Bitcoin Forum
May 26, 2019, 06:18:16 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
  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 »
1  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Re: How to reserve connection slot for mobile SPV wallet (Bread) on Bitcoin Core on: October 24, 2017, 08:19:04 AM
So there is no way to ensure my spv wallet can connect? Seems kinda sub-optimal from a privacy perspective
You can either increase your connection limit so that you have more available connections than people are likely to connect to you, or you can use an external firewall software to manage this for you.

If you use an external firewall, you could have it set so that you allow 21 connections (30 connections total - 8 outgoing connections - 1 for your wallet) on the default port from external sources, and then have another firewall rule on a different port which forwards traffic to the Bitcoin node port (8333) internally (so as to bypass the earlier firewall rule). You then connect to that other port with your SPV wallet.

Nice idea! Am def. going to try that and will report back. Hopefully Unifi USG router will support number of concurrent connections by port as I don't recall having seen that as an option in the GUI...
2  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Re: How to reserve connection slot for mobile SPV wallet (Bread) on Bitcoin Core on: October 23, 2017, 08:52:41 PM
So there is no way to ensure my spv wallet can connect? Seems kinda sub-optimal from a privacy perspective
3  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / How to reserve connection slot for mobile SPV wallet (Bread) on Bitcoin Core on: October 23, 2017, 12:04:19 PM
I have a Bitcoin Core node running on a server at home which I have limited to 30 connections as this suits my current internet connection. I am now trying to use the 'advanced' feature of Bread (wallet) for iOS which allows connection to a manually-configured node however this only results in a successful connection 10% of the time -- when I have a free slot which may or may not be the case at any given moment.

I am aware that you can configure this for a local or remote node with a fixed ip address using the "addnode" command line argument, but is there a way to make this work for remote nodes without a fixed ip address? I think that "whitebind":
Code:
-whitebind=<addr> Bind to given address and whitelist peers connecting to it. Use [host]:port notation for IPv6
...might provide this functionality but not sure how you would configure it for this use case...

Perhaps there is a way to specify a second port which would reserve a few connections for people connecting via it? Is this what I can do with whitebind?

I think the ideal situation would be to connect to my home node over Tor, but not sure I can do this with Bread (wallet).
4  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: nullc reddit account suspended 2/23/17 What's the story? on: February 25, 2017, 09:51:37 PM
Guys we need to gear up and finish the next version of Bitcointalk. Reddit, slack or whatever are private companies which can be handled by governments really well. Don't try to change them, make Bitcointalk great again and any sucker will fall behind it Smiley

Yes! The publicly owned bitcointalk will give us the freedom of speech we need. /s

 Cheesy
5  Other / Meta / Re: Just remove signatures already. As in delete, disable, gone. on: March 25, 2015, 09:06:54 AM
Perhaps advertising signatures could only appear in:
  • Economics
  • Marketplace
  • Trading discussion
  • Meta
  • Politics & Society
  • Beginners & Help
  • Off-topic
  • Archival
  • Altcoin Discussion
  • Announcements (Altcoins)
  • Mining (Altcoins)
  • Marketplace (Altcoins)


This would leave:
  • Bitcoin Discussion
  • Development & Technical Discussion
  • Mining
  • Technical Support
  • Project Development
Advert-spam free?

Although I guess this list is highly subjective, and we are back at the question of "does this really incentivise spammers to post less"?
6  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Running a full node with PrivateInternetAccess on: March 12, 2015, 09:15:05 AM
Has anyone been able to run a full node (ports open) using Private Internet Access? I would like to run one but am having trouble getting the ports forwarded. If anyone has done this successfully I would appreciate any help in the way of the steps involved.

OS X
Core 0.10.0
PIA client
EE Brightbox 2 via ethernet

I can easily open ports on my router, but PIA 'assign' a random forwarded port number to me (see PIA Forum or pfsense forum to see how "easy" it is to do), which I don't think you can configure Core to use, or can you>?



Thanks.
7  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin 20MB Fork on: February 03, 2015, 10:58:17 AM
Anyone got any constructive arguments against? Bitching about capitalism and the size of Gavins brain doesn't count.

Have a read.

Well, you made yourself sound quite silly there Davout  Sad
8  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Wikipedia on: December 08, 2014, 11:31:51 AM
Please do not donate to this unsophisticated ancient website.

