I think the OP needs to go and have a cup of tea and a lie down before they have a stroke or heart attack!

I can certainly understand the frustration... never easy dealing with first level support who effectively have the power to do very little and give "scripted" responses... and I can only begin to imagine how stressful it is considering the amounts of money involved here...

Having said that, OP needs to just slow down and breath (and maybe type a little slower)... Give NitrogenSports a chance to clear all your deposits, pay all your bonuses and then just withdraw all your BTC and never use their service again. You've given them probably 2 chances more than I would have... and they still seem to be messing you around.

Being abusive to the support staff makes them less likely to want to help you, so they won't do any more than the bare minimum to fix your issue... and will likely result in them trying to hand the job off to someone else... which will just delay everything.

Also... I'm trying to follow the transactions on your deposit account... and someone seems to be depositing "tiny" amounts into it repeatedly... Did you accidentally use this as the receiving address for an investment elsewhere or something? so many transactions around 0.00013, 0.00014, 0.00015... seems like a "regular" payout from something, as all the receiving addresses seem to be fairly consistent across the transactions? or, as suggested, someone is just trolling... but thats an expensive way to troll... spreading ~30BTC every transaction to all those addresses!!?!  

Does seem strange that NitrogenSports don't let you take out confirmed deposits tho... They should really set it up, like most wallets, that it just doesn't let you spend/withdraw the confirmed portions... so if balance is 5.00013... and the 0.00013 is unconfirmed, you should still be able to take the 5BTC out! 

Ok, so the graph is showing that there are several orders of magnitude more Passwords/s between Electrum and Multibit HD...

But, playing devils advocate here... what are the actual settings/circumstances being tested here? It doesn't really explain much... Is this purely just the number of passwords per second that one particular brute forcing app was able to test? If so, is that the ONLY brute forcing app in existence? If not, is there any proof that other brute forcing apps can't check Multibit HD Passwords just as fast? ie. is it because Multibit is deliberately slow and only allows a certain number of password entries per time period and ANY brute forcing app will show similar results?

Your example is pretty much what Electrum and other SPV wallets do... it allows you to just connect to one of these "mirrors" and get the bits important to you... ie. the inbound and outbound transactions on your wallet.

Effectively, these SPV systems are "thin clients" onto the Blockchain... connecting to compatible "full nodes" that have the full blockchain. Unsurprisingly, one of the main reasons they came into being is for the very reason you are posting... that is, the storage requirements of the blockchain

It also helps with mobility. Can you imagine putting the full blockchain on a mobile device? 

It doesn't show the exact size... but you can roughly calculate it using the standard formula:


For determining how many inputs you are going to have... From what I have seen, it would appear that Mycelium tries to be smart and optimises the transaction size by using the most appropriately sized, oldest, unspent input(s)...  if that is what you are asking?

For example... if your current wallet inputs are (in order from oldest to newest):

1. 0.01
2. 0.0043
3. 0.02
4. 0.1
5. 0.05

and you wanted to send 0.04BTC... it would use 5... which would *should* theoretically keep the transaction size (and fees required) as small as possible...

NOTE: I am not 100% sure that this is how it works... as I haven't checked the code either... but a quick look at my sends, seems to indicate that it is picking up the "best fit" unspent inputs to cover the outgoing amount.

Yeah... I probably should have specified that I am on Marshmallow... In 6.0 the Android menu options to follow are Settings -> Apps -> [AppName] -> Storage

Settings -> Apps -> [AppName] gives something like this:


And then tapping on Storage gives this, where you have the "Clear Cache" and "Clear Data" options:


But I totally agree with your sentiments about making sure things are backed up properly... which is why I put it in bold and underlined it in my post...

Well there is still almost 2 weeks to go... given that it starts on the weekend of the 13th... so hopefully a few folks will spot this thread and want to join in.

I do hope we get some more interested, as it is a fun way to enjoy the football and maybe make a bit of extra BTC... I mean... 0.01 to make 0.1... 10x return is not too bad... it is like making a parlay on the games, but without the worry that one wrong result destroys you.

