|
No point adding additional resources to try to index each of the public keys that has ever been exposed on the network. You have to individually use the scriptsig of each transaction to find the public key. Possible to do, but mostly not very useful for most people. I'm not sure about the resource usage for something like this but I assume that this could take up more resources as well.
You can probably make a pull request for that though I believe it would be quite an intensive code change, from ElectrumX to Electrum protocol as well. Not worth the effort, IMHO.
I'm intrigued though, what would people gain or what use would they have by knowing the public key?
|
|
|
|
You probably mean if they illegalized it, because blocking/banning a peer-to-peer network seems unreal if you don't cut your country's internet connection. They've tried banning it, but failed.
They made Bitcoin transactions illegal but no one has tried banning it on a large scale, AFAIK. China never used its GFW to ban Bitcoin connections. It's perfectly simple to start blocking them, but circumventing them is quite easy too. Just make sure you can use Tor and run your node through it. That seems small to me. It could be true for drugs and guns, but an illicit activity is to evade taxes as well. I'd guess that lots of people evade their bank with Bitcoin.
Well, nobody knows whether it is overstated or understated. I think I saw it from a report which collected data from the various known crime and that is what they concluded. There is simply no way to tell how accurate it is. I'd argue criminals would prefer using privacy coin for something like this, unless its a ransomware, most uses Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
It is possible since the start. The client version merely introduces the ability for people to create transactions with amounts smaller than that. Anyone could've made a transaction with a satoshi but anything below 0.01BTC for any of the outputs would've triggered the 0.01BTC minimum fees for relaying. The network has always recognize 8 decimal points as the denomination.
|
|
|
|
|
IIRC the volume of Bitcoin that is known to be involved in illicit transaction is fairly small, I think less than 0.5%.
The value of Bitcoin partially comes from the fact that governments cannot block Bitcoin. You might be able to hinder your own citizens using Bitcoin by draconian laws. It'll be quite a difficult task to block it completely. Even if the exchanges were to be shut down, the decentralized exchanges would likely still operate as well.
|
|
|
|
|
No. There is no relation between the individual addresses other that they can be deterministically generated using a single seed, assuming HD wallets. It is fairly easy to determine the various addresses generated by the same seed with some degree of certainty by their spending patterns.
It's not possible to get the private keys with your addresses in the first place. Reversing the public keys would be infeasible right now as well.
If you're using a HD wallet and accidentally reveal your non-hardened master public key and a child private key, it'll be possible to get the master private key using the combination of both.
|
|
|
|
ii) the exchange is not sending its change back to another address in its wallet "cluster", which is particularly the case for hot wallets since custom exchange software does not use standard wallet types with HD derived address/privkeys, and
HD addresses doesn't matter, they look the same as any other address and it is impossible to determine if they're with the same HD seeds. Some exchanges don't publicly reveal their hot wallet addresses anymore or just use several unique ones. Tracing the path of your deposit or the inputs to your withdrawal should be sufficient to check if it likely belongs to an exchange or not. iii) all Wallet Explorer can do is group different addresses together, it cannot use external information to ID an exchange based on a particular cluster of wallet addresses.
Wallet explorer usually have a set of addresses that are known to belong to the services and determine the link through associating it with the cluster of addresses. If a known address is within that cluster, it'll probably associate the cluster with that service. From my experience, it was able to positively identify quite a few services though and the success rate was pretty high as well. |
|
|
|
|
I'm looking to purchase an EVGA GTX 1080TI Hybrid cooler, more specifically: EVGA GTX 1080 Ti SC2 Hybrid Gaming iCX (11G-P4-6598).
The cooler on it has unfortunately failed and I don't want to risk modding it to fit a different AIO. I'm open to any reasonable offers, looking for that specific AIO cooler and shroud only.
|
|
|
|
Thoughts? Oh, for a start, how about providing a link to what you are talking about?
Beyond that, a 'council' implies a centralized operating body and that is not going to happen with BTC as it goes against it's guiding principal.
I'm assuming OP is talking about this: https://bitcoinminingcouncil.com/. I've seen quite a few sites mentioning this link. Having a council is not a good idea at all. But again even if a council is formed, they wouldn't have any legal rights to control the mining activities around the world. Does anyone know who proposed such idea?