Any respectable modern website would recognize modern convenient means of donation.  I'll tell you what Wikipedia, if you publish your address, I'll send you a check.  Remember checks?  LOL!!  Morons.


Nice respectable, modern web browser, guy.
9  Bitcoin / Wallet software / Best value, unlocked, global android device for dedicated bitcoin wallet. on: November 28, 2014, 12:07:11 PM
Hi,

I am wondering if I might get some recommendations for those more in the know than I, about android devices which would be suitable for use as a dedicated bitcoin wallet.

Ideally, it would be a global device (is is quad band now?), which is also unlocked so could run local data SIMs from any country I entered (primarily europe and asia if that makes any difference)...

I only want to use it as a wallet so cost is obviously an element, but I am usually interested in the *value* I am getting, rather than outright final cost. Also, becuase it will be used for wallet only, I do not mind so much about a lot of the common selling points for these kind of devices, I do not particularly mind if key stretching or encrypting/decrypting wallets takes a few moments longer.

Obviously being a bitcoiner, security is high priority!

I have been looking at things like the HTC Desire 610 or maybe the Moto G Mk II but they are £180/£150 respectively which is a fair bit more than I had hoped tbh. Just wanted to get some expertese from the android/bitcoin crowd here before I go any further...
10  Economy / Service Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Payment Recieved scam on: November 21, 2014, 03:57:18 PM
I recently activated my yubikey for blockchain.info.
So, I am wondering, if I would have fallen for that, would I have a problem?

In addition to the previous responder, if your attacker had access to an (encrypted) wallet backup then they woudl not need the YubiKey to open the wallet in Blockchain.info and coudl steal your monies!

You should keep (even encrypted) backup files very safe.
11  Bitcoin / Armory / Re: Will the Armory Wallet be made compatible with the Trezor hardware wallet? on: November 17, 2014, 11:13:03 AM
We will come with a test build in the upcoming weeks, but there is no guaranty the new wallets will be ready by then. Our short term goal is to improve the robustness of the new backend, and then the new wallets when they are ready, so we won't be implementing support for Trezor while we aren't satisfied with the solidity of all this new code.

Thanks goatpig.

Is there by any chance an "Armory Roadmap" or similar that is publically available?
12  Bitcoin / Armory / Re: Is this worth wrestling with? on: November 17, 2014, 11:01:16 AM
Is it a hidden folder on windows?

Perhaps you have to go (in explorer.exe) Tools > Folder Options > View and tick "Show hidden files and folders"?

I don't use windows so it is just a suggestion.
13  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Is it possible to mine all BTC before 2140? on: November 17, 2014, 10:56:07 AM
Complete guff
Go and promote your other rubbish-coins in the alt-coin subforum. This is technical discussion post.


I just woke up and had this thought in my head.

In the highly unlikely scenario all miners cooperated and...

1) All miners are taken off the network at the next difficulty re-target.
2) In the following two weeks difficulty is re-targeted to zero.
3) All miners then come online and exploit the difficulty.
4) Nobody attempts a 51% attack during the process.

...would the following be possible?

The introduction of 280 PH/s into a low difficulty network allows for greater than 4032 blocks to be mined at the end of two weeks following the re-target (the estimate of how many blocks would be found in 4 weeks had nothing changed is 4032 unless I've mistaken something). The entire process is repeated until all blocks are mined.


I would think that it would be possible since the network can only miss out on 100% of the 2016 blocks that would be mined in 2 weeks with nobody on the network, but the network can mine much greater than 100% of 2016 blocks for 2 weeks with a hash rate many orders of magnitude greater than the difficulty.


 Huh

As other have noted, the difficulty retargets every 2016 blocks to a level which should give you ~10 minute blocks at current hash rate. This has the effect of retargeting difficulty *roughly* every two weeks. The "final mint date" has been extrapolated from there to about 2140, this shoudl be relatively accurate.

There is also a hardcoded minimum and maximum retarget amount (400%), this prohibits the addition/withdrawal of a signifcant amount of hashing power causing a sever difficulty retarget. wihtout this a malicious actor could add say 30% of network has rate for 2 weeks, then after the retarget withdraw it all, leaving blocks going unsolved for (unnaceptably) long periods of time. The reverse is also possible where a large amount of hashign power would suddenly be added and blocks would confirm extremely fast.
14  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: SilkRoad 2 Taken down by Feds on: November 07, 2014, 03:29:48 PM
SR 2 blast will not effect much on the BTC price. The price will remain approximately the same.

