Not only the wallet support RBF, the transaction itself must have RBF flag enabled. As I explained above, now that a significant minority of the network is running full RBF, and at least one mining pool is mining full RBF replacements, then this isn't strictly true anymore. In other words, it's still generally true. Besides, the wallet software must have feature to create conflicting transaction or at least delete unconfirmed transaction from the wallet itself.
Does anyone have a link, graph or something that counts these "minting' transactions/day?
User @d5000 create one, although it's about size/day rather than TX/day. I made a little visualization about the size of ordinal inscription transactions, to be able to follow the evolution of their impact in the chain: https://dune.com/d5k/ordinals-by-size--snip-- |
|
|
|
About bitcoin, I don't know any bibf companies sponsoring the development.
There are big businesses contributions to Linux kernel. Why Bitcoin ecosystem is not supported at a similar level?
BitMax wrote good article about this question, see https://blog.bitmex.com/who-funds-bitcoin-development/. But take note it was last updated almost 3 years ago. Internal contributions: They might use and extend open source software for internal purposes, but these changes are not always made public.
If those changes aren't made public, then such company doesn't make any contribution to open source software/community. |
|
|
|
--snip--
Do you think 0.18$ kWh will be good to say that I can break even for this things If ever I begin to mine Bitcoin? Honestly, this is what I consume here in my home according to per hour based on kWh. So I think, I supposed to expect a high cost for the electricity for the first month I guess. But I will observe it for the first trial as of the moment. $0.18/kWh is definitely bad electricity rate for mining. Even if you use Antminer S19 XP Hyd (255Th) which have best energy efficiency[1], your profit is very small[2] and you'll not reach break even before more efficient ASIC comes out.  [1] https://www.asicminervalue.com/efficiency/sha-256[2] https://www.asicminervalue.com/miners/bitmain/antminer-s19-xp-hyd-255th |
|
|
|
|
This is cool tool, even though i don't really need it. Does your tool consider or check custom configuration of specific node (e.g. lower minrelayfee value or higher mempool memory size)?
|
|
|
|
[Child board] Education: Tutorials, guides and informative topics that help teach improving cybersecurity and/or privacy
- Suggested pin topic: Topic [tagging] etiquette to distinguish tips, tutorials, information, etc. For example [Tutorial] for a detailed how-to, [Tip] for a tip/hint, [Information] for increasing knowledge.
IMO this topic definitely should also cover trade-off between security, privacy and convenience. Awesome post. Sorry if it came across as forcing your hand  I made the title more appropriate after LoyceV mentioned it: Influential members who possibly support the proposal (OP/multiple post +Merit though no post of support) One thing is for sure, it worked! All that's missing is ETFBitcoin saying something...  I hereby announce that i support creation of "Cybersecurity and Privacy" board on bitcointalk.org. |
|
|
|
Should we rise the block size limit at some point in the future?
Yes. If yes, how much?
It should be based on initial (e.g. hardware) and operational cost (e.g. internet connection and electricity) of a node, while also considering future initial/operational cost. In past, only BIP 103 consider this perspective seriously. I think it's fine if most users run SPV wallets, if casual users use custodial wallets, and only enthusiasts run full nodes. Yes, they won't get all the benefits of being your own bank and "don't trust, verify", but most people don't need them. Just owning and using Bitcoin in sufficiently secure manner is enough.
Do SPV wallets must upgrade their wallet softwares when Bitcoin protocol has upgrades? Usually no, since upgrade usually released as soft-fork. |
|
|
|
I don't seem to comprehend how more blocks increase transaction security.
Aside from what @BlackHatCoiner said. Higher confirmation also reduce risks of your transaction become unconfirmed again due to block re-org. See https://learnmeabitcoin.com/technical/chain-reorganisation. And How do blockchain confirmations work?
Basically it means depth of the block which contain certain transaction. The number increased automatically each time new block is mined. |
|
|
|
Apparently those bad boys are now going for ~£100 each as collectibles. I knew this will happen eventually   Anyone can attempt to sell old ASIC at high price, but i have doubt there are any buyer for it. There are too many variant of USB miner out there and Bitcoin mining isn't very popular even among Bitcoiner, while casual hobbyist would prefer newer USB miner such as Compac F. |
|
|
|
I need help for know what want say this phrase, by 'bitcoin core' debug file.
here :
"addresses found from DNS seeds"
the number of address (upper), can say, the number of address with have funds ? or not ?
In this case, addresses refers to IP address/.onion link of other Bitcoin full node. There's no correlation between this debug message and your wallet.dat file. my old file,
was one wallet.dat bitcoin
can't open On bitcoin core !
Did Bitcoin Core show any error/warning message when it tried to open your wallet.dat file? |
|
|
|
According to the generation rule that says that a free transaction must be 3 blocks deep before it can be transfered again for free, which has not fully realised.
