Bitcoin Forum
May 24, 2018, 11:46:16 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.16.0  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 ... 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 [89] 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [ANNOUNCE] Electrum - Lightweight Bitcoin Client  (Read 264120 times)
BadAss.Sx
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358
Merit: 1000


Bulletproof VPS/VPN/Email @ BadAss.Sx


View Profile WWW
June 19, 2015, 09:43:33 PM
 #1761

No every address has its own private key and as far as i know they cannot be linked to other wallet in any way.

About the clams claiming trough just-dice.com. It is just plain stupid if you do that. I find it even tricky to do it trough the wallet. But only address which are filled at the time they get funded got their CLAMS and that was last year ago. Just send your btc's to a wallet which do not have unclaimed CLAMS before you claim your CLAMS.

Need BadAss Bulletproof VPS or Bulletproof VPN or why not just mail safe with Safe-Mail. We care about your privacy.
1527205576
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1527205576

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1527205576
Reply with quote  #2

1527205576
Report to moderator
1527205576
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1527205576

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1527205576
Reply with quote  #2

1527205576
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1527205576
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1527205576

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1527205576
Reply with quote  #2

1527205576
Report to moderator
btchris
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 672
Merit: 501

a.k.a. gurnec on GitHub


View Profile WWW
June 19, 2015, 09:46:43 PM
 #1762

No every address has its own private key and as far as i know they cannot be linked to other wallet in any way.

Please see the post I wrote a few minutes ago just above yours....
SebastianJu
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142
Merit: 1010


Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile


View Profile WWW
June 20, 2015, 11:38:55 AM
 #1763

Personally, I'd never give anyone any of my private keys unless they were from an isolated wallet I didn't use for any other purpose (which I'd then consider compromised for all intents and purposes).

Why do you consider it a risk to give out a single private key for a single address when you say its not risking the other addresses? Electrum wont use an already used addres out of its own. And new addresses should be safe.

No every address has its own private key and as far as i know they cannot be linked to other wallet in any way.

About the clams claiming trough just-dice.com. It is just plain stupid if you do that. I find it even tricky to do it trough the wallet. But only address which are filled at the time they get funded got their CLAMS and that was last year ago. Just send your btc's to a wallet which do not have unclaimed CLAMS before you claim your CLAMS.

I claimed then through just dice. It took some time because electrum isnt made for it but i found 6 + 10 addresses containing clams. I then imported these single private keys into jd. When youre right and the other addresses arent compromised then it should not be a problem isnt it?

Or do you speak about the amount of work? Yes, thats no fun but i wondered and though i should have a couple one. I think i found more than i awaited.

The wallets arent really used anymore but i still wonder why you still see a risk.

Please ALWAYS contact me through bitcointalk pm before sending someone coins.
btchris
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 672
Merit: 501

a.k.a. gurnec on GitHub


View Profile WWW
June 20, 2015, 12:24:24 PM
 #1764

Personally, I'd never give anyone any of my private keys unless they were from an isolated wallet I didn't use for any other purpose (which I'd then consider compromised for all intents and purposes).

Why do you consider it a risk to give out a single private key for a single address when you say its not risking the other addresses? Electrum wont use an already used addres out of its own. And new addresses should be safe.

"Risk" is exactly the right word. As I said, once someone has a single private key, they only need to get your master public key to compromise the rest of your wallet. Your master public key is stored in you wallet file unencrypted, so it's not that hard to get.

If you're comfortable there's no way an adversary could gain access to your master public key, then you're probably safe, but it remains risky....

(Note that if you decide to take this risk and give out a single private key, there's no additional risk to giving out more private keys to the same adversary.)
SebastianJu
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142
Merit: 1010


Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile


View Profile WWW
June 20, 2015, 02:19:17 PM
 #1765

Personally, I'd never give anyone any of my private keys unless they were from an isolated wallet I didn't use for any other purpose (which I'd then consider compromised for all intents and purposes).

Why do you consider it a risk to give out a single private key for a single address when you say its not risking the other addresses? Electrum wont use an already used addres out of its own. And new addresses should be safe.

"Risk" is exactly the right word. As I said, once someone has a single private key, they only need to get your master public key to compromise the rest of your wallet. Your master public key is stored in you wallet file unencrypted, so it's not that hard to get.

If you're comfortable there's no way an adversary could gain access to your master public key, then you're probably safe, but it remains risky....

(Note that if you decide to take this risk and give out a single private key, there's no additional risk to giving out more private keys to the same adversary.)

Oo Why is electrum storing the master public key unencrypted? I would assume that, when i encrypt electrum, that everything is encrypted that could mean a risk.

