|
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 |
|
|
|
The more the confirmation, the better the security. Although true, for most practical applications 1 confirmation is enough. If it's a very large amount, 6 is enough. I always forgot to check - is there any particular reason for 6 confirmations? Why 6 not 7 or 5? IIRC because with less than 50% hashrate, replacing 6 block has low chance to success. I remember there's detailed formula and website which show such calculation, but i couldn't recall either of them. Edit: Check https://jlopp.github.io/bitcoin-confirmation-risk-calculator for risk calculator. Edit 2: As @tranthidung said on below post, https://web.archive.org/web/20181231045818/https://people.xiph.org/~greg/attack_success.html is better/more accurate tool. Why some services require only 2?
Probably due to either specific risk mitigation or avoid stale/orphan block. Alternatively they simply follow what other service does. I guess it is related to amount of work needed to create 6 blocks, but is there any correlation with amount transmitted?
Yes. With extremely high amount, theoretically miner/pool could earn more money by perform double-spend attack rather than mining block. |
|
|
|
I found a user spamming technical board using ChatGPT. While i didn't use AI checker, it's common information that older ChatGPT has information up to September 2021[1]. And IIRC sentence "As of my last knowledge update in September 2021 ..." is template sentence when chatGPT unable to make answer[2-3]. As of my last knowledge update in September 2021, there is no specific information available about "Ordinal NFTs." It's possible that Ordinal NFTs may have been created or introduced after my knowledge cutoff date. NFTs (Non-Fungible Tokens) are unique digital assets that are recorded on a blockchain, typically the Ethereum blockchain. They can represent various forms of digital or physical items, such as artwork, collectibles, virtual real estate, and more.
[1] https://www.pcmag.com/news/the-new-chatgpt-what-you-get-with-gpt-4-vs-gpt-35 |
|
|
|
1. Download latest Ubuntu ISO using a Linux laptop I have rarely used. Check SHA256 on the ISO.
Since you already know about GnuPG, consider checking signature for the ISO file. Ubuntu website provide tutorial about it, see https://ubuntu.com/tutorials/how-to-verify-ubuntu. 5. Wait for Bitcoin Core to sync to the blockchain.
FYI, current Bitcoin blockchain size is about 507 GB. So sync could take some time, especially if you have slow internet or using HDD. |
|
|
|
Is this good?
I checked their website ( https://www.kresus.com/), but couldn't find much explanation how their wallet or how it works. So personally i wouldn't use this wallet. The article is poorly written and the headline is wrong. That is very typical of CoinTelegraph articles.
Anyway, a hardware security module (HSM) is similar to a hardware wallet. It holds private keys and will do cryptographic operations with those keys without ever revealing them.
--snip--
But considering amazon unethical practice and Amazon connection with some government department, there's concern to store sensitive data (including Bitcoin private key) on Amazon product. |
|
|
|
Nice tool. This could make discussion about specific TXID/address easier. But IMO it'd be better if BBcode generated by your page lead to web page of the source data (e.g. to mempool.space/tx/64_CHARACTER_HEX).
Test with transaction which makes Ordinal popular. Default BB tag,  Replace url to mempool.space website, |
|
|
|
Rollback Taproot? That means invalidate/remove all blocks since Taproot activation which occur about 6 months ago. If that actually happens, Bitcoin might as well as die or abandoned. Furthermore, it's possible to re-create Ordinal/BRC-20 standard without Taproot.
I believe something will be done. Maybe, but rollback shouldn't be option any Bitcoiner (who value immutability property of Bitcoin) consider. A few hundreds of people cannot flood the network like this with a malicious script (and the ordinals can be used like this).
Imagine if Faketoshi (or some other authority) wants to flood the network, making bitcoin unusable.
In my opinion, this is already a security problem. Similar to a DDOS attack.
Flooding Bitcoin network always has been possible though, even without Taproot. The difference is Ordinals, BRC-20, ORC-20 and other thing give financial incentive to make people do such thing, without even thinking their action may flood BTC network. That depends on people's definition about smart contract. Some people define smart contract as turing complete scripting/programming.