What nonsense. There's no such rule on Bitcoin protocol/consensus. In past, Bitcoin-Qt had default configuration which allow transaction with certain coin-age or all output has amount >= 0.01 BTC. But after short time, most miner decide to ignore such default configuration. When I asked him this on Twitter I figured it proved he’s lying but perhaps this statement simply means btc was built to be programmable in a way that would allow for SC’s to run on it ..eventually?  Szabo says btc isn’t Turing complete (have seen Andreas say the same)..so doesn’t this prove he’s not Satoshi ? 1. There are plenty proof csw isn't satoshi. For example, https://bitcoinmagazine.com/business/op-ed-how-many-wrongs-make-wright. 2. It's true Bitcoin isn't turing complete, even after Taproot addition. 3. AFAIK there's no OP_RETURN which makes Bitcoin script turning complete. |
|
|
|
@rodarmor i wanted to try Ordinals on Signet, but i saw few report which state indexing process is very slow[1-3]? Do you think it's viable to use HDD in this case? Didn't miners do this fee manipulation trick a few years back bumping the fees up to $50? Since when miners are capable of forcing or manipulating you pay more? There's theory where multiple pool could work together to manipulate people to pay more TX fee by filling unused part of their block with their own transaction or arbitrary data. There's extreme version where they attempt to make congestion. [1] https://github.com/casey/ord/issues/1648[2] https://github.com/casey/ord/issues/1377[3] https://github.com/casey/ord/discussions/1619 |
|
|
|
The set of unconfirmed transactions, the best known block header, and various metadata required to validate transactions and blocks are just a few examples of the additional data that LevelDB can hold in addition to the UTXO data regarding the health of the Bitcoin network.
Bitcoin Core documentation doesn't mention mempool (on memory or dump file "mempool.dat") use LevelDB though[1]. But what kind of data about UTXO is stored in there? I've heard that it's like txid -> data about all UTXOs, but what kind of data? Saw that there are some bits that indicates if a vout is spent or not. And when all bits show that all vouts are spent, this pair txid -> vouts will be deleted
See https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/29418. [1] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/v24.0.1/doc/files.md |
|
|
|
remember the promise "taproot witnesses will be lean and appear like 1 signature length"
CMIIW, but that only applies to aggregating multiple signature into single (also called schnorr signature). --snip--
You raise a fair point. I'm not aware of the specifics for why each of those limits exists in Bitcoin, but I'd maintain there's still a difference between " these are the limits we currently have" and " I don't personally approve of what someone else is doing, so we should change Bitcoin to impose new limits". But take note some of the limitation is categorized as limitation imposed by node. Some of those could be ignored by miner and those who can give non-standard transaction to miner. |
|
|
|
But with "getchaintips" rpc I am getting two different chaintips
This is expected behavior since Bitcoin Core doesn't purge orphan/stale block, even when it only store the header. On Bitcoin testnet, Bitcoin Core even show far more chaintips. I have a Litecoin node (0.16.3) started on Testnet.
My question is why the active chain is the chain with block 2391641 (second) instead of 2656160 (first).
This shouldn't happen since various LTC testnet explorer show 26XXXXX as latest block height[1-2]. I'm not familiar with LTC, but release note[3] on newer Litecoin Core shows there are few consensus and P2P change. You might want to update your node to latest version and see whether the problem persists. P.S. don't forget to backup to your wallet file and optionally whole LTC testnet blockchain. [1] https://chain.so/testnet/ltc[2] https://blockexplorer.one/litecoin/testnet[3] https://github.com/litecoin-project/litecoin/releases |
|
|
|
I was asking if the P2WPKH method would result in my OP_RETURN data eventually being pruned, since pooya mentioned that nodes would not be required to retain the output in their database.
He was talking about UTXO database, not blockchain database. All data on Bitcoin blockchain is immutable. FYI, full node software have UTXO database in order to verify validity of input of any transaction quickly. |
|
|
|
I want to make sure my full node has this arbitrary transaction data in storage permanently.
Both Taproot and P2PKH ensure your data is stored permanently on all Bitcoin full node. Accepting that I may pay more per kB, I assume I must use P2PKH?
Could you rephrase your question? I have hard time trying to understand your question. If you wanted to ask about storing more than 80 bytes (soft limitation of OP_RETURN) of arbitrary data, Taproot (through Ordinal wallet) probably is better option. |
|
|
|
what should be done first?
Check electricity price on your area and reserve location (e.g. your basement) to host your mining rig. Also, what type of mining rigs should I buy, there is no problem with the capital,
Antminer S19 XP. If it's not available for you, you can use https://www.asicminervalue.com/efficiency/sha-256 to find Bitcoin/SHA-256 ASIC with good energy efficiency. I just really want to try, and at least before the bitcoin halving comes, I have already started this kind of thing.
If you only want to try for short duration and absolutely have no intention to make money, consider mining Bitcoin testnet with old GPU instead. If you're interested, check [Guide] Solo mine testnet bitcoins with bfgminer, Bitcoin Core, and a CPU/GPU. Intend to buy the following,
--snipped general computer hardware--
What do you think about this I am planning with, is it good or can you suggest me other things?
As @Z390 said, there's almost no profitable coin which can be mined with GPU. See https://www.whattomine.com/ for how much you could gain lose. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