Thank you, Captain hind-sight.
15  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: [ANN] Spondoolies-Tech launches a new line of ASIC miners - Best W/GH/s ratio on: November 06, 2014, 01:29:39 PM
I really wanted to order one SP10 unit, but i couldn't find enough information about the PSU. I don't want a fire hazard and i don't know how long will the PSU last before going dead.

Sorry, missed this one.

The PSU we are using was designed for the telecom and communication market by Emerson, one of the most respectable PSU providers in the world. It meets all the required safety certifications and it's MTBF (mean time between failures) is over 50 years.
In addition it supports over-current shutdown and over-heating shutdown, hence there is no fire or any other hazard risks.

Screenshots from the data-sheet:
http://take.ms/R08dn


SyRenity please address the issue of SP30 heat dissipation. How do you plan to dissipate 2500W from that small case? Also i see that you under power it again. For SP10 you have a 1kW PSU and the unit needs 1.3kW and for SP30 you have 2 1200W PSUs, but the unit needs 2500W.

Also what is the inside temperature that SP10 reaches? (chips, components etc)

Answer from the team:
Quote
When designing a cooling solution, the most important factor is the heat density, rather then the performance or the total amount of the dissipated heat. The second factor would be the max allowed ASICís Tj.

You are right, we are going to maintain the same air flow cooling mechanism for the SP30 as well. We going to use a custom heat sink that was designed and manufactured according to ASICís heat dense and Tj with 80mm Fans with a total of ~300 CFM.

The heat sink will be composed of Aluminum K=167 W/m*K 6061 T6 and copper base attached to the ASICs themselves.
The entire design is backed up with a thermal analysis simulations that we are performing as part of the mechanical and electrical design process

So there are no fire risks? Phew  Grin
16  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Message Encryption with bitcoin address. on: October 31, 2014, 03:12:47 PM
Hi,

So I would like to revisit this thread if I may... If I had a publicly advertised bitcoin address which was the "pay point" for a service and I wanted to return to any entity paying to this address some encrypted data (in TX_OUT?) would I be able to do it so that they could just use their (bitcoin) private key to decrypt?

In this situation the sender would have by default had to already reveal (to the network) their public key, so i could encrypt the data (likely a hash) I want to return to them, and store it in the tx (somewhere) which is returned to the sending address (I know I know, bad bitcoin practice and LukeJR will probably have a field day with my terminology if he sees this), but hopefully you can understand some light on what I am thinking of doing here and let me know if it might be possible?

A possible application might be a tokenised authorisation/access system. Bitcoin user can send any amount of coin to a publicised pay point and recieve back a small dust (or other size) tx along with prunable, encrypted data. If this data was a hash which acts as, or corresponds to an access token (where the period/size of access was likely related to the size of initial deposit to the pay point). In this situation you could trustlessly give access to paying entities using a distributed ledger to exchange information, automagically.

Perhaps someone already though of this before and it just has a name I am not familiar with, or perhaps it won't work for technical reasons. Either way, perhaps it is enough of an idea for someone to use...?
17  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: **PUBLIC ALERT** Change with process of "mining" BTC or it WILL fail. on: October 30, 2014, 09:39:32 AM
Your only in it for you so I dont expect you to get it.

Until we evolve into a hive mind, that's how things are going to have to work. I'm in it because I value my freedom, you are damn right.

Pea brain. If you are free and your children are enslaved what good is it? Altruism is a selfish act.  In other words what good is my freedom if my brother is enslaved?

Did you think that I would value my freedom above that of my children? Stop assuming things about me. My children will have every ounce of knowledge that I've acquired, plus their youth with which to use it.

I can't force you to choose correctly, nor would I presume to do so. Apparently you think you know what is best for not only me, but my children, and the rest of humanity.

Cant see the forest for the trees.

Perhaps. I've never claimed to have the answers for the forest nor for the trees. I only claim to do what I think is best for me and those around me. I will continue to use Bitcoin as a censorship-proof asset until (if) something better comes along. When I see threads devoted to deriding Bitcoin for the same old tired reasons, I will continue to question them and ask for a viable alternative, otherwise, what is the point?

I am genuinely quite impressed with your patience towards these chaps Holliday.

