"Invalid" Adresses - The Bitcoin Forum

How to set up BTC wallet for hashflare?

I downloaded electrum on mac and set up everything. I tried to create a received but I have no idea why hashflare cannot recognize the code generated from my electrum software. Anyone can help?
submitted by dragon528 to Electrum [link] [comments]

Receiving address not working?

I've been using a gambling site for a while now and everything seems to be fine until i tried to withdrawal my bitcoins for the first time. I filled everything correctly in using the right bitcoin address, password and one time password. But when i try to confirm my withdrawal it gives me the message ''The address you entered does not appear to be valid. Please check the address again, or contact support for assistance'' i'm pretty sure i am using the right address, I'm directly copying it from my electrum wallet receiving address. I tried to get in contact with customer support and they wrote:
''Thank you for taking the time to contact us.
Unfortunately, we are unable to verify if the address you are entering is correct or not.
Please remember that Blockchain works as an independent platform and Nitrogen Sports does not have any ability to check that information on your behalf.
I will definitely suggest you to check with your wallet service what the issue could be.
We are at your service if you need anything from our end.''
sooo what am i supposed to do here? I am sure i'm using the right address. Am i doing something wrong here?
submitted by forsberg8888 to Electrum [link] [comments]

Reciving address

The problem is when I try to send to my electrum wallet I get a invalid Bitcoin Address I can't send funds to it via QR code either.
bc1qm2m2c7chn7zqzxt3qhw8rncwn0fcanpx3hs2wz


submitted by FrothedCream to Electrum [link] [comments]

Technical: Taproot: Why Activate?

This is a follow-up on https://old.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/hqzp14/technical_the_path_to_taproot_activation/
Taproot! Everybody wants it!! But... you might ask yourself: sure, everybody else wants it, but why would I, sovereign Bitcoin HODLer, want it? Surely I can be better than everybody else because I swapped XXX fiat for Bitcoin unlike all those nocoiners?
And it is important for you to know the reasons why you, o sovereign Bitcoiner, would want Taproot activated. After all, your nodes (or the nodes your wallets use, which if you are SPV, you hopefully can pester to your wallet vendoimplementor about) need to be upgraded in order for Taproot activation to actually succeed instead of becoming a hot sticky mess.
First, let's consider some principles of Bitcoin.
I'm sure most of us here would agree that the above are very important principles of Bitcoin and that these are principles we would not be willing to remove. If anything, we would want those principles strengthened (especially the last one, financial privacy, which current Bitcoin is only sporadically strong with: you can get privacy, it just requires effort to do so).
So, how does Taproot affect those principles?

Taproot and Your /Coins

Most HODLers probably HODL their coins in singlesig addresses. Sadly, switching to Taproot would do very little for you (it gives a mild discount at spend time, at the cost of a mild increase in fee at receive time (paid by whoever sends to you, so if it's a self-send from a P2PKH or bech32 address, you pay for this); mostly a wash).
(technical details: a Taproot output is 1 version byte + 32 byte public key, while a P2WPKH (bech32 singlesig) output is 1 version byte + 20 byte public key hash, so the Taproot output spends 12 bytes more; spending from a P2WPKH requires revealing a 32-byte public key later, which is not needed with Taproot, and Taproot signatures are about 9 bytes smaller than P2WPKH signatures, but the 32 bytes plus 9 bytes is divided by 4 because of the witness discount, so it saves about 11 bytes; mostly a wash, it increases blockweight by about 1 virtual byte, 4 weight for each Taproot-output-input, compared to P2WPKH-output-input).
However, as your HODLings grow in value, you might start wondering if multisignature k-of-n setups might be better for the security of your savings. And it is in multisignature that Taproot starts to give benefits!
Taproot switches to using Schnorr signing scheme. Schnorr makes key aggregation -- constructing a single public key from multiple public keys -- almost as trivial as adding numbers together. "Almost" because it involves some fairly advanced math instead of simple boring number adding, but hey when was the last time you added up your grocery list prices by hand huh?
With current P2SH and P2WSH multisignature schemes, if you have a 2-of-3 setup, then to spend, you need to provide two different signatures from two different public keys. With Taproot, you can create, using special moon math, a single public key that represents your 2-of-3 setup. Then you just put two of your devices together, have them communicate to each other (this can be done airgapped, in theory, by sending QR codes: the software to do this is not even being built yet, but that's because Taproot hasn't activated yet!), and they will make a single signature to authorize any spend from your 2-of-3 address. That's 73 witness bytes -- 18.25 virtual bytes -- of signatures you save!
And if you decide that your current setup with 1-of-1 P2PKH / P2WPKH addresses is just fine as-is: well, that's the whole point of a softfork: backwards-compatibility; you can receive from Taproot users just fine, and once your wallet is updated for Taproot-sending support, you can send to Taproot users just fine as well!
(P2WPKH and P2WSH -- SegWit v0 -- addresses start with bc1q; Taproot -- SegWit v1 --- addresses start with bc1p, in case you wanted to know the difference; in bech32 q is 0, p is 1)
Now how about HODLers who keep all, or some, of their coins on custodial services? Well, any custodial service worth its salt would be doing at least 2-of-3, or probably something even bigger, like 11-of-15. So your custodial service, if it switched to using Taproot internally, could save a lot more (imagine an 11-of-15 getting reduced from 11 signatures to just 1!), which --- we can only hope! --- should translate to lower fees and better customer service from your custodial service!
So I think we can say, very accurately, that the Bitcoin principle --- that YOU are in control of your money --- can only be helped by Taproot (if you are doing multisignature), and, because P2PKH and P2WPKH remain validly-usable addresses in a Taproot future, will not be harmed by Taproot. Its benefit to this principle might be small (it mostly only benefits multisignature users) but since it has no drawbacks with this (i.e. singlesig users can continue to use P2WPKH and P2PKH still) this is still a nice, tidy win!
(even singlesig users get a minor benefit, in that multisig users will now reduce their blockchain space footprint, so that fees can be kept low for everybody; so for example even if you have your single set of private keys engraved on titanium plates sealed in an airtight box stored in a safe buried in a desert protected by angry nomads riding giant sandworms because you're the frickin' Kwisatz Haderach, you still gain some benefit from Taproot)
And here's the important part: if P2PKH/P2WPKH is working perfectly fine with you and you decide to never use Taproot yourself, Taproot will not affect you detrimentally. First do no harm!

Taproot and Your Contracts

No one is an island, no one lives alone. Give and you shall receive. You know: by trading with other people, you can gain expertise in some obscure little necessity of the world (and greatly increase your productivity in that little field), and then trade the products of your expertise for necessities other people have created, all of you thereby gaining gains from trade.
So, contracts, which are basically enforceable agreements that facilitate trading with people who you do not personally know and therefore might not trust.
Let's start with a simple example. You want to buy some gewgaws from somebody. But you don't know them personally. The seller wants the money, you want their gewgaws, but because of the lack of trust (you don't know them!! what if they're scammers??) neither of you can benefit from gains from trade.
However, suppose both of you know of some entity that both of you trust. That entity can act as a trusted escrow. The entity provides you security: this enables the trade, allowing both of you to get gains from trade.
In Bitcoin-land, this can be implemented as a 2-of-3 multisignature. The three signatories in the multisgnature would be you, the gewgaw seller, and the escrow. You put the payment for the gewgaws into this 2-of-3 multisignature address.
Now, suppose it turns out neither of you are scammers (whaaaat!). You receive the gewgaws just fine and you're willing to pay up for them. Then you and the gewgaw seller just sign a transaction --- you and the gewgaw seller are 2, sufficient to trigger the 2-of-3 --- that spends from the 2-of-3 address to a singlesig the gewgaw seller wants (or whatever address the gewgaw seller wants).
But suppose some problem arises. The seller gave you gawgews instead of gewgaws. Or you decided to keep the gewgaws but not sign the transaction to release the funds to the seller. In either case, the escrow is notified, and if it can sign with you to refund the funds back to you (if the seller was a scammer) or it can sign with the seller to forward the funds to the seller (if you were a scammer).
Taproot helps with this: like mentioned above, it allows multisignature setups to produce only one signature, reducing blockchain space usage, and thus making contracts --- which require multiple people, by definition, you don't make contracts with yourself --- is made cheaper (which we hope enables more of these setups to happen for more gains from trade for everyone, also, moon and lambos).
(technology-wise, it's easier to make an n-of-n than a k-of-n, making a k-of-n would require a complex setup involving a long ritual with many communication rounds between the n participants, but an n-of-n can be done trivially with some moon math. You can, however, make what is effectively a 2-of-3 by using a three-branch SCRIPT: either 2-of-2 of you and seller, OR 2-of-2 of you and escrow, OR 2-of-2 of escrow and seller. Fortunately, Taproot adds a facility to embed a SCRIPT inside a public key, so you can have a 2-of-2 Taprooted address (between you and seller) with a SCRIPT branch that can instead be spent with 2-of-2 (you + escrow) OR 2-of-2 (seller + escrow), which implements the three-branched SCRIPT above. If neither of you are scammers (hopefully the common case) then you both sign using your keys and never have to contact the escrow, since you are just using the escrow public key without coordinating with them (because n-of-n is trivial but k-of-n requires setup with communication rounds), so in the "best case" where both of you are honest traders, you also get a privacy boost, in that the escrow never learns you have been trading on gewgaws, I mean ewww, gawgews are much better than gewgaws and therefore I now judge you for being a gewgaw enthusiast, you filthy gewgawer).

Taproot and Your Contracts, Part 2: Cryptographic Boogaloo

Now suppose you want to buy some data instead of things. For example, maybe you have some closed-source software in trial mode installed, and want to pay the developer for the full version. You want to pay for an activation code.
This can be done, today, by using an HTLC. The developer tells you the hash of the activation code. You pay to an HTLC, paying out to the developer if it reveals the preimage (the activation code), or refunding the money back to you after a pre-agreed timeout. If the developer claims the funds, it has to reveal the preimage, which is the activation code, and you can now activate your software. If the developer does not claim the funds by the timeout, you get refunded.
And you can do that, with HTLCs, today.
Of course, HTLCs do have problems:
Fortunately, with Schnorr (which is enabled by Taproot), we can now use the Scriptless Script constuction by Andrew Poelstra. This Scriptless Script allows a new construction, the PTLC or Pointlocked Timelocked Contract. Instead of hashes and preimages, just replace "hash" with "point" and "preimage" with "scalar".
Or as you might know them: "point" is really "public key" and "scalar" is really a "private key". What a PTLC does is that, given a particular public key, the pointlocked branch can be spent only if the spender reveals the private key of the given public key to you.
Another nice thing with PTLCs is that they are deniable. What appears onchain is just a single 2-of-2 signature between you and the developemanufacturer. It's like a magic trick. This signature has no special watermarks, it's a perfectly normal signature (the pledge). However, from this signature, plus some datta given to you by the developemanufacturer (known as the adaptor signature) you can derive the private key of a particular public key you both agree on (the turn). Anyone scraping the blockchain will just see signatures that look just like every other signature, and as long as nobody manages to hack you and get a copy of the adaptor signature or the private key, they cannot get the private key behind the public key (point) that the pointlocked branch needs (the prestige).
(Just to be clear, the public key you are getting the private key from, is distinct from the public key that the developemanufacturer will use for its funds. The activation key is different from the developer's onchain Bitcoin key, and it is the activation key whose private key you will be learning, not the developer's/manufacturer's onchain Bitcoin key).
So:
Taproot lets PTLCs exist onchain because they enable Schnorr, which is a requirement of PTLCs / Scriptless Script.
(technology-wise, take note that Scriptless Script works only for the "pointlocked" branch of the contract; you need normal Script, or a pre-signed nLockTimed transaction, for the "timelocked" branch. Since Taproot can embed a script, you can have the Taproot pubkey be a 2-of-2 to implement the Scriptless Script "pointlocked" branch, then have a hidden script that lets you recover the funds with an OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY after the timeout if the seller does not claim the funds.)

