Topic: Blockchain.info - Bitcoin Block explorer & Currency Statistics - page 120. (Read 482699 times)
in that case there's also a 'grammo' (?):
taint-analysis calculations
This graph is broken:
http://blockchain.info/charts/balance?address=1VayNert3x1KzbpzMGt2qdqrAThiRovi8
http://blockchain.info/charts/balance?address=1VayNert3x1KzbpzMGt2qdqrAThiRovi8
Next for the wallet service
Is creating multisigs still not available ?
If you're charging a 1.5% fee for this anonymous send service, how are you going to withdraw your fees? It strikes me that it'd be very easy for you to create a block of coins tainted by every coin sent through the service, which itself, should it get into wider pools of coins like instawallet, would create tainted blocks of coins that would be quite hard to send through the mixer again... Limited by the 250 depth limit, but still. Similarly anyone can use the mixer a few times to create their own "ultra-tainted" coins, aided by the fact that the mixer will always give you coins that haven't been tainted by the total sum of the taint you already possess. This doesn't even need to be very expensive if you taint a small amount of coins each time, so the 1.5% fee isn't very high, and use them to taint a much lager amount which you then send to something like instawallet.
Given how thoroughly tainted the future could be it also occurs to me that what you will eventually see is miners selling their untainted coins to the mixer, which then leads to pools inserting transactions with unusually high fees, which then leads to pools conspiring to reverse said transactions. Not to mention the question of are mining payouts tainted by the coins which lead to their fees?
Note: for all the bad connotations of the word taint, imagine how much longer and convoluted the above message would be if we had decided to call it coins' provenance.
Given how thoroughly tainted the future could be it also occurs to me that what you will eventually see is miners selling their untainted coins to the mixer, which then leads to pools inserting transactions with unusually high fees, which then leads to pools conspiring to reverse said transactions. Not to mention the question of are mining payouts tainted by the coins which lead to their fees?
Note: for all the bad connotations of the word taint, imagine how much longer and convoluted the above message would be if we had decided to call it coins' provenance.
Simply amazing work. 
And I'm also very excited you finally started to charge for something. 
And I'm also very excited you finally started to charge for something. 
Mixing Service Now Live
https://blockchain.info/wallet/send-anonymously
Also https://blockchain.info/wallet/ has had a bit of a make over.
Next for the wallet service: the Android app is going to get some love, and the final push to finish split key addresses and electrum fallback.
https://blockchain.info/wallet/send-anonymously
Also https://blockchain.info/wallet/ has had a bit of a make over.
Next for the wallet service: the Android app is going to get some love, and the final push to finish split key addresses and electrum fallback.
Thank you to the testers so far, a number of bugs have been fixed. If any transactions did not forward properly or if anyone feels like they have been short changed please let me know and I will refund you.
I think you should change the interface to reduce the math workload for users.
Currently the user inputs the total amount of bitcoins to send and the amount the address receives and fees are calculated.
Instead the user interface input should be the amount the other address will receive then calculated the fees and total amount of bitcoins sent.
Will Do.
Thank you very much for adding this feature request... it works great and is super useful too!
I did this, I'm logged into my wallet and my url now shows: https://blockchain.info/wallet/walletID?enable_anonymous=true but I don't see "Anonymous" transaction type in the send money tab.
The HTML5 offline caches very aggressively and often new changes won't show up. Please try clearing your browsers cache.
Thank you to the testers so far, a number of bugs have been fixed. If any transactions did not forward properly or if anyone feels like they have been short changed please let me know and I will refund you.
Fixed! It's the time issue, thanks!
Yeah I thought it would be that. I'm going to increase the time window GAuth codes are valid for to allow more leeway for time differences.
If you like this site you can switch your DeepBit account from using Bitcoin Block Explorer to Blockchain.info at the advanced settings page.
Thanks Deepbit/Tycho.
My browser gets quite often disconnected from blockchain server. If I refresh the page, i am kicked out of the wallet and i have to enter password and GA code again.
Could you add a custom refresh icon (for example near the logout icon). That would be great!
Could you add a custom refresh icon (for example near the logout icon). That would be great!
Will Do.
My browser gets quite often disconnected from blockchain server. If I refresh the page, i am kicked out of the wallet and i have to enter password and GA code again.
Could you add a custom refresh icon (for example near the logout icon). That would be great!
Could you add a custom refresh icon (for example near the logout icon). That would be great!
As far am i'm aware google auth should be working fine. Could you check that the time on your phone is not too out of sync with the blockchain.info server time (http://server3.blockchain.info/time).
There is a secret phrase set on your account so please use https://blockchain.info/wallet/reset-two-factor to have two-factor authentication removed.
Fixed! It's the time issue, thanks! There is a secret phrase set on your account so please use https://blockchain.info/wallet/reset-two-factor to have two-factor authentication removed.
If you like this site you can switch your DeepBit account from using Bitcoin Block Explorer to Blockchain.info at the advanced settings page.
Testers needed for Anonymous Transaction type
Add ?enable_anonymous=true to your wallet login url e.g. https://blockchain.info/wallet/piuk?enable_anonymous=true and choose the "Anonymous" transaction type on the send money tab.
