But... When i try to reverse the last (let's say) month: I'd have to go back to (x-4464) => 6 blocks/hour * 24 hours/day * 31 days/month.
By the time i reached height (x), the rest of the network would have reached height ~(x+4374). Oops
I don't understand how the 4374 was obtained. Let's say I have 51% of the hashrate and 49% of the hashrate is owned by honest miners. I mine 4464 blocks during a month. Number of blocks mined by honest miners can be easily calculated using proportion method. So, number of those blocks would be 4464*(49/51) = 4288. Am I missing something? nah, you're probably right...I had a hectic day so far, filled with discussions about a huge database scheme and i'm left with most of my ability to concentrate gone. To this point, i'm still unable to get my head wrapped around the method used to solve this problem... This evening, when i'm back to normal, i'll probably either completely agree with what you said, or i'll disagree (altough those odds are small). My train of thought was pretty simple: there's a 2% difference in hashrate, so if the attacker generates 100 blocks, the honest miner creates 98. If the attacker creates 4464, the honest miner creates 4464 - (4464*0.02). The conclusion still remains the same tough: if you want to roll back a longer time of historic blocks, the time you'll need is a lot more than just the time you need to mine said blocks, since the honest miners will keep adding new blocks on top. If you decide to do a roll back of future blocks to the state at this point in time, this isn't the case. |
|
|
|
3 - mocacinno Thanks  |
|
|
|
In my opinion FoxMixer --snip-- bitcoin mixers. Foxmixer was launched in the year 2017 and their ANN thread is active too. Here you can find their ANN thread. Also you can find reviews here of FoxMixer. --snip-- I wouldn't touch any mixer that uses a cloudflare ssl cert with a 100 foot pole  Why? => bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5247838 I removed chipmixer from the quote since i wear their signature, and i wanted to avoid the discussion about impartiality. |
|
|
|
--snip--
oh sorry if it annoys you, i'm just trying to warn everyone, don't get scammed like i got from these 2 guys.
I only update topic when 2 scammers upload their topic. so everyone can see my warnings.
p / s: thanks for the reminder I will pay more attention. Thank you
The fact that you created a post doesn't annoy me... What does annoy me: - After reading your posts (up untill now), it was very hard to tell if you have been scammed or if you tried to sell a service
- You posted in the wrong subforum. People that try to analyse scams do not frequent this subforum, they frequent the "scam accusations" subforum
- You didn't follow the scam accusation format
- You didn't link to the profile of the scammer
- You broke the forum rules by bumping your topic more than once per day
I feel sorry for you if you got scammed. But this isn't the way to warn people. If you want to warn people, move this topic to the scam accusation subforum, follow the proper scam accusation format and stop bumping your thread >1/day. If you follow these guidelines, you'll have a far bigger impact than you have right now. |
|
|
|
But... When i try to reverse the last (let's say) month: I'd have to go back to (x-4464) => 6 blocks/hour * 24 hours/day * 31 days/month. Your example is correct with the assumption that the attacker would start their 51% from block x-4464 when the main chain was already at block x. A 51% attacker could start their 51% attack from block x-4464 when the main chain was still at block x-4464, and simply not broadcast their blocks. When the main chain reaches block x, the attacker could broadcast blocks up to x+182 and rewrite an entire month in one go, without having to play "catch up" to the honest chain. You are correct, i didn't think about 51% attacks in a while, and i kind of forgot there are several ways of looking at this problem  I do still maintain that the numbers generated by crypto-5-1-.app should not be taken at face value without knowing the exact methodology... Adding numbers on a site and telling people you calculated them based on the price of nicehash's hashrate just doesn't cut it for me... The numbers might be ballpark correct, but without seeing the actual calculations, they're just numbers... |
|
|
|
|
First of all, i have no clue if you're trying to sell accounts, or if you were scammed by an account seller...
I mean, your initial post looks like you're selling accounts, but your title and your bumps make it look like you were scammed?
Secondly, the rules state that you can only bump your thread once per day... And even then, you have to remove previous bumps.
|
|
|
|
|
FYI, it seems they now have >100 nodes, and that seemed to be their threshold for their rewards program. I did manage to get my node on their list before they officially closed it, but i have no idear if my node was within the first 100....