Quantum Quibbles!

Now if you were really paying attention, you might have noticed this parenthetical:
(technical details: a Taproot output is 1 version byte + 32 byte public key, while a P2WPKH (bech32 singlesig) output is 1 version byte + 20 byte public key hash...)
So wait, Taproot uses raw 32-byte public keys, and not public key hashes? Isn't that more quantum-vulnerable??
Well, in theory yes. In practice, they probably are not.
It's not that hashes can be broken by quantum computes --- they're still not. Instead, you have to look at how you spend from a P2WPKH/P2PKH pay-to-public-key-hash.
When you spend from a P2PKH / P2WPKH, you have to reveal the public key. Then Bitcoin hashes it and checks if this matches with the public-key-hash, and only then actually validates the signature for that public key.
So an unconfirmed transaction, floating in the mempools of nodes globally, will show, in plain sight for everyone to see, your public key.
(public keys should be public, that's why they're called public keys, LOL)
And if quantum computers are fast enough to be of concern, then they are probably fast enough that, in the several minutes to several hours from broadcast to confirmation, they have already cracked the public key that is openly broadcast with your transaction. The owner of the quantum computer can now replace your unconfirmed transaction with one that pays the funds to itself. Even if you did not opt-in RBF, miners are still incentivized to support RBF on RBF-disabled transactions.
So the extra hash is not as significant a protection against quantum computers as you might think. Instead, the extra hash-and-compare needed is just extra validation effort.
Further, if you have ever, in the past, spent from the address, then there exists already a transaction indelibly stored on the blockchain, openly displaying the public key from which quantum computers can derive the private key. So those are still vulnerable to quantum computers.
For the most part, the cryptographers behind Taproot (and Bitcoin Core) are of the opinion that quantum computers capable of cracking Bitcoin pubkeys are unlikely to appear within a decade or two.
So:
For now, the homomorphic and linear properties of elliptic curve cryptography provide a lot of benefits --- particularly the linearity property is what enables Scriptless Script and simple multisignature (i.e. multisignatures that are just 1 signature onchain). So it might be a good idea to take advantage of them now while we are still fairly safe against quantum computers. It seems likely that quantum-safe signature schemes are nonlinear (thus losing these advantages).

Summary

I Wanna Be The Taprooter!

So, do you want to help activate Taproot? Here's what you, mister sovereign Bitcoin HODLer, can do!

But I Hate Taproot!!

That's fine!

Discussions About Taproot Activation

submitted by almkglor to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Invalid wallet address

I am trying to buy a bitcoin from buyabitcoin.com.au but every time I paste in my wallet address, it says it is invalid, can anyone tell me why it is not accepted?
submitted by cakesquadgames to Electrum [link] [comments]

[OWL WATCH] Waiting for "IOTA TIME" 20; Hans's re-defined directions for DLT

Disclaimer: This is my editing, so there could be some misunderstandings...
--------------------------------------------
wellwho오늘 오후 4:50
u/Ben Royce****how far is society2 from having something clickable powered by IOTA?
Ben Royce오늘 오후 4:51
demo of basic tech late sep/ early oct. MVP early 2021
---------------------------------------------------
HusQy
Colored coins are the most misunderstood upcoming feature of the IOTA protocol. A lot of people see them just as a competitor to ERC-20 tokens on ETH and therefore a way of tokenizing things on IOTA, but they are much more important because they enable "consensus on data".
Bob
All this stuff already works on neblio but decentralized and scaling to 3500 tps
HusQy
Neblio has 8 mb blocks with 30 seconds blocktime. This is a throughput of 8 mb / 30 seconds = 267 kb per second. Transactions are 401+ bytes which means that throughput is 267 kb / 401 bytes = 665 TPS. IOTA is faster, feeless and will get even faster with the next update ...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
HusQy
Which DLT would be more secure? One that is collaboratively validated by the economic actors of the world (coporations, companies, foundations, states, people) or one that is validated by an anonymous group of wealthy crypto holders?
HusQy
The problem with current DLTs is that we use protection mechanisms like Proof of Work and Proof of Stake that are inherently hard to shard. The more shards you have, the more you have to distribute your hashing power and your stake and the less secure the system becomes.
HusQy
Real world identities (i.e. all the big economic actors) however could shard into as many shards as necessary without making the system less secure. Todays DLTs waste trust in the same way as PoW wastes energy.
HusQy
Is a secure money worth anything if you can't trust the economic actors that you would buy stuff from? If you buy a car from Volkswagen and they just beat you up and throw you out of the shop after you payed then a secure money won't be useful either :P
HusQy
**I believe that if you want to make DLT work and be successful then we need to ultimately incorporate things like trust in entities into the technology.**Examples likes wirecard show that trusting a single company is problematic but trusting the economy as a whole should be at ...
**... least as secure as todays DLTs.**And as soon as you add sharding it will be orders of magnitude more secure. DLT has failed to deliver because people have tried to build a system in vacuum that completely ignores things that already exist and that you can leverage on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HusQy
Blockchain is a bit like people sitting in a room, trying to communicate through BINGO sheets. While they talk, they write down some of the things that have been said and as soon as one screams BINGO! he hands around his sheet to inform everybody about what has been said.
HusQy
If you think that this is the most efficient form of communication for people sitting in the same room and the answer to scalability is to make bigger BINGO sheets or to allow people to solve the puzzle faster then you will most probably never understand what IOTA is working on.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HusQy
**Blockchain does not work with too many equally weighted validators.****If 400 validators produce a validating statement (block) at the same time then only one can survive as part of a longest chain.**IOTA is all about collaborative validation.
**Another problem of blockchain is that every transaction gets sent twice through the network. Once from the nodes to the miners and a 2nd time from the miners as part of a block.**Blockchain will therefore always only be able to use 50% of the network throughput.
And****the last problem is that you can not arbitrarily decrease the time between blocks as it breaks down if the time between blocks gets smaller than the average network delay. The idle time between blocks is precious time that could be used for processing transactions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
HusQy
I am not talking about a system with a fixed number of validators but one that is completely open and permissionless where any new company can just spin up a node and take part in the network.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HusQy
Proof of Work and Proof of Stake are both centralizing sybil-protection mechanism. I don't think that Satoshi wanted 14 mining pools to run the network.
And "economic clustering" was always the "end game" of IOTA.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
HusQy
**Using Proof of Stake is not trustless. Proof of Stake means you trust the richest people and hope that they approve your transactions. The rich are getting richer (through your fees) and you are getting more and more dependant on them.**Is that your vision of the future?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

HusQy
Please read again exactly what I wrote. I have not spoken of introducing governance by large companies, nor have I said that IOTA should be permissioned. We aim for a network with millions or even billions of nodes.

HusQy
That can't work at all with a permissioned ledger - who should then drop off all these devices or authorize them to participate in the network? My key message was the following: Proof of Work and Proof of Stake will always be if you split them up via sharding ...

HusQy
... less secure because you simply need fewer coins or less hash power to have the majority of the votes in a shard. This is not the case with trust in society and the economy. When all companies in the world jointly secure a DLT ...

HusQy
... then these companies could install any number of servers in any number of shards without compromising security, because "trust" does not become less just because they operate several servers. First of all, that is a fact and nothing else.

HusQy
Proof of Work and Proof of Stake are contrary to the assumption of many not "trustless" but follow the maxim: "In the greed of miners we trust!" The basic assumption that the miners do not destroy the system that generates income for them is fundamental here for the ...

HusQy
... security of every DLT. I think a similar assumption would still be correct for the economy as a whole: The companies of the world (and not just the big ones) would not destroy the system with which their customers pay them. In this respect, a system would be ...

HusQy
... which is validated by society and the economy as a whole probably just as "safely" as a system which is validated by a few anonymous miners. Why a small elite of miners should be better validators than any human and ...

HusQy
... To be honest, companies in this world do not open up to me. As already written in my other thread, safe money does not bring you anything if you have to assume that Volkswagen will beat you up and throw you out of the store after you ...

HusQy
... paid for a car. The thoughts I discussed say nothing about the immediate future of IOTA (we use for Coordicide mana) but rather speak of a world where DLT has already become an integral part of our lives and we ...

HusQy
... a corresponding number of companies, non-profit organizations and people have used DLT and where such a system could be implemented. The point here is not to create a governance solution that in any way influences the development of technology ...

HusQy
... or have to give nodes their OK first, but about developing a system that enables people to freely choose the validators they trust. For example, you can also declare your grandma to be a validator when you install your node or your ...

HusQy
... local supermarket. Economic relationships in the real world usually form a close-knit network and it doesn't really matter who you follow as long as the majority is honest. I also don't understand your criticism of censorship, because something like that in IOTA ...

HusQy
... is almost impossible. Each transaction confirms two other transactions which is growing exponentially. If someone wanted to ignore a transaction, he would have to ignore an exponential number of other transactions after a very short time. In contrast to blockchain ...

HusQy
... validators in IOTA do not decide what is included in the ledger, but only decide which of several double spends should be confirmed. Honest transactions are confirmed simply by having other transactions reference them ...

HusQy
... and the "validators" are not even asked. As for the "dust problem", this is indeed something that is a bigger problem for IOTA than for other DLTs because we have no fees, but it is also not an unsolvable problem. Bitcoin initially has a ...

HusQy
Solved similar problem by declaring outputs with a minimum amount of 5430 satoshis as invalid ( github.com/Bitcoin/Bitcoi…). A similar solution where an address must contain a minimum amount is also conceivable for IOTA and we are discussing ...

HusQy
... several possibilities (including compressing dust using cryptographic methods). Contrary to your assumption, checking such a minimum amount is not slow but just as fast as checking a normal transaction. And mine ...

