Do run a Bitcoin Core FULL NODE Now!

[neurotypical]

..... is there a way to create a "symbiosis" of the Electrum wallet and Bitcoin Core (or something like that), so that to sign transactions safely on ANY(doesn't matter which Linux distro, or even Windows) ALWAYS offline system, and afterwards actually broadcasting it with one's own Bitcoin Core full node.

Before I started my full node I had been doing it easily, comfortably and safely with the Electrum wallet.

All this reduces to is generating transactions off line and then inputting them into a computer with a wallet such as Bitcoin Core.

Hooking Electrum into one end and hooking "full node" into the other is two levels of specificity without any tangible benefit.

Spendulus, I've noticed if I say the Earth is round, you will say that is not quite true. You are always looking to find faults in my words

The greatest benefit with the Electrum scheme is that the online system's wallet is "watch-only". The real wallet that can spend money never goes online.

The idea is to have a full bitcoin node installed in a decent system like a linux partition that you don't use for much other than to have the full node so you lower the surface attack (and not use Electrum because it's not ideal, some consider HD wallets unsafe).

Then, you would have something that's completely sealed like an airgapped laptop, and you would do the actual signature there, then you save this information in an USB or something and then relay it into the network with your full node.

The problem is I dont really know how this method works. How do you make the offline transaction, then pass it on the full node linux partition safely?

The way to lower attacks would be to have the "full node" NOT online all the time as a full node, which in and of itself invites attacks. Open ports and all that.

As for the offline machine, those methods are well documented at least for legacy Bitcoin.

But why not use a Trezor or other such hardware device? Certainly they qualify as very low hassle, high security and "off line."

I don't really trust Trezor, they keep adding unnecessary cluter specially with the new Trezor T which raises surface of attack.

I also don't trust the concept of "seeds" in general, or anything that could spawn all of your private keys thought a single passphrase.

Can't you sign transactions offline with the Bitcoin Core wallet in an airgapped computer, then move this into another computer with another Bitcoin Core and relay it to the network?

But maybe this is unnecessary and considering im not going to be running the Bitcoin Core wallet as a node 24/7 and only boot the Linux partition when I need to transact or create a new receiving address... I should be safe.

I would need to encrypt the Linux partition tho, otherwise when I boot in Windows the wallet files could be accessible if my Windows partition gets hacked.

So you don't trust the seeds or word list, but Electrum uses them. As does Trevor. Core has the HD flag today, but doesn't seem to have deterministic stuff implemented.

This explains the overall theory. There's a link at the bottom on how to do it with Electrum.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/How_to_set_up_a_secure_offline_savings_wallet

Yes, that's right, I don't trust Trezor, and I certainly don't trust an SPV wallet no matter if it's called Electrum or anything else.

The HD wallet on Core cannot be generated through a seed, but since I don't know the details, I choose to stay under the old non HD format for now.

[cellard]

The method of a double computer setup is achieved by dumping the raw transaction data on the offline computer, then passing it on (with an USB stick for example) in the online computer where your node is.

This can't be done with the GUI afaik, so you would need to use the command console, so this has added risk, and you still are at risk that the text file containing your raw transaction gets compromised somehow during the process of relaying it in the network.

I have never used this method so you would need to ask someone that does for the details, but I think an encrypted Linux partition with a node used as a wallet is safe enough in most cases.

[Bestcoin-fan]

The method of a double computer setup is achieved by dumping the raw transaction data on the offline computer, then passing it on (with an USB stick for example) in the online computer where your node is.

This can't be done with the GUI afaik, so you would need to use the command console, so this has added risk, and you still are at risk that the text file containing your raw transaction gets compromised somehow during the process of relaying it in the network.

I have never used this method so you would need to ask someone that does for the details, but I think an encrypted Linux partition with a node used as a wallet is safe enough in most cases.

It seems,  there was a topic discussing this issue:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=651344

[Easteregg69]

  Greetings to all good will people!

