Wallet Compile Service

[CHAOSiTEC]

I will compile your wallets for:

* Windows (BTC 0.05) - which gets you *coind, *coin-qt (dependant on what the coin is based on also *coin-cli *coin-tx) zipped in 32 and 64 bit packages, as well as 32 and 64 bit windows install files

* MacOSX (BTC 0.05) which gets you a DMG image with *coind *coin-qt (dependant on what the coin is based on also *coin-cli *coin-tx)

both for BTC 0.09

send me a PM include github link

Payment via OgNasty Escrow. And and prices are for fully compiled sources. no working executable means no payment.

[1714619677]

1714619677

[CHAOSiTEC]

I will compile your wallets for:

* Windows (BTC 0.05)

* MacOSX (BTC 0.05)

send me a PM include github link

your service only wallet or include create altcoin

depends on your need, PM me.

[CHAOSiTEC]

*bump*

[deisik]

Aren't Bitcoin wallets for Windows precompiled, that is, distributed as an executable file (exe, msi)? I don't really know...

Further, how can we be sure that you don't inject some code into an executable to steal user's private keys?

[CHAOSiTEC]

Aren't Bitcoin wallets for Windows precompiled, that is, distributed as an executable file (exe, msi)? I don't really know...

Further, how can we be sure that you don't inject some code into an executable to steal user's private keys?

there will always be that question, even though you do what you can to try and proof that no tampering has been done...

i can only point to my long time ingagement with different altcoins here, and that i have always been ethical, about what i do, my
trust level, can be an inndicator of how i am as a person, even though there are people here that misuse the trust system.

i could turn the question around, and ask, since your questioning my morality, is it because im threatening your business?

Not that im pointing a finger, i am trying to show you, that you can always point a finger at someone for some reason.

but feel free to look through my posts, and see for yourself what i do.

the compile process does automatically grab the repo from github, import it into gitian, compile it, and out comes finished wallets..

but back to your question, it is actually unproveable that i do not ad anything to the source, since no matter what proof i provide,
someone will always say .. "You could have faked it."

so basically, your question is irrelevant...

the only proofable method would be for someone who needs a wallet compiled and thinks someone might do something to the code,
to get wallet compiled by 2 different people, using the same version of all libraries and compilers.

[deisik]

Aren't Bitcoin wallets for Windows precompiled, that is, distributed as an executable file (exe, msi)? I don't really know...

Further, how can we be sure that you don't inject some code into an executable to steal user's private keys?

there will always be that question, even though you do what you can to try and proof that no tampering has been done...

i can only point to my long time ingagement with different altcoins here, and that i have always been ethical, about what i do, my
trust level, can be an inndicator of how i am as a person, even though there are people here that misuse the trust system.

i could turn the question around, and ask, since your questioning my morality, is it because im threatening your business?

Not that im pointing a finger, i am trying to show you, that you can always point a finger at someone for some reason.

but feel free to look through my posts, and see for yourself what i do.

the compile process does automatically grab the repo from github, import it into gitian, compile it, and out comes finished wallets..

but back to your question, it is actually unproveable that i do not ad anything to the source, since no matter what proof i provide,
someone will always say .. "You could have faked it."

so basically, your question is irrelevant...

the only proofable method would be for someone who needs a wallet compiled and thinks someone might do something to the code,
to get wallet compiled by 2 different people, using the same version of all libraries and compilers.

Since, as you say "it is actually unprovable that i do not add anything", we can safely assume that you add something (even if you in fact don't). Why? Because it is always better be safe than sorry...

Especially when your money is at stake

[CHAOSiTEC]

Aren't Bitcoin wallets for Windows precompiled, that is, distributed as an executable file (exe, msi)? I don't really know...

Further, how can we be sure that you don't inject some code into an executable to steal user's private keys?

there will always be that question, even though you do what you can to try and proof that no tampering has been done...

i can only point to my long time ingagement with different altcoins here, and that i have always been ethical, about what i do, my
trust level, can be an inndicator of how i am as a person, even though there are people here that misuse the trust system.

i could turn the question around, and ask, since your questioning my morality, is it because im threatening your business?

