The cryptocurrency veteran has announceda new cryptocurrency startup that will ~
it seems like this is becoming a very common pattern these days  everyone who starts a new business in cryptocurrency space and wants their name heard (free advertisement) starts predicting bitcoin price. and they are always the same usual prediction without any value that basically say "price is gonna rise". then the news sites go crazy and advertise their crap... |
|
|
|
As you see from the source links everybody calls these as transaction types and this is why I did the same. Everything has been explained in the OP, what is the script, transaction, etc, so I think there should be no problem with understanding what is what.
i wasn't trying to say you were wrong, that is why i said it is my "opinion". thanks, i forgot to check out the links. Members advised above to make it shorter, so I did it and removed a couple of additional sentences. I have talked about this in my post above, that I found it really hard and to be honest this article was a lot longer in original form. I had to make compromises and cut out all I found or thought is not so important, but everything is important here and that is why I will update this thread further. Don't want to write more in the OP, only add all additional information in the posts during the discussion. Just like now.
well, i think when you begin to look under the hood it automatically becomes a lot more complicated, when the part you are looking at is scripts, then the complication is even more. so don't try too hard to make it any easier, that is impossible. i guess focusing on being short and complete is better. you've already done a good job summarizing and gathering all this here though. kudos for that. |
|
|
|
the bitcoin core team doesn't publish compiled versions on github. what you see under releases is the zip of the source code at the last commit that that particular version was released at. and OP isn't looking for source codes. besides the /bitcoin github repo only has newer bitcoin core (which i think was called something else initially, bitcoin-qt?). to get very old versions like 0.1 you need to go to sourceforge https://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/code/1/tree//trunk/ although i don't think it has compiled versions. i believe someone has erased all the old "compiled" versions (anything <0.3) from the internet even though the code is still there. |
|
|
|
this is ancient history bro. it happened ~10 days ago and there was a lot of speculation about it. it seems like independent is way too late with their getting news. lol Such a large amount of bitcoin has the potential to crash the cryptocurrency market if it is cashed in for fiat currency.
since this is old, now we know that it could not. |
|
|
|
- Some white dot/a fly near the end of the video.
it may be one of the many bugs that participated in this video production like the one on the rear car window strolling for itself from left to middle enjoying the country side sun  |
|
|
|
~To be fair this isn't 100% terrible, I very foolishly bought something similar from Bitswiss, and put a few bitcoin on it, they stayed for years and never went anywhere. They were legit and they even switched their focus and stopped selling wallets. Now this company, I don't know and would I do it again like that? No. I'd want to generate my own Private key and have some sort of scratch off sticker included.
but it IS 100% terrible! unless you are only using the card for its looks and not putting any coins in it, i don't recommend it to my worst enemy. you are putting all your trust into a company that you don't even know and is brand new with 0 history. if one company in the past hadn't scammed you it doesn't make the whole idea a good one. and it is not just about them scamming you, maybe they were shitty and generated a wrong key, encrypted it wrong,... and after you scratch things off you won't be able to claim back your money! |
|
|
|
|
i honestly can't think of any situation where using Tor would increase the chances of you losing your bitcoins that you are keeping on the same online machine compared to normal times when you are using that machine without Tor!
usually when sites make such claims they also should add a page to explain why they are saying it otherwise we end up speculating about their works with the governments which might be more correct than you may think.
|
|
|
|
~
There is no way you can remember 12 words for years to come without writing them somewhere. Which also means that they could easily be stolen or lost.
true but as i explained, the alternative is still flawed so in my opinion storing the 12 words that is randomly generated is a lot safer than using a brainwallet even if it is susceptible to physical theft. besides you can mitigate that by using some sort of encryption on it! for instance you could use the "brainwallet" as the password for encrypting the mnemonic phrase and then print the encrypted text instead and remember the password. That is a fine idea! What I don't like is using a simple SHA for a password. So even the password protected mnemonics if they fall in the wrong hands could easily be brute-forced. So here is a thought perhaps we'd both agree on - what about WarpWallet type of encryption on top of the mnemonic phrases? extending the password with a salt first and then using that for encryption is always a great idea. extending it with a strong key derivation function that is expensive to brute force such as scrypt (which uses a lot of memory) is even a better idea. setting the values for N=2 18 and r=8 is also a good setting for this purpose https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7914#section-2 |
|
|
|
~
Agreed. Tom Lee is the funniest because he appears to be the most desperate. He might have more than $100 million of investors' money on bitcoin that went in late. What if his $14,000 fair value for bitcoin is the breakeven of the investment hehehe?
that is what the "brokers" have been traditionally doing for years. they always tell their investors not to pull out of the market because them keeping their money in will give these "brokers" who have nothing at risk a lot of commissions. that is why Lee has been assuring his newbie investors that price is going to a new ATH all through 2018 during the drops, basically every day! |
|
|
|
the only thing that nonsense like this can affect is the price. otherwise bitcoin is designed in a way to be resilient to these things. in case you have forgotten that is exactly what being decentralized means and that is exactly what bitcoin was designed to be. if it were to be affected by some government's decision then it meant that it were a failure.
