Roger Ver has scammed once again all the gullible newbies that bought into his latest pump and dump scheme. People were waiting for a massive influx of mempool spam coupled with a flippening of hashrate and price from BTC to BCH:

https://fork.lol/pow/retarget

They still have hope in 48 minutes this will happen, meanwhile BTC is goin for ATH and nobody cares. Only idiots that don't realize mining BCH like that will destroy their reputation as miners still believe in flippenings.

Yeah I used Tails in the past a couple of times, only because I heard it was the best thing to create a paperwallet, when I was still testing out the idea of paperwallets before I discarded it.

I don't really like Electrum for either cold storage of online transactions. Im trying to learn how to set up Core as a node online to broadcast transactions and in another computer set another Core as a cold storage wallet to sign transactions. If I can manage to do this efficiently I will use this setup, if not I guess I will need to use Armory for the cold storage.

I will not use Tails tho, just any regular Linux distro will do (Xubuntu is pretty cool, or maybe Lubuntu if my old laptop is too slow to deal with it).

Yes but I got tons so I wouldn't like to have to add one by one manually. Im not sure if there was a button to export it as a .csv file and import it again or something, actually this may be able to be done with receiving addresses too so you can add all of them at once for the watch-only purpose, I got too many to do this manually to be honest.


Yes, I think the T400 can deal with big SSDs, the problem is, storing Bitcoin stuff in SSD may not be too bright because you can't permanently delete stuff in SSDs, but I guess to run a node it doesn't matter that much since I wouldn't be saving the private keys there, but still, it's pretty expensive if you want a big SSD that will last you for years of blockchain growth.

Yes, but how do I import and addresses that are only for sending with their respective labels?

For I example I have my "Poloniex address" in the "sending addresses" window. But if "importaddress" only adds them to the "recieving addresses " window.. how do I do it then?

Also, I guess I will encrypt the entire harddrive on both the online and offline computers, but im worried about performance on the online computer if it's encrypted. Bitcoin Core is i/o heavy on an HDD by itself, if it's encrypted to boot, maybe it's too much? Specially since I will not be using a very modern computer to run the node, it's a Lenovo T400.

Ok I will try to set this up. I got confused and realized how "importaddress [yourPublicAddress]" cannot really compromise your private keys.

Im going to sync from scratch on a new laptop to run the node on a proper Linux installation, so I don't care about a complete rescan. I will use "importaddress" on all of my keys.

I would also like to import all of my receiving addresses with it's labels and also the addresses on the "sending addresses" window. Im not sure how this works. When I use "importaddress" it will show on receiving addresses I guess, but I also have public addresses of other people saved, so how do I keep these?

I still need how to make the transactions and sign them in the offline computer and then pass them back into the online node tho.

I think you could use dumprawtransaction and pass this information to the online computer with Bitcoin Core but im not sure how it's done exactly. First I would need to set the watch-only addresses and spend from the watch only addresses I guess?


Well this is a problem. If the address needs to be empty to enable watch-only, how do I watch my current BTC addresses?

Also does this "false" mode still stores private keys in the online wallet or only imports public keys?

I would like to do this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9TGkUgekLY

But instead of using 2 Armory installs, with 2 Bitcoin Core installs.

The idea is to have one Bitcoin Core installed in an online computer, this would be my node to broadcast transactions into the blockchain and it would have the full blockchain, but it would have no BTC in it, and another computer with no internet, and no Ethernet or Wifi cards at all, that would have another Bitcoin Core installation, which would contain my private keys, so all of my BTC would sit there. There I would create any receiving or sending addresses and I would sign transactions there, then pass them on the online Bitcoin Core computer.

Could you explain:

1) How do I properly make the transaction and move it from the offline computer to the online computer?
2) How can I set the online wallet to act as a watch only address? (like on Armory does in here)
3) Is there a way to set the offline node as "offline" so it stops trying to sync the blockchain? since I don't have internet on that computer, is there a way to let the program know that it doesn't have to try to connect to the internet at all? Since there would be no blocks to validate as the idea is to use it as a private key container and to sign the transactions, the program would load so fast on even very old computers (I plan to buy some old Thinkpad for this)

I would use Armory itself, but I don't like the seed system (I don't want my wallet to be recoverable with a seed, I feel safer this way, im too used to have my keys sit on the wallet.dat file and just make backups of that). And in general I feel safer using the Core software, both because I trust the developers into doing a good job, and because simply im too used to the simple GUI it has and don't feel like learning any other GUI's or command lines, so I would like to know how to exactly set this up without screwing up in the process.

You should watch this video entirely:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9TGkUgekLY

The idea is to have an online computer with a synced blockchain. You can use Bitcoin Core or Armory itself as the online wallet. With this online wallet you broadcast the transactions into the network. I have never done this so I don't know the details but I think it's on that video, or maybe in other video. Im researching this myself because I want to have a serious offline setup in an isolated computer with no wifi card and then have another computer to run the online node.

So you stored your coins in an offline cold storage computer with armory. You can't see the balance because you would need to connect it to the internet to do so which is a mistake, since you want your offline computer to stay offline forever.

You need then a secondary computer and create watch-only addresses where you can safely check your balances.

