Pages:
Author

Topic: Users who spread false/fake/unhelpful information on technical board - page 4. (Read 2931 times)

legendary
Activity: 3010
Merit: 8114



Wow, you used ChatGPT to counter the failures of using ChatGPT that were just pointed out to you. Simply stunning!

You really shouldn't be here at all -- its obvious you're trying to rank up an account for the purpose of getting in some kind of sig campaign, but you'll never get there if you lack the ability to generate any kind of original thought.
jr. member
Activity: 71
Merit: 4
1. Bitcoin is decentralized, so there's no thing such as "central server".
2. Tor Bridge is designed to avoid censorship, see https://support.torproject.org/censorship/censorship-7/. In addition, there's no thing such as complete, absolute or 100% anonymity.

Thank you for your opinion and clarification of my point. Your statement that Bitcoin uses a decentralized network is fully correct, and I was mistaken here. Also, I realize that TOR provides a high level of anonymity but isn’t always secure. My goal was to show the advantages of TOR against other DNS in terms of privacy and network access, but I see my misunderstanding of professional terms as troubling. Once again, thank you for the comment!

1. Statement "Your Bitcoins in Lobster Wallet are actually real." and "Lobster is a wallet for Stellar Network, not Bitcoin." are conflicted.
2. Bitcoin Core and hardware wallet aren't the only Bitcoin wallet out there.

I want to clarify. Although other Bitcoin wallets exist, including Bitcoin Core and hardware wallets, my goal was to mention additional alternatives just for Bitcoin since that was a proper answer to the question context. Concerning this, I should’ve explicitly stated that different wallets could be used, and I am sorry if I sounded unclear. Thank you for your comment.


1. The thread talks about modifying Bitcoin-Qt 0.6.2 client. So statement "The blockchain client must be configured to mine the Genesis block" is wrong since Genesis block is hardcoded on Bitcoin. See https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Genesis_block.
2. If you create your own altcoin, that means you also need to run your own block explorer for your altcoin.

I appreciate your clarification. According to my very best knowledge, the Genesis block for this particular fork of Bitcoin (Bitcoin-Qt 0.6.2) is hard coded in and therefore can never be mined. I'm grateful for your pointing that out. Also, you're right an altcoin would involve running your very own block explorer which can monitor transactions and blocks. I apologize if my earlier remarks left any ambiguity, and am grateful for the chance to make myself clearer.
legendary
Activity: 2870
Merit: 7490
Crypto Swap Exchange
User: MicroScript

Additional information (optional): -

List of post:

By configuring your Raspberry Pi 5 to adopt both an IPv4 and IPv6, Core Bitcoin will use an IPv6 addressing whenever it is available. Certainly, TOR can be the best way to solve the issue of inbound connections in order not to freak out the central server. The TOR bridges in place ensure complete anonymity provided in TOR. Responding to any possible problem of CGNAT or unstable IPv4 to make your full node approachable and anonymous.

1. Bitcoin is decentralized, so there's no thing such as "central server".
2. Tor Bridge is designed to avoid censorship, see https://support.torproject.org/censorship/censorship-7/. In addition, there's no thing such as complete, absolute or 100% anonymity.

The bitcoins from lobstr wallet er not real are they ?

I have just received 0.03 BTC but I can not swap them or do anything but send them

https://stellar.expert/explorer/public/tx/7ef95f23fc76be72d6ac117dbe4a0f97eb6e9a5c76d616255d65fd1d314de983

Your Bitcoins in Lobster Wallet are actually real. Lobster is a wallet for Stellar Network, not Bitcoin. Your transaction is not related to Bitcoin. It is related to Stellar Lumens (XLM). It is not possible to trade bitcoins in your Lobster Wallet because Lobster Wallet is designed for Stellar. For Bitcoin transactions, you need to use a Bitcoin Core wallet or a hardware wallet like Ledger or Treasure.

1. Statement "Your Bitcoins in Lobster Wallet are actually real." and "Lobster is a wallet for Stellar Network, not Bitcoin." are conflicted.
2. Bitcoin Core and hardware wallet aren't the only Bitcoin wallet out there.

Thank you.
i compiled it but i dont know how to mine the genesis block.
can you help me?


The blockchain client must be configured to mine the Genesis block. Your blockchain client's configuration file for mining should include the algorithm, Coinbase address, difficulty target, and more ancillary settings. After configuring now start mining using the 'start mining' command or you can give the mining command through the user interface. After starting mining you need to monitor whether the correct blocks are being mined successfully. You can verify with Blockchain Explorer whether the Genesis block has been successfully added to the blockchain after it has been mined.

1. The thread talks about modifying Bitcoin-Qt 0.6.2 client. So statement "The blockchain client must be configured to mine the Genesis block" is wrong since genesis block is hardcoded on Bitcoin. See https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Genesis_block.
2. If you create your own altcoin, that means you also need to run your own block explorer for your altcoin.
legendary
Activity: 2870
Merit: 7490
Crypto Swap Exchange
User: cherryJOH

Additional information (optional):
* This user perform SEO and advertising spam for a website called "coincarp dot com".
* Link on post i mentioned has been edited in order to avoid giving the spammer free backlink.

List of post:

Bitcoin Runes, or simply ‘Runes’, is a protocol that has emerged within the Bitcoin blockchain. It represents a new type of fungible token (FT) that is native to the Bitcoin network. The concept was introduced by Casey Rodarmor, the founder of the Ordinals protocol, which itself was a significant step forward in enabling NFT-like functionality on Bitcoin.

The Technical Innovation

Runes are designed to be a user-friendly, UTXO-based alternative to existing tokenized protocols like Ordinals, ORC-20, BRC-20, and Stamps. The protocol aims to minimize the creation of ‘junk’ UTXOs, thereby promoting more responsible UTXO management and reducing the blockchain footprint. This is achieved by embedding tokens within Bitcoin’s unspent transaction outputs (UTXOs), which is a departure from other protocols that may contribute to blockchain bloat.

