Posts

Tangem Wallet Pack of 2 - Secure Crypto Wallet - Trusted Cold Storage for Bitcoin, Ethereum, NFT's &

Tangem Wallet Pack of 2 - Secure Crypto Wallet - Trusted Cold Storage for Bitcoin, Ethereum, NFT's &
Key item features Ultimate Security: Generates a private key that remains on the card, safeguarding crypto and NFTs from hackers with EAL6+ certification and audited firmware. Versatile Compatibility: Manages over 13,000 tokens across 70+ blockchains, supporting DeFi, NFTs, and DeEx without wires, Bluetooth, or USB. Effortless Operation: Utilizes NFC for secure transactions via a mobile device and the Tangem app, enabling buying and selling crypto with various payment methods. Smart Backup: Features a second Tangem Wallet as a backup, eliminating the need for paper, pictures, or seed phrases for recovery. Durable Design: Boasts IP68 protection against environmental conditions, ensuring longevity and robust physical security. Comprehensive Support: Compatible with Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, XRP, USDT, and over 6,000 cryptocurrencies, integrating with dApps and WalletConnect.

How to Sign a Musig with Bitcoin Core

Today I was back at trying to sign a transaction spending a musig UTXO in Bitcoin Core. Last time around, Pieter W. gave me two pieces of advice. Use PSBTs, as they're more likely to work on modern stuff like Musig than raw transactions. He asked how I was generating my private/public keys, which made me realize I'd probably calculated my pubkey incorrectly. So today I took a new swing, using the same methodology I use for signing regular multisigs in Bitcoin Core, but now I can't get the PSBT to process correctly. I. Capturing the Individual Keys I used the simplest method possible to generate a musig address: grab addresses from two different wallets and capture their pubkeys. (The private keys should then be sitting in those wallets.) Here's the address & pubkey capture: musigaddress1=$(bitcoin-cli -rpcwallet=musig1 getnewaddress) musigaddress2=$(bitcoin-cli -rpcwallet=musig2 getnewaddress) musigpubkey1=$(bitcoin-cli -rpcwallet=musig1 -name...
Read more

LBANK

LBANK

building a dapp for btc need the 66 hex characters usdt group key (taproot)

hello i am building lightphon.com a dapp where you can buy and sell compute power. What i really need is a place where you can get the 66 hex characters usdt group key (taproot assets) from Recent Questions - Bitcoin Stack Exchange https://ift.tt/kJWBOhE via IFTTT
Read more

What changed in Bitcoin P2P protocol version 70017 compared to 70016?

I recently installed Bitcoin Core 32.0rc2 on one of my nodes and noticed that the reported P2P protocol version changed from 70016 to 70017. I remember 70016 being used for quite a long time, so I was curious what exactly triggered the protocol version bump. What changed in protocol version 70017 compared to 70016? Also, how does a 70017 node behave when connected to a peer that only supports 70016? from Recent Questions - Bitcoin Stack Exchange https://ift.tt/Pz5vkwX via IFTTT
Read more

Why does Bitcoin use both a transaction ID and a witness transaction ID?

While learning Bitcoin transactions and SegWit, I came across the distinction between the traditional transaction ID (txid) and the witness transaction ID (wtxid). I understand that the txid is the double-SHA256 hash of the serialized transaction excluding the witness data. andd wtxid commits to the transaction including the witness data. SegWit introdduced wtxid partly to solve transaction malleability issues. What I am having trouble understanding is why Bitcoin needs both identifiers instead of simply replacing txid with a hash that always commits to the witness data. For example, suppose a SegWit transaction has the same inputs and outputs but different witness data. The txid remains unchanged while the wtxid changes. I would like to understand the design consequences of this distinction... What specifically would break if Bitcoin used only wtxid everywhere? Why do transaction inputs continue to refer to previous outputs using txid:vout rather than wtxid:vout? How doe...
Read more

Hey 1illicit wallet forsale

im new im just trying to see where and who can help me with this I have around 200k in a wallet. The wallet is !llicit And i am scared to do anything with it So i was thinking of selling it for a similar price range. I only have telegram and i also do not know any other app for contact, i used a random login for this site just to see if anyone can help me with this or what i can do my telegram is Albertsonjohn from Recent Questions - Bitcoin Stack Exchange https://ift.tt/peIKRGc via IFTTT
Read more

Bitcoin Core IBD becomes extremely slow after ~68%; peers connect but stop delivering blocks

I'm currently doing the Initial Block Download (IBD) of a Bitcoin Core node. For most of the synchronization, everything behaved as expected. The node was using the resources I made available to it: CPU usage was high during validation, RAM usage increased according to the configured cache, network bandwidth was being used, and the synchronization rate varied roughly between 2% and 5% per hour , with a peak around 5%/h. I then left the node running for about a week while I was away. When I came back, it was around 68–69% synchronized , but the effective synchronization rate had fallen to approximately 0.03% per hour . This had apparently happened several days before I returned. Before leaving, the node was around 20%, so even a sustained 1%/h rate should have put it much further ahead after several days. There was also an unexpected power outage while I was away, which caused the node to shut down abruptly. However, I don't see any indication that the outage ...
Read more

Multisig wallet with Bitcoin Core and hardware wallets

Imagine a multisig wallet with cosigners comprising say 2 (software) Bitcoin Core wallets, and 3 hardware signing devices, in a m-of-5 multisig setup. Do experienced bitcoiners foresee a problem with this setup? Specifically, the wsh(sortedmulti(..)) descriptor will mix address paths - Core's m/84'/0'/0'/0/* xpub with hardware wallets' m/48'/0'/0'/2' BIP-48 derivation paths. I understand that coordination software won't care about different paths to derive receive address, but could there be other issues, long-term? I do understand we can simplify things with just m/84 or m/48 paths within the multisig, but question is about mixing paths. Thanks for helping. from Recent Questions - Bitcoin Stack Exchange https://ift.tt/up4BRzM via IFTTT
Read more