   Now, when the bunch of deceitful,  greedy,  incompetent,  irresponsible idiots from B2X (sorry for some harshness) are really endangering the Bitcoin,
  
 

1. It is me calling.

2. You are talking about yourself.

3. Shut the fuck up!

4. Or is shall call Hitler!

Beavis and Butthead Prank Call Hitler
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9laOl7cqR4

[Bestcoin-fan]

  Greetings to all good will people!

   Now, when the bunch of deceitful,  greedy,  incompetent,  irresponsible idiots from B2X (sorry for some harshness) are really endangering the Bitcoin,
 

2- Youe are talking about yoursel.

3. Shut the fuck up!

I think I am talking about YOU including.

You must be one of those 2x supporters.

2mb blocks might be discussed (though now, after the Segwit activation they are even more disputable), but they must NOT be forcefully imposed!!

[neurotypical]

Anyone knows if the different Ubuntu flavors (Lubuntu, Xubuntu, Kubuntu...) are maintained at the same speed as the original Ubuntu LTS?

I have seen Lubuntu, it's really cool and lightweight, would be perfect to run a node. Xubuntu is also lightweight, but with better GUI, a good compromise between lightweight and minimalist GUI. Then there's Trisquel, which also looks easy to use and is FSF approved, but im not sure if it's easy to install like Ubuntu, and if it will get updates constantly.

Are updates automatic or manual?

I think im close now to deciding one, and I think I will stick to running the wallet as a node and only fire up the Linux partition everyday for a while to keep the node updated so when I need to transact I don't need to wait hours for it to catch up. If you open your node just 20 minutes a day or something, you can keep it synced on the daily. I don't think this will pose a realistic risk. I will not be even opening the internet browser on there. I can still browse with windows since my windows partition contains nothing of value anyway.

[Spendulus]

.....
Yes, that's right, I don't trust Trezor, and I certainly don't trust an SPV wallet no matter if it's called Electrum or anything else.

The HD wallet on Core cannot be generated through a seed, but since I don't know the details, I choose to stay under the old non HD format for now.

It's important to not get overly complicated or confused.

Here's the simplest way to create perfectly safe cold storage.

Load some wallet like Electrum or Core. Put some bitcoin in a single adress using this wallet. First a small amount, then a larger, then a larger still.

Verify that the coin is in the blockchain at the address.

Now make a backup of the wallet.dat, the seed words, the passphrases, and triple check that you have them right.

Delete the wallet, the blockchain, and the browser you used to check the blockchain.

You are now done. You have coin on the blockchain, and cold storage of the access methods (s).

Now build another wallet for incidental purchases.

[Spendulus]

....
As I understand it, according to the original plan, ALL of the wallets were supposed to be full nodes, so naturally there was not provided any reward only for that. Moreover! All of the nodes (wallets) were supposed to be MINERS as well! And as miners they would have gained the reward! .....

That does not sound like what Satoshi wrote. At all.

Do you think so? Please, read Bitcoin whitepaper more attentively. Here is it:


  https://github.com/trottier/original-bitcoin/blob/92ee8d9a994391d148733da77e2bbc2f4acc43cd/src/main.h#L795

// Nodes collect new transactions into a block, hash them into a hash tree,
// and scan through nonce values to make the block's hash satisfy proof-of-work
// requirements.  When they solve the proof-of-work, they broadcast the block
// to everyone and the block is added to the block chain.  The first transaction
// in the block is a special one that creates a new coin owned by the creator
// of the block.

That has nothing to do with whether "all nodes were supposed to be full nodes."

Satoshi talked about the obvious need for lightweight wallets that didn't require the entire Merkle tree database.

[Bestcoin-fan]

...
That has nothing to do with whether "all nodes were supposed to be full nodes."

Satoshi talked about the obvious need for lightweight wallets that didn't require the entire Merkle tree database.