I can never understand why these kinds of people, who obviously dislike bitcoin and those who use/work with it and would like to see it fail, for some reason which only they can understand, hang out online in bitcoin forums; it truly boggles my mind.

If they were here to point out issues with the protocol because they wanted to help fix them or ask the community for help then I could understand, but to just spout nonsense about guaranteed failure, well, I certainly do not do such things in places I can choose to freely not participate in. What a waste of time & energy.
18  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Increasing the block size is a good idea; 50%/year is probably too aggressive on: October 17, 2014, 09:54:22 AM
Sure, we were also able to get x.25 and x.75 telecom to run over barbed wire, in the lab.  (There are places in the world that still use these protocols, some of which would deeply benefit from bitcoin in their area.)
The logistical challenges of implementation is not what you find in the lab.  
This stuff has to go out in environments where someone backs up their truck into a cross country line so they can cut it and drive off with a few miles of copper to sell as scrap.  We live in the world, not in the lab.

We're in luck then, because one advantage of fiber lines over copper is they're not good used for anything other than telecom Smiley

I'm no telecommunications specialist, but do have an electronics engineering background. Raise some issue with fundamental wave transmission and maybe I can weigh in. My understanding is it's easier to install fiber lines, for example, because there is no concern over electromagnetic interference. Indeed, the fiber lines I witnessed being installed a week ago were being strung right from power poles.

However, is such theoretical discussion even necessary? We have people being offered 2Gbps bandwidth over fiber not in theory but in practice in Japan, today.

That's already orders of magnitude over our starting bandwidth numbers. I agree with Gavin that demand for more bandwidth is inevitable. It's obvious all networks are converging - telephone, television, radio, internet. We'll eventually send all our data over the internet, as we largely do now, but in ever increasing bandwidth usage. To imagine progress in technology will somehow stop for no apparent reason, when history is chock full of people underestimating what technological capacity we actually experience is not only shortsighted, it borders unbelievable.

Perhaps few disagree that Bitcoin can be improved by a plan for block size maximum adjustment.  My issues with the proposals are less what it achieves (a good thing) but what it doesn't (preventing this from happening in the future).

There are myriad external realities that we can not know about.  The development of the telecom technology is perhaps less the issue than what the world has in store for us in the coming decades.  I don't know, and no one else does either, but that shouldn't stop us from striving to achieve what has not been done before.

Undersea cables are cut accidentally, and by hostile actions, economic meltdowns and military conflicts halt or destroy deployments, plagues, natural disasters etc, OR new developments can accelerate everything, robots might do this all for us.  We can't know by guessing today what the right numbers will be.  We could be high or low.  I am just hoping that some more serious thought goes into avoiding the need to guess or extrapolate (an educated guess but still a guess).  We do not have a crisis today other than some pending narrow business concerns (some of which are on the board of TBF and possibly suggested that Gavin "do something").  I am also thankful that he is doing so.  This is an effort that deserves attention (even with the other mitigating efforts already in development).  Gavin is a forward thinking man, and is serving his role well.  We should be all glad that he is not alone in this, and that no one person has the power to make such decisions arbitrarily for others.

The difficulty adjustment algorithm works without knowing the future.  We should similarly look for a way that can also work for many generations, come what may, and save Bitcoin from as many future hard forks as we can. 

This is our duty, to our future, by virtue of us being here at this time.

Decreasing the block limit (note, not required block size) in the future would not be a hard fork, it would be a soft fork.
19  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Reddit Bitcoin Centralizes All Bitcoin News on: October 16, 2014, 09:38:50 PM
I like a wide variety of news sources as much as the next guy, never heard of yours but I'm open to all.

However, this doesn't mean that you can violate reddit's spam rules and complain when they ban you, as is their clearly stated policy.

You then double broke the rules buying alt accounts and trying to spam further?

Seriously, have you even read the rules of the site?  It sounds to me as if you still haven't, despite all this.
20  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Keeping your butts safe on: October 15, 2014, 11:51:25 AM
Quote
AND I have paper copies in another location, split up so you need both parts to complete the key.

There's an idea I haven't heard before.   I might just try that.   Even though I assume your private keys are BIP encrypted .... splitting them in half and putting them in two different locations is a pretty sick idea.

-B-

BittBurger, you mean you have never heard of Armory's fragmented backup solution?
Fragmented backup halfway down
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 »
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!