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. |
|
|
|
GA should do this far earlier. But at least we should say "better late than never" for saying that statement. We should try to relax a bit. It’s not like Gavin is some official spokesperson for Bitcoin, and obviously the whole claim to fame on Craig’s side is half winded. IMO he’s Satoshi’s antithesis. What caused the resurgence of this debate lol
GA has some influence on Bitcoin and cryptocurrency community. So some people might be angry at GA since his statement could mislead few newbie to buy BSV rather than other cryptocurrency with better history/potential. |
|
|
|
If a majority of nodes reject these transactions, this whole ordinal idiocy goes tits up overnight. This can be done without any changes to consensus rules: set your node to a reasonably s/B fee rate. This would limit the propagation of these transactions in the mempool.
Very unlikely to happen when most node owner don't bother change default setting. Additionally, in past there were proposal to change default relay fee to 0.1 sat/vB for Bitcoin Core. In general, I'm not too worried. Ethereum has demonstrated that NFTs will move to the next chain down the road when fees get too high for data usage. In general the whole concept of NFTs on chain is dumb, as you need a centralized party to enforce consumption rules. I don't see this fad developing on chains with scarce block size as a consequence.
Generally it's true, although we have to consider few people willing to pay more since Bitcoin is one of most popular cryptocurrency. |
|
|
|
|
Saran saya berdasarkan editan dari @Uruhara.
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Deskripsi: Semua topik yang tidak sesuai dengan CB apapun.
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian) > Bitcoin (Bahasa Indonesia)
Deskripsi: Semua diskusi tentang Bitcoin yang tidak sesuai dengan CB lainnya.
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian) > Altcoin (Bahasa Indonesia)
Deskripsi: Semua diskusi tentang altcoin yang tidak sesuai dengan CB lainnya.
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian) > Economy, Trading and Speculation (Bahasa Indonesia)
Deskripsi: Semua topik tentang ekonomi, trading dan spekulasi tentang Bitcoin, altcoin negara Indonesia dan lainnya.
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian) > Marketplace (Bahasa Indonesia)
Deskripsi: Diskusi pasar umum, jual-beli, pinjaman, lelang, judi, diskusi layanan, diskusi seputar pertukaran dan pasar, berbagi informasi terkait pasar dan lainnya.
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian) > Mining, Staking and other (Bahasa Indonesia)
Deskripsi: Diskusi tentang "passive income" yang bisa dilakukan secara on-chain seperti mining, staking, lending, liquidity dan lainnya.
|
|
|
|
To the best of my knowledge, all the items in my chart depend on layer 1 for security.
But security of federated or centralized sidechain doesn't heavily rely on layer 1. For example, security of Liquid sidechain heavily involve "Functionaries". These functionaries each serve two roles on the network - as blocksigners they operate the Liquid sidechain, and as watchmen they secure Bitcoins held by the Network.
|
|
|
|
Personally, I find the notion of having to constantly agree to lengthy terms and conditions and cookie notifications quite frustrating. It seems that every website or app is like, "Hey, check out these 10 pages of fine print before you use us." Who's got the time for that?
You got me curious since you specifically said 10 pages. Using tool to calculate total page[1] with setting Verdana, 12pt and 1.5 spacing i got following result on 3 different service, - Coinbase user agreement[2] has 79.8 pages.
- Preinstalled Windows 11 License terms[3] has 16.9 pages.
- Trust wallet ToS[4] has 17.9 pages
So it looks like 10 pages on lower side of length ToS. The truth is, most people don't have the patience to read through all of these agreements, and as a result, they often click "accept" without truly understanding what they are agreeing to.
That's true. Although for cookies, there's option to choose "X", "Reject all", "Accept minimum" or similar lines which i automatically choose these days. A useful tool that I use more often than not is Terms of Service Didn't Read[2][3]
They offer great summarisation. But unfortunately they don't show last time when ToS of a website changed and last time they make an update, so i don't know how up to date is their summarisation. Although it's just small concern for me.
[1] https://howtowrite.customwritings.com/pages-calculation/[2] https://www.coinbase.com/legal/user_agreement/united_states[3] https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/UseTerms/OEM/Windows/11/UseTerms_OEM_Windows_11_English.htm[4] https://trustwallet.com/terms-of-services |
|
|
|
Firstly, chain analysis is not a reliable source Perhaps, but i'm not sure if better source which available publicly exist. secondly, what is considered money laundering in some jurisdictions could be a normal practice of circumventing financial sanctions in other jurisdictions.
That's true, Chainalysis is U.S. based and AFAIK U.S. has relative strict financial regulation. It's not surprising centralized exchange (CEX) remain popular option as destination of illicit wallet. Although i wonder how much/little those funds managed to be detected by those CEX.
Why you're not surprising? Because centralized service such as bank is popular option to laundry money in big quantity. For example, see "FinCEN files" or "Danske Bank money laundering scandal". |
|
|
|
Format Bitcoin address tentunya akan berubah. Perubahan private key mungkin terjadi jika Bitcoin menggunakan kriptografi dengan ukuran bukan 256-bit.
jadi semakin besar, semakin panjang dan ribet? Hanya jika kriptografi dengan ukuran private key lebih besar daripada 256-bit. misal berubah menjadi 512-bit, apakah semakin aman?
Ya (dengan asumsi ECDSA 256-bit vs ECDSA 512-bit). |
|
|
|
rest in peace people who run nodes from home if this takes off. i heard it will use 250GB per year luckily seagate's got you covered.  The number is slightly off. Even assuming each block has exactly 4.000.000 bytes (maximum possible size in theory) it's only equal to 210.24GB. It'll have much bigger impact towards people who want to run node for first time (which means download whole blockchain) rather than those who already run synced node. 4000000 bytes * 144 (total blocks/day) * 365 (total day/year) = 210240000000 bytes (210.24GB)
|
|
|
|
WOW, this is perfect, I read that we can add videos into the blockchain by this thing! Amazing, just imagine sending child porn, government secrets as NFTs.
People already do some of that, see https://www.righto.com/2014/02/ascii-bernanke-wikileaks-photographs.html. So if it's bad don't try to change the rules, which is a hard thing to do, instead try to figure out a way to fight back.
e.g., Next thing you know someone will create series of forbidden NFTs and governments will go after every node/ miner/ block explorer to "manage the situation".
For better or worse, obtaining and decoding/re-assemble arbitrary data from Bitcoin blockchain is quite difficult for most person, so i expect government would focus on different leak method which is more accessible. --snip--
Some of the standard rules are meant as "soft discouragement" to encourage people to seek better solutions that don't harm Bitcoin (like the OP_RETURN limit). For example the NFT guys could easily create a side-chain that is secure by merged-mining which would in turn provide a much better market (incentive) for miners to make money while securing that side-chain without "attacking" bitcoin. There's no need to create new side-chain. RSK and Liquid could do that. In fact, i would recommend those people to use RSK which is decentralized and secure thanks to merge mining with BTC network. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
