Bitcoin Forum
March 24, 2023, 06:28:00 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 24.0.1 [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 »
1  Bitcoin / Electrum / Re: [IGNORE, I'm an idiot] on: September 13, 2017, 01:22:50 PM
Sorry, I just realised what was up. When I installed Electrum, I DID in fact put a watching-only wallet on there, just as a placeholder before transferring the real wallets. It was watching the 1BitcoinEaterAddressDontSendf59kuE address.

 Embarrassed
2  Bitcoin / Electrum / [IGNORE, I'm an idiot] on: September 12, 2017, 07:38:16 PM
(This is all from memory at the moment as I don't have access to that computer right now, but will try to get it again in a few days)

Got hold of a family member's laptop. Had to wipe the Windows system partition and reinstall Win7 plus all the programs, I'm sure we've all been there.

Reinstalled electrum, the latest version, 2.9.3.

On opening it, was expecting to be told to create a new default wallet.

Instead I gazed upon a wallet that was neither mine, nor that relative's (I have theirs on a separate USB stick). It had over 13 BTC on it!
Naturally I first wondered if it was spendable (I'm only human) but no, it's seedless. It has transactions going back to June 2011 and up to just recently. There are several for 0.1 or 0.01 etc, and quite a few for 0.0000543 which IIRC was/is the minimum relay fee for the core client.

Can someone explain this behaviour? Is there some kind of 'test' wallet that electrum installs if it has nothing else to go on?

3  Bitcoin / Electrum / Re: Forgot my seed please help on: May 21, 2016, 10:56:38 AM
You should ask this in the Electrum sub-forum... or wait for a mod to move it for you.

Long story short - without your seed phrase you are screwed. *Possibly* you might be able to trawl the bytes on your mobile's storage drive, looking for a private key(s). It depends whether you encrypted your wallet (then it won't work), and how thorough the 'factory reset' was (if it overwrote every byte of space, you're screwed). Also you have to find an automated program that does this.

Can you remember *any* words of your seed? The more you can remember the more chance a 'brute force' search can find the right phrase - again you'll need a specialised program for it. Don't, of course, tell any of us here any words you remember.
4  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Satoshi is revealed and nobody here cares about this?? on: May 02, 2016, 09:23:29 AM
I think that Gavin should be put through the wringer if he really is backing this bullshit story (just shows how ridiculous he has become in order to try and wrest control over the project).


Fuck me, but I agree. At least with the main clause.

5  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Satoshi is revealed and nobody here cares about this?? on: May 02, 2016, 09:20:16 AM
So just posted to someone in the press thread that they should come say their stuff over here as this is clearly where it's happening... then went and said my piece *over there*  Embarrassed ! So, crossposty...

Quote from: me
Hi Crimbit, consensus is emerging (tee hee!) in this thread...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1457039.0

... that definitive proof has not yet been provided. SCW's blogpost isn't the smoking gun. I lack the time and will to follow the chains of reasoning in the 'is it or isn't it' show, so I defer for now to people who say 'it isn't'. Worryingly, Gavin Andresen thinks he's the real deal. I say 'worryingly' as I am a big-blocker and if GA has dropped the ball on this, whether innocently or out of motivated reasoning, it greatly damages 'our' cause.

(Digression: 'follow the arguments not the people' is great advice when the arguments can be fully digested by someone prepared to put in the time and effort, and where the questions and proposed solutions are clear-cut. But most real world disagreements are 'messy', and evaluating one's trust in the principal arguers is an imperfect but useful *and rational* way of doing inference)

6  Bitcoin / Press / Re: [2016-05-01] Bitcoin's Creator Has Finally Unmasked Himself on: May 02, 2016, 09:13:51 AM
Hi Crimbit, consensus is emerging (tee hee!) in this thread...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1457039.0

... that definitive proof has not yet been provided. SCW's blogpost isn't the smoking gun. I lack the time and will to follow the chains of reasoning in the 'is it or isn't it' show, so I defer for now to people who say 'it isn't'. Worryingly, Gavin Andresen thinks he's the real deal. I say 'worryingly' as I am a big-blocker and if GA has dropped the ball on this, whether innocently or out of motivated reasoning, it greatly damages 'our' cause.

