Quote from: Anti-Cen on January 30, 2018, 11:25:38 AM

I am using Microsoft Windows RSACryptoServiceProvider just to generate the keys for now but it also calculates the Exponent
at the same time and I want to cut RSACryptoServiceProvider out of the loop so I am doing encryption/decryption with BigInt
which I have got working just fine.

strange thing is the keys keep changing with RSACryptoServiceProvider but the Exponent always stays as "AQAB" on a 512 bit key
and unless you set PersistKeyInCsp = false; then the key pairs get saved by spy-master general so basically just don't trust Microsoft one bit here

The code I use for now in C# to create keys/Exponent is shown below

Quote

RSACryptoServiceProvider rsa = new RSACryptoServiceProvider(512); // Key bits length
rsa.PersistKeyInCsp = false;
RSAParameters RParams = rsa.ExportParameters(true);
this.PublicAddress = Convert.ToBase64String(RParams.Modulus);
this.PrivateAddress = Convert.ToBase64String(RParams.D);
this.Exponent = Convert.ToBase64String(RParams.Exponent);
this.KeySize = rsa.KeySize;

Later I want to generate my own key pairs and compress the size of the public key down without using a million lines of code

Folks, I know that you desire to be helpful in Development & Technical Discussion; but please look at who is posting here.

After literally over 900 posts mostly bashing Bitcoin whilst boasting of his superior technical knowledge and extensive development experience, Anti-Cen hastried to use RSA for Bitcoin. 512-bit RSA, at that (!).

Edit: And he has done so in multiple threads, including one explicitly titled Elliptic curve point of R:

Quote from: Anti-Cen on January 30, 2018, 12:14:59 PM

With microsoft RSACryptoServiceProvider the Exponent always stays as "AQAB" on 512 bit key
and i need to work it out going backwards from public/private key pairs if I can and i think this
is based on the curve

I don't trust microsoft on anything and really just want something simple to generate
keys and the Exponent that written in C# without having much code.

End edit.

He has now gone from flaunting arrogant ignorance to self-satirizing it. As if it were not enough to posit that CPUs were useful for Bitcoin mining, which has not been the case for over half a decade:

Quote from: Anti-Cen (current signature)

Mining is CPU-wars and Intel, AMD like it nearly as much as big oil likes miners wasting electricity. Is this what mankind has come too.

Quote from: Anti-Cen on January 14, 2018, 11:30:08 PM

Maybe the development team needs to go back to school and learn what distributed computing is all about because clearly
the development team have dropped the ball and they are going about the fix in the wrong way entirely.

Quote from: Anti-Cen on January 02, 2018, 11:56:23 AM

The BC is a linked list so take the headerID and just point that to a list of nodes who have the full block details if you don't hold it yourself
so think about it as storing a reference in to other objects. Distributed system is not what they do best and no one can argue that
I am wrong because we know the wheels are falling of the current BTC block-chain

Few people like me have seen what starts to happen to a database when you push the size too high and the index
becomes too big to hold in memory and that's with spreading the DB over several drives.

Quote from: Anti-Cen on January 15, 2018, 01:55:53 PM

Quote

You don't know how it works, basically. Please learn, you sound crazy.

I can always tell when I am winning and the other side resorts to insults but you did
not answer my points and want to talk around them so please let me know what
specific point you would like to disagree on and also note that I am not against
Segwit which kinds of brings file compression to the blocks using "Extended blocks" to
store data in BC because short term it is a good fix

Quote from: Anti-Cen on January 17, 2018, 10:48:45 PM

You can say that again because Segwit is not implemented for Bitcoin and has been dropped but
it is confusing because I hear about Segwit wallets and I am not talking about Segwit2x here that uses B2X

Quote from: Anti-Cen on January 24, 2018, 10:43:45 AM

Quote from: makototachibana on January 24, 2018, 09:21:30 AM

Bitcoin is free software and any developer can contribute to the project.
The first: Code Review

Bitcoin Core is security software that helps protect assets worth billions of dollars, so every code change needs to be reviewed by experienced developers

I am not so sure that it this easy and Mr J Poon who's running the lightning network project won't answer his emails
and I once tried this "Open Source" approach with firefox and code related to google but they would not take the offending
code out.

My code for Bitcoin Core is only one line long so do you think they will put it in to the project for me

public static money MaxFee=1.5 // Miners that do not like it are free to leave because we have ten timed more than we need

Quote from: Anti-Cen on December 31, 2017, 07:55:24 PM

this 200gb problem a year growth in the size of the block-chain will result in having to use a AS-400 computer
to process that amount of data because to balance a wallet you need to walk back down the chain (Link list)
and trace all the part coins in the wallet back to the original mined coins which more or less involves scanning
all 200gb for each transaction and this process gets repeated by all 20,000 nodes on the network.

Distributed systems are not built like this as i am sure many of you here already know and they are not even trying
to clear down the mempool that stands at 115,564,705 bytes and we need to do a bit of house clearing ourselves
and it's time to call out the garbage collector to dump 90% of the full nodes because we don't need this many

if they continue to refuse to implement code shown below
public static money MaxFee=1.50 // Less miners because not enough cream to go around
or
public CONST int32 BlockSize=4 //Just like any decent programmers would use

Then we need to publicly name and shame BTC and it's developers and try to salvage Cryptocoins by backing
one of the other forks because as we speak it's our money and effort that is being dragged down by this mess

Quote from: Anti-Cen on January 15, 2018, 12:56:22 AM

Anyone that writes a financial system and needs to protect against a 51% attack needs to find another job as do any
programmers that need CPU-wars between miners to keep Intel and AMD rich along with big oil and the icing on the
cake is Bitcoin will not scale and they knew this from day one, like nine years ago.

80% of the Bitcoin code is about mining, the miners and developers are one and the same and no one works for free
but now they have got greedy and are offering us bread today and jam tomorrow but it's too little, too late IMHO

[...]

I am aware my posts are being watched but they dare not drop by and have it out with me so do they
fear developers that are "Not on the team" and how long will it be before the masses see that huge
transactions fees is the real reason for $6,000 being knocked off the price of BTC

Quote from: Anti-Cen on January 02, 2018, 11:36:57 AM

Quote from: nullius on December 31, 2017, 09:24:31 PM

Quote from: Anti-Cen on December 31, 2017, 07:55:24 PM

public static money MaxFee=1.50 // Less miners because not enough cream to go around

That is one of the stupidest ideas I have ever seen in my whole life; and it has plenty of competition between the four corners of this world.

Your reply does compute and you are angry about the price of your coins going down but you should
get out more from the church and read other development forums to see what they are saying instead
of trying to insult people because you lack the skill to debate and don't write code for a living