Latest posts of: chrisrico

Quote from: molecular on September 26, 2014, 06:44:56 AM

fork schildbachs wallet?

last time I talked to him he said bip32 was on his list.

BIP32 is already implemented in bitcoinj, and an alpha version of his wallet is already using deterministic key generation. I think the sticking point has been BIP43/44, but that may have already been solved, I'm not sure.

Quote from: stick on September 25, 2014, 07:58:38 PM

Introducing myTREZOR Lite for Android (SPV watch-only client based on BTCReceive by Ken Sedgwick)

What are the main blockers for creating a full Trezor USB interface for Android devices?

Oh, and I forgot to mention, this is awesome. I may be the second downloader.

Quote from: subSTRATA on September 22, 2014, 09:11:52 PM

It makes no difference, there is no way you can be sure if 1 Satoshi originated from A or B hence "every single satoshi is still traceable to its generation block" is false.

However, the original discussion was about anonymity. If a transaction combines two inputs, it can normally be assumed that the same individual controls both of the addresses associated.

Quote from: subSTRATA on September 22, 2014, 03:28:15 PM

Quote from: jl2012 on October 09, 2012, 02:19:41 PM

every single satoshi is still traceable to its generation block

Bullshit. Send some coins from addresses A and B to address X and then send 1 Satoshi from address X to address Z. Did that 1 Satoshi originated from address A or address B?

Every bitcoin transaction has inputs and outputs. You can look at the transaction sending 1 satoshi to Z and see which inputs were used, and which previous transactions they were outputs from. You can trace this back to the mined coinbase transaction. The only time this gets fuzzy is if you have many inputs and outputs. For instance, if before sending to Z you merge the inputs by creating a transaction combining them into one output, and then use that output as an input to send 1 satoshi to Z.

Quote from: molecular on September 19, 2014, 07:28:00 PM

Quote from: ticoti on September 19, 2014, 02:09:11 PM

can you use the trezor simultaneously with mytrezor and electrum?

yes

Well, not literally at the same time. I believe the Trezor can only communicate with one piece of software at a time.

But yes, you can switch back and forth between them, it doesn't matter since the private keys are on the Trezor, not in the software wallet.

Quote from: klokan on September 15, 2014, 07:00:08 PM

Chrome does not support NPAPI plugins. This will be resolved with Trezor bridge, when it is released. Trezor plugin does not work in Chrome.

I use the Trezor plugin in Chrome for Windows and Mac and works perfectly on both.

Quote from: devthedev on September 12, 2014, 01:02:46 PM

Clear would be freakin' epic!

That would never work, because then anyone could access your private keys inside... /s

Figured out how to get myTREZOR to handle bitcoin URI links in Chrome.

https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/1382847?hl=en

It now also handles URIs containing an r parameter (payment requests), though it doesn't yet pass the payment request information on to the Trezor. Any ETA on support for that, guys?

Quote from: stick on September 08, 2014, 08:08:05 PM

This change is because mytrezor.com is now handling bitcoin:.... URI links, so we needed to have the Send tab enabled at all times. What is disabled now is the Send button on that tab.

How do we enable the handling of bitcoin: URI links? Armory is currently the default on my Windows/Chrome system.

Quote from: thewayshegoes on August 29, 2014, 07:45:34 PM

Is there any other wallet currently available that supports Trezor? I've been having problems with it freezing at the loading screen on myTrezor.com and would like to try out another wallet to see if I have the same problem.

Electrum does, but there hasn't been a binary release made available yet, you have to get it from source.

Quote from: JorgeStolfi on August 21, 2014, 11:45:12 PM

Ahem, unless the browser only replaces the address when the amount is large enough, only when it is being used for the seonc time in N minutes...

Why would you copy the address from the browser again if you just had a successful bitcoin transaction?

Anyway, this address replacing issue is a much bigger problem than for just the Trezor, and that's why the payment protocol was created. I'm not sure if it's supported yet by the Trezor, but it's in the works at least.

Quote from: sardokan on August 20, 2014, 06:25:58 PM

Yes and no

You can use a new stick on a fresh offline computer

Or simply plug nothing, forge and sign transaction on offline computer, convert signed transaction to qr code.