(Digression: 'follow the arguments not the people' is great advice when the arguments can be fully digested by someone prepared to put in the time and effort, and where the questions and proposed solutions are clear-cut. But most real world disagreements are 'messy', and evaluating one's trust in the principal arguers is an imperfect but useful *and rational* way of doing inference)
7  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Satoshi is revealed and nobody here cares about this?? on: May 02, 2016, 08:21:47 AM
Hmm so after a quick skim of SCW's blogpost it's all "here's how you'd verify a signed message... if I were to provide one which I haven't prepared earlier... which I will... in a future post".

Degree of belief lowering...

Gavin Andresen has a post up saying he believes it's the real deal and has seen the demonstration. I admire him for putting that up. It's a real "in a day or so, my credibility will either be worth millions or nothing" kind of post.

Well I'll wait and see until/if:

1) SCW provides a signed message, preferably more than one.
2) Those in the know verify it checks out.
3) They also answer all the objections someone could reasonably point out (was the message crafted? Could SCW have got the private key by nefarious means? etc).
4) Someone gives a dummies guide for us popcorners to be able to verify for ourselves.
5) I go and do that.

I'm out.

ETA: Hang on, wait a second, not sure if 'not enough coffee' or 'too much coffee'...

In SCW's blogpost, is the idea that Sartre's quote, "If I sign myself Jean-Paul Sartre it is not the same thing as if I sign myself Jean-Paul Sartre, Nobel Prizewinner” is the message to be signed, and "IFdyaWdodCwgaXQgaXMgbm90IHRoZSBzYW1lIGFzIGlmIEkgc2lnbiBDcmFpZyBXcmlnaHQsIFNh
dG9zaGkuCgo=" the signature? And that it's signed with the privkey of the address from which Satoshi sent to Finney in block 9?

Because if so, even a doofus like me could probably figure out how to verify that. It would go quite some way to alleviating my concerns. There'd still be the possibility that SCW is a bad actor that somehow stumbled upon the real Satoshi's privkeys. But IIUC, there's no significant possibility of "message carefully tailored to verify".

I guess I'm saying, "where can I find someone who actually knows this shit?". It's all very well for any of us to bleat "just sign a message with the privkeys" and smugly think we know what we're actually talking about.

8  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Satoshi is revealed and nobody here cares about this?? on: May 02, 2016, 07:38:32 AM
SCW's blog post is here:

http://www.drcraigwright.net/jean-paul-sartre-signing-significance/

(HT to user "nxTrafalgar" on r/bitcoin for finding it for doofuses like me who typed "craig wright blog" into google and got nada)

Not sure about the rules for copypasta dumps here... well here goes nothing:

Quote
I remember reading that quote many years ago, and I have carried it with me uncomfortably ever since. However, after many years, and having experienced the ebb and flow of life those years have brought, I think I am finally at peace with what he meant. If I sign Craig Wright, it is not the same as if I sign Craig Wright, Satoshi.

I think this is true, but in my heart I wish it wasn’t.

IFdyaWdodCwgaXQgaXMgbm90IHRoZSBzYW1lIGFzIGlmIEkgc2lnbiBDcmFpZyBXcmlnaHQsIFNh
dG9zaGkuCgo=
 

I have been staring at my screen for hours, but I cannot summon the words to express the depth of my gratitude to those that have supported the bitcoin project from its inception – too many names to list. You have dedicated vast swathes of your time, committed your gifts, sacrificed relationships and REM sleep for years to an open source project that could have come to nothing. And yet still you fought. This incredible community’s passion and intellect and perseverance has taken my small contribution and nurtured it, enhanced it, breathed life into it. You have given the world a great gift. Thank you.