Not that im pointing a finger, i am trying to show you, that you can always point a finger at someone for some reason.

but feel free to look through my posts, and see for yourself what i do.

the compile process does automatically grab the repo from github, import it into gitian, compile it, and out comes finished wallets..

but back to your question, it is actually unproveable that i do not ad anything to the source, since no matter what proof i provide,
someone will always say .. "You could have faked it."

so basically, your question is irrelevant...

the only proofable method would be for someone who needs a wallet compiled and thinks someone might do something to the code,
to get wallet compiled by 2 different people, using the same version of all libraries and compilers.

Since, as you say "it is actually unprovable that i do not add anything", we can safely assume that you add something (even if you in fact don't). Why? Because it is always better be safe than sorry...

Especially when your money is at stake

So we can also safely assume, that all wallets that you get from "official sites" also has something added, since it is unproven that they dont.
so the only way to be sure, is not use any wallets, and thereby not use any crypto wallets at all.

and since we are on the assume part, we can then safely assume, that i am threatening your business, since it is unproven that i dont.

but for those that wish to use my service, i am willing to leave my name, phone number, address, since i do not have anything to hide.
if i really did add anything, that would be stupid of me, since i would be easily found..
again, its a question of morality, i am providing a service, and i do take pride in what i do, that is the different, from some other people.

[deisik]

So we can also safely assume, that all wallets that you get from "official sites" also has something added, since it is unproven that they dont.
so the only way to be sure, is not use any wallets, and thereby not use any crypto wallets at all

Aren't these wallets distributed as source code (MD5 checksums and stuff like that)? Otherwise, why would you offer your services? Anyway, these concerns have already been raised and answered before. Even if a distribution is provided as a source code tarball, you can't be sure that the compiler you use hadn't been tampered with...

On the other hand, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you

[deisik]

if i really did add anything, that would be stupid of me, since i would be easily found..
again, its a question of morality, i am providing a service, and i do take pride in what i do, that is the different, from some other people

And now you begin making logically contradictory statements. At first you claim that it is actually unprovable that you don't add anything (which I specifically emphasized at that) and then you state that you "would be easily found"...

It doesn't sound quite right, does it?

[CHAOSiTEC]

if i really did add anything, that would be stupid of me, since i would be easily found..
again, its a question of morality, i am providing a service, and i do take pride in what i do, that is the different, from some other people

And now you begin making logically contradictory statements. At first you claim that it is actually unprovable that you don't add anything (which I specifically emphasized at that) and then you state that you "would be easily found"...

It doesn't sound quite right, does it?

when taking statements outside of there full sentences, it is easy to make things look, in a different light, than they really are

so, lets recap:

but back to your question, it is actually unproveable that i do not ad anything to the source, since no matter what proof i provide,
someone will always say .. "You could have faked it."

notice the above and read the whole sentence, else you start sounding like a troll...

and also, notice the fact i wrote, i am will to provide those who buy my services, with full contact info, since if something is amis with the wallet i compiled, i can be easily contacted..
how unclear is that fact, since you seem to just want to read, what you want, instead of taking everything i write into account.

[deisik]

so, lets recap:

but back to your question, it is actually unproveable that i do not ad anything to the source, since no matter what proof i provide,
someone will always say .. "You could have faked it."

notice the above and read the whole sentence, else you start sounding like a troll...

The thing is you don't provide any proofs. Your words that you don't add anything can't be considered as a proof as well as your full contact info...

Thereby, the inference that it is unprovable is true, regardless of what you said afterwards

[CHAOSiTEC]

so, lets recap:

but back to your question, it is actually unproveable that i do not ad anything to the source, since no matter what proof i provide,
someone will always say .. "You could have faked it."

notice the above and read the whole sentence, else you start sounding like a troll...

