Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 33 results by Binary Finery
Nope still absolutely nothing - I'd have thought he would have made a big New Years push to get this all sorted out, but I guess Mozilla are workinghim particularly hard at the moment.
@DavinciJ15 @Inaba
Have you had any response from DoubleC yet? In a very similar situation to both of you. Make sure you post either here or on the other Bitparking thread if you hear anything as we're clearly not going to kept updated by doublec.
Have you had any response from DoubleC yet? In a very similar situation to both of you. Make sure you post either here or on the other Bitparking thread if you hear anything as we're clearly not going to kept updated by doublec.
Good point - it certainly is a golden apple among the gods.
I was referring more to the interviewer's fumbling grasp on bitcoin, but his other discordian stuff on the nature of the internet initiating the global awakening is pretty good too.
I was referring more to the interviewer's fumbling grasp on bitcoin, but his other discordian stuff on the nature of the internet initiating the global awakening is pretty good too.
The Discordians and their beloved goddess Eris are seeing the potential of bitcoin:
http://thecultofnick.libsyn.com/066-bitcoin-trader-they-closed-my-bank-account-its-just-too-risky-now
http://thecultofnick.libsyn.com/066-bitcoin-trader-they-closed-my-bank-account-its-just-too-risky-now
Interviewer a bit clueless about the nature of bitcoin but frames it in the light of the invention of the printing press and the enlightenment:
http://thecultofnick.libsyn.com/066-bitcoin-trader-they-closed-my-bank-account-its-just-too-risky-now
Hail Eris...
http://thecultofnick.libsyn.com/066-bitcoin-trader-they-closed-my-bank-account-its-just-too-risky-now
Hail Eris...
Tells the story of a UK bitcoin trader shut out by the banking system. Interviewer a bit clueless about the nature of bitcoin but it's a useful listen:
http://thecultofnick.libsyn.com/066-bitcoin-trader-they-closed-my-bank-account-its-just-too-risky-now
http://thecultofnick.libsyn.com/066-bitcoin-trader-they-closed-my-bank-account-its-just-too-risky-now
Re: Reviving post: Where's the -walldir option in bitcoind?
Clients based on bitcoinj don't use a database for the wallet, they use a single file. As a result you can, with a bit of effort, maintain wallets in any directory you want. MultiBit lets you do that, for example. There's also a command line tool called wallet-tool in the bitcoinj distribution that lets you do things like this:
./wallet-tool --wallet=/foo/foo.wallet --chain=/foo/foo.chain --action=DUMP
./wallet-tool --wallet=/foo/foo.wallet --chain=/foo/foo.chain --action=SEND --output=1AbCdE....:2.0
and so on.
The main caveat with this is that at the moment, bitcoinj does not support automatic rescanning if the wallet gets out of sync with the chain file. That's why you need to specify and store the .chain (it's a few megabytes) alongside the wallet.
Obviously at some point soon we'll fix that and then you can just have a single chain file somewhere else that's used with multiple wallets.
./wallet-tool --wallet=/foo/foo.wallet --chain=/foo/foo.chain --action=DUMP
./wallet-tool --wallet=/foo/foo.wallet --chain=/foo/foo.chain --action=SEND --output=1AbCdE....:2.0
and so on.
The main caveat with this is that at the moment, bitcoinj does not support automatic rescanning if the wallet gets out of sync with the chain file. That's why you need to specify and store the .chain (it's a few megabytes) alongside the wallet.
Obviously at some point soon we'll fix that and then you can just have a single chain file somewhere else that's used with multiple wallets.
This option seems to provide a reasonable solution to the problem - thanks Mike, and great talk at Bitcoin2012 btw.
This Matonis article highlights the need to be able to protect wallets from physical coercion.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonmatonis/2012/09/12/key-disclosure-laws-can-be-used-to-confiscate-bitcoin-assets/
Re: Reviving post: Where's the -walldir option in bitcoind?
Cool - you've convinced me it's not a trivial issue. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Apologies for hassling you guys - I'll just have to maintain multiple blockchain databases until someone takes on the challenge.
Thanks for clearing it up. I know it's kind of bike shed considering the intricate work you guys do, do, but do post a bitcoin address whoever does post a -walletdir pull that is accepted, as I like to donate for features I can understand.
Apologies for hassling you guys - I'll just have to maintain multiple blockchain databases until someone takes on the challenge.
Thanks for clearing it up. I know it's kind of bike shed considering the intricate work you guys do, do, but do post a bitcoin address whoever does post a -walletdir pull that is accepted, as I like to donate for features I can understand.
Re: Reviving post: Where's the -walldir option in bitcoind?
Ah, just spotted, someone helpfully bumped this to the top of the tech discussion:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4571.0
Thanks...
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4571.0
Thanks...