Market Response and Potential

The market has shown a keen interest in Runes, with projects like Rune Alpha leading the charge. Rune Alpha is a cutting-edge block explorer and integrated application for the Rune protocol, providing a portal to delve into transactions, handle data, and offer extensive support for Rune12.

Conclusion

The introduction of Runes is a testament to the ongoing evolution of the Bitcoin network. It reflects a growing trend towards integrating more complex functionalities while maintaining the network’s core principles of decentralization and efficiency. As the protocol continues to develop, it could potentially open up new avenues for tokenization on Bitcoin, offering a more streamlined and intuitive approach to managing fungible tokens on the blockchain.

In summary, the Bitcoin Runes project is a fascinating development that showcases the adaptability and innovation within the Bitcoin ecosystem. It holds the promise of enhancing the utility of the Bitcoin blockchain while staying true to its foundational ethos.
coincarp dot com/currencies/wanko-manko-runes/
coincarp dot com/currencies/satoshinakamoto/

1. Link he mentioned have no correlation with what he said.
2. It's not revoluionary. If you bother check OmniLayer documentation which created in last decade, it already utilize UTXO and OP_RETURN to create token on Bitcoin network.
3. Runes isn't part of Bitcoin network or protocol, so saying "or simply ‘Runes’, is a protocol that has emerged within the Bitcoin blockchain" and "the Bitcoin Runes project is a fascinating development that showcases the adaptability and innovation within the Bitcoin ecosystem" is very misleading.
4. Saying Runes could maintain Bitcoin network's efficiency is ridiculous, when other Bitcoiner forced to pay higher TX fee rate and contribute to mempool/network congestion.
legendary
Activity: 2870
Merit: 7490
Crypto Swap Exchange
User: Kamasylvia

Additional information (optional):
* This user also suspected using AI, https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.63976679.

List of post:

Perishable UTXOs and the concept you propose for their handling is an intriguing idea. However, it is important to consider some challenges and potential implications before implementing such a change into the Bitcoin protocol.

Quantum computing: While your intention to avoid quantum computing vulnerabilities is commendable, the proposed implementation may have limitations. It assumes that all Bitcoin users will upgrade their addresses to a quantum-resistant format within a certain timeframe. If users fail to do so, their UTXOs could become unspendable, potentially leading to loss of funds for those users.

Concept of perishable UTXO actually let miner take UTXO (above certain age) for themselves. So saying "their UTXOs could become unspendable" is simply wrong.

Batal mengrim Bitcoin dari Electrum ke wallet exchanger gara-gara fee nya lumayan tinggi.. bahkan ane tadi waktu ingin mengirim sempat di angka lebih dari 1200 sat/vB
Soal tingginya fee transaksi di jaringan blockhain Bitcoin... ane rasa ini ada hubungannya dengan launchingnya sistem berbasis Bitcoin yang baru bernama "Runes"

Seperti sebelum-sebelumnya, tingginya fee ini pasti akan normal lagi dalam beberapa waktu kemudian setelah hype nya turun. Sembari holding BTC untuk menyambut halving Bitcoin yang sudah terjadi pagi tadi.


Wah sepertinya Casey Rodamor lagi-lagi membuat ulah, jika sebelumnya dia menciptakan Ordinals, sekarang dia kembali dengan ide baru yakni Runes yang sama-sama berjalan di Jaringan Bitcoin. Yang membuatnya berbeda jika Ordinals adalah berjenis Non-fungible token (NFT), sementara kalo Runes adalah fungible token yang hanya merupakan meme coin. Release Runes dimulai saat jaringan Bitcoin mencapai block height 840.000.

Yang sedikit aneh meningkatnya fee transaksi di jaringan Mainnet Bitcoin, ternyata juga menular ke Jaringan Testnet Bitcoin, yang saat ini untuk Recommended fee (6 Blocks) telah mencapai level 48.5 sat/vB. Padahal biasanya untuk jaringan testnet rata-rata fee rekomendasiny ada di sekitaran 0.2 - 1 sat/vB. Ane sempet mencoba melakukan transaksi dengan menggunakan fee rekomendasi 48.5 sat/vB di jaringan testnet, ternyata baru mendapatkan 1 konfirmasi block setelah menunggu 21 Menit.

Memang terkadang ada keterkaitan antara biaya transaksi di jaringan utama (Mainnet) dan jaringan uji coba (Testnet) Bitcoin. Ketika ada peningkatan permintaan dan biaya transaksi yang tinggi di jaringan utama, mungkin juga mempengaruhi tingkat fee yang direkomendasikan di jaringan testnet.

Meskipun jaringan testnet berfungsi sebagai lingkungan uji coba, banyak orang menggunakan testnet untuk menguji aplikasi, protokol, dan smart contract sebelum diterapkan di jaringan utama. Jika ada peningkatan aktivitas pengujian di testnet, maka permintaan untuk melakukan transaksi di testnet juga bisa meningkat, sehingga mempengaruhi biaya transaksi yang direkomendasikan.

Dalam kasus Agan menggunakan fee rekomendasi 48.5 sat/vB di jaringan testnet dan mendapatkan konfirmasi dalam 21 menit masih tergolong baik. Biasanya, jaringan testnet mungkin lebih cepat dalam mengonfirmasi transaksi, tetapi jika ada peningkatan aktivitas, waktu konfirmasi bisa meningkat.

Ini adalah aspek yang perlu dipertimbangkan saat menggunakan jaringan testnet, terutama jika ada keterkaitan dengan situasi di jaringan utama. Penting juga untuk memperhatikan rekomendasi biaya transaksi yang diberikan oleh dompet atau layanan Bitcoin yang Agan gunakan, karena setiap platform dapat memiliki metode perhitungan fee yang berbeda.

For reference, this post written using Indonesian language.
1. Usually there's almost no correlation between mempool activity on mainnet and testnet. See https://mempool.space/graphs/mempool#1y and https://mempool.space/testnet/graphs/mempool#1y.
2. Both mainnet and testnet have same 10 minutes block time. So saying testnet might be faster to confirm a transaction is wrong.
3. There's no need to pay attention to mainnet for determining fee for creating TX fee.

