Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 39 results by running
is there a way to initialize a Trezor seed w/o revealing the master pubkey to mytrezor.com? is that what python trezor is for? can it be done through Mycelium?
As you said, you can do it via python-trezor, which is low-level, but not very user-friendly
or, you can now use the chrome app, as many people noticed without us officially presenting it
The Trezor chrome extension for Linux works perfect! Thanks.
Thanks! Tuning the extension so it works on Linux was the hardest part, since you (as a user) need to fiddle with the hardware permissions. Glad to hear it worked for you.
MyTrezor.com doesn't work on Chrome anymore (because of Google - not Trezor). But it still does on Firefox.
It does now!
Chrome turns off NPAPI plugins, which sucks; on the other hand, they have a great USB HID API for Chrome apps, which makes up for it and which we used.
How can you have Failed to load Chrome ... on Firefox?
See my previous post. That's a log message that we print even when we are on Firefox, since we try the Chrome extension first.
The log says "Failed to load Chrome Extension transport", does this mean that i cant use mytrezor with Firefox anymore?
The log always says that if you are on Firefox; we first try to use extension, and if we detect that it's not Chrome (or -ium), we stop trying, but we still log it. To your question
I just noticed that mytrezor.com stopped working for me (Firefox on Lubuntu 14.04) as i get the message "Transport loading failed".
You probably still use the old plug-in, and it's kind of unstable in general. Disable it (in Firefox settings) and go to mytrezor again, and then install the new bridge.
Also i never updated my firmeware as i was afraid to loose my BTC because of some error, was there any reported problem caused by updating the firmeware in Trezors lifetime?
Well, stuff can happen. It should not, but it can.
Generally, when you are upgrading firmware, you should have the seed somewhere. If you have the seed, the worse that can happen is that the Trezor will be wiped and you will need to do the recovery and you still have your coins. You should upgrade firmware, since we add new features and bufgfixes into new versions.
If you don't have the seed, that's a big problem in general - Trezors are not infallible - meaning they can be destroyed by water or by being thrown really hard, etc! So protect your seed (that sounds awkward).
Did a little digging around here guys and found that although shipped from HongKong via Shenzhen EMS this watches are coming from Shenzhen directly. To most this might not seem like anything but from a person who has been to Shenzhen many times i can tell you that Shenzhen is the counterfeit capital of the world. They even have a HUGE mall that is specifically for nothing more than counterfeit goods. I use to know a guy in NYC that bought these counterfeit watches direct from a factory in Shenzhen for $13 each then hustle the streets trying to sell them for whatever he could. Even up close they look authentic as the outer workings of the watch are not hard to replicate, but take it to any real watch shop and have them open it up and they will tell you in an instant that it is not real. Beyond the brand name, the other half of the reason you pay so much for an Armani watch is because of the quality components and craftsmanship inside the watch that make it last for several life times.
Further need i point out that as a "luxury" brand and as part of their luxury brand management, Armani DOES NOT do wholesale distribution and discontinued items are destroyed to protect the brands reputation, much the same as Louis Vuitton and other high fashion brands.
Further need i point out that as a "luxury" brand and as part of their luxury brand management, Armani DOES NOT do wholesale distribution and discontinued items are destroyed to protect the brands reputation, much the same as Louis Vuitton and other high fashion brands.
I might sound like his shill, who cares, but Armani is really not that expensive brand for watches. The same watches - exactly the same - are for a bit more on Amazon, but not *that* much more.
Or, I bought a counterfeit. Oh well.
Hey,
I have bought the watches from this guy 's e-shop,
the e-shop looks a bit sketchy, but as far as I can say, it's legit and the watches are not fakes. I am not an expert on watch counterfeiting (at all), but they seem like a genuine thing. It's shipped from Hong Kong and it was here (Central Europe) in like 3 days.
I have bought the watches from this guy 's e-shop,
the e-shop looks a bit sketchy, but as far as I can say, it's legit and the watches are not fakes. I am not an expert on watch counterfeiting (at all), but they seem like a genuine thing. It's shipped from Hong Kong and it was here (Central Europe) in like 3 days.
Re: Bug (?) - Inputs from unconfirmed transaction change addresses
note that some miners (eligius) implement a "child pays for parent" policy:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1647
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1647
I am not sure what that means. (Sorry.)