That is a subcategory of smart contracts and this definition was popularized after the introduction of Ethereum. Otherwise ever since 1990s a smart contract is technically a program or a protocol that can be executed automatically without human intervention, trusted third parties, etc. The best and simplest example of a smart contract is the vending machines which is the oldest implementation of them too. Thanks for reminder, it's piece of history i forget. But it doesn't change fact people these days is more familiar with definition introduced by ETH/ETH community. |
|
|
|
Keep in mind compiling these is going to be brutal on a modern system. A lot of the dependencies are just no longer available. IMO the best thing to do if you want make the binary is spin up a virtual machine and download the multiple CD / DVDs for the complete install of an older linux along with all the packages: So this *may* help a bit https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/archive/7.11.0/i386/iso-dvd/And if you intend to use wallet functionality with proper compatibility, that means you have to install Berkeley DB 4.8. Bitcoin Core provide script to install it[1], but we don't know whether it'll work on older OS. If it doesn't that means you need to check either Debian 6, 7 or 8 which seems to include Berkeley DB 4.8[2]. [1] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/v24.0/contrib/install_db4.sh[2] https://wiki.debian.org/BerkeleyDB |
|
|
|
--snip--
Crypto is also about art, and not only about storing numeric value.
If we want to achieve a higher adoption, Art, NFTs etc. should also become possible on the btc network.
--snip--
I think you're confused between Ordinals and BRC-20. BRC-20 (which is discussion of this topic) is only about token. --snip--
BRC-20 is a useless parasitic existence which needs to definitely be removed. If that means rolling back Taproot, then I am all for it. Althought personally I doubt that the attacks will be a long term thing. Hopefully this is just a dumb fad which will calm down and even perhaps die out, over time.
--snip--
Rollback Taproot? That means invalidate/remove all blocks since Taproot activation which occur about 6 months ago. If that actually happens, Bitcoin might as well as die or abandoned. Furthermore, it's possible to re-create Ordinal/BRC-20 standard without Taproot. |
|
|
|
I mention Grin's technology because it's very poor choice to store data. that's also true of Bitcoin, but it's not stopping people using it to store data. --snip-- You're missing the point. Grin is much worse than Bitcoin (even when Bitcoin is already very bad choice) to store arbitrary data due to technical reason i mentioned earlier. What is the issue with the data being stored in the transactions, especially if it is so hard to stop it? To me it seems much more obvious to have a larger block size, which will in return end up with faster transaction times.
When bitcoin was released, the block size was the same, but there were not even 1 percent of the current users. Now we have more then 100 times more users that will result in more then 100 times the transactions. You don’t have to be a genius to see that the network will be blocked by transactions.
While i'm in favor for increasing block size limit, i wouldn't want to see bigger block just to see block mostly filled with BRC-20 or ORC-20 transaction. And FYI, 1. Bigger block size limit doesn't always mean faster transaction time due to 10 minute block time. 2. Bigger block means faster blockchain size growth and higher requirement to full node. --snip--
you dont have to be a genius to see the downsides of "larger block size" either just hit up bcash_lol or bsv for your large block storage needs please Those coin has low market cap/popularity not only because reckless block size increase though. For example BSV is associated with fraudster/fake satoshi and they have coin confiscation stealing feature (see https://blog.bitmex.com/bitcoin-sv-hardfork-significant-security-risks/). |
|
|
|
--snip--
We have corrected this misunderstanding both in the clearnet version and in the onion version of our sites. @ETFbitcoin, we ask you to check the adjustments we have made yourself, and if your claim has been resolved, then please confirm this in our thread and correct your message in accordance with the current state of the project. Thank you in advance.  Update: Both clearnet and Tor version no longer make any request to external website. I can confirm Tor version no longer access make request from Google server, so my claim status has been resolved. But take note clearnet version still make request to Google server. It's possible https://fontsplugin.com/google-fonts-checker/ actually check cloudflare security check page rather than your actual website. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin need to perform hardfork to adopt technology/protocol used by GRIN coin.
if Grin is better, just use it. I never intend to claim Grin is generally better than Bitcoin. I mention Grin's technology because it's very poor choice to store data. For example, someone attempt to store Mimblewimble whitepaper on Grin blockchain[1]. But it turns out the data is scattered randomly and the script needed to re-organize scattered data is much bigger than data itself[2]. I expect the experts are right on this one though: there will always be ways to embed arbitrary data into cryptocurrency transactions, so finding the some "best" way to mitigate it is the true answer
I agree on that. But so far there's no serious attempt to find "best" way to make people less interested to store arbitrary data on cryptocurrency blockchain.