Be assured, just as you have worked, I have not been idle during these many years. Since those early days, after distancing myself from the public persona that was Satoshi, I have poured every measure of myself into research. I have been silent, but I have not been absent. I have been engaged with an exceptional group and look forward to sharing our remarkable work when they are ready.

Satoshi is dead.

But this is only the beginning.

KEY VERIFICATION

In the remainder of this post, I will explain the process of verifying a set of cryptographic keys.

To ensure that we can successfully sign and validate messages using the correct elliptic curve parameters in OpenSSL, it is necessary to ensure that the secp256k1 curve is loaded. This is not the default on Centos Linux. I will not detail this process here. I do point out that RPMForge maintains binaries that have already been patched. My recommendation would be to download both the source files from the OpenSSL website and the patch, if, like me you’re running Centos.

I will also point the reader to the following websites for some preliminary reading:

https://wiki.openssl.org/index.php/Command_Line_Elliptic_Curve_Operations
http://www.secg.org/sec2-v2.pdf
https://www.openssl.org/
https://www.bfccomputing.com/bitcoin-and-curve-secp256k1-on-fedora/
The first stage of this exercise will be to explain hash functions. In the figure below we’re displaying a file called “sn7-message.txt”.

Script fragment regarding hash functions
Script fragment
The series of hexadecimal values displayed in the figure above represents the SHA256 hash of an input value. A good hash algorithm will produce a large string of values that cannot be determined in advance. The amount of information and possible permutations always exceeds the range of imitations that can be output from any hash function and as a result, collisions will always exist. What makes a hash function such as SHA256 useful and considered “secure” is that it is infeasible given the current state of technology to determine and find a set of input values to the hash function that collides with the same value that is returned as output.

The SHA256 algorithm provides for a maximum message size of \left (2^{128}-1\right )(2
​128
​​ −1) bits of information whilst returning 32 bytes or 256 bits as an output value. The number of possible messages that can be input into the SHA256 hash function totals \left (2^{128}-1\right )!(2
​128
​​ −1)! possible input values ranging in size from 0 bits through to the maximal acceptable range that we noted above.

In determining the possible range of collisions that would be available on average, we have a binomial coefficient \binom{n}{k}(
​k
​n
​​ ) that determines the permutations through a process known as combinatorics [1].

I will leave it to a later post to detail the mathematics associated with collision detection. It is important to note though that there are an incredibly large number of colliding values associated with each hash but that the probability of finding two colliding values or determining them in advance is infinitesimally small. Next week, I will follow-up with a post based on combinatorics and probability theory demonstrating the likelihood of finding collisions for “secure” hashing algorithms.

HASHING

Hash functions are relatively simple and can be done by hand. This of course belies the complexity that is required to reverse them. A good hash function is simple to use and yet is infeasible to reverse. In the figure below we have run the Linux hash routine “sha256sum”. This simple program will return a unique value that corresponds to a set and fixed input.

Script fragment
Script fragment
In the figure above, we have run this on several files including one that we are using for this OpenSSL signature exercise. The particular file that we will be using is one that we have called Sartre. The contents of this file have been displayed in the figure below.

Script output
Script output
Digital signature algorithms sign the hash of the message. It is possible to sign the message itself but in signing the hash it is possible to ensure the integrity of the message and validate that the message has not changed. If even a single space or “.” was to be altered, the hash will be radically different to the value returned initially.

In order write this value and save it to a file, we can use the Linux command, xxd. This will write the ASCII values into a hexadecimal binary file. In the command below we would be writing a string of zeros into a file called “file.name”.

echo '000...000' | xxd -r -p > file.name
 

In doing this, we can change the string we received as output from the hashing algorithm into a hex encoded file. This will be the message we can sign and verify. It is important to validate the string of numbers that you are putting into the echo command above. If a single digit has been typed incorrectly then the message will not verify.