Michael Saylor was a proponent of this, and I believe he is involved in this as well. Most of the miners won't want to be regulated in any sense and would probably not join the council, save for the few current members. I am sure whoever proposed it, is trying to claim the ownership over the algorithm. It will give rise to fork events and loot away hash powers. Decentralization will be gone.
That is not how it works nor would it be realistic. |
|
|
|
check the source code  Laws within the US that governs Bitcoin mining related firms or its related activities. |
|
|
|
It is actually easy to prove with a good level of certainty. It just costs a little bit of money in transaction fees.
What we can do is first figure out what transactions exactly they "censor", for example CoinJoin txs. Then choose a time when fees are low, like now that they are 1 sat/vbyte so that it doesn't cost a lot. Then every time a new block is mined (by someone else) we send a couple of such transactions with higher than normal fee to the mempool so that they are definitely picked up by miners but we have to repeat it since MARA pool has lower hashrate and can not find blocks regularly. After they found a block we can see if it contains the said transaction or not. Repeat it a couple of times to avoid false positives.
In other words if the mempool contained a certain type of transaction with high priority fee and a mining pool ignored it when they found a block that means they are censoring that transaction type, otherwise if 99% of the times they are picking that tx up they aren't censoring anything.
Yeah, I know but it doesn't prove beyond reasonable doubt. They can give tons of excuse for something like this happening as well. Having the mining pool openly state that they're censoring transactions is not a good look however you look at it, just negative PR. They also don't reveal the kinds of transactions which they actively censor, and given the fact that they find the blocks on an irregular basis, it makes it all the more harder to prove that they're not doing something like this. Of course, there isn't any reason why they should continue censoring it, because it is just ineffective. Regardless, I think MARA pool's decision to signal for Taproot shouldn't really be associated with their past censorship behavior. They're doing so because there isn't any reason why they shouldn't. |
|
|
|
Although daily thousands of Bitcoin transaction are settled and added to particular blocks mined every 10 minutes but on 12 June block number #687249 recorded maximum of 4075 transactions.Although normal transaction recorded are between 1000-1500 per block but this was 4x higher transaction.See full details in the image
This was relayed by one of the biggest mining pool Antpool and have gained 6.52 btc as reward in the form of 6.25 BTC(block reward) + Transaction fees
This is incorrect. The largest block had 12,239 transactions and was mined by F2Pool in block 367853: https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/block/367853. 4075 is nowhere near the maximum number of transactions that can fit in a block, you can fit far more if you only include Segwit transactions with all the transactions having 1 input and 1 output. According to Chinese journalist Colin Wu this is result of China FUD and banning btc which has reduced the hasrate corresponding to slower block productions.What are you views on this?
Again, this is incorrect. If you want to determine how filled a block is, you're going to have to look at the block size as miners will always attempt to maximize that. Transaction counts are not relevant in this case. Pretty much every single block has been filled with the maximum size, even if it only contains 800 transactions. Ps. The transaction volume is actually one of the lowest in recent months. Note that the block referenced is quite special, just given to show how meaningless transaction count in a block actually is. |
|
|
|
The only possibility to hack the bitcoin network (other than a 51% attack which is theoretical and outside of actual possibility) at this point is with quantum computing... however quantum computers are a long way from being accessible and by the time they become household items, every system that involves encryption would need major security upgrades to prevent them from being hacked... by then bitcoin would have evolved along with every other network and system out there.
51% attack is possible in practice, just that there isn't any incentives in doing so, for now. Quantum computers are limited in terms of the things that they can do and it won't literally break Bitcoin. Because the virus has to hack every block that had been created since the inception of the Bitcoin blockchain. Over the years it has to hack years after because there are transactions created since the beginning of the hack and this will continue forever. A hacker or the virus has to change hashes from the previous and present blocks until the genesis. And in the end, it will result in just forking BTC.
This is incorrect. And Bitcoin nodes communicate with each other strictly through Bitcoin protocol, they don't send each other random files. So, the only way to spread malware is if there's some bug in Bitcoin code that would allow remote code execution by putting payloads in block or transaction data. But it's extremely unlikely that such bug exists, and even if it does, it's not feasible to infect all node. And the biggest thing, if you start altering blockchain or otherwise breaking consensus, everyone will instantly notice.