I anyway planned to change my wallets, it can be done fast with electrum so i think ill do so instantly. I dont think there is a big risk that someone will get it... my wallets are practically empty anyway.

Please ALWAYS contact me through bitcointalk pm before sending someone coins.
btchris
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 672
Merit: 501

a.k.a. gurnec on GitHub


View Profile WWW
June 20, 2015, 05:35:04 PM
 #1766

Oo Why is electrum storing the master public key unencrypted? I would assume that, when i encrypt electrum, that everything is encrypted that could mean a risk.

It's an ease-of-use trade-off. Because it's unencrypted, you don't need to type in your password if all you want to do is check your balance or generate a new receive address. (Of course, all of your private keys are encrypted when you set a password.)
TheButterZone
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2156
Merit: 1003


Pay with SegWit!


View Profile WWW
June 20, 2015, 08:57:17 PM
 #1767

I would prefer the MPK to be encrypted and a password prompt shown upon opening Electrum. I think Mycelium does this now?

Saying that you don't trust someone because of their behavior is completely valid.
SebastianJu
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142
Merit: 1010


Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile


View Profile WWW
June 20, 2015, 09:08:07 PM
 #1768

I would prefer the MPK to be encrypted and a password prompt shown upon opening Electrum. I think Mycelium does this now?

I would second that. I never thought about that till now. My wallet is private and when its encrypted then it should mean no one can see inside, except me. At the moment everyone who has access to my pc, which is in fact no one but still, can take a look in my wallet. Why should he be able to do so? No reason to allow that.

It would even be easier. I mean, its somewhat annoying that i have to put my password in for every single transaction. I see that it makes sense in order to have your wallet protected when youre not on your pc, but i would like to have some more control about that.

For example setting a timeout of "After 1 Minute of inactivity with electrum (no clicks or anything done in it) hide the wallet and ask for the pass again".

This way no one could look at my addresses and when i would need to send a couple transactions then i would be able to do so without having to enter the pass again and again.

Please ALWAYS contact me through bitcointalk pm before sending someone coins.
TheButterZone
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2156
Merit: 1003


Pay with SegWit!


View Profile WWW
June 21, 2015, 12:03:37 AM
 #1769

I would prefer the MPK to be encrypted and a password prompt shown upon opening Electrum. I think Mycelium does this now?

I would second that. I never thought about that till now. My wallet is private and when its encrypted then it should mean no one can see inside, except me. At the moment everyone who has access to my pc, which is in fact no one but still, can take a look in my wallet. Why should he be able to do so? No reason to allow that.

It would even be easier. I mean, its somewhat annoying that i have to put my password in for every single transaction. I see that it makes sense in order to have your wallet protected when youre not on your pc, but i would like to have some more control about that.

For example setting a timeout of "After 1 Minute of inactivity with electrum (no clicks or anything done in it) hide the wallet and ask for the pass again".

This way no one could look at my addresses and when i would need to send a couple transactions then i would be able to do so without having to enter the pass again and again.

Concur.

Saying that you don't trust someone because of their behavior is completely valid.
simpic
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 647
Merit: 505


View Profile
June 23, 2015, 07:13:21 AM
 #1770

I send a payment and i get this error:

global name 'paymentrequest_pb2' is not defined

The payment has been sent anyway, but what does that error mean?
I'm using Electrum 2.1.1

Il primo sito ad aver parlato di bitcoin in Italia: MoneyWantersForum (20 maggio 2010)
btchris
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 672
Merit: 501

a.k.a. gurnec on GitHub


View Profile WWW
June 23, 2015, 01:32:23 PM
 #1771

I send a payment and i get this error:

global name 'paymentrequest_pb2' is not defined

The payment has been sent anyway, but what does that error mean?
I'm using Electrum 2.1.1

It appears to be a bug. I opened an issue here: https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/issues/1312

Edit: it's just been fixed, and should make it into the next release (after 2.3.2).
BillyBobZorton
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162
Merit: 1017


View Profile
June 23, 2015, 03:06:53 PM
 #1772

If BIP47 gets accepted, will the practice of sharing MPK be deprecated by it?
I have never used Electrum but I was planing to do so because I like the idea of increased privacy of sharing a MPK, but i've read that sharing a MPK has its risks.. doesn't BIP47 do what HD wallets tries to achieve (avoiding that the sender can know where he is paying to) but better?