PUBLIC KEYS

In order to verify a digitally signed message we need number of components. These include:

The algorithm,
the public key of the signing party that we wish to verify,
the message that has been signed, and
the digital signature file.
The first part of this, the algorithm is obtained through the installation of OpenSSL with the incorporation of the secp256k1 curve patch. In the step above we covered the creation of a hashed message. In the next section we will cover the use of ECDSA public keys.

Script fragment
Script fragment
For this exercise I am using a public-private key pair that is saved is a PEM file in OpenSSL. David Derosa has written an excellent page defining the creation of an elliptic curve key pair in OpenSSL. In the figure above you can see the particular PEM format public key that is associated with the key pair used in signing the message in this exercise. A thorough reading of David’s page will provide all of the information for the reader detailing how a private key pair used in bitcoin transaction can be formatted as a PEM file. This page details the creation of a new private key and not how an existing private key can be imported into OpenSSL. I shall cover this additional process and demonstrate how an existing private key pair based on elliptic curve cryptography can be imported into a ASN.1 format for use with OpenSSL directly.

The command to export our public key is given below.

openssl ec -in sn-pub.pem -pubin -text -noout
0411db93e1dcdb8a016b49840f8c53
bc1eb68a382e97b1482ecad7b148a6
909a5cb2e0eaddfb84ccf9744464f8
2e160bfa9b8b64f9d4c03f999b8643
f656b412a3

The string returned is the public key value used by programs including bitcoin for the verification and addressing of the signing function.

Casascius has developed a nifty tool that will help you decode this public key and return the associated bitcoin address that it maps to. We have a blog on this site that will help you understand the technical aspects of how bitcoin addresses derived from the public and private keys. Several online tools are also available that can calculate the bitcoin address from the public key.

SIGNING

The process of digitally signing a message using OpenSSL requires that the party signing the message has access to the private key. I will document and cover this process further in a later post. In recent sessions, I have used a total of 10 private keys are associated with bitcoin addresses. These were loaded into Electrum, an SPV wallet. In one of the exercises, I signed messages that I will not detail on this post for a number of individuals. These were not messages that I personally selected, but rather ones that other people had selected. In some instances, we ensure the integrity of the process by downloading a new version of the electrum program, installing it on a fresh laptop that has just been unboxed having been purchased that afternoon and validating the signed messages on the new machine.

The version of electrum that I run is on Centos Linux v7 and runs via Python. For the exercise I noted above we used Windows 7 and Windows 10 on different occurrences.

SIGNATURE VERIFICATION

The final component that we need to cover is the signature itself. We will be using the following command to convert our base64 format signature into a file format that can be loaded into OpenSSL.

>> base64 --decode signature > sig.asn1 & openssl dgst -verify sn-pub.pem -signature sig.asn1 sn7-message.txt

The signature filed we will be verifying contains the following data.

------------------------- Signature File -------------------------
MEUCIQDBKn1Uly8m0UyzETObUSL4wYdBfd4ejvtoQfVcNCIK4AIgZmMsXNQWHvo6KDd2Tu6euEl1
3VTC3ihl6XUlhcU+fM4=
------------------------- End Signature --------------------------
In the figure below we display the signature file as it is stored on the computer that was used for this process and we see the result of the verification exercise. In saving this file, you could cut-and-paste the encoded signature and insert it into a saved file using an editor program such as vim. Not that I’m looking at getting into a holy war over the choice of editing programs.

Script fragment
Script fragment
There are two possible outputs from this process that concern us. OpenSSL will either return as “Verified OK” where we have validly verified the signature. All of the information that is required to import the public key, the message and the message signature used in this post is available on this post.

I could have simply signed a message in electrum as I did in private sessions. Loading such a message would have been far simpler. I am known for a long history of “being difficult” and disliking being told what “I need to do”. The consequence of all of this is that I will not make it simple.