AntMiners are primarily designed for mining Bitcoin (BTC) and Bitcoin Cash (BCH), which both utilize the SHA-256 algorithm. However, there are also models available that can mine other cryptocurrencies which are compatible with the SHA-256 algorithm.

On the other hand, WhatsMiners, specifically WhatsMiner M20 series, are capable of mining various cryptocurrencies, including Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, and other coins that use the SHA-256 algorithm. They can also mine other algorithms such as Scrypt and X11.

Both AntMiners and WhatsMiners come with pre-installed firmware that allows them to mine specific cryptocurrencies. However, it's possible to download and install custom firmware or software to modify their mining capabilities. This can enable you to tweak settings, optimize performance, or mine different cryptocurrencies. However, it's important to note that modifying the firmware may void the warranty and any potential support from the manufacturer.

Regarding operating systems, AntMiners and WhatsMiners run on custom-built firmware that serves as their operating system. These firmware versions provide an interface for configuring the devices, monitoring mining statistics, and managing your mining operations.

In terms of algorithm modification, the default algorithm for AntMiners is SHA-256, and for WhatsMiners, it depends on the model but typically includes SHA-256, Scrypt, and X11 algorithms. While it may be possible to modify the firmware to support different algorithms, it's generally not a straightforward process and can be challenging. It's essential to ensure compatibility and consider the power and performance limitations of the hardware before attempting any modifications.

When considering mining equipment, it's crucial to research the specific models you're interested in, as there are various versions and generations available with different capabilities and specifications. Additionally, mining profitability can vary depending on factors such as electricity costs, network difficulty, and market conditions.

1. AntMiner is name of a company. They create all kinds of ASIC, not only SHA-256 ASIC.
2. WhatsMiners is brand name from company MicroBT. They also  create all kinds of ASIC, not only SHA-256 ASIC.
2. Looking at https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/reviewguide-whatsminer-m20s-680-ths-3260-w-bitcoin-sha-256-asic-miner-5155468 and https://www.asicminervalue.com/miners/microbt/whatsminer-m20s, there's no mention that WhatsMiner M20S support either X11 or scrypt.

Yes, you are correct that Bitcoin's use case has evolved over time due to changes in opcode rules. Opcodes enable the execution of specific operations within a Bitcoin transaction. When new opcode subsets are released, it can modify the rules of Bitcoin by allowing for different data sizes and validation processes.

The introduction of new opcodes can increase the data capacity of a transaction, allowing for the inclusion of additional information that may not be directly related to the intended purpose of the transaction. While some Bitcoin nodes may not validate or analyze the content of such added data, it still becomes a part of the transaction.

1. Opcodes on Bitcoin does more than allowing different data sizes or verification. Other reader may check https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Script to verify my statement.
2. Actually only node with outdated software or using software which intentionally doesn't implement certain stuff unable to properly validate unsupported/unknown opcodes.



1. TX fee on sidechain usually is extremely low, so using LN bring little benefit in terms of TX fee.
2. Whether you open LN channel from Bitcoin mainnet or sidechain, you get same benefit (microtransaction and fast confirmation).



User: marcosadelacruz

Additional information (optional): -

List of post:

I have been thinking a lot about this topic these days, but we must keep the following in mind:

Risks:

- Protocol complexity: Adding tokens and smart contracts introduces extra complexity to Bitcoin's protocol. This could expand the attack surface and raise the likelihood of vulnerabilities that might compromise the network's security and stability.
- Potential implementation errors: Whenever new features are introduced, there's always the risk of implementation errors that could be exploited for malicious attacks or cause network failures. This could undermine trust in Bitcoin and impact its adoption and value.
- Scalability impact: Incorporating functionalities like tokens and smart contracts might strain Bitcoin's network and hinder its ability to scale effectively. This could lead to network congestion, higher fees, and longer confirmation times, negatively affecting user experience.


Benefits:

- Expanded use cases: Implementing BRC-20 could allow for a wider range of use cases on the Bitcoin network, attracting new users, developers, and businesses to the ecosystem. This could drive adoption and long-term value for Bitcoin.
- Interoperability with other ecosystems: Compatibility with tokens and smart contracts could streamline interoperability between Bitcoin and other blockchain ecosystems, fostering collaboration and synergy among different projects and communities.
- Continuous innovation and development: Bitcoin's ability to adapt and evolve is crucial for its long-term sustainability. Implementing new functionalities like BRC-20 could encourage innovation and ongoing development in the Bitcoin ecosystem, strengthening its position as a market leader in the cryptocurrency space.

For reference, this reply was created under BRC-20 thread.
1. BRC-20 isn't smart contract.
2. BRC-20 doesn't offer feature to add turing-complete script either.
3. BRC-20 (which rely on Ordinal) isn't part of Bitcoin protocol. So it can't be exploited to cause Bitcoin network failure or add vulnerability to Bitcoin network.
legendary
Activity: 2870
Merit: 7490
Crypto Swap Exchange
To make it easier, maybe you can add some code to your OP, where it's easier for everyone to report, similar like:

Code:
Account:
List of posts containing false/fake information:
Case status: still open / solved by moderators

And add below the form that it would ne nice to correct all false/fake informations.

That's great idea. I'll think about the format and edit this thread later.

Thanks @ABCbits, just to summarise I have done the following:

(1) I deleted my post in the thread in relation to tails, as it was incorrect.
(2) My post in the bitcoin inheritance thread was already deleted by a moderator.
(3) I have updated my post in relation to the attack scenarios to include the new insights you shared:

Edit: Update to this post, I have been corrected by @ABCbits, you can actually perform this type of attack without a 51% hashrate successfully, but on a single transaction with only a few confirmation, a good calculator is here: https://jlopp.github.io/bitcoin-confirmation-risk-calculator/

That was quick, i appreciate your action.
member
Activity: 210
Merit: 31
Thanks @ABCbits, just to summarise I have done the following:

(1) I deleted my post in the thread in relation to tails, as it was incorrect.
(2) My post in the bitcoin inheritance thread was already deleted by a moderator.
(3) I have updated my post in relation to the attack scenarios to include the new insights you shared:

Edit: Update to this post, I have been corrected by @ABCbits, you can actually perform this type of attack without a 51% hashrate successfully, but on a single transaction with only a few confirmation, a good calculator is here: https://jlopp.github.io/bitcoin-confirmation-risk-calculator/

legendary
Activity: 3500
Merit: 6320
Crypto Swap Exchange
I am not a hacked account lol, I can happily provide any proof that is required.