I cannot abstain from quoting myself    (as the topic is quite long and people may have missed my answer to the claim) :

OK, I shouldn't have used the words "were sopposed to be", but I'm sure Satoshi, knowing the actual situation today, would support me in what I have said earlier :

...
Anyway, every smart and responsible Bitcoin holder, fan and enthusiast should:

1. Run his/her own full (maybe pruned) node.

2. Even much better if he is also a miner (now also signaling NO2x).

The general idea is simple, and the truth is always simple.

You should not parasitize hoping that someone would perform hard, dirty work instead of you.  

You must help, you SHOULD do yourself what you CAN do yourself.

[Spendulus]

.....
You should NOT parasitize hoping that someone would perform hard, dirty work instead of you. 
You must help, you SHOULD do yourself what you CAN do yourself.

Parasitize?

Miners mine for profit.

[Bestcoin-fan]

.....
You should NOT parasitize hoping that someone would perform hard, dirty work instead of you.  
You must help, you SHOULD do yourself what you CAN do yourself.

Parasitize?
Miners mine for profit.

First of all, it was about users' lightweight wallets.

As for miners, naturally, miners get profit, but unfortunately, now few can afford to be independent miners (who can be signaling NO2x for example

[alko89]

I run a Bitcoin Core node at home. But might switch to Parity Bitcoin if it will be as good as Parity for Ethereum.

[Bestcoin-fan]

I run a Bitcoin Core node at home. But might switch to Parity Bitcoin if it will be as good as Parity for Ethereum.

As for parity wallet, personally, I'm very cautious, skeptical about that Vitalik (good guy would have never gone for a meeting with Putin), his ether, ICOs, and everything that comes from them. But of course, that's just my personal opinion

[alko89]

I run a Bitcoin Core node at home. But might switch to Parity Bitcoin if it will be as good as Parity for Ethereum.

As for parity wallet, personally, I'm very cautious, skeptical about that Vitalik (good guy would have never gone for a meeting with Putin), his ether, ICOs, and everything that comes from them. But of course, that's just my personal opinion

hmmm...well since both clients are open source, how much can they hide? If they suddenly close source Parity, I'll switch to something else since I use the one from github.

[Bestcoin-fan]

I run a Bitcoin Core node at home. But might switch to Parity Bitcoin if it will be as good as Parity for Ethereum.

As for parity wallet, personally, I'm very cautious, skeptical about that Vitalik (good guy would have never gone for a meeting with Putin), his ether, ICOs, and everything that comes from them. But of course, that's just my personal opinion

hmmm...well since both clients are open source, how much can they hide? If they suddenly close source Parity, I'll switch to something else since I use the one from github.

You're right of course. That may be just from my personal hard experience, I know too well what that Putin and his current Russia are, as I live less than 50 km near the Russian border, I am in many crypto currencies' Russian speaking Telegram channels, and I know that, for example,  just soon after that "morally flexible" Vitalik met Putin, the Russian authorities have begun constantly attacking, regulating, etc. (actually forbidding) the Bitcoin and other cryptos. Because they realized that they cannot control (actually steal) Cryptocurrencies from their citizens, as they constantly do with the usual fiat currencies!

I have the right for my personal opinion, so I'll repeat, I am very much cautious, skeptical about that Vitalik, his ether, ICOs, and everything that comes from them.

[DooMAD]

2mb blocks might be discussed (though now, after the Segwit activation they are even more disputable), but they must NOT be forcefully imposed!!

Loving the self-entitled privilege demonstrated there and pretty much everywhere on these forums lately.  

It's not "forcefully imposed" when you freely choose to rely on someone to do something for you and then you decide you don't like what they're doing.  No one is putting a gun to your head and "forcing" you to keep relying on these miners you clearly disagree with.  See it for what it actually is.  The people you disagree with are possibly leaving.  That's not a forceful imposition.  That's them leaving you alone to do what you want.  If the fork is successful, you're free to have a 1mb base and 3mb witness blocksize with no one around to challenge it.

So instead of complaining about it, you can just as easily rely on some different people to do that exact same job in the way you want them to do it.  There will definitely still be miners who don't agree with 2x, so just rely on their proof of work instead.  You get what you want, the 2x supporters get what they want.  