SOME SCRIPTS

In order to simplify this process, I have included two shell scripts. For variations on scripts like these, please visit a site such as the one hosted by Enrico Zimuel. This site is not particularly focused on elliptic curve cryptography but it is not too difficult to update his code for the use on a bitcoin based system.

SIGNING

For you to try and test this at your leisure I have included the signing script below. To use this script, the input consists of the variable <file> which signifies the file that you desire to sign using a selected <private_key> under your control. In this command, the <private_key> variable represents the file containing the private key to be used in signing the message and which will output the signature.

EcDSA.Sign.sh <file> <private_key>

The output from this shell script consists of the signature saved as a Base64 encoded file. This will be saved to your hard drive or other location using Base64 format as a file named <signature.der>.

EcDSA.sign.sh
EcDSA.sign.sh
VERIFICATION

We can use a similar process to verify the signature we have created using the script that I have included below.

EcDSA.Verify.sh <file> <signature> <public_key>

In this commandline, the variable <file> is used to signify the name of the file we seek to verify. The variable <signature> represents the file where we have saved the signature (and coded using Base64), and the final variable, <public_key> contains the PEM formatted public key. We use these files together and if they are valid and correct they will allow us to successfully to verify the digital signature.

Shell script
EcDSA.verify.sh
CHOICES ON FORMATTING

The signature format used within bitcoin is based on DER encoding. Other methods have been applied in the original code has changed significantly in the last seven years. The choice of DER encoding for the signatures and other information was based on a desire to ensure that information could be shared between incompatible systems. It is not the most efficient means of storing information but it does allow for disparate systems to communicate efficiently.

Like many open source projects, OpenSSL is poorly documented in many areas. bitcoin addressing and the storage of key pairs could have been far more efficient and the code has been updated to ensure that this is now the case. But like every new system it is far better to have something that is working on something that is not available but is aiming at perfection.

Security is always a risk function and not an absolute.

REFERENCES

[1]          Lovasz, Laszlo (1979) “Combinatorial Problems and Exercises” North Holand Publishing Co. Amsterdam

9  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Satoshi is revealed and nobody here cares about this?? on: May 02, 2016, 07:27:55 AM
Why would anyone care?

Humans are curious.

Quote
And how do you know if they are telling the truth anyway?

If they send messages that have been signed using private keys associated with the early blocks. This is what is claimed to have happened.
10  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Satoshi is revealed and nobody here cares about this?? on: May 02, 2016, 07:22:20 AM
Another reputable source here.

http://www.economist.com/news/business-and-finance/21698060-craig-wright-reveals-himself-as-satoshi-nakamoto

It says he published proof in a blog post. Doesn't seem to have a link.

Well, I know what *I'm* doing on the internet for the next hour!

(Or rather, until someone savvier beats me to it)

ETA apparently the above is a 'taster', the meatier article is:

http://www.economist.com/news/briefings/21698061-craig-steven-wright-claims-be-satoshi-nakamoto-bitcoin

Off to find that blog...
11  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Satoshi is revealed and nobody here cares about this?? on: May 02, 2016, 07:09:19 AM
I just posted a link to a BBC article in the Press subforum. I don't think it's that nobody cares, it's just you and me are firsties. Seriously the beeb article is, like, 5 minutes old.
12  Bitcoin / Press / [2016-05-02] Creator of Bitcoin digital cash reveals identity on: May 02, 2016, 07:06:03 AM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-36168863

Thoughts? Where's the beef (i.e. messages signed with early block private keys)?

ETA: well the article claims such keys have been provided... I guess I'll wait until somebody somewhere actually publishes the signatures.
13  Other / Off-topic / Re: Why do some users hate spelling and grammer only on Your posts? on: January 06, 2016, 09:14:08 PM
You have "legendary" under your name. I can sort of see why.
14  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Has the NSA already broken bitcoin? on: December 29, 2015, 01:11:51 AM
I was recently told by a guy who knows a guy in the NSA that they cannot crack Bitcoin.