What happened to me:
I sent from address A to address B with change C which had low fee and stayed unconfirmed for hours.
I then wanted to sent something to address D. Instead of using address E with confirmed bitcoins, electrum decided to post it from the address C, so I had to wait until the first transaction confirmed.
That's why I am saying Electrum should prefer using confirmed inputs as outputs.
Bug (?) - Inputs from unconfirmed transaction change addresses
I have a slight bug - or maybe it can't be classified as bug, that's up to you.
I yesterday sent a transaction with a zero fee that was stuck for long hours before confirmation (10 hours, actually). That is fine, if I wanted it faster, I would pay higher fee. No problem there. (10 hours is still a lot, but hey, I paid nothing for it.)
However, when I wanted to send another transaction, even with high fee, that I wanted fast, Electrum used as an input the change address from the unconfirmed transaction, so I had to wait until that confirmed. I had enough money in other change addresses, but Electrum chose the unconfirmed one. That was dumb. (I have Electrum 1.7.1)
So, I propose: prioritize confirmed change addresses before the unconfirmed ones. I don't want to wait on transaction B because transaction A is stuck.
I yesterday sent a transaction with a zero fee that was stuck for long hours before confirmation (10 hours, actually). That is fine, if I wanted it faster, I would pay higher fee. No problem there. (10 hours is still a lot, but hey, I paid nothing for it.)
However, when I wanted to send another transaction, even with high fee, that I wanted fast, Electrum used as an input the change address from the unconfirmed transaction, so I had to wait until that confirmed. I had enough money in other change addresses, but Electrum chose the unconfirmed one. That was dumb. (I have Electrum 1.7.1)
So, I propose: prioritize confirmed change addresses before the unconfirmed ones. I don't want to wait on transaction B because transaction A is stuck.
I am trying to send a transaction here, via Electrum
https://blockchain.info/tx/579a40803ceec7da240272083ff709d42e3f5fa078055164afa6c39ba637fd6d
but it is stuck for 10 hours in "unconfirmed" state. While I might have given larger fee and I know 0.0001 is relatively low, it is non-zero, and most zero fees transactions are confirmed more quickly.
What struck me as weird is - the transaction is not propagated through the network at all
https://blockchain.info/inv/579a40803ceec7da240272083ff709d42e3f5fa078055164afa6c39ba637fd6d
there are few relays, but really a few. But the transaction is still "alive" somehow - I can still see it relayed by few relays even after 10 hours. But it's still just that - unconfirmed, staying in this weird state.
What is going on? Is 10 hours normal when I wrote lower fee? It's a little frustrating (because I can't "cancel it and send it with higher fee" at the moment, I have to just.. wait).
edit: wow, after 10 hours, I finally start getting the confirmations. This is wild.
https://blockchain.info/tx/579a40803ceec7da240272083ff709d42e3f5fa078055164afa6c39ba637fd6d
but it is stuck for 10 hours in "unconfirmed" state. While I might have given larger fee and I know 0.0001 is relatively low, it is non-zero, and most zero fees transactions are confirmed more quickly.
What struck me as weird is - the transaction is not propagated through the network at all
https://blockchain.info/inv/579a40803ceec7da240272083ff709d42e3f5fa078055164afa6c39ba637fd6d
there are few relays, but really a few. But the transaction is still "alive" somehow - I can still see it relayed by few relays even after 10 hours. But it's still just that - unconfirmed, staying in this weird state.
What is going on? Is 10 hours normal when I wrote lower fee? It's a little frustrating (because I can't "cancel it and send it with higher fee" at the moment, I have to just.. wait).
edit: wow, after 10 hours, I finally start getting the confirmations. This is wild.
Re: Calling './bitcoind decoderawtransaction' on big transactions
This is not a limitation of bitcoind, but of the shell.
The solution would be to make a small Python script that passes the transactions to the RPC API (for example, from stdin) instead of relying on the command line.
The solution would be to make a small Python script that passes the transactions to the RPC API (for example, from stdin) instead of relying on the command line.
A-ha! Thanks!
Actually I now found out it's a kernel limitation, not bash one.