Or, you could stop relying on other people to do something for you altogether.  You could do that job yourself and start mining.  After all, you did just say:

You should not parasitize hoping that someone would perform hard, dirty work instead of you.  

You must help, you SHOULD do yourself what you CAN do yourself.

So either start mining already, or just stick with the miners you do agree with if you don't want to mine yourself.  Everyone has the freedom to chose which chain they want to interact on.  All you have to do is run your preferred code.  

They invested in the hardware, which means they get to decide how they use it.  You didn't invest in the hardware, so you don't get to decide how they use theirs.  Clearly no one can forcefully impose anything, otherwise you'd be able to enforce your will on them to do what you want and there would be no forks.  So you can't impose anything on them and they can't impose anything on you.  Again, they're leaving you alone, you're free from their supposed tyranny soon.  What's with the constant bitching about it?

[Bestcoin-fan]

2mb blocks might be discussed (though now, after the Segwit activation they are even more disputable), but they must NOT be forcefully imposed!!

..
It's not "forcefully imposed" when you freely choose to rely on someone to do something for you and then you decide you don't like what they're doing.  No one is putting a gun to your head and "forcing" you to keep relying on these miners you clearly disagree with.  See it for what it actually is.  The people you disagree with are possibly leaving.  That's not a forceful imposition.  That's them leaving you alone to do what you want.  If the fork is successful, you're free to have a 1mb base and 3mb witness blocksize with no one around to challenge it.

So instead of complaining about it, you can just as easily rely on some different people to do that exact same job in the way you want them to do it.  There will definitely still be miners who don't agree with 2x, so just rely on their proof of work instead.  You get what you want, the 2x supporters get what they want.  

Or, you could stop relying on other people to do something for you altogether.  You could do that job yourself and start mining.  After all, you did just say:

You should not parasitize hoping that someone would perform hard, dirty work instead of you.  

You must help, you SHOULD do yourself what you CAN do yourself.

So either start mining already, or just stick with the miners you do agree with if you don't want to mine yourself.  Everyone has the freedom to chose which chain they want to interact on.  All you have to do is run your preferred code.  

They invested in the hardware, which means they get to decide how they use it.  You didn't invest in the hardware, so you don't get to decide how they use theirs.  Clearly no one can forcefully impose anything, otherwise you'd be able to enforce your will on them to do what you want and there would be no forks.  So you can't impose anything on them and they can't impose anything on you.  Again, they're leaving you alone, you're free from their supposed tyranny soon.  What's with the constant bitching about it?

You have a very crafty position.

You keep distorting the facts all the time, portraying free will where there is really absolutely no freedom of choice.

For example, personally, I would very much like to be an independent miner, but I just cannot afford to buy the necessary equipment.

Therefore, although formally you are supposedly right, but in reality - no, in no case.

[DooMAD]

2mb blocks might be discussed (though now, after the Segwit activation they are even more disputable), but they must NOT be forcefully imposed!!

..
It's not "forcefully imposed" when you freely choose to rely on someone to do something for you and then you decide you don't like what they're doing.  No one is putting a gun to your head and "forcing" you to keep relying on these miners you clearly disagree with.  See it for what it actually is.  The people you disagree with are possibly leaving.  That's not a forceful imposition.  That's them leaving you alone to do what you want.  If the fork is successful, you're free to have a 1mb base and 3mb witness blocksize with no one around to challenge it.

So instead of complaining about it, you can just as easily rely on some different people to do that exact same job in the way you want them to do it.  There will definitely still be miners who don't agree with 2x, so just rely on their proof of work instead.  You get what you want, the 2x supporters get what they want.  

Or, you could stop relying on other people to do something for you altogether.  You could do that job yourself and start mining.  After all, you did just say:

You should not parasitize hoping that someone would perform hard, dirty work instead of you.  

You must help, you SHOULD do yourself what you CAN do yourself.