Re: Reviving post: Where's the -walldir option in bitcoind?
The problem is slightly more difficult than just choosing the location of the wallet file.
The problem is BDB: our wallet file is not just a standalone file, but lives in a Berkleley Database environment, which consists of several files (including log files the database files refer to). Being able to have the wallet be stored in a placed independent from the other databases requires splitting the database environment in two. There are several difficulties with doing this, and it's not a real solution.
The real solution is moving away from BDB for wallets. It was a bad design decision to use BDB for wallets, and has caused us numerous problems already. We've been working on implementing a new wallet format that doesn't depend on a database before, but there have been more urgent issues recently.
In short: yes this needed, yes it will be implemented, but no it's not that easy, and it probably won't be done very soon.
The problem is BDB: our wallet file is not just a standalone file, but lives in a Berkleley Database environment, which consists of several files (including log files the database files refer to). Being able to have the wallet be stored in a placed independent from the other databases requires splitting the database environment in two. There are several difficulties with doing this, and it's not a real solution.
The real solution is moving away from BDB for wallets. It was a bad design decision to use BDB for wallets, and has caused us numerous problems already. We've been working on implementing a new wallet format that doesn't depend on a database before, but there have been more urgent issues recently.
In short: yes this needed, yes it will be implemented, but no it's not that easy, and it probably won't be done very soon.
Thanks Pieter for your patient response, but just humour me a little further:
So are you saying wallet.dat effectively comprises a table in the BDBE - does BDB not support linked tables?
If wallet.dat is linked in with these other database files, how come it can be renamed and replaced with a new wallet.dat without any discernible difference apart from I can now send BTC from my new wallet -what difference does the BDB see if this file is outside the data folder? If Access can manage linked tables... - I know, bad example ;-)
n8rwJeTt8TrrLKPa55eU - cheers for pointing out that BTC security is not all about trojans and keystroke loggers. Having a mounted outer with a hot wallet or hidden volume with account wallet, if done right, should be indistinguishable to any shell history or log entry, and thus retain plausible deniability. Trojan wallet stealers should be thwarted by the wallet encryption, but someone physically forcing you to reveal your passwords on any visible file can only be addressed by hidden volumes and only then if they are much smaller than the outer volume.
gmaxwell - your holier than thou, coder superiority is not helpful, with you pull requests and shell histories. The -walletdir thread was posted over 18 months ago by Stephen and promptly died. We all appreciate the amazing work you guys are doing getting the bitcoind to it's current state, but most of us don't understand what's behind the system and that's only going to grow as adoption increases - embrace the eternal September dude, most people don't have the time to understand the ins and out of BDBE, we just see features that we would like or things we'd like to change. Bitcoind is still a terrifying prospect to install and use for most mortals, when it comes to storing actual wealth on your computer. Making it clear which files actually give you (or any thief) access to your cash, should be one-syllable-a-minute, crystal clear to the most sausage-fingered retard able to switch on a PC. If someone would like to point me to the pull request list, I'd happily hammer it up there.
Reviving post: Where's the -walldir option in bitcoind?
This is an attempt to revive Stephen Gornick's post of over 18 months ago
I can't believe this feature has not yet been added or am I missing something?
This makes basic security common sense - a lack of a -walletdir option is a major bug.
If basic security dictates that you maintain a hot-wallet for day to day transactions and a secure offline wallet for your bank account then surely you need the ability to secure and hide your account wallet.
The obvious way to do this is in a Truecrypt hidden volume - that way you're secure (with reasonable precautions) against trojans, hackers etc AND (and this is what no-one seems to be addressing, in your ethereal coder bubble) against physical attacks where some guy threatens to break your legs if you don't reveal your truecrypt password to your off-shore account wallet.
Hiding a small wallet.dat file in a truecrypt hidden volume within a gb volume is impossible to detect, however having to haul the entire blockchain in there as well, kinda makes it obvious there's a hidden volume there.
I'm no coder but this must be two lines of code: if walletdir is NULL then walletdir="%data%\bitcoin" else walletdir=<-walletdir>
Please sort this out or show me a version of bitcoind that uses it already, but not electrum - I like bitcoind, I'm comfortable with it. I've no problem with downloading the complete blockchain, but a copy with each wallet is too much, especially if I need to encrypt public data just to secure my 1mb of private data which then leaves me open to thumb-screw questions about why I have so much empty space in my truecrypt volume.
This option makes so much sense, it would reduce this page : https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Securing_your_wallet to:
Download TrueCrypt;
create hidden volume;
stick hot wallet in the outer volume;
stick account wallet in hidden volume;
make several back ups with different encryption headers;
set bitcoind -walletdir=TrueCryptVol:\MyWallet;
mount whichever wallet you wish to use;
boot bitcoind;
make sure no trojan steal your mounted wallet, which is encrpted on bitcoin-qt anyway.
unmount wallet when finished.
