|
i believe that every country or at least majority of them will eventually accept bitcoin as a currency because they won't have any other option as the adoption will have already grown big enough for them to not have any way to go back.
but until then, which may take another decade at least, they will continue resisting bitcoin and either have a vague stance or accept it as a commodity.
|
|
|
|
P2PKH Address: Is nothing but Pay-to-Pubkey hash which means pay to the hash of recipient address. ... pay to hash of recipient "public key" not address! P2SH script functions are used where multiple digital signatures are required to authorize the transaction.
P2SH is used when you want to pay to a "script", one of the scripts that we use in bitcoin is for multiple signature features. Additional to this, Bitcoin Cash(BCH) supports both Legacy format(addr starting with '1') and Cash Address format which is based on bech32, starting with 'q' or 'bitcoincash:q'.
it doesn't start with 'q' it starts with bitcoincash. basically cashaddress is the same as bech32 SegWit address encoding but instead of using `bc` as the human readable part (HRP) they use `bitcoincash` and instead of using `1` as separator they are using `:`! "q" is the product of initial byte being 0 (witness version 0). if you change it that letter will also change. the reason why you can convert between the two formats is because BCH doesn't have SegWit they are just using the encoding so the "scripts" are the same, otherwise this conversion is possible in bitcoin too but it doesn't make sense since the "scripts" are different for the the two address type. |
|
|
|
|
i don't think it is for fork coin claiming since people usually empty their keys from all coins not just bitcoin before selling them.
maybe they are trying to sell those keys to other scammers who need them, like a key selling service for scammers! imagine how much money some scammer such as Craig Wright would pay for a key that was used in 2009!
|
|
|
|
In order to avoid 1, use an VM, ideally use a different device, and download the official full client. Double check checksums.
these are copies of bitcoin we are talking about which means they are copying bitcoin's blockchain hence when you download their "official full client" you will have to download the full blockchain too. i think it was 100-150 GB in 2017 when they copied. and the problem is that sometimes there aren't that many shitcoinNodes to connect to and your download would be much slower. |
|
|
|
1 sat/byte might result in your transaction getting stuck during high demand times. so you should rely on the slider instead. the further to the left the lower the fee and the slower the confirmation times.
There are some perfect time periods to move coins each day with low transaction fees. At fees at 1 satoshi per byte, you can move it well if mempool is empty (like o_e_l_e_o mentioned). If you do your transactions when fees stay at highs, and you set your fees at 1 satoshi per byte, you will have to wait hours or days to get confirmations, that depends on mempool's emptiness. Your transactions in those cases will be stayed in queued (with priorities for higher-fee transtions, descending to 1-sat-fee transactions, include yours). If you don't want to have nearly instant transaction, just set fee at 1 satoshi and wait. you should note that "empty" in this context is not a clear term to use since mempool of bitcoin can never be actually empty. it is a term used when people mean "mempool has lower number of transactions". but then one might ask how many is considered "empty"? 1? 1000? 2000? the answer is in the sum of transaction sizes (weights to be accurate). if that sum is smaller or equal to block weight then you can say paying the minimum is high priority. |
|
|
|
and the minimum of average block size in the past 6 months reached 1.05 MB, leaving little space for users who did not pay a high transaction fee.
what "congestion" are you talking about? for the past 6 months there were only rare cases of big spikes in the number of unconfirmed transactions that didn't last that long either. and the minimum fees users could pay to get their transactions mined in the next block has been mostly between 1 and 3 satoshi per bytes which is the bare minimum! there were however many who "overpaid" Doesn't make a lot of sense to me why so many people love BTC when they can use BCH or BSV with much higher transaction rates and it's basically the same thing.
it makes perfect sense. the reason is the same reason as why bitcoin was created in first place while other options like PayPal and banks,... and a ton of other centralized options existed. |
|
|
|
|
these are companies that are created to sell certain services related to blockchain analysis so they keep coming up with weird things like this claiming to be innovating new ways of analyzing the blockchain while all they do is repeating what has been done for many years and also were known ways of linking transactions together for a long time.
|
|
|
|
Hmmm $15k? Let's be realistic, I doubt that we can have all the money to pour this week just to even break $12k so I don't see the price hitting that range. Unless we have something very positive that will really sway investors to invest more at this point.