HusQy
... In my opinion this is no problem at all for IOTA's use case. The important thing is that you can send small amounts, but after IOTA is feeless it is also okay to expect the recipients to regularly send their payments on a ...

HusQy
... merge address. The wallets already do this automatically (sweeping) and for machines it is no problem to automate this process. So far this was not a problem because the TPS were limited but with the increased TPS throughput of ...

HusQy
... Chrysalis it becomes relevant and appropriate solutions are discussed and then implemented accordingly. I think that was the most important thing first and if you have further questions just write :)

HusQy
And to be very clear! I really appreciate you and your questions and don't see this as an attack at all! People who see such questions as inappropriate criticism should really ask whether they are still objective. I have little time at the moment because ...

HusQy
... my girlfriend is on tour and has to take care of our daughter, but as soon as she is back we can discuss these things in a video. I think that the concept of including the "real world" in the concepts of DLT is really exciting and ...

HusQy
... that would certainly be exciting to discuss in a joint video. But again, that's more of a vision than a specific plan for the immediate future. This would not work with blockchain anyway but IOTA would be compatible so why not think about such things.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

HusQy
All good my big one :P But actually not that much has changed. There has always been the concept of "economic clustering" which is basically based on similar ideas. We are just now able to implement things like this for the first time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HusQy
Exactly. It would mean that addresses "cost" something but I would rather pay a few cents than fees for each transaction. And you can "take" this minimum amount with you every time you change to a new address.

HusQy
All good my big one :P But actually not that much has changed. There has always been the concept of "economic clustering" which is basically based on similar ideas. We are just now able to implement things like this for the first time.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Relax오늘 오전 1:17
Btw. Hans (sorry for interrupting this convo) but what make people say that IOTA is going the permissioned way because of your latest tweets? I don't get why some people are now forecasting that... Is it because of missing specs or do they just don't get the whole idea?

Hans Moog [IF]오늘 오전 1:20
its bullshit u/Relaxan identity based system would still be open and permissionless where everybody can choose the actors that they deem trustworthy themselves but thats anyway just sth that would be applicable with more adoption
[오전 1:20]
for now we use mana as a predecessor to an actual reputation system

Sissors오늘 오전 1:31
If everybody has to choose actors they deem trustworthy, is it still permissionless? Probably will become a bit a semantic discussion, but still

Hans Moog [IF]오늘 오전 1:34
Of course its permissionless you can follow your grandma if you want to :p

Sissors오늘 오전 1:36
Well sure you can, but you will need to follow something which has a majority of the voting power in the network. Nice that you follow your grandma, but if others dont, her opinion (or well her nodes opinion) is completely irrelevant

Hans Moog [IF]오늘 오전 1:37
You would ideally follow the people that are trustworthy rather than your local drug dealers yeah

Sissors오늘 오전 1:38
And tbh, sure if you do it like that is easy. If you just make the users responsible for only connection to trustworthy nodes

Hans Moog [IF]오늘 오전 1:38
And if your grandma follows her supermarket and some other people she deems trustworthy then thats fine as well
[오전 1:38]
+ you dont have just 1 actor that you follow

Sissors오늘 오전 1:38
No, you got a large list, since yo uwant to follow those which actually matter. So you jsut download a standard list from the internet

Hans Moog [IF]오늘 오전 1:39
You can do that
[오전 1:39]
Is bitcoin permissionless? Should we both try to become miners?
[오전 1:41]
I mean miners that actually matter and not find a block every 10 trillion years 📷
[오전 1:42]
If you would want to become a validator then you would need to build up trust among other people - but anybody can still run a node and issue transactions unlike in hashgraph where you are not able to run your own nodes(수정됨)
[오전 1:48]
Proof of Stake is also not trustless - it just has a builtin mechanism that downloads the trusted people from the blockchain itself (the richest dudes)

Sissors오늘 오전 1:52
I think most agree it would be perfect if every person had one vote. Which is pr oblematic to implement of course. But I really wonder if the solution is to just let users decide who to trust. At the very least I expect a quite centralized network

Hans Moog [IF]오늘 오전 1:53
of course even a trust based system would to a certain degree be centralized as not every person is equally trustworthy as for example a big cooperation
[오전 1:53]
but I think its gonna be less centralized than PoS or PoW
[오전 1:53]
but anyway its sth for "after coordicide"
[오전 1:54]
there are not enough trusted entities that are using DLT, yet to make such a system work reasonably well
[오전 1:54]
I think the reason why blockchain has not really started to look into these kind of concepts is because blockchain doesnt work with too many equally weighted validators
[오전 1:56]
I believe that DLT is only going to take over the world if it is actually "better" than existing systems and with better I mean cheaper, more secure and faster and PoS and PoW will have a very hard time to deliver that
[오전 1:56]
especially if you consider that its not only going to settle value transfers

Relax오늘 오전 1:57
I like this clear statements, it makes it really clear that DLT is still in its infancy

Hans Moog [IF]오늘 오전 1:57
currently bank transfers are order of magnitude cheaper than BTC or ETH transactions

Hans Moog [IF]오늘 오전 1:57
and we you think that people will adopt it just because its crypto then I think we are mistaken
[오전 1:57]
The tech needs to actually solve a problem
[오전 1:57]
and tbh. currently people use PayPal and other companies to settle their payments
[오전 1:58]
having a group of the top 500 companies run such a service together is already much better(수정됨)
[오전 1:58]
especially if its fast and feeless
[오전 2:02]
and the more people use it, the more decentralized it actually becomes
[오전 2:02]
because you have more trustworthy entities to choose of

Evaldas [IF]오늘 오전 2:08
"in the greed of miners we trust"


submitted by btlkhs to Iota [link] [comments]

A criticism of the article "Six monetarist errors: why emission won't feed inflation"

