|
Blockchain forks have nothing to do with private blockchains. Anyone can create a blockchain fork (and thus a new cryptocurrency) by deciding on some activation parameter (e.g. block height after X) and changing a consensus rule in some backwards incompatible way (e.g. raising the maximum block size). Then they write or modify a full node software to follow these new consensus rules (which includes the activation parameter). When the activation parameter is met, if the people making the fork have enough hash rate, they will create a blockchain split and there will then be two branches of the blockchain. One will be for Bitcoin and the other for the altcoin that was created.
|
|
|
|
|
Controller for what? On what device?
|
|
|
|
But nonetheless it seems signature managers do look at that metric. I like to be concise and to the point, and this penalizes me.
If they are looking at that metric, it certainly is not through my website. The post quality metric is not shown to the user. |
|
|
|
Hi Dev or guys!
According to the estimator program,Bitcointalk has
" good posts (>100 characters excluding quoted text) to bad posts (<100 characters excluding quotes) (whitespace is trimmed)"
When someone is posted on a bitcointalk, does bitcointalk programing identify whether it is over 100 characters or less?
No. Bitcointalk does not care about your post lengths. Also the length of a post is not necessarily a good indicator of the actual quality of a post. You can make a very short high quality post and very long, rambly, low quality posts. |
|
|
|
if it is suspended, then, do they have a new schedule for Segwit2x fork?
No. We only know that those who were primarily pushing the fork have withdrawn support for it for now. We do not know if they will attempt again and when they might do so. |
|
|
|
|
The database has been cleared and the server has been rebooted. Should be fixed now.
|
|
|
|
|
The soft fork is suspended by the primary facilitators of it. However this does not necessarily mean that it won't happen; it just won't have the majority of the previous support. Miners could still download and run the Segwit2x software and fork anyways, it is just unlikely that they will do so, although some might.
|
|
|
|
|
Transactions that are not version 1 or version 2 are non-standard.
|
|
|
|
Better say I am no expert. I really can't tell. The news seems genuine as it is reported in all mainstream media. If they play tricks this way, then there will be no more trust about these Bitcoin thing. Open source means everyone can start a fork. As long as the miners and trading exchanges collude and proceed with a group of new developers, they may again announce on the 14 Nov: Segwit2x Is On Track The developer of segwit2x along with several of the CEOs that supported it (and thus their companies) announced today that Segwit2x has been suspended. The full announcement is here: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-segwit2x/2017-November/000685.html |
|
|
|
|
There is a separate binary called bitcoin-tx which lets you do some transaction specific things without needing to run the full Bitcoin Core. It needs a main function for that binary to work.
Likewise, there are main functions in bitcoin-cli.cpp and qt/bitcoin.cpp as those are for separate binaries that need main functions too (bitcoin-cli and bitcoin-qt respectively).
|
|
|
|
Fellow Forum Members,
I read online I need to transfer my bitcoins to Coinbase.com so I can rightfully claim my Segwit2x free coins. The math as I understand it works like this. If on the day the Segwit2x fork happens a single Segwit2x coin trades for $1,000 and a single Bitcoin trades for $7,000 the net result is Coinbase will give a total of 7 Segwit2x coins for free.
No, that is not at all how it works. When segwit2x forks, for every one Bitcoin you had prior to the fork, you will receive exactly 1 Segwit2x-coin after the fork. This has nothing to do with exchange or Coibnase; it is just how forks work. I have my bitcoins in an Armory version I have not updated for 2 years. All I have done is only update my bitcore blockchain data. In short, is it possible for me to claim my Segwit2x free coins using only Armory after I get around to updating it to the latest version? Or am I obligated to open a Coinbase account to claim my free Segwit2x coins? I would really be grateful if anybody can clarify this for me.
You do not have to do anything with Coinbase or any exchange service to get your Segwit2x coins. It is exactly the same situation as Bitcoin Cash (except for the replay protection thing). |
|
|
|
Depends on when you created the account. Activity updates at 2-week intervals from the moment your account has been created (provided you have enough posts to fill in that activity update.)
No it does not. That is completely wrong. There are fixed ~2 week activity periods for when activity for EVERYONE changes at the same time. This thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582736.0 explains how it works exactly. |
|
|
|
And btw, does "no HD support" means that if you try to load an old format wallet.dat, your coins will not show up?
No, not at all. Old wallets are still supported and non-HD wallets created with previous versions of Bitcoin Core will still be supported. The only thing you can't do is create a new non-HD wallet. |
|
|
|
|
You can't do that.
The best you can probably do is to set your datadir to be the external drive and then have symlinks for all of the files in the blocks folder that link back to the internal drive. However you will need to move the chainstate folder and basically all other files in the datadir to the external drive.
It would be better for you to just use the external drive for the datadir rather than trying to do some split drive thing.
|
|
|
|
I said that I know Bitcoin Core's HD wallet cannot be generated by a single seed, im just asking if it adds any possible exploits. So you are saying that the new format has 0 disadvantages or attack vectors compared to the old format?
Yes. And why would you disable the ability to create non-HD wallets in 0.16?
Because continuing to support HD wallets hinders future changes and limits what we can do with the wallet. Part of that is due to some poor design choices on our side when implementing HD wallets, but regardless, continuing to allow for non-HD wallets prevents us from making certain future changes or requires a lot of hacks to make those changes work. |
|
|
|
|
Your posts are fairly spammy and low quality so they are likely to be deleted. You are also posting in threads which are likely to be moved to the trashcan. This means that your posts will be removed so your post count will decrease. If all of your posts made during a two week activity period are removed, then you will not earn any activity from that activity period and any activity which you had from that period will then be lost.
I highly advise that you think before posting and make higher quality posts or this will likely to continue to happen. Furthermore, you will be banned if you continue to make low quality posts.
|
|
|
|
|
Decentralized solutions generally have way less capacity than centralized solutions. It is unlikely that any actually decentralized coin will be able to have the same transaction capacity of centralized solutions with today's technology.
|
|
|
|
I don't like HD wallets in general, I like the old approach better. Im not sure how exactly this HD wallet works, I just like the original format. As far as I know, there is no seed, so the wallet cannot be generated unless you own the wallet.dat file which is good, I wouldn't trust a wallet that can be generated with a single seed containing all of your private keys.
Clearly you don't understand how HD wallets work. Bitcoin Core does not use a seed phrase that you are probably thinking of. Seed phrases are not required for an HD wallet; you still have to own and hold the wallet.dat file. The only thing that changes is how the private keys are generated; everything else about how they are stored and the backup and security measures that you must take still exist with Bitcoin Core's HD wallets. It still uses a HD wallet and the private keys are still stored in the exact same format as before. What are the pros and cons of the new HD enabled wallet.dat compared to the original format? I've had the same wallet.dat since Bitcoin-qt in 2013-ish and I never had any problems with it. But now with all the fork nonsense I will be forced to move my coins into another wallet, and when I tried to generate a new wallet in the new versions of Core it was HD-enabled.
With an HD wallet, you can restore any backup of your wallet.dat and still be able to access your Bitcoin whereas with non-HD wallets older backups may no longer be valid (they don't contain later private keys). However if your wallet.dat file is stolen, then all of your private keys for that wallet.dat file (including those that have not yet been generated used) are revealed. But you should be using a new wallet.dat file anyways if yours is ever stolen, regardless of HD or not. To disable HD wallets, you must start Bitcoin Core with the -usehd=0 option. However this option and the ability to create a non-HD wallet has been removed for Bitcoin Core 0.16. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