This is a nice tutorial in how to do so (enable captions)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9TGkUgekLY&t=11m49s

You can of course check it with a block explorer, but using Armory is better in case you create more keys in your offline computer.

Roger Ver is now planning some sort of flippening scenario where miners will try to trigger a so called "chaindeath" upon the legacy BTC blockchain in the next couple of days. I see a lot of people shilling this on reddit and other forums. Another cause for "concern" (to FUD newbies into buying BCH and selling BTC) so he can keep pumping his agenda. Remember to not fall for tricks like these. The miners stupid enough to attempt anything stupid (such as this "chaindeath" thing) will pay the price (as always).

Roger Ver is going to end up in some legal problems if he continues deceiving the public with his bitcoin dot com propaganda. We've had people losing their coins in this forum, because they read on bitcoin dot com that they are going to be using " a bitcoin wallet " and not a BCash wallet. Their lack of specification has made several people send BTC to a BCH address and the other way around resulting in losses since these keys do not exist on the other chain so the funds are to all effects lost as far as I know.
This is insane. Someone should class action bitcoin dot com for not being clear enough resulting in loses.

This is basically it. I mean what else it could be?

This always looked like a glorified pump and dump group, but instead of some kids on discord pumping the altcoins, some guys created this group of whales and are selling these reports which basically are exactly that: Knowing when the whales are going to pump X altcoin.

There isn't any never seen before insight that I know off, other than when the pump happens. Im not sure how sustainable is that.

1) Are you using Windows? that is a risk whiting itself since it's closed source.
2) Are you downloaded any software from risky procedence? like altcoin wallets in the altcoin section, cracked software of sorts, or visited any non trusted webpage with javascript on?
3) Have you entered your seed words on any website or something?

Chances are you got hacked and the hacked got access to all of your keys through the seed, unless you can give more details on your setup we can only guess.

But if you download the source code for bitcoin-qt and compile it yourself, you would also be avoiding any trojan horses built in on the executables... which I already do, so that's not the point.

I was asking of any particular exploits that could have an impact on the GUI software compared to bitcoind which I presume since it's simpler, it's less exploitable, but it has the added risk of you entering the wrong command and sending your coins to the wrong place or who knows. Commands have a lot of power and are not forgiving if you make mistakes. A GUI will prompt you and everything is clearer.

To what capacity is it beneficial to use the command console for everything? if I learned bitcoind, would I be lowering the surface attack enough that it is worth the hassle of not using a GUI?

I see a lot of advanced users using bitcoind saying that using the GUI has too many risks for them. They usually use CentOS, Arch, Gentoo or other complicated Linux distro so they are advanced programmers. Is it worth getting up to that level, or is it safe to stay with the regular GUI usage for usual hodling and transaction making?

Blockchains are not good to store images, at least not the bitcoin blockchain. The bitcoin blockchain is good at storing transactions.. that's all. Anything else is just a waste of resources.

To use a private key, you create a wallet, generate addresses, and send transactions and you are using your private key.

Jimmy Song has a good course on programing blockchain here: http://programmingblockchain.com/

Of course, you may want to improve on your english before you attempt to pass these courses. You can find information on coding in the blockchain field for free the internet anyway.

Sure, it is possible that any compiled program is compromised and could be hosted on GitHub.

They way you trust a compiled software, is if it is cryptograpically signed by several trusteable people with PGP, or at least have some SHA256 checksum that you could use to verify, that hasn't been questioned by any of the developers.

You can always compile the program yourself, and if you can't be arsed to do that, get a secondary computer to install all these Bitcoin Gold Cash XT whatever wallets.

Indeed, I wouldn't trust this code at all, same as I didn't trust Bitcoin Cash so I had to install it on a secondary computer.

OP I recommend you that you don't install this code on your main system or anywhere where your private keys are sitting. If you can't afford a secondary computer to install experimental wallets or in general software of obvious precedence, at least make the effort to set up a Virtual Machine to install it. Also never import private keys on other wallets, simply send the coins from wallet A to wallet B, remember that.

The money is actually not lost... as suggested by HeRetiK above, you could just send a bigger amount of BTC above the resultant fee and mix both coinbases to join a transaction that includes the money that's stuck on this wallet which only got this only one address. Of course, you have to consider if it's worth it as you would lose money in fees doing this in each address that's stuck somewhere you had a wallet with enough funds to transact it out.



Fees will go up on-chain with LN, as far as I can predict. Since LN is just packaged on-chain transactions, if a ton of people use LN, the overall on-chain fee goes up, which will be annoying for someone that

1) Doesn't want a bigger blocksize
2) Isn't really interested in microtransacting over BTC

Since when I need to make an on-chain transaction, the fee will be higher due LN usage, which is why I would rather see LN over Litecoin, and leave BTC as digital gold only.

Wait, isn't btc1 the segwit2x client? Why would you try to sync it? as far as I have understood from latest events, segwit2x failed to activate:

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/now-segwit2x-hard-fork-has-really-failed-activate/

So this would mean that even if there were some people adamant to give up on the thing, when they actually tried to fork it was a mess of epic proportions because some bug didn't allow it to happen (so we dodged a bullet... a nuke may I say).

So I don't see the point in trying to sync the node, no exchanges even listed the token afaik.