The thing is you don't provide any proofs. Your words that you don't add anything can't be considered as such as well as your full contact info...

Thereby, the inference that it is unprovable is true, regardless what you said afterwards

the problem in general is that no matter what proof you provide, anyone could say that its faked, my compile process, uses gitian, with the gitian descriptions provided with the source
i have build up my system on a clean computer, everything is compiled from sources found at the correct places, and pathces has been verified by me to be correct and not add anything to
the build process, i have been part of the alt scene for a very long time, and at no time, have i tried to scam anyone, nor will i in the future. my credentials are quite good, even the
feedback in my trust is on the possitive side, i think your just fishing now, trying to get me to say or do something, and then you will take a tiny word out of it, and try to use it
against me. i have provided all the details that should be needed, and i also provide more details to my clients. im wondering what your motivation is, since you try so hard that its
starting to look like your just a crumpy old man.

im now considering you a troll, nothing more... ciao

[deisik]

so, lets recap:

but back to your question, it is actually unproveable that i do not ad anything to the source, since no matter what proof i provide,
someone will always say .. "You could have faked it."

notice the above and read the whole sentence, else you start sounding like a troll...

The thing is you don't provide any proofs. Your words that you don't add anything can't be considered as such as well as your full contact info...

Thereby, the inference that it is unprovable is true, regardless what you said afterwards

the problem in general is that no matter what proof you provide, anyone could say that its faked, my compile process, uses gitian, with the gitian descriptions provided with the source
i have build up my system on a clean computer, everything is compiled from sources found at the correct places, and pathces has been verified by me to be correct and not add anything to
the build process, i have been part of the alt scene for a very long time, and at no time, have i tried to scam anyone, nor will i in the future. my credentials are quite good, even the
feedback in my trust is on the possitive side, i think your just fishing now, trying to get me to say or do something, and then you will take a tiny word out of it, and try to use it
against me. i have provided all the details that should be needed, and i also provide more details to my clients. im wondering what your motivation is, since you try so hard that its
starting to look like your just a crumpy old man.

im now considering you a troll, nothing more... ciao

It is irrelevant what you consider me as. I'm not talking for my own sake here (since I use neither Windows nor MacOS, to begin with). You may not be fishing right now (as you put it in respect to me)), but this doesn't in the least guarantee that you won't in the future. As I have already said, you don't provide any proofs but talk is cheap. A paranoid would say that you are trying to steal into your users' confidence (building your trust, providing credentials and so on). Further, the users who may need your "help" are obviously both tech illiterate and ignorantly careless, so there should have come up something like that...

I mean yet another way of parting a fool and his money

[deisik]

im wondering what your motivation is, since you try so hard that its starting to look like your just a crumpy old man

As there is a concept of devil's advocate, there should necessarily be a concept of devil's prosecutor, right?

[CHAOSiTEC]

so, lets recap:

but back to your question, it is actually unproveable that i do not ad anything to the source, since no matter what proof i provide,
someone will always say .. "You could have faked it."

notice the above and read the whole sentence, else you start sounding like a troll...

The thing is you don't provide any proofs. Your words that you don't add anything can't be considered as such as well as your full contact info...

Thereby, the inference that it is unprovable is true, regardless what you said afterwards

the problem in general is that no matter what proof you provide, anyone could say that its faked, my compile process, uses gitian, with the gitian descriptions provided with the source
i have build up my system on a clean computer, everything is compiled from sources found at the correct places, and pathces has been verified by me to be correct and not add anything to
the build process, i have been part of the alt scene for a very long time, and at no time, have i tried to scam anyone, nor will i in the future. my credentials are quite good, even the
feedback in my trust is on the possitive side, i think your just fishing now, trying to get me to say or do something, and then you will take a tiny word out of it, and try to use it
against me. i have provided all the details that should be needed, and i also provide more details to my clients. im wondering what your motivation is, since you try so hard that its
starting to look like your just a crumpy old man.

im now considering you a troll, nothing more... ciao

It is irrelevant what you consider me as. I'm not talking for my own sake here (since I use neither Windows nor MacOS, to begin with). You may not be fishing right now (as you put it in respect to me)), but this doesn't in the least guarantee that you won't in the future. As I have already said, you don't provide any proofs but talk is cheap. A paranoid would say that you are trying to steal into your users' confidence (building your trust, providing credentials and so on). Further, the users who may need your "help" are obviously both tech illiterate and ignorantly careless, so there should have come up something like that...

