So my counter question is, why is it not possible to upgrade the current version of Satoshi through its development?
What exactly do you mean by "upgrade the current version of Satoshi"? If you refer to split Bitcoin on smaller fraction, it's possible on technical level. But IIRC it require hard fork and changes of various software which used to manage Bitcoin, which makes it's hard to achieve. Yeah I wanted to ask on technical level only. So whatever upgrades are done they are basically soft forks. Does it mean we end up creating other coin like those BCH, WBTC and coins like that? Such upgrade could be either hard fork or soft fork (as stated by @pooya87). But both hard-fork and soft-fork doesn't create other/new coin. Coin such as BCH only created because some people want to split themselves from Bitcoin. Meanwhile WBTC is pegged token, where you need to trust the issuer. If you refer to split Bitcoin on smaller fraction, it's possible on technical level. But IIRC it require hard fork and changes of various software which used to manage Bitcoin, which makes it's hard to achieve.
Let's just say such a change is much better implemented through a hard fork than a soft fork but it is not impossible. We should technically be able to come up with a very messy way to implement it and still remain backward compatible (ie. through a soft fork without needing others to upgrade). It requires adding a new field (and stripping it for old nodes like SegWit did) that holds the fractions but it should keep them there even when they overflow. I hope it won't happen. Various backward compatible upgrade (especially major ones such as SegWit) already make maintaining Bitcoin software/library difficult. Lets say we have a UTXO worth 2 satoshis to break into two new UTXOs worth 1.8 and 0.2.
- UTXO_1 would have two amount fields, the old one holding the 1 satoshi and the new one holding the 0.8.
- UTXO_2 would have two amount fields, the old one holding the 0 satoshi and the new one holding the 0.2.
When spending UTXO 1 and 2 the new UTXO would have two amount fields, the old one holding the 1 satoshi and the new one holding the 1.0 satoshi.
This way the old nodes see the amount field is not overflowing (1+0<=1) while the new nodes seeing both fields can see the fractions and verify that it also is not overflowing ([1+0=1] + [0.8+0.2=1] <= [1+1]).
At a glance it might work, but i expect it could break some software which used to accept or manage one's Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
--snip--
This is mind blowing fact about the Bitcoin/Satoshi. I can not imagine the fact that we can’t spend anything less than a dollar if price really goes to that extend. Though we have workaround like you suggested, using LN but I’m not sure how everyone will react about this fact in the future. But in the future inflation would make more goods cost more than $1, so it's not as concerning as you though. And people who often make send/receive very small amount of Bitcoin would enjoy benefit of LN. So my counter question is, why is it not possible to upgrade the current version of Satoshi through its development?
What exactly do you mean by "upgrade the current version of Satoshi"? If you refer to split Bitcoin on smaller fraction, it's possible on technical level. But IIRC it require hard fork and changes of various software which used to manage Bitcoin, which makes it's hard to achieve. Is it a closed coding which can not be touched any further and thus making it difficult to rewrite entirely?
No. Both Bitcoin protocol and many full node software are open source. This also makes me think, was there any specific reason as to why Satoshi divide bitcoin to currently available digits on the right hand side of decimal? I’m sure there is answer for this, it’s just I don’t know this I guess.
There are so many theory and speculation about it. Although i've seen some people use this Satoshi post as reference of their theory/speculation, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583.msg11405. |
|
|
|
bitcoin is the most decentralized cryptocurrency that exists and there are thousands of full nodes running 24/7
Is there any information to back this? Are full node operators actually in their thousands? I have always has the fear that the number of people running full node is reducing drastically. Here are link to up-to-date number, https://bitnodes.io/https://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/software.htmlAlthough it's true the number is far lower from decade ago. |
|
|
|
--snip--
But such transactions with zero satoshis OTXOs will be rejected by network, as, to my best knowledge, to prevent the blockchain from bloating with unnecessary data and from spam attacks Bitcoin network enforces all UTXOs included into transaction to have at least minimum value, something around 550 sats, if my memory serves me right. So, zero satoshis OTXOs are not real in practice and what is not practically real is mumbo jumbo in its essence, sorry. To be precise, it's consider as non-standard transaction which means most node wouldn't rely such transaction. Although miner could include such transaction if they wish to do so. |
|
|
|
A more accurate statement is that Bitcoin doesn't have smart contracts that let you create tokens including NFTs.
