The End of the Road for Armory : Bitcoin

New to Bitcoin? Confused? Need help? You've come to the right place.

Bitcoin is an internet based decentralised currency. Similarly to Bittorrent, but Bitcoin uses a public ledger called the blockchain to record who has sent and received money. It's very new, and for many very confusing. BitcoinHelp aims to rectify this. Whether it be explaining how it works, how to use it, how to buy Bitcoins, how to integrate Bitcoins into your business. Sharing your successes as well as failures in order to help others is also gladly received. Ask away!
[link]

BlockSettle Terminal - new light-weight bitcoin wallet with integrated trading model

The BlockSettle Terminal is an open-source desktop wallet that offers integrated non-custodial trading of bitcoin. The wallet is based on goatpig’s continued development of the Armory open-source stack.
Wallet features: • BIP 32 (Hierarchical Deterministic) wallet(s) • Native Segwit, Nested Segwit, Legacy address support • Watching-Only wallets • Offline/Remote signing • Hardware Wallet support (Trezor / Ledger) • Network connectivity through remote or local server • Coin control • RBF/CPFP • Fee control • BIP 39 and Armory seed imports • Built-in blockchain explorer • Armory interoperability
The trading model is a hybrid between centralized and decentralized platforms. In our model, the bitcoin leg is non-custodial (removing custody risk) while the fiat leg is centralized (in order to pool liquidity). Trading is currently limited to testnet while users get acquainted with the model.
Trading features: • Request-for-Quote matching • OTC off exchange reporting • Encrypted chat • Products o Bitcoin vs fiat o Bitcoin vs Coloured Coin (coinjoin trading) o Fiat vs fiat (FX)
Webpage: https://www.blocksettle.com/
Github: https://github.com/BlockSettle/terminal https://github.com/BlockSettle/BlockSettleDB
CTO: goatpig https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=7811
submitted by BlockSettle to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

BlockSettle Terminal - HW compatible light-weight wallet with integrated trading

The BlockSettle Terminal is an open-source desktop wallet that offers integrated non-custodial trading of bitcoin.
The wallet is based on goatpig’s continued development of the Armory open-source stack and is compatible with Ledger.
Wallet features: • BIP 32 (Hierarchical Deterministic) wallet(s) • Native Segwit, Nested Segwit, Legacy address support • Watching-Only wallets • Offline/Remote signing • Network connectivity through remote or local server • Coin control • RBF/CPFP • Fee control • BIP 39 and Armory seed imports • Built-in blockchain explorer • Armory interoperability
The trading model is a hybrid between centralized and decentralized platforms. In our model, the bitcoin leg is non-custodial (removing custody risk) while the fiat leg is centralized (in order to pool liquidity). Trading is currently limited to testnet while users get acquainted with the model.
Trading features: • Request-for-Quote matching • OTC off exchange reporting • Encrypted chat • Products o Bitcoin vs fiat o Bitcoin vs Coloured Coin (coinjoin trading) o Fiat vs fiat (FX)
Webpage: https://www.blocksettle.com/
Github: https://github.com/BlockSettle/terminal https://github.com/BlockSettle/BlockSettleDB
CTO: goatpig https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=7811
submitted by BlockSettle to ledger [link] [comments]

BlockSettle Terminal - HW compatible light-weight wallet with integrated trading

The BlockSettle Terminal is an open-source desktop wallet that offers integrated non-custodial trading of bitcoin.
The wallet is based on goatpig’s continued development of the Armory open-source stack and is compatible with Ledger.
Wallet features: • BIP 32 (Hierarchical Deterministic) wallet(s) • Native Segwit, Nested Segwit, Legacy address support • Watching-Only wallets • Offline/Remote signing • Network connectivity through remote or local server • Coin control • RBF/CPFP • Fee control • BIP 39 and Armory seed imports • Built-in blockchain explorer • Armory interoperability
The trading model is a hybrid between centralized and decentralized platforms. In our model, the bitcoin leg is non-custodial (removing custody risk) while the fiat leg is centralized (in order to pool liquidity). Trading is currently limited to testnet while users get acquainted with the model.
Trading features: • Request-for-Quote matching • OTC off exchange reporting • Encrypted chat • Products o Bitcoin vs fiat o Bitcoin vs Coloured Coin (coinjoin trading) o Fiat vs fiat (FX)
Webpage: https://www.blocksettle.com/
Github: https://github.com/BlockSettle/terminal https://github.com/BlockSettle/BlockSettleDB
CTO: goatpig https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=7811
submitted by BlockSettle to ledgerwallet [link] [comments]

The First-generation Terminal — MoonBot

The First-generation Terminal — MoonBot

Moonbot
Our team has developed and is supporting the trading terminal MoonBot which was introduced in October 3, 2017. Currently, the performance of MoonBot surpasses that of most existing trading systems as a result of its advanced functionality and the high security features designed to protect your trading activities.
Secure Connection to the Exchange
The connection from MoonBot to an Exchange is carried out using special keys that the user receives from an exchange such as Binance or Bittrex.
MoonBot connects securely to cryptocurrency trading Exchanges through two special keys which are uniquely and only known to their owner. These are the API key, and the Secret key, both of which the users receives directly from the Exchange.
The MoonBot terminal then receives data and information from the exchange’s API collected at several different access levels, including:
Public information (publicly accessible data related to trading in general):
  • charts;
  • quotes;
  • orderbook;
  • real-time executed orders.
  • Authenticated information (unique to the users and which requires authentication access using the special keys): personal account status (wallet balances);
  • user transactions (such as the details of executed trades).
After receiving the various data information from the exchange, the terminal records these data in a local database for further processing and application.
Security Systems
The MoonBot terminal provides completely private storage of all your personal data!
The MoonBot team has absolutely no access to personal data, you are the only one controlling its security and have complete control over access to your details.
The MoonBot team are not able to withdraw, nor to move, any funds from your personal Exchange account or wallet.
You can therefore safely use the terminal for trading, receiving public information from the Exchange, and should you wish to share with others, the trading data on your account.
You therefore are the only person with control and access to your Exchange wallet, and can be completely assured of the absolute security of your private funds.
Lightning-fast Execution of the Orders on the Exchange and Order Status Update
Depending on the distance of the user from the exchange servers, the delay in order execution should not exceed 1 second. Theoretically, the delay can be reduced to a minimum intangible — 10–20 ms. Below is presented a very short extract(4 seconds in total) of the MoonBot log text file with brief explanations and highlights of the key features.

The MoonBot log text file with brief explanations and highlights of the key features.

Tick Chart. Display of All Orders on the Chart
Thanks to the API connection to the exchange, the terminal receives stream data of all filled orders on the exchange as soon as they were processed by the exchange servers and immediately displays them on the chart.
Tick Chart.
Thus, the visualization of the current state of the market is provided in real time with an accuracy of tens of milliseconds and as detailed as displaying each order on the chart.

Auto Trading on Signals
Fully automatic processing and trading off Telegram signals as well as parced TradingView alerts.

https://preview.redd.it/rw6im5wl1m931.png?width=1095&format=png&auto=webp&s=0ce7e7287dae27a0a71970083435fa93e592e5b5
Automatic Detection of Market Conditions and Reaction to its Changes
Thanks to streaming data acquisition, the terminal monitors all available markets simultaneously, and is therefore able to react almost instantaneously as favorable trading possibilities are presented. And due to the minimal delay in the execution of orders, MoonBot responds to abnormal changes almost instantly.

Advanced Orders. Stop Loss, Take Profit, Trailing Stop
OCO orders (one cancels the other) are one of the most sought-after functions from both the Exchanges providing liquidity to the markets, and applications running on top of the exchanges. The modern Trader cannot trade without the basic “smart” functions and addons to traditional exchange orders and considers them to be the minimum necessary set in their armory.

https://preview.redd.it/3gsh12b42m931.png?width=1200&format=png&auto=webp&s=7f21bd7e7505f9bb5a95555cf355bb6f1f5efab4
Stop Loss
One of the most important tools for Traders is to be able to place orders whilst practicing safe money management in order to mitigate against losses. One of the most important safety tools is to use a Stop Loss, which is especially important in volatile, low liquidity markets.
With MoonBot, the user can set a Stop Loss threshold (either as a percentage of the order price, or as a number of price points), which their strategy can accept should the price move in the opposite direction to that expected. When this threshold value has been reached, the order will be closed automatically.
Technically, a Stop Loss can be set up in two ways: either as a stop-limit order placed directly on the exchange at the same time as the initial position is opened; or as a function controlled in real-time by the MoonBot terminal itself. Additional types of conditional Stop Loss functions include:
  1. Additional and conditional Stop Losses – these are activated by a timer, and depend on the price reached. Thus Moonbot can raise the Stop Loss to a break-even point, or can be set to move upward to follow coin growth and to achieve higher profitability.
  2. BV/SV Ratio Stop Loss — this is a measure of buying/selling pressure and depends on the ratio of the volume of coin purchases compared against sales over a given time range. For example, if the number of sales exceeds the number of purchases, then this Stop Loss would be activated
  3. V-STOP — this is a stop which depends on the volume in the orderbook, where a price and volume level is set, which if broken will activate the Stop Loss.
  4. Trailing Stop — Trailing Stop is a General Stop Loss Management Tool. This very important feature allows the Trader to maximize profit in an automatic mode by following upward price movements, until the price reverses by a preset amount. At that stage the Stop Loss is activated.
    Take Profit
The Trader can fix the profit gained as the value of an asset increases in several ways:
  • By closing the position after a predefined profit percentage has been reached.
  • By remaining in the position, and setting the Stop Loss level to break-even, or to higher profit levels.

Algorithmic Trading
At the moment, MoonBot has 13 types of strategies in-built (manual) using specific and well-proven algorithms (algorithmic trading or algo-trading).
Together these have more than 200 adjustable parameters that can be adjusted to optimize their profitability across the wide range of trending and ranging markets that occur.
https://preview.redd.it/rgm2d6z13m931.png?width=1084&format=png&auto=webp&s=521830b9386e2890620ace5d829f53c3a76ceeb3
Trusted Management
MoonBot includes a successful and well-tested Trusted Management feature, in other words — Copy Trading:
  • All trade actions from the Master Terminal are repeated on the Follower’s Terminal (slave terminal).
  • The Follower’s deposit remains securely in their own personal exchange account.
  • The Trusted Management feature does not have direct access to money, or to direct trading on someone else’s account, but manages only its own Exchange orders, simultaneously broadcasting encrypted messages to Followers terminals containing all Master actions.

https://preview.redd.it/h8ak7b4g3m931.png?width=1023&format=png&auto=webp&s=caf33dad55ad6b51ed9f1e44316df9182b875eff
Trust Management is successfully implemented and used by members of our community. The statistics of those TM Traders who share their results can be reviewed on the website — stat.moon-bot.com on the RatingTM tab.
Community
During the two years of development of the MoonBot terminal, more than 30,000 copies have been registered and used by our Community of Traders.
Every day several thousand people trade cryptocurrencies using the MoonBot terminal, making daily approximately one hundred thousand manual and automatic transactions only on the leading crypto-currency exchange — Binance.
The existing community of traders is actively developing. The MoonBot project has its own active pages on popular social networks, in dedicated Telegram channels divided by topics, and also its own Trader’s forum available to subscribers.
Topics on the BitcoinTalk Forum
  • bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2234450.0
  • bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2234198.0
    Websites
  • moon-bot.com — the official site of the MoonBot.
  • forum.moon-bot.com — MoonBot forum.
  • stat.moon-bot.com — trade statistics of the community members, TOP-50.
    Telegram Groups
  • t.me/moon_bot_crypto — the main RU-chat for communication.
  • t.me/Moon_Bot_Public — main ENG chat for communication and support.
  • t.me/MoonBotSettings — RU technical support chat.
  • t.me/moon_bot_kurilka — general RU chat.
    Telegram Channel
t.me/MoonBotNews — the latest news and updates.
Social Network
www.facebook.com/MoonBotTerminal
The current Support team is actively assisting users and resolving their issues through dedicated Telegram channels.
submitted by MoonTrader_io to Moontrader_official [link] [comments]

Day 9: I will post this guide regularly until available solutions like SegWit, order batching, and Lightning payment channels are mass adopted, the mempool is empty once again, and tx fees are low. Have you done your part?