It just gave the appearance of it.

An account was registered and made no posts for 8+ years and then 50 posts in 2 weeks.

That usually screams an account was compromised or changed hands.

-Dave
legendary
Activity: 2226
Merit: 6947
Currently not much available - see my websitelink
That's a great and helpful topic, definitely undervalued in my opinion.
When asking technical questions, I really expect to get answers backd by knowledge, not backed by assumptions or AI.

To make it easier, maybe you can add some code to your OP, where it's easier for everyone to report, similar like:

Code:
Account:
List of posts containing false/fake information:
Case status: still open / solved by moderators

And add below the form that it would ne nice to correct all false/fake informations.
member
Activity: 210
Merit: 31
--snip--
I apologise if the information I have provided has not been correct, I should have researched my responses in more detail.

Regarding your commentary on my response to the "Comparing Inheritance Services": Whilst my commentary wasn't reviewing the provided inheritance services, my comment was related to the intent of the topic which is inheritance of cryptocurrency/bitcoin. It is true that using an inheritance service relies on the use of a third party which most cryptocurrency users do not want to do at all, as that is the intention of using bitcoin, being your own custodian of your own assets. Regarding your comment on the multi-sig wallets, I should have been more specific, I was actually referring to a 2-of-3 spend condition, not 3-of-3 spend condition. When I said "3 required keys" I mean as in, you need 3 keys in total, and it has to be odd, so that you when you have 2 keys it is a majority and meets the spend condition, the same way with a 3-of-5 spend condition, you need a majority of 5. There is 5 keys required in total to be created, which is odd, but you don't need to have a 5-of-5 spend condition, that doesn't really make any sense to me. I do not recommend this, and it is definitely dangerous -  my post was not specific enough on the spend conditions, but I think there has been a quick assumption on your behalf.

First of all, i appreciate you provide detailed response in this thread.

Now i understand better what you're trying to say regarding multi-sig wallet. While it's true there are few assumption on my behalf, i doubt other reader would know you're actually talking about 2-of-3 spend condition when you didn't even mention number 2 (two).

Regarding your commentary on my response to the "51% attack" post. This post is in relation to Bitcoin, not BCH or any other cryptocurrency where a different mining type like proof of stake etc could be applied. I am simply referring to proof of work in Bitcoin alone. A fork absolutely can occur based on a 51% attack. I am not referring to a soft fork that changes in the rules. One thing to keep in mind is that these forum threads are a discussion, they are not a statement of true fact and definition. It's important to be open to discussion on theoretical incidents. Yes my knowledge might not be perfect on all topics, but I don't believe that excludes me from being able to contribute to a discussion. I am open to being wrong and corrected absolutely.

I see. I usually term "block organization", but term "fork" is also valid term to describe 51% attack which create new chain (with most accumulated hashrate/work). And FYI, while such attack require 51% hashrate to ensure success, someone might try it with less hashrate on transaction with only few confirmation. You can use this calculator https://jlopp.github.io/bitcoin-confirmation-risk-calculator/ to estimate the success rate.

Regarding your commentary on my response to "tails persistent storage", you are right and I was wrong about this. I have only last used Tails in the 2016 to 2017 period, and back then the intent of Tails was not to have any persistent storage at all. The intention of using Tails back then was purely anonymity and privacy, and to delete everything after you finished using the operating system. However, I was wrong about this and probably should have researched in more detail before contributing my comment.

I didn't use Tails back on 2016 or 2017, so i'll take your words. Anyway, it'd be great if you edit your posts to state that your previous statement is outdated.

I am not a hacked account lol, I can happily provide any proof that is required.

I don't think you're using hacked account either, so IMO there's no need to provide any proof.

--snip--
I tried to send a group PM to you DaveF and ABCbits simultaneously but it doesn't seem to be working, so I will add my comment here.

Regarding your allegation that my account is hacked DaveF - I simply recovered my old account and started using it. I am aware that having multiple accounts on this forum is not allowed so did not want to create a new account, plus I knew I registered this many years ago. Not sure what I can provide to revert your opinion on this. If there is anything I can to change your perspective, let me know. There is literally no reason for someone to try and hijack my account if it had no post history prior to this year. Additionally, my account's primary email address is not with a service provider which is vulnerable to password reset via SMS, so not possible for me to be a victim of a sim swap attack for account takeover, and secured with multi-factor authentication additionally.

Thanks for the explanation. And FYI having multiple account actually is allowed by this forum. See https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/unofficial-list-of-official-bitcointalkorg-rules-guidelines-faq-703657, point number 18.

Thanks, appreciate your response, I will make sure later on to go back and edit those posts I made with more detailed and correct information, and will keep your feedback in mind for future posts as well. Overall I think what you are doing here is positive, ensuring that high quality posts are maintained on the forum. Particular your previous comments on this thread calling out users who are using AI generated comments, there is no place for that and probably being done by people with the intention of trying to get a high ranked account so they can later scam on it. My intention is purely to contribute to the forum and reconnect here from when I lurked so many years ago, but I'll make sure I am more specific in more comments (e.g. actually mention 2 of 3 spend condition lol).
legendary
Activity: 2870
Merit: 7490
Crypto Swap Exchange
--snip--
I apologise if the information I have provided has not been correct, I should have researched my responses in more detail.