And what about Ordinals, BRC-20 and the latest BRC-69? It appears that these protocols enable the creation of both fungible tokens, such as BRC-20, and non-fungible tokens, such as Ordinals and BRC-69. These tokens exhibit similar functionality to those ones that smart contracts runing on Ethereum/EVM networks. Or, did you mean the original Bitcoin protocol? Those aren't part of Bitcoin protocol. Bug on software to manage those NFT (Ordinals, BRC-20, etc.) could lead to losses easier (e.g. entering invalid JSON). Bitcoin node and miner still treat those as valid transaction. |
|
|
|
Maybe the best option I found until now is using the Bitcoin Dev Kit (BDK) for a very simple wallet implementation, which also supports Neutrino and thus BIP 157/158. I just remember there are another implementation of BIP 157 such as bcoin[1] (not sure whether you can just use it's wallet feature without run full node), neutrino (Go library)[2]. Zap desktop version also support BIP 157[3]. But it's SPV LN wallet where it's on-chain feature is very limited. 2. Electrum currently lack of developer/contributor, which makes Taproot support still on works.
Electrum wallet software supports Taproot but not fully support it. Bech32 adoption--snip-- Thank you for additional information, although what i said isn't exactly wrong since i said "still on works". And that's why i doubt Electrum will support BIP 157 anytime soon. [1] https://github.com/bcoin-org/bcoin/pull/1067[2] https://github.com/lightninglabs/neutrino[3] https://docs.zaphq.io/docs-desktop-neutrino-connect |
|
|
|
so here's an idea:
I have an idea for an NFT collection for true Bitcoin believers.
To get one of these NFTs, you need to prove that you have been keeping 1000 BTC in your wallet for the last 6 months.
This will be verified by you signing a message with your private key and sending it to a smart contract.
First of all, BItcoin doesn't have smart contract. So you probably have to do it on Bitcoin side-chain (such as Rootstock or Liquid) or altcoin with smart contract capability. So what does everyone think? Is it a dumb idea or should we make it happen?
It's dumb, but nobody can stop you from making it happen. --snip--
Why do people buy designer clothes? Why do they wear million-dollar watches? That also puts a literal target on your back, you just have to make sure your security is on point. At least those items either have very good branding/popularity, long history or impressive engineering. |
|
|
|
It's interesting as hobby project, although as other said people shouldn't use it to store their Bitcoin. is any one able create for me web page ? I would like put the alorithm to webpage
I doubt anyone willing to do it for free. But how about storing it on GitHub repository or GitHub pages? I don't know why many disagree on the posts i do....
At very least, the part 11 million is key could be brute forced quickly is definitely true. For example, check this VanitySearch benchmark https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5112311.msg50823897#msg50823897. I will agree to disagree my agreement if a big mafia guy like Satoshi confirms that he's disagreed about the agreement that i agree with
Don't forget even "big mafia guy" could make mistake. |
|
|
|
Behavior of this user similar with user icynote_original[1] which i reported few days ago[2]. And that post actually is plagiarized[3], although i can't report since it's already deleted.
There are services like ninjastic and Loyce.club. His post was preserved there, anyway. Isn't it possible to provide a link to the post from these archives as proof? I doubt it since i don't remember anyone got banned due to plagiarism with proof from 3rd party archive (whether it's Ninjastic, Loyce.Club or cached page from search engine). And I also wanted to ask, is not the person who used similar to someone else's account name, imposter? I think they can even get banned on the forum for such a thing. No?
I agree with you, but moderator usually only act when more solid proof is available. |
|
|
|
Something is definitely going on, but I can't tell if it's Cloudflare or BTT hosting server or maybe a combination of both. For those who use Tor, there seems to be a way around Cloudflare check when it happens, and all you have to do is select the "New Tor circuit for this site" option. The page then loads normally (currently works for me).