BACKGROUND
Segregated Witness (SegWit) was activated on the Bitcoin network August 24 2017 as a soft fork that is backward compatible with previous bitcoin transactions (Understanding Segregated Witness). Since that time wallets and exchanges have been slow to deploy SegWit, and the majority of users have not made the switch themselves.
On Dec 18 2017 Subhan Nadeem has pointed out that: If every transaction in the Bitcoin network was a SegWit transaction today, blocks would contain up to 8,000 transactions, and the 138,000 unconfirmed transaction backlog would disappear instantly. Transaction fees would be almost non-existent once again.
Mass SegWit use alone could empty the mempool, result in blocks that are not completely full, and make it possible to include transactions with $0 fee once again.
On Jan 11 2018 when BTC sends went offline at Coinbase the mempool began to rapidly empty. Later in the day when service was restored there was a sharp spike up in the mempool. Subsequently, that afternoon Brian Armstrong finally had to break his silence on the topic and admitted Coinbase is working on SegWit but has still not deployed it. It appears that this is an important data point that indicates if just a few major exchanges would deploy SegWit the high fees bitcoin is experiencing would be eliminated.
SegWit is just one technique available to exchanges and users to reduce pressure on the Bitcoin network. You can make the switch to SegWit on your next transaction, and pressure exchanges to deploy SegWit NOW along with other actions that will reduce their transaction impact on the network. You can help by taking one or more of the action steps below.
ACTION STEPS
  1. If your favorite wallet has not yet implemented SegWit, kindly ask them to do so immediately. If your wallet is not committed to implementing SegWit fast, speak out online any way you can and turn up the pressure. In the meantime start using a wallet that has already implemented SegWit.
  2. If your favorite exchange has not yet implemented SegWit, try to avoid making any further purchases of bitcoin at that exchange and politely inform them that if they do not enable SegWit within 30-days they will lose your business. Sign-up for an account at a SegWit deployed/ready exchange now and initiate the verification process so you'll be ready to bail
  3. Help educate newcomers to bitcoin about the transaction issue, steer them towards SegWit wallets from day one, and encourage them to avoid ever purchasing bitcoin through non-SegWit ready exchanges that are harming bitcoin.
  4. Spread the word! Contact individuals, websites, etc that use bitcoin, explain the benefits of SegWit to everyone, and request they make the switch. Use social media to point out the benefits of SegWit adoption.
IMPORTANT NOTE: The mempool is currently still quite backlogged. If you are a long-term holder and really have no reason to move your bitcoins at this time, wait until the mempool starts to clear and transaction fees go down before moving your bitcoins to a SegWit address or SegWit friendly exchange.
BEYOND SEGWIT - BATCHING, PAYMENT CHANNELS, LIGHTNING
Batching is another great way that exchanges can reduce their fees. See: Saving up to 80% on Bitcoin transaction fees by batching payments. Despite the benefits of batching, some exchanges have been slow to implement it. Users should demand this or walk.
Beyond SegWit & Batching, Lightning Network integration will have even more effect. Lightning is now active and exchanges could setup payment channels between each other so that on-chain transactions need not take place. Some ideas have to outline how that might work are here: Google Doc - Lightning Exchanges. Which two bitcoin exchanges will be the first to establish a lightning channel between themselves and offer free/instant transfers between them for their customers? This will happen in 2018
MEMPOOL/SEGWIT STATISTICS
NEWS/DEVELOPMENTS/VICTORIES
SELECTED TOP EXCHANGES BY BATCHING & SEGWIT STATUS
Exchange Segwit Status Batching Status
Binance NOT READY Yes
Bitfinex Ready Yes
Bitonic Ready Yes
Bitstamp Deployed Yes
Bittrex ? Yes
Coinbase/GDAX NOT READY No
Gemini Ready No
HitBTC Deployed Yes
Huboi ? ?
Kraken Deployed Yes
LocalBitcoins Deployed Yes
OKEx ? ?
Poloniex ? Yes
QuadrigaCX Deployed Yes
Shapeshift Deployed No
Note: all exchanges that have deployed SegWit are currently only sending to p2sh SegWit addresses for now. No exchange will send to a bech32 address like the ones that Electrum generates
Source 1: BitcoinCore.org
Source 2: /Bitcoin
Official statements from exchanges:
SELECTED WALLETS THAT HAVE SEGWIT ALREADY
Make sure you have a SegWit capable wallet installed and ready to use for your next bitcoin transaction
SegWit Enabled Wallets Wallet Type
Ledger Nano S Hardware
Trezor Hardware
Electrum Desktop
Armory Desktop
Edge iOS
GreenAddress iOS
BitWallet iOS
Samourai Android
GreenBits Android
Electrum Android
SegWitAddress.org Paper
FAQs
If I'm a HODLer, will it help to send my BTC to a SegWit address now?
No, just get ready now so that your NEXT transaction will be to a SegWit wallet. Avoid burdening the network with any unnecessary transactions for now.
Why is SegWit adoption going so slowly? Is it a time-consuming process, is there risk involved, is it laziness, or something else?
SegWit will require some extra work to be done right and securely. Also, most exchanges let the user pay the fee, and up to now users have not been overly concerned about fees so for some exchanges it hasn't been a priority.
Once Segwit is FULLY adopted, what do we see the fees/transaction times going to?
Times stay the same - fees will go down. How much and for how long depends on what the demand for transactions will be at that time.
What determines bitcoin transaction fees, to begin with?
Fees are charged per byte of data and are bid up by users. Miners will typically include the transaction with the highest fee/byte first.
Can you please tell me how to move my bitcoins to SegWit address in Bitcoin core wallet? Does the sender or receiver matter?
The Bitcoin core wallet does not yet have a GUI for its SegWit functionality. Download the latest version of Electrum to generate a SegWit address.
A transaction between two SegWit addresses is a SegWit transaction.
A transaction sent from a SegWit address to a non-SegWit address is a SegWit transaction.
A transaction sent from a non-SegWit address to a SegWit address is NOT a SegWit transaction. You can send a SegWit Tx if the sending address is a SegWit address.
Source: HowToToken
What wallet are you using to "batch your sends"? And how can I do that?
Using Electrum, the "Tools" menu option: "Pay to many".
Just enter your receive addresses and the amounts for each, and you can send multiple transactions for nearly the price of one.
Why doesn't the Core Wallet yet support SegWit?
The Core Wallet supports SegWit, but its GUI doesn't. The next update will likely have GUI support built-in
Why isn't a large exchange like Coinbase SegWit ready & deployed when much smaller exchanges already are? Why do they default to high fees? Where is the leadership there?
Draw your own conclusions based on their own words:
March 2016 - Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong has reservations about Core
Dec 2017 - Coinbase is STILL working on Segwit
P2SH/bech32 FAQs
What are the two SegWit address formats and why do they exist?
It's been a challenge for wallet developers to implement SegWit in a way that users can easily and without too much disruption migrate from legacy to SegWit addresses. The first wallets to enable SegWit addresses – Ledger, Trezor, Core, GreenAddress – use so-called “nested P2SH addresses.” This means they take the existing Pay 2 Script Hash address – starting with a “3” – and put a SegWit address into it. This enables a high grade of compatibility to exist wallets as every wallet is familiar with these addresses, but it is a workaround which results in SegWit transactions needing around 10 percent more space than they otherwise would.
Electrum 3.0 was the first wallet to use bech32 addresses instead of nested p2sh addresses.
Source: BTCManager.com
What is the difference in address format between SegWit address formats P2SH and bech32?
P2SH starts with "3..."
bech32 starts with "bc1..."
Which addresses can I send from/to?
P2SH Segwit addresses can be sent to using older Bitcoin software with no Segwit support. This supports backward compatibility
bech32 can only be sent to from newer Bitcoin software that support bech32. Ex: Electrum
Source: BitcoinTalk.org
Why did ThePirateBay put up two Bitcoin donation addresses on their frontpage, one bech32 and one not?
The address starting with a "3..." is a P2SH SegWit address that can be sent BTC from any bitcoin address including a legacy address. The address starting with a "bc1..." is a bech32 SegWit address that can only be sent to from newer wallets that support bech32.
SEGWIT BLOG GUIDES
PREVIOUS DAY'S THREADS
There's lots of excellent info in the comments of the previous threads:
submitted by Bastiat to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Day 7: I will post this guide regularly until available solutions like SegWit & order batching are mass adopted, the mempool is empty once again, and tx fees are low. Do you want low tx fees, because this is how you get low tx fees

TL/DR
Bitcoin users can help lower transaction fees and improve bitcoin by switching to SegWit addresses and encourage wallets/exchanges to do the same.
SUMMARY
Segregated Witness (SegWit) was activated on the Bitcoin network August 24 2017 as a soft fork that is backward compatible with previous bitcoin transactions (Understanding Segregated Witness). Since that time wallets and exchanges have been slow to deploy SegWit, some admitting in December 2017 that they have not even started work on integrating it. Others, such as Zebpay in India have already implemented SegWit and are reaping the benefits of reduced transaction fees. If bitcoin users demand SegWit now it will temporarily relieve the transaction backlog while more even more advanced solutions such as Lightning are developed.
Batching is another great way that exchanges can reduce their fees. See: Saving up to 80% on Bitcoin transaction fees by batching payments. Despite the benefits of batching, some exchanges have been slow to implement it.
There is an opportunity now for all bitcoin users to individually contribute to help strengthen and improve the bitcoin protocol. At this point, the process requires a bit of work/learning on the part of the user, but in doing so you'll actually be advancing bitcoin and leaving what could turn out to be a multi-generational legacy for humanity.
MEMPOOL/SEGWIT STATISTICS
BACKGROUND
On Dec 18 Subhan Nadeem has pointed out that:
If every transaction in the Bitcoin network was a SegWit transaction today, blocks would contain up to 8,000 transactions, and the 138,000 unconfirmed transaction backlog would disappear instantly. Transaction fees would be almost non-existent once again.
A few thousand bitcoin users from /Bitcoin switching to making their next transactions SegWit transactions will help take pressure off the network now, and together we can encourage exchanges/wallets to rapidly deploy SegWit for everyone ASAP. Let's make 80%+ SegWit happen fast. You can help by taking one or more of the action steps below.
ACTION STEPS
  1. If your favorite wallet has not yet implemented SegWit, kindly ask them to do so immediately. In the meantime start using a wallet that has already implemented SegWit.
  2. If your favorite exchange has not yet implemented SegWit, try to avoid making any further purchases of bitcoin at that exchange and politely inform them that if they do not enable SegWit within 30-days they will lose your business. Sign-up for an account at a SegWit deployed/ready exchange now and initiate the verification process so you'll be ready to bail
  3. Help educate newcomers to bitcoin about the transaction issue, steer them towards SegWit wallets from day one, and encourage them to avoid ever purchasing bitcoin through non-SegWit ready exchanges that are harming bitcoin.
  4. Spread the word! Conact individuals, websites, etc that use bitcoin, explain the benefits of SegWit to everyone, and request they make the switch
IMPORTANT NOTE: The mempool is currently still quite backlogged. If you are a long-term holder and really have no reason to move your bitcoins at this time, wait until the mempool starts to clear and transaction fees go down before moving your bitcoins to a SegWit address or SegWit friendly exchange.
SELECTED TOP EXCHANGES BY BATCHING & SEGWIT STATUS
Exchange Segwit Status Batching Status
Binance NOT READY Yes
Bitfinex Ready Yes
Bitonic Ready Yes
Bitstamp Deployed Yes
Bittrex ? Yes
Coinbase/GDAX NOT READY No
Gemini Ready No
HitBTC Deployed Yes
Huboi ? ?
Kraken Deployed Yes
LocalBitcoins Ready Yes
OKEx ? ?
Poloniex ? Yes
QuadrigaCX Deployed Yes
Shapeshift Deployed No
Note: all exchanges that have deployed SegWit are currently only sending to p2sh SegWit addresses for now. No exchange will send to a bech32 address like the ones that Electrum generates
Source 1: BitcoinCore.org
Source 2: /Bitcoin
Official statements from exchanges:
SELECTED WALLETS THAT HAVE SEGWIT ALREADY
Make sure you have a SegWit capable wallet installed and ready to use for your next bitcoin transaction
SegWit Enabled Wallets Wallet Type
Ledger Nano S Hardware
Trezor Hardware
Electrum Desktop
Armory Desktop
Edge iOS
GreenAddress iOS
BitWallet iOS
Samourai Android
GreenBits Android
Electrum Android
SegWitAddress.org Paper
FAQs
If I'm a HODLer, will it help to send my BTC to a SegWit address now?
  • No, just get ready now so that your NEXT transaction will be to a SegWit wallet. Avoid burdening the network with any unneccessary transactions for now.
Why is SegWit adoption going so slowly? Is it a time-consuming process, is there risk involved, is it laziness, or something else?
  • SegWit will require some extra work to be done right and securely. Also, most exchanges let the user pay the fee, and up to now users have not been overly concerned about fees so for some exchanges it hasn't been a priority.
Once Segwit is FULLY adopted, what do we see the fees/transaction times going to?
  • Times stay the same - fees will go down. How much and for how long depends on what the demand for transactions will be at that time.
What determines bitcoin transaction fees, to begin with?
  • Fees are charged per byte of data and are bid up by users. Miners will typically include the transaction with the highest fee/byte first.
Can you please tell me how to move my bitcoins to SegWit address in Bitcoin core wallet? Does the sender or receiver matter?
  • The Bitcoin core wallet does not yet have a GUI for its SegWit functionality. Download Electrum v3.0.3 to generate a SegWit address.
    A transaction between two SegWit addresses is a SegWit transaction.
    A transaction sent from a SegWit address to a non-SegWit address is a SegWit transaction.
    A transaction sent from a non-SegWit address to a SegWit address is NOT a SegWit transaction. You can send a SegWit Tx if the sending address is a SegWit address.
    Source: HowToToken
What wallet are you using to "batch your sends"? And how can I do that?
  • Using Electrum, the "Tools" menu option: "Pay to many".
    Just enter your receive addresses and the amounts for each, and you can send multiple transactions for nearly the price of one.
Why doesn't the Core Wallet yet support SegWit?
  • The Core Wallet supports SegWit, but its GUI doesn't. The next update will likely have GUI support built-in
Why isn't a large exchange like Coinbase SegWit ready & deployed when much smaller exchanges already are? Why do they default to high fees? Where is the leadership there?
P2SH/bech32 FAQs
What are the two SegWit address formats and why do they exist?
  • It's been a challenge for wallet developers to implement SegWit in a way that users can easily and without too much disruption migrate from legacy to SegWit addresses. The first wallets to enable SegWit addresses – Ledger, Trezor, Core, GreenAddress – use so-called “nested P2SH addresses.” This means they take the existing Pay 2 Script Hash address – starting with a “3” – and put a SegWit address into it. This enables a high grade of compatibility to existing wallets as every wallet is familiar with these addresses, but it is a workaround which results in SegWit transactions needing around 10 percent more space than they otherwise would.
    Electrum 3.0 was the first wallet to use bech32 addresses instead of nested p2sh addresses.
    Source: BTCManager.com
What is the difference in address format between SegWit address formats P2SH and bech32?
  • P2SH starts with "3..."
    bech32 starts with "bc1..."
Which addresses can I send from/to?
  • P2SH Segwit addresses can be sent to using older Bitcoin software with no Segwit support. This supports backwards compatibility
    bech32 can only be sent to from newer Bitcoin software that support bech32. Ex: Electrum
    Source: BitcoinTalk.org
Why did ThePirateBay put up two Bitcoin donation addresses on their frontpage, one bech32 and one not?
  • The address starting with a "3..." is a P2SH SegWit address that can be sent BTC from any bitcoin address including a legacy address. The address starting with a "bc1..." is a bech32 SegWit address that can only be sent to from newer wallets that support bech32.
SEGWIT BLOG GUIDES
PREVIOUS DAY'S THREADS
There's lots of excellent info in the comments of the previous threads:
submitted by Bastiat to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Day 8: I will post this guide regularly until available solutions like SegWit, order batching, and Lightning payment channels are mass adopted, the mempool is empty once again, and tx fees are low. BTC Core SegWit GUI coming May 1, Coinbase incompetence exposed, more exchanges deploy SegWit

BACKGROUND
Segregated Witness (SegWit) was activated on the Bitcoin network August 24 2017 as a soft fork that is backward compatible with previous bitcoin transactions (Understanding Segregated Witness). Since that time wallets and exchanges have been slow to deploy SegWit, and the majority of users have not made the switch themselves.
On Dec 18 2017 Subhan Nadeem has pointed out that: If every transaction in the Bitcoin network was a SegWit transaction today, blocks would contain up to 8,000 transactions, and the 138,000 unconfirmed transaction backlog would disappear instantly. Transaction fees would be almost non-existent once again.
Mass SegWit use alone could empty the mempool, result in blocks that are not completely full, and make it possible to include transactions with $0 fee once again.
On Jan 11 2018 when BTC sends went offline at Coinbase the mempool began to rapidly empty. Later in the day when service was restored there was a sharp spike up in the mempool. Subsequently, that afternoon Brian Armstrong finally had to break his silence on the topic and admitted Coinbase is working on SegWit but has still not deployed it. It appears that the high fees bitcoin is experiencing could be easily addressed and need not exist.
SegWit is just one technique available to exchanges and users to reduce pressure on the Bitcoin network. You can make the switch to SegWit on your next transaction, and pressure exchanges to deploy SegWit NOW along with other actions that will reduce their transaction impact on the network. You can help by taking one or more of the action steps below.
ACTION STEPS
  1. If your favorite wallet has not yet implemented SegWit, kindly ask them to do so immediately. If your wallet is not committed to implementing SegWit fast, speak out online any way you can and turn up the pressure. In the meantime start using a wallet that has already implemented SegWit.
  2. If your favorite exchange has not yet implemented SegWit, try to avoid making any further purchases of bitcoin at that exchange and politely inform them that if they do not enable SegWit within 30-days they will lose your business. Sign-up for an account at a SegWit deployed/ready exchange now and initiate the verification process so you'll be ready to bail
  3. Help educate newcomers to bitcoin about the transaction issue, steer them towards SegWit wallets from day one, and encourage them to avoid ever purchasing bitcoin through non-SegWit ready exchanges that are harming bitcoin.
  4. Spread the word! Contact individuals, websites, etc that use bitcoin, explain the benefits of SegWit to everyone, and request they make the switch. Use social media to point out the benefits of SegWit adoption.
IMPORTANT NOTE: The mempool is currently still quite backlogged. If you are a long-term holder and really have no reason to move your bitcoins at this time, wait until the mempool starts to clear and transaction fees go down before moving your bitcoins to a SegWit address or SegWit friendly exchange.
BEYOND SEGWIT - BATCHING, PAYMENT CHANNELS, LIGHTNING
Batching is another great way that exchanges can reduce their fees. See: Saving up to 80% on Bitcoin transaction fees by batching payments. Despite the benefits of batching, some exchanges have been slow to implement it. Users should demand this or walk.
Beyond SegWit & Batching, Lightning Network integration will have even more effect. Lightning is now active and exchanges could setup payment channels between each other so that on-chain transactions need not take place. Some ideas have to outline how that might work are here: Google Doc - Lightning Exchanges. Which two bitcoin exchanges will be the first to establish a lightning channel between themselves and offer free/instant transfers between them for their customers? This will happen in 2018
MEMPOOL/SEGWIT STATISTICS
NEWS/DEVELOPMENTS/VICTORIES
SELECTED TOP EXCHANGES BY BATCHING & SEGWIT STATUS
Exchange Segwit Status Batching Status
Binance NOT READY Yes
Bitfinex Ready Yes
Bitonic Ready Yes
Bitstamp Deployed Yes
Bittrex ? Yes
Coinbase/GDAX NOT READY No
Gemini Ready No
HitBTC Deployed Yes
Huboi ? ?
Kraken Deployed Yes
LocalBitcoins Deployed Yes
OKEx ? ?
Poloniex ? Yes
QuadrigaCX Deployed Yes
Shapeshift Deployed No
Note: all exchanges that have deployed SegWit are currently only sending to p2sh SegWit addresses for now. No exchange will send to a bech32 address like the ones that Electrum generates
Source 1: BitcoinCore.org
Source 2: /Bitcoin
Official statements from exchanges:
SELECTED WALLETS THAT HAVE SEGWIT ALREADY
Make sure you have a SegWit capable wallet installed and ready to use for your next bitcoin transaction
SegWit Enabled Wallets Wallet Type
Ledger Nano S Hardware
Trezor Hardware
Electrum Desktop
Armory Desktop
Edge iOS
GreenAddress iOS
BitWallet iOS
Samourai Android
GreenBits Android
Electrum Android
SegWitAddress.org Paper
FAQs
If I'm a HODLer, will it help to send my BTC to a SegWit address now?
No, just get ready now so that your NEXT transaction will be to a SegWit wallet. Avoid burdening the network with any unnecessary transactions for now.
Why is SegWit adoption going so slowly? Is it a time-consuming process, is there risk involved, is it laziness, or something else?
SegWit will require some extra work to be done right and securely. Also, most exchanges let the user pay the fee, and up to now users have not been overly concerned about fees so for some exchanges it hasn't been a priority.
Once Segwit is FULLY adopted, what do we see the fees/transaction times going to?
Times stay the same - fees will go down. How much and for how long depends on what the demand for transactions will be at that time.
What determines bitcoin transaction fees, to begin with?
Fees are charged per byte of data and are bid up by users. Miners will typically include the transaction with the highest fee/byte first.
Can you please tell me how to move my bitcoins to SegWit address in Bitcoin core wallet? Does the sender or receiver matter?
The Bitcoin core wallet does not yet have a GUI for its SegWit functionality. Download the latest version of Electrum to generate a SegWit address.
A transaction between two SegWit addresses is a SegWit transaction.
A transaction sent from a SegWit address to a non-SegWit address is a SegWit transaction.
A transaction sent from a non-SegWit address to a SegWit address is NOT a SegWit transaction. You can send a SegWit Tx if the sending address is a SegWit address.
Source: HowToToken
What wallet are you using to "batch your sends"? And how can I do that?
Using Electrum, the "Tools" menu option: "Pay to many".
Just enter your receive addresses and the amounts for each, and you can send multiple transactions for nearly the price of one.
Why doesn't the Core Wallet yet support SegWit?
The Core Wallet supports SegWit, but its GUI doesn't. The next update will likely have GUI support built-in
Why isn't a large exchange like Coinbase SegWit ready & deployed when much smaller exchanges already are? Why do they default to high fees? Where is the leadership there?
Draw your own conclusions based on their own words:
March 2016 - Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong has reservations about Core
Dec 2017 - Coinbase is STILL working on Segwit
P2SH/bech32 FAQs
What are the two SegWit address formats and why do they exist?
It's been a challenge for wallet developers to implement SegWit in a way that users can easily and without too much disruption migrate from legacy to SegWit addresses. The first wallets to enable SegWit addresses – Ledger, Trezor, Core, GreenAddress – use so-called “nested P2SH addresses.” This means they take the existing Pay 2 Script Hash address – starting with a “3” – and put a SegWit address into it. This enables a high grade of compatibility to exist wallets as every wallet is familiar with these addresses, but it is a workaround which results in SegWit transactions needing around 10 percent more space than they otherwise would.
Electrum 3.0 was the first wallet to use bech32 addresses instead of nested p2sh addresses.
Source: BTCManager.com
What is the difference in address format between SegWit address formats P2SH and bech32?
P2SH starts with "3..."
bech32 starts with "bc1..."
Which addresses can I send from/to?
P2SH Segwit addresses can be sent to using older Bitcoin software with no Segwit support. This supports backward compatibility
bech32 can only be sent to from newer Bitcoin software that support bech32. Ex: Electrum
Source: BitcoinTalk.org
Why did ThePirateBay put up two Bitcoin donation addresses on their frontpage, one bech32 and one not?
The address starting with a "3..." is a P2SH SegWit address that can be sent BTC from any bitcoin address including a legacy address. The address starting with a "bc1..." is a bech32 SegWit address that can only be sent to from newer wallets that support bech32.
SEGWIT BLOG GUIDES
PREVIOUS DAY'S THREADS
There's lots of excellent info in the comments of the previous threads:
submitted by Bastiat to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Day 6: I will post this guide regularly until available solutions like SegWit & order batching are mass adopted, the mempool is empty once again, and tx fees are low. Refer a friend to SegWit today. There's no $10 referral offer, but you'll both get lower fees and help strengthen the BTC protocol

TL/DR
Bitcoin users can help lower transaction fees and contribute to bitcoin by switching to SegWit addresses and encourage wallets/exchanges to do the same.
SUMMARY
Segregated Witness (SegWit) was activated on the Bitcoin network August 24 2017 as a soft fork that is backward compatible with previous bitcoin transactions (Understanding Segregated Witness). Since that time wallets and exchanges have been slow to deploy SegWit, some admitting in December 2017 that they have not even started work on integrating it. Others, such as Zebpay in India have already implemented SegWit and are reaping the benefits of reduced transaction fees. If bitcoin users demand SegWit now it will temporarily relieve the transaction backlog while more even more advanced solutions such as Lightning are developed.
Batching is another great way that exchanges can reduce their fees. See: Saving up to 80% on Bitcoin transaction fees by batching payments. Despite the benefits of batching, some exchanges have been slow to implement it.
There is an opportunity now for all bitcoin users to individually contribute to help strengthen and improve the bitcoin protocol. At this point, the process requires a bit of work/learning on the part of the user, but in doing so you'll actually be advancing bitcoin and leaving what could turn out to be a multi-generational legacy for humanity.
MEMPOOL/SEGWIT STATISTICS
BACKGROUND
On Dec 18 Subhan Nadeem has pointed out that:
If every transaction in the Bitcoin network was a SegWit transaction today, blocks would contain up to 8,000 transactions, and the 138,000 unconfirmed transaction backlog would disappear instantly. Transaction fees would be almost non-existent once again.
A few thousand bitcoin users from /Bitcoin switching to making their next transactions SegWit transactions will help take pressure off the network now, and together we can encourage exchanges/wallets to rapidly deploy SegWit for everyone ASAP. Let's make 80%+ SegWit happen fast. You can help by taking one or more of the action steps below.
ACTION STEPS
  1. If your favorite wallet has not yet implemented SegWit, kindly ask them to do so immediately. In the meantime start using a wallet that has already implemented SegWit.
  2. If your favorite exchange has not yet implemented SegWit, try to avoid making any further purchases of bitcoin at that exchange and politely inform them that if they do not enable SegWit within 30-days they will lose your business. Sign-up for an account at a SegWit deployed/ready exchange now and initiate the verification process so you'll be ready to bail
  3. Help educate newcomers to bitcoin about the transaction issue, steer them towards SegWit wallets from day one, and encourage them to avoid ever purchasing bitcoin through non-SegWit ready exchanges that are harming bitcoin.
  4. Spread the word! Conact individuals, websites, etc that use bitcoin, explain the benefits of SegWit to everyone, and request they make the switch
IMPORTANT NOTE: The mempool is currently still quite backlogged. If you are a long-term holder and really have no reason to move your bitcoins at this time, wait until the mempool starts to clear and transaction fees go down before moving your bitcoins to a SegWit address or SegWit friendly exchange.
SELECTED TOP EXCHANGES BY BATCHING & SEGWIT STATUS
Exchange Segwit Status Batching Status
Binance NOT READY Yes
Bitfinex Ready Yes
Bitonic Ready Yes
Bitstamp Deployed Yes
Bittrex ? Yes
Coinbase/GDAX NOT READY No
Gemini Ready No
HitBTC Deployed Yes
Huboi ? ?
Kraken Deployed Yes
LocalBitcoins Ready Yes
OKEx ? ?
Poloniex ? Yes
QuadrigaCX Deployed Yes
Shapeshift Deployed No
  • Note: all exchanges that have deployed SegWit are currently only sending to p2sh SegWit addresses for now. No exchange will send to a bech32 address like the ones that Electrum generates
Source 1: BitcoinCore.org
Source 2: /Bitcoin
Official statements from exchanges:
SELECTED WALLETS THAT HAVE SEGWIT ALREADY
Make sure you have a SegWit capable wallet installed and ready to use for your next bitcoin transaction
SegWit Enabled Wallets Wallet Type
Ledger Nano S Hardware
Trezor Hardware
Electrum Desktop
Armory Desktop
Edge iOS
GreenAddress iOS
BitWallet iOS
Samourai Android
GreenBits Android
Electrum Android
FAQs
If I'm a HODLer, will it help to send my BTC to a SegWit address now?
  • No, just get ready now so that your NEXT transaction will be to a SegWit wallet. Avoid burdening the network with any unneccessary transactions for now.
Why is SegWit adoption going so slowly? Is it a time-consuming process, is there risk involved, is it laziness, or something else?
  • SegWit will require some extra work to be done right and securely. Also, most exchanges let the user pay the fee, and up to now users have not been overly concerned about fees so for some exchanges it hasn't been a priority.
Once Segwit is FULLY adopted, what do we see the fees/transaction times going to?
  • Times stay the same - fees will go down. How much and for how long depends on what the demand for transactions will be at that time.
What determines bitcoin transaction fees, to begin with?
  • Fees are charged per byte of data and are bid up by users. Miners will typically include the transaction with the highest fee/byte first.
Can you please tell me how to move my bitcoins to SegWit address in Bitcoin core wallet? Does the sender or receiver matter?
  • The Bitcoin core wallet does not yet have a GUI for its SegWit functionality. Download Electrum v3.0.3 to generate a SegWit address.
    A transaction between two SegWit addresses is a SegWit transaction.
    A transaction sent from a SegWit address to a non-SegWit address is a SegWit transaction.
    A transaction sent from a non-SegWit address to a SegWit address is NOT a SegWit transaction. You can send a SegWit Tx if the sending address is a SegWit address.
    Source: HowToToken
What wallet are you using to "batch your sends"? And how can I do that?
  • Using Electrum, the "Tools" menu option: "Pay to many".
    Just enter your receive addresses and the amounts for each, and you can send multiple transactions for nearly the price of one.
Why doesn't the Core Wallet yet support SegWit?
  • The Core Wallet supports SegWit, but its GUI doesn't. The next update will likely have GUI support built-in
Why isn't a large exchange like Coinbase SegWit ready & deployed when much smaller exchanges already are? Why do they default to high fees? Where is the leadership there?
P2SH/bech32 FAQs
What are the two SegWit address formats and why do they exist?
  • It's been a challenge for wallet developers to implement SegWit in a way that users can easily and without too much disruption migrate from legacy to SegWit addresses. The first wallets to enable SegWit addresses – Ledger, Trezor, Core, GreenAddress – use so-called “nested P2SH addresses.” This means they take the existing Pay 2 Script Hash address – starting with a “3” – and put a SegWit address into it. This enables a high grade of compatibility to existing wallets as every wallet is familiar with these addresses, but it is a workaround which results in SegWit transactions needing around 10 percent more space than they otherwise would.
    Electrum 3.0 was the first wallet to use bech32 addresses instead of nested p2sh addresses.
    Source: BTCManager.com
What is the difference in address format between SegWit address formats P2SH and bech32?
  • P2SH starts with "3..."
    bech32 starts with "bc1..."
Which addresses can I send from/to?
  • P2SH Segwit addresses can be sent to using older Bitcoin software with no Segwit support. This supports backwards compatibility
    bech32 can only be sent to from newer Bitcoin software that support bech32. Ex: Electrum
    Source: BitcoinTalk.org
Why did ThePirateBay put up two Bitcoin donation addresses on their frontpage, one bech32 and one not?
  • The address starting with a "3..." is a P2SH SegWit address that can be sent BTC from any bitcoin address including a legacy address. The address starting with a "bc1..." is a bech32 SegWit address that can only be sent to from newer wallets that support bech32.
SEGWIT BLOG GUIDES
PREVIOUS DAY'S THREADS
There's lots of excellent info in the comments of the previous threads:
submitted by Bastiat to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Where to spend Bitcoin

In the light of the exciting Bitcoin bullish run (BTC reached the mark of $5300), we bet you started thinking on how to spend your hard-earned wealth the best way. Despite the asset is officially legitimized only in Japan, adoption is spreading worldwide, with setting up new businesses, startups, retailers and other services accepting BTC as a way of buying. So, let’s find out how to spend the most popular cryptocurrency in real life:
- Food. Let us tell you a classic story that gave a boost to offline BTC usage. Almost 9 years ago, laszlo, the Bitcointalk user started a thread where he offered to pay BTC for a couple of pizzas. The most expensive (and we hope really delicious) 2 Papa John’s pizza cost 10,000 Bitcoin or 53,000,000 in USD equivalent for today. If your heart hasn’t skipped a beat or your palms haven’t started sweating - please ask somebody to check your pulse.Even though there are plenty of delivery services that accept BTC, frankly, it wouldn’t be wise to spend all your crypto on slices of pizza, so let’s jump to another option...
Gift cards! That’s the easiest way to buy products with the cryptocurrency, either online and offline. Several websites allow users to buy gift cards for Bitcoins. Thus, having such cards people can later use them to buy regular goods in online and offline stores and services like Nike, eBay, or Uber, etc.
- Travel. Are you a travel junkie and got some bitcoins to spend? Here is a couple of win-win scenarios for you: > Brisbane Airport, the 3rd busiest hub in Australia has started to accept cryptocurrencies including BTC in partnership with payments provider Travelbybit. All the merchants and airport terminals accept various digital assets. > Also, you can book Airbnb rentals for BTC using a gift card provider Bitrefill. As for now, this feature is available only for U.S residents. > In case you still have spare bitcoins, you may also visit Travala.com - the service allowing BTC payments for plenty of hotels all over the world.-
Tips. There are things crypto can’t buy, for this, there's Mastercard Tippin.me - a browser extension enabling receiving #BTC tips on Twitter. So, did you like someone’s post or want to express your appreciation? Give’em a crypto tip! Please note both of you must have Tippin account for that.-
Charity. Using crypto for charity has enormous advantages over fiat money - transfers transparency and the ability to track all financial flows as they come. You can support various charity organizations and projects (starting from support for people in need ending by building the biggest digital library of the future). You can learn more about how to use #crypto for charity in our article.
- Entertainment. Good news for Netflix fans: One of the biggest streaming services is setting the pace of mass adoption. People can purchase and renew subscriptions with Bitcoin and a few other cryptos. We hope that is only for a start and other services will join crypto enthusiasts soon.-
Gaming. In blockchain gaming, you can either pay in BTC to buy special equipment and armory or even get rewards in digital assets! For instance, Changelly’s partners Buntoy and Enjin game wallets to enable crypto payments in their gaming universes.Also, Microsoft users can make BTC deposits into their Microsoft accounts to purchase games, movies, and apps available in the Windows and Xbox stores.That’s all for April 2019!
Changellions, no matter whether you spend crypto on something or decide to HODL, all together, we are making steps towards mass-adoption. And, in case, you are looking for a tool to buy/sell crypto quick and easy, please visit your good old friend - Changelly!
submitted by changelly_com to Changelly [link] [comments]

Basic Bitcoin security guide

Hello,
This post is to give you a quick introduction into Bitcoin security. While nobody can guarantee you 100% security, I hope to mitigate some problems you can run into. This is the “20% of effort to get you to 80% safe”.
First of all, you have to determine how much money you want to hold in Bitcoin and how much effort are you willing to put in. If you are happy just holding a few dollars worth and don’t care if you lose them, that’s one approach to take. For everyone else, lets get started.
Password strength
A lot of the times how secure your money is will be determined by the strength of your password. Since in the worst case scenario we are talking about someone trying to brute force your wallet, casual online passwords are too weak. Under 10 characters is too weak. Common words and phrases are too weak. Adding one number to a password at the end is too weak.
Moreover, you can consider your password much weaker if you:
If you want a really strong password:
Wallet security
Now we are getting to the meat of things.
There are a number of wallets available to store your hard earned bitcoins. If you have a decent amount of coins to store, you should look into software wallets - BitcoinQT, MultiBit, Armory or Electrum. They are among the best place to store your money safely (provided your computer is secure as well). Chose one you think best suits you, install it and encrypt your wallet file with your strong password. You should take your wallet file and back it up (location of the file is different for different clients, so you have to do some research as to where to find that file). Back it up on a CD, safe USB drive or the like. Keep them safe. If you lose that file, you will lose your money.
A quick word on deterministic wallets. Electrum and Armory allow you to create wallets from a seed. If you use the same seed later, you can recreate your wallet on other machines. With deterministic wallets, you only need to keep that seed secure to have access to your money.
In comparison, in BitcoinQT's traditional wallet, every address you use is random, meaning that after you send 50-100 outgoing transactions your backups can be obsolete. Always keep an up-to-date backup of such wallet file if possible.
Okay, sometimes you need to have your Bitcoins with you when you leave your computer. In this case, you should look into either online or mobile wallets. A staple for both of those is Blockchain.info, but there are others to chose from.
A good rule of thumb with these is to not store more money in them than you can afford to lose. They are best used as a convenient way of accessing some money, not storing your savings. Online wallets are especially vulnerable to their servers getting hacked and people’s money getting stolen.
What to keep in mind while using online wallets:
  • Use a secure password (the more money you have in them the stronger the password should be)
  • Always keep a backup of your wallet in case you need to recover your money
  • Whenever possible, enable two factor authentication
  • Don’t use your online wallets from unsafe computers
Cold storage
Sometimes you want to store your bitcoins for a long time in a safe place. This is called “cold storage”. There are a few ways one can do this.
First of all, paper wallets. They are nice for giving people small bitcoin gifts, but also for long-term storage if properly used. What you want to do is generate and print them offline. You can save the linked page for example and run that offline. If you are really paranoid, you can put it on read-only media and access that from a different computer. For really long term storage, use archival-grade paper.
Another approach to take is using a separate computer for storing your money that is offline 99+% of the time. You could set one up easily by buying an old laptop, reformatting it, installing Linux and a Bitcoin client. Generate an address on that machine and send money to it from your main wallet. Depending on how paranoid you are you can connect that computer to the Internet afterwards to synchronize data with the Bitcoin Network and then turn it off and put it away somewhere safe until it’s needed.
Brain wallets
Don’t. They are not for you. Unless you are a security-conscientious programmer, those are not for you.
Diversifying
Keeping all of your eggs in one basket is never a good thing. You should look into diversifying some of your Bitcoin assets in case your other storage methods fail. Some ways you can diversify:
  • Buy a physical Bitcoin. As long as you trust the coin creator such coins can be an effective cold storage
  • Invest - I wouldn’t recommend this for more than some trivial amount unless you know what you are doing, but investing in some Bitcoin stocks could be a way to get more money out of your bitcoins
How not to diversify:
  • Avoid keeping your bitcoins at exchanges or other online sites that are not your online wallets. Such sites can be closed down or disappear along with your money.
  • Alt-coins - there are few cryptocurrencies that are worthwhile, but most of them are just Bitcoin clones. If a currency brings nothing new, it’s worthless in comparison to Bitcoin. Namecoin is a distributed domain name server (although recently it had a fatal flaw uncovered, so be warned), Ripple is a distributed currency exchange and payment system. Litecoin will only be useful in case Bitcoin’s hashing algorithm gets compromised (very unlikely at this time). Beyond that there are few if any alt-coins that are a worthwhile way of diversifying.
Accepting payments and safety
We’ve covered safe ways to store money, now a quick note about bitcoin payments and their safety.
First of all, when you are sending a transaction, pay your fees. Transactions without fees can take forever to propagate, confirm and clear. This can cause you a lot of stress, so pay your fees.
Secondly, when accepting large Bitcoin payments (say you want to suddenly cash in a gold bar into bitcoins), wait for at the very least 1 confirmation on those transactions. 6 is best, but having even 1 confirmations is a lot better than having none. This is mainly a rule of thumb for the paranoid (I wouldn’t be doing this for most casual transaction), but maybe it will save you if you are dealing with some shady people.
Wrapping up...
That should cover the basics. If you want to read more about Bitcoin’s security in general, here is my master thesis on the subject. A lot of questions about Bitcoin and security have also been answered on Bitcoin StackExchange - be sure to check it out.
Comments and improvement suggestions welcome.
EDITS:
  • Removed link to insecure site
  • Removed random article section
  • Added information about deterministic wallets
submitted by ThePiachu to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Dave Bitcoin of walletrecoveryservices.com just cracked a wallet for me (whose passphrase I lost in May).

Background:
In May I got the "brilliant" idea of beefing up the security of my BitcoinQT wallet by replacing its password with a longer passphrase. Somehow I managed to mistype the passphase twice. I tried every thing I could think of (adding spaces, inverting capitalization, etc. etc.) but without success, even automating the guesses with a simple script from someone on bitcointalk.
Eventually I wrote the coins off and my next wallet passphrase was typed with extreme caution. (Plus I switched to using Armory where the paper backup feature is a nice safety valve.) I gave the wallet.dat file to a few people who contacted me via the bitcointalk forums, and thought that was the end of it.
So last night, I'm obsessively watching the BTC-CNY exchange rate like everyone else, when I get an email from one "Dave Bitcoin" who announced that he had cracked the passphrase (after more than 5 months!). In short order he sent me 2.0 of the original 2.5 BTC in the wallet (keeping a finder's fee we had agreed to when I originally sent him the wallet file, not that I was in a particularly good bargaining position).
It was a very pleasant surprise that he (a) was able to crack the wallet, and (b) was honest enough to return the coins. He mentioned in the email that part of his motivation for (b) is that he has started a business doing wallet recovery. I figure the least I can do is vouch for his competence and integrity. So all you morons out there who lost a wallet like me, consider using Dave's services at http://walletrecoveryservices.com/.
submitted by sflicht to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

YOU should really try the new Armory wallet!

If you have a PC with at least 2GB and more then a few mBTC to your name, you owe it to yourself to test run the latest version of Armory
You'll do a favor for everyone:
submitted by hnmZYEvzbkHk to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

[FOR SALE] Firearms, Optics, Gun Parts, and Accessories.

Handgun Section
Smith and Wesson Model 27 (no dash) 4-Screw. Price: $1500 USD,
More photos here.
Smith and Wesson U.S. Government Model 1917 WWI production, 5-digit SN. Price: $1750 USD,
More photos here.
Rifle Section
Harrington and Richardson M12 Military .22 Training Rifle. This is a CMP rifle, I'm pretty sure I have the certificate if you want it. Price: $SPF
More photos here.
Remington 700 Short Action Receiver Assembly. New, never assembled. Includes a complete bolt assembly, trigger assembly, magazine, and bottom metal. Price: $SPF
More photos here.
Remington 1903a3 Sporter, .30-06, includes a Leupold VxII 1.25-4x25mm scope. The pictures don't do it justice, it's a beautiful rifle in person, and light weight. Price: $450 USD,
More photos here.
Remington Model 30-S Express .30-06 This is a pretty cool rifle for the Remington History buffs. Based on the U.S. Model 1917 "American Enfield" (aka Eddystone) The Scope is clear and bright, but it's missing the reticle (I can't see it, anyway.) Price: $950 USD,
More photos here.
Shotgun Section
Remington Model 11 (Humpback Browning Auto 5) New bushing and spring. Very comfortable clays gun. Price: $500 USD,
More photos here.
Simson Suhl German (GDR) Side by Side 20 gauge. I'll let the photos do the talking. Price: $1200 USD,
More photos here.
Optics
Trijicon ACOG Reflex NSN-1240-01-435-1916 Price: $300 USD,
More photos here.
Gun Parts
M14 (M1A) USGI Buttplate kits 5 of the steel shoulder rests have been reparkerized, the rest are of original finish. All the buttplates (Aluminum pieces) need refinishing. There are enough small parts to complete at least 8 assemblies, (just missing a few ball bearings.) I'd rather sell the whole lot all at once. Price: $200 USD,
More photos here.
M1 Garand OpRod SA-9 (Springfield Armory U.S. Arsenal) Curved Side, Uncut. Price: $150 USD,
More photos here.
M1 Garand OpRod HRA (Harrington and Richardson) Price: $120 USD,
More photos here.
Springfield Armory 1903 Bolt Assembly Price: $120 USD,
More photos here.
1903 Parts All parts in photo are included Price: $75 USD,
More photos here.
Ruger New Vaquero Rose Wood grips, no screw. Price: $30 USD,
More photos here.
McMillan GAP Camo A3-5 Full Adjustable stock Cut for a Surgeon 581, but will work for any standard length Remington 700 or compatible. Bottom metal relief is cut for a Surgeon or Badger Ord. Flush cup sling swivel mounts installed. Price: $750 USD,
More photos here.
McMillan Forest Camo A3 stock Cut for a short action Remington 700 with standard bottom metal. Price: $500 USD,
More photos here.
M1 Garand Grenade Launcher Sights Still wrapped in the original paper, includes instructions and carry bag. Price: $15 USD,
M1917 Parts Sight ladder, stacking swivel, rear swivel, front sight block, stock ferrule and buttplate. Price: $25 USD,
M14 (M1A) USGI Buttplate assembly. Needs refinishing Price: $30 USD,
AK-47 Slings Unknown origin, 3 available Price for each: $5 USD,
FAL Flask Cleaning Kit New, never used. Price: $20 USD,
AR-15 Stand-Alone Rear Sight Assembly I Mill-cut a carry handle to make this, needs finishing. Price: $20 USD,
AK-47/SKS Front Sight Adjustment Tool Price: $5 USD,
FAL Bayonet Price: $15 USD,
More photos here.
Tools
SIG P Series Pistol Sight Adjustment Tool Price: $75 USD,
More photos here.
Springfield Armory Inc XD Series Pistol Sight Adjustment Tool Price: $75 USD,
More photos here.
Brownell's Bolt Forge Kit. I'm including a set of aluminum heat-sinks, handy for welding. Price: $50 USD,
More photos here.
Miscellaneous Accessories
Custom, handmade Cowboy holster for a Ruger Single Six. - No manufacturer markings, I got it from an coworker about 10 years ago. He said he had it made for his wife by guy in Oregon. I lost track of the coworker, and I don't remember the name of the guy who made it. It's made for a smaller person: I have a 36" waist and the belt buckles at the second to last notch for me. Price: $50 USD,
More photos here.
Terms of Sale
Shipping to USA only! Firearms must ship to a Federally licensed dealer (or collector if applicable.) Buyer to pay shipping and insurance fees. Buyer to pay escrow fees.
Payment options in order of my preference: Bitcoin (will provide signed invoice, buyer to pay escrow fees) Chase Money Order USPS Money Order PayPal G&S (plus 3.5%, no F&F)
All sales are final.
SOLD
Mauser P08 Luger Black Widow, made in Obendorf (BYF code) in 1941. Included with the pistol is an original Luger holster, the take-down assist tool, and three magazines (none with numbers matching the gun.)
LRB M14 Muzzle device/Faux flash suppressor with Bayonet lug
Harris 1A2 Ultra Light Bipod,
Springfield Armory Inc SOCOM 16 Muzzle Break/Gas Cylinder Lock/Front Sight Includes Trijicon XS Tritium Sight.
FAL Pistol Grip Cleaning Kit, New, never used.
Ontario KC SPECOPS SP1-95
Smith & Wesson K Frame grips, no screw.
Smith & Wesson K Frame grips, include screw.
1911 Wrap-around rubber grip
1911 Target Right Handed grip set
Chinese M14 (M1A) parts All parts in the photo are included.
Smith & Wesson K Frame round butt grips, includes screw.
Mossberg .308 10-Round Magazine DPMS AR308 Pattern
1911 Beavertail Grip Safety Will not fit unmodified Colts, for a bobbed rear frame spur.
FAL Dust Covers One has been reparkerized, the other looks to have the original painted finish.
BitcoinTalk Link to Contact
submitted by MarketBot to HellsCrypto [link] [comments]

[Guide] Setting up Trezor + Electrum 2.02beta + armory on a Raspberry Pi 2. Cold offline signing for $40

Having just received my Pi 2, I am happy to report that a fresh Raspbian install, on an 8 GB Class 10 MicroSD card : Electrum / Armory / Trezor / BTChip all work with my Single Board Computer setup script (it also works for Pi B, Pi B+ Raspbian and BeagleBone Black Debian & ubuntu, also tested on Odroid C1 Ubuntu 14.4)
The full "!" installation takes about 40 mins on Pi 2, which is at least twice as fast as on the Pi B+ / BBB
Notes
submitted by Aussiehash to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

PSA to new users of bitcoin (especially if you feel you don't understand bitcoin very well)

This thread on bitcointalk worries me. I suspect a lot of people are buying and have bought something they don't understand, and I'm concerned that thefts are going to increase as a result. If this is you, please read this.
Wallets
To access your bitcoins and transact with the network you're going to use a wallet. This will either be a piece of software you install on your computer or an online wallet service like blockchain.info. The wallet jargon is just a convenient way to refer to what's going on under the hood. Every Bitcoin address has an associated private key, and the private key is really just a string of numbers and letters. You can only spend bitcoins at addresses for which you also have the associated private key. If you happen to find somebody else's private key, then you can import it into other Bitcoin clients or online wallets and then you have the ability to spend any coins associated with that private key's addresses.
Most wallet clients give you the option to encrypt your private key. Please do that. That means you can protect it with a password. You will be asked for this password to create transactions. Your blockchain.info login password serves that purpose, for example.
Passwords
Use strong and unique passwords. That advice applies to your entire online life, really. If you use weak passwords and/or you don't use unique passwords, then you are at risk of somebody guessing your password using a computer designed to make lots of guesses. If your passwords are not unique that gives attackers the opportunity to compromise more than one service. It's best to use a mix of lower case, upper case, numbers, and symbols in your passwords. Your passwords should also be sufficiently long, around 16 characters, for services that you would really hate getting compromised. You should still use unique passwords for services you don't consider critical, but for those services you might not feel it's necessary to use long passwords with a mix of all character types. Of course, this is all up to you.
Passwords managers can help you organize lots of strong, unique passwords. Lastpass is a fantastic password manager. It works across all the major browsers and they even have mobile apps. You create one really, really strong password that you must never forget, and then Lastpass organizes and remembers all of your other passwords for you. Lastpass encrypts all of your data before it's sent to their servers, so they can't see your passwords. If you forget your Lastpass password, then you lose access to passwords stored with them, unless you remember them or have them stored somewhere else.
You can make strong passwords easier to remember by increasing their length with a relatively simple pattern while still using each character type. This is called password padding. Security researcher Steve Gibson explains by comparing two passwords:
Which of the following two passwords is stronger, more secure, and more difficult to crack?
D0g.....................
PrXyc.N(n4k77#L!eVdAfp9
You probably know this is a trick question, but the answer is: Despite the fact that the first password is HUGELY easier to use and more memorable, it is also the stronger of the two! In fact, since it is one character longer and contains uppercase, lowercase, a number and special characters, that first password would take an attacker approximately 95 times longer to find by searching than the second impossible-to-remember-or-type password!"
Strong, unique, but memorable passwords depend on using all character types and adding memorable length. You really should also avoid dictionary words and common modifications of simple dictionary words (e.g. dog, d0g, etc.) Consistent with the advice to use unique passwords, you wouldn't want to use the same padding technique for more than one critical password.
Multi-Factor Authentication
Many online services (e.g. gmail, blockchain.info, MtGox, Lastpass) offer the option to use multi-factor authentication. If this service is offered, you should use it. This means that you need more than your password to log into your account. It can come in the form of a number sent as a text to your phone, a usb key that must be plugged into your computer, or an app like Google Authenticator. When you log into a service for which multi-factor authentication has been activated you will be asked for both your password and an additional pin sent to or derived from a separate device. This offers you some protection from key loggers which an attacker can install on your computer to see everything you type. Even if they discover your password, they will be unable to log in without the additional pin from, say, your phone. A previously used pin will not work, they would need one generated specifically for the most recent attempt to log in.
If the email provider that you use offers multi-factor authentication, and you use that email to register for important services (e.g. online banking, bitcoin wallets, exchanges, etc), then you should definitely enable multi-factor authentication. If an attacker can compromise your email, then they can potentially access lots of websites your registered at, because they can ask the websites to reset your password. Websites typically send a password reset email under the assumption that only you have control of your email. If you don't, an attacker can change the passwords to your web services. By enabling multi-factor authentication on your email, you can significantly decrease the odds of an attacker compromising your email. You should likewise use multi-factor authentication with any password managers you use, if you choose to use one.
This might all seem very inconvenient. However, the security gained far outweighs any convenience lost.
Advanced Bitcoin Wallet Security
The most secure way to safeguard your bitcoin value is to create and keep your private keys on systems that cannot be hacked into. This can be a computer that is setup without ever touching the internet, or paper wallets. A paper wallet is just some text based way to represent your private key. An attacker cannot compromise an offline computer without physical access, and he would additionally need to know the passwords to log onto your offline computer. If you have offline systems such as offline computers or paper or other physical wallets, then obviously the attack vector is basically physical burglary.
The Armory bitcoin client is a client designed to maximize security options. Armory makes it relatively painless to setup an offline wallet. A computer does not need to be connected to the internet to create valid bitcoin private keys with associated bitcoin addresses. That's because their creation is determined by algorithms that can be copied and run on any computer with or without network connections.
With Armory you can setup offline bitcoin wallets. In order to send bitcoins to that wallet you just need to copy an address created on the offline computer. The offline wallet can create what's called a "watching only wallet". This is a wallet you can import into an online installation of Armory on a different networked computer. From the online watching only wallet you can see bitcoins sent to your addresses and you can create unsigned transactions. You can try to broadcast an unsigned transaction, but it will not be confirmed in the blockchain, and is not a valid transaction. In order to send the transaction into the blockchain and have it validated you will need to copy the unsigned transaction to a USB device, import it into the offline Armory wallet, sign the transaction, then copy and move it back to your online Armory wallet. From there, it can be sent and received as a valid bitcoin transaction. In this way it is made practically impossible for a network attack to steal your bitcoins.
It's a good idea to create additional offline backups of your Armory wallets. Armory has a feature to create printable offline backups. These can be used to restore your wallet in the event that your offline computer is destroyed or stolen.
Systems like this are more inconvenient, but offer the highest level of relatively easy to setup security.
Thanks, welcome to bitcoin, and stay safe.
Edited to add a section on advanced wallet security
submitted by therealproudhon to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Is anyone else freaked out by this whole blocksize debate? Does anyone else find themself often agreeing with *both* sides - depending on whichever argument you happen to be reading at the moment? And do we need some better algorithms and data structures?

Why do both sides of the debate seem “right” to me?
I know, I know, a healthy debate is healthy and all - and maybe I'm just not used to the tumult and jostling which would be inevitable in a real live open major debate about something as vital as Bitcoin.
And I really do agree with the starry-eyed idealists who say Bitcoin is vital. Imperfect as it may be, it certainly does seem to represent the first real chance we've had in the past few hundred years to try to steer our civilization and our planet away from the dead-ends and disasters which our government-issued debt-based currencies keep dragging us into.
But this particular debate, about the blocksize, doesn't seem to be getting resolved at all.
Pretty much every time I read one of the long-form major arguments contributed by Bitcoin "thinkers" who I've come to respect over the past few years, this weird thing happens: I usually end up finding myself nodding my head and agreeing with whatever particular piece I'm reading!
But that should be impossible - because a lot of these people vehemently disagree!
So how can both sides sound so convincing to me, simply depending on whichever piece I currently happen to be reading?
Does anyone else feel this way? Or am I just a gullible idiot?
Just Do It?
When you first look at it or hear about it, increasing the size seems almost like a no-brainer: The "big-block" supporters say just increase the blocksize to 20 MB or 8 MB, or do some kind of scheduled or calculated regular increment which tries to take into account the capabilities of the infrastructure and the needs of the users. We do have the bandwidth and the memory to at least increase the blocksize now, they say - and we're probably gonna continue to have more bandwidth and memory in order to be able to keep increasing the blocksize for another couple decades - pretty much like everything else computer-based we've seen over the years (some of this stuff is called by names such as "Moore's Law").
On the other hand, whenever the "small-block" supporters warn about the utter catastrophe that a failed hard-fork would mean, I get totally freaked by their possible doomsday scenarios, which seem totally plausible and terrifying - so I end up feeling that the only way I'd want to go with a hard-fork would be if there was some pre-agreed "triggering" mechanism where the fork itself would only actually "switch on" and take effect provided that some "supermajority" of the network (of who? the miners? the full nodes?) had signaled (presumably via some kind of totally reliable p2p trustless software-based voting system?) that they do indeed "pre-agree" to actually adopt the pre-scheduled fork (and thereby avoid any possibility whatsoever of the precious blockchain somehow tragically splitting into two and pretty much killing this cryptocurrency off in its infancy).
So in this "conservative" scenario, I'm talking about wanting at least 95% pre-adoption agreement - not the mere 75% which I recall some proposals call for, which seems like it could easily lead to a 75/25 blockchain split.
But this time, with this long drawn-out blocksize debate, the core devs, and several other important voices who have become prominent opinion shapers over the past few years, can't seem to come to any real agreement on this.
Weird split among the devs
As far as I can see, there's this weird split: Gavin and Mike seem to be the only people among the devs who really want a major blocksize increase - and all the other devs seem to be vehemently against them.
But then on the other hand, the users seem to be overwhelmingly in favor of a major increase.
And there are meta-questions about governance, about about why this didn't come out as a BIP, and what the availability of Bitcoin XT means.
And today or yesterday there was this really cool big-blockian exponential graph based on doubling the blocksize every two years for twenty years, reminding us of the pure mathematical fact that 210 is indeed about 1000 - but not really addressing any of the game-theoretic points raised by the small-blockians. So a lot of the users seem to like it, but when so few devs say anything positive about it, I worry: is this just yet more exponential chart porn?
On the one hand, Gavin's and Mike's blocksize increase proposal initially seemed like a no-brainer to me.
And on the other hand, all the other devs seem to be against them. Which is weird - not what I'd initially expected at all (but maybe I'm just a fool who's seduced by exponential chart porn?).
Look, I don't mean to be rude to any of the core devs, and I don't want to come off like someone wearing a tinfoil hat - but it has to cross people's minds that the powers that be (the Fed and the other central banks and the governments that use their debt-issued money to run this world into a ditch) could very well be much more scared shitless than they're letting on. If we assume that the powers that be are using their usual playbook and tactics, then it could be worth looking at the book "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" by John Perkins, to get an idea of how they might try to attack Bitcoin. So, what I'm saying is, they do have a track record of sending in "experts" to try to derail projects and keep everyone enslaved to the Creature from Jekyll Island. I'm just saying. So, without getting ad hominem - let's just make sure that our ideas can really stand scrutiny on their own - as Nick Szabo says, we need to make sure there is "more computer science, less noise" in this debate.
When Gavin Andresen first came out with the 20 MB thing - I sat back and tried to imagine if I could download 20 MB in 10 minutes (which seems to be one of the basic mathematical and technological constraints here - right?)
I figured, "Yeah, I could download that" - even with my crappy internet connection.
And I guess the telecoms might be nice enough to continue to double our bandwidth every two years for the next couple decades – if we ask them politely?
On the other hand - I think we should be careful about entrusting the financial freedom of the world into the greedy hands of the telecoms companies - given all their shady shenanigans over the past few years in many countries. After decades of the MPAA and the FBI trying to chip away at BitTorrent, lately PirateBay has been hard to access. I would say it's quite likely that certain persons at institutions like JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs and the Fed might be very, very motivated to see Bitcoin fail - so we shouldn't be too sure about scaling plans which depend on the willingness of companies Verizon and AT&T to double our bandwith every two years.
Maybe the real important hardware buildout challenge for a company like 21 (and its allies such as Qualcomm) to take on now would not be "a miner in every toaster" but rather "Google Fiber Download and Upload Speeds in every Country, including China".
I think I've read all the major stuff on the blocksize debate from Gavin Andresen, Mike Hearn, Greg Maxwell, Peter Todd, Adam Back, and Jeff Garzick and several other major contributors - and, oddly enough, all their arguments seem reasonable - heck even Luke-Jr seems reasonable to me on the blocksize debate, and I always thought he was a whackjob overly influenced by superstition and numerology - and now today I'm reading the article by Bram Cohen - the inventor of BitTorrent - and I find myself agreeing with him too!
I say to myself: What's going on with me? How can I possibly agree with all of these guys, if they all have such vehemently opposing viewpoints?
I mean, think back to the glory days of a couple of years ago, when all we were hearing was how this amazing unprecedented grassroots innovation called Bitcoin was going to benefit everyone from all walks of life, all around the world:
...basically the entire human race transacting everything into the blockchain.
(Although let me say that I think that people's focus on ideas like driverless cabs creating realtime fare markets based on supply and demand seems to be setting our sights a bit low as far as Bitcoin's abilities to correct the financial world's capital-misallocation problems which seem to have been made possible by infinite debt-based fiat. I would have hoped that a Bitcoin-based economy would solve much more noble, much more urgent capital-allocation problems than driverless taxicabs creating fare markets or refrigerators ordering milk on the internet of things. I was thinking more along the lines that Bitcoin would finally strangle dead-end debt-based deadly-toxic energy industries like fossil fuels and let profitable clean energy industries like Thorium LFTRs take over - but that's another topic. :=)
Paradoxes in the blocksize debate
Let me summarize the major paradoxes I see here:
(1) Regarding the people (the majority of the core devs) who are against a blocksize increase: Well, the small-blocks arguments do seem kinda weird, and certainly not very "populist", in the sense that: When on earth have end-users ever heard of a computer technology whose capacity didn't grow pretty much exponentially year-on-year? All the cool new technology we've had - from hard drives to RAM to bandwidth - started out pathetically tiny and grew to unimaginably huge over the past few decades - and all our software has in turn gotten massively powerful and big and complex (sometimes bloated) to take advantage of the enormous new capacity available.
But now suddenly, for the first time in the history of technology, we seem to have a majority of the devs, on a major p2p project - saying: "Let's not scale the system up. It could be dangerous. It might break the whole system (if the hard-fork fails)."
I don't know, maybe I'm missing something here, maybe someone else could enlighten me, but I don't think I've ever seen this sort of thing happen in the last few decades of the history of technology - devs arguing against scaling up p2p technology to take advantage of expected growth in infrastructure capacity.
(2) But... on the other hand... the dire warnings of the small-blockians about what could happen if a hard-fork were to fail - wow, they do seem really dire! And these guys are pretty much all heavyweight, experienced programmers and/or game theorists and/or p2p open-source project managers.
I must say, that nearly all of the long-form arguments I've read - as well as many, many of the shorter comments I've read from many users in the threads, whose names I at least have come to more-or-less recognize over the past few months and years on reddit and bitcointalk - have been amazingly impressive in their ability to analyze all aspects of the lifecycle and management of open-source software projects, bringing up lots of serious points which I could never have come up with, and which seem to come from long experience with programming and project management - as well as dealing with economics and human nature (eg, greed - the game-theory stuff).
So a lot of really smart and experienced people with major expertise in various areas ranging from programming to management to game theory to politics to economics have been making some serious, mature, compelling arguments.
But, as I've been saying, the only problem to me is: in many of these cases, these arguments are vehemently in opposition to each other! So I find myself agreeing with pretty much all of them, one by one - which means the end result is just a giant contradiction.
I mean, today we have Bram Cohen, the inventor of BitTorrent, arguing (quite cogently and convincingly to me), that it would be dangerous to increase the blocksize. And this seems to be a guy who would know a few things about scaling out a massive global p2p network - since the protocol which he invented, BitTorrent, is now apparently responsible for like a third of the traffic on the internet (and this despite the long-term concerted efforts of major evil players such as the MPAA and the FBI to shut the whole thing down).
Was the BitTorrent analogy too "glib"?
By the way - I would like to go on a slight tangent here and say that one of the main reasons why I felt so "comfortable" jumping on the Bitcoin train back a few years ago, when I first heard about it and got into it, was the whole rough analogy I saw with BitTorrent.
I remembered the perhaps paradoxical fact that when a torrent is more popular (eg, a major movie release that just came out last week), then it actually becomes faster to download. More people want it, so more people have a few pieces of it, so more people are able to get it from each other. A kind of self-correcting economic feedback loop, where more demand directly leads to more supply.
(BitTorrent manages to pull this off by essentially adding a certain structure to the file being shared, so that it's not simply like an append-only list of 1 MB blocks, but rather more like an random-access or indexed array of 1 MB chunks. Say you're downloading a film which is 700 MB. As soon as your "client" program has downloaded a single 1-MB chunk - say chunk #99 - your "client" program instantly turns into a "server" program as well - offering that chunk #99 to other clients. From my simplistic understanding, I believe the Bitcoin protocol does something similar, to provide a p2p architecture. Hence my - perhaps naïve - assumption that Bitcoin already had the right algorithms / architecture / data structure to scale.)
The efficiency of the BitTorrent network seemed to jive with that "network law" (Metcalfe's Law?) about fax machines. This law states that the more fax machines there are, the more valuable the network of fax machines becomes. Or the value of the network grows on the order of the square of the number of nodes.
This is in contrast with other technology like cars, where the more you have, the worse things get. The more cars there are, the more traffic jams you have, so things start going downhill. I guess this is because highway space is limited - after all, we can't pave over the entire countryside, and we never did get those flying cars we were promised, as David Graeber laments in a recent essay in The Baffler magazine :-)
And regarding the "stress test" supposedly happening right now in the middle of this ongoing blocksize debate, I don't know what worries me more: the fact that it apparently is taking only $5,000 to do a simple kind of DoS on the blockchain - or the fact that there are a few rumors swirling around saying that the unknown company doing the stress test shares the same physical mailing address with a "scam" company?
Or maybe we should just be worried that so much of this debate is happening on a handful of forums which are controlled by some guy named theymos who's already engaged in some pretty "contentious" or "controversial" behavior like blowing a million dollars on writing forum software (I guess he never heard that reddit.com software is open-source)?
So I worry that the great promise of "decentralization" might be more fragile than we originally thought.
Scaling
Anyways, back to Metcalfe's Law: with virtual stuff, like torrents and fax machines, the more the merrier. The more people downloading a given movie, the faster it arrives - and the more people own fax machines, the more valuable the overall fax network.
So I kindof (naïvely?) assumed that Bitcoin, being "virtual" and p2p, would somehow scale up the same magical way BitTorrrent did. I just figured that more people using it would somehow automatically make it stronger and faster.
But now a lot of devs have started talking in terms of the old "scarcity" paradigm, talking about blockspace being a "scarce resource" and talking about "fee markets" - which seems kinda scary, and antithetical to much of the earlier rhetoric we heard about Bitcoin (the stuff about supporting our favorite creators with micropayments, and the stuff about Africans using SMS to send around payments).
Look, when some asshole is in line in front of you at the cash register and he's holding up the line so they can run his credit card to buy a bag of Cheeto's, we tend to get pissed off at the guy - clogging up our expensive global electronic payment infrastructure to make a two-dollar purchase. And that's on a fairly efficient centralized system - and presumably after a year or so, VISA and the guy's bank can delete or compress the transaction in their SQL databases.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but if some guy buys a coffee on the blockchain, or if somebody pays an online artist $1.99 for their work - then that transaction, a few bytes or so, has to live on the blockchain forever?
Or is there some "pruning" thing that gets rid of it after a while?
And this could lead to another question: Viewed from the perspective of double-entry bookkeeping, is the blockchain "world-wide ledger" more like the "balance sheet" part of accounting, i.e. a snapshot showing current assets and liabilities? Or is it more like the "cash flow" part of accounting, i.e. a journal showing historical revenues and expenses?
When I think of thousands of machines around the globe having to lug around multiple identical copies of a multi-gigabyte file containing some asshole's coffee purchase forever and ever... I feel like I'm ideologically drifting in one direction (where I'd end up also being against really cool stuff like online micropayments and Africans banking via SMS)... so I don't want to go there.
But on the other hand, when really experienced and battle-tested veterans with major experience in the world of open-souce programming and project management (the "small-blockians") warn of the catastrophic consequences of a possible failed hard-fork, I get freaked out and I wonder if Bitcoin really was destined to be a settlement layer for big transactions.
Could the original programmer(s) possibly weigh in?
And I don't mean to appeal to authority - but heck, where the hell is Satoshi Nakamoto in all this? I do understand that he/she/they would want to maintain absolute anonymity - but on the other hand, I assume SN wants Bitcoin to succeed (both for the future of humanity - or at least for all the bitcoins SN allegedly holds :-) - and I understand there is a way that SN can cryptographically sign a message - and I understand that as the original developer of Bitcoin, SN had some very specific opinions about the blocksize... So I'm kinda wondering of Satoshi could weigh in from time to time. Just to help out a bit. I'm not saying "Show us a sign" like a deity or something - but damn it sure would be fascinating and possibly very helpful if Satoshi gave us his/hetheir 2 satoshis worth at this really confusing juncture.
Are we using our capacity wisely?
I'm not a programming or game-theory whiz, I'm just a casual user who has tried to keep up with technology over the years.
It just seems weird to me that here we have this massive supercomputer (500 times more powerful than the all the supercomputers in the world combined) doing fairly straightforward "embarassingly parallel" number-crunching operations to secure a p2p world-wide ledger called the blockchain to keep track of a measly 2.1 quadrillion tokens spread out among a few billion addresses - and a couple of years ago you had people like Rick Falkvinge saying the blockchain would someday be supporting multi-million-dollar letters of credit for international trade and you had people like Andreas Antonopoulos saying the blockchain would someday allow billions of "unbanked" people to send remittances around the village or around the world dirt-cheap - and now suddenly in June 2015 we're talking about blockspace as a "scarce resource" and talking about "fee markets" and partially centralized, corporate-sponsored "Level 2" vaporware like Lightning Network and some mysterious company is "stess testing" or "DoS-ing" the system by throwing away a measly $5,000 and suddenly it sounds like the whole system could eventually head right back into PayPal and Western Union territory again, in terms of expensive fees.
When I got into Bitcoin, I really was heavily influenced by vague analogies with BitTorrent: I figured everyone would just have tiny little like utorrent-type program running on their machine (ie, Bitcoin-QT or Armory or Mycelium etc.).
I figured that just like anyone can host a their own blog or webserver, anyone would be able to host their own bank.
Yeah, Google and and Mozilla and Twitter and Facebook and WhatsApp did come along and build stuff on top of TCP/IP, so I did expect a bunch of companies to build layers on top of the Bitcoin protocol as well. But I still figured the basic unit of bitcoin client software powering the overall system would be small and personal and affordable and p2p - like a bittorrent client - or at the most, like a cheap server hosting a blog or email server.
And I figured there would be a way at the software level, at the architecture level, at the algorithmic level, at the data structure level - to let the thing scale - if not infinitely, at least fairly massively and gracefully - the same way the BitTorrent network has.
Of course, I do also understand that with BitTorrent, you're sharing a read-only object (eg, a movie) - whereas with Bitcoin, you're achieving distributed trustless consensus and appending it to a write-only (or append-only) database.
So I do understand that the problem which BitTorrent solves is much simpler than the problem which Bitcoin sets out to solve.
But still, it seems that there's got to be a way to make this thing scale. It's p2p and it's got 500 times more computing power than all the supercomputers in the world combined - and so many brilliant and motivated and inspired people want this thing to succeed! And Bitcoin could be our civilization's last chance to steer away from the oncoming debt-based ditch of disaster we seem to be driving into!
It just seems that Bitcoin has got to be able to scale somehow - and all these smart people working together should be able to come up with a solution which pretty much everyone can agree - in advance - will work.
Right? Right?
A (probably irrelevant) tangent on algorithms and architecture and data structures
I'll finally weigh with my personal perspective - although I might be biased due to my background (which is more on the theoretical side of computer science).
My own modest - or perhaps radical - suggestion would be to ask whether we're really looking at all the best possible algorithms and architectures and data structures out there.
From this perspective, I sometimes worry that the overwhelming majority of the great minds working on the programming and game-theory stuff might come from a rather specific, shall we say "von Neumann" or "procedural" or "imperative" school of programming (ie, C and Python and Java programmers).
It seems strange to me that such a cutting-edge and important computer project would have so little participation from the great minds at the other end of the spectrum of programming paradigms - namely, the "functional" and "declarative" and "algebraic" (and co-algebraic!) worlds.
For example, I was struck in particular by statements I've seen here and there (which seemed rather hubristic or lackadaisical to me - for something as important as Bitcoin), that the specification of Bitcoin and the blockchain doesn't really exist in any form other than the reference implementation(s) (in procedural languages such as C or Python?).
Curry-Howard anyone?
I mean, many computer scientists are aware of the Curry-Howard isomorophism, which basically says that the relationship between a theorem and its proof is equivalent to the relationship between a specification and its implementation. In other words, there is a long tradition in mathematics (and in computer programming) of:
And it's not exactly "turtles all the way down" either: a specification is generally simple and compact enough that a good programmer can usually simply visually inspect it to determine if it is indeed "correct" - something which is very difficult, if not impossible, to do with a program written in a procedural, implementation-oriented language such as C or Python or Java.
So I worry that we've got this tradition, from the open-source github C/Java programming tradition, of never actually writing our "specification", and only writing the "implementation". In mission-critical military-grade programming projects (which often use languages like Ada or Maude) this is simply not allowed. It would seem that a project as mission-critical as Bitcoin - which could literally be crucial for humanity's continued survival - should also use this kind of military-grade software development approach.
And I'm not saying rewrite the implementations in these kind of theoretical languages. But it might be helpful if the C/Python/Java programmers in the Bitcoin imperative programming world could build some bridges to the Maude/Haskell/ML programmers of the functional and algebraic programming worlds to see if any kind of useful cross-pollination might take place - between specifications and implementations.
For example, the JavaFAN formal analyzer for multi-threaded Java programs (developed using tools based on the Maude language) was applied to the Remote Agent AI program aboard NASA's Deep Space 1 shuttle, written in Java - and it took only a few minutes using formal mathematical reasoning to detect a potential deadlock which would have occurred years later during the space mission when the damn spacecraft was already way out around Pluto.
And "the Maude-NRL (Naval Research Laboratory) Protocol Analyzer (Maude-NPA) is a tool used to provide security proofs of cryptographic protocols and to search for protocol flaws and cryptosystem attacks."
These are open-source formal reasoning tools developed by DARPA and used by NASA and the US Navy to ensure that program implementations satisfy their specifications. It would be great if some of the people involved in these kinds of projects could contribute to help ensure the security and scalability of Bitcoin.
But there is a wide abyss between the kinds of programmers who use languages like Maude and the kinds of programmers who use languages like C/Python/Java - and it can be really hard to get the two worlds to meet. There is a bit of rapprochement between these language communities in languages which might be considered as being somewhere in the middle, such as Haskell and ML. I just worry that Bitcoin might be turning into being an exclusively C/Python/Java project (with the algorithms and practitioners traditionally of that community), when it could be more advantageous if it also had some people from the functional and algebraic-specification and program-verification community involved as well. The thing is, though: the theoretical practitioners are big on "semantics" - I've heard them say stuff like "Yes but a C / C++ program has no easily identifiable semantics". So to get them involved, you really have to first be able to talk about what your program does (specification) - before proceeding to describe how it does it (implementation). And writing high-level specifications is typically very hard using the syntax and semantics of languages like C and Java and Python - whereas specs are fairly easy to write in Maude - and not only that, they're executable, and you state and verify properties about them - which provides for the kind of debate Nick Szabo was advocating ("more computer science, less noise").
Imagine if we had an executable algebraic specification of Bitcoin in Maude, where we could formally reason about and verify certain crucial game-theoretical properties - rather than merely hand-waving and arguing and deploying and praying.
And so in the theoretical programming community you've got major research on various logics such as Girard's Linear Logic (which is resource-conscious) and Bruni and Montanari's Tile Logic (which enables "pasting" bigger systems together from smaller ones in space and time), and executable algebraic specification languages such as Meseguer's Maude (which would be perfect for game theory modeling, with its functional modules for specifying the deterministic parts of systems and its system modules for specifiying non-deterministic parts of systems, and its parameterized skeletons for sketching out the typical architectures of mobile systems, and its formal reasoning and verification tools and libraries which have been specifically applied to testing and breaking - and fixing - cryptographic protocols).
And somewhat closer to the practical hands-on world, you've got stuff like Google's MapReduce and lots of Big Data database languages developed by Google as well. And yet here we are with a mempool growing dangerously big for RAM on a single machine, and a 20-GB append-only list as our database - and not much debate on practical results from Google's Big Data databases.
(And by the way: maybe I'm totally ignorant for asking this, but I'll ask anyways: why the hell does the mempool have to stay in RAM? Couldn't it work just as well if it were stored temporarily on the hard drive?)
And you've got CalvinDB out of Yale which apparently provides an ACID layer on top of a massively distributed database.
Look, I'm just an armchair follower cheering on these projects. I can barely manage to write a query in SQL, or read through a C or Python or Java program. But I would argue two points here: (1) these languages may be too low-level and "non-formal" for writing and modeling and formally reasoning about and proving properties of mission-critical specifications - and (2) there seem to be some Big Data tools already deployed by institutions such as Google and Yale which support global petabyte-size databases on commodity boxes with nice properties such as near-real-time and ACID - and I sometimes worry that the "core devs" might be failing to review the literature (and reach out to fellow programmers) out there to see if there might be some formal program-verification and practical Big Data tools out there which could be applied to coming up with rock-solid, 100% consensus proposals to handle an issue such as blocksize scaling, which seems to have become much more intractable than many people might have expected.
I mean, the protocol solved the hard stuff: the elliptical-curve stuff and the Byzantine General stuff. How the heck can we be falling down on the comparatively "easier" stuff - like scaling the blocksize?
It just seems like defeatism to say "Well, the blockchain is already 20-30 GB and it's gonna be 20-30 TB ten years from now - and we need 10 Mbs bandwidth now and 10,000 Mbs bandwidth 20 years from - assuming the evil Verizon and AT&T actually give us that - so let's just become a settlement platform and give up on buying coffee or banking the unbanked or doing micropayments, and let's push all that stuff into some corporate-controlled vaporware without even a whitepaper yet."
So you've got Peter Todd doing some possibly brilliant theorizing and extrapolating on the idea of "treechains" - there is a Let's Talk Bitcoin podcast from about a year ago where he sketches the rough outlines of this idea out in a very inspiring, high-level way - although the specifics have yet to be hammered out. And we've got Blockstream also doing some hopeful hand-waving about the Lightning Network.
Things like Peter Todd's treechains - which may be similar to the spark in some devs' eyes called Lightning Network - are examples of the kind of algorithm or architecture which might manage to harness the massive computing power of miners and nodes in such a way that certain kinds of massive and graceful scaling become possible.
It just seems like a kindof tiny dev community working on this stuff.
Being a C or Python or Java programmer should not be a pre-req to being able to help contribute to the specification (and formal reasoning and program verification) for Bitcoin and the blockchain.
XML and UML are crap modeling and specification languages, and C and Java and Python are even worse (as specification languages - although as implementation languages, they are of course fine).
But there are serious modeling and specification languages out there, and they could be very helpful at times like this - where what we're dealing with is questions of modeling and specification (ie, "needs and requirements").
One just doesn't often see the practical, hands-on world of open-source github implementation-level programmers and the academic, theoretical world of specification-level programmers meeting very often. I wish there were some way to get these two worlds to collaborate on Bitcoin.
Maybe a good first step to reach out to the theoretical people would be to provide a modular executable algebraic specification of the Bitcoin protocol in a recognized, military/NASA-grade specification language such as Maude - because that's something the theoretical community can actually wrap their heads around, whereas it's very hard to get them to pay attention to something written only as a C / Python / Java implementation (without an accompanying specification in a formal language).
They can't check whether the program does what it's supposed to do - if you don't provide a formal mathematical definition of what the program is supposed to do.
Specification : Implementation :: Theorem : Proof
You have to remember: the theoretical community is very aware of the Curry-Howard isomorphism. Just like it would be hard to get a mathematician's attention by merely showing them a proof without telling also telling them what theorem the proof is proving - by the same token, it's hard to get the attention of a theoretical computer scientist by merely showing them an implementation without showing them the specification that it implements.
Bitcoin is currently confronted with a mathematical or "computer science" problem: how to secure the network while getting high enough transactional throughput, while staying within the limited RAM, bandwidth and hard drive space limitations of current and future infrastructure.
The problem only becomes a political and economic problem if we give up on trying to solve it as a mathematical and "theoretical computer science" problem.
There should be a plethora of whitepapers out now proposing algorithmic solutions to these scaling issues. Remember, all we have to do is apply the Byzantine General consensus-reaching procedure to a worldwide database which shuffles 2.1 quadrillion tokens among a few billion addresses. The 21 company has emphatically pointed out that racing to compute a hash to add a block is an "embarrassingly parallel" problem - very easy to decompose among cheap, fault-prone, commodity boxes, and recompose into an overall solution - along the lines of Google's highly successful MapReduce.
I guess what I'm really saying is (and I don't mean to be rude here), is that C and Python and Java programmers might not be the best qualified people to develop and formally prove the correctness of (note I do not say: "test", I say "formally prove the correctness of") these kinds of algorithms.
I really believe in the importance of getting the algorithms and architectures right - look at Google Search itself, it uses some pretty brilliant algorithms and architectures (eg, MapReduce, Paxos) which enable it to achieve amazing performance - on pretty crappy commodity hardware. And look at BitTorrent, which is truly p2p, where more demand leads to more supply.
So, in this vein, I will close this lengthy rant with an oddly specific link - which may or may not be able to make some interesting contributions to finding suitable algorithms, architectures and data structures which might help Bitcoin scale massively. I have no idea if this link could be helpful - but given the near-total lack of people from the Haskell and ML and functional worlds in these Bitcoin specification debates, I thought I'd be remiss if I didn't throw this out - just in case there might be something here which could help us channel the massive computing power of the Bitcoin network in such a way as to enable us simply sidestep this kind of desperate debate where both sides seem right because the other side seems wrong.
https://personal.cis.strath.ac.uk/neil.ghani/papers/ghani-calco07
The above paper is about "higher dimensional trees". It uses a bit of category theory (not a whole lot) and a bit of Haskell (again not a lot - just a simple data structure called a Rose tree, which has a wikipedia page) to develop a very expressive and efficient data structure which generalizes from lists to trees to higher dimensions.
I have no idea if this kind of data structure could be applicable to the current scaling mess we apparently are getting bogged down in - I don't have the game-theory skills to figure it out.
I just thought that since the blockchain is like a list, and since there are some tree-like structures which have been grafted on for efficiency (eg Merkle trees) and since many of the futuristic scaling proposals seem to also involve generalizing from list-like structures (eg, the blockchain) to tree-like structures (eg, side-chains and tree-chains)... well, who knows, there might be some nugget of algorithmic or architectural or data-structure inspiration there.
So... TL;DR:
(1) I'm freaked out that this blocksize debate has splintered the community so badly and dragged on so long, with no resolution in sight, and both sides seeming so right (because the other side seems so wrong).
(2) I think Bitcoin could gain immensely by using high-level formal, algebraic and co-algebraic program specification and verification languages (such as Maude including Maude-NPA, Mobile Maude parameterized skeletons, etc.) to specify (and possibly also, to some degree, verify) what Bitcoin does - before translating to low-level implementation languages such as C and Python and Java saying how Bitcoin does it. This would help to communicate and reason about programs with much more mathematical certitude - and possibly obviate the need for many political and economic tradeoffs which currently seem dismally inevitable - and possibly widen the collaboration on this project.
(3) I wonder if there are some Big Data approaches out there (eg, along the lines of Google's MapReduce and BigTable, or Yale's CalvinDB), which could be implemented to allow Bitcoin to scale massively and painlessly - and to satisfy all stakeholders, ranging from millionaires to micropayments, coffee drinkers to the great "unbanked".
submitted by BeYourOwnBank to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Help needed with Bitcoin Cash and Armory Wallet.

I had a couple of bitcoins in an armory wallet from about 3-4 years ago and after the split I bought a Ledger Wallet and sent bitcoins in it, but encountered problems with bitcoins from the bitcoin cash chain.
I found a discussion on bitcointalk and tried to follow the instructions but I'm having trouble with it.
So far I installed Bitcoin Unlimited version of Bitcoin Cash and in the bitcoin directory settings of Armory wallet I indicated the directory where bitcoin unlimited stored the blockchain.
After that I rescanned and rebuilt the database the armory client connects to the bitcoin cash network and shows the correct amount of bitcoin but I am unable to send them to the Ledger Wallet. One of the settings is not there.
I'm sure that I skipped at least a step because in the first link they talk about a BCH signer and I dont know what it is.
Can anyone who encountered the same problem or knows something about this help me out, please.
Thank you.
submitted by Future_Me_FromFuture to btc [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Talk Show - YouTube Armory Tutorial Part 1 Bitcoin Armory Setup How to Download and Verify the Armory Bitcoin Wallet Earning Bitcoin From Posting On BITCOINTALK Forums!

Bitcoin Armory ist eine Open-Source-, Python-basierte, Wallet-Management-Anwendung für das Bitcoin-Netzwerk.. Armory ist eine Desktop-Anwendung für das Bitcoin-Fondsmanagement. Es ist eine voll ausgestattete Bitcoin-Wallet-Management-Anwendung, die darauf abzielt, die beiden Eigenschaften von Brieftaschen zu kombinieren, die bisher als sich gegenseitig ausschließend empfunden wurden NOTE. On 3 FEB 2016, Armory project transitioned from etotheipi to goatpig as the lead maintainer.Consequently, for latest news and release please see btcarmory.com or the Bitcoin Talk discussion thread. BEST BITCOIN WALLET. Armory is the most secure and full featured solution available for users and institutions to generate and store Bitcoin private keys. Using Bitcoin Core 0.13.1 or later will allow these addresses to be made. Bitcoin Cash Support. Since the replay protection used by Bitcoin Cash is simply using part of segwit, Armory has now implemented support for creating Bitcoin Cash transactions. Bitcoin Armory Secure Wallet is a Python-based fully-featured bitcoin wallet software. Find out how this open-source software works today in our Armory wallet review. What is Bitcoin Armory Secure Wallet? Armory was the first open-source wallet with cold storage and multi-signature support. The wallet software is available for Windows, Mac, and There is no official Armory email address. The easiest way to contact the developers is to use Bitcointalk.org or the IRC channel. Armory Forum on Bitcointalk.org; Armory IRC Channel on Freenode: #bitcoin-armory. Freenode Web client

[index] [4831] [9902] [23494] [10612] [2738] [11944] [2564] [8648] [26200] [22843]

Bitcoin Talk Show - YouTube

Bitcoin Cash Halving, BCH News Today & Bitcoin Cash Price Prediction Juan Esteban Londoño 8,713 watching Live now World's Most Famous Hacker Kevin Mitnick & KnowBe4's Stu Sjouwerman Opening ... The most important lesson from 83,000 brain scans Daniel Amen TEDxOrangeCoast - Duration: 14:37. TEDx Talks Recommended for you Bitcoin Armory Troubleshooting Offline Node - Duration: 10:57. Bitcoin Nick Rambos 985 views. 10:57. BitCoin Mining Hardware Guide ft. CRAZY Obsidian Mining Rig - Duration: 8:30. bitcointalk bitcoin price live bitcoin rate btc news crypto mining bitcoin cloud mining blockchain wallet bitpay ... armory bitcoin bitcoin highest price bitcoin poker buy bitcoin usa If you're new to Ubuntu and Linux, here's a beginner's guide to installing the newest version of the Armory wallet software along with the newest version of the underlying Bitcoin Core daemon. For ...

Flag Counter