I did this, I'm logged into my wallet and my url now shows: https://blockchain.info/wallet/walletID?enable_anonymous=true but I don't see "Anonymous" transaction type in the send money tab.
piuk,
I've changed my Two-factor Auth method from email to Google Authenticator,
but the code that GA generated doesn't work, i'm locked.
Can you check if there's anything wrong? I'm sure i scan the right Google Authenticator QRCode.
finway
I've changed my Two-factor Auth method from email to Google Authenticator,
but the code that GA generated doesn't work, i'm locked.
Can you check if there's anything wrong? I'm sure i scan the right Google Authenticator QRCode.
finway
As far am i'm aware google auth should be working fine. Could you check that the time on your phone is not too out of sync with the blockchain.info server time (http://server3.blockchain.info/time).
There is a secret phrase set on your account so please use https://blockchain.info/wallet/reset-two-factor to have two-factor authentication removed.
piuk,
I've changed my Two-factor Auth method from email to Google Authenticator,
but the code that GA generated doesn't work, i'm locked.
Can you check if there's anything wrong? I'm sure i scan the right Google Authenticator QRCode.
finway
I've changed my Two-factor Auth method from email to Google Authenticator,
but the code that GA generated doesn't work, i'm locked.
Can you check if there's anything wrong? I'm sure i scan the right Google Authenticator QRCode.
finway
when sweeping keys, could it be possible to designate a target adress?
also, are the keys being swept in danger of being changeback adresses for those transactions?
also, are the keys being swept in danger of being changeback adresses for those transactions?
Sure can do. There should be no change from a sweep transaction because all available outputs are used.
I tried again today and everything is working fine. I tried it with the same addresses that were giving me problems and also some new ones.
Apologies this was an error with the web interface not an issue with how you were copying the address:
"Estimated BTC Transacted" fascinates me. Sometimes it's right, other times wrong. But in transactions such as a recent interest payment I received, it has no idea. Neither output has been spent, so either could be to a change address. It guessed the lower number, and was wrong. Is it just flipping a coin?
Let me know the transaction hash and what should of have been the correct estimate and I will try to improve the estimation function. It's pretty basic:
Quote
public long getEstimatedBTCSent() {
long total = 0;
if (isGeneratedBlockReward())
return 0;
List filtered_outputs = getOutsNotFromInputs();
//If a transaction has more than two inputs then we take the largest output that couldn't be filled with one input
if (getIn().size() >= 2 && filtered_outputs.size() == 2) {
return Math.max(filtered_outputs.get(0).getValue(), filtered_outputs.get(1).getValue());
//If a transaction has one input and two outputs we take the smallest output
} else if (getIn().size() == 1 && filtered_outputs.size() == 2) {
total = Math.min(filtered_outputs.get(0).getValue(), filtered_outputs.get(1).getValue());
} else {
for (Output output : filtered_outputs) {
total += output.getValue();
}
}
return total;
}
long total = 0;
if (isGeneratedBlockReward())
return 0;
List
//If a transaction has more than two inputs then we take the largest output that couldn't be filled with one input
if (getIn().size() >= 2 && filtered_outputs.size() == 2) {
return Math.max(filtered_outputs.get(0).getValue(), filtered_outputs.get(1).getValue());
//If a transaction has one input and two outputs we take the smallest output
} else if (getIn().size() == 1 && filtered_outputs.size() == 2) {
total = Math.min(filtered_outputs.get(0).getValue(), filtered_outputs.get(1).getValue());
} else {
for (Output output : filtered_outputs) {
total += output.getValue();
}
}
return total;
}
Testers needed for Anonymous Transaction type
Add ?enable_anonymous=true to your wallet login url e.g. https://blockchain.info/wallet/piuk?enable_anonymous=true and choose the "Anonymous" transaction type on the send money tab. Please test with amounts between 0.5 - 2 BTC . No large transactions yet.
Each anonymous transaction creates an entry in a forwarding (routing table). This routing is valid for only one transaction after 6 confirmations the transaction is permanently removed from the database. While testing it is possible to view the current routings at.
http://server2.blockchain.info/forwarding-monitor
Only a transaction to the original routing address will be shown in your transactions lists, no transaction will be shown to the final destination address. Up to 50,000 outputs are scanned for each routing input used to ensure it meets the required minimum taint (Default 0%) for the final destination address.
"Estimated BTC Transacted" fascinates me. Sometimes it's right, other times wrong. But in transactions such as a recent interest payment I received, it has no idea. Neither output has been spent, so either could be to a change address. It guessed the lower number, and was wrong. Is it just flipping a coin?
Quote
Where are you copying the addresses from?
I copied the addresses from a number of places, such as the Bitcoin-Qt client, bitaddress.org, a merchant. I tried doing this on two different computers. I even tried manually copying addresses. When copying from the Bitcoin-Qt client only the addresses that have previously received coins would be considered valid.
I tried again today and everything is working fine. I tried it with the same addresses that were giving me problems and also some new ones.
when sweeping keys, could it be possible to designate a target adress?
also, are the keys being swept in danger of being changeback adresses for those transactions?
also, are the keys being swept in danger of being changeback adresses for those transactions?
Jump to: