaction fees are not "outs", so they're not subject to the "dust spam" restriction.

it seems I paid the fee too. Why would that be? A block that had too many tx, the value coming from multiple small value purses (but the client should see one purse that satisfies the whole transaction, right?) or what else?

You received a fee of 0.01. You didn't pay one.
7015  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Won't let me send coins because it requires a transaction fee? on: September 09, 2010, 06:43:13 PM
0.3.12 contains some changes to transaction fees. Are you using that?
7016  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Won't let me send coins because it requires a transaction fee? on: September 09, 2010, 02:05:11 PM
If you send your entire balance, then you won't have enough left to pay any fee. You could send 49.99.

I don't know why that's happening. There shouldn't be a fee for any non-combined transaction.
7017  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Re: I require Linux help... specifically SSH... on: September 09, 2010, 01:39:55 PM
Quote
sudo ssh -ND 443 <my server's hostname>@<my ip address>
sudo ssh -ND 9999 <my server's hostname>@<my ip address>

You would run these commands with the SSH on the non-server computer. Then you'd connect to localhost:443 or localhost:9999 with SOCKS. Also, it's remoteUsername@remoteIP; you're connecting to the user at the IP.

You could use antinat to set up a SOCKS server on your server. Then you wouldn't have to run SSH on the non-server computer.
7018  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Version 0.3.12 on: September 08, 2010, 06:56:31 PM
Won't older clients will reject non-standard transactions, even if newer [future] clients are updated to generate them?
They just won't include them in blocks they generate. So the transactions might be slowed down a bit, but not stopped entirely.
7019  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Version 0.3.12 on: September 08, 2010, 12:25:04 AM
What does the prohibition of "nonstandard" transactions do?

Code:
main.cpp:506
// Rather not work on nonstandard transactions
if (GetSigOpCount() > 2 || ::GetSerializeSize(*this, SER_NETWORK) < 100)
  return error("AcceptToMemoryPool() : nonstandard transaction");
What is included in "GetSigOpCount", and what does "GetSerializeSize" measure?

This is "lightly" enforced by the network:
Code:
main.cpp:1425
// Check that it's not full of nonstandard transactions
if (nHeight > 79400 && GetSigOpCount() > MAX_BLOCK_SIGOPS)
  return error("AcceptBlock() : too many nonstandard transactions");
7020  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Always pay transaction fee? on: September 07, 2010, 11:29:33 PM
What is the current threshold, and how does a client know to pay for this in advance?

http://www.bitcoin.org/wiki/doku.php?id=transaction_fee
Pages: « 1 ... 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 [351] 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 »
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!