I mean yet another way of parting a fool and his money

and what proof would you consider to be sufficiently?

[deisik]

It is irrelevant what you consider me as. I'm not talking for my own sake here (since I use neither Windows nor MacOS, to begin with). You may not be fishing right now (as you put it in respect to me)), but this doesn't in the least guarantee that you won't in the future. As I have already said, you don't provide any proofs but talk is cheap. A paranoid would say that you are trying to steal into your users' confidence (building your trust, providing credentials and so on). Further, the users who may need your "help" are obviously both tech illiterate and ignorantly careless, so there should have come up something like that...

I mean yet another way of parting a fool and his money

and what proof would you consider to be sufficiently?

There is no such proof and can't possibly be. That's what people who ask for your assistance should clearly understand and realize, that they are essentially trusting you with their present and future money. Technically speaking, the same source code compiled with the same compiler may produce different executables just for a tiny difference in compiler options or even with the same options aiming at making architecture specific optimizations...

But as I said earlier, this is basically irrelevant, since you can inject code only once and get done with that

[CHAOSiTEC]

It is irrelevant what you consider me as. I'm not talking for my own sake here (since I use neither Windows nor MacOS, to begin with). You may not be fishing right now (as you put it in respect to me)), but this doesn't in the least guarantee that you won't in the future. As I have already said, you don't provide any proofs but talk is cheap. A paranoid would say that you are trying to steal into your users' confidence (building your trust, providing credentials and so on). Further, the users who may need your "help" are obviously both tech illiterate and ignorantly careless, so there should have come up something like that...

I mean yet another way of parting a fool and his money

and what proof would you consider to be sufficiently?

There is no such proof and can't possibly be. That's what people who ask for your assistance should clearly understand and realize, that they are essentially trusting you with their present and future money. Technically speaking, the same source code compiled with the same compiler may produce different executables just for a tiny difference in compiler options or even with the same options aiming at making architecture specific optimizations...

But as I said earlier, this is basically irrelevant, since you can inject code only once and get done with that

But since you brought up text taken out of context about me not wanting to provide proof. You are now backtracking on that.. please be more consistent than that. You cannot try and hit me in the head for not providing proof and then backtrack on that.


As I stated in the beginning it is not possible

But programs compiled with the same compiler version. And the same libraries will produce the same executables if compiled with the same optimisations.

Therefore if you want proof hire 2 different people and get them to compile with the same settings will generate identical executable. So that is the path to take if your paranoid... and that can be used as proof.

Unless of course they know each other and do have plans to inject stuff..  (just getting ahead of you else you would write that)

[deisik]

It is irrelevant what you consider me as. I'm not talking for my own sake here (since I use neither Windows nor MacOS, to begin with). You may not be fishing right now (as you put it in respect to me)), but this doesn't in the least guarantee that you won't in the future. As I have already said, you don't provide any proofs but talk is cheap. A paranoid would say that you are trying to steal into your users' confidence (building your trust, providing credentials and so on). Further, the users who may need your "help" are obviously both tech illiterate and ignorantly careless, so there should have come up something like that...

I mean yet another way of parting a fool and his money

and what proof would you consider to be sufficiently?

There is no such proof and can't possibly be. That's what people who ask for your assistance should clearly understand and realize, that they are essentially trusting you with their present and future money. Technically speaking, the same source code compiled with the same compiler may produce different executables just for a tiny difference in compiler options or even with the same options aiming at making architecture specific optimizations...

