Why not other open source alternative licenses like the Apache License 2.0, Simplified BSD License, which are also popular choices?
While both Apache and Simplified BSD also don't have much limitation/resrutction, MIT License is shorter and IMO easiest to understand. 2 https://www[dot]saashub[dot]com/mit-license-alternatives This page is very poor reference to know which license is more popular/widely used. https://github.blog/2015-03-09-open-source-license-usage-on-github-com/ is far better reference, even though it's 8 years outdated. |
|
|
|
This kind of thread always pop-up whenever new version of Bitcoin Core released. Usually we just have to wait for few days before it gets updated. It' only an aesthetic thing, as the links already correctly points to versione 25.0.
That's only because https://bitcoincore.org/en/download/ automatically point to latest version. The torrent link still points to version 24.0.1. |
|
|
|
Two weeks ago, some one talked to me about this mining site called the Happyminer and how I can make passive income from setting it up on my phone. This is the website www.happyminer.us It looks good and the person who told me about it is someone with a deep knowledge about cryptocurrency. My confusion is that alot of people in this forum have said mining sites are not good and are mostly scam sites but this site am given looks good. I don't know what makes that website looks good when they, 1. Mention fixed return and daily rate on home page. Any real miner know there's no guarantee on mining world due to few factors such as unexpected coin price and difficulty change. 2. Weird title on it's package (such as "Bitcoin Mining (April Fool's Day)"). 3. On "Media About Us" seciton it mention many popular brand such as CoinBase. But when i try to search site:coinbase.com "happyminer"
on Google search, google return not result which indicate they are lying. So i'd say the site looks very bad and personally i wouldn't trust them. |
|
|
|
Before I start please I don't understand this statement No third-party sites/clients, bug reports that do not require much discussion (use github), or support requests. I see that's statement of "Development & Technical Discussion" which is outdated. These days most technical discussion Bitcoin and some other things which related to Bitcoin (such as LN) is not forbidden by moderator. If there wasn't any halving Bitcoin would had been fully mined around 2019-2020 with 50Btc per block, would it have been another digital currency implementation failure or would it still be surviving?
I'd say Bitcoin would still survive due to "first move advantage" and some enthusiast, but i expect Bitcoin would be less popular today. If there wasn't any halving Bitcoin would had been fully mined around 2019-2020 with 50Btc per block 21,000,000 coins / 50 coins per block = 4,200,000 blocks with 50 BTC reward 4,200,000 blocks / 210,000 blocks per 4 years = 20 * 4 years = 80 years At the moment of writing, we have 791,458 blocks. Without halvings, it would take around 80 years to mine all coins, so 2009 + 80 = 2089, it is still quite far from 2019-2020, or even from today. Your calculation is off, it should be 21.000.000 BTC / 50 BTC per block = 420.000 blocks
420.000 / 210.000 per 4 year = 2 * 4 years = 8 years
|
|
|
|
OMG it is working thanks a lot !!
I am quite new to Python and Programming Bitcoin, any idea where I should start ? which books ?
Thanks !!
If you really insist to use book, people (including me) usually would recommend Mastering Bitcoin 2nd Edition[1]. Although if you prefer something shorter, check learn me a bitcoin website[2] instead. Aside from @PowerGlove said, i find reading documentation and example of certain library/function is helpful to prevent problem like this. [1] https://github.com/bitcoinbook/bitcoinbook[2] https://learnmeabitcoin.com/ |
|
|
|
Miners Should Consider the Lower Transaction Fees I created this thread based on Mempool and Static. Just that I didn't specify them but was trying to see if members would understand what I mean. I was trying to say Miners should consider the transactions from Mempool and Static and even STATIC and not Mempool. Because if you used Static for transaction it takes weeks and yet the transaction would not confirmed. I make a transaction with Static and the transaction took about two weeks plus and I have to bump it to Mempool with a higher fee in the time of the high fee rate. There are so many wrong things with your statement. 1. Term "Mempool", "Static" and "ETA" refer to name of the algorithm to choose TX fee on Electrum wallet. 2. Miner don't care which algorithm you use to choose TX fee. All that matters is transaction fee rate (sat/vB). 3. The reason transaction which created with "Static" fee took long time to confirm is probably you use default/lowest value which is 1 sat/vB. |
|
|
|
Such transaction would be deemed non-standard though since the standard enforce only 1 OP_RETURN with maximum size 80 bytes per transaction. And while people can split X OP_RETURN output to X transaction, there are big overhead which supposed to discourage people from adding tons of arbitrary data.
right. so people saying that bitcoin shouldn't be used to store data well, that capability has always existed. what those people really must have an issue with is if their fees go higher. that's what they're really complaining about...because they never complained about op-return.  Not really, OP_RETURN added about when Bitcoin Core 0.9 released[1]. It seems the main goal was to remove incentive from abusing address to store arbitrary data (which bloat UTXO) rather than facilitate people to store arbitrary data. Although i agree people's main issue actually is about high fees. Imagine what kind of complain we see if someone decide to make BRC-20 clone (which use OP_RETURN rather than Taproot witness data) and suddenly become popular. [1] https://bitcoin.org/en/release/v0.9.0#opreturn-and-data-in-the-block-chain |
|
|
|
If i understood the news correctly, there's no indication the Bitcoin was bought using wife's money or money from shared spending/saving account. In that case, i fail to understand why would the wive demands 50% of husband's Bitcoin. Anyway, i don't see anything wrong by not revealing existence of non-shared things (whether it's Bitcoin or personal bank account). So there's a job for that now? Like crypto hunters?
