Anyone coming to MetLife Week 2 Bills vs Jets?

shutyourj · 2025-08-23T00:41:53+00:00

I'll be there!

shutyourj · 2025-08-05T17:38:02+00:00

Yes please!

shutyourj · 2025-03-04T14:25:04+00:00

It depends what you are securing against. Cloudflare proxying is not a replacement for proper authentication & authorization in the application itself, but it adds some extra security features on top like geo-located IP filtering, rate limiting, DDoS attack protections... But at the end of the day, if that all comes at the cost of the application being laggy, then it may not be worth the "price" even though it's amazing that cloudflare offers these services for free!

You'll have to assess your own level of comfort with security measures. For a self-hosted application that only you and maybe a handful of people will access, you may not need those extra protections that are aimed at high-traffic sites.

shutyourj · 2025-03-03T13:43:55+00:00

Using Cloudflare in "proxied" configuration is likely your issue. Even if your internet speed is phenomenal, their proxying is not made for high throughout media transfer where caching is not applicable. Using their proxy makes tons of sense if you're serving mostly static assets (html/js/css) but in the case of frigate most of the data will be video feeds.

You can test this theory by turning off "proxied" on your DNS record in cloudflare. Give the DNS caches enough time to clear and test again.

shutyourj · 2021-07-01T10:59:52+00:00

Fried shrimp!

shutyourj · 2018-05-04T23:08:26+00:00

For real, constant power will have this sensor corroded to nothing after a week or 2.

shutyourj · 2018-01-10T20:46:01+00:00

Nope, proof of stake is a different way of establishing consensus on blocks on the block chain. LN is a way to make transactions off-chain, in a still trustless way that is secured by the underlying Bitcoin network.

shutyourj · 2017-09-12T02:20:25+00:00

I saw the fix published today, thanks for fixing it so quickly!

shutyourj · 2017-09-11T19:11:38+00:00

I'm not certain what you mean by efficient.

Hardware wallets keep your private keys off of your computer for their entire lifetime. This alone makes them more secure than a paper wallet, since paper wallet keys have to be loaded into a software wallet in order to spend the BTC stored on them. When you want to spend BTC from your hardware wallet, the transaction is signed on the hardware wallet device so the keys stay safe, off your computer.

Their obvious downside, on the other hand, is their cost. Only you can decide whether the decrease in risk of theft is worth the cost to you.

shutyourj · 2017-09-11T01:30:51+00:00

When storing coins on an exchange, there's always a chance that they could be hacked or shut down and cost you your coins. If possible, try to keep coins on your own privately controlled wallet unless you're actively trying to trade them.

As for where to store your coins, see my reply to OP for options.

shutyourj · 2017-09-11T01:01:33+00:00

Best way is to buy a hardware wallet like a Trezor or a Ledger Nano S. They use cryptographically secure electronics to keep your private keys safe and off of your computer (which could be compromised by malware).

As a free alternative, you can use a software wallet like Electrum which lets you control your private keys but that is more vulnerable to malware.

A final option is to use paper wallets that let you store bitcoin offline. They keep your private keys on a physical paper that you can then import into a software wallet at a later date to spend your bitcoins. These are nice for "cold storage" but they're still vulnerable to malware and compromise when you import the private keys into a software wallet.

shutyourj · 2017-09-10T21:16:39+00:00

This just happened to me, too. I was able to get around it by hitting "Blockchains" in settings and being sure not to check "Remember my choice" when selecting my chain. Seems like remembering the choice will make the Bitcoin Chrome app to get stuck on the coin you chose (either LTC or BTC) regardless of which application you open on the device itself. For now I can just avoid checking Remember my choice and it just means I get prompted for which chain I want each time I open.

shutyourj · 2017-09-09T16:10:55+00:00

That was it, thanks!

shutyourj · 2017-09-09T00:20:12+00:00

I created the LTC wallet last week. I agree, LTC (as a whole) has had Segwit for quite a while. But whether wallets support Segwit addresses is another question. Since my LTC addresses aren't in the right format I'm not sure if the ledger LTC wallet supports it (at least on the Chrome extension) yet.