[1] https://github.com/NicolasFlamel1/MimbleWimble-Coin-Arbitrary-Data-Storage[2] https://forum.grin.mw/t/public-transaction-data-is-a-huge-risk-vector/10426/13 |
|
|
|
Time to restore the pre-taproot transaction size limit? The timechain should only store financial transactions.
Even before Taproot, it's possible to store non-financial data using either, 1. OP_RETURN. 2. Part of Bitcoin address which represent hashed public key/script. 3. Redeem script which contain arbitrary data. Take note before taproot, script has limit 10000 bytes while Taproot have no such limit. To ensure blockchain used mostly financial transactions, Bitcoin need to perform hardfork to adopt technology/protocol used by GRIN coin. I guess while these morons waste their money buying spam and eggs, I should reactivate some of my L2 projects.
Even if you move to L2, usually you need to create on-chain transaction to "move" your Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
So I have two questions here:
1. For campaign manager: are you fine to spend more money due to high transaction fees right now?
Don't forget campaign manager usually make payment to all participant in 1 transaction. An output address has size 31 vB in Bitcoin transaction, so with current low priority fees (175 sat/vB based on https://mempool.space/), it costs roughly $3 per participant. 2. For participant: if you have two options to choose, are you prefer to receive your payment in your native segwit address or lightning network address?
Even if campaign manager decide to use LN, we still need to create 1 on-chain transaction to open new LN channel. For short term, it offer little benefit. And with recent problem with tippin.me, i would rather not using custodial LN wallet either. |
|
|
|
There have been several attempts at creating decentralized social media platforms, such as Mastodon, Diaspora, and Steemit. However, these platforms still rely on centralized servers and can still be shut down by governments or corporations.
Mastadon and Diaspora actually aim to create federated social media. Although IIRC, Mastadon dev/community replace term "federated" with "decentralized" at some point. As for steemit, people no longer consider it decentralized after hostile takeover by TRON foundation and some exchange. Does anyone else remember this project or know what happened to it? I'd love to hear more about it and whether it's still being developed.
By any chance, do you refer to https://memo.cash/ which use BCH blockchain? |
|
|
|
So if I understand correctly I can only evade this issue by running my own dedicated node, or can this also be solved by running bitcoin core that downloads the whole blockchain?
Both option you mention are same thing, since Bitcoin Core is software to run full node. Although wallet which implement BIP-158 and use Tor/VPN already offer better privacy than most lightweight wallet (such as Electrum). The issue for me at this point would be that the cheapest setup for a node will still set you back more than 100 USD (raspi) or is there a cheaper (and convenient) option?
Cheaper (lower than $100)? In this case, you should use computer or laptop your already have and optionally buy 1 TB SSD or HDD. |
|
|
|
The new version just improved the UI but it removes some feature that is important like copy button. Is there a way to downgrade my electrum wallet without losing all the wallet imported on it.
IMO downgrade should be used as last resort, especially considering Electrum developer probably doesn't consider Electrum user would perform downgrade. Have you tried common things to fix application problem such as clearing cache, allow specific permission or restart your smartphone? The new version just improved the UI but it removes some feature that is important like copy button. Is there a way to downgrade my electrum wallet without losing all the wallet imported on it. My seed phrase is stored in my computer which is out of reach right now while I have multiple imported wallet on electrum that I don’t want to write down the seed phrase manually. Is this possible?
You have no option than to delete the presently installed version. If you do not delete it, the lower version can not be installed. Actually it's possible with adb (no root needed)[1] or specific application (root needed)[2]. But it take some time and obviously it's not recommended since it could cause corruption or other unexpected behavior. [1] https://www.xda-developers.com/downgrade-an-app-android-no-root/[2] https://www.xda-developers.com/downgrade-applications-with-appdowner/ |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