Can anyone offer a plausible explanation why this isn't already a feature??
I can't believe this feature has not yet been added or am I missing something?
This makes basic security common sense - a lack of a -walletdir option is a major bug.
If basic security dictates that you maintain a hot-wallet for day to day transactions and a secure offline wallet for your bank account then surely you need the ability to secure and hide your account wallet.
The obvious way to do this is in a Truecrypt hidden volume - that way you're secure (with reasonable precautions) against trojans, hackers etc AND (and this is what no-one seems to be addressing, in your ethereal coder bubble) against physical attacks where some guy threatens to break your legs if you don't reveal your truecrypt password to your off-shore account wallet.
Hiding a small wallet.dat file in a truecrypt hidden volume within a gb volume is impossible to detect, however having to haul the entire blockchain in there as well, kinda makes it obvious there's a hidden volume there.
I'm no coder but this must be two lines of code: if walletdir is NULL then walletdir="%data%\bitcoin" else walletdir=<-walletdir>
Please sort this out or show me a version of bitcoind that uses it already, but not electrum - I like bitcoind, I'm comfortable with it. I've no problem with downloading the complete blockchain, but a copy with each wallet is too much, especially if I need to encrypt public data just to secure my 1mb of private data which then leaves me open to thumb-screw questions about why I have so much empty space in my truecrypt volume.
This option makes so much sense, it would reduce this page : https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Securing_your_wallet to:
Download TrueCrypt;
create hidden volume;
stick hot wallet in the outer volume;
stick account wallet in hidden volume;
make several back ups with different encryption headers;
set bitcoind -walletdir=TrueCryptVol:\MyWallet;
mount whichever wallet you wish to use;
boot bitcoind;
make sure no trojan steal your mounted wallet, which is encrpted on bitcoin-qt anyway.
unmount wallet when finished.
Can anyone offer a plausible explanation why this isn't already a feature??
I use TrueCrypt on Linux to create and mount just a small encrypted volume that holds only the wallet.dat. That wallet.dat is well under 1MB now, but 5MB seems to be a ample yet convenient upper bound as far as size goes. I'ld like to ensure that the wallet.dat has not and will not ever be stored on a non-encrypted volume.
For me to be able to ensure that a new wallet is created on an encrypted volume, I created a much larger encrypted volume (e.g, 300MB or larger, depending on volume of logging kepts) and launch the Bitcoin client there. Once I have the wallet.dat, I then move it to the smaller 5MB encrypted volume.
The protected 5MB volume is not normally mounted and is only used sporadically. When I do wish to use it, I mount the volume and then create a symlink to its wallet.dat before launching bitcoin.
It would be more convenient if, instead of having to create a symlink, I was able to specify which directory to use just for the wallet.dat. e.g.,
$ bitcoin -walletdir=/media/truecrypt1 -datadir=/usr/local/bitcoin/data
Something like a -walletdir option would allow me to create the wallet in a separate directory as well. An added benefit for that would be that I could then skip having the 300MB encrypted volume as well.
Does anyone have a better solution, or other thoughts on this suggestion?
For me to be able to ensure that a new wallet is created on an encrypted volume, I created a much larger encrypted volume (e.g, 300MB or larger, depending on volume of logging kepts) and launch the Bitcoin client there. Once I have the wallet.dat, I then move it to the smaller 5MB encrypted volume.
The protected 5MB volume is not normally mounted and is only used sporadically. When I do wish to use it, I mount the volume and then create a symlink to its wallet.dat before launching bitcoin.
It would be more convenient if, instead of having to create a symlink, I was able to specify which directory to use just for the wallet.dat. e.g.,
$ bitcoin -walletdir=/media/truecrypt1 -datadir=/usr/local/bitcoin/data
Something like a -walletdir option would allow me to create the wallet in a separate directory as well. An added benefit for that would be that I could then skip having the 300MB encrypted volume as well.
Does anyone have a better solution, or other thoughts on this suggestion?
Re: client command line option -wallet= in addition to -datadir=?
I use TrueCrypt on Linux to create and mount just a small encrypted volume that holds only the wallet.dat. That wallet.dat is well under 1MB now, but 5MB seems to be a ample yet convenient upper bound as far as size goes. I'ld like to ensure that the wallet.dat has not and will not ever be stored on a non-encrypted volume.
For me to be able to ensure that a new wallet is created on an encrypted volume, I created a much larger encrypted volume (e.g, 300MB or larger, depending on volume of logging kepts) and launch the Bitcoin client there. Once I have the wallet.dat, I then move it to the smaller 5MB encrypted volume.
The protected 5MB volume is not normally mounted and is only used sporadically. When I do wish to use it, I mount the volume and then create a symlink to its wallet.dat before launching bitcoin.
It would be more convenient if, instead of having to create a symlink, I was able to specify which directory to use just for the wallet.dat. e.g.,
$ bitcoin -walletdir=/media/truecrypt1 -datadir=/usr/local/bitcoin/data
Something like a -walletdir option would allow me to create the wallet in a separate directory as well. An added benefit for that would be that I could then skip having the 300MB encrypted volume as well.
Does anyone have a better solution, or other thoughts on this suggestion?
For me to be able to ensure that a new wallet is created on an encrypted volume, I created a much larger encrypted volume (e.g, 300MB or larger, depending on volume of logging kepts) and launch the Bitcoin client there. Once I have the wallet.dat, I then move it to the smaller 5MB encrypted volume.
The protected 5MB volume is not normally mounted and is only used sporadically. When I do wish to use it, I mount the volume and then create a symlink to its wallet.dat before launching bitcoin.
It would be more convenient if, instead of having to create a symlink, I was able to specify which directory to use just for the wallet.dat. e.g.,
$ bitcoin -walletdir=/media/truecrypt1 -datadir=/usr/local/bitcoin/data
Something like a -walletdir option would allow me to create the wallet in a separate directory as well. An added benefit for that would be that I could then skip having the 300MB encrypted volume as well.
Does anyone have a better solution, or other thoughts on this suggestion?
I can't believe this feature has not yet been added or am I missing something?
This makes basic security common sense - a lack of a -walletdir option is a major bug.
If basic security goes that you maintain a hot-wallet for day to day transactions and a secure offline wallet for your bank account then surely you need the ability to secure and hide your account wallet.
The obvious way to do this is in a Truecrypt hidden volume - that way you're secure (with reasonable precautions) against trojans, hackers etc AND (and this is what no-one seems to be addressing if this experiment ever goes mainstream) against physical attacks where some guy threatens to break your legs if you don't reveal you truecrypt password to your off-shore account wallet.
Hiding a small wallet.dat file in a truecrypt hidden volume within a gb volume is impossible to detect, however having to haul the entire blockchain in there as well, kinda makes it obvious there's a hidden volume there.
I'm no coder but this must be two lines of code at most: if walletdir=NULL then walletdir="%data%\bitcoin" else walletdir=<-walletdir>
Please sort this out or show me a version of bitcoind that uses it already, but not electrum - I like bitcoind, I'm comfortable with it. I've no problem with downloading the complete blockchain, but a copy with each wallet is too much, especially if I need to encrypt public data just to secure my 1mb of private data.
This option makes so much sense, it would reduce this page : https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Securing_your_wallet to:
Download TrueCrypt;
create hidden volume;
stick hot wallet in the outer volume;
stick account wallet in hidden volume;
make several back ups;
set bitcoind -walletdir=TrueCryptvol:\MyWallet;
mount whichever wallet you wish to use;
boot bitcoind;
make sure no trojan steal your mounted wallet, which is encrpted on bitcoin-qt anyway.
Well, why don't you post your withdrawal number so that we can work it out?
I've been waiting for #35048 since Monday - anyone waiting for a lower number than this, let us know when you receive it. Help yourselves people!
I've been waiting for #35048 since Monday - anyone waiting for a lower number than this, let us know when you receive it. Help yourselves people!
I see people talking about getting deposits in finally, are things working again?
I don't see anybody saying to get money out though
if nobody has got any withdrawals yet that just makes it more suspicious, a convenient bank error, but it's not like they are anonymous, so I will give them the benefit of the doubt, as it might be difficult to deal with banks at this stage of bitcoin's life, but if bitcoin gets mainstream at all, they might be considered trailblazers 
that had to wade through this crap in the "early days"
I don't see anybody saying to get money out though
if nobody has got any withdrawals yet that just makes it more suspicious, a convenient bank error, but it's not like they are anonymous, so I will give them the benefit of the doubt, as it might be difficult to deal with banks at this stage of bitcoin's life, but if bitcoin gets mainstream at all, they might be considered trailblazers that had to wade through this crap in the "early days"My withdrawal #32880 hit my account today for clearing on Monday. I'm inclined to side with your latter comment rather than your former - my assessment is that Intersango are basically good guys who've bitten off a little more than they can chew at the moment - they just need to employ a few more staff, sweet-talk a few metrobank execs while offering them VIP tickets to the Bitcoin conference and work really hard on giving their clients adequate information when they get FUBAR'd again in the future.
#31840 still waiting on withdrawal
Really they've got a few weeks of backlog to work through not to mention all the other things that are eating up their time.
Really they've got a few weeks of backlog to work through not to mention all the other things that are eating up their time.
Cool - just good to get an idea of where they are before the weekend - all I need is a bit of info, so I can plan my finances. This has left more than a big hole in my cash flow.