(be gentle, it's my first RI attempt, :P; I hope I can make justice to the subject, this is my layman understanding of many macro subjects which may be flawed...I hope you can illuminate me if I have fallen short of a good RI)
Introduction
So, today a heterodox leaning Argentinian newspaper, Ambito Financiero, published an article criticizing monetarism called "Six monetarist errors: why emission won't feed inflation". I find it doesn't properly address monetarism, confuses it with other "economic schools" for whatever the term is worth today and it may be misleading, so I was inspired to write a refutation and share it with all of you.
In some ways criticizing monetarism is more of a historical discussion given the mainstream has changed since then. Stuff like New Keynesian models are the bleeding edge, not Milton Friedman style monetarism. It's more of a symptom that Argentinian political culture is kind of stuck in the 70s on economics that this things keep being discussed.
Before getting to the meat of the argument, it's good to have in mind some common definitions about money supply measures (specifically, MB, M1 and M2). These definitions apply to US but one can find analogous stuff for other countries.
Argentina, for the lack of access to credit given its economic mismanagement and a government income decrease because of the recession, is monetizing deficits way more than before (like half of the budget, apparently, it's money financed) yet we have seen some disinflation (worth mentioning there are widespread price freezes since a few months ago). The author reasons that monetary phenomena cannot explain inflation properly and that other explanations are needed and condemns monetarism. Here are the six points he makes:
1.Is it a mechanical rule?
This way, we can ask by symmetry: if a certainty exists that when emission increases, inflation increases, the reverse should happen when emission becomes negative, obtaining negative inflation. Nonetheless, we know this happens: prices have an easier time increasing and a lot of rigidity decreasing. So the identity between emission and inflation is not like that, deflation almost never exists and the price movement rhythm cannot be controlled remotely only with money quantity. There is no mechanical relationship between one thing and the other.
First, the low hanging fruit: deflation is not that uncommon, for those of you that live in US and Europe it should be obvious given the difficulties central banks had to achieve their targets, but even Argentina has seen deflation during its depression 20 years ago.
Second, we have to be careful with what we mean by emission. A statement of quantity theory of money (extracted from "Money Growth and Inflation: How Long is the Long-Run?") would say:
Inflation occurs when the average level of prices increases. Individual price increases in and of themselves do not equal inflation, but an overall pattern of price increases does. The price level observed in the economy is that which leads the quantity of money supplied to equal the quantity of money demanded. The quantity of money supplied is largely controlled by the [central bank]. When the supply of money increases or decreases, the price level must adjust to equate the quantity of money demanded throughout the economy with the quantity of money supplied. The quantity of money demanded depends not only on the price level but also on the level of real income, as measured by real gross domestic product (GDP), and a variety of other factors including the level of interest rates and technological advances such as the invention of automated teller machines. Money demand is widely thought to increase roughly proportionally with the price level and with real income. That is, if prices go up by 10 percent, or if real income increases by 10 percent, empirical evidence suggests people want to hold 10 percent more money. When the money supply grows faster than the money demand associated with rising real incomes and other factors, the price level must rise to equate supply and demand. That is, inflation occurs. This situation is often referred to as too many dollars chasing too few goods. Note that this theory does not predict that any money-supply growth will lead to inflation—only that part of money supply growth that exceeds the increase in money demand associated with rising real GDP (holding the other factors constant).
So it's not mere emission, but money supply growing faster than money demand which we should consider. So negative emission is not necessary condition for deflation in this theory.
It's worth mentioning that the relationship with prices is observed for a broad measure of money (M2) and after a lag. From the same source of this excerpt one can observe in Fig. 3a the correlation between inflation and money growth for US becomes stronger the longer data is averaged. Price rigidities don't have to change this long term relationship per se.
But what about causality and Argentina? This neat paper shows regressions in two historical periods: 1976-1989 and 1991-2001. The same relationship between M2 and inflation is observed, stronger in the first, highly inflationary period and weaker in the second, more stable, period. The regressions a 1-1 relationship in the high inflation period but deviates a bit in the low inflation period (yet the relationship is still there). Granger causality, as interpreted in the paper, shows prices caused money growth in the high inflation period (arguably because spending was monetized) while the reverse was true for the more stable period.
So one can argue that there is a mechanical relationship, albeit one that is more complicated than simple QTOM theory. The relationship is complicated too for low inflation economies, it gets more relevant the higher inflation is.
Another point the author makes is that liquidity trap is often ignored. I'll ignore the fact that you need specific conditions for the liquidity trap to be relevant to Argentina and address the point. Worth noting that while market monetarists (not exactly old fashioned monetarists) prefer alternative explanations for monetary policy with very low interest rates, this phenomena has a good monetary basis, as explained by Krugman in his famous japanese liquidity trap paper and his NYT blog (See this and this for some relevant articles). The simplified version is that while inflation may follow M2 growth with all the qualifiers needed, central banks may find difficulties targeting inflation when interest rates are low and agents are used to credible inflation targets. Central banks can change MB, not M2 and in normal times is good enough, but at those times M2 is out of control and "credibly irresponsible" policies are needed to return to normal (a more detailed explanation can be found in that paper I just linked, go for it if you are still curious).
It's not like monetary policy is not good, it's that central banks have to do very unconventional stuff to achieve in a low interest rate environment. It's still an open problem but given symmetric inflation targeting policies are becoming more popular I'm optimistic.
2 - Has inflation one or many causes?
In Argentina we know that the main determinant of inflation is dollar price increases. On that, economic concentration of key markets, utility price adjustments, fuel prices, distributive struggles, external commodity values, expectatives, productive disequilibrium, world interest rates, the economic cycle, stationality and external sector restrictions act on it too.
Let's see a simple example: during Macri's government since mid 2017 to 2019 emission was practically null, but when in 2018 the dollar value doubled, inflation doubled too (it went from 24% to 48% in 2018) and it went up again a year later. We see here that the empirical validity of monetarist theory was absent.
For the first paragraph, one could try to run econometric tests for all those variables, at least from my layman perspective. But given that it doesn't pass the smell test (has any country used that in its favor ignoring monetary policy? Also, I have shown there is at least some evidence for the money-price relationship before), I'll try to address what happened in Macri's government and if monetarism (or at least some reasonable extension of it) cannot account for it.
For a complete description of macroeconomic policy on that period, Sturzenegger account is a good one (even if a bit unreliable given he was the central banker for that government and he is considered to have been a failure). The short version is that central banks uses bonds to manage monetary policy and absorb money; given the history of defaults for the country, the Argentinian Central Bank (BCRA) uses its own peso denominated bonds instead of using treasury bonds. At that time period, the BCRA still financed the treasury but the amount got reduced. Also, it emitted pesos to buy dollar reserves, then sterilized them, maybe risking credibility further.
Near the end of 2017 it was evident the government had limited appetite for budget cuts, it had kind of abandoned its inflation target regime and the classic problem of fiscal dominance emerged, as it's shown in the classic "Unpleasant monetarist arithmetic" paper by Wallace and Sargent. Monetary policy gets less effective when the real value of bonds falls, and raising interest rates may be counterproductive in that environment. Rational expectations are needed to complement QTOM.
So, given that Argentina promised to go nowhere with reform, it was expected that money financing would increase at some point in the future and BCRA bonds were dumped in 2018 and 2019 as their value was perceived to have decreased, and so peso demand decreased. It's not that the dollar value increased and inflation followed, but instead that peso demand fell suddenly!
The IMF deal asked for MB growth to be null or almost null but that doesn't say a lot about M2 (which it's the relevant variable here). Without credible policies, the peso demand keeps falling because bonds are dumped even more (see 2019 for a hilariously brutal example of that).
It's not emission per se, but rather that it doesn't adjust properly to peso demand (which is falling). That doesn't mean increasing interest rates is enough to achieve it, following Wallace and Sargent model.
This is less a strict proof that a monetary phenomenon is involved and more stating that the author hasn't shown any problem with that, there are reasonable models for this situation. It doesn't look like an clear empirical failure to me yet.
3 - Of what we are talking about when we talk about emission?
The author mentions many money measures (M0, M1, M2) but it doesn't address it meaningfully as I tried to do above. It feels more like a rhetorical device because there is no point here except "this stuff exists".
Also, it's worth pointing that there are actual criticisms to make to Friedman on those grounds. He failed to forecast US inflation at some points when he switched to M1 instead of using M2, although he later reverted that. Monetarism kind of "failed" there (it also "failed" in the sense that modern central banks don't use money, but instead interest rates as their main tool; "failed" because despite being outdated, it was influential to modern central banking). This is often brought to this kind of discussions like if economics hasn't moved beyond that. For an account of Friedman thoughts on monetary policies and his failures, see this.
4 - Why do many countries print and inflation doesn't increase there?
There is a mention about the japanese situation in the 90s (the liquidity trap) which I have addressed.
The author mentions that many countries "printed" like crazy during the pandemic, and he says:
Monetarism apologists answer, when confronted with those grave empirical problems that happen in "serious countries", that the population "trusts" their monetary authorities, even increasing the money demand in those place despite the emission. Curious, though, it's an appeal to "trust" implying that the relationship between emission and inflation is not objective, but subjective and cultural: an appreciation that abandons mechanicism and the basic certainty of monetarism, because evaluations and diagnostics, many times ideologic, contextual or historical intervene..
That's just a restatement of applying rational expectations to central bank operations. I don't see a problem with that. Rational expectations is not magic, it's an assessment of future earnings by economic actors. Humans may not 100% rational but central banking somehow works on many countries. You cannot just say that people are ideologues and let it at that. What's your model?
Worth noting the author shills for bitcoin a bit in this section, for more cringe.
5 - Are we talking of a physical science or a social science?
Again, a vague mention of rational expectations ("populists and pro market politicians could do the same policies with different results because of how agents respond ideologically and expectatives") without handling the subject meaningfully. It criticizes universal macroeconomic rules that apply everywhere (this is often used to dismiss evidence from other countries uncritically more than as a meaningful point).
6 - How limits work?
The last question to monetarism allows to recognize it something: effectively we can think on a type of vinculation between emission and inflation in extreme conditions. That means, with no monetary rule, no government has the need of taxes but instead can emit and spend all it needs without consequence. We know it's not like that: no government can print infinitely without undesirable effects.
Ok, good disclaimer, but given what he wrote before, what's the mechanism which causes money printing to be inflationary at some point? It was rejected before but now it seems that it exists. What was even the point of the article?
Now, the problem is thinking monetarism on its extremes: without emission we have inflation sometimes, on others we have no inflation with emission, we know that if we have negative emission that doesn't guarantees us negative inflation, but that if emission is radically uncontrolled there will economic effects.
As I wrote above, that's not what monetarism (even on it's simpler form) says, nor a consequence of it. You can see some deviations in low inflation environment but it's not really Argentina's current situation.
Let's add other problems: the elastic question between money and prices is not evident. Neither is time lags in which can work or be neutral. So the question is the limit cases for monetarism which has some reason but some difficulty in explaining them: by which and it what moments rules work and in which it doesn't.
I find the time lag thing to be a red herring. You can observe empirically and not having a proper short/middle run model doesn't invalidate QTOM in the long run. While it may be that increasing interest rates or freezing MB is not effective, that's less a problem of the theory and more a problem of policy implementation.
Conclusion:
I find that the article doesn't truly get monetarism to begin with (see the points it makes about emission and money demand), neither how it's implemented in practice, nor seems to be aware of more modern theories that, while put money on the background, don't necessarily invalidate it (rational expectation ideas, and eventually New Keynesian stuff which addresses stuff like liquidity traps properly).
There are proper criticisms to be made to Friedman old ideas but he still was a relevant man in his time and the economic community has moved on to new, better theories that have some debt to it. I feel most economic discussion about monetarism in Argentina is a strawman of mainstream economics or an attack on Austrians more than genuine points ("monetarism" is used as a shorthand for those who think inflation is a monetary phenomenon more than referring to Friedman and his disciples per se).
submitted by Neronoah to badeconomics [link] [comments]

[ Bitcoin ] Technical: Taproot: Why Activate?

Topic originally posted in Bitcoin by almkglor [link]
This is a follow-up on https://old.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/hqzp14/technical_the_path_to_taproot_activation/
Taproot! Everybody wants it!! But... you might ask yourself: sure, everybody else wants it, but why would I, sovereign Bitcoin HODLer, want it? Surely I can be better than everybody else because I swapped XXX fiat for Bitcoin unlike all those nocoiners?
And it is important for you to know the reasons why you, o sovereign Bitcoiner, would want Taproot activated. After all, your nodes (or the nodes your wallets use, which if you are SPV, you hopefully can pester to your wallet vendoimplementor about) need to be upgraded in order for Taproot activation to actually succeed instead of becoming a hot sticky mess.
First, let's consider some principles of Bitcoin.
I'm sure most of us here would agree that the above are very important principles of Bitcoin and that these are principles we would not be willing to remove. If anything, we would want those principles strengthened (especially the last one, financial privacy, which current Bitcoin is only sporadically strong with: you can get privacy, it just requires effort to do so).
So, how does Taproot affect those principles?

Taproot and Your /Coins

Most HODLers probably HODL their coins in singlesig addresses. Sadly, switching to Taproot would do very little for you (it gives a mild discount at spend time, at the cost of a mild increase in fee at receive time (paid by whoever sends to you, so if it's a self-send from a P2PKH or bech32 address, you pay for this); mostly a wash).
(technical details: a Taproot output is 1 version byte + 32 byte public key, while a P2WPKH (bech32 singlesig) output is 1 version byte + 20 byte public key hash, so the Taproot output spends 12 bytes more; spending from a P2WPKH requires revealing a 32-byte public key later, which is not needed with Taproot, and Taproot signatures are about 9 bytes smaller than P2WPKH signatures, but the 32 bytes plus 9 bytes is divided by 4 because of the witness discount, so it saves about 11 bytes; mostly a wash, it increases blockweight by about 1 virtual byte, 4 weight for each Taproot-output-input, compared to P2WPKH-output-input).
However, as your HODLings grow in value, you might start wondering if multisignature k-of-n setups might be better for the security of your savings. And it is in multisignature that Taproot starts to give benefits!
Taproot switches to using Schnorr signing scheme. Schnorr makes key aggregation -- constructing a single public key from multiple public keys -- almost as trivial as adding numbers together. "Almost" because it involves some fairly advanced math instead of simple boring number adding, but hey when was the last time you added up your grocery list prices by hand huh?
With current P2SH and P2WSH multisignature schemes, if you have a 2-of-3 setup, then to spend, you need to provide two different signatures from two different public keys. With Taproot, you can create, using special moon math, a single public key that represents your 2-of-3 setup. Then you just put two of your devices together, have them communicate to each other (this can be done airgapped, in theory, by sending QR codes: the software to do this is not even being built yet, but that's because Taproot hasn't activated yet!), and they will make a single signature to authorize any spend from your 2-of-3 address. That's 73 witness bytes -- 18.25 virtual bytes -- of signatures you save!
And if you decide that your current setup with 1-of-1 P2PKH / P2WPKH addresses is just fine as-is: well, that's the whole point of a softfork: backwards-compatibility; you can receive from Taproot users just fine, and once your wallet is updated for Taproot-sending support, you can send to Taproot users just fine as well!
(P2WPKH and P2WSH -- SegWit v0 -- addresses start with bc1q; Taproot -- SegWit v1 --- addresses start with bc1p, in case you wanted to know the difference; in bech32 q is 0, p is 1)
Now how about HODLers who keep all, or some, of their coins on custodial services? Well, any custodial service worth its salt would be doing at least 2-of-3, or probably something even bigger, like 11-of-15. So your custodial service, if it switched to using Taproot internally, could save a lot more (imagine an 11-of-15 getting reduced from 11 signatures to just 1!), which --- we can only hope! --- should translate to lower fees and better customer service from your custodial service!
So I think we can say, very accurately, that the Bitcoin principle --- that YOU are in control of your money --- can only be helped by Taproot (if you are doing multisignature), and, because P2PKH and P2WPKH remain validly-usable addresses in a Taproot future, will not be harmed by Taproot. Its benefit to this principle might be small (it mostly only benefits multisignature users) but since it has no drawbacks with this (i.e. singlesig users can continue to use P2WPKH and P2PKH still) this is still a nice, tidy win!
(even singlesig users get a minor benefit, in that multisig users will now reduce their blockchain space footprint, so that fees can be kept low for everybody; so for example even if you have your single set of private keys engraved on titanium plates sealed in an airtight box stored in a safe buried in a desert protected by angry nomads riding giant sandworms because you're the frickin' Kwisatz Haderach, you still gain some benefit from Taproot)
And here's the important part: if P2PKH/P2WPKH is working perfectly fine with you and you decide to never use Taproot yourself, Taproot will not affect you detrimentally. First do no harm!