And now, I've been told by a guy who knows a guy who knows a guy in the NSA. Connect the dots, sheeple!
15  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Limited number of bitcoin addresses on: November 20, 2015, 04:40:31 PM
This topic has nothing whatsoever to do with calculus. If you meant 'math class', say 'math class'.

While I'm at it, the distribution of particles in a gas has nothing whatsoever to do with the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, nor in fact with quantum mechanics itself. The old trope of all the gas suddenly coalescing on the left-hand side of the box is a *statistical* phenomenon, not a quantum one.



16  Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: Anita Sarkeesian - Feminist Frequency - Donating in Bitcoin on: October 22, 2015, 11:45:47 PM
Though it can remove posts which it may find overly Feminist like one of my posts that got deleted in the beginning where I mention that Feminism is the radical belief that women are people too. Please don't get offended now that I said it. I posted that Feminism is the radical belief that women are people too and that got removed.

(my bolding)

On the offchance that this whole thing *isn't* some elaborate performance art, I thought I should address this bolded part.

It's just conceivable that we're all a bunch of raving misogynists who absolutely cannot cope with 'the radical belief that women are people too'.

But there is an alternative explanation - that we can see the difference between the motte and the bailey*. That, to put it coldly, we are all too aware that women are people too.

Anita Sarkeesian is a grifter. And she's not fooling too many people in the Bitcoin community. She is but one of a depressingly large number of worthless online personalities that have worked tirelessly to debase the concept of feminism, and make the word itself so poisonous to online discourse. Naturally anyone who thinks this "doesn't think women are people too", because that attempt at character assassination is what the whole damn machinery is for in the first place.


*http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-brick-in-the-motte/
17  Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: Anita Sarkeesian - Feminist Frequency - Donating in Bitcoin on: October 22, 2015, 11:26:44 PM
Cryptoprivilege


 Huh Huh Huh Huh

What the fuck is this?

What it is, is (I hope) the same as what the "cryptofeminism" account here is: satire.
18  Economy / Service Discussion / Re: Is the new bitcoin forum any good? on: October 11, 2015, 10:40:18 AM
So you mean someone should go to a new forum just to talk about a subject(XT) which has died already, oh give me a break

You can go to the new forum and extol the virtues of Bitcoin-Core all day if you like.
And the subject of Bitcoin-XT, and BIPs 101 in particular and 100-106+ in general, and software forks and consensus forks and blockchain forks in general, has NOT died.

If it seems to you like it *has*, you might want to consider how you arrived at that perception.
19  Economy / Service Discussion / Re: Is the new bitcoin forum any good? on: October 11, 2015, 10:36:15 AM
It's a bit pants at the moment but that's just cos it's new and not many posts. I don't really like the fact that they've just copied the subforum structure from here and lifted the descriptions verbatim - get your own ideas, Roger Ver!

More generally, I think it's very blinkered to decide ahead of time that you're going to restrict your information-gathering to just one source. Bitcointalk was the first, and it's still the top of my bitcoin forums bookmark menu, but I have others. So far bitco.in/forum, forum.bitcoin.com, and a combined subreddit of r/bitcoin, r/bitcoinxt, r/bitcoinuncensored and r/bitcoinbeginners*.

Regardless of what you think about any censorship theymos may or may not have engaged in, the simple fact is that he *could* choose to do so. As could Roger Ver or cypherdoc. So, don't declare avenues of information out-of-bounds.


*Thinking of adding r/buttcoin. No, not joking.
20  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Can This Super-fast Camera be Used to Crack the Bitcoin Code? on: October 07, 2015, 08:44:43 PM
Holy fuck, these scientitians have just BROKEN BITCOIN!


ETA: nevermind, I was too hasty.

It's not a camera.

But.... omg I hope they don't figure out how to attach a camera. Then Bitcoin is DOOMED.
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 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!