It doesn't work at all for me on multiple devices which has Tor Browser. In the end, i had to use VPN instead with different browser. |
|
|
|
It would be however interesting too if Electrum or Sparrow devs plan to implement Neutrino eventually. I have found no related feature request though, but maybe someone knows  I doubt it'll happen anytime soon since, 1. Electrum have it's own protocol, which usually referred as Electrum/Electrum server protocol. 2. Electrum currently lack of developer/contributor, which makes Taproot support still on works. 3. Sparrow already support 3 different method, which are Electrum protocol, Bitcoin Core RPC-JSON and BWT (with purpose connect to Bitcoin Core version below 24.0). |
|
|
|
It's a Bitcoin mixer. They have coinjoin and advanced feature of mixing bitcoin. The audit job is to try to track back the mixed funds.
You all must be familiar of coinjoin so nothing new to explain.
Their advanced feature is to mix your bitcoin with XMR and then from XMR to bitcoin. You don't need to do it by yourself, when you chose the advanced option then the system does it for you. At least this is what I understood.
While code auditor play role on that job, i think what your client actually need is expert on digital forensic/forensic analysis which have experience on cryptocurrency field. And since many mixer/coinjoin technique rely on amount of user to improve it's privacy, audit result could be less useful when your client have lots of costumer. |
|
|
|
This user spamming technical board where many of them are plagiarized posts. User: icynote_originalCurrent status: Received autoban according to modlog.
Copy: Sparrow is a Bitcoin wallet for those who value financial self sovereignty.
Sparrow’s emphasis is on security, privacy and usability.
Sparrow does not hide information from you - on the contrary it attempts to provide as much detail as possible about your transactions and UTXOs, but in a way that is manageable and usable.
Source: https://www.sparrowwallet.com/Sparrow Bitcoin Wallet
Sparrow is a Bitcoin wallet for those who value financial self sovereignty. Sparrow’s emphasis is on security, privacy and usability. Sparrow does not hide information from you - on the contrary it attempts to provide as much detail as possible about your transactions and UTXOs, but in a way that is manageable and usable.
Copy: Update on Jaxx Liberty User Support
As a non-custodial wallet, Jaxx Liberty is simply an interface to various blockchains. Users’ funds and transactions are always safely on their respective blockchains (Ethereum, Bitcoin, etc.), and users always have control of their wallet’s backup phrase & private keys. When you migrate your Jaxx Liberty wallet to Edge Wallet or Exodus Wallet (or another company), you will simply be using a different interface to the same wallet information.
Any user that experiences an issue with their wallet from this point on can reach out to their new wallet provider for support. Our friends at Edge Wallet and Exodus Wallet have provided specific instructions to migrate to their platforms and are ready to help address any issues you may have with migration (and any problems you may experience in the future).
Source: https://blog.jaxx.io/jaxx-liberty-sunsetting-update/Update on Jaxx Liberty User Support
As a non-custodial wallet, Jaxx Liberty is simply an interface to various blockchains. Users’ funds and transactions are always safely on their respective blockchains (Ethereum, Bitcoin, etc.), and users always have control of their wallet’s backup phrase & private keys. When you migrate your Jaxx Liberty wallet to Edge Wallet or Exodus Wallet (or another company), you will simply be using a different interface to the same wallet information.
Any user that experiences an issue with their wallet from this point on can reach out to their new wallet provider for support. Our friends at Edge Wallet and Exodus Wallet have provided specific instructions to migrate to their platforms and are ready to help address any issues you may have with migration (and any problems you may experience in the future).
Copy: Transactions that don't use segregated witness (segwit) are currently called legacy transactions. For these transactions, calculating the number of weight units in a transaction is as easy as putting the transaction into the format used in a P2P protocol block message, counting the number of bytes, and multiplying by four.
Source: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weight_unitsWeight for legacy transactions
Transactions that don't use segregated witness (segwit) are currently called legacy transactions. For these transactions, calculating the number of weight units in a transaction is as easy as putting the transaction into the format used in a P2P protocol block message, counting the number of bytes, and multiplying by four.
|
|
|
|
I would've bought and reviewed it myself, but the shipping fees are way too high where I'm at. It's almost as if I didn't have a discount.
Anyway, giving this a bump... the code is expiring in a couple of days. If you're interested, post here or PM.