Did FaucetBOX change their payout time? Or has it always been a random thing?

Before the big crash the other day when their server went down, it seemed to me that they were always paying around 2100-2300hrs UTC. Now it seems they are paying somewhere around 12 hours different... around 0900-1100 UTC.

Is that a deliberate thing? or just a by-product of the server coming back online at a different time and the payout script being out of sync with when they used to pay?

NOTE: not complaining that they are not paying, just curious as to the switch in approximate payout time...

@shorena,

I honestly don't know how you've survived on this forum for so long. You have the patience of a saint.

It seems that there are a lot of people, who fail at basic logic, mathematics and reading and comprehension, who have somehow stumbled into the world of Bitcoins.

I'm not sure if it is the media stories talking about people making fantastic amounts of money because Bitcoin went from being near worthless to being ~USD$650... but there are a lot of people around who just don't seem to understand the core concepts.

Granted, the world of crypto can be very confusing, and public keys, private keys, hashes and all the associated math and interrelationships can be a bit overwhelming... but still... a little bit of reading is enough to grasp the fundamentals, which (tricky crypto math aside) isn't really that hard to understand.

Split key generation is perfectly safe... at least as safe as Bitcoin itself. I assume that poster was getting confused with so-called vanitygen websites that don't do split key and just spit out a pub/priv key pair and "promise" not to record the private key...  

Also... why people don't just download the vanitygen app themselves and run it is beyond me?? It's tiny, and even on a single AMD R9-270 card I can generate relatively simple 4 or 5 char vanity addresses in minutes...

Ouch... that must have hurt... 

https://nitrogensports.eu/betslip/7644180Y2tHMEhTMjc1RDhQQ3FocmFVVFFOdz09
https://nitrogensports.eu/betslip/18fa3dcNlVVL2VpMUJ6QnFyOEI1Umg4NFVIUT09

0.05+ lost on those 2 bets... So much for your "lock"... Seems like maybe the OP is better than you at this tipster thing 

There is a difference between "fair" and poor odds/house edge.

Good casinos are (or should be) 100% "fair"... as in, they don't cheat by running code that makes every bet after 5 wins a loss etc. This is what provably fair is all about. It is your assurance that neither the casino, yourself or any other player can affect the outcome of the results and that it is all just random numbers being random.

Poor odds on the other hand... well, that's up to you to judge. It is commonly called "House Edge"... and this is how casinos make money... by not offering "True" odds on games... so on a coin flip or other 50/50 game, only offering a 49% payout. That little 1% slice guarantees them income over the long run. Some casinos and games have higher house edge than others... so it pays to shop around.

Hah... I got greedy again and paid the price with a push...

They aren't quite as strong on the road, and the were a middle table team... I know I keep saying it, but I really need to bet smarter. Still... that 2.06 odds was too much to resist... 

Hi,

Is this the correct thread for asking about issues with the Android version of Breadwallet? There was another thread announcing the arrival of Breadwallet on the Play Store... but the OP doesn't seem to be reading it, so I'm not sure if it is actively monitored.

I've run into a couple of issues and was just wanting to know where I should send my concerns?

I would be keen for the 0.01 weekly no obligation option. Mainly because my life is kinda hectic and no guarantee that I'll be able to participate on any given week. So going for the full season pass could end up costing me big if I miss a week or two.

So being able to buy in for a week when I get the chance would be a fun way to liven up the weekend and maybe make a bit of spare cash without a huge commitment.

I can understand why some would do the all or nothing approach tho

That's just the way Bitcoin works... It isn't like a normal bank account, where you receive a bunch of payments and then when you go to pay someone, it just takes out the exact amount you require. With Bitcoin, any input you get, has to be spent in FULL when it is used.

As an example, let's say you've received a bunch of Bitcoins transactions worth $100, your total balance says $100, but it is actually made up of a combination of all the transactions you have received:

ie, say you had 5 incoming payments:

• $25
• $30
• $2.50
• $15
• $27.50

What you actually have, is 5 chunks of money... rather than one big pile of $100. Now, as mentioned previously, the thing with Bitcoin is, that when you attempt to use one of these chunks, you have to use the whole thing.

