No we are greatful, to Jeff that is.

35 from 50 blocks now.  Gonna be locked in by tonight and the newtork with get an increase in capacity of 80% in the next couple of days.

I think bitcoin has a sense of humour 5 blocks mined in nearly 2 hours!

https://www.xbt.eu/

Block 476688

GB miners switch to signal, will defo activate now.

They have not upgraded their pool yet, been signalling NYA support for a long time.

If F2pool just turned their miners off for half a day it would lock in.

Thanks

Anyone know when the next window starts if it is not locked in now?

Very clever.

Thanks for that guys, some good advice there.  Both of those sound like interesting options.

I am no expert on malware/viruses/key loggers, but  it would seem to me that this is the only practical risk when using digital media that might expose private keys.  I seem to remember reading something on the armory site saying this was a remote risk, but a risk never the less?


I know, but I was wondering, if you had a multisig cold storage with one of those signers on the trezor device you would get the benefit of effective multi-device/multi-sig?  i.e. someone would need both the cold storage machine and the trezor device to sign, and the above leakage risk would be mitigated.

Hi Guys.

With cold storage/airgaps, this seems like the only real attack vector beside physical of course.

Does anyone have any best practice advice on how not to leak private keys, through signing via a usb device. 

Would this be something that eventual Trezor support could help with?  I suspect not unless you could set up multisig with one part on the Trezor device?

Thanks guys.  

Good luck with the ongoing work goatpig, it is much appreciated.

Let us know if you are taking donations yet.

Thanks for the explanation on that attack vector, very helpful.


At the risk of sounding really dumb, does the fact that the hacker can match the public key to the addresses in the wallet  make a brute force attack on existing address balances more likely?

Thanks goatpig.

So to confirm. What would be leaked, and how are they able to create substitute addresses without the seed?

..... are you vulnerable to someone brute forcing the password encryption on the watching only wallet.dat file (if that is a thing).  Or is that not sufficient to steal funds?

This is incorrect, as is the article on the first page of the thread quoted in Adam’s tweet.

That two of the most influential technical people in Bitcoin are saying this is a bit worrying.

All that matters is the longest chain and to equate those that can propagate blocks with those that can build on the blockchain is wrong.  If we take the scenario in the article where I add the moniker "42" to the block header and convince all non mining nodes to do the same.  The article goes on to say …

" The work that the miners would put into creating non-42-bearing blocks would be wasted, and their compensation, in Bitcoins, on a blockchain that none of us accept, would be worthless. New miners would emerge who place the magic number on every block."

The work would not be useless.  Just because the number of nodes building the chain goes down from thousands relaying block to dozens building blocks doesn’t mean a new bitcoin blockchain emerges.  And who the F*ck is "us"  we don't matter only hashing power matters, that's the whole point.

He goes on to say.....

“New miners emerge” ....  really!  With what hashing power?

So now your accusing the guy who released the first Alt to get any traction, that went to work for a bitcoin startup, of pumping Ether?  

That is a great help, I never understood the extent to which the application is independent of the underlying node.