remember what happened when price surpassed $4k level this year? now we are in a similar situation. we had the correction, then the panic and uncertainty where "money" has been waiting on the sidelines to get in after seeing the signal. that signal can be if price breaks another level, probably if it goes above $12k with the same speed and gets closer to $13k it will shoot above $15k easily. unlike the $4k situation this will be a small rise though and won't even need nearly as much money. |
|
|
|
you can't mention PoS and not mention the biggest problems that it has specially from an investment perspective. PoS is basically giving away profit on your money for free! this not only causes inflation but also it is inserting a lot of supply in circulation which will then cause the downfall of that coin. that is why most PoS coins don't even survive for long specially those with big rewards. that makes them terrible investments. you think you are earning something like 10% profit but as the price declines more than that 10% profit you lose more money than you earn in the long run. Route 2: Using a online service
this will introduce an additional risk on top of already existing risks. the risk of that "online service" running away with your money! |
|
|
|
It depends on the wallet, if it keeps broadcasting (like Bitcoin Core does) it needs manual intervention if you want it to return to your wallet.
How about Electrum? as it was said, Electrum doesn't automatically broadcast transactions, user must do it. as for transactions that drop out of memory pool, in older versions your wallet removed them from its database so it would have looked like as if the transaction never happened and you had to create it again from scratch. ever since version 3.2.0 if a transaction is dropped from mempool or simply if the Electrum node you are connecting to doesn't have the transaction, your wallet won't remove it. instead it marks it as "local" so you still have access to it and can decide to remove it or rebroadcast the same thing again. |
|
|
|
What PRF is generally used?
i am not really familiar with this algorithm but yesterday when i saw your comment mentioning SHA256 as the PRF i did some search on the algorithm and i haven't yet seen anybody use this. one option is what was posted ( f(x) = 2x%k) each choosing k differently from random k in [1,20] to a k based on curve order, here is one in python: https://github.com/crypto-class/random-modnar/blob/master/set8/58/main.pyothers use something similar to what you said here with SHA256 but they simply use their language's Random() function which uses a bunch of hashes under the hood. another thing i've seen was finding α based on prime (p-1) factors and define f(x) = xα %nin the end it seems like there is no good answer to the pseudorandom map function that they use. each one is trying to come up with the most efficient function while reducing the cycles to make the algorithm run faster. |
|
|
|
|
this seems to be turning into a trend:
1. put pressure on bitcoin adoption but not ban it
Venezuela did it with their taxes and prevention of mining equipment imports, India is doing it, China has been doing it, Iran has been doing it,...
2. start up your own cryptocurrency
all these countries have been doing it publicly or silently. China seems to be in this step.
3. sell it to the masses
Venezuela already released theirs.
4. profit?
|
|
|
|
Thoughts/feedback encouraged.
since this is "market" aka "price" analysis then you should post it in the appropriate board: speculation boardsecondly you can't just advertise your website link here and expect us to click it. i personally am reluctant to do that for these random new sites that keep popping up every day each doing the same thing. post the contents here instead. |
|
|
|
Script failed an OP_EQUALVERIFY operation
This often pop-up if there's a problem with your transaction's signature or inputs. Maybe it came from a non-existing address with huge balance that was caused by the " wallet corruption error" that you've seen during startup. ( from your screenshots) Your corrupted wallet might have signed the tx using an invalid private key and/or there's an unspendable input included. i believe OP may not honest about where he got this wallet and/or transaction. he says he has created it himself but yet the addresses (outputs) that he is spending in his transaction don't seem to relate to each other really. it seems to me like someone created a transaction spending 13 of random high value transactions outputs worth 2200 BTC and signed them with "a random" private keys. which is why each scriptsig in his transaction contains a different signature while having the same unrelated public key and as a result the OP_EQUALVERIFY step fails right in the beginning. you can not sign transactions through Electrum or any normal wallet like this, because since the outpoints differ, the wallet doesn't just sign all with same key. this transaction is custom made with a code outside of any wallet. |
|
|
|
In that specific situation, we could look at network statistics to point out the likelihood of a Sybil attack. Similar attempts were made with Bitcoin XT/Classic. We can't just look at node count, especially where it looks like no one is upgrading their nodes, rather they are just being added to the network through datacenters.
this is a good indicator but nowhere near accurate. at any time there is a large percentage of nodes that run on these cloud services. for example right now ~20% of the the bitcoin nodes are hosted on Amazon and Hetzner cloud services. i believe Google also has some cloud services that people use (~550 nodes ~5%). possibly more that i don't know of. many of the same users may run new nodes on the similar cloud services without upgrading the one they were running. |
|
|
|
It's the good thing that price is rising now but after it went down under 10000$-recently many expected it would fall further and nade totaly different strategy. Be always prepared on possible surprise.