Anyway, for anyone else with the same problem finding this by chance: very simple scripts that do just what John Smith suggested are here on wiki
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/API_reference_(JSON-RPC)
Calling './bitcoind decoderawtransaction' on big transactions
I want to go through blockchain to do some analytics, without reliance on external tools.
getrawtransaction -> decoderawtransaction worked so far, but I got stuck at this transaction
https://blockchain.info/tx/42f4500dec4c6f8cd41337767bdf7e2caa48c153ae2114334a645ac927d03766
When I try to pass it up to decoderawtransaction, it just tells me
Now what can I do with that?
One possibility I could think of is just call blockchain.info API on those few transactions, that are giant, but I don't want to do that if I don't have to
The other possibility is digging into bitcoin source code and changing decoderawtransaction in rpcrawtransaction.cpp so it could read the transaction from a standard input.
Is there any other possibility?
getrawtransaction -> decoderawtransaction worked so far, but I got stuck at this transaction
https://blockchain.info/tx/42f4500dec4c6f8cd41337767bdf7e2caa48c153ae2114334a645ac927d03766
When I try to pass it up to decoderawtransaction, it just tells me
Code:
Can't exec "/bin/sh": Argument list too long.
Now what can I do with that?
One possibility I could think of is just call blockchain.info API on those few transactions, that are giant, but I don't want to do that if I don't have to
The other possibility is digging into bitcoin source code and changing decoderawtransaction in rpcrawtransaction.cpp so it could read the transaction from a standard input.
Is there any other possibility?
Strange issue - it doesn't work on the very first transaction in blockchain.
http://blockexplorer.com/block/000000000019d6689c085ae165831e934ff763ae46a2a6c172b3f1b60a8ce26f
It works on all the others, though. I would suggest it's some off-by-one-error in bitcoin.
http://blockexplorer.com/block/000000000019d6689c085ae165831e934ff763ae46a2a6c172b3f1b60a8ce26f
Code:
~/bitcoin-0.8.1-linux/bin/64$ ./bitcoind getrawtransaction 4a5e1e4baab89f3a32518a88c31bc87f618f76673e2cc77ab2127b7afdeda33b
error: {"code":-5,"message":"No information available about transaction"}
error: {"code":-5,"message":"No information available about transaction"}
It works on all the others, though. I would suggest it's some off-by-one-error in bitcoin.
That solved the issue! Amazing and thank you!
I solved this immediately but I will let this here so others may know
I needed to go to the admin panel of openvz and set up "Enable iptables" and reboot the machine. Why this helped? I have no idea.
I needed to go to the admin panel of openvz and set up "Enable iptables" and reboot the machine. Why this helped? I have no idea.
Hello,
I am trying to run bitcoind on one VPS server and I am getting an error
What am I doing wrong? Should I install something? (It is a fresh installation.)
I am trying to run bitcoind on one VPS server and I am getting an error
Code:
~/bitcoin-0.8.1-linux/bin/64$ ./bitcoind
Error: An error occurred while setting up the RPC port 8332 for listening on IPv4: Cannot assign requested address
~/bitcoin-0.8.1-linux/bin/64$ ./bitcoind -rpcport=18332
Error: An error occurred while setting up the RPC port 18332 for listening on IPv4: Cannot assign requested address
~/bitcoin-0.8.1-linux/bin/64$ ./bitcoind -rpcport=80
Error: An error occurred while setting up the RPC port 80 for listening on IPv4: Cannot assign requested address
Error: An error occurred while setting up the RPC port 8332 for listening on IPv4: Cannot assign requested address
~/bitcoin-0.8.1-linux/bin/64$ ./bitcoind -rpcport=18332
Error: An error occurred while setting up the RPC port 18332 for listening on IPv4: Cannot assign requested address
~/bitcoin-0.8.1-linux/bin/64$ ./bitcoind -rpcport=80
Error: An error occurred while setting up the RPC port 80 for listening on IPv4: Cannot assign requested address
What am I doing wrong? Should I install something? (It is a fresh installation.)
I have tried the lastest version (1.7.1). It starts all right, but then crashes when signing transactions, no matter what.
I will try to download old versions somehow.
I will try to download old versions somehow.
do you have a python traceback?
old versinos still on the website: e4a-157zip e4a-158zip e4a-160zip e4a-161zip e4a-162zip
How do I copy the traceback from the fail window?
It seems like getrawtransaction is meant to do this.
