Bitcoin Forum
July 15, 2019, 09:40:49 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 [127] 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 ... 346 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [ANN][XEL] Elastic Project - The Decentralized Supercomputer  (Read 449651 times)
This is a self-moderated topic. If you do not want to be moderated by the person who started this topic, create a new topic.
Evil-Knievel
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274
Merit: 1160



View Profile
November 15, 2016, 05:24:14 PM
 #2521

So they ended up sending a TX where some micro-change is input as the first, and the actual "bitcoin address" for which they backed up the private key ended up on the second place.

How is that possible? They sent a TX from an address they dont have the keys? Thats a multisig-issue right? They sent from coinbase and coinbase/xyz hold the keys to no1 of the input-address?

The Coinbase debacle is one other point on the questions list.

But for now, imagine you have a wallet with an address 1ABCDEF...  that contains 1000 BTC. And you have a few garbage addresses that you don't even know of as they are "hidden" change addresses, for example 1DEADBEEF which contains some meaningless dust, say 0.0001 BTC.

Now you think:
Great, I donate 1000 BTC, and back up the private key 1ABCDEF...

Now, in fact your transaction is 1000.0001 BTC (because of the fee). BitcoinQT pulls in the dust from the change address as the first input and you are screwed if you missed creating a back up of 1DEADBEEF:

Inputs:
1DEADBEEF ... 0.0001BTC
1ABCDEF..... 1000 BTC

Output:
Whoever: 1000 BTC

Miner fee:
0.0001 BTC

XEL go to:
1 DEADBEEF... and not 1ABCDEF...

Reading the terms should raise extended awareness to not do things like that, but that maybe does not apply to the "average joe".
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1563226849
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1563226849

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1563226849
Reply with quote  #2

1563226849
Report to moderator
1563226849
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1563226849

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1563226849
Reply with quote  #2

1563226849
Report to moderator
1563226849
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1563226849

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1563226849
Reply with quote  #2

1563226849
Report to moderator
Evil-Knievel
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274
Merit: 1160



View Profile
November 15, 2016, 06:14:12 PM
 #2522

Maybe we could vote in the client itself.

XEL holders can vote for or against using "any input" instead of just the first for redeeming the genesis block.
If >50% vote for yes, then this feature gets enabled for all those who did not vote "no". So, those who vote against that will definitely have their genesis block entry redeemeable only by the first input address.

What do you think? This seems "democratic" to me and everyone who does not want this feature, doesn't get it Wink
cyberhacker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274
Merit: 1000



View Profile
November 15, 2016, 06:18:23 PM
 #2523

Maybe we could vote in the client itself.

XEL holders can vote for or against using "any input" instead of just the first for redeeming the genesis block.
If >50% vote for yes, then this feature gets enabled for all those who did not vote "no". So, those who vote against that will definitely have their genesis block entry redeemeable only by the first input address.

What do you think? This seems "democratic" to me and everyone who does not want this feature, doesn't get it Wink

i already saw my balance in genesis.

so i don't want any vote now.......

so the upcoming release will be the mainnet? we can redeem soon?
ImI
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1946
Merit: 1019



View Profile
November 15, 2016, 06:20:38 PM
 #2524

Maybe we could vote in the client itself.

XEL holders can vote for or against using "any input" instead of just the first for redeeming the genesis block.
If >50% vote for yes, then this feature gets enabled for all those who did not vote "no". So, those who vote against that will definitely have their genesis block entry redeemeable only by the first input address.

What do you think? This seems "democratic" to me and everyone who does not want this feature, doesn't get it Wink

Have to eat something, feeling like Homer at the moment.  Wink

Evil-Knievel
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274
Merit: 1160



View Profile
November 15, 2016, 06:29:57 PM
 #2525

so the upcoming release will be the mainnet? we can redeem soon?

I think one more testnet, and if all goes smooth we're good to go!
In the last testnet we can test things like redeeming, new retargeting, etc.

Finally  Wink  I need to get a job, right now I am doing nothing else than Elastic living off my savings.

Quote
so i don't want any vote now.......

