You should review the documentation for their API. You should click on the "Transactions" tab.

If you are making 100 API calls every 5 minutes, you may run into rate limit issues and may get blocked. I don't see anything about rate limits, or the ability to buy a "premium" subscription to their API service that would allow you to make a higher volume of queries.

As others have mentioned, you can also create your own API (or hire someone to do so) that you can use to query this information.

If you place a limit order to sell your coin at a price below the best bid price, your order will be treated similar to a "market" order and will be matched against existing buy orders that are priced at or above your limit price, starting with the orders buying coin at the highest price.

No. That is nonsense. If someone spent two 0.5 satoshi inputs and had a single output of 1 satoshi output, an old node would need to recognize the output as being valid

With SegWit, there were scripts that were previously "anyone can spend" that were changed to "only certain people can spend". This means transactions sent to SegWit addresses would appear valid to both old and new nodes, and that transactions that spend SegWit inputs would appear valid to both old and new nodes, but old nodes would not be able to validate if the transaction is valid under new rules.

A soft fork must restrict the transactions that are valid. Your proposal increases the transactions that are valid.

When someone spends outputs that have a fraction of a satoshi, the transaction will appear to be invalid because it violates consensus rules. If you can send a fraction of a satoshi, you can also send 1.5 satoshi in an output.

The current consensus rules dictate that the smallest fraction of a bitcoin is one satoshi. The OP's proposal will only be needed if this consensus rule changes. In order to change a consensus rule, a hard fork will be necessary, therefore any fork involving the OPs proposal might as well be part of a hard fork.

Loyce's bot will parse the forum's recent posts page only so often. If a post is deleted, my presumption is that the post will be removed from the recent posts page. This means if you delete a post shortly after a post is made, there is a chance anyone scraping forum posts will miss it.

As a FYI, I created a bot that can moderate your self moderated thread(s) based on who is posting in your thread. The code was written to be used with Chrome, but I believe it can be modified to be used with Tor, if that is what you wanted.

You will want to put every transaction into a database, and run a database query anytime you want to lookup information about an address. This is in essence what any block explorer will do whenever you lookup an address or transaction.

I think future versions of electrum should support the ability to route payments via LN. Without this feature, I can see a lot of LN nodes closing LN channels with electrum users if they do not use many transactions, especially if the electrum user has sent payments to/via the LN channel, meaning the LN node is tying up capacity.

Reports that are "unhandled" are not marked as anything. Reports in "unhandled" status mean that no moderator has taken action on the post you have reported. This could mean the mods have not had time to review your report, or it could mean that some mods reviewed your report and were not sure if they should take action or not. It could also mean that responding to your report requires research that the mod does not have time to conduct.

You are not going to be notified if a mod is not sure if action should be taken or not.

Ahh, you're right. It is interesting there would be so much activity on the dev branch, and no merges into production after so long.

I think the deterministic generation of addresses, the standardization of derivation paths, and of seeds has made it easier to develop wallet software and has made it not as big of a deal if there are problems with the software because the consumer's money will be safe as long as the software can calculate the addresses correctly.

The above principles are important if LN is going to be successful. LN wallet software needs to have a good mechanism for not losing the latest channel state, and associated transactions if it will be successful.

This is speculation: Maybe the admins don't want someone who has not shown they know how to effectively report posts trying to question unhandled and bad reports.

More speculation: If you are reporting posts that are old when you report them, your report may not be high on the priority list.

You have to transfer any USD or coin you have in your coinbase account to your coinbase pro account. Also note that you will have withdrawal limits as to how much you are able to withdraw from your coinbase pro account per day, and if you have coin valued above these limits, you will have to process withdrawals over multiple days.

If you are in the process of buying coin, if you try to be the maker, you may have to continuously revise your price upwards until someone sells into your order, possibly by an amount that is greater than the fee savings verses if you had placed a taker order. There is no guarantee the price will ever be a better price in your favor than what it is at the time you place your oder.


My understanding is that when you buy on coinbase, they will send your order to coinbase pro as a market order. Some of their fee is exchange rate risk because they may quote a price at x time, and the price goes against them by the time you press the button to have the order execute on coinbase.

There is still an Armory sub, and there hasn't been any commits to their public GitHub repo in over two years, and there are issues without discussion from over a year ago, making me believe the devs have all but abandoned the project.

The cost of keeping a sub open is low, and there are a lot of existing threads in both the Armory and Mycellium subs that people can search and review. The development of wallet software has improved over the years, and there are not the same amount of bugs there were five years ago, so users of wallet software largely don't have problems running the various wallet software.

I don't see the US giving Ukraine nukes. That would probably not be smart.