The dependencies or the components of Bitcoin Core can still be susceptible to RCE. If you really want to hack some nodes, there are a bunch of possible attack vectors. Limited in effectiveness though, I'll probably just run a few Sybil nodes and that would be far easier. If you were to break consensus, most people probably won't notice. Nodes would just reject the blocks or transactions.
Suffice to say, the thread is becoming filled with more misinformation and some of them don't understand what they're talking about. OP, you'll be better off trying to search about the forum than to continue in this thread. Just to clarify, I don't mean all of them are inaccurate. There are several decent posts with valid point. |
|
|
|
I'm curious isn't Marathon Digital a regulated company that is mining blocks based on US law? And didn't they initially claim that their blocks (that do not contain the censored transactions) are in compliance with "U.S. regulatory standards"?
So the question is since they didn't suddenly change location and still are located in US and operate within the same exact US laws, how can they suddenly defy the same laws they claim they were following?
I'm almost certain that there isn't any laws which governs Bitcoin mining? Certain sanctions might prohibit firms based in the US from handling certain transactions but I don't think they have yet to implement it on Bitcoin mining, because it's just ineffective. Seems like they were just doing so to appease the US government. Do CMIIW though. Anyways, doesn't matter. There isn't any reasonable way to prove that they're not censoring transactions anymore. |
|
|
|
|
It is frankly quite pointless. They are not legally bound to the council nor would they face any repercussions by not being included in it. Having something like this is about as useful as the climate change accords that we've signed so far, though environmental concerns has little to no importance to the miner.
Like it or not, major miners could very well have established a consortium of some sort, that isn't public. It won't be implausible to assume that there is already some degree of centralization even within the mining pools or there is already some influence on them. The proposed council just serves as a PR move, IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
No one would be buying encrypted files. There is no way to verify if that is the only copy of the encrypted files or if the wallet file is actually inside.
If you don't want to spend some money or resources to try to crack it, then I would advise you to just leave it at that.
|
|
|
|
Thanks for your reply, do you have any recommended reading?
Take a look at the whitepaper: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf. It'll be sufficient for basic understanding of the network. If you need more information, there's plenty on the forum as well. Just Google it. |
|
|
|
2017: Segwit hardfork
Segwit was a soft fork. Tarproot is locked-in with overwhelming majority of miners signalling for it. guess who wasn't signalling, MARA pool (the pool that was censoring transactions!!) and a couple of other random blocks from other pools but we should remember the name MARA pool as the malicious bitcoin pool.
They recently had a press release to state that they're not censoring transactions anymore and are progressively upgrading their servers to signal for Taproot. I'd give them a bit more time for that. There isn't any politics involved this time unlike for Segwit. |
|
|
|
But can't a virus be created to corrupt nodes, and over time spread to 51% of the network.
Nodes cannot be attacked to influence the network the same way as miners do. Nodes only enforces the rules locally and does not affect the protocol rules being enforced by others. Even if the other nodes accept a Bitcoin block with a million Bitcoins in block rewards, your node won't, as you're still enforcing the rules yourself, unaffected by what others are doing. As long as your own nodes is enforcing a set of rules, no one else can make your node violate those rules. That being said, Sybil attack doesn't require any proportion of the nodes to be compromised and that is practically the only attack which uses the nodes. You're confused about 51% attack, I'd recommend you to do up more reading on this matter before posting any further. |
|
|
|
|
First of all, there is no way to verify how they did it. They can simply say that they had a $5 wrench attack on one of their perpetrators and there is no reason for people to not believe it. As long as their story is remotely plausible, then there is no reason to believe otherwise. The most you can do is to eliminate the most unlikely scenarios and narrow it down further.
Tl;dr: Whatever reasoning that they will give can potentially be fabricated, I would take anything that they say with a pinch of salt. There is no reason to prove that they did seize a server or if they did coerce a certain exchange to give back the funds.
|
|
|
|
I don't have any BTC as I just created it,but I added three recipients and everything is looking ok,when you add more the window stays the same,only the elevator to the right goes down.
Are you having troubles seeing the image in the second post by any chance? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