Regarding your commentary on my response to the "Comparing Inheritance Services": Whilst my commentary wasn't reviewing the provided inheritance services, my comment was related to the intent of the topic which is inheritance of cryptocurrency/bitcoin. It is true that using an inheritance service relies on the use of a third party which most cryptocurrency users do not want to do at all, as that is the intention of using bitcoin, being your own custodian of your own assets. Regarding your comment on the multi-sig wallets, I should have been more specific, I was actually referring to a 2-of-3 spend condition, not 3-of-3 spend condition. When I said "3 required keys" I mean as in, you need 3 keys in total, and it has to be odd, so that you when you have 2 keys it is a majority and meets the spend condition, the same way with a 3-of-5 spend condition, you need a majority of 5. There is 5 keys required in total to be created, which is odd, but you don't need to have a 5-of-5 spend condition, that doesn't really make any sense to me. I do not recommend this, and it is definitely dangerous -  my post was not specific enough on the spend conditions, but I think there has been a quick assumption on your behalf.

First of all, i appreciate you provide detailed response in this thread.

Now i understand better what you're trying to say regarding multi-sig wallet. While it's true there are few assumption on my behalf, i doubt other reader would know you're actually talking about 2-of-3 spend condition when you didn't even mention number 2 (two).

Regarding your commentary on my response to the "51% attack" post. This post is in relation to Bitcoin, not BCH or any other cryptocurrency where a different mining type like proof of stake etc could be applied. I am simply referring to proof of work in Bitcoin alone. A fork absolutely can occur based on a 51% attack. I am not referring to a soft fork that changes in the rules. One thing to keep in mind is that these forum threads are a discussion, they are not a statement of true fact and definition. It's important to be open to discussion on theoretical incidents. Yes my knowledge might not be perfect on all topics, but I don't believe that excludes me from being able to contribute to a discussion. I am open to being wrong and corrected absolutely.

I see. I usually term "block organization", but term "fork" is also valid term to describe 51% attack which create new chain (with most accumulated hashrate/work). And FYI, while such attack require 51% hashrate to ensure success, someone might try it with less hashrate on transaction with only few confirmation. You can use this calculator https://jlopp.github.io/bitcoin-confirmation-risk-calculator/ to estimate the success rate.

Regarding your commentary on my response to "tails persistent storage", you are right and I was wrong about this. I have only last used Tails in the 2016 to 2017 period, and back then the intent of Tails was not to have any persistent storage at all. The intention of using Tails back then was purely anonymity and privacy, and to delete everything after you finished using the operating system. However, I was wrong about this and probably should have researched in more detail before contributing my comment.

I didn't use Tails back on 2016 or 2017, so i'll take your words. Anyway, it'd be great if you edit your posts to state that your previous statement is outdated.

I am not a hacked account lol, I can happily provide any proof that is required.

I don't think you're using hacked account either, so IMO there's no need to provide any proof.

--snip--
I tried to send a group PM to you DaveF and ABCbits simultaneously but it doesn't seem to be working, so I will add my comment here.

Regarding your allegation that my account is hacked DaveF - I simply recovered my old account and started using it. I am aware that having multiple accounts on this forum is not allowed so did not want to create a new account, plus I knew I registered this many years ago. Not sure what I can provide to revert your opinion on this. If there is anything I can to change your perspective, let me know. There is literally no reason for someone to try and hijack my account if it had no post history prior to this year. Additionally, my account's primary email address is not with a service provider which is vulnerable to password reset via SMS, so not possible for me to be a victim of a sim swap attack for account takeover, and secured with multi-factor authentication additionally.

Thanks for the explanation. And FYI having multiple account actually is allowed by this forum. See https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/unofficial-list-of-official-bitcointalkorg-rules-guidelines-faq-703657, point number 18.
member
Activity: 210
Merit: 31
User: SickDayIn

Bitcoin inheritance is a complex topic for sure. Whilst there may be services out there, the problem of relying on a third party to act as an intermediary still persists and a lot of people do not want this, myself included. The solution really is just using a multi-signature wallet where say you have allocated cryptocurrency for each child. For example if you have 3 children, you have 3 wallets, all require 3 keys, so you have 9 keys in total. You distribute the keys with a trusted person such as the executor of your estate, like a family member, but you only include 1 of the keys with them for each wallet so they can't actually do anything with it. You could hide 1 key in a written will, or in other methods so when you are deceased your children will inherit the necessary keys to access the wallets.

1. This is partially off-topic response since it's 1st reply on a thread with title "Comparing Inheritance Services".
2. His suggestion to create 3 multi-signature wallet with 3-of-3 spend condition (since he said "all require 3 keys") is dangerous since you'll lose access to the Bitcoin even if one of the key is lost.

There are two different attack chain scenarios that advanced persistent threats, or nation state actors could attempt:


1) A 51% attack targeted at controlling 51% or more of the total mining power to fork Bitcoin and create a new primary Bitcoin chain.

2) A quantum computing attack on the cryptography supporting Bitcoin itself.

Whilst both are attack scenarios which can be considered, I think your thread focuses the point of discussion on the 51% attack.

Now, the way to conduct this attack would either require purchasing 51% of the existing compute power from miners (e.g. AntPool, etc), or purchasing new compute power, at 100% of the current available compute used by miners, thereby doubling the available compute of the current 100% to 200%. This is probably more likely as it would make no sense for miners to sell their hash power to a state actor who had the intention of destroying Bitcoin. Realistically they would only be successful an at attack by introducing new compute and doubling the overall supply.

However even then whilst 51% could be required theoretically, forking Bitcoin would require much more compute, like 60-70% or more. Just look at Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin SV, and the other forks that exist as examples why.

1. You don't need 51% hashrate to perform a fork. In addition, you don't need any hashrate if the fork also replace PoW with something else.
2. BCH perform fork even though it has far smaller hashrate than BTC. It's also true for BSV when it forked itself from BCH.
3. AntPool is mining pool, not miner. Besides, AntPool and few other mining pool already offer accelerator service. That means they'll harm their own service by letting someone else use their miner's hashrate.



Below reply wasn't created on technical board, but still give inaccurate technical information.

I know there is a way that you can upgrade an offline usb with Tails by cloning from another usb with the latest version.
My question is: by using this method, would you only upgrade the OS without any other changes in configuration? Would the persistent storage of the offline usb be preserved entirely?

