Bitcoin Core has a startup option called blocknotify. You can give this a command which Bitcoin Core will run every time it receives a new block. This command can be a script which notifies something else.

You can also use the ZeroMQ notification framework which Bitcoin Core supports.

You've dropped a few zeros. The max block size was 1000000 bytes. The max block weight is 4000000 units.

Yes, this is an area that has been extensively studied and researched. Reducing network latency has been something that Matt Corallo has been working on a lot and has resulted in FIBRE and BIP 152 Compact blocks.

Increasing the number of these fallback nodes would not help at all whatsoever. They are rarely used and are not even used for normal connections. Rather they are only briefly connected to to get the IP addresses of other nodes to connect to. Increasing their number would not help at all.

This topic has been moved to Trashcan.

No Illegality.

No, it is not agreed. Firstly, there is no "bitcoin code". There are multiple implementation of the Bitcoin consensus rules. If you are referring to Bitcoin Core, it can sometimes be inefficient but there is nothing inherent about consensus implementations for Bitcoin being inherently inefficient.

Bitcoin Core certainly has code duplication, but it is much better than it was in the past and it has become much more efficient.

Bitcoin Core may still be like that, but that is only one implementation.

There is not one place that specifies a hash function that is used; rather every time the hash function is used, the function itself is directly called. It's not like there are some UsePoWHash or UseConsensusHash functions.

The files that you are looking for are probably src/chainparams.cpp, src/validation.cpp, and the files under src/consensus/. However many other source files include consensus related things.

Presumably there is a swtich. Simply an if statement; if after activation height, use equihash, else use sha256d.

Yes.

Not necessarily.

This topic has been moved to Trashcan.

Duplicate

No. It is not the miner's job to verify transactions; that job is for the full nodes (of which miner's are a subset). Miners do not determine what valid transactions are. Their only purpose is to order transactions and, when there is a conflict, say which came first and is the correct one. This ordering is also subject to certain restrictions and all blocks are validated by full nodes.

No, that is completely incorrect. As I said, transaction verification is done by full nodes. Secondly, each transaction pays a transaction fee which is rewarded to the miner that includes the transaction in a block. So transaction fees will replace the block subsidy in the block reward.

The hash is different for each input.

#bitcoin-dev on freenode.

No, it is impossible. If it were, then what's the point of having a password and encryption?

memtest86

Using an external hard drive is not recommended, both for performance reasons and data corruption reasons. USB is generally slower than the internal connection to a hard drive, so the sync will be much slower. Furthermore, we have found that people have had a hard time with syncing to external hard drives as Bitcoin Core will need continuous connection to the drive and any sort of interruption will result in data corruption. Have you tried not using the external drive?

There is no struct; it is a class that has a specific serialization. The implementation details can be found here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/chain.h#L370. The other stuff there (which can vary for each block), include the block's position on disk, its height, and the number of transactions.

How do you have all nodes agree on the contents of the next block? Don't just say "somehow", provide exactly how you think they would be able to do this. Furthermore, this does in fact allow for the blockchain to be done away with. The Proof of Work is how Bitcoin determines the transaction order and determines who is correct. Having some other method of determining the transaction order thus does not need the Bitcoin blockchain (note that this does not mean it can't use PoW or have PoW somewhere as part of it).

Yes. The name is completely cosmetic; there is no name in the Bitcoin blockchain that identifies it as being Bitcoin. The thing that identifies it as being Bitcoin are the consensus rules. This DOES NOT include the port, but it includes the mining algorithm, the genesis block, the difficulty adjustment algorithm, etc. If you do not change any of the consensus rules, then you are using Bitcoin.

What do you mean by "mining itself"? Mining is not involved in this.

Please post the transaction ids of the transactions in question.

Read the documentation provided in the source code. Specifically this file and this file.

Use a script which requests from Bitcoin Core each block and count the number of transactions in each block. Keep a running sum until you reach the block you want to checkpoint at.

The blockchain's sole purpose is to establish transaction ordering; if we can do that in the mempool (i.e. without the blockchain), then there's no need for the blockchain! This is effectively impossible to do though because Bitcoin is an asynchronous system; my node's mempool will be different from your node's mempool and, because of network latency, I will receive transactions in different orders than you do.

This topic has been moved to Trashcan.

Duplicate

The developers of Bitcoin Core (which Litecoin Core routinely rebases onto and thus instructions for recent versions of Core also apply to Litecoin) use the Linux command line and GDB to debug. Very few developers use an IDE or GUI for any sort of work. It is all mostly done with text editors and GDB from the command line.