imagine having the ability to hack every important twitter account and you use it to only make 120k~

white hat service funded by idiots

doktoro: more like ~$250K

doktoro, and not even do anything provocative, just derail their feed to advertise your ponzi. might as well break into someone'

might as well break into someone's house just to take a poo

you're assuming that the "double your crypto" scam was the real purpose of the hack

could be a diversion, or part of a wider plan

the best part is news outlets claiming the btc was stolen. yet they gave it away.

you have to question the rhetoric of a society where finite assets are "insurable" by infinite fiat, yet btc that was given away was "stolen"

amazing that people fall for this kind of shit. I remember back when I played runescape as a child and saw someone saying they were doubling money and I knew immediately it was a scam.

doktoro: i remember first seeing "double your bitcoin" tor hidden service scams in like 2011 lmao, they all had urls like 22222xxxx.onion lol

yes yes aha aha you see you see?

so, its made so that the miners can effectively mandate the emission curve in some far distant future

say, 40 years. So, for example, lets just say in 40 years we increase the block reward from 0.6 xmr to, i dunno, 6 xmr, for a period of one year

in the interum, you have people positioning themselves for this .... event. Mining infrastructure, economies....

its different than an airdrop because its effectively a planned era of increased money supply

not necessarily to holders of the tokens or whatever

because it would really only benefit the miners, and those who mine

so obviously miners are going to vote for more mining rewards. but could they hold the line for 40 years?

i guess that makes sense. make them give it away -> make them buy it back

but why does the scam have to be run by miners and not some 15 year old?

if the vote mechanism is something absurd like median of the last 80 years worth of blocks

wat?

Hi all :-) Is this method still an acceptable way of spending from a cold wallet with the latest version?: monero.stackexchange.com/questions/…-cold-transaction-signing/5655#5655

I keep getting this message: 2020-07-16 05:25:41.026 W There were 22 blocks in the last 90 minutes, there might be large hash rate changes, or we might be partitioned, cut off from the Monero network or under attack, or your computer's time is off. Or it could be just sheer bad luck.

but my block height matches moneroblocks.info, should I ignore the message?

yes you can ignore

I have the same and it's not unusual

niocbrrrrrr: thanks :-) Do you know the answer to my previous question as well?

no

niocbrrrrrr: K, thanks anyway :-)

tryphe: imagine i stand in front of a hotel, and you drive up in your nice car, and i pretend to be the valet, and you give me your keys

and i drive off in your car and you never see me again

did i steal your car?

i agree that the people who lost their BTC are incredibly stupid

but i still think it's theft

there is some kind of contract implied here: give your BTC, and get 2x back. if the person offering the contract in fact intends to just take the BTC and run (which i agree should be obvious any time someone offers you such a deal), then that is theft

if it sounds to good to be true.......................

"contract"

jbg: I agree

moneromooo: Is this method still an acceptable way of spending from a cold wallet with the latest version?: monero.stackexchange.com/questions/…-cold-transaction-signing/5655#5655

If I choose to run a node behind a reverse proxy do I need to broadcast a different port so that other nodes can connect to mine?

Steven_M: reading quickly, yes. Why do you think it might not ?

moneromooo: sorry for my late reply. just making sure because software and best practices change over time, and articles (like the one I linked) get outdated.

moneromooo: Follow-up question: Once a key_images file from a cold wallet is imported into a view-only wallet, is the view-only wallet turned into a full hot wallet?

No.

moneromooo: okay thanks. :-)

Wait.

I got confused. Yes. I interpreted that as "is the view-only wallet turned into a full cold wallet", since the opposite made no sense as it already is a hot wallet.

moneromooo: Oh, that leads me to another question, but I'll have to ask it tomorrow.

But private keys capable of spending XMR can't be extracted from key image I = x*Hash(x*G)

right?

Goodnight :-)

I believe that's what he was asking

Adreik: in essence yes, I was asking that

Goodnight :-)

Well, we have no idea how to extract it in a reasonable time-frame with computers and algorithms as they exist today, anyway

Key images are one way. Otherwise it'd be completely broken, miners could steal your money.

I meant that as "In principle, given *arbitrarily powerful* computing resources, one could make a brute force attempt on the key image, or use quantum computers to solve for it".

But such a thing is out of scope

If you have arbitrarily powerful computing resources, you can determine which set of input secrets and public data yield a given key image...

It's not that it's impossible to extract the private key from the key image for an output (as I had said earlier, stating that it *can't be* extracted from the key image), it's that doing so will take as much effort as extracting finding private keys from the address and is considered impossible for practical purposes

Ah, pedantry, fair enough. You're right :)

Well, if we're being pedantic, I shuldn't say you're right. I should say I think you're mostly right.

On a somewhat related note to what data is safe to hand around, I am very certain (but feel it's best to check) that tx_key for proving spending is r in R=rG, the "transaction private key", *NOT* the "one-time private key" for the transaction, x=Hash(aR)+b? i.e. if you give an auditor your private view key and address, your output export file and

so on, and give them get_spend_proof data they can't calculate the spendkey?

Ah, not get_spend_proof, I mean get_tx_key

It is r.

How come if you enter "get_tx_key [transaction id of transaction you recieved]" into a watch-only wallet it can't be generated them?

*then?

Because they are randomly generated, not determinisic.

Right, makes sense I misread something in the whitepaper

Anyone use bitrefill? Is it legit?

bigslim[m]: i got some steam gift cards there a few years ago, no problems

Wondering if anyone use them more recently. Iirc I used Paxful for some Best Buy cards last fall no issues

Anyone know any active IRC channels that are interesting that may attract people with an interest in Monero? Relatively new to IRC.

#monero-research-lab, #monero-pow

#monero-dev

FSVO active/interesting :)

#monero-community

Yeah, I'm already in most of the monero channels. Was hoping for channels that werent specifically monero related :)

Well, ##not-monero-pools is pretty awesome

oh my. do i dare go in there

do you guys know if I need to publish my node's port if I'm serving it behind a reverse proxy? will other nodes be able to peer without issue?

Does connecting to the port monerod binds on from the outside connect to monerod ?

no

node.suchwow.xyz:443 (traefik) -> localhost:34568 (wownerod)

only allowing 80 and 443 inbound

Then no.

Er.

Then yes.

yes, I will need to specify the ports which my node can be reached?

this is how I'm running it now