So either start mining already, or just stick with the miners you do agree with if you don't want to mine yourself.  Everyone has the freedom to chose which chain they want to interact on.  All you have to do is run your preferred code.  

They invested in the hardware, which means they get to decide how they use it.  You didn't invest in the hardware, so you don't get to decide how they use theirs.  Clearly no one can forcefully impose anything, otherwise you'd be able to enforce your will on them to do what you want and there would be no forks.  So you can't impose anything on them and they can't impose anything on you.  Again, they're leaving you alone, you're free from their supposed tyranny soon.  What's with the constant bitching about it?

You have a very crafty position.

You keep distorting the facts all the time, portraying free will where there is really absolutely no freedom of choice.

For example, personally, I would very much like to be an independent miner, but I just cannot afford to buy the necessary equipment.

Therefore, although formally you are supposedly right, but in reality - no, in no case.

All participants in bitcoin have just enough control and freedom of choice, so that no one entity is in overall control.

There is no distortion in what I've said.  If currently stated intentions prove to be accurate, you'll still have roughly 15% of the current network's hashrate with which to continue building the blockchain and prove that your vision of Bitcoin provides the greatest incentive for all participants.  You might get even more than 15% as crunch time draws near and some miners reconsider their stance.  None of this is set in stone.  You will absolutely, 100% guaranteed have the option of continuing to use Bitcoin as it presently exists in it's 1mb base and 3mb witness space ruleset.  There is undeniable freedom of choice in that.  Having "no freedom of choice" is entirely a product of your imagination.

If you're right and your vision of 1mb base and 3mb witness space does result in the most economic activity and best financial incentive to secure your chain, the other ~85% (or less) of miners who currently think a 2mb base blocksize is a good idea will be proven sorely wrong.  They'll come back to your chain and they'll be far more receptive to your way of seeing things.

It's entirely up to you and the rest of the participants in this economy to prove where the consensus really lies.  That's not a "crafty position", that's the reality of it.  

The real distortion is spreading this myth that "hostile takeovers", "power grabs", "benevolent dictators" and "forced impositions" are things that actually happen in Bitcoin.  They don't.  No one has that much power and that's the way it should be.

[Bestcoin-fan]

There is no distortion in what I've said.  If currently stated intentions prove to be accurate, you'll still have roughly 15% of the current network's hashrate with which to continue building the blockchain and prove that your vision of Bitcoin provides the greatest incentive for all participants.  You might get even more than 15% as crunch time draws near and some miners reconsider their stance.  None of this is set in stone.  You will absolutely, 100% guaranteed have the option of continuing to use Bitcoin as it presently exists in it's 1mb base and 3mb witness space ruleset.  There is undeniable freedom of choice in that.  Having "no freedom of choice" is entirely a product of your imagination.

If you're right and your vision of 1mb base and 3mb witness space does result in the most economic activity and best financial incentive to secure your chain, the other ~85% (or less) of miners who currently think a 2mb base blocksize is a good idea will be proven sorely wrong.  They'll come back to your chain and they'll be far more receptive to your way of seeing things.

It's entirely up to you and the rest of the participants in this economy to prove where the consensus really lies.  That's not a "crafty position", that's the reality of it.  

The real distortion is spreading this myth that "hostile takeovers", "power grabs", "benevolent dictators" and "forced impositions" are things that actually happen in Bitcoin.  They don't.  No one has that much power and that's the way it should be.

Fortunately, I think you are deliberately, or unintentionally, lying.

It is you who have roughly 20% of the current network's hashrate, as https://coin.dance/poli is showing now for example if I understand it right (I looked not into the right page, sorry, see my next post)

More and more sane miners prefer staying away from 2x and your Garzik's false, fake btc1 software.

I see no reason to continue arguing with you. You might be working for the mad, insolent 2x miners, while I'm just spending my free time on you.

[Bestcoin-fan]

You may be right, I looked into the wrong page, I should have looked into https://coin.dance/blocks.

Yes, you seem to have 83% miners yet. OK, maybe. We'll see.