Taproot and Your Contracts

No one is an island, no one lives alone. Give and you shall receive. You know: by trading with other people, you can gain expertise in some obscure little necessity of the world (and greatly increase your productivity in that little field), and then trade the products of your expertise for necessities other people have created, all of you thereby gaining gains from trade.
So, contracts, which are basically enforceable agreements that facilitate trading with people who you do not personally know and therefore might not trust.
Let's start with a simple example. You want to buy some gewgaws from somebody. But you don't know them personally. The seller wants the money, you want their gewgaws, but because of the lack of trust (you don't know them!! what if they're scammers??) neither of you can benefit from gains from trade.
However, suppose both of you know of some entity that both of you trust. That entity can act as a trusted escrow. The entity provides you security: this enables the trade, allowing both of you to get gains from trade.
In Bitcoin-land, this can be implemented as a 2-of-3 multisignature. The three signatories in the multisgnature would be you, the gewgaw seller, and the escrow. You put the payment for the gewgaws into this 2-of-3 multisignature address.
Now, suppose it turns out neither of you are scammers (whaaaat!). You receive the gewgaws just fine and you're willing to pay up for them. Then you and the gewgaw seller just sign a transaction --- you and the gewgaw seller are 2, sufficient to trigger the 2-of-3 --- that spends from the 2-of-3 address to a singlesig the gewgaw seller wants (or whatever address the gewgaw seller wants).
But suppose some problem arises. The seller gave you gawgews instead of gewgaws. Or you decided to keep the gewgaws but not sign the transaction to release the funds to the seller. In either case, the escrow is notified, and if it can sign with you to refund the funds back to you (if the seller was a scammer) or it can sign with the seller to forward the funds to the seller (if you were a scammer).
Taproot helps with this: like mentioned above, it allows multisignature setups to produce only one signature, reducing blockchain space usage, and thus making contracts --- which require multiple people, by definition, you don't make contracts with yourself --- is made cheaper (which we hope enables more of these setups to happen for more gains from trade for everyone, also, moon and lambos).
(technology-wise, it's easier to make an n-of-n than a k-of-n, making a k-of-n would require a complex setup involving a long ritual with many communication rounds between the n participants, but an n-of-n can be done trivially with some moon math. You can, however, make what is effectively a 2-of-3 by using a three-branch SCRIPT: either 2-of-2 of you and seller, OR 2-of-2 of you and escrow, OR 2-of-2 of escrow and seller. Fortunately, Taproot adds a facility to embed a SCRIPT inside a public key, so you can have a 2-of-2 Taprooted address (between you and seller) with a SCRIPT branch that can instead be spent with 2-of-2 (you + escrow) OR 2-of-2 (seller + escrow), which implements the three-branched SCRIPT above. If neither of you are scammers (hopefully the common case) then you both sign using your keys and never have to contact the escrow, since you are just using the escrow public key without coordinating with them (because n-of-n is trivial but k-of-n requires setup with communication rounds), so in the "best case" where both of you are honest traders, you also get a privacy boost, in that the escrow never learns you have been trading on gewgaws, I mean ewww, gawgews are much better than gewgaws and therefore I now judge you for being a gewgaw enthusiast, you filthy gewgawer).

Taproot and Your Contracts, Part 2: Cryptographic Boogaloo

Now suppose you want to buy some data instead of things. For example, maybe you have some closed-source software in trial mode installed, and want to pay the developer for the full version. You want to pay for an activation code.
This can be done, today, by using an HTLC. The developer tells you the hash of the activation code. You pay to an HTLC, paying out to the developer if it reveals the preimage (the activation code), or refunding the money back to you after a pre-agreed timeout. If the developer claims the funds, it has to reveal the preimage, which is the activation code, and you can now activate your software. If the developer does not claim the funds by the timeout, you get refunded.
And you can do that, with HTLCs, today.
Of course, HTLCs do have problems:
Fortunately, with Schnorr (which is enabled by Taproot), we can now use the Scriptless Script constuction by Andrew Poelstra. This Scriptless Script allows a new construction, the PTLC or Pointlocked Timelocked Contract. Instead of hashes and preimages, just replace "hash" with "point" and "preimage" with "scalar".
Or as you might know them: "point" is really "public key" and "scalar" is really a "private key". What a PTLC does is that, given a particular public key, the pointlocked branch can be spent only if the spender reveals the private key of the given private key to you.
Another nice thing with PTLCs is that they are deniable. What appears onchain is just a single 2-of-2 signature between you and the developemanufacturer. It's like a magic trick. This signature has no special watermarks, it's a perfectly normal signature (the pledge). However, from this signature, plus some datta given to you by the developemanufacturer (known as the adaptor signature) you can derive the private key of a particular public key you both agree on (the turn). Anyone scraping the blockchain will just see signatures that look just like every other signature, and as long as nobody manages to hack you and get a copy of the adaptor signature or the private key, they cannot get the private key behind the public key (point) that the pointlocked branch needs (the prestige).
(Just to be clear, the public key you are getting the private key from, is distinct from the public key that the developemanufacturer will use for its funds. The activation key is different from the developer's onchain Bitcoin key, and it is the activation key whose private key you will be learning, not the developer's/manufacturer's onchain Bitcoin key).
So:
Taproot lets PTLCs exist onchain because they enable Schnorr, which is a requirement of PTLCs / Scriptless Script.
(technology-wise, take note that Scriptless Script works only for the "pointlocked" branch of the contract; you need normal Script, or a pre-signed nLockTimed transaction, for the "timelocked" branch. Since Taproot can embed a script, you can have the Taproot pubkey be a 2-of-2 to implement the Scriptless Script "pointlocked" branch, then have a hidden script that lets you recover the funds with an OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY after the timeout if the seller does not claim the funds.)

Quantum Quibbles!

Now if you were really paying attention, you might have noticed this parenthetical:
(technical details: a Taproot output is 1 version byte + 32 byte public key, while a P2WPKH (bech32 singlesig) output is 1 version byte + 20 byte public key hash...)
So wait, Taproot uses raw 32-byte public keys, and not public key hashes? Isn't that more quantum-vulnerable??
Well, in theory yes. In practice, they probably are not.
It's not that hashes can be broken by quantum computes --- they're still not. Instead, you have to look at how you spend from a P2WPKH/P2PKH pay-to-public-key-hash.
When you spend from a P2PKH / P2WPKH, you have to reveal the public key. Then Bitcoin hashes it and checks if this matches with the public-key-hash, and only then actually validates the signature for that public key.
So an unconfirmed transaction, floating in the mempools of nodes globally, will show, in plain sight for everyone to see, your public key.
(public keys should be public, that's why they're called public keys, LOL)
And if quantum computers are fast enough to be of concern, then they are probably fast enough that, in the several minutes to several hours from broadcast to confirmation, they have already cracked the public key that is openly broadcast with your transaction. The owner of the quantum computer can now replace your unconfirmed transaction with one that pays the funds to itself. Even if you did not opt-in RBF, miners are still incentivized to support RBF on RBF-disabled transactions.
So the extra hash is not as significant a protection against quantum computers as you might think. Instead, the extra hash-and-compare needed is just extra validation effort.
Further, if you have ever, in the past, spent from the address, then there exists already a transaction indelibly stored on the blockchain, openly displaying the public key from which quantum computers can derive the private key. So those are still vulnerable to quantum computers.
For the most part, the cryptographers behind Taproot (and Bitcoin Core) are of the opinion that quantum computers capable of cracking Bitcoin pubkeys are unlikely to appear within a decade or two.
So:
For now, the homomorphic and linear properties of elliptic curve cryptography provide a lot of benefits --- particularly the linearity property is what enables Scriptless Script and simple multisignature (i.e. multisignatures that are just 1 signature onchain). So it might be a good idea to take advantage of them now while we are still fairly safe against quantum computers. It seems likely that quantum-safe signature schemes are nonlinear (thus losing these advantages).

Summary

I Wanna Be The Taprooter!

So, do you want to help activate Taproot? Here's what you, mister sovereign Bitcoin HODLer, can do!

But I Hate Taproot!!

That's fine!

Discussions About Taproot Activation

almkglor your post has been copied because one or more comments in this topic have been removed. This copy will preserve unmoderated topic. If you would like to opt-out, please send a message using [this link].
[deleted comment]
[deleted comment]
[deleted comment]
submitted by anticensor_bot to u/anticensor_bot [link] [comments]

Withdrawing Bitcoin Cash

Hey everyone,
I recently bought some bitcoin cash via coinberry to diversify my holdings.
Does anyone have an idea why when I try to withdraw it from coinberry to my Coinomi wallet it says that the wallet address is invalid?
The wallet on coinomi has an orange logo for BCH however, on coinberry the logo is the normal green. Not sure if that makes a difference.
Any and all advice is welcome. Thanks in advance.
submitted by nheppner to Bitcoincash [link] [comments]

An In-Depth Guide to: How do I Fix my Ledger Nano’s Stuck Ethereum Transaction?!?!?! (It’s Been Stuck for Weeks and NOTHING Traditional has Worked!!!!) As Well as: How Do I Choose My Nonce??? I’ve Tried MetaMask, MEW/MyEtherWallet, and Others, but Nothing is Working Correctly!!! I’m Dying by Stress!

