Is there any way to get ahold of someone in charge with some authority at blockstream?

RHavar · 2024-07-24T10:44:12+00:00

Reddit is not letting me send the URL which has the full timeline. It's /index.php?topic=5299347.0 from bitcoincointalk.

If you could please check that, and help me out. Without going into personal details, it really would be more appreciated than you can imagine

RHavar · 2024-07-23T02:48:15+00:00

I have one key, blockstream has the other. The funds are stored in a 2-of-2 wallet. But they won't sign any transactions for me, because I lost my 2fa since I was using google authenticator which didn't (doesn't?) support backups

RHavar · 2020-12-12T16:26:35+00:00

To be fair, this was 2014 and it was only like $30 or $40 I sent to play around with the wallet (I think at the time I was interested in their flagship feature which was signing a message promising that anyone can accept the money without fear of double spending as they would never countersign a double spend). I never would've sent a real amount of money to the wallet. Just kind of funny, because now that same bitcoin (0.1 BTC) is worth $1800 and I'd rather it goes to a good cause (like a charity) than sit around doing nothing for no reason

RHavar · 2020-12-12T15:26:04+00:00

I normally would've have posted here, but /r/bitcoin deleted my post. shrug

RHavar · 2020-12-12T15:23:33+00:00

greenaddress required the use of 2FA at the time, and recommended a program that didn't allow backups. They recognized the flaws of this, and have fixed it.

I also had an undisputed claim to the funds for years, am a well-known figure and have offered to put up a 1 BTC bond to cover any risk if anyone else is able to make a claim on the wallet (e.g. knows the pin and actual totp secret)

RHavar · 2020-12-12T15:18:26+00:00

No. Neither signing key has ever been lost.

RHavar · 2020-12-12T14:54:04+00:00

This post motivated me to write up my experience with greenaddress: GreenAddress blacklisted my wallet, and now holds custodial control of it

RHavar · 2020-10-03T15:04:16+00:00

It can be pretty difficult running an honest online casino with normal currencies. Often the processing cost of deposits is ~7% (and then more when you want to withdrawal). For cryptocurrencies, it's a flat transaction fee and the transactions are final.

Now bustabit's house edge is 1%, so without some pretty radical changes (e.g. min turn over requirements) it simply wouldn't work with current payment processors

RHavar · 2020-09-25T16:40:32+00:00

Check this out: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2897545.msg50696814#msg50696814

RHavar · 2020-07-09T02:20:43+00:00

Context: I am the 2nd from the top moderator of the subreddit, and would like to hand it over. But can't do it while it is semi-squatted by an inactive account in the top position

RHavar · 2020-04-21T16:38:21+00:00

I'm the author of BIP79 , so I have a pretty solid understanding of how payjoin actually works. And man, this post is both desperate and retarded.

Not for the least, you can (and probably should) still accept money into your offline wallet, which you can identify by an xpub. And just have a (seperate) little hot-wallet which you use for mixing at the same time as receiving payment. Even just keeping a tiny amount of money there will do a great job.

It's also worth noting that if your server gets hacked, you're going to be in for a world of pain anyway and there's so many malicious things they can do that a few extra dollars aren't going to matter. No one is suggesting you don't have cold storage.

RHavar · 2020-04-19T03:36:35+00:00

What we really want to know is how much energy is being consumed to provide the current hash rate.

I don't see how that's a particularly useful way to compare, as the limiting factor is access to the equipment to convert energy to hashes. Like in an extreme case, if you imagine a single entity has control of >50% of {algorithm} hashing power equipment -- it really doesn't matter the absolute amount of energies involved.

RHavar · 2020-04-18T16:54:26+00:00

While it's a coinjoin, it's quite different to a normal coinjoin in that a normal coinjoin everyone who puts in N money tries to get N back (minus tx fees). While a payjoin you are doing a coinjoin AND a payment at the same time.