Thx!
The intention of Tails is not to be a persistent operating system, so nothing should actually be stored on the USB. It should only simply have a copy of the version of the Tails operating system. The best thing to do would be simply overwrite the entire USB with the upgraded version of Tails you are seeking to use. Whether or not use another USB to do this is irrelevant.

1. Tails offer persistent storage feature, https://tails.net/doc/persistent_storage/configure/index.en.html. So it's okay to store data on USB which contain Tails.
2. Tails provide upgrade feature without overwrite, https://tails.net/doc/upgrade/.

I apologise if the information I have provided has not been correct, I should have researched my responses in more detail.

Regarding your commentary on my response to the "Comparing Inheritance Services": Whilst my commentary wasn't reviewing the provided inheritance services, my comment was related to the intent of the topic which is inheritance of cryptocurrency/bitcoin. It is true that using an inheritance service relies on the use of a third party which most cryptocurrency users do not want to do at all, as that is the intention of using bitcoin, being your own custodian of your own assets. Regarding your comment on the multi-sig wallets, I should have been more specific, I was actually referring to a 2-of-3 spend condition, not 3-of-3 spend condition. When I said "3 required keys" I mean as in, you need 3 keys in total, and it has to be odd, so that you when you have 2 keys it is a majority and meets the spend condition, the same way with a 3-of-5 spend condition, you need a majority of 5. There is 5 keys required in total to be created, which is odd, but you don't need to have a 5-of-5 spend condition, that doesn't really make any sense to me. I do not recommend this, and it is definitely dangerous -  my post was not specific enough on the spend conditions, but I think there has been a quick assumption on your behalf.

Regarding your commentary on my response to the "51% attack" post. This post is in relation to Bitcoin, not BCH or any other cryptocurrency where a different mining type like proof of stake etc could be applied. I am simply referring to proof of work in Bitcoin alone. A fork absolutely can occur based on a 51% attack. I am not referring to a soft fork that changes in the rules. One thing to keep in mind is that these forum threads are a discussion, they are not a statement of true fact and definition. It's important to be open to discussion on theoretical incidents. Yes my knowledge might not be perfect on all topics, but I don't believe that excludes me from being able to contribute to a discussion. I am open to being wrong and corrected absolutely.

Regarding your commentary on my response to "tails persistent storage", you are right and I was wrong about this. I have only last used Tails in the 2016 to 2017 period, and back then the intent of Tails was not to have any persistent storage at all. The intention of using Tails back then was purely anonymity and privacy, and to delete everything after you finished using the operating system. However, I was wrong about this and probably should have researched in more detail before contributing my comment.

I am not a hacked account lol, I can happily provide any proof that is required.



User: SickDayIn
....

This may be a hacked / sold account. Registered back in August 2015 but no posts until this year and then posting crap.
Going to keep an eye on it to see what else happens. Just a very odd behavior.

@ABCbits keep up the good work with doing this, gives others who may not have enough time the ability to keep an eye on some possible bad users.

-Dave
I tried to send a group PM to you DaveF and ABCbits simultaneously but it doesn't seem to be working, so I will add my comment here.

Regarding your allegation that my account is hacked DaveF - I simply recovered my old account and started using it. I am aware that having multiple accounts on this forum is not allowed so did not want to create a new account, plus I knew I registered this many years ago. Not sure what I can provide to revert your opinion on this. If there is anything I can to change your perspective, let me know. There is literally no reason for someone to try and hijack my account if it had no post history prior to this year. Additionally, my account's primary email address is not with a service provider which is vulnerable to password reset via SMS, so not possible for me to be a victim of a sim swap attack for account takeover, and secured with multi-factor authentication additionally.
legendary
Activity: 2870
Merit: 7490
Crypto Swap Exchange
User: SickDayIn
....
This may be a hacked / sold account. Registered back in August 2015 but no posts until this year and then posting crap.
Going to keep an eye on it to see what else happens. Just a very odd behavior.

I also notice difference between registration date and first post. But i doubt anyone would bother hack old account without any activity.

@ABCbits keep up the good work with doing this, gives others who may not have enough time the ability to keep an eye on some possible bad users.

-Dave

Thanks.
legendary
Activity: 3500
Merit: 6320
Crypto Swap Exchange
User: SickDayIn
....

This may be a hacked / sold account. Registered back in August 2015 but no posts until this year and then posting crap.
Going to keep an eye on it to see what else happens. Just a very odd behavior.

@ABCbits keep up the good work with doing this, gives others who may not have enough time the ability to keep an eye on some possible bad users.

-Dave
legendary
Activity: 2870
Merit: 7490
Crypto Swap Exchange
User: SickDayIn

Bitcoin inheritance is a complex topic for sure. Whilst there may be services out there, the problem of relying on a third party to act as an intermediary still persists and a lot of people do not want this, myself included. The solution really is just using a multi-signature wallet where say you have allocated cryptocurrency for each child. For example if you have 3 children, you have 3 wallets, all require 3 keys, so you have 9 keys in total. You distribute the keys with a trusted person such as the executor of your estate, like a family member, but you only include 1 of the keys with them for each wallet so they can't actually do anything with it. You could hide 1 key in a written will, or in other methods so when you are deceased your children will inherit the necessary keys to access the wallets.

1. This is partially off-topic response since it's 1st reply on a thread with title "Comparing Inheritance Services".
2. His suggestion to create 3 multi-signature wallet with 3-of-3 spend condition (since he said "all require 3 keys") is dangerous since you'll lose access to the Bitcoin even if one of the key is lost.

There are two different attack chain scenarios that advanced persistent threats, or nation state actors could attempt:


1) A 51% attack targeted at controlling 51% or more of the total mining power to fork Bitcoin and create a new primary Bitcoin chain.

2) A quantum computing attack on the cryptography supporting Bitcoin itself.

Whilst both are attack scenarios which can be considered, I think your thread focuses the point of discussion on the 51% attack.