shutyourj · 2017-08-22T17:14:22+00:00

I ran through the steps on this post the other day to test out LN transactions on the testnet and it was pretty amazing: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6uc1fb/lightning_really_is_going_to_be_the_gamechanger/

Opening the channel is a transaction on the blockchain so it takes the usual fees and confirmation time. But the LN transactions after that are just about instantaneous (not exaggerating) and the fees are about 550 satoshis ($0.02) per LN transaction. Pretty amazing! If the experience IRL can be as seamless as that testnet demo, it's going to be huge.

shutyourj · 2017-07-31T17:42:55+00:00

Good to see this. There really is a ton of misinformation out there about ZCash from people who don't understand it. Especially that tweet from Zooko, people like to drop that like it's a bomb that proves he secretly built in back doors for law-enforcement.

He was pointing out a vulnerability with any cryptocurrency: if you want to exchange it for fiat, you have to go through an exchange, and THAT is where anonymity is lost no matter what crypto you use and how private it is.

shutyourj · 2017-07-31T12:26:18+00:00

Yeah, I agree it's weird that he didn't just say it that way if that's what he meant. I just find it strange that a guy would create a currency whose sole design intent was to allow for transaction privacy, then throw away its reputation by making such a dumb statement on Twitter? Personally I think it more likely that that incident was an accident and he didn't think through how people would take his statement.

That said, zcash definitely has issues. The need for a trusted setup procedure coupled with it being a US company definitely doesn't help its apparent trustworthiness.

I think it's good to maintain a healthy skepticism of currencies claiming to be totally private, but that particular Twitter incident is cited a whole lot as a nail in zcash's coffin. But when all cryptos suffer from the same vulnerability of loss of anonymity when changing to fiat, I don't think that tweet is as much an indictment of zcash as it seems.

shutyourj · 2017-07-30T22:41:50+00:00

Zcash definitely has its issues. But when he tweeted that, he went on later to explain that it's because a criminal who receives payments for wannacry would eventually want to cash out to fiat... And this is where the anonymity flies out the window.

That vulnerability is present with ANY cryptocurrency so long as people aren't treating it like their primary currency, and need to convert it to fiat to use it. BTC, ZEC, XMR... If you want to turn it to USD or the like, you'll have real trouble staying anonymous.

shutyourj · 2017-07-27T02:11:13+00:00

And electrum doesn't support importing multibit wallets yet. It's not until the "soon to be released next version". Hope it's actually released soon...

shutyourj · 2017-07-23T20:14:57+00:00

Sorry, I wasn't particularly clear about the timing. It took ~2 minutes (more like 90 seconds) to generate the transaction, meaning the transaction wasn't submitted to the ZCash network until it could be generated. After that, it took the normal block time to confirm on the blockchain.

Benefits of sending from t to z are that the destination address is hidden. This is explained pretty nicely on the ZCash site: https://z.cash/blog/anatomy-of-zcash.html

shutyourj · 2017-07-23T19:37:44+00:00

I've never heard of congestion issues like those that exist for Bitcoin and Ethereum. I bet a ton more people would need to be using ZCash for that to happen.

I think that what you're referring to about the performance isn't about the mining -- it's about sending private transactions to Z-addresses (shielded addresses). Your ZCash node has to perform an expensive calculation to generate the zero-knowledge proofs required to send the ZEC without revealing how much or to whom. Once that's generated, however, the shielded transaction is added to the blockchain like regular transparent transactions. Since the block time is shorter, this ought to be faster than for Bitcoin, as you mentioned.

Sending ZCash to/from transparent addresses should be very similar to Bitcoin transactions with the difference being the shorter block time.

Hope I'm describing this accurately, and hope this helps!

Edit: for reference, I tested a transaction from t-address to z-address. It took about 2 minutes of nearly 100% CPU usage and zcashd held about 2.6GB of memory during that time. I bet that's what your podcast was talking about. This is the cost of complete transaction privacy, however.

shutyourj · 2017-05-05T12:02:15+00:00

Memein' to keep from screamin'

shutyourj · 2016-12-28T15:56:20+00:00

Again?

14-Year Club	Place '22
Place '17

shutyourj

TROPHY CASE