Russia invaded Ukraine under Obama, and the Obama Administrative did effectively nothing about it. Over his career, Biden has been wrong on nearly every foreign policy issue. Sadly, I don't see Biden doing anything about further action by Russia against Ukraine. If you are currently in the Ukraine, I would recommend that you seek refuge.

USAF is a strong-arm tactic, it is coercion. That is not what I was referring to. I was referring to the proponents of SegWit 'selling' the benefits of SegWit to bitcoin's various stakeholders using persuasion. 

Computers have a very long useful life, while lightbulbs need to be frequently replaced. Some electric companies will also give away x LED lightbulbs for free to new customers to help reduce total electric consumption.

If someone has an old, power-hungry computer to run a full node, that is all that is available without incurring additional costs.

Coinbase going public is a major milestone for bitcoin. It is the first major crypto-related company to truly go public. Holding a share of coinbase is not he same as holding bitcoin, however it is a metric as to the market's confidence in bitcoin's long term success.

BNB is a centralized token-coin created by Binance, not by coinbase. BNB provides utility to binance customers by allowing them to pay lower fees while using the binance exchange. I would not say that BNB is as worthless, nor pointless as the majority of altcoins out there.

There is no way Dr. Tobin would be able to know how much weight Chauvin put on Floyd's neck with his knee. The figure he gave was a guess.

If one of your feet (or knee) were hurt, you would probably lean on your other foot while standing, so that the hurt foot has very little pressure and the "good" foot has most of your body weight on it. The same principle applies to how much pressure Chauvin was putting on Floyd's body with his knee.

I think this is what is going to cause the reasonable doubt:
“Absent suspicious circumstances, if Floyd had been found dead in his bed with the level of fentanyl in his blood that was present for this autopsy, it may be classified a fentanyl fatality,”

Dr Baker's testimony is basically that Floyd died from the actions of another person solely because of what he saw on the video, despite evidence to the contrary.

Wells I guess I would ask how would one know if something is in the best interest of bitcoin? I could give my opinion based on my own expertise, but doing something because an "expert" says so is anti-thetical to bitcoin. If an exchange is reputable (or even better, if multiple exchanges are reputable), and are neutrally offering a particular market, the ecosystem can take the information into consideration. This is especially true if reputable exchanges allow for holders of bitcoin.current_implementation to exchange into BIPxxx.yes and BIPxxx.no and vice versa, to allow for arbitrage.

I believe a lot of the bitcoin ecosystem did not initially support SegWit. I think it is difficult to argue otherwise. Over time, arguments were made in favor of SegWit, including the various failures of alternate scaling implementations, and the signaling of various futures markets.

In other words, over time, minds were changed after additional data was understood. This is exactly how bitcoin should be improved. A BIP can be proposed that has initial opposition, and those in favor of the BIP should make a compelling argument as to why others should support the BIP.

I suspect major mining pools are running their own custom implementations of bitcoin for broadcasting, receiving, and validating blocks. 

In 2017, there were many "futures" markets that allowed market participants to price the value of various fork-coins, and the owners of mining equipment ("hashers") likely saw that mining on the NYA/BTC1 would not be in their best interest.

The mining pools earn income from the blocks they mine, and they need to invest in infrastructure to allow their pool to operate. If a pool has fewer hashers, it will have less income. It is also trivial for hashers to move their miners to pools that are signaling for or against a proposal that is in line with the long-term best interest of bitcoin. If a pool is signaling for or against a proposal that is not in bitcoins best interest, it will lose customers.


I would have to disagree with the bolded part of your statement. The altcoins that can be mined using ASIC miners that can also mine bitcoin have a very low network hashrate as a function of the hashrate of the bitcoin network. If 1% of the hashers (measured by hashrate) currently mining bitcoin were to move to bitcoin cash, the difficulty would more than double, which means the price of bitcoin cash would need to more than double for the hashers to have the same amount of revenue. This is simply not something that will scale for enough hashers to oppose a bitcoin proposal whose failure would benefit bcash. Even if it did scale, once these hashers start mining bcash, any proposal whose failure would benefit bcash could subsequently be implemented.

I mentioned futures markets for various fork-coins above. Any futures market would need to either be centralized, or run on an altcoin blockchain, such as etherum in order to be reliable.

My position continues to be that it is best to get miners' consent prior to implementing a fork (soft or hard). If there is a BIP proposal that is receiving pushback from the miners (based on what they are signaling), or if the miners are signaling support for a "bad" BIP proposal, a good next step would be to encourage reputable exchanges to open futures markets for both "for" and "against" forks for a BIP, and hope that the result will change minds.