                        ▗▗▗                   
                    ▗▗████▖▘                 
                  ▖████████▌                 
               ▗███████████▖                 
              ▞████████████▞                 
            ▗██████████████▝                 
           ▗███████████████▐        ▄██▖     
          ▗█████████████████▘    ▗███▀▝       
          ▞█████████████████▗   ████ █▖       
         ▝██████████████████▗  ███▘▗██▞       
         ▚██████████████████▖ ▗██▗████▘▘     
         ▌██████████████████▝   ▐████ █       
        ▝██████████████████▗▚  ████ ██▌       
        ▐██████████████████▞▖  █ ████▜▝       
        ▖██████████████████▖▚  █▗████▌▌       
        ▝██████████████████▀  █▞████▚▚▗       
        ▝██████████████████▘▗█▚████▞▙▚       
        ▝████████████████▝▖ ██▐▚████▐▗       
         ▚██████████████▘▖█████████▞▞         
        ▝██████████████▖██████████▞▚         
         ▐██████████████▚▚████████▘▘         
         ▖████████████▜▐████████▖▝           
          ▚████████▌▛████████▝               
          ▘████████▛▞████▘▘                   
          ▝████████▞▀▝▝                       
           ▘██▘▘▘▝                           
           ▝                                 
Bonpay
TheButterZone
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2156
Merit: 1003


Pay with SegWit!


View Profile WWW
June 23, 2015, 06:37:38 PM
 #1773

Can there be a feature added to alert that you're using an outdated stable version of Electrum? OSX client didn't the last couple of versions.

Saying that you don't trust someone because of their behavior is completely valid.
JWU42
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666
Merit: 1000


View Profile
June 23, 2015, 11:10:12 PM
 #1774

Can there be a feature added to alert that you're using an outdated stable version of Electrum?

In windows there is a notice of a new version.  Sadly, it hasn't been updated and still says New version available: 2.2 (where 2.3.2 is current).

ThomasV
Moderator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1899
Merit: 1007



View Profile WWW
June 24, 2015, 05:30:46 AM
 #1775

In windows there is a notice of a new version.  Sadly, it hasn't been updated and still says New version available: 2.2 (where 2.3.2 is current).
I just updated it, thanks.

Electrum: the convenience of a web wallet, without the risks
peligro
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 596
Merit: 500


1NoBanksLuJPXf8Sc831fPqjrRpkQPKkEA


View Profile
June 24, 2015, 10:51:55 AM
 #1776

Why is the new electrum enforce a minimum fee of 0.00001BTC? Even when setting the fee settings to zero. So why is that? Previous versions allowed to send zero fee transactions and those transaction went through with the same speed practically.

When a fee isnt sufficient then the nodes will say something, resulting in an error message from electrum. So this should be enough. Why the not changeable minimumfee now?

█    █     ██    ███     ███    ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████     ███     ███    ██     █    █
..BREAKOUT COIN ..
  M U L T I C U R R E N C Y   S M A R T   C O N T R A C T S   +   S I D E C H A I N S
★     B I T C O I N T A L K   T H R E A D     |     W E B S I T E     |     T W I T T E R     |     G I T H U B     ★
.
█    █     ██    ███     ███    ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████     ███     ███    ██     █    █
mmortal03
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1718
Merit: 1000


View Profile
June 24, 2015, 08:18:54 PM
 #1777

I would prefer the MPK to be encrypted and a password prompt shown upon opening Electrum. I think Mycelium does this now?

I third this, as an option in the GUI to password protect on opening, and encrypting of the MPK.

Also, there should be an option to enable a password on opening Electrum for a Trezor wallet, especially when it's watch only. When it's not watch only (i.e. the Trezor is plugged in) the Trezor requires its PIN, so an additional password wouldn't be as necessary, but it may still be necessary for decryption of the MPK, or can having the Trezor plugged in bypass this?
mmortal03
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1718
Merit: 1000


View Profile
June 24, 2015, 08:22:11 PM
 #1778

Why is the new electrum enforce a minimum fee of 0.00001BTC? Even when setting the fee settings to zero. So why is that? Previous versions allowed to send zero fee transactions and those transaction went through with the same speed practically.

When a fee isnt sufficient then the nodes will say something, resulting in an error message from electrum. So this should be enough. Why the not changeable minimumfee now?

If this is the case, it's also problem for me, because I specifically started using Electrum with my Trezor to be able to make no-fee transactions when the coins are sufficiently old.
JWU42
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666
Merit: 1000


View Profile
June 24, 2015, 11:29:20 PM
 #1779

In windows there is a notice of a new version.  Sadly, it hasn't been updated and still says New version available: 2.2 (where 2.3.2 is current).
I just updated it, thanks.

Thanks Thomas!

JWU42
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666
Merit: 1000


View Profile
June 24, 2015, 11:31:02 PM
 #1780

Why is the new electrum enforce a minimum fee of 0.00001BTC?

By "new electrum" do you mean 2.3.2?

I am still on 2.0.4 and not an issue for me  Wink

Pages: « 1 ... 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 [89] 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 »
  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!