As much as I agree that Bitcoin cannot be interfered with, plenty of users will be affected. Even if you ignore the price dumps, losing access to exchanges is a big blow to a lot of people. It's also going to affect the way it's used as a currency, as deals are going to have to be done in secret, and under threat of prosecution. Some users can choose to be resilient, which I suppose is the beauty in it, but we have to acknowledge that authorities still have a high degree of influence over Bitcoin's ecosystem, even if they can't really touch the network itself. no arguments there. US citizens will be affected for sure but bitcoin will continue on since the rest of the world isn't crazy! majority of countries in the world have already accepted bitcoin with some of them letting it be used as a currency (like for paying taxes in Germany, a legal currency in Japan,...). and it would be their own fault for electing such a crazy person for the office |
|
|
|
in my opinion it is wrong to call these "transaction" types because these are "script" types. in bitcoin we only have 1 form of transaction and if you wanted to be so strict you could say 2 types: legacy and SegWit (a tx containing witness data in it). otherwise since the structure of a transaction is exactly the same we can't categorize them as different "transaction" types. P2MS
this is the first time i am hearing this term. where did you get it from? is it the one where you place the redeem script (m<pub1><...><pubn>n checkmultisig) inside the scriptPub? P2PKH: "Pay To Public Key Hash" - This is how a big percentage of transactions are made. You are requiring the sender to supply a valid signature (from the private key) and public key. The transaction output script will use the signature and public key and after checking the hash of the provided public key with previous output, through some cryptographic functions will check if the signature is valid, if it was, then the funds will be spendable. This method conceals your public key in the form of a hash for extra security. If the spending condition is set to present a public key hash, then it is a P2PKH TX, and you have the std Op_Dup, Op_Hash160,... structure.
FTFY P2PK: "Pay To Public Key" - Unlike P2PKH that contained the hash of public key; this script contains the public key itself. Anyone using this method to send funds over the P2P network is showing people their public key in the transaction details. The spending condition only requires you to present your public key and signature. The public key would be recognized by your wallet (following the above mentioned coding scheme) as „type 1“ address.
the first crossed out part is misleading. you reveal your public key whenever you spend any of these outputs. P2SH: "Pay To Script Hash" - The outputs of a transaction are just hash of a scripts known as redeem script that, if are executed with specific parameters, will result in a boolean of true or false. If a miner node runs the output script with the supplied parameters and results in true, the money will be sent to your desired output. P2SH is commonly used forin multi-signature wallets making the output scripts logic that checks for multiple signatures before accepting the transaction. P2SH can also be used to allow anyone, or no one, to spend the funds. If the output script of a P2SH transaction is just 1 for true, then attempting to spend the output without supplying parameters will just result in 1 making the money spendable by anyone who tries. This also applies to scripts that return 0, making the output spendable by no one.
FTFY missing: - P2WSH similar to P2SH but the hash of the script is different and the redeemscript itself goes in witness - P2SH-P2WPKH nested SegWit (workarounds) where it is similar to P2WPKH but the whole thing is put inside of a redeem script and hashed - P2SH-P2WSH same as previous one but for P2WSH read more: https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_wallet_dev/Non Standartd
 |
|
|
|
Do all of you agree that Coinbase is where I should make the purchase ? Or do any of you recommend another site, maybe an easier, more simple one ?
I was also "advised" NOT to use Coinbase since I'm a 1st timer & only need to make a one time transaction. I was told Coinbase isn't a good place for a beginner or a one time user.
where you go to purchase bitcoin is mostly opinion based, some people don't "like" coinbase, some others like it. it is up to you to decide whether their services and ToS is something you could live with or not. for example in my opinion Coinbase is an excellent way for beginners to start using bitcoin because it simplifies a lot of things for them. as for storage, as it was mentioned a wallet that you control the keys should be your choice. also look into cold storage: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Cold_storage |
|
|
|
OK, so, the "answers" have convinced me that no one is interested in the reward, so I'm cancelling the reward offer as of this posting. Pooya87 came the closest as (s)he provided the correct formulae, even though it was camouflaged in a lot of other stuff.
it is probably because your account is brand new and you didn't escrow the "reward". i only replied because i didn't care and i would have replied the same way even if you never mentioned "reward" that is why i loled  although i am wondering why you said it is "camouflaged in a lot of other stuff"! what other stuff? it is a literal translation from my own implementation of BIP32 to pseudo-code as you asked. step 4.1: https://i.imgur.com/i8NpSwq.jpgFill a program with bloated libraries, the program WILL run slower.