Now, the way to conduct this attack would either require purchasing 51% of the existing compute power from miners (e.g. AntPool, etc), or purchasing new compute power, at 100% of the current available compute used by miners, thereby doubling the available compute of the current 100% to 200%. This is probably more likely as it would make no sense for miners to sell their hash power to a state actor who had the intention of destroying Bitcoin. Realistically they would only be successful an at attack by introducing new compute and doubling the overall supply.

However even then whilst 51% could be required theoretically, forking Bitcoin would require much more compute, like 60-70% or more. Just look at Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin SV, and the other forks that exist as examples why.

1. You don't need 51% hashrate to perform a fork. In addition, you don't need any hashrate if the fork also replace PoW with something else.
2. BCH perform fork even though it has far smaller hashrate than BTC. It's also true for BSV when it forked itself from BCH.
3. AntPool is mining pool, not miner. Besides, AntPool and few other mining pool already offer accelerator service. That means they'll harm their own service by letting someone else use their miner's hashrate.



Below reply wasn't created on technical board, but still give inaccurate technical information.

I know there is a way that you can upgrade an offline usb with Tails by cloning from another usb with the latest version.
My question is: by using this method, would you only upgrade the OS without any other changes in configuration? Would the persistent storage of the offline usb be preserved entirely?

Thx!
The intention of Tails is not to be a persistent operating system, so nothing should actually be stored on the USB. It should only simply have a copy of the version of the Tails operating system. The best thing to do would be simply overwrite the entire USB with the upgraded version of Tails you are seeking to use. Whether or not use another USB to do this is irrelevant.

1. Tails offer persistent storage feature, https://tails.net/doc/persistent_storage/configure/index.en.html. So it's okay to store data on USB which contain Tails.
2. Tails provide upgrade feature without overwrite, https://tails.net/doc/upgrade/.
legendary
Activity: 3500
Merit: 6320
Crypto Swap Exchange
Although it took a while the mods finally got annoyed enough to ban someone years ago from the technical board https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/note-franky1-is-banned-from-the-this-subforum-5192937
And they still let him spread his troll crap in other sections. I un-ignored him the other day for some reason and after actually engaging with him I added him back to my ignore list.

If they won't actually kick someone like that off the forum these other users are sadly going to be here a while until they cross some other line.

-Dave
legendary
Activity: 3010
Merit: 8114
It's not surprising. Anyway, his post on this thread was deleted by moderator. You and other reader can check it on https://ninjastic.space/post/63930017.

I think he's big mad because his accounts keep getting banned... He should learn instead its better to just not break the rules.

It is easy to connect the accounts between a trail of merits; here's how I found a new one:

https://bpip.org/smerit.aspx?from=Youngkhngdiddy&to=Gormicsta



Manlikefrank1

As of my last update in January, Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies were not explicitly illegal in Nepal....

 Roll Eyes

Omo as of my last update in 2022, Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are not illegal in Indonesia....

 Roll Eyes Roll Eyes

Also his very first post was plagiarized:

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approved 11 spot bitcoin ETFs on Jan. 10, 2024. Until then, the regulators had been reluctant to approve any spot bitcoin ETF applications.so looking at their carefull actions and policy making.i don’t think Bitcoin can drop to zero.

Original:

https://www.investopedia.com/spot-bitcoin-etfs-8358373


legendary
Activity: 2870
Merit: 7490
Crypto Swap Exchange
His remaining 4 posts are mostly AI generated as well, but the 1st two have enough hand-written gibberish in them to make them fail the AI test.

--snip--

It's not surprising. Anyway, his post on this thread was deleted by moderator. You and other reader can check it on https://ninjastic.space/post/63930017.
legendary
Activity: 3010
Merit: 8114
His remaining 4 posts are mostly AI generated as well, but the 1st two have enough hand-written gibberish in them to make them fail the AI test.

Post #1:

It is true that people have the right to protect themselves if they feel threatened. On the other hand, you acknowledge that gun ownership is a distinct issue (which I believe is also true) with its own set of difficulties and implications. Yeah, these concerns can be tough to resolve, but there is still a need to try to separate them in order to have effective conversations.

In my honest opinion, I believe it is possible to understand the need of self-defense while simultaneously acknowledging the dangers of unregulated having a gun. On one hand, we have the right to defend ourselves against damage, which includes the right to use force if needed. On the other hand, we have a responsibility to keep firearms out of the hands of individuals who could use them to hurt others. But now the problem is to find a way to balance these two objectives without intruding on people's rights or putting them in danger.

 I believe that focusing on education and training for gun ownership could be a viable option. For example, we may require gun owners to complete a safety course and pass a background check before purchasing a gun. We could also establish a mandatory system of licensing and registration to track who possesses guns and ensure that they are used responsibly. This allows for a balance between respecting people's rights to self-defense and protecting the public from damage.

And another thing is that, it's very possible that if people rely on guns too much, it can generate some sort of fear or mistrust, where they start feeling like they need to protect themselves at all costs, even when it hasn't really gotten to such extent.

Copyleaks: AI Content Detected
Hive: 99.5% likely to contain AI-generated text
Sapling.ai: 100% Fake


Post #2

Greetings and welcome to the forum! I, too, am a new member here, but I have an extensive knowledge of web3 development and I would be happy to share with you. I believe I can provide some helpful suggestions on where to find resources for security audits to guarantee your smart contract is secure.

When it comes to free security audits for your smart contract, there are numerous options available. One smart place to begin is to look for open source security audit programs, such as the well-known OpenZeppelin Open Source Audit Program, that would be a pretty good starting point. 
Also, there are organizations that provide free or inexpensive audits for open source projects, such as the Ethereum Foundation and the Polkadot Web3 Foundation.

Keep in mind that these organizations have different eligibility standards, so you should visit their websites for more information. It's worth emphasizing, as I'm sure you're aware, that a free security audt may not be as comprehensive as a professional audit. However, it can still be a useful tool for finding any weaknesses or vulnerabilities in your smart contract, which can be critical in ensuring the project's integrity and safety.