So if I want to send say $37 to someone... I can't just send out $37... as I have no $37 chunk. Instead, several chunks get combined until we have at least the required amount. ie. the $25+$30 chunks (as wallets tend to use the oldest ones first). These get combined and then broken into 2 new chunks as required. So a $37 chunk would go to the person, and the remaining $13 chunk would then be returned to a change address in my wallet.

so... it would be: Input1 ($25) + Input2 ($30) => Output1 ($37 to the person I'm sending to) and Output2 ($13, into my change address - this is the "extra" money you're seeing being returned to your account).

Hope that isn't too confusing... it certainly caught me out the first time I tried sending bitcoins... I freaked out when I first tried to send $1 to someone... and it used a $10 chunk! Then I saw that I had $9 returned...  

Really?? But that would mean you'd never buy anything online ever... because you'd be worried any place would be likely to sell/trade your address...

Pretty sure the OP thinks that he would be buying premade paper wallets that already have addresses printed on them...

Yeah... I looked at this one also... Evergrande is usually a solid bet, but this is #1 v #6... so it could go either way... I have taken Evergrande on -1 hoping for a nice 2.06 payout

The pure MoneyLine wasn't paying enough to interest me... but like yourself, I have kept my bet small... as confidence is not great. I probably should have taken over 2.5... as it always seems to be a 2-1 type result with these guys... fingers crossed for another positive result though

As long as you read all the security precautions they list here and use an offline version of the number generator as opposed to generating addresses live on the website (or any website really) it should be OK.

You then get the "blanks"... So you can generate your addresses on an offline machine using a copy of the address generator, print the details of your addresses onto the blanks using a "dumb" printer... and for extra bonus points you can then add the nice hologram tamper stickers and put them in nice waterproof storage bags as they recommend and you should be good to go.

It seems you already have... I assume in Electrum you generated 3 addresses (and 3 private keys) A, B & C... and then you created 1 multisig address (we'll call it D) using those 3 in a 2-of-3 configuration?

If that is the case, then you should have the details for the 4th address D, which is the multisig and starts with a "3", all the others (A,B & C) should be "1". Now you send funds into the multisig address D (starts with a "3")... and make sure all the private keys for your A, B & C addresses are all backed up/stored independently of each other. When you want to take funds out of D, you need to create a transaction using one of A,B or C.. and then co-sign the transaction using one of the other addresses.

I guess for your use case, it would be a good idea if you can have addresses A, B and C running on different instances of Electrum (maybe even on different machines?)

Like the example given on the Bitcoin wiki for instance, where they say "Husband and Wife Savings"... 2-of-2... in that instance both Husband and Wife have to agree to spend the funds on stuff. Also useful for business partnerships to prevent one partner from running off with all the cash.

Of course, if they have a disagreement, then yes, in theory they can block the other partner from getting the funds, but they also won't be able to get them.

I guess where all parties have a vested interest in the funds, ie. they put money into the account... or they "earned" them through whatever business/action, then having an X-of-X account is probably the best idea. Then all parties will want to co-operate to ensure their share is OK.

However, if it is something like a community fund, where people are being given authority over other peoples money... then having it as at least (X-1)-of-X is better... because then it is easy to prevent someone from being a dick and stealing all the money and also trying to prevent the rest of the group from getting the funds if they have a falling out.

Generally, you'd want it to be a majority thing, so 2-of-3, 3-of-4, 3-of-5, 4-of-6 etc... democracy FTW!

I hope you changed all your passwords and everything from a different device. If that machine is still compromised, they probably have keyloggers installed and they probably now have your NEW passwords as well...

You need to fully wipe that machine with a full format and reinstall and start from scratch. I never trust that a machine "cleaned" using antivirus or malware removal tools is 100% clean.

If you didn't use a reformated/reinstalled or different machine to modify your passwords, then I would do so immediately.