It's not surprising since job called private detective/investigator exist. In addition there are many blockchain analysis service such as Chainalysis, although most of them aim government/cryptocurrency business as their customer rather than individual. |
|
|
|
Or: Instead of a sidechain, some crank can make these tokens on testnet3 ( despite testnet being only intended for testing, but do you really think these guys will read the fine print anyway?), and testnet3 gets all the traffic instead of Bitcoin. This is something that can be done immediately right now, by some random guy on Twitter. At least it will give the bitcoin protocol developers a compelling excuse to launch testnet4  It sounds more realistic than you might expect when there are exchange which have BTC/tBTC pair. And they can even make argument testnet coin actually have value because there's cost to mine it. Putting pressure on the owner/inventor will make him feel the pain regular users feel because of his invention. I think it's quite fair and no need to introduce any limits/bans/censorship on the Bitcoin network.
As if suing Casey would stop people from using Ordinals. But if you or someone else suing Casey for such reason, i would classify such action as attack to open source software/development and i hope you went bankrupt after lose on court. |
|
|
|
I want to start a bigger mining farm exploiting my cheap access to electricity. Which miner is most profitable at 0.01 usd/kwh? I mean, where you get most bang for the buck.
Whether it's $0.01/kWh, $0.05/kWh or something else, the general answer is miner with best energy efficiency. Since you ask on Bitcoin mining board, people usually would say Antminer S19 and it's variant (S19 XP, S19k Pro, etc.). But since you mention Scrypt ASIC miner (which i'm not familiar with), you might want to visit https://www.asicminervalue.com/ as initial reference. |
|
|
|
I have tried a thousand ways, for example: '/testnet3/wallets/wallet/wallet', '/wallets/wallet/wallet.dat' and it doesn't work either.
Does that include specify wallet filename outside config, as described on this test file? // Source [url]https://github.com/denpamusic/php-bitcoinrpc/blob/2.2.x/tests/ClientTest.php#L103-L144[/url]
/**
* Test multiwallet request.
*
* @return void
*/
public function testMultiWalletRequest(): void
{
$wallet = 'testwallet.dat';
$response = $this->bitcoind
->setClient($this->mockGuzzle([$this->getBalanceResponse()]))
->wallet($wallet)
->request('getbalance');
$this->assertEquals(self::$balanceResponse, $response->get());
$this->assertEquals(
$this->getHistoryRequestUri()->getPath(),
"/wallet/$wallet"
);
}
/**
* Test async multiwallet request.
*
* @return void
*/
public function testMultiWalletAsyncRequest(): void
{
$wallet = 'testwallet2.dat';
$this->bitcoind
->setClient($this->mockGuzzle([$this->getBalanceResponse()]))
->wallet($wallet)
->requestAsync('getbalance', []);
$this->bitcoind->wait();
$this->assertEquals(
$this->getHistoryRequestUri()->getPath(),
"/wallet/$wallet"
);
}
--snip--
I think you are getting it wrong PHP if am not is a programming language for web development while RPC is implemented in the web software to communicate with each other using HTTP. And checking your error message I found out it was similar to thread I linked before, but would still advice you check the thread out if it can in any way help. PHP and any mature programming language can make RPC request just fine. |
|
|
|
--snip--
Thanks, I totally agree, but I don't have a terminal since I am on the initial blockchain sync
Last time i tried myNode on Virtual Machine i can access OS desktop and terminal easily. Anyway, myNode also provide guide to access terminal anytime you want. Check https://mynodebtc.github.io/advanced/linux-terminal.html. |
|
|
|
You wasted your time and money, someone already did that long time ago on TXID 54e48e5f5c656b26c3bca14a8c95aa583d07ebe84dde3b7dd4a78f4e4186e713. If you want to know how to parse it, see https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/q/35959. |
|
|
|
If OP is the receiver, he could perform CPFP either with built-in wallet CPFP feature or doing it manually by creating new transaction which select input/UTXO from currently unconfirmed transaction with very high fees. But if OP isn't in hurry to and the fee rate isn't very low, waiting probably is good option.
I thought CPFP is only possible when you are in control the wallet/private key of the transaction you are trying to perform CPFP? That's true, to be specific you need to own private key/in control of at least one receiving address. |
|
|
|
|
This is so bad that i might give them negative feedback if they have account on this forum. And considering this "feature" require ID verification where Ledger already leak user data in past, it feels like disaster waiting to happen. By disaster, i mean your legal document will be leaked and misused by criminal to perform identity theft.
|
|
|
|
I suppose a limit on the size of the witness data can be imposed after a designated block. Will that work?
This will not stop inscription which has very small size, such as BRC-20 and ORC-20 which use Ordinal standard. For example this JSON data to transfer BRC-20 ordi token[1] only has 56 character or 56 bytes. And counting additional OPCODES/metadata which is part of Ordinals standard[2], it's still less than 100 bytes. {"p":"brc-20","op":"transfer","tick":"ordi","amt":"100"}
[1] https://domo-2.gitbook.io/brc-20-experiment/#transfer-brc-20[2] https://docs.ordinals.com/inscriptions.html |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