|
|
|
|
update: Thanks to the feedback i received on bitcointalk, i did convince the own to do a manual translation using a completely different plugin... As for now, most of the site is translated by me or the owner (neither of us is a native speaker tough, if you find spelling errors, don't hesitate to give a shout-out). I'm still figuring out some of the other feedback i got... The site uses wordpress+woocommerce, and some of the features are a bit "harder" to do (for example, showing a quantity selection outside of the cart). It's a work in progress |
|
|
|
Asssume that such 1-month attack happens, its cost will be about $4,250,952 ($590,410*24 hours*30 days). You've missed a few digits there. Using those numbers, the cost of a 1 month attack would be $425 million. Although you should also factor in that an attacker who manages to overturn a month of blocks would gain 27,000 BTC in block rewards (plus potentially fees if they chose to include other users transactions in their blocks), which at current prices would give them $280 million, so lowering the cost of a month long attack to around $145 million. I looked at that site (crypto-5-1-.app), but couldn't find their exact methodology... They just say they base their calculations on nicehash's prices... I'd be weary of taking these numbers at face value without seeing the underlying calculations... In the rest of my post, i'm going to talk about length and height, but in reality it isn't the longest chain that wins, but the chain with the highes cumulative difficulty (the chain that required the most work). It's perfectly possible to have 2 chains: one with a lenght of 10.000 blocks, and a second one with a lenght of 11.000 blocks, but still your 10k chain could be the winner. Now, did crypto-5-1-.app take into account you only have 51% of the hashrate? This means that 49% will keep on working on the "honest" chain. This isn't an issue when you try to do a 51% attack on the last block because you'd be able to start at the same time as the rest of the network: For example: i'm a thief... I pay a user when the current blockheight is (x-1). My transaction gets included in block with height (x), but i had the opportunity to start working on an alternative chain when the blockheight was still (x-1). If i have 51% of the hashrate, i have a 51% chance of finding a block for height (x) before the rest of the network can. If the rest of the network is first and move on to (x+1), i still have a decent chance of catching up in a relatively short time. I But... When i try to reverse the last (let's say) month: I'd have to go back to (x-4464) => 6 blocks/hour * 24 hours/day * 31 days/month. By the time i reached height (x), the rest of the network would have reached height ~(x+4374). Oops I have to catch up to those extra 4374 blocks as well... But by the time i reach them the "honest" miners will have added (on average) an other 4286 blocks. I have to catch up to those extra 4286 blocks as well... But by the time i reach them the "honest" miners will have added (on average) an other 4200 blocks. I have to catch up to those extra 4200 blocks as well... But by the time i reach them the "honest" miners will have added (on average) an other 4116 blocks. ... With only 51% of the hashrate, it'll take me years to catch up... If, by the time i caught up, i get the network to accept my longest chain (witch will be allmost impossible), i will have effectively removed all profit for all miners for years and years, i will have rewritten so much history that bitcoin becomes worthless... When you talk about re-writing more than a couple of blocks, everything becomes variable... I mean, you'll have to start looking at the difficulty, at the mempool, at the resell value of your gear, at the effect your actions will have on bitcoin's value,... |
|
|
|
im not sure if we can trust in hardware wallet devs they can scam investors at any time especially if bitcoin price go higher
trezor's firmware is open source, and iirc so is their hardware and their wallet software. On top of this, people have stored millions worth of BTC on these devices without getting robbed. Add the fact that it's a legal business, whose address, owners and partners have all been legally verified, and i think the odds of them building in a backdoor just to rob you when the price rises is very, very, very small. They would have had to build in a backdoor and get it passed everybody who ever browsed trough their sourcecode AND they would have to hide for the rest of their lives after abusing said backdoor. I personally also trust ledger, they've been around for so long, are also registered and known by the community, but IIRC their firmware is closed source. That being said, i wouldn't trust some unknown hardware wallet vendor with little or no feedback, and no community vetted sourcecode. |
|
|
|
|
I know some exchanges accept creditcards... If i'm not mistaking, binance is an example of such an exchange.
Your other options would be P2P trades with cash (or any other form of currency accepted by the P2P trader)
|
|
|
|
Guys you are awesome thanks for the quick help!
I understood that I have to do -reindex.
But I do not know how.
If I type it inside the console it says: "Method not found"
How do I start this process?
Backing up my Wallet is no longer an option because I cant open it.
I never changed the system or did anything "wrong". I just did use my PC for 1-2 weeks and could not access my wallet any longer.
You don't need to open the gui to make a backup. Just open your file explorer and browse to the directory posted above, copy wallet.dat to a usb drive or something. As for what you have to do to reindex: open a terminal (cmd), cd to the path where the bitcoin-qt binary can be found, execute the binary from the terminal, but add the -reindex option. A second opinion would be to create a shortcut to bitcoin-qt, edit the shortcut and add -reindex. If this sounds like gibberish to you, just tell us which operating system you're using, and I'll provide you with some screenshots when I get back at the office tomorrow morning |
|
|
|
--snip--
And game-protect please :-P @Mr. Thermos / theymos :-D
--snip--
AFAIK, game-protect was banned a while ago... To bad his reputation spam remains on the trustwall of dozens of users... Man, i seriously disliked this individual (game-protect). |
|
|
|
My german is a bit rusty, but i think the error message already tells you what to do... stop the wallet, start it from the commandline with the "-reindex" option. If you're running a pruned node, expect having to wait hours/days. by the way, this error seems like an error from bitcoin core, to make a backup of your wallet, just copy your wallet.dat . By default, the wallet.dat can be found here => https://en.bitcoinwiki.org/wiki/Data_directory (this path can be changed by editing your bitcoin.conf or starting your wallet with extra parameters). |
|
|
|
--snip--
And yeah if it's Windows 10 with bitlocker then the "bios settings" have been moved. If you've got a spare USB you can probabky find them and boot from the USB with an operating system like Ubuntu (though I've never not been an admin of a win10 machine so I don't know if those settings are blocked).