In the proposed scheme you could just ignore it, do not vote at all and simply redeem!  Wink
But i would be interested in what all the community members here think of that idea!
bitcoinpaul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 910
Merit: 1000



View Profile
November 15, 2016, 06:33:29 PM
 #2526

Just hodl ur elastics  Grin

Finally  Wink  I need to get a job, right now I am doing nothing else than Elastic living off my savings.
wizzardTim
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1000


Reality is stranger than fiction


View Profile
November 15, 2016, 06:39:38 PM
 #2527

If the "any input" approach is helpful for some people who otherwise are going to have difficulty in redeeming, then it would be good if it is added imo.

Behold the Tangle Mysteries! Dare to know It's truth.

- Excerpt from the IOTA Sacred Texts Vol. I
bitcoinpaul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 910
Merit: 1000



View Profile
November 15, 2016, 06:41:28 PM
 #2528

If the "any input" approach is helpful for some people who otherwise are going to have difficulty in redeeming, then it would be good if it is added imo.

indeed.
Evil-Knievel
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274
Merit: 1160



View Profile
November 15, 2016, 06:53:28 PM
 #2529

Just hodl ur elastics  Grin

Sounds ironic, but I hardly have any  Sad  I threw in less than 4 BTC in it. So if you will, I am working here exclusively for you guys!
cryptoboy.architect
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 513
Merit: 500


View Profile
November 15, 2016, 06:55:46 PM
 #2530

Sounds ironic, but I hardly have any  Sad  I threw in less than 4 BTC in it. So if you will, I am working here exclusively for you guys!

Well, I think we are all in agreement that a good chunk of the BTC donated should come your way, right? Who controls that? And why aren't they paying you?
ImI
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1946
Merit: 1019



View Profile
November 15, 2016, 07:56:22 PM
 #2531

Now you think:
Great, I donate 1000 BTC, and back up the private key 1ABCDEF...

Now, in fact your transaction is 1000.0001 BTC (because of the fee). BitcoinQT pulls in the dust from the change address as the first input and you are screwed if you missed creating a back up of 1DEADBEEF:

Hmm.. i always was under the impression that you have ONE private key that you can sign all the addresses in your wallet with. So lets say i backup my wallet.dat, then i should be able to sign all addresses that belong to that certain private key including the dust-adresses?
Ghoom
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 170
Merit: 100


View Profile
November 15, 2016, 08:02:51 PM
 #2532

Now you think:
Great, I donate 1000 BTC, and back up the private key 1ABCDEF...

Now, in fact your transaction is 1000.0001 BTC (because of the fee). BitcoinQT pulls in the dust from the change address as the first input and you are screwed if you missed creating a back up of 1DEADBEEF:

Hmm.. i always was under the impression that you have ONE private key that you can sign all the addresses in your wallet with. So lets say i backup my wallet.dat, then i should be able to sign all addresses that belong to that certain private key including the dust-adresses?

You can list all adresses in yout wallet with "listaddressgroupings"

and show each private key with "dumpprivkey [your public key here]" command
ImI
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1946
Merit: 1019



View Profile
November 15, 2016, 08:05:34 PM
 #2533

Now you think:
Great, I donate 1000 BTC, and back up the private key 1ABCDEF...

Now, in fact your transaction is 1000.0001 BTC (because of the fee). BitcoinQT pulls in the dust from the change address as the first input and you are screwed if you missed creating a back up of 1DEADBEEF:

Hmm.. i always was under the impression that you have ONE private key that you can sign all the addresses in your wallet with. So lets say i backup my wallet.dat, then i should be able to sign all addresses that belong to that certain private key including the dust-adresses?

You can list all adresses in yout wallet with "listaddressgroupings"

and show each private key with "dumpprivkey [your public key here]" command

ok, as i understand it we would have a problem if someone had not made a backup of his WHOLE wallet but instead just made a backup of ONE of his private keys, right?



Ghoom
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 170
Merit: 100


View Profile
November 15, 2016, 08:11:46 PM
 #2534

Now you think:
Great, I donate 1000 BTC, and back up the private key 1ABCDEF...