Flash it and broadcast it with online computer.

I won't bother doing this with little money (that's why I own a trezor), but if you move a big amount it can be worth the pain.

Even if you move a USB stick from online and offline computer, exploit is possible but you will be harder to target than if you connect to trezor related website.

If you have to have an offline computer in order to safely spend a paper wallet, why not have *just* an offline computer. Then, why not make it a single purpose computer that does nothing but securely store keys and sign data? That's what the Trezor is.

Quote from: JorgeStolfi on August 19, 2014, 09:38:42 PM

Checking the hardware is viable only with sophisticated lab equipment. To check the software, someone whould have to carefully check the source code (at every release) for malicious backdoors or weaknesses, and then the client would have to check that the compiled firmware that he is loading, duly signed by the manufacturer, matches that source code. Obviously neither is viable in practice, except after the fact.

The hardware can be checked by feeding it known inputs and checking that the output matches what's expected.

Their build process is deterministic, so you can in fact check that the signed binary matches the open source code. It is also not true that every individual has to check the code every time there is a release, it can be done on an ongoing basis by a community of semi-trusted individuals.

You're really reaching, aren't you? What's your angle here exactly?

Quote from: molecular on August 19, 2014, 07:25:16 PM

For some reason I assumed the PIN would be asked every time. But it seems the trezor will remember passphrase and pin auth, so anybody could walk up to my computer and make a transaction without knowing password or PIN.

It's the same with myTrezor, I believe the Trezor caches the PIN for some period of time or until it's unplugged, I'm not sure which.

Quote from: Anon136 on August 15, 2014, 04:05:20 AM

I can go around the house and find thin usb cords and it wont work, then i plug in thick ones and it does. People all the time talking about how they had to buy powered usb hubs. The evidence fits very well.

Mine works flawlessly on an unpowered USB hub shared with 2 other devices (webcam and memory card reader),

Quote from: stick on June 09, 2014, 12:49:05 PM

Quote from: xeroc on June 09, 2014, 11:57:26 AM

concerning Wallet32

Can I export the private key of one account only and use that on wallet-32 compatible with trezor.

Just like exporting only parts of the trezor DH-tree

You can't export any private information from TREZOR.

It would be nice in a sort of expert mode, to be able to export an account's extended private key, in order to import into other BIP32 wallet software. Perhaps when done, it would mark the account as such on the Trezor, so you didn't accidentally use it. Either way, if the device containing that extended private key is lost, it can always be recovered using the Trezor.

Quote from: etotheipi on August 10, 2014, 12:22:24 AM

in response to justus: we want an identifier that will be persistent between loads so that users that start the program over and over are not counted for each start

It seems like a GUID would be a great fit for this requirement. Try to load it from the settings file, if it's not there generate one and save it.

Quote from: jl2012 on August 09, 2014, 06:45:15 PM

This assumes that the first 6.2044840173323943936 × 10^23 - 1 tested combinations are all incorrect, which is extremely unlikely. The probability of this happening is equal to having a correct guess in the first attempt

So divide by two to find the average time. Still plenty of time to move your coins (on the order of years) assuming an attacker with an incredible amount of resources.

Quote from: TwinWinNerD on August 09, 2014, 05:17:22 PM

@Pelover, well, the seed is entered in a random order. So even if the computer is compromised the attacked still needs to try 24! combinations before cracking your password. So you will have enough time to create a new account as BurtW said.

In case you didn't catch the factorial operator, that's 6.2044840173323943936 × 10^23 combinations that an attacker has to try.

Even if they could try 1 quadrillion combinations per second, it would still take 20 years to exhaust every possibility.

Put another way, in order for an attacker to be able to find your seed within 10 minutes (during which time you should easily be able to transfer the coins to a different device), they would need to be able to try 10^21 (1 sextillion) combinations per second.

Quote from: carbn on August 09, 2014, 02:00:37 PM

Chromium in Ubuntu 12.04 just updated and the old plugin stopped working. I'm not switching to firefox for this, so when is the new version coming out?

You know you don't have to switch to Firefox, right? You could just use Firefox only for MyTrezor.