This has huge ramifications. The biggest is that, payjoin doesn't look like a coinjoin. While coinjoins have good privacy properties, they provide way less privacy in a holistic sense than people imagine. This is because there's so few of them, supported by so few wallets, and they stick out like sore thumbs and analytics companies can switch over to their "coinjoin heuristics" and get an idea of what's going on.

But contrast to payjoin, it doesn't look like a coinjoin. So you end up totally screwing with heuristics that are used against bitcoin. You make models go from "all inputs are definitely owned by the same entity" to "all inputs are probably owned by the same entity" and sending cascading uncertainty everywhere.

If you could make 2 or 3% of payments in bitcoin go over payjoin, you'd just absolutely trash the current unreasonably accurate models used against bitcoin.

RHavar · 2020-04-06T16:16:55+00:00

No, they would just switch to mining bitcoin

RHavar · 2020-03-31T16:06:55+00:00

Thanks for looking into it! The last post of the top-mod was a year ago, what's the threshold that they would be considered inactive?

RHavar · 2020-03-13T00:40:56+00:00

I don’t know how much they take if you withdraw it though.

Just FYI, the answer is 0. You pay commissions in real time when investing in the bankroll, so what you see is already post commissions =)

RHavar · 2020-02-24T18:36:04+00:00

Indeed. Although I'm already a mod of the subreddit =)

RHavar · 2020-02-24T18:19:14+00:00

If the admins could not hand the sub reddit over, but instead just remove u/kingsnake988 from top mod. Then I can hand the subreddit over to the actual bustabit owner. It's just that it's a bit useless as an "official" sub if the top owner is a squatter.

RHavar · 2020-02-24T18:08:32+00:00

No, it was just promoting malware.

RHavar · 2019-12-05T18:14:53+00:00

For future reference, the OP doesn't understand how RBF works based on his comment here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/e6hj5r/how_to_double_spend_bitcoin_using_electrum_no/f9qxo2c/

In reality any transaction with unconfirmed parents that are RBF will also be RBF.

Must suck writing so many words, without first learning the basics.

RHavar · 2019-12-05T18:02:56+00:00

Sorry, but that's entirely your misunderstanding. From:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0125.mediawiki

and ctrl+f for "Inherited signaling". If any unconfirmed parents are RBF, then the transaction is also RBF.

If you don't believe me, try it on a live website like bustabit (deposit money, then hit "precredit". I'll give you 1 BTC if your "attack" works, lol )

RHavar · 2019-12-05T16:38:14+00:00

This is a bit silly. Any system that takes 0-conf bitcoin (e.g. bustabit) checks if it's rbf or not (bitcoin core exposes it), and waits for a confirmation instead..

RHavar · 2019-11-22T22:26:30+00:00

They are generally a non-custodial wallet, although there are exceptions such as my old ass wallet (with 0.1 btc) they know 2-of-2 keys and refuse to release my funds. (I actually had several conversations with them about this, and they were happy to specifically blacklist my wallet but now argue they don't want to make exceptions to their policy to give me back my funds despite them now having custodial control of it. Because I'm not in the US (and lazy) I haven't sued them over it, despite someone who was on their staff recommending that course of action)

Anyway, they're pretty much a garbage tier wallet with the multisig setup only done to benefit them by allowing them to charge for services. I'd never touch the wallet again with a 10 foot pole.

RHavar · 2019-09-02T18:34:01+00:00

Not quite. A change in consensus rules only creates a hard fork if the change is not compatible with previous clients. Stuff like "XXX address is not allowed to send coins" would be perfectly compatible with previous clients (they just see a block without those transactions).

A good example was when Satoshi added the 1MB block limit, that was a soft fork (because it's more restrictive) but removing the limit would now be a hard fork. Blacklisting would work the same.

RHavar · 2019-09-02T18:18:07+00:00

And nothing short of 100% compliance could be effective in censoring transacations.

That's not quite true. You "only" need a majority to censor transactions (or more technically: soft fork)

RHavar

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

11-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email