i don't think so. a library is not something you "load" like an application to take time, it is just a set of codes that your program accesses. if you want a certain set of classes, then it will only access those when you run your application. i haven't experienced any speed penalties by adding libraries to my projects ever! |
|
|
|
|
the only thing that nonsense like this can affect is the price. otherwise bitcoin is designed in a way to be resilient to these things. in case you have forgotten that is exactly what being decentralized means and that is exactly what bitcoin was designed to be. if it were to be affected by some government's decision then it meant that it were a failure.
|
|
|
|
in short if the hash function is to be replaced it must be replaced with something different. for example one of those sponge based constructions instead of Merkle–Damgård, like Keccak (standardized as SHA-3).
And this I guess is why when we're seeing proposals, they're for different/new hash functions? Although until I saw this I didn't know about this SHA-3 family of standards. I don't trawl all the proposals but that's what I recall (or don't recall) but I always thought that when, if at all, Bitcoin decides for a major change, it will only be to hash funtion, not hash algorithm. Are you aware of anything suggesting otherwise? yeah, SHA-3 family have been around for a while now (2015ish). there are even a lot of different altcoins that use these functions. some examples: Blake2 (BlakeBitcoin), Grøstl (DigiByte, Verge), Skein, JH (SecureCoin), and of course Keccak (Ethereum) i don't think anybody is even thinking about replacing SHA256 at the moment. there is just no reason for it. this hash function is still strong against all the attacks that matter. |
|
|
|
That is true. There is no point in using SHA256 any longer, as SHA512 is faster in 64-bit processors
not entirely true. nowadays most CPUs have SHA-extensions (mostly Intel but some AMDs) which are working for SHA1 and SHA256 but not SHA512. the speed gained using these intrinsic are huge. additionally in bitcoin we are doing a lot of hashing on small bytes such as 33 byte public key, 80 bytes block header,... SHA256 is still faster on them because the higher rounds and bigger blocks of SHA512 adds overhead that slows it down. Even if what you need is 256-bit hash, you can still use the more secure SHA512, and just use the first 256-bits.
if you want to replace a hash function you should never replace it with the SAME hash function that has the SAME EXACT construction. as for SHA512-256, the only thing that it provides over SHA256 (and similarly over SHA512 itself) is protection against length extension attacks which doesn't even concern bitcoin usage. in short if the hash function is to be replaced it must be replaced with something different. for example one of those sponge based constructions instead of Merkle–Damgård, like Keccak (standardized as SHA-3). |
|
|
|
Amazon already accepted bitcoin once,
as far as i am aware, Amazon has never accepted bitcoin. there are tons of third parties that you can go through to buy from Amazon if you could trust them but that has nothing to do with the company itself! I mean yeah surely after bitcoin dropped like crazy they started to think it may not be a great idea and they removed it
wrong. steam which is the only correct one in your comment removed bitcoin when the price was rising back in 2017 and they removed it because the fees were unreasonably high. mainly because the games they sell usually worth less than the fees at that time! |
|
|
|
CMC is not a police-type authority. It simply takes the information it receives and displays it.
they arent ? i thought cmc is trusted when it comes to crypto stuffs and informations . it is data that they show not information, so it is raw and can be interpreted anyways you like. as for trust, there isn't much they could fake because it is the data that they fetch from the exchanges and then show it on their site. i wouldn't say they are or even can manipulate the market because they simply have no power. but they certainly can mislead people. for example two biggest things they are doing is the "dominance" factor which is meaningless and "ranking" altcoins and the concept of "top coins" which is just as meaningless. |
|
|
|
~
Don't forget Paypal's buyer protection can be abused by people who like to do dispute thing. Maybe You are right, bitcoin left by Paypal because Paypal come early than bitcoin like what people do about bitcoin and other altcoins. What famous first maybe more have support but i believe in future more people will change into cryptocurrency and make bitcoin price can be very high.
it has never been about coming first, Paypal wasn't the first so is bitcoin that wasn't the first. it is always about how good or bad these new things are. if they were really good, then they would be adopted just as Paypal came along and started becoming popular because it was better than the other alternatives at that time. and now bitcoin has come along which is better than the alternative ways of payment. |
|
|
|
Out of all possible options at the time,
could you name some of these "possible options" back in 2008? all i see ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hash_functions#Unkeyed_cryptographic_hash_functions) is a list of a lot of hash algorithms most of which came along in recent years mostly for SHA-3. there are old ones like MD and RIPEMD which weren't as safe or popular as SHA256 there is Whirlpool which is again not popular and the digest size is 512 bit which would have made everything in bitcoin that much bigger. so not suitable |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
