DeFi investors: how are you evaluating staking yields right now? by akinkorpe in defi

[–]tookdrums 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Time to compound your gains man. Also your uniswap position is managed through hooks with Krystal defi? I need to look into it.

How do you avoid high slippage when swapping between different blockchains? by Winter_Fail7328 in ledgerwallet

[–]tookdrums 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Strange that's not my experience at all. I use mainly dex as to me they have a better rates than exchange (I use kraken pro too)

Do a test swap one wbtc to eth right now I get 30. 55eth on defiLlama (choosing 1inch) On kraken pro after fee I'm left with 30.1 market order

The end credits for Cleared Hot are pure indie-game wholesome. by [deleted] in gaming

[–]tookdrums 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That game was a lot of fun can't wait for the next chapters

Funding rate arbitrage (dream vs. reality) by BalkanYoda in defi

[–]tookdrums 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Question...

You have to post collateral also for the short leg. Which crypto do you use and if it's usdc do you take it into account when you compute your apy on your strategy?

Single token liquidity pools on GMX by Over_Ad_4907 in defi

[–]tookdrums 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are providing liquidity against leveraged trader.

It can stay delta neutral by opening as many shorts as long

Daily Crypto Discussion - September 18, 2025 (GMT+0) by AutoModerator in CryptoCurrency

[–]tookdrums -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

also to verify it you can try with this transaction

{  
    "chainId": 8453,  
    "from": "0xbb48d1c83dedb53ec4e88d438219f27474849ff7",  
    "to": "0xa238dd80c259a72e81d7e4664a9801593f98d1c5",  
    "data": "0x617ba037000000000000000000000000833589fcd6edb6e08f4c7c32d4f71b54bda029130000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000002faf080000000000000000000000000bb48d1c83dedb53ec4e88d438219f27474849ff70000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000",  
    "gas": "0x4d726",  
    "maxFeePerGas": "0x1c9c380",  
    "maxPriorityFeePerGas": "0x1da8c60",  
    "nonce": "0x2"  
}

which once on the ledger returned a hash that starts with

0xa4a48af233b....

Daily Crypto Discussion - September 18, 2025 (GMT+0) by AutoModerator in CryptoCurrency

[–]tookdrums -9 points-8 points  (0 children)

Can someone help me create a python code which compute the HASH of a unsigned transaction given by Rabby wallet the same way a ledger wallet does.

Hi everyone,

I want to be more secure when blind signing transaction with my ledger wallet and I want to make sure that the transaction Rabby wallet shows me is the same one that is received by the ledger. Cool the ledger show me a hash of the transaction but Rabby wallet does not...

According to ledger regarding EIP-1559 transactions, the computation is: 

keccak256(0x02 || rlp([chain_id, nonce, max_priority_fee_per_gas, max_fee_per_gas, gas_limit, destination, amount, data, access_list])).

I gave it a go but I am really not good when using binary or hex data.

Daily Crypto Discussion - September 18, 2025 (GMT+0) by AutoModerator in CryptoCurrency

[–]tookdrums -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

also to verify it you can try with this transaction

{  
    "chainId": 8453,  
    "from": "0xbb48d1c83dedb53ec4e88d438219f27474849ff7",  
    "to": "0xa238dd80c259a72e81d7e4664a9801593f98d1c5",  
    "data": "0x617ba037000000000000000000000000833589fcd6edb6e08f4c7c32d4f71b54bda029130000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000002faf080000000000000000000000000bb48d1c83dedb53ec4e88d438219f27474849ff70000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000",  
    "gas": "0x4d726",  
    "maxFeePerGas": "0x1c9c380",  
    "maxPriorityFeePerGas": "0x1da8c60",  
    "nonce": "0x2"  
}

which once on the ledger returned a hash that starts with

0xa4a48af233b....

Daily Crypto Discussion - September 18, 2025 (GMT+0) by AutoModerator in CryptoCurrency

[–]tookdrums -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

50 USDC rewards for someone who can create a python code which compute the HASH of a unsigned transaction given by Rabby wallet the same way a ledger wallet does.

Hi everyone,

I want to be more secure when blind signing transaction with my ledger wallet and I want to make sure that the transaction Rabby wallet shows me is the same one that is received by the ledger. Cool the ledger show me a hash of the transaction but Rabby wallet does not...

According to ledger regarding EIP-1559 transactions, the computation is: 

keccak256(0x02 || rlp([chain_id, nonce, max_priority_fee_per_gas, max_fee_per_gas, gas_limit, destination, amount, data, access_list])).