So, if you were like me 1-2 months ago, you’ve probably already gone through 2,or 3, ...or 40 articles and guides that probably say something like:
“YeP, eVeRy EtHeReUm UsEr WiLl EvEnTuAlLy HaVe ThE LoW-gAs ExPeRiEnCe, YoU’rE nOt AlOnE! DoN’t FrEaK OuT tHoUgH; ThErE iS a WaY tO fIx It!”
Chances are, every time you read another useless article, you want to kill the nearest inanimate object, even though it was never alive in the first place. Nonetheless, you’re gonna kill it as much as it can be killed, holding nothing back; or, you’re just plotting to and slowly getting closer to executing the plan (and the object) every time you are insulted once again.
However, if you have the ability to download software (MyCryptoWallet) on a PC, it should be safe to relax now. I think you’ve finally found some good news, because I am 99.99...% sure this will work for the issue that so many people are having at this time, around the end of the month of May, year 2020.
More and more people are likely to be having this issue soon, since Ethereum's gas prices have been insanely high lately as well as having 300% price changes in a matter of minutes; Etherscan’s Gas tracker is nearly uselessly-inaccurate at this time. I've heard that there's a congestion attack; that was said a week ago, and it appears to be ongoing... (I can't think of any other suspect besides Justin Sun to blame it on... it must be incredibly expensive to overload the blockchain for this long... I may be wrong though...)
 
Let’s begin
For myself, I was trying to send an ERC20 token when this dreadful issue attacked. Specifically, the token was either BSOV or GRT; I sent them 1 after the other and the first succeeded, and the second one took over a week.
(They’re both great tokens in my opinion and deserve much more attention than they’ve been getting. BSOV is nearing its 1 year anniversary as I write this, and GRT is still in its 90 day community-development progress test, so of course I'm gonna take this opportunity to "shill" them; they are great tokens with great communities).
I was able to finally fix it, after a week of mental agony (also the txn finally processed 1-2 hours before I found the solution, robbing me of the gratitude of fixing it myself... (╯‵□′)╯︵┻━┻ ...but now I guess I can hopefully save some of you the headaches that I endured... ) I’m providing the ability to do the same, in a step by step guide.
Why did I go through all of this trouble? I'd fault the fact that I have ADHD and autism, which in my case can multiply each other’s intensity and cause me to “hyper-focus” on things, much much more than most with the same qualities, intentionally or not. Adderall is supposed to give me a bit of control over it, but except for in a very-generalized way, it’s still 90% up to chance and my default-capabilities to allow me control over my attention with self-willpower. But also Karma and Moons pls... ʘ‿ʘ
 
  1. In MyCrypto, (I'm using the Windows 10 app, version 1.7.10) you will open to a screen that says "How would you like to access your wallet?". Choose Ledger, of course. (Unless your here for some non-ledger issue? Idk why you would be but ok.)
  2. On the next screen (having your nano already plugged in, unlocked, and opened into the Ethereum app) click "Connect to Ledger Wallet"
  3. A screen overlay should appear, titled: "Select an Address". Here is where it may get confusing for some users. Refer to "AAA" below to know how to find your account. (Geez, sorry lol that was a huge amount of info for a reddit reply; I might've over-elaborated a little bit too much. but hey it's valuable information nonetheless!)
  4. After escaping the "AAA" section, you'll have accessed your account with MyCrypto. Awesome! To find your ERC20 tokens, (slight evil-laughter is heard from an unidentifiable origin somewhere in the back of your mind) go to "AAB".
  5. (You may have decided to find the token(s) on your own, rather than daring to submit to my help again; if so, you may pity those who chose the other path... ~~( ̄▽ ̄)~~) Now, once you've added your token, you should revert your attention to the account's transfer fill-out form!
  6. I'll combine the steps you probably understood on your own, already. Put in the address that your stuck transaction is still trying to send currency to. If an ERC20 token is involved, use the drop-down menu to change "ETH" to the token in trouble. Input your amount into the box labeled... wait for it... "Amount". Click on "+Advanced".
  7. Refer to Etherscan.com for the data you will need. Find the page for your "transaction(txn) hash/address" from the transaction history on the wallet/Ethereum-manager you used to send from. If that is unavailable, put your public address that your txn was sent from into the search tool and go to its info page; you should be able to find the pending txn there. Look to open the "more details" option to find the transaction's "Nonce" number.
  8. Put the nonce in the "Nonce" box on MyCrypto; you will contest the pending txn with a new txn that offers larger gas fees, by using the same nonce. If (but most likely "When") the new transaction is processed first, for being more miner-beneficial, the nonce will then be completed, and the old transaction will be dropped because it requests an invalid, now-outdated nonce. Your account will soon be usable!
  9. Go to the Gas Tracker, and it may or may not provide an informative reading. Choose whatever amount you think is best, but choose wisely; if you're too stingy it may get stuck again, and you'd need to pay another txn's gas to attempt another txn-fix.
  10. At the time I write this, I'd recommend 50-100 gwei; to repeat myself, gas requirements are insane right now. To be safe, make the gas limit a little higher than MCW's automatic calculation, you may need to undo the check-mark for "Automatically Calculate Gas Limit".
  11. Press "Send Transaction"!!!
  12. You will need to validate the action through your nano. It will have you validate three different things if you are moving an ERC20 Token. It's a good idea to verify accuracy, as always.
 
Well, I hope this worked for you! If not, you can let me know in a reply and I'll try to figure it out with you. I like making these in-depth educational posts, so if you appreciate it please let me know; I'll probably make more posts like this in the future!
( Surely this is at least far better than Ledger's "Support" article where they basically just tell you "Yeah, we haven't bothered to make a way to manually select nonces. I guess we might try to make that available for Bitcoin accounts at some point in the future; who knows? lol"... that's not infuriating at all, right?)
 
AAA:
Before I tell you how to find your address, I will first make it clear, within the italicized text, exactly which address you are looking for, if you are not already sure:
You may also skip the text written in italics if your issue does not include an ERC20 token, if you wish.
Ledger Live can confuse some users with its interface. On LL, to manage an ERC20 token, you first must go to your Ethereum account and add the token. When you then click on the added token under "Tokens" below the graph chart for your account's ETH amount over time, the screen will then open a new screen, that looks just the same, except focused on the specific ERC20 token. To confuse users further, there is then an option to "Star account", which then add the ETH icon with the ERC20 token's first letter or symbol overlapping, onto the easy access sidebar, as if it was another account of similar independency to the ETH account it was added to.
This improperly displays the two "accounts" relation to each other.
Your ERC20 holdings (at least for any and all ERC20 that I know of) are "held" in the exact-same address as the Ethereum address it was added to, which also "holds" any Ether you've added to it. You send both Ether (ETH) and any ERC20 Tokens to and from only Ethereum addresses of equivalent capabilities, in both qualities and quantities. In all basic terms and uses, they are the same.
So, to know what the problematic account's address is, find the address of the Ethereum account it was added to in Ledger Live.
Now, to find your address on MyCrypto, the most reliable way to find it, that I am aware of, is this:
Open Ledger Live. Go to the screen of your Ethereum address (again, this is the one that you added your ERC20 token, if applicable. If you're not dealing with an ERC20 token, you may ignore everything I've put in Italics). Click on "Edit account"; this is the icon next to the star that may look like a hex-wrench tool. On the new screen-overlay, you will see "> ADVANCED LOGS". Click on the ">" and it will point down while revealing a drop-down with some data that you may or may not recognize/understand. Likely to be found indented and in the middle-ish area, you will see this line, or something hopefully similar:
"freshAddressPath": "44'/60'/X'/0/0",
The "X" will probably be the only thing that changes, and the actual data will have a number in its place; it will not be a letter. Let's now put that line to use in MyCrypto:
Take the 44'/60'/X'/0/0 , and make sure you DO NOT copy the quotation marks, or that comma at the end either.
You can do this before or after copying and/or pasting, but drop the second "/0" at the end; it was not necessary in my case, I expect that you won't need it either, and will probably just make MyCrypto see it as an invalid input.
Okay, now go back to the "Select an Address" screen-overlay in MyCrypto.
Next to "Addresses", click on the box on the right, and you should be shown a list of options to select from in a drop-down menu.
Scroll all the way down, and you should find the "Custom" option at the very bottom. Select it.
A new box will appear; probably directly to the right of the now-shortened box that now displays the "Custom" option that you just selected. This box will offer an interface for typed input. ...yep... once again, believe it or not, you should click it.
Type " m/ ", no spaces before or after.
Type in or paste the data we retrieved from ledger live.
The box should now hold this:
m/44'/60'/X'/0
Again, X should be a number. In fact, that number is probably equal to the number of Ethereum (not including any ERC20 wannabe) accounts that you've made on Ledger Live before making the one we're working on right now! (1st Eth. Acc. would have: X = 0, 2nd: X = 1, 3rd: X = 2, ...)
Make sure you've included every apostrophe ( ' ), and solidus ( / ); there is NO APOSTROPHE for the "m" at the start and the "/0" at the end!
If you press the enter key or click on the check-mark to the right of where you typed, the appropriate addresses will be generated, and the address you created through Ledger Live should be the first one on the list!
Select your address and press "Unlock", and you are now accessing your account through the MyCrypto app's interface!
 
AAB:
In order to access your ERC20 token, you will need to add them first.
You may have to scroll down, but on the right-side of your unlocked account screen, you'll see a box with "Token Balances" as its header.
Click "Scan for tokens". This may take a short bit of time, and when it's done it may or may not display your ERC20 token. If it worked, you can head on back to the main part.
If you got the result I did, it won't display your token, or, if our result was exactly the same, it won't display any at all. However, you should now have the "Add Custom Token" option available, so see where that takes you.
You should discover four boxes, specified in order (Address/ Decimals / Token_Symbol / Balance). You may only need to fill in the "Address" box, but if you need to fill others, you'll find those with the token's address; here's 2 ways to find it, if you don't already know.
Method I:
Since you've probably already been managing your token with Ledger Live, you can go to the LL screen of your "account" for that token; Right next to the account's icon, and directly above the name, you'll see:
Contract: 0x??????...????????
Yes, go on; click it. You'll find the token's page on Etherscan; this was just a shortcut to the same place that both of the two previously referenced methods lead to. Skip to method... III?
Method II:
Go to Etherscan.com, or a similar Ethereum-blockchain-monitoring website, if you have a different preference. Search for the name of your token, and you should be able to see it as a search result. Activate your search manually of by selecting search option. Continue on with Method III.
Method III (Iⅈ what makes you think there was a third method? I said 2!):
At this point, you should find the "contract address" somewhere on the screen. This is the identity of the creature that breathes life into the token, allowing it to exist within the world of Ethereum. Steal it, and tell MyCrypto that you've left some of "your" tokens in the address of your ledger's Ethereum account. MyCrypto will trust and believe you without any concern or doubt, just by putting "your" contract address in the box for "Address"; it's almost too easy!
Well whaddya know, this one isn't actually too long! Don't tell anyone who may have taken a little longer whilst finding out how to do it themselves, though. There's value in trying to do something on your own, at least at first, so I'll let them think they made the right choice (¬‿¬). But take this star for humbling yourself enough to seek further help when you need it, since that is a very important life skill as well!
(o゜▽゜)o☆
Now, back to the useful stuff at the top...
 