Now, in fact your transaction is 1000.0001 BTC (because of the fee). BitcoinQT pulls in the dust from the change address as the first input and you are screwed if you missed creating a back up of 1DEADBEEF:

Hmm.. i always was under the impression that you have ONE private key that you can sign all the addresses in your wallet with. So lets say i backup my wallet.dat, then i should be able to sign all addresses that belong to that certain private key including the dust-adresses?

You can list all adresses in yout wallet with "listaddressgroupings"

and show each private key with "dumpprivkey [your public key here]" command

ok, as i understand it we would have a problem if someone had not made a backup of his WHOLE wallet but instead just made a backup of ONE of his private keys, right?





yep
Redawn
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 121
Merit: 10


View Profile
November 15, 2016, 08:20:44 PM
 #2535

I want to update the XEL reddit thread.
Can some please tell me when we go live?
Also please reply some importants points regarding this project.

Thanks!

Join the Elastic revolution!  Elastic - The Decentralized Supercomputer
ELASTIC WEBSITE | ANNOUNCEMENT THREAD | ELASTIC SLACK | ELASTIC FORUM
drays
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1610
Merit: 1021


View Profile
November 15, 2016, 09:44:21 PM
 #2536

Maybe we could vote in the client itself.

XEL holders can vote for or against using "any input" instead of just the first for redeeming the genesis block.
If >50% vote for yes, then this feature gets enabled for all those who did not vote "no". So, those who vote against that will definitely have their genesis block entry redeemeable only by the first input address.

What do you think? This seems "democratic" to me and everyone who does not want this feature, doesn't get it Wink

Why to vote? Smiley

I mean why not to enable that behavior for all the donations by default? It will allow some users to redeem, who otherwise will not be able to do that.
So there are benefits of having that feature ("redeem using any input address").

Lets now think what are the possible drawbacks of that approach. I can see only one: it could create some hypothetical security hole - if coins were sent from online wallets, where some of the keys belong to the online wallet owners, it is possible that online wallet owners will redeem the coins and steal them that way... Is this correct..?
Is there any other drawback?

And... am I thinking in the right direction here...?

... this space is not for rent ...
ttookk
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 966
Merit: 513


View Profile
November 15, 2016, 09:53:36 PM
 #2537

Just hodl ur elastics  Grin

Sounds ironic, but I hardly have any  Sad  I threw in less than 4 BTC in it. So if you will, I am working here exclusively for you guys!

Less than 4 BTC… Hardly any… I don't even own 4 BTC. My donation is just a tad above the minimum required, actually.
Evil-Knievel
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274
Merit: 1160



View Profile
November 15, 2016, 09:59:54 PM
 #2538

Maybe we could vote in the client itself.

XEL holders can vote for or against using "any input" instead of just the first for redeeming the genesis block.
If >50% vote for yes, then this feature gets enabled for all those who did not vote "no". So, those who vote against that will definitely have their genesis block entry redeemeable only by the first input address.

What do you think? This seems "democratic" to me and everyone who does not want this feature, doesn't get it Wink

Why to vote? Smiley

I mean why not to enable that behavior for all the donations by default? It will allow some users to redeem, who otherwise will not be able to do that.
So there are benefits of having that feature ("redeem using any input address").

Lets now think what are the possible drawbacks of that approach. I can see only one: it could create some hypothetical security hole - if coins were sent from online wallets, where some of the keys belong to the online wallet owners, it is possible that online wallet owners will redeem the coins and steal them that way... Is this correct..?
Is there any other drawback?

And... am I thinking in the right direction here...?

What you describe would not happen in reality I think. The only wallets I know of are those, who use multisig-wallets to send the funds from. Multisig wallets are those starting with a 3....

The real drawback of this approach would be only if something like that happened:

1. Someone donated 100 BTC from his QT wallet.
2. The money came from 10 different addresses in one transaction
3. The first input is his "main wallet". Absolutely correct and he keeps this private key secretly
4. As the other wallets of his are empty, he posts the private key to one of the other addresses in some public online forum, in an example python script that he posts. I mean hey, he wasnt aware of the change that we are discussing.
5. Everyone can redeem his XEL
ImI
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1946
Merit: 1019



View Profile
November 15, 2016, 11:06:44 PM
 #2539

Maybe we could vote in the client itself.