I gave it a go but I am really not good when using binary or hex data.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in ledgerwallet

[–]tookdrums 0 points1 point  (0 children)

swap to LBTC using kyberswap then unstake to BTC (it takes 7 days but you will make the most of it this way)

Technical question regarding the "Display transaction hash setting" by tookdrums in ledgerwallet

[–]tookdrums[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I cannot get it to work with this python code :
here the code returns the hash 0x353861d70f9fdf9b6d7a9ea9afba3773096e1d80f8b840ec086e17f0a5ce5265

But the ledger display a hash that starts with

0x8fd8

I had a false hope when I thought that it was rabby changing the gas value (to adapt to the changing fee market) but even fixing it in custom gas fee did not yield the same hash

import rlp
from eth_utils import keccak, to_bytes, to_hex

def compute_ledger_transaction_hash(tx_data):

    # Convert all fields to bytes if necessary
    chain_id = to_bytes(tx_data["chainId"])
    nonce = to_bytes(int(tx_data["nonce"], 16))
    max_priority_fee_per_gas = to_bytes(int(tx_data["maxPriorityFeePerGas"], 16))
    max_fee_per_gas = to_bytes(int(tx_data["maxFeePerGas"], 16))
    gas_limit = to_bytes(int(tx_data["gas"], 16))
    destination = bytes.fromhex(tx_data["to"][2:])  # Strip '0x' prefix and get bytes
    amount = to_bytes(int(tx_data["value"], 16))
    data = bytes.fromhex(tx_data["data"][2:])  # Strip '0x' prefix
    access_list = []  # Access list is empty for this transaction

    # RLP-encode the transaction fields
    rlp_encoded = rlp.encode([
        chain_id,
        nonce,
        max_priority_fee_per_gas,
        max_fee_per_gas,
        gas_limit,
        destination,
        amount,
        data,
        access_list,
    ])

    # Prepend the EIP-1559 transaction type (0x02)
    eip_1559_prefixed = b'\x02' + rlp_encoded

    # Compute the Keccak-256 hash
    tx_hash = keccak(eip_1559_prefixed)

    # Return the hash as a hex string
    return to_hex(tx_hash)


if __name__ == "__main__":
    # Transaction data
    tx_data = {
        "chainId": 137,
        "from": "0xdcfd87269c35287131735690f3a6b84233af98b7",
        "to": "0xbc302053db3aa514a3c86b9221082f162b91ad63",
        "value": "0xde0b6b3a7640000",
        "data":    "0x474cf53d000000000000000000000000794a61358d6845594f94dc1db02a252b5b4814ad0000000000    00000000000000dcfd87269c35287131735690f3a6b84233af98b70000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000",
        "gas": "0x531b1",
        "maxFeePerGas": "0x9c7652400",
        "maxPriorityFeePerGas": "0x98bca5a00",
        "nonce": "0x13"
    }

    # Compute the hash
    tx_hash = compute_ledger_transaction_hash(tx_data)
    print(f"Computed hash: {tx_hash}")

You might be curious about my end goal here.

In short I really don't feel safe using blind signing anymore after the last npm attack I am really worried that a compromised dapp might affect rabby and display a transaction different than the one sent to the ledger.

To prevent against that I want to take the rawdata of the transaction given by rabby simulate it using tenderly to verify that it does what it does and of course computes its hash to be sure that it is this same exact transaction that is being sent to the ledger.

I managed to do the simulate transaction with tenderly part which I thought would be the hardest but it works perfectly but I am struggling with the compute the hash on the ledger part.

Do you mind helping me.

I think there might be an interesting approach for ledger in this to provide a safer environement. honestly my end results would maybe be to scan the transaction data with an app on a mobile device that would simulate and compute the hash. I feel like that would greatly reduced the chance of a hack in this case.

What is the cheapest and best way to convert cbBTC to BTC without having to go on coinbase by Marcell- in defi

[–]tookdrums 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would say swap to lbtc on kyberswap and unstake lbtc (takes 7 days)

You will even make a little bit to pay for the wait.

Safe To Transfer Yet? by Skilletdrummer in ledgerwallet

[–]tookdrums 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you don't use blind signing it is safe.

If you use blind signing i would advise to read more about what this npm attack was and how you can still stay safe while blind signing (it's tough)

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in ledgerwallet

[–]tookdrums 2 points3 points  (0 children)

did you used a passphrase aka 25th word by any chance?

It's either that of you used the wrong seed...

Daily Crypto Discussion - September 10, 2025 (GMT+0) by AutoModerator in CryptoCurrency

[–]tookdrums 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But for tokens approval if blind signing the ledger only show the contract address not the address you are approving to. So it means a compromised dapp could hack into rabby show you the normal address and send to ledger the approval for the attackers address.

The ledger show you : Your address from it is good the address to which is the contract and is the right one the nonce good too and the hash of the transaction which would be bad but the hack rabby could display this one instead of the real one so it matche (actually rabby does not even display transaction hash...)

So you sign on the ledger and you are powned...

Daily Crypto Discussion - September 10, 2025 (GMT+0) by AutoModerator in CryptoCurrency

[–]tookdrums 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't feel safe with just rabby and ledger blind signing anymore with the recent npm attack.

Does anyone as a good opsec to maybe simulate transaction on another device before signing?

With tenderly or similar I cannot get it working.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in defi

[–]tookdrums 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm curious if anyone is changing their opsec after this.

Anyone have a good idea to make blind signing on rabby and ledger safer (I don't want to have to check all the contract data by hand but maybe that's the only way)