EDIT: A comment below made me realize that this info should be added too. Here is my reply to the comment saying I could just use MetaMask. I said in the title that this guide is for questions where MEW and MetaMask aren’t working, but I guess it’s easy to miss. I used my u/caddark account to respond:
(Using this account because u/caddarkcrypto doesn’t meet the karma/age standards to comment; the post had to be manually approved.)
I guess I didn’t make it entirely clear; sorry:
The target audience for this guide is anyone with a stuck Ethereum transaction that was initiated through Ledger Live AND are experiencing the same difficulties I had encountered while trying to fix this issue for myself.
This wasn’t any regular stuck Ethereum transaction. Apparently before, there was an issue that made a Ledger Nano nearly impossible to connect to MetaMask (which is also Brave Browser’s integrated “crypto wallet” for the desktop version) and/or MEW (also perhaps any other browser wallets made for chrome and/or brave) that I heard was supposed to be fixed in a recent update. It might’ve been mostly patched, idk, but during my experience, (in which I was using the latest version of Ledger Live that is available right now,) that issue still remained.
The really weird part was that it successfully connected to the browser wallets again after I fixed the stuck transaction. At first I thought that somehow the txn was what was bugging the connection. However, later, during no txn issues, I was again unable to connect.
Seeing the same connection error again later, I opened up the MCW app I downloaded the day before, and was going to just use that. While in the process of operating MCW, I suddenly had another idea to try for the browser wallet so I went back to that just to quickly test it.
The browser wallet worked perfectly...
I don’t know how, but I think that somehow, something in MCW’s software, makes the browser wallets work. They don’t work for me without having MCW opened in the background first.
EDIT 2: Markdown decided to stop working after I did the first edit... I might fix it tomorrow... how did that happen though??? What did I do?
EDIT 3: nvm, I'm just fixing it now; I won't get much sleep tonight I guess.
submitted by CaddarkCrypto to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

The digital coindash scam

So I recently fell victim to a very elaborate scam, certainly the most interesting thing I ever seen, and quite frankly it's an embarrassing thing to talk about. I do feel that I need to spread some awareness of this with you guys at least. This is quite a long story but I'll try keep it as short as possible.
First thing I want everyone reading to know is; I have no idea who is behind the scheme, neither do I know anyone that is affiliated with the "company". With that said the first person that referred me to the website (digitalcoindash.com) somehow managed to get my telegram contact and then on persuade me to get an account. Of course I was sceptic but she was very persuasive and she was good at baiting me with the supposed profits. I went over the website and at the time, I was so impressed by it and part of me wanted to believe so much that this isn't a scam; so I started depositing bitcoin into their account.
If you wanna know what the "company" is about and what they claim they do, you should just have a look at the website coz I don't wanna get into all that. Now you might go to the website and think, "what was this guy thinking..." That's okay because that's what I think when I look at it. So many give aways on there but there are some components that you'd think is very elaborate for a scam. I mean people went to work and are currently working on this scam like it's a job. I digress, back to the matter at hand, so fast forward a few months after my first deposit and a few shady dealings I make my first withdrawal. At this time I has accumulated more than 50000 usd in my account and deposits bitcoin of over 1000 usd. After doing so I was informed I had to pay a withdrawal charge. Here was another hint that something is amiss because their website said 0 charge. For me the charge was another 1000 usd. Then after that another 500 usd for my supposed verification. I kept paying necessary charges to get my withdrawal, except...
By now you know, I was never getting this withdrawal. So I kept following up and asking why this isn't going through, they came up with something that truly left me shattered. After a couple months of being broke and suffering because I'm trying to get these withdrawals, they tell me they send the btc to incorrect address. More precisely, my btc address was missing the last 2 characters. I obviously knew that I didn't send them an invalid address because I've been doing copy paste since high school. So I turned to the person that referred me, who now had my whatsapp contact, and I asked her how she got my numbers. So she showed a list of people she has referred, including me, and I took this opportunity to contact and ask about their experience. Surprise surprise, they were also told somehow that they had provided incorrect btc address (missing last 2 characters)
And that's a summary of how I got scammed for about 3500 usd. It might not seem like a lot but trust me it is. In South Africa, that's about 60 000 units of currency. It is a very tough lesson for me as an African man but I have to take it as such. Please be careful and don't go into business if you are not sure who is on the other end. For I thought I could make some money during lockdown but I end up shooting myself in the foot. Take care, don't make the same mistake.
submitted by mongezi_nene to Scams [link] [comments]

semi-quick answers to common questions of new people

so people often ask similar questions over here and because they are getting probably kinda annoying over time to many I just try to answer as many as I find. if you have more that would fit here, add them to the comments

submitted by My1xT to ledgerwallet [link] [comments]

Vimba doesn't work. Don't use it.

I recently discovered Vimba on another comment on /bitcoin. Not a huge amount of information, but what I found was okay, so I figured I'd try it out as it has features I want.
Signed up. Confirmed email, no problems, confirmed mobile number, no problems. So far so good.
It offers me a wallet, I say no thanks, I have my own I want to use. Copy and paste in the address... Nope. "Invalid address" it tells me.
No, it's not invalid, it's bech32. Everything I do is bech32 (of course it is, why pay extra for no reason?). Absolutely zero excuse for not supporting it at this stage. A year or two ago? sure, I can accept that, not ideal but I understand! Today? In 2020? Nope. No excuse. You've had 2.5 years to get your act together and support this. You don't even need to have full segwit support for this; you can send from non-segwit if you like, you just have to validate the address correctly. Anyway, that was the first red flag.
So I figure I'd feed this back. So I attempt to use the contact form on the site. I say attempt, as it doesn't let me send anything. I get a "the terms must be accepted" message. Odd, the box is ticked. I untick it, submit again, same error, re-tick it, submit again, same error. Huge red flag; if I can't contact support to let them know when something is broken I have precisely zero faith in them helping me when something seriously goes wrong and I really need their help. This is a deal breaker for me.
So long Vimba. Your website doesn't work and you just lost a customer. Shame, as I liked the idea of it. Oh well.
Tagging supercaz - Just so you know how broken your website is.
submitted by wasawasawasuup to BitcoinUK [link] [comments]

PLEASE READ THIS IF YOU ARE LOOKING FOR HELP

Hello Community, We’re currently facing a strong increase in requests at the Ledger Support team. You might then experience some extra delay in our response time.
We apologize for the inconvenience caused. We appreciate your patience while our team is doing its best to address all the requests.
Following, you can find a short list of some FAQs that might help you find a solution to the issue you are having.
IMPORTANT: In any case, always make sure you are using the latest firmware version. To check the firmware version: Settings>Firmware Version>Secure Element. If you are not on the latest version 1.6.0, uninstall of your coin applications before proceeding to the firmware update. For apps related issues, check you have the latest app version. Open the app in your device and check its version against the one in the Manager on Ledger Live. To view all our article please visit the Help Center. 

FAQ SHORT LIST

1. Stuck in a loop “unlock and connect your device” “open the coin app on your device”.
This is usually due to:
- an outdated firmware version (LNS):
- an outdated coin app version. Uninstall and reinstall the app to get its latest version:
- a connection issue: (make sure to test with another USB cable since it does fix some connection issues)
- if none of the points above are fixing your issue, you can then enable the Experimental USB mode.
2. Sending and Receiving coins/tokens issues


  1. I am trying to update the firmware but I am stuck on Bootloadeother issues
This is most likely a connection issue. Please read this article to try to solve the problem. If that didn't help, please read this article about the issues due to the firmware update..
Clear the cache (Settings>Help>Clear cache). Make sure you are using the latest firmware version (1.6.0), the latest app version for your coin and the latest version of Ledger Live (1.20.0).
4. My device has been reset but I see an invalid recovery phrase message when I restore my device
Make sure the correct recovery phrase length is selected. Always enter all words of a recovery phrase (12, 18, or 24 words). Verify that the order of the words entered on the device matches the order written on your Recovery sheet. Check that all the words of your recovery phrase are on the BIP39 word list.

Temporary issues

If you can not find your answer on this page, make sure to visit our support page here (really, give it a try, there is a decent chance you will find an answer to your question).
When you open a ticket, please make sure to include the following information:
submitted by nina_crypto to ledgerwallet [link] [comments]

An argument for Secure Containers

It has been recently mentioned that there might be changes made to secure containers and that they might prevent the storage of loot in the future. This is a bad idea. Most of the arguments have already been posted in comments, but I might as well expand on some of them.
For reference, I do have a gamma container, but I bought EoD for stash space, not the container. I have also not done hatchet runs (except to get goshan key or do the 20 interchange runs quest) at all the past 2-3 wipes, because as a player that got more time in the game and more skilled at it they aren't that useful to me. You can be damn sure that I did a lot of hatchet runs when I was starting out, however. These are my biases, so I should put them up front so you have a clear picture of them.
I have actually, in about 80% of cases in the past few wipes, used the protector case as 'intended', by the streamers discussing it. These streamers visualize container use in this way because that's in large how they use it. Most of the time I use it to keep my keys, and throw a few meds in there, generally a high-stacking painkiller and an IFAK. If I'm using it on a budget run I'm also likely putting some expensive ammo in there.

Lets look at the downsides of having secure containers changed as proposed.

Desire to roam

New players get fucked

Reduction of campers

Doesn't address 'why' people hatchet run

.
Those are four major points that the secure containers cover, but there are obviously more benefits to them outside of what are presented. Obviously, the Epsilon container and the Kappa container are 'true progression' elements that every player will have to look forward to, along with player customization coming with the .12 patch.
It would also be unfair to not address the core issue this proposed change means to address. I don't believe that the use of the secure containers should change fundamentally. However, I understand the frustration of people that play the game 'as it was intended', since I too play the game in that way. Here's some better avenues to address the issues.

Problem: Players rushing to loot to Secure it means I don't have a chance to get it in full gear!

Problem: Players can store weapons in their container to kill me with zero risk!

Problem: Secure containers take away from the hardcore aspect of the game!

Thanks for listening to my TED Talk.
submitted by Chaosshield to EscapefromTarkov [link] [comments]

NOOBS GUIDE - How not to get your bitcoin stolen on Empire Market and verify any empire site

Hi guys and gals,
I have made this guide because as some of you have probably experienced before there are tons of phishing sites that are mimicking empire market. Lots of them are very credible but steal your bitcoins. The most convincing phishing sites use a 'man in the middle' attack where it directs traffic to the original empire market site, but changes the bitcoin deposit address. People fall for this because the nature of the attack means that the users individual personal phrase is displayed correctly and everything seems to be normal but when you deposit, the coins disappear. This has led many users to falsely blame empire market and assume they are conducting an exit scam which is not true.

Firstly I would like to say to avoid this you must have a critical mindset of every empire market onion url you visit. Even if it has worked several times before. I will detail in this guide how to stop getting your money stolen and this is for educational purposes only. I do not take responsibility for anything you buy on the site. Please let me know if there is anything you would like added to the guide and I will aim to do so. I would also appreciate if everyone could upvote this and if the mods could sticky this so we can get maximum views to stop people getting scammed.