XEL holders can vote for or against using "any input" instead of just the first for redeeming the genesis block.
If >50% vote for yes, then this feature gets enabled for all those who did not vote "no". So, those who vote against that will definitely have their genesis block entry redeemeable only by the first input address.

What do you think? This seems "democratic" to me and everyone who does not want this feature, doesn't get it Wink

Why to vote? Smiley

I mean why not to enable that behavior for all the donations by default? It will allow some users to redeem, who otherwise will not be able to do that.
So there are benefits of having that feature ("redeem using any input address").

Lets now think what are the possible drawbacks of that approach. I can see only one: it could create some hypothetical security hole - if coins were sent from online wallets, where some of the keys belong to the online wallet owners, it is possible that online wallet owners will redeem the coins and steal them that way... Is this correct..?
Is there any other drawback?

And... am I thinking in the right direction here...?

What you describe would not happen in reality I think. The only wallets I know of are those, who use multisig-wallets to send the funds from. Multisig wallets are those starting with a 3....

The real drawback of this approach would be only if something like that happened:

1. Someone donated 100 BTC from his QT wallet.
2. The money came from 10 different addresses in one transaction
3. The first input is his "main wallet". Absolutely correct and he keeps this private key secretly
4. As the other wallets of his are empty, he posts the private key to one of the other addresses in some public online forum, in an example python script that he posts. I mean hey, he wasnt aware of the change that we are discussing.
5. Everyone can redeem his XEL

Hmm....proposal: Stick to the terms, give out the XEL that were redeemed correctly and then (after a period of time) reconsider again. Eventually (after there is no conflict with another person) release the XEL.

From a legal perspective its obv safe to just stay to the terms conditions and not pay out those funds, which maybe less then 0.1% eventually anyways.
ttookk
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 966
Merit: 513


View Profile
November 15, 2016, 11:13:07 PM
 #2540

Maybe we could vote in the client itself.

XEL holders can vote for or against using "any input" instead of just the first for redeeming the genesis block.
If >50% vote for yes, then this feature gets enabled for all those who did not vote "no". So, those who vote against that will definitely have their genesis block entry redeemeable only by the first input address.

What do you think? This seems "democratic" to me and everyone who does not want this feature, doesn't get it Wink

Why to vote? Smiley

I mean why not to enable that behavior for all the donations by default? It will allow some users to redeem, who otherwise will not be able to do that.
So there are benefits of having that feature ("redeem using any input address").

Lets now think what are the possible drawbacks of that approach. I can see only one: it could create some hypothetical security hole - if coins were sent from online wallets, where some of the keys belong to the online wallet owners, it is possible that online wallet owners will redeem the coins and steal them that way... Is this correct..?
Is there any other drawback?

And... am I thinking in the right direction here...?

What you describe would not happen in reality I think. The only wallets I know of are those, who use multisig-wallets to send the funds from. Multisig wallets are those starting with a 3....

The real drawback of this approach would be only if something like that happened:

1. Someone donated 100 BTC from his QT wallet.
2. The money came from 10 different addresses in one transaction
3. The first input is his "main wallet". Absolutely correct and he keeps this private key secretly
4. As the other wallets of his are empty, he posts the private key to one of the other addresses in some public online forum, in an example python script that he posts. I mean hey, he wasnt aware of the change that we are discussing.
5. Everyone can redeem his XEL

Well, that sounds unlikely, but if it would happen, it could lead to a lot of trouble, not only for the person affected, but also for the person he_she is suing, which would be who exactly? The person who published the code, the one who wrote it? I'm not sure, whether that person could point towards an online vote and say "I just followed orders".

With that in mind, I think deciding on this in a democratic way holds the risk, that there wouldn't be a risk for those voting, but there could be a risk for a person or a small group of persons who execute the vote.

I'm no legal expert, so what I described has to be taken with a grain of salt, but if we assume, that in the end, the responsibility lies by only some people, as opposed to lying by the XEL community as a whole, those people should be the ones deciding.

I'd say, don't change it, and create some kind of repeal form. People can check their donation BEFORE distribution, if something is wrong, they can contact  you, Lannister or someone else to fix it.
Pages: « 1 ... 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 [127] 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 ... 346 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

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!