Locked bios... I can only boot from my (bitlocker encrypted) HDD. Trust is very hard to come by in the company i work for... There are over 10.000 employees, and even if you're part of the ict department (which i am), you get the same locked down laptop as everybody else (unless you're teamleader, or part of the team that manages the laptops). I do have some shortcuts to get binaries whitelisted or get domains added to the proxy whitelist, but my arm isn't long enough to get the bios password. It's a bummer really, i have to pay extra taxes because i can use my work laptop privately, but the darn thing is so locked down it's really hard to do anything "fun" with it. |
|
|
|
It's a little to late to tell you to opt-in rbf... But next time, make sure you opt-in rbf In your case, there are a couple things you can do: - I see 2 outputs, one is probably going to your change address... You can do a CPFP
- You can use a free accelerator... AFAIK, viabtc still works but needs a minimum fee of 10 sat/byte (and you payed 3 sat/byte), but you can still submit it to antpool. Antpool gives those transactions a higher priority, but in case of a very low fee it still won't "solve" your situation
- You payed 3 sat/byte, the mempool usually clears during the weekend... If you just wait your tx will probably get confirmed... If it doesn't get confirmed over the weekend, you can rebroadcast it next week
- You can pay a big mining pool like viaBTC to include your transaction in the next block
- You could try to double-spend the unspent outputs used in this transaction and create a new transaction with them, funding the same address but with a bigger fee... Difficult to get it to propagate trough the network tough
Realistically, your options are: - CPFP (quasi guaranteed fix + fast)
- antpool's accelerator (no guarantees + slow)
- waiting, eventually rebroadcasting (quasi guaranteed fix, but it might take a while)
- paying a big pool operator (quasi guaranteed fix + fast)
Like i said in the beginning of my post: make sure your wallet sets the rbf flag in the future, avoid these kinds of problems.... |
|
|
|
05 - mocacinno Thanks |
|
|
|
Seems like i'm missing something here... You're calling your wallet a hardware wallet, but i fail to see why... You've created a normal wallet, you're saving private keys in an encrypted wallet file (like other wallets do aswell), your wallet runs on an online android device, no isolation... source: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Hardware_walletA hardware wallet is a special type of bitcoin wallet which stores the user's private keys in a secure hardware device.
They have major advantages over standard software wallets:
* private keys are often stored in a protected area of a microcontroller, and cannot be transferred out of the device in plaintext
* immune to computer viruses that steal from software wallets
* can be used securely and interactively, private keys never need to touch potentially-vulnerable software
* much of the time, the software is open source, allowing a user to validate the entire operation of the device
source: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Hardware_walletyour wallet fails on each of these points in the defenition that can be found on the bitcoin wiki... - the private keys are stored in an encrypted file, they can be transferred from the device - you run on a normal android device, no immunity against malware - your private keys can touch potentially-vulnerable software - not open source I'm not saying anything about the quality of your wallet... Maybe it has features that make it superior to other wallets. But it's not a hardware wallet (IMHO). Personally, i don't like closed source wallets... And i wouldn't pay for a software wallet when there are so many community vetted, free, open-source software wallets readily available. But still, i wish you luck in your business. |
|
|
|
--snip-- Ask your admin to whitelist virtualization software (such as VirtualBox) or use HyperV  --snip-- Good you figured it out, i can imagine it's very confusing for people who only have Tor Browser & confused why the option only can be seen sometimes. Yeah, i'd love to do that... But apparently there's a problem with virtualisation software on pc's that use bitlocker (at least that's what the team in charge of user's laptop's configuration has told me). And since i manage the partitions on our power infrastructure, and i have full access to our vmware vsphere, I can make as many vm's as i want on both power and x86 professionally, so they don't want to bother investigating virtualisation sollutions for my personal use. That being said, I find completely hiding options to be confusing for everybody... I mean, why would you completely hide options... That's just asking for discussion like this one. If an option is greyed out, everybody will immediately realise that the option exist, but for some reason it's not available to them. Maybe i'll open an issue on github somewhere in the future... Maybe (if i find the time), i'll do a pull and see if i can fix it myself... However, this seems like a deliberate choice of (one off the) dev(s), so i doubt they would merge a "fix" anyways. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