But as I said earlier, this is basically irrelevant, since you can inject code only once and get done with that

But since you brought up text taken out of context about me not wanting to provide proof. You are now backtracking on that.. please be more consistent than that. You cannot try and hit me in the head for not providing proof and then backtrack on that

I think I have explained my point pretty well. The context you are talking about is irrelevant, since my point would be valid in any context you could possibly try to invoke. Should I repeat it again that validating one executable doesn't in the least deprive you of the capability to inject some arbitrary code next time (or any time you see fit)? In which context this statement wouldn't be valid?

If the same code is compiled on different architectures (e.g. Intel vs AMD), you may get different executables even if you are using the same compilation flags

[CHAOSiTEC]

It is irrelevant what you consider me as. I'm not talking for my own sake here (since I use neither Windows nor MacOS, to begin with). You may not be fishing right now (as you put it in respect to me)), but this doesn't in the least guarantee that you won't in the future. As I have already said, you don't provide any proofs but talk is cheap. A paranoid would say that you are trying to steal into your users' confidence (building your trust, providing credentials and so on). Further, the users who may need your "help" are obviously both tech illiterate and ignorantly careless, so there should have come up something like that...

I mean yet another way of parting a fool and his money

and what proof would you consider to be sufficiently?

There is no such proof and can't possibly be. That's what people who ask for your assistance should clearly understand and realize, that they are essentially trusting you with their present and future money. Technically speaking, the same source code compiled with the same compiler may produce different executables just for a tiny difference in compiler options or even with the same options aiming at making architecture specific optimizations...

But as I said earlier, this is basically irrelevant, since you can inject code only once and get done with that

But since you brought up text taken out of context about me not wanting to provide proof. You are now backtracking on that.. please be more consistent than that. You cannot try and hit me in the head for not providing proof and then backtrack on that

I think I have explained my point pretty well. The context you are talking about is irrelevant, since my point would be valid in any context you could possibly try to invoke. Should I repeat it again that validating one executable doesn't in the least deprive you of the capability to inject some arbitrary code next time (or any time you see fit)? In which context this statement wouldn't be valid?

If the same code is compiled on different architectures (e.g. Intel vs AMD), you may get different executables even if you are you using the same compiler flags

Seems like you do not fully comprehend how compilers work.. if you optimise for a specific cpu then yes.. if you use exactly the same optimisations the compiler (of course has to be compiled from the exact same codebase) will produce exactly the same executable the cpu does not have anything to do with how code is optimised.. only what compiler optimisations you use... please find someone that knows about compilers and ask them..

Actually it's not irrelevant since you started talking about proof.. I'm presenting the only way proof can be performed.

But since your so persistent I can only give you one advice don't use any wallet.. any altcoin, since your point goes for all.. not just me..

[deisik]

I think I have explained my point pretty well. The context you are talking about is irrelevant, since my point would be valid in any context you could possibly try to invoke. Should I repeat it again that validating one executable doesn't in the least deprive you of the capability to inject some arbitrary code next time (or any time you see fit)? In which context this statement wouldn't be valid?

If the same code is compiled on different architectures (e.g. Intel vs AMD), you may get different executables even if you are you using the same compiler flags

Seems like you do not fully comprehend how compilers work.. if you optimise for a specific cpu then yes.. if you use exactly the same optimisations the compiler (of course has to be compiled from the exact same codebase) will produce exactly the same executable the cpu does not have anything to do with how code is optimised.. only what compiler optimisations you use... please find someone that knows about compilers and ask them..

Actually it's not irrelevant since you started talking about proof

Regarding compilers and optimization flags, I guess you may want to start your learning curve from here. There is a whole bunch of compiler flags which produce different binaries for different architectures. You may even get different results depending on whether you compile source files in a batch mode (multiple files at once) or each file separately. Now I leave it to you to decide who doesn't fully understand how compilers work..

I've started talking about the lack of proof, to be precise. As you can see, this perfectly validates my point