| submitted by /u/Stu_P
At the moment digital currencies like Bitcoin operate in a gray space in the country and there have been some controversies lately on the legality of …
Google Alert – bitcoin
Normally, giving out a phrase to recreate your wallet is a bad idea.
If I have a multisig wallet – lets say 2 of 3 – and don’t want to participate as a signer anymore, I think I can give the phrase to recreate my wallet to someone else.
Even if we would both be in possession of that phrase – assuming there is no way to trustlessly do this – it seems that moving funds would still require the other signers in the p2SH script.
The only possible downside is if I retained access to the wallet and rejected signing transactions, that the new owner of my key would have accepted.
What are your thoughts? Am I missing something
I consider running a bitcoin full node on a raspberry Pi 3. I want to attach the raspberry Pi into my home-network (wifi). When I check my IP address I have a public address to the outside (which is changing from time to time, however is only one of 5 different addresses) and via NAT given by my ISP. I don’t know what is between “my” public IP and my homenetwork in detail.
As I understand it correctly a bitcoin node does only good to the overall network iff it can accept inbound connections, therefore my raspberry pi must be publicly available (behind all this NAT whatever). If I run a bitcoin node I would like to use it at least by myself as a trusted node inside my mobile bitcoin wallet…
In the end I see two ways to do that:
- Resolve NAT issues with one of the following techniques: Upnp, TURN, NAT hole punching, STUN, ICE, IGDP, NAT-PMP, PCP, ALG, wathever else there, I don’t know…
- Or running a hidden service.
So my question:
- Is it good/bad/ok to “only” allow inbound connections as a tor hidden service?
- Is there an easy way to get a bitcoin node with “traditional” means available as a public node inside a home network?