Copyleaks: AI Content Detected
Hive: 100% likely to contain AI-generated text
Sapling.ai: 100% fake
legendary
Activity: 2870
Merit: 7490
Crypto Swap Exchange
User: BTTUSERNAME

Actually mobile OS usually have better security by default compared with desktop OS. For example, Android offer Application and Privacy sandbox which limit what an application can do.

That's correct. There are not much hacks that happen because of vulnerabilities present in OS but because of negligence of people. There is no way a malware can make it to your mobile unless you download some fishy app or click on some suspicious link. Rather then focusing on security of devices alone, human vigilance is also required in cyber world (or securing bitcoins). A chain is as strong as it's weakest link, and in security of Bitcoins the weakest link is human.  
It seems your major concern is basically on human vigilance. But we can all agree that, inasmuch as human vigilance and carefulness is essential when it comes to Bitcoin security, the technological advancement in Blockchain security plays a more vital role when it comes to Bitcoin security because there are so many measures provided to enhance security even when humans are not being super careful it'll be difficult for scammers and hackers to exploit them. Let's consider the Zero knowledge proofs and the multi-signature wallets for example. If you're familiar with these technologies then you'll know that these techniques makes it almost impossible for scammers and hackers to access people's wallets.

We can equally consider development and advancements in encryption and cryptography. They are also quite helpful techniques that helps to secure the bitcoin wallet. I'm not saying Human vigilance isn't important or essential, but I stand to believe that it's not the primary as there are things that are more important.

1. Long and generic reply.
2. Zero knowledge proof basically a method to verify the data without knowing the data itself. I don't know why it's mentioned as method to secure wallet.
3. Encryption is part of cryptography.
4. Bitcoin wallet usually already use strong encryption cryptography (usually AES-256), assuming the user doesn't use weak password.

Electrum uses third-party servers for its work, and this is a potential attack vector.
I've never read about an attack by giving fake block information or something. The only thing I've seen is a server telling the user to download malware.

You are completely accurate, but I would like to offer an alternative viewpoint on this. It is true that there have been no known occurrences of a block chain attack using fake block information, but I do not believe this is sufficient evidence to conclude that such an assault is impossible. For example, if an extensive group of hackers had control over the majority of the computational power in a blockchain network, they could hypothetically generate a false history of transactions, causing widespread confusion and potentially undermining the network. Although this may be considered to be a theoretical attack, it should still be considered seriously, and I do not believe we should dismiss the likelihood of such an attack simply because it has not yet been observed in the wild.

1. Fake block doesn't make sense here. If it's fake, it would be rejected by node and thus won't be propagated across Bitcoin network.
2. Performing 51% attack on Bitcoin is very expensive and generally seen as not probable attack. So average people don't have to consider this attack vector seriously.
3. If 51% attack actuall happen, which Bitcoin wallet someone use doesn't matter here.
4. 51% attack still require the attacker to create valid transaction and block, so term "false history of transaction" doesn't make sense here.
5. This reply is off-topic since the thread title is "Why can't I retrieve the private key for my bitcoincore wallet address?".

if an extensive group of hackers had control over the majority of the computational power in a blockchain network
In the scenario of a 51% attack, neither Bitcoin Core nor Electrum is going to help you.
A 51% attack would undoubtedly pose quite a serious problem for any Blockchain, regardless of the software used to access it. As a matter of fact, both Electrum and Bitcoin Core are only designed to operate on an assumption that the underlying Blockchain is secure, but that doesn't mean they provide an assurance for security of the Blockchain from external attacks.

You're right that If eventually a 51% attack were to occur right now, both of the softwares wont guarantee user's safety or be able to protect users from the potential consequences.

But looking at it from a contrary POV, even if the softwares can't guarantee user's safety, they still won't be utterly useless in a scenario of a 51% attack, because even if the Blockchain itself was compromised, these softwares could still be used to track transactions and also verify balances. These services could stil be quite valuable to users despite the fact that they don't guarantee user's safety.

1. Saying Bitcoin Core works under assumption blockchain is secure is wrong. Bitcoin Core verify all block/TX while also can detect block reorganization.
2. Unless user send Bitcoin or expect to receive Bitcoin when 51% attack happen, there's no need to check balance or newly created transaction.
3. This reply is off-topic since the thread title is "Why can't I retrieve the private key for my bitcoincore wallet address?".

Hi,
 I have been using blockchain.com wallet to receive crypto payments without any issue since years, though in this month, the BTC deposits (funds received) in our blockchain.com wallet were all showing as normal till 6th, but today once I try to send some funds out from my BTC wallet (its still showing balance fine, and $0 in hold funds, means all funds are showing fine as balance in BTC wallet), the available balance showing was only like $30 worth of BTC, again i try to open the wallet via web (instead of andriod), but same thing, funds are showing fine as balance in the BTC wallet, but once i try to send them out in available balance they show almost none.

Any help? I have already contacted blockchain.com via their support ticket system.

Thanks.
Sorry about that Mate.
I can remember a friend of mine was having similar case some time ago, some amount of BTC was sent into his Blockchain wallet, the BTC balance appeared fine just as you stated but whenever he tried to initiate a transaction, an error message would pop up, saying there's no BTC in his Blockchain wallet. Although his own case was slightly different from yours because it was a new wallet he opened specifically for that transaction.
After much inquiries, we discovered the BTC sent to his wallet wasn't a real one, regardless of the fact that the balance was fully loaded, that was all he had, a balance load of BTC and nothing more because the BTC there was as good as worthless, they said they called it BTC balance flash, something like that.

But since you said you've been using your wallet for years now and the bitcoin was received from a trusted person, then it's possible the problem could be from blockchain.com's database. It could also be possible that there's a bug in the wallet software that's probably causing the issue so I'll recommend using your wallet from a different device or maybe you could try to reset your wallet.

You can equally just wait for Blockchain.com's reply since you've already contacted them.

1. The only somewhat helpful information is waiting for blockchain.com's reply.
2. I did quick search for term "BTC balance flash", but didn't find any relevant result. Although based on his explanation, it's probably his friend got fooled by watch only wallet.
Pages:
Jump to: