Cryptocurrency Wallets | Armory Bitcoin Wallet Review

What is a Cryptocurrency Wallet?

What is a Cryptocurrency Wallet?
Use this straightforward guide to learn what a cryptocurrency wallet is, how they work and discover which ones are the best on the market.
A cryptocurrency wallet is a software program that stores private and public keys and interacts with various blockchain to enable users to send and receive digital currency and monitor their balance. If you want to use Bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency, you will need to have a digital wallet.
How do they work?
Millions of people use cryptocurrency wallets, but there is considerable misunderstanding about how they work. Unlike traditional ‘pocket’ wallets, digital wallets don’t store currency. In fact, currencies don’t get stored in any single location or exist anywhere in any physical form. All that exists are records of transactions stored on the blockchain.
Cryptocurrency wallets are software programs that store your public and private keys and interface with various blockchain so users can monitor their balance, send money and conduct other operations. When a person sends you bitcoins or any other type of digital currency, they are essentially signing off ownership of the coins to your wallet’s address. To be able to spend those coins and unlock the funds, the private key stored in your wallet must match the public address the currency is assigned to. If public and private keys match, the balance in your digital wallet will increase, and the senders will decrease accordingly. There is no actual exchange of real coins. The transaction is signified merely by a transaction record on the blockchain and a change in balance in your cryptocurrency wallet.
What are the different types of Cryptocurrencywallets?
There are several types of wallets that provide different ways to store and access your digital currency. Wallets can be broken down into three distinct categories – software, hardware, and paper. Software wallets can be a desktop, mobile or online.
Are Cryptocurrency wallets secure?
Wallets are secure to varying degrees. The level of security depends on the type of wallet you use (desktop, mobile, online, paper, hardware) and the service provider. A web server is an intrinsically riskier environment to keep your currency compared to offline. Online wallets can expose users to possible vulnerabilities in the wallet platform which can be exploited by hackers to steal your funds. Offline wallets, on the other hand, cannot be hacked because they simply aren’t connected to an online network and don’t rely on a third party for security.
Although online wallets have proven the most vulnerable and prone to hacking attacks, diligent security precautions need to be implemented and followed when using any wallet. Remember that no matter which wallet you use, losing your private keys will lead you to lose your money. Similarly, if your wallet gets hacked, or you send money to a scammer, there is no way to reclaim lost currency or reverse the transaction. You must take precautions and be very careful!
Although Bitcoin is by far the most well-known and popular digital currency, hundreds of newcryptocurrencies (referred to as altcoins) have emerged, each with distinctive ecosystems and infrastructure. If you’re interested in using a variety of cryptocurrencies, the good news is, you don’t need set up a separate wallet for each currency. Instead of using a cryptocurrency wallet that supports a single currency, it may be more convenient to set up a multi-currency wallet which enables you to use several currencies from the same wallet.
Are there any transaction fees?
There is no straightforward answer here.
In general, transaction fees are a tiny fraction of traditional bank fees. Sometimes fees need to be paid for certain types of transactions to network miners as a processing fee, while some transactions don’t have any fee at all. It’s also possible to set your own fee. As a guide, the median transaction size of 226 bytes would result in a fee of 18,080 satoshis or $0.12. In some cases, if you choose to set a low fee, your transaction may get low priority, and you might have to wait hours or even days for the transaction to get confirmed. If you need your transaction completed and confirmed promptly, then you might need to increase the amount you’re willing to pay. Whatever wallet you end up using, transaction fees are not something you should worry about. You will either pay minuscule transaction fees, choose your own fees or pay no fees at all. A definite improvement from the past!
Are cryptocurrency wallets anonymous?
Kind of, but not really. Wallets are pseudonymous. While wallets aren’t tied to the actual identity of a user, all transactions are stored publicly and permanently on the blockchain. Your name or personal street address won’t be there, but data like your wallet address could be traced to your identity in a number of ways. While there are efforts underway to make anonymity and privacy easier to achieve, there are obvious downsides to full anonymity. Check out the DarkWallet project that is looking to beef up privacy and anonymity through stealth addresses and coin mixing.
Which Cryptocurrency wallet is the best?
There is an ever-growing list of options. Before picking a wallet, you should, however, consider how you intend to use it.
Bread Wallet
Bread Wallet is a simple mobile Bitcoin digital wallet that makes sending bitcoins as easy as sending an email. The wallet can be downloaded from the App Store or Google Play. Bread Wallet offers a standalone client, so there is no server to use when sending or receiving bitcoins. That means users can access their money and are in full control of their funds at all times. Overall, Bread Wallet’s clean interface, lightweight design and commitment to continually improve security, make the application safe, fast and a pleasure to use for both beginners and experienced users alike.
Mycelium
Advanced users searching for a Bitcoin mobile digital wallet, should look no further than mycelium. The Mycelium mobile wallet allows iPhone and Android users to send and receive bitcoins and keep complete control over bitcoins. No third party can freeze or lose your funds! With enterprise-level security superior to most other apps and features like cold storage and encrypted PDF backups, an integrated QR-code scanner, a local trading marketplace and secure chat amongst others, you can understand why Mycelium has long been regarded as one of the best wallets on the market.
Exodus
Exodus is a relatively new and unknown digital wallet that is currently only available on the desktop. It enables the storage and trading of Bitcoin, Ether, Litecoins, Dogecoins and Dash through an incredibly easy to use, intuitive and beautiful interface. Exodus also offers a very simple guide to backup your wallet. One of the great things about Exodus is that it has a built-in shapeshift exchange that allows users to trade altcoins for bitcoins and vice versa without leaving the wallet.
Copay
Created by Bitpay, Copay is one of the best digital wallets on the market. If you’re looking for convenience, Copay is easily accessed through a user-friendly interface on desktop, mobile or online. One of the best things about Copay is that it’s a multi-signature wallet so friends or business partners can share funds. Overall, Copay has something for everyone. It’s simple enough for entry-level users but has plenty of additional geeky features that will impress more experienced players as well.
Jaxx
Jaxx is a multi-currency Ether, Ether Classic, Dash, DAO, Litecoin, REP, Zcash, Rootstock, Bitcoin wallet and user interface. Jaxx has been designed to deliver a smooth Bitcoin and Ethereum experience. It is available on a variety of platforms and devices (Windows, Linux, Chrome, Firefox, OSX, Android mobile & tablet, iOS mobile & tablet) and connects with websites through Firefox and Chrome extensions. Jaxx allows in wallet conversion between Bitcoin, Ether and DAO tokens via Shapeshift and the import of Ethereum paper wallets. With an array of features and the continual integration of new currencies, Jaxx is an excellent choice for those who require a multi-currency wallet.
Armory
Armory is an open source Bitcoin desktop wallet perfect for experienced users that place emphasis on security. Some of Armory’s features include cold storage, multi-signature transactions, one-time printable backups, multiple wallets interface, GPU-resistant wallet encryption, key importing, key sweeping and more. Although Armory takes a little while to understand and use to it’s full potential, it’s a great option for more tech-savvy bitcoiners looking to keep their funds safe and secure.
Trezor is a hardware Bitcoin wallet that is ideal for storing large amounts of bitcoins. Trezor cannot be infected by malware and never exposes your private keys which make it as safe as holding traditional paper money. Trezor is open source and transparent, with all technical decisions benefiting from wider community consultation. It’s easy to use, has an intuitive interface and is Windows, OS X and Linux friendly. One of the few downsides of the Trezor wallet is that it must be with you to send bitcoins. This, therefore, makes Trezor best for inactive savers, investors or people who want to keep large amounts of Bitcoin highly secure.
Ledger Nano
The Ledger Wallet Nano is a new hierarchical deterministic multisig hardware wallet for bitcoin users that aims to eliminate a number of attack vectors through the use of a second security layer. This tech-heavy description does not mean much to the average consumer, though, which is why I am going to explain it in plain language, describing what makes the Ledger Wallet Nano tick. In terms of hardware, the Ledger Wallet Nano is a compact USB device based on a smart card. It is roughly the size of a small flash drive, measuring 39 x 13 x 4mm (1.53 x 0.51 x 0.16in) and weighing in at just 5.9g.
Pros:
Cons:
Green Address
Green Address is a user-friendly Bitcoin wallet that’s an excellent choice for beginners. Green Address is accessible via desktop, online or mobile with apps available for Chrome, iOS, and Android. Features include multi-signature addresses & two-factor authentications for enhanced security, paper wallet backup, and instant transaction confirmation. A downside is that Green Address is required to approve all payments, so you do not have full control over your spending
Blockchain (dot) info
Blockchain is one of the most popular Bitcoin wallets. Accessing this wallet can be done from any browser or smartphone. Blockchain.info provides two different additional layers. For the browser version, users can enable two-factor authentication, while mobile users can activate a pin code requirement every time the wallet application is opened. Although your wallet will be stored online and all transactions will need to go through the company’s servers, Blockchain.info does not have access to your private keys. Overall, this is a well-established company that is trusted throughout the Bitcoin community and makes for a solid wallet to keep your currency.
submitted by Tokenberry to NewbieZone [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]

Difference between ChromaWallet and CoinPrism colored coin wallets

I am the lead developer of ChromaWallet colored coins wallet, and after CoinPrism release people often ask me about relationship between these two projects, compatibility, differences and so on. Apparently there is a substantial degree of confusion, so I'd like to clear things up in this post.
First of all, these two projects are completely independent.
ChromaWallet is essentially a descendant of colored coin initiatives which started in 2012, we went through several prototypes (ArmoryX, WebcoinX, etc) until we started NGCCC project in June 2013, and now NGCCC evolved into ChromaWallet. It is completely open source from day one, development process is open (you can see 11 contributors here), and we created reusable components (coloredcoinlib, ngcccbase) which can be used in customized wallets and applications.
CoinPrism is a new project, AFAIK it started in 2014. No source code was published so far.
Of course, for end users features matter more than a development process, so let's go through substantial differences:
Compatibility: currently ChromaWallet and CoinPrism use different "color kernels", so they are not compatible (although future versions might be).
Other features:
Development status:
ChromaWallet version 0.0.7 was released few days ago, it is the first version with enabled SPV, and it seems to work. But it definitely needs more testing before I can recommend people to use it in production.
submitted by killerstorm to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

I would like to address FUD regarding colored coins and ChromaWallet

I am the lead developer of ChromaWallet. I've noticed that people who are presumably proponents of competing projects post comments which are dismissive and hostile towards colored coins and ChromaWallet. In many cases these posts are based on information which is only half-true, or sometimes not true at all. I'd like to address this unfair criticism here instead of chasing each individual comment.
FUD: Colored coins are irrelevant, because we already have Counterparty. (Also, Mastercoin, Ethereum, BitShares, NXT and so on.)
This would be true if Counterparty could do everything which colored coins can, but that's just not true. Counterparty uses a fundamentally different approach, which means that some things which can be implemented on top of colored coins are impossible with Counterparty, particularly:
Fast trading. First of all, let's consider how it is done in Counterparty: orders are submitted as separate transactions, which can be included into blockchain in arbitrary order. That means that you cannot reliably cancel an order or change price until your original transaction gets into a Bitcoin block, which takes on average 10 minutes. Thus you cannot change price very often (don't forget that you pay a transaction fee for each new order).
Also, you know whether your order was matched only after it is in a block, which, again, takes something on scale of 10 minutes. If you want to buy an asset for Bitcoin, it's even worse; first you need to find a matching order, and then you need to do a Bitcoin payment. In the best case, this requires two Bitcoin blocks, thus average time is 20 minutes. In the worst case, if your Bitcoin transaction is confirmed too late, you will lose your Bitcoins without getting that asset. On the sellers end, you might wait for several hours, but payment won't arrive.
On the bright side, Coutnerparty "dex" requires only Bitcoin network/blockchain. So it is highly available. But slow. Potentially problematic when you use Bitcoin as a currency.
On the other hand, in case with colored coins, trading protocol can be implemented as a separate protocol built on top of core coloring protocol and atomic transactions. As such, it is very flexible, you can choose trade-offs relevant to your particular applications.
Let's consider a specific protocol, p2ptrade (which was first released, as a working proof-of-concept, in January 2013, as a part of ArmoryX):
ArmoryX is dead now, but the similar thing is implemented in ChromaWallet, so you can see yourself that it takes around 5 seconds to complete a trade, not 10 minutes, and not 1 hour.
Micropayment channels, transaction aggregation: Paying a standard Bitcoin fee for each payment is not cool, for many applications that's too much. With colored coins we can use almost all standard Bitcoin features, which can make payments much cheaper and/or faster. I don't think that can work with Counterparty.
SPV: With colored coins, we can implement a "thin" client which will be able to independently verify payments without downloading the whole blockchain. In fact, that's how ChromaWallet works now, it's very similar to Electrum. We can also implement a mobile and in-browser clients which do not need to trust the server.
I could go on, but I hope it's obvious that Counterparty isn't the best at everything, and there might be some room for colored coins. (To be fair, there are certain things which Counterparty can do, but colored coins can't: Counterparty can resolve CFDs and bets based on asset price automatically.)
As for other projects (NXT, Ethereum, BitShares...), they have numerous advantages, but still aren't completely "dominating" over colored coins: I believe the fact that colored coins can provide complete integration with Bitcoin is a significant feature which justifies its existence.
FUD: Development is slow.
Answer: This is partially true.
First of all, few words about ChromaWallet. It started as an open source project supported by donations, which allowed us to to release an alpha version. But then, after donations dwindled, development pace have drastically slowed down. But recently we have organized a for-profit company which will continue to develop ChromaWallet, hopefully at much faster pace. (The wallet will remain open source, of course; we're going to monetize services which will be useful to wallet's users.) One example of what it have already done is coloredcoinjs-lib, a JS library for colored coins. It is something like 90% complete after one month of development.
Then there are several other projects like CoinPrism and Iridis, which are making good progress.
So, yeah, it could be faster, but it is hardly a reason to dismiss colored coins.
FUD: Development efforts are fragmented.
Answer: Well, they are: there are several different implementations. I don't see it as a bad thing, though: there are, probably, dozens of different potential applications of colored coins. We don't need same piece of software doing everything.
I see colored coins as a toolkit for implementing different kinds of applications on top of Bitcoin blockchain, not as a particular standard.
FUD: ChromaWallet isn't working.
I'm fairly certain it's working. It has some deficiencies (like some error messages are displayed in console instead of being shown in GUI), but they are relatively minor. What's important, you can send and receive payments, even p2ptrade is working. Still, it is a beta. We would rather take more time for testing and fixing, thus we ask people to avoid using it for anything of value. Better be safe than sorry, you know.
FUD: ChromaWallet requires complex installation process.
This was true for alpha release which was in December, but not for more recent beta release. Just download, unpack and it works. We're working on web and mobile versions now...
FUD: p2ptrade is not decentralized, there is no colored coins decentralized exchange!
Well, it depends on how you define a "decentralized exchange", of course.
p2ptrade, as implemented in ArmoryX and ChromaWallet, relies on a communication channel implemented as an HTTP service. The thing is, anybody can run his own service. So it is definitely decentralized, as it allows two (or more) parties to trade without relying on a central service.
Also, Iridis implements a similar thing which uses BitMessage for communication.
submitted by killerstorm 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]

A helpful discussion about wallet security (esp. Electrum)

I was recently contacted via private message by a redditor who read a comment of mine about wallet storage (I assume this comment). I think there was quite a bit of useful information in it for other bitcoin beginners, so I am reposting it here in full (with permission). The redditor in question wanted to remain anonymous though.
I hope this is of use to some of you here!
From: Anonymous Redditor
I saw your post regarding your wallet storage and had a few noob questions if you don't mind.
My plan is similar to yours but I was unsure whether to use armory or electrum (electrum's seed creation scares me a bit).
You mentioned you have a bootable LINUX (ubuntu?) USB stick that you keep your wallet on....do you only boot this onto an always offline computer?
Do you use something like Truecrypt to further protect your wallet.dats?
Thanks for your time!
From: SanderMarechal
My plan is similar to yours but I was unsure whether to use armory or electrum (electrum's seed creation scares me a bit).
For me it is the other way around. Armory (and bitcoin-qt) scare me. Armory is just a wallet. It still needs bitcoin-qt running in the background. For me the problem is two-fold:
1) Size
bitcoin-qt (and armory) need to download the entire blockchain. That 13+ GB that takes hours to download and days to verify. And if you ever lose it, you need to do it again.
2) Random keys
armory and bitcoin-qt generate random private keys. You get 100. If you use a few (you use them when you send coins for example) then new ones are created. So, if you create an armory wallet and make a backup, that backup will have 100 keys. Then, if you make 33(!) transactions, your 100 keys are used up and you will have 100 different random keys. If someone then steals your computer (or your house burns down) then you cannot use your backup anymore. It only has the 100 old keys and none of the new keys. So you have lost all your bitcoins.
Why 33 transactions and not 100? Because of change addresses. If you have 10 BTC and send me 2 BTC then most wallets will create 2 transactions. 2 BTC from your old addres to me, and 8 BTC from your old address to a new (random) address. This process costs 3 private keys. 2 keys for the transactions and 1 key to create a new address.
This means that after every few dozen transactions you need to refresh your backup so it has the newer keys. For me that is impractical. It means that I need to keep my backup close by because I often need it.
Electrum does not have this problem. The seed solves this. Private keys are not random but are created from the seed. If you have the seed then you have, by definition, all the private keys you will ever need. Your backup can never be out-of-date. This is easy for me. I save the seed in a file, encrypt it, put it on an USB stick and give copies to a few family members who have safes in their homes.
If my computer is ever stolen, or my house burns down, I can go to a family member, decrypt the seed file and use the seed to restore my electrum wallet. Even if that USB stick is 10 years old.
You mentioned you have a bootable LINUX (ubuntu?) USB stick that you keep your wallet on....do you only boot this onto an always offline computer?
It depends on how secure you want to be. For maximum security, keep the computer always offline. But if you want to spend the bitcoins from your wallet, you will need to be online.
I use the USB stick for my savings account. It only receives coins and I do not send. So I do not need to boot up my USB stick. I have created a second wallet on blockchain.info that I use for day-to-day transactions. All BTC I receive goes to my blockchain account. Then I transfer a part of that to my savings account and only keep a bit of change that I need in the blockchain account.
Do you use something like Truecrypt to further protect your wallet.dats?
No. Electrum does not have a wallet.dat. It has the seed. I simply copy the seed to a TXT file and encrypt it using GPG and symmetric encryption. Example:
gpg --armor --symmetric --cipher-algo AES256 seed.txt 
Make sure you use a password that is strong and that you cannot forget! If you need to write the password down on paper and your house burns down, then you cannot decrypt the seed anymore!
From: Anonymous Redditor
Forgive the naivety here: Correct me if I'm wrong - The safest way to generate your wallet seed is on an offline computer correct? So, theoretically, generate the seed on an offline-only computer, copy to txt...encrypt. back up on multiple USB's. Then on your online computer, load electrum and import Seed?
Thanks so much for the thorough explanation! I'm a potato when it comes to reddit's bitcoin tip bot. Send me an address - would like to send some internet magic money your way.
From: SanderMarechal
The safest way to generate your wallet seed is on an offline computer correct? So, theoretically, generate the seed on an offline-only computer, copy to txt...encrypt. back up on multiple USB's. Then on your online computer, load electrum and import Seed?
Not quite. The risk with an online computer is malware and people breaking in. If you generate the seed on an offline computer and then move it to an online computer, you don't really take that risk away. You still have your wallet on an online computer which you use for day-to-day work and which is exposed to hackers and malware.
I suggest you make two wallets. One wallet is your "savings" wallet. You can use the USB stick Linux for this. Generate the wallet offline, backup and encrypt the seed onto multiple USB sticks and note down the bitcoin address somewhere so you can transfer funds to it. The only time you should use the USB stick to go online is when you want to transfer funds out of your savings wallet.
The, on your normal computer (or your smartphone if you prefer), create a second wallet using a different password. This is the wallet you keep only a little money in for your day-to-day transactions. Note down the seen, encrypt (with a different password than you used to encrypt the seed from your savings wallet) and add it to the USB keys. You can use Electrun for this second wallet as well, but you can also use something different. I use a blockchain.info wallet for my day-to-day expenses.
Whenever you have a larger amount of bitcoins in your day-to-day wallet, transfer some to the wallet on the USB stick. You don't need to boot up the USB stick for this. You only need the address you wrote down.
When you want to spend a large amount of money, boot up from the USB stick and transfer coins from your savings wallet to your day-to-day wallet. Reboot into your normal computer and use the day-to-day wallet to pay for what you wanted to buy.
The core of the issue is simple: Don't store a lot of money in a wallet on a computer that you use a lot. Computers that are used a lot get attacked a lot. Simple :-)
Thanks so much for the thorough explanation! I'm a potato when it comes to reddit's bitcoin tip bot. Send me an address - would like to send some internet magic money your way.
That is very kind! My address is: 1PAXiscvKoGRJ5XxMZvri3CMNeKYYb8wMQ
From: Anonymous Redditor
You are awesome:) Thank you again for the insight! Sent some your way.
From: SanderMarechal*
Your welcome. And thanks for the coin!
From: Anonymous Redditor
Last question(s) (I promise)...
Would a netbook like this be appropriate to 1)dban 2) boot up via USB ubuntu and 3) create the electrum seed?
This would of course never go online, be backed up and encrypted, etc.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834131403
Thanks again.
From: SanderMarechal
I don't know. You would be better off asking this on www.ubuntuforums.org for example. I don't know if that computer's hardware is compatible with Ubuntu. Speed-wise the bottleneck will be the USB stick and not the CPU or memory. USB sticks are much slower than hard drives.
Note that you don't have to buy a computer for this. You can use the computer you already have and still run Ubuntu off an USB stick for your Electrum wallet.
What I said in my previous post about not using your day-to-day computer for your wallet, with that I mean the operating system and software. Not the hardware. Unless you're afraid someone put a hardware keylogger inside your computer :-)
From: Anonymous Redditor
Fascinating!
My tin foil hat is in full effect:) Thanks again for your time and patience.
From: SanderMarechal
Your welcome. Have fun with bitcoin!
Oh, I have a question for you now. Would you mind if I repost our entire private conversation here to /BitcoinBeginners? I think other redditors there would also be interested. And if I can repost it, do you want your username in there or should I replace it with "Anonymous Redditor" or something?
From: Anonymous Redditor
You can certainly repost it! And yes, if you wouldn't mind removing the username I would very much appreciate it.
Thanks for asking btw!
Anyway, I hope this is useful for some people out here.
submitted by SanderMarechal to BitcoinBeginners [link] [comments]

Experiment: Earning My First Bitcoin

This is my story on how I earned my first Bitcoin, and what I learned along the way. In December of 2013 I downloaded Bitcoin-QT after hearing about the meteoric rise of Bitcoin. At the time the price was in correction from the all time high of 1163 and was at 651. I had missed the train. At this time I started to visit Bitcoin more. I didn’t understand a thing I was reading. It’s like I stumbled across another language, with so many references to concepts that were completely foreign to me. I am by no means a computer expert. My competence level is average.
The highly technical language used in this sub and in the Bitcoin spaces is a barrier of entry to non-tech savvy individuals. But it is also an attraction for people who have a thirst for knowledge. And once you understand the technical side of Bitcoin it becomes more attractive. By its very nature Bitcoin is a self sustaining unit of account that is incorruptibly honest. Reading those words is entirely different from understanding what they mean. And once you do understand what they mean, what Bitcoin means, Attraction Amplified. So after lurking for a while and learning the basics, I came to this simple conclusion. I wanted it. But I honestly couldn't justify out right buying it.
So I set myself a goal. I’ll try earning just .1 bitcoin. Looking back, this took me way too long because I sticked with the faucets and paytoclick sites for way too long. But once I got go my first .1 BTC in February of 2015 I set myself a new goal. To earn one Bitcoin. My first Bitcoin wasn’t going to be mined or bought, but Earned. And 5 months latter I achieved that goal. By doing this I learned so much about the Bitcoin ecosystem.
Chart of earnings over time. Blue is earnings per day. Red is total earnings over time.
http://i.imgur.com/Y6cgH5z.png
The first thing I learned was that faucets are a huge waste of time for earning Bitcoin. But they’re nice to begin with just to get a feel for the mechanics of transactions.
The second thing I learned was that I could earn on average around 1500bits per day using Bitcoinget to do small online tasks, like visiting sites or doing short surveys. But, I have a love hate relationship with Bitcoinget. On the one hand, I’ve earned a good amount with them. But on the other hand, their jobs suck balls. The majority of the tasks on their site are not worth the time to complete, and many don’t work properly. The key is to know which tasks are worth doing and which are not. One in ten tasks on Bitcoinget are worth doing, and that’s being generous. But by using Bitcoinget I was able secure a steady supply of Bitcoin. Shameless Referral link if anyone feels like signing up: http://www.bitcoinget.com/?r=1MienR4vFattHj6XSZjKjDiwDqgxGeq67n
Chart for how much Bitcoinget and the other earning methods contributed as a percent to the 1 BTC goal. http://i.imgur.com/4qj2S82.png
The third method I learned for earning Bitcoin was giveaways. Changetip and sign up bonuses from sites like circle were very lucrative for the time spent on singing up. Just by visiting Bitcoin regularly you can get a fair amount of Bitcoin through giveaways.
The fourth method for earning BTC, and the most profitable, was using Jobs4bitcoins. My first job I took for this method was video editing for some kind of school project/feminist propaganda. The second job I took from Jobs4bitcoins was a excel research project, finding the smart phone penetration rates throughout Africa. This last job tipped me over the edge of .95BTC to 1.25BTC. Both jobs paid quite fairly for the task involved. Protip: never submit work before receiving payment first/use an escrow service.
Jobs4Bitcoin is hands down going to grow into something more. There is huge potential for people around the world to connect with someone else with the skills they need for quick work. Bitcoin enables this seamlessly and empowers individuals to pick and choose their work for themselves. So, shameless plus #2, if you need someone who is good at excel/researching literature/synthesizing large amounts of data, I’m your guy. Video editing too!
Along the way I’ve learned the Bitcoin lingo, set up multiple wallets using Armory, Electrum and Mycelium. I discovered the wonderful world of multi-sig addresses, and the benefits they offer for security. I’ve also learned how to store the backups for these in exotic offline devices like calculators and digital cameras. I’ve even attended a Bitcoin ATM release event, Cool stuff.
Conclusion: Bitcoin is simply amazing and amazingly simple in its simplicity. Overall it’s been a fun experiment, and I’m glad I did it, but this is definitely not a method for everyone. Buying from an exchange or ATM is much faster to acquire BTC. This is why I’ve joined an exchange and plan on buying some more BTC.
My new goal is 2.1 BTC, but I don’t think I’ll be satisfied until that coveted 21 BTC mark. 1 in 10 million here I come, 1 in a million one day soon. Maybe one day when we’re all grey and weary with the years of Bitcoin reaching planet after planet past the moon, I’ll tell my great-great-great-grandchildren that I earned my first Bitcoin. And they’ll either ask me, “what’s a Bight-coin?” or stare at me in silent wonder. I don't know where Bitcoin is going. But I do know that I want it. Other people want it. And there's only ever going to be 21 million.
I had fun writing this post and I hope you enjoyed reading it. Here's to drinking the moon-aid.
submitted by Fiach_Dubh to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Story: How I Earned My First Bitcoin

Re-posting this because it's a good story :P
This is my story on how I earned my first Bitcoin, and what I learned along the way. In December of 2013 I downloaded Bitcoin-QT after hearing about the meteoric rise of Bitcoin. At the time the price was in correction from the all time high of 1163 and was at 651. I had missed the train. At this time I started to visit Bitcoin more. I didn’t understand a thing I was reading. It’s like I stumbled across another language, with so many references to concepts that were completely foreign to me. I am by no means a computer expert. My competence level is average.
The highly technical language used in this sub and in the Bitcoin spaces is a barrier of entry to non-tech savvy individuals. But it is also an attraction for people who have a thirst for knowledge. And once you understand the technical side of Bitcoin it becomes more attractive. By its very nature Bitcoin is a self sustaining unit of account that is incorruptibly honest. Reading those words is entirely different from understanding what they mean. And once you do understand what they mean, what Bitcoin means, Attraction Amplified. So after lurking for a while and learning the basics, I came to this simple conclusion. I wanted it. But I honestly couldn't justify out right buying it.
So I set myself a goal. I’ll try earning just .1 bitcoin. Looking back, this took me way too long because I sticked with the faucets and paytoclick sites for way too long. But once I got go my first .1 BTC in February of 2015 I set myself a new goal. To earn one Bitcoin. My first Bitcoin wasn’t going to be mined or bought, but Earned. And 5 months latter I achieved that goal. By doing this I learned so much about the Bitcoin ecosystem.
Chart of earnings over time. Blue is earnings per day. Red is total earnings over time.
http://i.imgur.com/Y6cgH5z.png
The first thing I learned was that faucets are a huge waste of time for earning Bitcoin. But they’re nice to begin with just to get a feel for the mechanics of transactions.
The second thing I learned was that I could earn on average around 1500bits per day using Bitcoinget to do small online tasks, like visiting sites or doing short surveys. But, I have a love hate relationship with Bitcoinget. On the one hand, I’ve earned a good amount with them. But on the other hand, their jobs suck balls. The majority of the tasks on their site are not worth the time to complete, and many don’t work properly. The key is to know which tasks are worth doing and which are not. One in ten tasks on Bitcoinget are worth doing, and that’s being generous. But by using Bitcoinget I was able secure a steady supply of Bitcoin. Shameless Referral link if anyone feels like signing up: http://www.bitcoinget.com/?r=1MienR4vFattHj6XSZjKjDiwDqgxGeq67n
Chart for how much Bitcoinget and the other earning methods contributed as a percent to the 1 BTC goal. http://i.imgur.com/4qj2S82.png
The third method I learned for earning Bitcoin was giveaways. Changetip and sign up bonuses from sites like circle were very lucrative for the time spent on singing up. Just by visiting Bitcoin regularly you can get a fair amount of Bitcoin through giveaways.
The fourth method for earning BTC, and the most profitable, was using Jobs4bitcoins. My first job I took for this method was video editing for some kind of school project/feminist propaganda. The second job I took from Jobs4bitcoins was a excel research project, finding the smart phone penetration rates throughout Africa. This last job tipped me over the edge of .95BTC to 1.25BTC. Both jobs paid quite fairly for the task involved. Protip: never submit work before receiving payment first/use an escrow service.
Jobs4Bitcoin is hands down going to grow into something more. There is huge potential for people around the world to connect with someone else with the skills they need for quick work. Bitcoin enables this seamlessly and empowers individuals to pick and choose their work for themselves. So, shameless plus #2, if you need someone who is good at excel/researching literature/synthesizing large amounts of data, I’m your guy. Video editing too!
Along the way I’ve learned the Bitcoin lingo, set up multiple wallets using Armory, Electrum and Mycelium. I discovered the wonderful world of multi-sig addresses, and the benefits they offer for security. I’ve also learned how to store the backups for these in exotic offline devices like calculators and digital cameras. I’ve even attended a Bitcoin ATM release event, Cool stuff.
Conclusion: Bitcoin is simply amazing and amazingly simple in its simplicity. Overall it’s been a fun experiment, and I’m glad I did it, but this is definitely not a method for everyone. Buying from an exchange or ATM is much faster to acquire BTC. This is why I’ve joined an exchange and plan on buying some more BTC.
My new goal is 2.1 BTC, but I don’t think I’ll be satisfied until that coveted 21 BTC mark. 1 in 10 million here I come, 1 in a million one day soon. Maybe one day when we’re all grey and weary with the years of Bitcoin reaching planet after planet past the moon, I’ll tell my great-great-great-grandchildren that I earned my first Bitcoin. And they’ll either ask me, “what’s a Bight-coin?” or stare at me in silent wonder. I don't know where Bitcoin is going. But I do know that I want it. Other people want it. And there's only ever going to be 21 million.
I had fun writing this post and I hope you enjoyed reading it. Here's to drinking the moon-aid.
Update: In the 1 and 5 million club as of today :)
submitted by Fiach_Dubh to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Be your own bank: Store your bitcoin without getting robbed.

There are countless examples of bitcoin theft, and every time I hear another story about coins being stolen it hurts.
It hurts because I hate to see someone get ripped off, and it hurts because it erodes public confidence in Bitcoin.
There are three methods by which your bitcoin can be stolen:
  1. Human error - Sorry, it’s your fault. Even if it is someone else’s error, you trusted them
  2. Coercion - You were persuaded by use of force or threats
  3. Stolen backup - keep them safe!
The guidelines below will help you avoid bitcoin theft.
This is not meant to be a definitive guide, it is a solid foundation, and there are many things you could do to enhance this security further.
The basics:
Protect your privacy
Do not reuse addresses. If you have a public address, like a donation address, empty it often.
Do not talk about holding large amounts of bitcoin (just common sense…)
Trust no one
Bitcoin is trust-less, use it that way
No web wallets, No web wallets, No web wallets.
Do not store bitcoin on exchanges, always use 2FA (Two factor authentication), I use Google Authenticator
Create and store your own private keys
Remove any remote desktop software (team viewer, gotomypc, etc..) from a computer with private keys
Use unique strong passwords
Use a secure password manager for your logins (I use pwSafe)
Do not store private keys or wallet passwords in a password manager
My cold storage wallet passwords are written on a piece of paper and kept locked up
Do not use the same password on multiple sites or wallets
Include upper and lower case letters, numbers and special characters
Strong password example: /ZjucKn=0Eb;%@u[Zp
Use good antivirus protection (I use Bitdefender on mac)
Keep it up to date
Consider physical security
If you store your 2nd wallet backup in the glove compartment of your car, and your car gets stolen, your bitcoins may be gone too…
Mobile devices: Do not use the same pin to unlock your phone and wallet
Protect your backups
Keep backups
Whenever I create a new wallet I create 2 full paper backups including the seed and any other security (password, pin, etc…).
I write these on paper by hand
I only use HD and paper wallets, all the tools below are HD.
My backups are physically secure and stored in geographically distinct locations
My wife (yes, I trust her ;)) knows where they are and how to use them in case I’m incapacited
The tools I use:
  1. Paper - https://www.bitaddress.org I use bitaddress.org on an old laptop that is permanently offline, and print on a trusted, non-networked printer. Source: https://github.com/pointbiz/bitaddress.org
  2. Armory (offline) - https://bitcoinarmory.com/ That same old laptop contains an offline version of Armory for my cold storage, tutorial: https://bitcoinarmory.com/tutorials/armory-advanced-features/offline-wallets/
  3. Armory (online) - Used for signing transactions and small amounts of coin, when online I don’t type my password, I use the mouse and jumbled screen keypad
  4. Trezor - https://buytrezor.com?a=859328776dca (that is my affiliate link) Great hardware wallet, very secure and very hard to “screw up”, $119
  5. Breadwallet - http://app.breadwallet.com/ Open source iOS app, I keep a little change here for every day spending
Other tools I like:
Electrum (Android version) https://electrum.org/
mSIGNA (in beta, lots of potential) https://ciphrex.com/products/
Please feel free to correct me or supplement this in any way that increases security.
Stay safe.
submitted by CoinCadence to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Colored coins vs. namecoin

In every thread about colored coins two things pop up:
  1. Isn't it same as namecoin?
  2. Shouldn't you use another blockchain for it?
I'll try to provide detailed explanation here.
There is certainly some overlap with namecoins as you can represent asset ownership with it, i.e. to represent shares of company XYZ you can create names XYZ_share_1, XYZ_share_2 ... XYZ_share_1000.
There is actually software which does it: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=123271.5 (Note that it was implemented after colored coins proof-of-concept implementation.)
However, implementation is entirely different. One thing is that colored coins currently runs on top of Bitcoin blockchain, not on separate block chain. But it is in fact possible to use colored coin protocol on top of namecoin.
So what's different?
With colored coins, we represent quantity of something using number of satoshis in a transaction output. So you can represent 100,000 shares with 100,000 satoshi. Then you can sell 33,000 shares, splitting it into 33,000 and 77,000 satoshi outputs.
With namecoins (approach mentioned above) each unit is a separate name, and it is stored as a separate output in blockchain, which requires some amount of space. (On scale of 1 KiB, I think.) So if you want to issue a million units, you will add 1 GB of bloat to blockchain. Ouch...
There are other differences... Colored coins are better suited for thin clients, they are more scalable and so on.
Please understand me correctly, I like namecoins and it would be cool if we would run colored coins on namecoin too: that would allow one to register company name. But shares-as-names is entirely different technology, and it works only for small number of units.
It definitely won't work for currencies... E.g. suppose I want to issue 1,000,000 USD-coins (bonds) divisible down to cents, I only need 100,000,000 satoshi for that, that's one Bitcoin IIRC.
Also client software is very different... With ArmoryX, you simply see how many units you have on balance, i.e. it can show that you have 1.23 USD-coins.
We also have p2ptrade where you can sell and buy colored coins for bitcoins on a semi-distributed market securely. No such thing exists for namecoins.
We want colored coins to work specifically on Bitcoin blockchain because we want to be able to buy and sell shares/bonds for Bitcoins, specifically.
We don't want to create yet another FooCoins which would allow one to sell shares for FooCoins... That's seriously counter-productive.
Cross-blockchain trade doesn't really work now, it isn't enabled in Bitcoin clients. Even theoretically it is inferior to atomic coin swapping, because atomic coin swapping is really atomic: trade is either done or it is not. But cross-blockchain trade is multi-stage process, and if your counter-party aborts the protocol your coins are lost.
Another popular misconception is that colored coins add blockchain bloat, but in reality its use isn't different from normal bitcoin transactions (well, atomic coin swap might be twice larger because two parties are involved), and transaction fees are paid, so I doubt it will be a problem.
I'd say colored coin trade is more productive use of Bitcoins than Satoshi Dice, but I think all use is legit as long as it pays fees.
People ask what happens if colored coins are destroyed due to software bug or human error. It is theoretically possible, although not different from sending Bitcoins to a wrong address.
In case colored coins represent company shares, we can say that transaction which destroyed coins didn't transfer shares, so previous owner (one who send them) still owns shares.
Thus he can go to issuer, provide proof that his shares are lost, and issuer should compensate him if he isn't an asshole: he can create new shares and send them to that dude as a replacement.
submitted by killerstorm to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

The end is neigh! Rilly has been accused of "noise" at tactic that effectively censors ourchain.slack.com by shoving everything up the memory hole. Dump of #general from then to now.

leithaus 6:32 PM If she redeems the AMP for a RHOC and even 1 RHOC is burned, then she has 1/(1B -1 ) of the total supply of RHOCs. (edited) 6:32 This is a strictly better position than her position in AMPs. 6:34 Now, we have gone over the arrangement between the Co-op and the Holdings company in detail many times. lexysis 6:34 PM Show us the documents leithaus 6:34 PM There have been infographics, discussions, all posted in videos. lexysis 6:34 PM Show us what the arrangement is in legal terms 6:34 this information should be given to everyone in a structured manner leithaus 6:35 PM It has been over the last 4 months. lexysis 6:36 PM We don't want an infographic. We want actual precise language. For example, it's not enough for you to say "don't worry about X because the company is legally bound to develop on the platform." You should give us the actual legal documents that precisely describe what the situation is. amp100 6:36 PM Keep ignoring Greg. Nobody watches those hangouts anymore thats why we all keep asking here! 007 6:37 PM @leithaus Please, all I'm asking is: what will be the total Rchain if 10 mil amp are swapped. Please no formulas just a number. lexysis 6:38 PM You're doing the equivalent of telling us that we should trust some smart contract code we've never seen, because you've told us in videos and infographics about how it works. Do you not see how this goes against the whole idea of this project? amp100 6:38 PM @ed.eykholt Ok mayeb I misquoted you, though that didn't change anything at all IMO. 'under any circumstances' is the same for me as 'in any case'. So the 105 million won't be changed 'in any case'. (now happy?) And nwo please answer what will hapopen if 10 million coins will be swapped. Pinned by fdt leithaus 6:39 PM As we posted back in February, we will burn the difference between what's in circulation versus what's redeemed. amp100 6:39 PM Where does teh burning come from if the Holding wont be touched! The 1:10 ratio cant be honored in that case. 6:40 As teh Holding company holds 105 million and teh total supply would be 100 million if 10 mill is swapped ed.eykholt 6:40 PM @amp100 No, I said there is no plan to return them; the whole sentence matters. (edited) Pinned by fdt leithaus 6:40 PM What's in circulation is roughly 115M, take away 10M, that's 105M burned. Leaving a total supply of 895M. amp100 6:40 PM Ed : 'in any case'. 6:40 SO thats why I ask this question abotu 10 million amps. Will that 'in any case' change? ed.eykholt 6:41 PM @amp100 Greg is addressing the question about supply. I'm not going to. amp100 6:41 PM Ok 6:41 So now we are getting somewhere Greg. 007 6:42 PM Thanks Greg!!! (edited) amp100 6:42 PM The Holding company keeps 105? +10 = 115 and teh rest gets burned. So then teh next question! How is this all gonna work with teh Rchain COOP having ZERO Rhocs? leithaus 6:43 PM No, you have misunderstood. 007 6:43 PM so only 105 mil Rchain would be burnt if 10 mill are swapped.?? leithaus 6:43 PM The Holding Company has what it has. End of story. 6:43 @007 that's correct. amp100 6:43 PM lol? Pinned by fdt leithaus 6:43 PM i have to double check the number of AMPs in circulation is 115M. amp100 6:43 PM OMG 6:44 This you coudl anwers very very easily a long time ago to all these people who ask here! 6:44 yes you kept ignoring and saying it was in some hangouts. 6:44 I cant believe this. 6:44 Anyway the dillution will be ridiculous to swappers. bad deal. 6:45 Thanks for finally answering , it cost me lots of valuable hours/days/weeks/months. Pinned by fdt leithaus 6:45 PM Assuming that is correct, if only 10M is redeemed, then 105RHOCS get burned. So, the total supply of RHOCs is 1000M - 105M = 895M. 007 6:45 PM I might be mistaken, but I recall a plan to burn MUCH more amps. leithaus 6:46 PM They aren't going to do that. 6:46 But, anyway, if you don't want to participate, don't. 6:46 We don't need this. We're doing it as a service to the people who were defrauded. 6:47 People who feel this doesn't serve their interests should definitely not participate. 007 6:49 PM Currently AMPs in circulation are 10% on total supply. If we maintain the same ratio (10 mill swapped) we should end with 100 mil Rchain??? (edited) leithaus 6:50 PM @amp100 - your calculations are incorrect. No matter how you calculate this, RHOC holders' positions are not diluted at all. They are improved. If you look at the position of liquid, they are in a much, much better position. If you look at the total supply they are in a slightly better position. amp100 6:50 PM no. as 10 million will be in circulation and a 895 million supply 6:51 Bad 6:51 Holdings companies coins are not in circulation yet. 6:51 This is very bad for investors/swappers or however the hell u wanan call it leithaus 6:51 PM Do whatever you think is right! 007 6:51 PM 10 mil rchain circulation and 895 millin supply DOES'T maintain the same synereo ratio amp100 6:52 PM You not maintain your promise Greg. leithaus 6:52 PM If you feel it doesn't serve you, please don't participate. ed.eykholt 6:53 PM @amp100 Holdings company RHOCs are in circulation. amp100 6:54 PM Synereo company hold abotu 850 million coins and 85 in circulation. Total supply is 1.1 x what SYnereo holds. In Rchains case its far from 1.1x. It's 9 x.:joy: (edited) 007 6:54 PM Back in January I understood that the ratio would be the same as Synereo. If only 10 mil Rchain are in circulation how do we get to 900 mil Rchain supply?? amp100 6:55 PM @ed.eykholt Do as Synereo does and you get a 115 million total supply. 6:55 10 million investors and 105 by company. (synereo 85 million investors and 850 million company) 6:56 This is teh worst deal ever, and not even close to all your promises Greg. 6:56 What a joke... 007 6:57 PM Wish I could get slack archive. What was said few months back is completely different. 6:59 This is NOT the same ratio Synereo I was promised! amp100 6:59 PM It's not even close..... leithaus 7:00 PM Again, please don't participate if it doesn't serve your interests. amp100 7:00 PM Synereo holds 1:10 (investors : synereo) If Rchain woudl do that it would be 10:100. 7:00 Greg is a big liar and never keeps his words. What a fking joke. 007 7:01 PM I remember we spokes about it here and understood that total amp swapped to rchain would be approximately 10% of total supply. (10% is the synereo ratio). amp100 7:01 PM Only cares about safing his ass from legal battles and only cares to enrich himself in a way that it looks like that isnt the case. 7:02 @007 we re fucked over once again. 007 7:03 PM @amp100 no need to be nasty.... we are here to get answers help decide if to swap or not. Lets not insult. lexysis 7:06 PM @leithaus and @ed.eykholt - Will you please start putting these questions and answers into an official FAQ? cleiton 7:07 PM joined #general lexysis 7:07 PM you will save everyone so much time and energy if you will just make this basic effort to professionalize your communication amp100 7:07 PM @007 indeed but having be here for at least 300 hours I feel fucked over once again. My words aren't nasty, Greg is nasty.... Fact imo, his words not kept as usual. And these were very IMPORTANT words to keep. (edited) 7:08 Anyway I'm out. 007 7:10 PM I understand the frustration. I have been waiting months for the swap to start. Burn ratio is not what we were promised back in January. 7:12 Well now we know.... will keep my amp's, maybe sell and get into ETH. 7:12 Rchain Good luck! 7:14 In January we were speculating on 30 mil amp being swapped. Now it looks like less than 10 mil. 7:16 So far only the CORE slack members (Greg followers) swapped. Why invest here with these burn ratio, take a risk?? Cosmos already done it. tantrum 7:31 PM how many amps swapped to date greg? (edited) 007 7:38 PM @leithaus I feel deceived now. leithaus 7:39 PM If you include the ones recently pledged, but not yet processed, just under 4M. 7:39 If you include my founder's AMPs, it's about 104M. 7:39 :slightly_smiling_face: ab 7:40 PM So u have 100m or the coop (edited) 007 7:41 PM your founders amps are locked no?? leithaus 7:41 PM Thereabouts. You can check the founders' wallets. 7:41 But mine are going to be redeemed. :slightly_smiling_face: 007 7:41 PM when redeemed? 7:42 before the end of the week? 7:42 the swap is only 10 days. 7:43 you will swap in the future outside the 10 day swap window? 7:46 The swap is only for 10 days. 7:47 when you get your founder amps, you could sell them on polo and buy Rchain on the market. leithaus 7:53 PM No. They will be redeemed. 007 7:58 PM you could redeem you founder amps now??? Before the 10 day swap period? 007 8:04 PM First I don't think that you have a special option to swap amp's at any FUTURE date! it's in 10 days or never! (edited) libertyzeal22 8:16 PM joined #general libertyzeal22 8:17 PM at what point in the redemption process should i receive a confirmation email? tantrum 8:18 PM 104 millino amps ???? :thinking_face:# 007 8:21 PM @leithaus This is a big lie! you don't have 100 mil amps. you have 25 mil. 8:21 https://blog.synereo.com/2016/09/16/synereo-burns-half-of-all-amps-in-existence/ perlis 8:21 PM if I hold them to exchanges, how do I swap them? 007 8:23 PM 100 mil amps for 4 founders!! For a math wiz your numbers are not adding up. tantrum 8:23 PM oh so the general hockey pockey stuff! its "pledged" :joy: leithaus If you include the ones recently pledged, but not yet processed, just under 4M. Posted in #generalYesterday at 7:39 PM (edited) 007 8:25 PM He also said: " If you include my founder's AMPs, it's about 104M " 8:28 Oh-boy... glad we found out all the info now before swapping! Greg is using random numbers in his calculations. tantrum 8:28 PM tantrum 8:28 PM :joy::joy::joy: leithaus 8:29 PM Sorry, i just forgot what was in the founders' wallets. 8:29 That's why i said check. :-) 8:30 But, my AMPs will be redeemed. libertyzeal22 8:30 PM Well, I just redeemed my vast fortune of 20k AMPS, lol.. leithaus 8:30 PM :-) 8:31 Yay! 8:32 i'm just glad we can help out everyone who wants to continue being a part of the platform. libertyzeal22 8:33 PM That's just it, I wanted to invest in a technology platform, not a marketing campaign. ab 8:33 PM Well, if some of u naysayers think holding amps with Dor is less of a risk, then u are simply diluding yourselves.. libertyzeal22 8:35 PM Is there anyway to confirm a successful redemption? 007 8:38 PM @leithaus are you planning to liquidate your amp founder wallet in the future? ab 8:39 PM Well @leithaus , for better or for worse I am casting my lot with Rchain, because ultimately I think it has the potential to be the first truely scalable blockchain platform. rilly 8:40 PM Was Synereo "legally bound" to produce RChain? If so, what are you doing to recover this funding? Are you even getting any of your founders AMPs from them instead? leithaus Instead only 11% of the treasury has been transferred to a company that is legally bound to develop on the platform. Posted in #generalYesterday at 6:30 PM rilly 8:50 PM Ohh well that's rather important but not really because RHOCs expire at the end of 2018. Then you can issue more Revs instead. But no one has claimed Revs will be the sole staking currency on Rchain so you can make more tokens after that. LOL Pinned by fdt leithaus As we posted back in February, we will burn the difference between what's in circulation versus what's redeemed. Posted in #generalYesterday at 6:39 PM 8:51 1.12. Promotional Credits are valid for a limited time only and expire on December 31, 2018. Failure to use Promotional Credits to receive Eligible Services before such expiration date will result in the forfeiture of Promotional Credits. We reserve the right to modify or withdraw this promotional offer or cancel Promotional Credits at any time. No refunds will be granted for any expired or cancelled Promotional Credits. 8:51 source https://redemption.rchain.coop/#!/eligibility-check 8:54 And every hoop you jump through could require more stringent identification. (You might not care but the market certainly will.) amp100 8:55 PM @tantrum when Dor said that, just now? 8:55 So Greg can't acces his AMP's and yet he says he can swap them within the swap period? I smell another lie? (edited) rilly 9:02 PM See there is this problem with defining AMPs. 9:03 Greg can just issue himself RHOCs and say he redeemed his AMPs. 9:04 Don't assume that means that he will have AMP omni assets to sell in order to fund Rchain. 9:06 Or perhaps this is part of some deal he struck with Synereo LTD that he won't help recover the crowdfunds if they give him those amp omni assets. 9:07 That is probably the best you can do but maybe since the bnktothefuture thing is in the US you could make a case there. amp100 9:07 PM @leithaus Please respond to this: how will you redeem your founders AMPs if you don't have access to them as Dor controls it and makes the rules? (edited) rilly 9:15 PM And until he sells those AMP omni assets and they get mixed with the rest there is a risk that Synereo LTD could void them and refuse to use them to issue AMPs on their blockchain (assuming thatn's not RChain, etc) 9:15 AMPs and RHOCs are IOUs for we know not what darkpill 9:41 PM WTF is the developer posting memes and calling them infographics? There is no transparency here. You guys need to get your shit together, or I'll be publicly calling this out as scam. (edited) biophil 9:50 PM joined #general biophil 10:13 PM When I sent my AMPs to the target address given to me by the redemption website, I had this crazy idea that the redemption process would be the following things: 1. Documented somewhere 2. Transparent 3. Automated 4. HonestSo far, it appears to fail miserably on points 1-3, and we're still waiting to see about point 4. I sent a small enough amount that I won't lose my house if it turns out I've been scammed. My message to whomever is in charge of this: You should be embarrassed by your lack of professionalism regarding this swap. (edited) rilly 10:30 PM The less RHOCs you claim the more they own! I guess they say they will burn some but Greg will be issuing himself RHOCs for his founder AMPs (even though Synereo may not giving them to him) so he will have a shitton and thus burning will be more profitable to him personally. 10:32 They make the redemption as unattractive as possible and hardly promote it anywhere so they will have a larger share of RHOCS. (edited) 10:33 It is just so Greg and Synereo can pacify AMP buyers so they won't pursue legal action, or so they can win a defense. dandelion 10:57 PM https://ourchain.slack.com/archives/C2Y8CJ6HW/p1491763150920950 so in regards to that, what does the founders AMPs count as? redeemed or in circulation? Pinned by fdt leithaus As we posted back in February, we will burn the difference between what's in circulation versus what's redeemed. Posted in #generalYesterday at 6:39 PM 10:57 AMP founders wallet only has 60M AMPs now http://omnichest.info/lookupadd.aspx?address=3AKjXkuBEyaXfuXVfdf1VUBAzGPR49NifM 10:58 Well there's the vested founders wallet too with 40M http://omnichest.info/lookupadd.aspx?address=1FWdJYjZzwJJd1JSGTHLABZqp9kCCRPTnk 10:58 Data taken from: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1r1G-ROS4vgHK84qfn1CBIxuXZQCCvIicCTQSxW1T_mo/edit#gid=1394495455 libertyzeal22 12:07 AM @biophil did you get a notification email of any kind? fweili 12:35 AM Hi, can someone let me know when the batches of redemption will be done? I submitted my first try over 36 hours ago and still haven't seen the RHOCS. ab 12:36 AM i think it was said either tonight or tomorrow night fweili 12:49 AM Thanks! amp100 1:38 AM @leithaus Help these guys out, seriously what are you waiting for?? 1:40 You promised for max 24 hour conversions. Again you didn't kept ur word. 1:41 Another thing, I just found another lie of yours. You said you would swap 25 million founders AMPs. This is incorrect and you know it! You can NOT thouch the founders AMPs as Dor decides when they can be moved. 1:42 So explain to me how you will get your founders AMPs into Rhocs? Will you do a secret deal later on when you finally have access to your AMPs? Please inform us if that is a possibility or if you can not do that. biophil 3:13 AM @libertyzeal22 no notification email. leithaus 5:01 AM The next batch will be run tomorrow. blo 8:13 AM I had my AMP in 2 different addresses. I ended up going through the redemption process twice and used the same email both times. I hope that doesn't cause any problems. tomtreeleaf 10:41 AM Still awaiting Rhoc. Man. This has been one painful experience from start to end. 10:42 I certainly hope we can get this redemption soon so you guys can get back to tech. tantrum 11:55 AM @amp100 dor said that a couple week ago darkpill 12:00 PM Just publish the fucking numbers regarding supply and dev allocation publicly now. 007 12:27 PM We need to be sure that any Founder AMP's will not be swapped in the future. The swap window is for 10 days only! coininterview 2:10 PM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZxnR_Dx3FE Live leithaus 2:26 PM @tomtreeleaf - we will run the next batch a little later today. Don't fret. tomtreeleaf 2:27 PM @leithaus thankyou;) peculiarity 2:38 PM joined #general peculiarity 2:42 PM hey guys cobordism 2:43 PM joined #general otomplodomo 2:45 PM Hey @peculiarity. Does the peculiarity precede or follow the singularity? peculiarity 2:46 PM precede :slightly_smiling_face: cobordism 2:48 PM trying to get amps to rhocs... first time using bitcoin again in ages... has it always been this slow?! sighh... cobordism 2:54 PM I didn't have enough btc in the amp account to pay for gas the transaction... trying to get some more btc into that account has been taking hours(!) jimscarver 2:54 PM bitcoin block time was 25mins when I redeemed... we need rchain! :smile: (edited) cobordism 2:55 PM I'll take ethereum in the interim leithaus 3:14 PM The Holding Company/Co-op agreement is here https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BySpLPycRwtNak96T1N3QzhTWGs/view?usp=sharing leithaus 3:14 PM 20170307 RHOC purchase and deferred payment agreement Executed redacted.pdf
229KB PDF from Google Drive Click to open in Google Drive mungwi 3:43 PM trying to get my private key out of my armory paper wallet... initial bitcoin core client blockchain sync is PITA, does bitcoin land have no fast sync options? libertyzeal22 4:48 PM so for receiving RHOC's is there a token contract address we need to use? 4:48 (in mist / eth wallet) pythagoras 4:51 PM Redemptionprocess with omniwallet is not working. When choosing ‘send’ it is impossible to choose the amp coin, and it’s impossible to choose the ’from adress. Tried it on several devices (macbook, iphone, windos-pc) and several browsers (IE, Safari, Chrome, FireFox), same problem everywhere. Must be an OmniWallet bug !! biophil 6:20 PM @leithaus from what I can make out from that document, the Holdings company is funding the development of Rchain by buying RHOCs at $0.05? So we exchangers are essentially buying RHOCs at $0.08-9, or for whatever our personal AMP cost basis is. Then when the exchange process ends, all RHOCs in existence have either been a. Sold to the Holdings company, b. Exchanged for AMPs, or c. Are still held by you.Is this correct? If so, what are you going to do with the remainder of the tokens in (c)? You have said something about burning them, but that appears to contradict section E.1. of the agreement you posted where it is implied that the Co-op can continue to sell RHOCs as it sees fit. mungwi 6:32 PM hah my cost basis is 0.14 biophil 6:34 PM @mungwi that's a lot better than some peoples'! libertyzeal22 7:21 PM it would be nice if there was someone here who could answer redemption questions, since it's there's only, what 8 days left? patrick727 7:23 PM @libertyzeal22 yes you need an ethereum wallet with keys that you control to recieve rhocs. myetherwallet works well. You will need to add cutom token in order to see it libertyzeal22 7:23 PM @patrick sure, I have the core wallet, but for the custom token I don't know the contract address? 7:24 @patrick727 oops, wrong patrick, see other message :smiley: patrick727 7:25 PM To see RHOC in myetherwallet.com choose add custom token, address 0x168296bb09e24a88805cb9c33356536b980d3fc5, with 8 decimal places amp100 7:44 PM @leithaus Greg keeps ignoring important questions and keeps being a liar. he said he would swap his founders AMPs (25 million) during the swap. But he fully knows that he can not swap them as he doesn't have acces to them as he need Dor to give the OK before founders AMPs can be thouched. So AGAIN Greg, what will happen with your founders AMPs in the future? Will you create a back door so you can swap outside of the swap window? What can we expect? (edited) amp100 7:52 PM All his lies and delays and the damage he did to us investors for wasting so much time will haunt him for a very long time. Greg I advise you to be more clear and keep your words. blo 7:56 PM 25 million AMP! That's a nice amount to hold. coininterview 7:56 PM its actually 100 million libertyzeal22 8:02 PM @patrick727 thanks, that's exactly what I was looking for, unfortunately my balance still shows 0 though.. patrick727 8:03 PM That's unfortunate, I know the next batch process is happening soon. libertyzeal22 8:04 PM @patrick727 thanks, been 26 hours since I submitted it approx patrick727 8:09 PM No problem, these questions of issuance are interesting. keep in mind these tokens are meant to run the RChain platform, it's not equity. Co-op and Holdings intend on running the platform. jessecouch 8:13 PM This is a meta-coin so all the coins start from a single source. I think the coop has 800 million coins. Is that what 800 million wallet is? fredmadrid 8:58 PM joined #general rilly 9:06 PM If you are wondering who @patrick727 was talking to it was me before the comments were deleted. Was the COOP consulted? Does anyone have any say or knowledge in the negotiations between Synereo LTD and Greg Meredith? Does anyone care whether Greg is issuing himself RHOCs for his founder's AMPs without actually recovering or contributing AMP omni assets to the development funds? The only way the community will have any control is by issuing your own tokens. #a-fork-of-rchain (edited) 9:08 And participating in uncensored social networks like https://www.reddit.com/ethereo/ reddit Synereo/RChain evaluations and alternatives • ethereo Synereo/RChain is the latest of the cryptocurrency to be sold before they abandoned their pre-sale commitments. With proof-of-work becoming... libertyzeal22 9:08 PM Dumb question, who is Greg exactly otomplodomo 9:19 PM He is the CEO of rchain. Chief Scientist. (edited) libertyzeal22 9:21 PM @otomplodomo okay, then so yeah, I'm going to trust that guy, there is no RHOC without him. The value of RHOC is literally in his mind and the people who help him. rilly 9:31 PM That value being quite different from the future market value. (edited) rilly 9:36 PM Although being that issuance is entirely centrally managed by someone who has a history of abandoning explicit and implicit promises and expectations, he should be a lot more informed to make a judgement of what the future market value will be as compared with those who buy and hold RHOC. 9:38 What he is promising at this point is that you will help the development of Rchain and get early access to "services" up to a certain date; perhaps the service of producing the Ethereum token. LOL 9:41 They reserve the right to void your tokens for doing such naughty things as attempting to resell them. 9:41 Did you read the contract? libertyzeal22 10:13 PM @rilly my understanding is that RHOC's are basically placeholder tokens which we will later be exchanged for the native rchain tokens (similar to ETH) rilly 10:17 PM I thought that's what most would assume from Synereo/Rchain's marketing materials. But the contract makes no such promise and JohnMalthus tells us that at least two more fundraisers are planned and Vlad Zamfir seems to imply that these two fundraisers will involve the issuance of new tokens, Rev or whatever. (edited) libertyzeal22 10:23 PM @rilly " The promotional coupon token will then be later redeemable for a to-be-created software access protocol token on the to-be-developed RChain network. "... 10:27 @rilly definitely not your typical crowdsale, but I'd rather be holding RHOC's than AMP's rilly 10:28 PM When? What happens if they haven't launched their own blockchain by the end of 2018? It says they are void. libertyzeal22 10:28 PM @rilly where does it say that? 10:29 @rilly oh i see rilly 10:30 PM "AMP vs RHOC" those are your choices? Can't you sell AMP anonymously? You can't even buy RHOC for the AMP price without agreeing to these conditions that say you can owe them RHOC for even trying to resell them! LOL (edited) 10:31 It ends today. "After the closing of the Promotional Credits Offer on April 10, 2017, all requests for Promotional Credits in return for AMPs will be refused." (edited) libertyzeal22 10:32 PM @rilly sure, but the only reason I own AMP's at all was to invest in Rchain rilly 10:33 PM 1.12. Promotional Credits are valid for a limited time only and expire on December 31, 2018. Failure to use Promotional Credits to receive Eligible Services before such expiration date will result in the forfeiture of Promotional Credits. We reserve the right to modify or withdraw this promotional offer or cancel Promotional Credits at any time. No refunds will be granted for any expired or cancelled Promotional Credits. 10:36 Greg has not been reciprocating to "investors" in the past. You can look at his kickstarter campaign for a book. A decade later they are selling the book without giving it to the crowdfunders. 10:38 The campain included no refund or time limit, just like this one. leithaus 10:41 PM The next batch of redemption requests have been processed. leithaus 10:41 PM
"ampTrgtAddr" : "19dQWWNFqBCBNvbdPAumjeHcmbBYqyQTTB" -> "rhocTrgtAddr" : "0xE9be94b552eB81228482321710e1d8A485eC360F" 23431.0535321
"ampTrgtAddr" : "1F1w2SgiRVzyvT8ZqiS4r6sg5XtorCrPxb" -> "rhocTrgtAddr" : "0x1dffdb0eebb0e80eb22af3adbeb0070a40d384ee" 1725.12313909
"ampTrgtAddr" : "1GLhh92yegXh6qc1a3arqmD1AEDUFHds6x" -> "rhocTrgtAddr" : "0x1917aE21F1269F84fa93E9200106DCf9a4e3C513" 2412.089788
"ampTrgtAddr" : "1J6gVdzZzYUTFeD4HnXfK9PemF2soBzb3x" -> "rhocTrgtAddr" : "0xAF42df07969BA5Da676be3ED94439Ab85008aabf" 4200.00
"ampTrgtAddr" : "1BRg9TxctqzG9bUu4cVSKHyxztcTp57daL" -> "rhocTrgtAddr" : "0xB259AA92C97fbaA9001BA213680034f1D5C4C777" 13242.42527602
leithaus 10:42 PM These can be checked against both blockchains. libertyzeal22 10:42 PM @leithaus cool, checking now! dc 10:42 PM Awesome. FYI I’ve submitted a request to etherscan to have the RHOC token contract recognised in their list of verified tokens rilly 10:42 PM We can make our own tokens for those who want to invest in Rchain. The problem with the way these Rchain devs think is that they will "get Rchain built faster" by tricking "investors" over and over. It isn't working. Ethereum and Cosmos are getting way more funding by making offers that are attractive to rational investors and sticking to their commitments. libertyzeal22 10:43 PM @leithaus w00t, it worked, awesome leithaus 10:44 PM If your ampTrgtAddr is not included, this is either because you did not send AMPs to the AMP target address supplied to you, or in 1 outlier case, you provided a bad ETH address. 10:44 @dc - many thanks! libertyzeal22 10:45 PM @rilly I don't think you understand how this ICO stuff works, the devs could literally wake up tomorrow and decide not to do this, or the theoretical basis of the software might just outright fail, you are looking for guarantees and there are none in this game. rilly 11:00 PM @libertyzeal22 I've done quite well predicting the future market of ETH and ATOM. Although Rchain is likely to be dominant, ethchain or credichain could be far more profitable to those who invest in ETH or CRED. libertyzeal22 11:06 PM @rilly the point i'm trying to make is that worrying about the finer points of the contract is a waste of energy, if you don't believe the team is authentic and has a chance of delivering on this project, then there is simply no reason to invest or hang around here. rilly 11:06 PM Because Greg and Co can and will dilute Rev to the point that so many people have acquired it without much effort that by the time of the announcement that a million billion Rev will be issued for the next fundraiser, the same thing will happen that has happened with AMP. Some may rather join ethchain. At least with credichain RHOC/Rev/etc would be redeemable but the rates may not be great, at that time. 11:07 Didn't Greg deliver a book? When did I say he wouldn't deliver? After a decade he wrote a book. Didn't someone say Rchain would take a decade? 11:08 I'm here because I think they are already delivering information goods. 11:08 That doesn't mean RHOC will be a better investment than ETH or CRED libertyzeal22 11:09 PM @rilly you're constanting attacking the dudes character saying he's effectively going to do a cramdown and screw everyone, so obviously you don't trust him, so i again i ask, why are you here? 11:10 @rilly actually n/m it doesn't matter. I don't care.. rilly 11:10 PM Here is what Greg just sent me "Hello! i have had complaints about your signal to noise ratio on slack. Additionally due to limits on history you are erasing important posts. i must ask you to confine yourself to more on topic commentary and become a bit more considerate of the public resource." 11:11 So what is on-topic in #general? 11:12 I'm censoring the community because Slack sucks everything up the memory hole. LOL rilly 11:20 PM @libertyzeal22 I can speak when spoken to or no? I'm here because I think Rholang and the RhoVM could be the most advanced contract language to date.
submitted by ioniza to ethereo [link] [comments]

Does Bitcoin need an iPod?

I am currently messing around with cold storage and wanting to first verify the process with a couple of test runs using small amounts of bitcoin. I am downloading the blockchain (again, sigh) on a crap laptop that I don't use anymore. Not sure I really need to do this but I feel like it lessons the chances of creating a duplicate address, which I know is something akin to winning the lottery seven times in a row. Anyway, I then take my junk laptop offline, generate an address, encrypt and then back it up a few more times on some new USB drives.
As I am sitting here trying to wrap my head around how complicated this is, I have to wonder what percentage of people, true BitCoin adopters, are actually doing this? As a believer and technophile, I understand what is happening, but what a leap of technological faith it is. Sending large amounts into the ether and hoping it lands and waits, forever in the correct spot. Will it be there when I need it? What is going to make BitCoin easier to use and still give you the same amount of true cold storage protection? Is it a software platform that I haven't seen yet? Is it Armory paper wallet which crashes constantly on my Mac?
The whole process reminded me of how I felt, back in the day, before iTunes and the iPod came out. I had iMesh or Napster or what have you, then I had boat loads of MP3 sitting on my external HD. I had a Kenwood Z919, the first car stereo to play MP3 on a CD-R. Then I really got mobile with the Diamond RIO, but it only held about 25 songs so it was a constant tug of war of reconnecting and then wiping and editing. Clunky was the norm and definitely the expectation. Now I am not going to glorify the virtues of running iTunes on, and connecting my iPod to, my PC as the perfect solution for BitCoin; however, the advent of that combination brought the masses a transformative technology and I think that is where we are at right now. Are there companies working on a true cold storage stand alone small widget box, iPod like device, one we could leave in a safe deposit box without power? One that creates wallets offline and generates un-hackable keys. I saw something from BFL, but they will never see another penny from me, so I literally will not even read the specs.
People like to hold onto something physical, or at the very least a physical space they can visualize containing their property. It probably stems from some evolutionary trait that is hard to supersede. I remember opening my first savings account with my father, I was in fourth or fifth grade. There was a massive shiny vault door towering over the tellers at my bank, so I knew my paper route money was safe inside there. I had the small booklet with my balances stamped on it, which I kept in my sock drawer between uses. Our savings is something different, it is piece of mind. With the constant feed of "bitcoins stolen" being aired 24/7 on the news (since fiat or gold are never stolen anymore) I feel like the time is ripe for an iPod/iTunes like device to appear on the scene, something that can dumb down cold storage and make it truly palatable for the regular Joe Six-pack.
TL:DR Does BitCoin need an iTunes/iPod solution to bring it to the masses? We need what happened to mp3 circa 2001-2002 to happen to BitCoin in regards to cold storage.
edit: Someone mentioned Trezor, looks legit. Has anyone used it?
submitted by ShawnLeary to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

My Interview with a Multisignature Innovator; Calvin Harsh - Frozenbit.io

Frozenbit: Multisig Security Meets Simplicity; frozenbit.io
Bitcoins biggest concern has always been whether or not major national exchanges, million dollar investment partnerships, common gambling website's or even an everyday guy's coins are truly safe? So let's ask that. Are my Bitcoins (BTC) truly 100% safe and for myself and myself only to control as I please? What if my private key is stolen do I lose all my bitcoins? Could there be a way to truly be safe, could there even be a way forcompletely anonymous people to hold coins together trustlessly? There is, and it's called multisignature (addresses).
Multisignature protocol caught my eye when gox failed. As someone who lost about every bitcoin they had in gox it intrigued me. I asked myself how so few people know about something so innovatively simple and built into bitcoins protocol. Multisig is the perfect marriage for bitcoin and security. Instead of one key, there are essentially 3 keys (or more) attributed to bitcoin address. It requires 2 of 3 private keys to-agree-to spend funds, that means you could hold all 3 for added security or have an address where you and your friends each have a key. I decided to look deeper into multisignature addresses and a name kept popping up, Calvin over at frozenbit.io.
Considering Calvin, frozenbits CEO was someone who is on the frontline of bitcoin innovation I wanted to get his input on things surrounding this mysterious new feature people are just now talking about. I asked him to go on the record talking about his service, multisig in general and what he difference really is. He agreed.
CHRIS- "So Calvin thanks for agreeing for the interview, I'm quite inspired by a few of the related emails you sent me and thanks for the time explaining the concept of multisig."
CALVIN- "We'll thanks for having me do the interview, It's been quite the journey. Seeing someone begin interest in multisig and what we're trying to do is a sign frozenbits development is justified."
CHRIS- "I wanted to start off with something other than multisig. In regards to apple, how do you take this news?"
CALVIN- "Apple is creative, solid business plan and I think this is a calculated move they've been waiting for. I don't think I'd be far off from saying it both attracts a desirable demographic 18-25 years of age back into apple. It may also play into their new tone of "we're still cool and we like cool things." Like bicoin! CHRIS- Insightful, Didn't think of that.
CHRIS- "I seen a tweet the other day from you to armory. They released their own multisig feature called lockboxes I believe. Seeing you congratulate them was an interesting move."
CALVIN- " I love armory, I personally use their wallet for cold storage. Nothing beats being in control of your own coins. This inspired me to strive to leave the customer in charge of their coins when designing frozenbits underlying protocol. So that tweet was out of genuine love for their service, and philosophy. Seeing them dive into multisig was wonderful, knowing that people are seeing advances and Armory out of all services is embracing is forthright."
CHRIS- "There is so many different services out there, what makes frozenbit so special."
CALVIN- "Lets forget about the multisignature difference for a minute, because I believe so many others are going to embrace it soon. Frozenbit is, and will always will be a company that learns from all those before it. We know people want to be in control of their coins, we know people want privacy, we know people don't want another mark managing a system where their coins could be at risk. I can assure you and any hearing about us for the first time or a long time follower that this is not the case. We have a dedicated team who works long nights, to get this to market as fast a possible. Great relations with bitcoin users, enthusiasts and even just the code behind it.
CHRIS- "Nice outlook, what about features, bonuses and such?"
CALVIN- "Frozenbit is the goodie bag of features. We pulled out all the stops to dedicate ourselves to living bitcoin. We use the same encryption techniques the military does, we store coins and wallets offline and we assign a cryptographic footprint to every account to sign their transactions when spending funds. Now our greatest feature is out strive to go mobile, very few wallets are. I can assure you this will be the easiest bitcoin platform you've ever used, simplicity, accessibility and security all in one platform. And friends, lets not forget about referring your friends and reaping rewards! We want everyone to be as protected as our users so we are PAYING out bonuses when you refer a user!"
CHRIS- "Now, there isn't that much about you out there when I was researching into your developments."
CALVIN- "Well I'm attending Stanford university, I'm pursuing a masters in computer science and an MBA in risk management. Two things that make me keen and intrigued by bitcoin as a monetary system and it's underlying code. We're based in Palo alto, CA (Come visit us sometime, the coffee is on me) and there are 3 people working with me on this. We're a 100% self funded start-up, not one investor dollar is in this company we only answer to the people who love bitcoin and those who use our service.
CHRIS- "I may take you up on the coffee. Thanks for the interview, I think that about sums up everything I wanted to personally ask you!"
CALVIN- "Hey it's no problem. Like I said earlier thanks for doing this, bitcoin holds a lot of things that truly make it unique. I'm only one of the people unlocking those features and giving them to everyone equally."
After that interview that we did on the June 1st, It struck me so many things are overlooked. Multisignature seems to be the future, and if Calvin is the one to bring it to the light so be it. He definitely is the opposite of karpeles, open, intriguing and can explain something that when I first looked at it I gave up. Funny as though frozenbit solves that dilemma in the best way, remove the technical focus on interface, beauty and serenity of the service. Frozenbit may be the answer bitcoin users have been looking for the introduce multisig to business and enthusiasts alike. After the interview he informed me if anyone had any questions you can address to his twitter @frozenbitio, and he recommends visiting the website http://frozenbit.io for updates. They'll be releasing a video further explaining features, promises and innovations they plan on keeping.
submitted by fireforce12 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Watching-Only Wallets KeepKey - Bitcoin Hardware Wallet (Proof of Delivery and Unboxing) Bitcoin Armory Setup How to Download and Verify the Armory Bitcoin Wallet BRD Wallet Tutorial

Putting it down in simple terms, the definition goes like this: bitcoin is a digital currency, existing only on internet. It can be considered as a file that is created and transferred around using computers, which are seen as bitcoin nodes. Armory currently runs as an add-on to the main Bitcoin client, but a standalone version is in the works. History The Bitcoin Armory wallet was introduced as a concept by programmer and user interface (UI) designer Alan Reiner on January 3, 2012, and—thanks to crowd funding—was released for public use later that year. Armory Vs Bitcoin News In Kantipur Bitcoin Core Ethereum The Next Bitcoin Nse Option Report Bitcoin Armory is an open-source, python-based, wallet-management wallet that contains no private-key data, but can still be used generate addressesThe tools can be improved, yes - there is always another Cryptocurrency Fork Dates New Types Of Crypto Bitcoin Ecosystem Map 1 Armory Technologies 2 Blockchain.info 3 Coinbase 4 EasyWallet 5 StrongCoin 6 Flexcoin 7 BitInstant 8 BitPay 9 BIPS 10 BitPagos 11 eCoin Cashier 14 Bitcoinary 15 Mt.Gox 16 BitStamp 17 Coinsetter 18 Kraken 19 BTC-E 20 Coinabul 21 BitBox 22 Crypto::Stocks 23 ButterflyLabs 24 Avalon 27 Robocoin Armory Bitcoin Address. Bitcoin is an innovative payment network and a new kind of money! DEFAULT 2018-03-04 04:38:26 (INFO) -- ArmoryUtilspyc:1294 - satoshiHome :.

[index] [9231] [3744] [25502] [21743] [23953] [14424] [23532] [5120] [15059] [5643]

Watching-Only Wallets

*** Supports The Channel Donate: ETHEREUM or BITCOIN *** Ethereum Address: 734dEEE5eC0621027b903185feF86aBd20876666 Bitcoin Address: 1P35XVxk3C2zFUPcDddciPsX... Bitcoin is a decentralized, peer-to-peer monetary system that exists outside of the traditional, centralized, fiat-currency based financial system. Is Bitcoin money? Good question! Armory Green Address Xapo Bitgo Bread Wallet AirBitz wallet Ledger wallet KeepKey ... should i invest in bitcoin what bitcoin what bitcoin address what bitcoin mining what bitcoin wallet is best ! Remember to subscribe and hit the bell "" icon, so you don't miss any residual income opportunities! ETHER CHAIN PRESENTATION with the Creator Mr ANDREAS KARTRUD - Decentralized ETH Smart ... How to Generate a Private Key from a Bitcoin watch only address - Duration: 11:01. ... Offline Wallet - Duration: 2:36. Armory 29,590 views. 2:36. Language: English Location: United States ...

Flag Counter