Since many people who visit this board have some security awareness or being skeptical, i doubt they would waste their money on this hardware wallet. In addition, looking at critical review at their Amazon page[1] would make people re-consider their choice. But few days ago i saw announcement about a website[1] where they review many service and some hardware wallet. If you'd rather not see that discount code wasted, you could offer them your code. [1] https://www.amazon.com/product-reviews/B07P3XZKWV?filterByStar=critical&reviewerType=avp_only_reviews[2] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5458268.0 |
|
|
|
If you are a block creator, then you have an incentive to create the biggest possible block. Why? Because then, you can pick some simple, deterministic algorithm, and generate terabytes of always valid transactions on-the-fly, then let your miners work on that header, and send mined block to other nodes. Then, you can start producing some next block, on top of what you created, while other block creators will try to validate what you submitted.
That doesn't make sense, unless such miner/pool have goal to bloat Bitcoin blockchain. With such long verification time, it would hinder propagation where other miner could beat you since their block is far faster to be verified and propagated even though they mined it few seconds to minutes after you did. In order for Bitcoin to succeed, blocks must be full.
If blocks are never full, then there is never a reason for a transaction to pay more 1 satoshi in fees. As the subsidy is reduced, fees become more important. So at some point, full blocks will be necessary in order to ensure that the revenue is high enough to discourage a 51% attack.
Changes that attempt to prevent full blocks would directly impact the security of Bitcoin.
Can't we have flexible block size? For example, each block confirming 4% of total transactions (numbers are only for example). There will always be some unconfirmed transactions left because block only takes percentage. If 100K transactions are unconfirmed at the moment, 4K will get confirmed in next block, if the demand rises significantly and we have 300K unconfirmed transactions, then 12K will get confirmed in next block. By doing this, the less total transactions we have, the less transactions will be picked up which won't let transaction fees to fall down but at the same time, if demand significantly rises, it won't let big transaction volume to clog the mempool. Blocks can be always full if block size is flexible and changes for each new block discovery, according to the volume that 3% of transactions create at moment. I don't know how technically possible is that but I don't think that sounds dumb in theory. Each node have unique mempool or even disable mempool, so your idea can't be achieved since each node would set different maximum block size size limit. |
|
|
|
Is this even a hardware wallet?
I would categorize it as backdoor-ed paper metal wallet. Although people who actually interested with the design/material should check this review written by Jameson Lopp[1]. Apparently this company - based in Spain - started in 2019 and got their funding from Kickstarter[1] and "309 backers pledged €36,575 to help bring this project to life".
I cannot believe 309 people funded this project when 70+ similar product[1] already exist. What is even more weird - How come that with just ~40.000€ - they were able to build a production line (I suppose that there is one) that engraves the plates and packs them in a security bag with no Human intervention when 70% of the funding went into developing the product[1]?
Is it weird? There are many people and company offer service about bulk custom engraved metal. [1] https://jlopp.github.io/metal-bitcoin-storage-reviews/. |
|
|
|
In practice, with limited computational resource you only can generate few first character of Bitcoin address (e.g. 1YourBrand...). The rest of characters still looks random and near impossible to remember without any mistake.
It is impossible to create a Vanity address with too many customized characters like more than 8. It is discussed in Vanity address (Mastering Bitcoin book)6. The frequency of a vanity pattern (1KidsCharity) and average search time on a desktop PC
Length Pattern Frequency Average search time
9 1KidsChari 1 in 7 quadrillion 800 years
That's true when we're talking about legacy address, i used 9 customized characters only as example. Although 9 customized character on legacy address is still possible with few high end GPU in few months. |
|
|
|
|
One of biggest problem with DEX/P2P is lack of local currency. If you don't use USD or EUR, the option would be severally limited and sometimes with unfavorable exchange rate.
|
|
|
|
2.3 Memorability:
The human mind is more inclined to remember words or patterns that hold personal significance. Vanity addresses capitalize on this aspect by providing users with addresses that are easier to recall and share accurately, reducing the risk of errors in transactions.
In practice, with limited computational resource you only can generate few first character of Bitcoin address (e.g. 1YourBrand...). The rest of characters still looks random and near impossible to remember without any mistake. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