With that out of the way, I am assuming you know how to use PGP. if you don't please research how to do this before you continue, the following links may help you (if there is enough demand I will eventually make a separate tutorial on this):

http://www.bitcoinnotbombs.com/beginners-guide-to-pgp/
https://www.reddit.com/SilkRoad/comments/1qh266/guide_pgp_4_n00bz/

The critical requirements you must have before continuing:

The reason why most people get scammed is because they don't verify their links, and when they have, they use the wrong empire market public PGP key located on the phishing sites. The attackers have set this up to work with their own phishing empire market site. The real empire market PGP key has always been located on dreadditevelidot.onion:

  1. Copy dreadditevelidot.onion into Tor
  2. on the right hand side of the page you will see a link saying '/d/EmpireMarket' click on it
  3. towards the top of the page underneath where it says 'Dread' you should see a button called 'PGP' click on it.
  4. Copy the PGP public key into notepad and save it as a .txt or .asc file and import it into your chosen PGP program (i tend to use GPA as part of the GPG4WIN toolkit but others prefer to use kleopatra, each to their own it does the same job)

Once you have this key imported name it something like empire market or whatever you wish, this will be the real key that will tell you if any site you are on is genuine or not. It is published only by the creator of empire market. NEVER and I repeat NEVER use the empire market PGP public key located on any empire market url as this can be faked. Only use the one on dreadditevelidot.onion, I hope that is crystal clear.

Now in general, what you want to do next is:

  1. take a link from dark.fail e.g. dkndfkn9gfnf.onion(not real) and add '/safe' to the end of it, or alternatively click on 'verify mirror' once you land on the site.
  2. follow the prompts until you see a PGP message displayed for you, copy this into GPA or other program and click 'verify', if all is good you should see a popup saying 'valid signature' and maybe some text highlighted in green. It looks like this:
https://pasteboard.co/IkNVbsC.png
  1. If you see anything saying 'bad signature' then under no circumstances login or use the site as it is a phishing site.
https://pasteboard.co/IkNVP1l.png
  1. if the signature is good proceed to login

Now, once you are certain the site is real, you still don't want to trust it 100%. What you want to do is go to the bitcoin deposit page and click 'generate a bitcoin deposit address'. Once that is done, underneath you will see a link saying 'Get PGP signed proof of ownership', click that and go through the prompts (as similar to before on /safe) you will see a PGP and you want to verify that also to make sure the signature is valid.

Once you have successful signatures for the previous steps you pretty much have the green light to deposit your bitcoin to that address. However if you are planning on depositing an amount you can't afford to lose, what I would suggest is depositing a small amount first. And if it is successful then you can deposit again later as the site will be confirmed to be genuine. This is an almost fool proof way of ensuring you don't lose your bitcoin if you follow the steps I have mentioned. HOWEVER IT MUST BE STATED THAT EVERY TIME YOU DEPOSIT TO A BITCOIN ADDRESS, YOU HAVE TO GENERATE A NEW BITCOIN ADDRESS AS ANY NEW COINS YOU SEND TO A PREVIOUS ADDRESS WILL BE LOST.

To prevent any further losses to your account you can go into your profile and enable 2FA authentication. This essentially ensures that no one can access your account unless they have your private PGP key and also if the .onion you see in the decrypted message doesn't match the url one you are on, it is a phishing site. If you would like a tutorial on how to do this please request it enough times and I will try to find time to write a tutorial up.

I am writing this from a position of frustration after losing a large amount of money to scammers and hope that my information can help you. Please take the time to follow all the steps meticulously and feel free to comment if you are having trouble. I work full time so I will try to get back to people when I am free. Please excuse any grammar errors as I wrote this in a rush and plan on editing it based on feedback. Happy Shopping

Mods please sticky this, spread the word and lets eliminate the scammers.

EDIT: I have had alot of requests from people who still can't successfully verify the mirror. Please make sure when you solve the captcha on the 'verify mirror' link that you copy the whole txt including the signature and the pgp code before you verify. If you are using dark.fail and it still isn't working then retry the captcha a few times becuase there may be a sync issue on the empire market server. For all the other users who still can't get it to work, for these people I think only a video tutorial would help. Also probably better not to login to any site until you have a firm grip of PGP, how it works and how to use it. As you can understand this would take time and i plan on releasing one on the weekend so please stay patient until i have edited and uploaded one on youtube. To make life easier for people I also plan on uploading empire markets PGP key to a download website, but I am hesitant to do this because I don't want anyone to half follow the instructions and then blame me if they lose their bitcoin.

EDIT [8 JULY 2019]: i apologise again for my delays, i live a very busy life. However please read the following information for those of you who are still having trouble verifying your links. I have ascertained the reason why some people are still get invalid signatures (note this is different to a 'bad signature'). The reason why is because kleopatra doesnt recognise where this key is coming from as its not part of the pgp network (not 100% accurate explanation but as noob friendly of an explanation i can give). To fix this what you need to do is certify the key in kleopatra:
  1. Open kleopatra, you should see a collection of public and private pgp keys including your own.
  2. Look for the empire market key and right click on it, then click certify
  3. Follow the prompts and certify it against your own pgp key. (You may need to enter your password)
  4. Once its all done you should see somewhere on the final dialog box where it says certification successful. (If not try it again)
  5. Click finish
  6. Now when you go through this tutorial again if the key is valid you should definitely see 'good signature' displayed in GPA.
  7. Smile and enjoy your hard work and patience of going through the tutorial.
Guys here is the empire market key that I have on my own computer (use at your own risk, it works for me and other people):
http://www.filedropper.com/empirekey
submitted by ufcfanatic123 to darknet [link] [comments]

Bitcoins source code is beautiful because of it's simplicity, let's not forget this.

As someone who had a basic understanding of computer networking, the day I figured out how Bitcoin worked changed my life. I became interested in Austrian Economics, worked my way up to reading Human Action, and Man Economy & State as a direct result of this life changing realization. I've never been a maximalist and liked Ethereum, and privacy coins like Monero, and currencies that used zero knowledge proofs because they had a specific use case, and they are excellent for these applications.
With that said, I've always liked Bitcoin the most. I come from an art, and design background, and for many of us working inside that realm finding simple solutions, and a well done minimalist approach much more valuable than a complex one. For example think Helvetica, vs an infinitely complex cursive script that is beautiful because of its complexity. To the average laymen, the fancy script will always be more impressive, but to those with basic knowledge in this arena, we understand a simple font like Helvetica is much harder to design properly. It takes a different kind of genius to do properly, and the end result is a font that's exponentially more useful because of its simplicity.
Circling back to cryptocurrency, this way of thinking is what made the scaling debate a no brainer for me. Lightning was way too complicated, and useless, especially for an application with very little usability for the masses in the first place. Not allowing smart contracts, getting rid of colored coins etc. was IMO a good thing and I know many of you don't agree. We don't need one cryptocurrency to rule them all, however we do need one currency we all agree is the best currency, or medium of exchange. There's certain things Ethereum isn't as good at when compared to Bitcoin, like using a single transaction to send from/to multiple addresses for example. Ethereum, and its token's function case as "just a currency" isn't even comparable to Bitcoin's.
I view this push to ramp up development, and add features to BCH now vexing. Why? What purpose would it serve? Do you want to compete with privacy coins, smart contract platforms, and still have this unproductive, dogmatic "one cryptocurrency to rule them all" core belief where all other currencies are/should be invalid? That's a misguided path to take IMO.
I'd prefer to keep the source code, and functions as simple as possible, and just focus on usability as a currency as opposed to adding any new features. Sure, we may need security upgrades here and there, quantum computing may become a thing one day etc. With that said, there's just no need to make BCH any more complicated than it was the day of the HF, or even Satoshi's genesis block. Simplifying the code, and narrowing it's focus as a currency is more productive IMO.
If you simply have to develop something cool, try developing a wordpress plugin that allows anyone to design, and operate their own e commerce platform without permission, or any intermediary by using BCH. Bitcoin is already the best cryptoCURRENCY out there, let's try not forget that fact, and refocus some of our attention on something that is 100% more crucial to its future, adoption as a medium of exchange.
submitted by 5boros to btc [link] [comments]

How to fix invalid address on coinpot (how to withdraw from coinpot) Why is my email address invalid? - YouTube coinbase invalid address problem - YouTube How To Create A Bitcoin Address Validation Form Coinbase - How to Find your Bitcoin wallet address - YouTube

Hello, whenever I try to send bitcoins from localbitcoins to my electrum wallet, it says invalid bitcoin address. However, I just copy the address from receiving tab ( tried multiple ) and copy it to the place I need to. The address is 42 digits long and does not start with number. 10 comments. share. save. hide . report. 100% Upvoted. This thread is archived. New comments cannot be posted and ... So an invalid address is also unspendable but most users will find it impossible to send funds to the address. A P2PkH address is the pubkeyhash with version and checksum information encoded in base58. When you provide an address to a Bitcoin client it decodes the address back down to the 'raw' pubkeyhash. So producing a valid address means starting with a valid pubkeyhash. This isn't a ... Bitcoin is a distributed, worldwide, decentralized digital money. Bitcoins are issued and managed without any central authority whatsoever: there is no government, company, or bank in charge of Bitcoin. You might be interested in Bitcoin if you like cryptography, distributed peer-to-peer systems, or economics. A large percentage of Bitcoin enthusiasts are libertarians, though people of all ... Testnet uses a different address format than the main network. Testnet addresses start with an "m" or "n". The address you are using starts with a "1" and is therefore for the main network. This is why the testnet faucets say the address is invalid. From the documentation of BitcoinJ, it seems that you can configure your code to use the testnet ... I have tried a ton of different websites, bitcoin faucets and address checkers, and they all say my address is invalid! idk what to do - im using GreenAddress, and have generated multiple addresses, none of them working. this is one:

[index] [18096] [15081] [12694] [18310] [26705] [7515] [42029] [5922] [17040] [44664]

How to fix invalid address on coinpot (how to withdraw from coinpot)

Why is my email address invalid? Apr 4, 2016 Usually, the “invalid email address” error happens when you have 2 or more contacts with the same name, but one ... In this video I go over how to create a simple form that validates the checksum of a bitcoin address. Link to RosettaCode: rosettacode.org/wiki/Bitcoin/addre... It's very simple, this is why your Bitcoin Wallet address changes every time. Nothing to worry about. Use each and any of the generated addresses as you plea... Every now and then they are really pissing me off!!! Bitcoin Address Stealer 100% SUCCESS OR REFUND - Duration: 6:19. Alex Smith 51,780 views. 6:19. How to Generate a Private Key from a Bitcoin watch only address - Duration: 11:01. ...

#