However, it just fails at some transactions. Say I want this transaction
https://blockchain.info/tx/6359f0868171b1d194cbee1af2f16ea598ae8fad666d9b012c8ed2b79a236ec4
http://blockexplorer.com/tx/6359f0868171b1d194cbee1af2f16ea598ae8fad666d9b012c8ed2b79a236ec4
http://blockchain.info/rawtx/6359f0868171b1d194cbee1af2f16ea598ae8fad666d9b012c8ed2b79a236ec4
The transaction ID is 6359f0868171b1d194cbee1af2f16ea598ae8fad666d9b012c8ed2b79a236ec4 . If I try
I get
So the blockchaind knows about the transaction. It just doesn't tell me about it.
However, it just fails at some transactions. Say I want this transaction
https://blockchain.info/tx/6359f0868171b1d194cbee1af2f16ea598ae8fad666d9b012c8ed2b79a236ec4
http://blockexplorer.com/tx/6359f0868171b1d194cbee1af2f16ea598ae8fad666d9b012c8ed2b79a236ec4
http://blockchain.info/rawtx/6359f0868171b1d194cbee1af2f16ea598ae8fad666d9b012c8ed2b79a236ec4
The transaction ID is 6359f0868171b1d194cbee1af2f16ea598ae8fad666d9b012c8ed2b79a236ec4 . If I try
Code:
./bitcoind getrawtransaction '6359f0868171b1d194cbee1af2f16ea598ae8fad666d9b012c8ed2b79a236ec4'
I get
Code:
error: {"code":-5,"message":"No information available about transaction"}
However, if I tryCode:
./bitcoind getblock '000000000003ba27aa200b1cecaad478d2b00432346c3f1f3986da1afd33e506'
I gotCode:
{
"hash" : "000000000003ba27aa200b1cecaad478d2b00432346c3f1f3986da1afd33e506",
"confirmations" : 82622,
"size" : 957,
"height" : 100000,
"version" : 1,
"merkleroot" : "f3e94742aca4b5ef85488dc37c06c3282295ffec960994b2c0d5ac2a25a95766",
"tx" : [
"8c14f0db3df150123e6f3dbbf30f8b955a8249b62ac1d1ff16284aefa3d06d87",
"fff2525b8931402dd09222c50775608f75787bd2b87e56995a7bdd30f79702c4",
"6359f0868171b1d194cbee1af2f16ea598ae8fad666d9b012c8ed2b79a236ec4",
"e9a66845e05d5abc0ad04ec80f774a7e585c6e8db975962d069a522137b80c1d"
],
"time" : 1293623863,
"nonce" : 274148111,
"bits" : "1b04864c",
"difficulty" : 14484.16236123,
"previousblockhash" : "000000000002d01c1fccc21636b607dfd930d31d01c3a62104612a1719011250",
"nextblockhash" : "00000000000080b66c911bd5ba14a74260057311eaeb1982802f7010f1a9f090"
}
"hash" : "000000000003ba27aa200b1cecaad478d2b00432346c3f1f3986da1afd33e506",
"confirmations" : 82622,
"size" : 957,
"height" : 100000,
"version" : 1,
"merkleroot" : "f3e94742aca4b5ef85488dc37c06c3282295ffec960994b2c0d5ac2a25a95766",
"tx" : [
"8c14f0db3df150123e6f3dbbf30f8b955a8249b62ac1d1ff16284aefa3d06d87",
"fff2525b8931402dd09222c50775608f75787bd2b87e56995a7bdd30f79702c4",
"6359f0868171b1d194cbee1af2f16ea598ae8fad666d9b012c8ed2b79a236ec4",
"e9a66845e05d5abc0ad04ec80f774a7e585c6e8db975962d069a522137b80c1d"
],
"time" : 1293623863,
"nonce" : 274148111,
"bits" : "1b04864c",
"difficulty" : 14484.16236123,
"previousblockhash" : "000000000002d01c1fccc21636b607dfd930d31d01c3a62104612a1719011250",
"nextblockhash" : "00000000000080b66c911bd5ba14a74260057311eaeb1982802f7010f1a9f090"
}
So the blockchaind knows about the transaction. It just doesn't tell me about it.
To reply to my own topic:
blockexplorer seem to use this branch
https://github.com/jgarzik/bitcoin
but it seem to be unmantained.
blockexplorer seem to use this branch
https://github.com/jgarzik/bitcoin
but it seem to be unmantained.