With the spikes last month it was waiting for a correction before we pushed over the 10 again and are going to testing 11k currently. What made you expecting it would drop further ? the problem is that most of the things we read online are not what people really expect to happen. what we read is mostly what they wish to happen specially things they post in social media. for example there are a lot of day traders who place a buy order at for example $9500 when price is $9800 and then come online and "predict" price to fall down to $7000 because they want their $9500 buy order to be filled. |
|
|
|
This is why I'm a small blocker. The inflation subsidy is quickly dwindling down. In just a few more halvings, it will hopefully be negligible compared to transaction fee revenue -- otherwise we might need to start worrying about major drops in hash rate, reorganization attacks, etc. Any increase to block size will lower fee revenues, so I'm definitely on the conservative side when considering them.
this is not necessarily true. because the relationship between revenue and fees is not that easily. small blocks which means higher fees will also mean less users and stop of adoption and the result of that is falling price and finally less resulting revenue for miners. on the other hand bigger blocks can mean more transactions in block which have a higher sum of fee instead of having individual high fees and it also means more adoption and the result of that is higher price and finally a much higher revenue for miners. I don't think the bolded statement is a safe assumption to make. The fee market is a function of how full blocks are (at any size) -- it doesn't linearly aggregate fees as blocks get bigger. Increasing block size won't necessarily increase fee revenue because it will also reduce fee pressure by providing more block space. That means more transactions, more bloat and cheaper fees but not necessarily more revenue for miners to replace lost subsidy. Let's assume that Bitcoin adoption is increasing, regardless of the transaction fees users need to pay. Then all else equal, keeping block weight limit static will increase fee revenue for miners. The same cannot be said if increased adoption (demand for block space) is being negated by increasing block sizes. In that situation, we're left hoping that speculative price increases are enough to incentivize miners. i am talking about a balance between all these factors instead of an imbalance that damages bitcoin. we need to increase the "capacity" so that it is capable of handling more users but at the same time we need to keep it at a level that both ensures decentralization and keeps the fee market to prevent cheap spam but not an outrageous fee market where fees reach unreasonable levels. besides the arguments about fees and miners incentive doesn't belong here for at least another 10 years! |
|
|
|
for the love of god.
bitcoin is not really fast or convenient...my opinion
i understand why you think that way but the reason for it is because you jumped in something entirely new which you have never used or seen before and confused about the new concepts of it. for example when you sent your transaction it immediately reached the destination within 1-3 seconds. this is not at all like bank transfers which can take hours to days to complete (new concept). then the confirmation which is when transaction becomes irreversible took about 20 minutes which is again unlike banks where it takes a couple of months for it to become irreversible (new concept). |
|
|
|
|
first of all to be sure you have the correct Electrum wallet and not a malicious one you must verify its digital signature with the correct public key of the developer. checking your history,... is not a proof!
as for the failure to broadcast that transaction, it is simply because it is an invalid transaction and the server error is pretty clear. it is most probably because the public key provided inside the scriptsig is not the same public key that exists in the scriptpubkey (the hash of it) which is why it fails on OP_EqualVerify step.
try signing the transaction with the correct private key instead!
and if you really did that, then post the raw transaction here and i can tell you exactly what you did wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
cold storage is a storage that is created on an air-gap computer that has never had any communication with the outside world and never will. things such as multi-signature are the extra layer of security you are adding to that design. using hardware wallets is also a semi-cold option in my opinion since the device is still communicating with the "outside world" even if it is in a secure manner not leaking (or rather trying to) any secret information.
so with your design you could use your hardware wallet with an "offline" Electrum as the secondary signature provider if you want to be able to call it "cold storage". i'd say the third one is an overkill though. a 2 of 2 is enough.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
