So if I understand correctly bitcoin performs a hash on a 256 bit ecdsa public key, do you still have a 256 bit protection when the input is not 512 bit? Isnt the compression function security based on compressing 2 to 1?
A compressed key is just the first half of the uncompressed key. Because the second half of an uncompressed public key is (almost) completely determined by the first half, it gives you no additional security. |
|
|
|
LONDON (Reuters) - If you’re not a bitcoin enthusiast, you probably haven’t heard what’s happening next year: It’s called the “halving”, and it will cut production of the cryptocurrency by 50%.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-crypto-currencies-halving-idUSKBN1YN19AYet another journalist promoting the misconception that the halving reduces the supply of bitcoins. The opening paragraph is correct but the remainder of the article replaces "production" with "supply". The author is then obligated to explain how lower supply and constant demand effect the price. The article also notes that the price rose in the years following the halvings, but neglects to mention the fact that the price also rose in the years preceding the halvings. |
|
|
|
Hey I am using PAXFUL wallet and a buyer sent me a payment to my wallet address two times. First time I got the payment and the money was confirmed but second time I can't see the incoming bitcoin in my PAXFUL wallet. He sent me a proof here: www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/d572622a3ef1e1b376edffedfa405048da35fcea173af986b07c96eb8c3fafa2My wallet address is this: 3KTKcrVpkvR2X2brDuEsVQGRwUNuH28k5t I can see he really made the payment and its already got 10 confirmations. Am I right? this is the payment? but I don't see it in my PAXFUL. do you know what the reason can be? You don't have a Paxful wallet, you have a Paxful account. It is up to Paxful to credit your account after the transaction has been confirmed. You will need to ask Paxful about what their policy is. |
|
|
|
So guys this is the real problem that no more investors in Cryptocurrency and no more new Capital in!
If That's the Case then btc might drop to Zero.
If that is true, then Bitcoin is nothing more than a pyramid scheme. |
|
|
|
|
Regardless of any other suggestions that have been made ...
The easiest, most effective, and most convenient way to obtain bitcoins is buy them. If you don't have the money to buy them, then work more and spend less.
|
|
|
|
|
There is no relationship between Bitcoin and the value of the financial sector, economic output or worldwide debt. You can compare the value of Bitcoin to the value of anything, but that doesn't mean that they will some day be equal.
The most appropriate comparison is to something that Bitcoin can replace, such as base money, which is about $19 trillion. Only then can you get a realistic target.
|
|
|
|
Report of Cash Payments Over $10,000 Received in a Trade or Business - Motor Vehicle Dealership Q&As
Generally, any person in a trade or business who receives more than $10,000 in cash in a single transaction or related transactions must complete a Form 8300, Report of Cash Payments Over $10,000 Received in a Trade or Business (PDF). Form 8300 is a joint form issued by the IRS and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) and is used by the government to track individuals that evade taxes and those who profit from criminal activities. Although the cash reporting requirements apply to many types of businesses, auto dealerships frequently receive cash in excess of $10,000 and are required to comply with the filing requirements.
|
|
|
|
i am also wondering why bitcoin core nodes can't recognize a message if it has preceding garbage bytes (random bytes before the magic) but they are fine if it is after it. what's the point of magic then if it isn't used as the message start marker?
Because it is expecting only messages in discrete chunks. TCP generally gives it the messages in a single recv(). It is expecting the magic bytes at the beginning. If someone is sending garbage, then it wants to just disconnect as fast as possible because that could be a DoS attack. However garbage at the end of the message is fine because the message itself is self descriptive in size and garbage after the message can be discarded. The magic bytes are not a start marker. They are an unique identifier. As Andrew stated, a message is a discrete chunk of data, but this is not determined by TCP or recv(). Bitcoin divides the TCP stream into distinct messages, each containing a header and a payload. Garbage cannot precede or follow a message, but the payload can contain extra data at the end that will be ignored. |
|
|
|
|
The distance between the planets makes it impractical. The propagation time is more than ten minutes.
|
|
|
|
"...So, if I put my eye at ground level the sun doesn't appear to set?..."
How do you come to such an irrational conclusion? ... Ok, I think I finally figured out what you are saying. You are explaining why the bottom of the sun is flat instead of round, so that it appears to go below the plane when it actually doesn't. Sorry, my globe earth biases obviously get in the way. |
|
|
|
If the observers eye level was zero i.e. their ear touching the ground, objects would be uniformly compressed as they approach the ARL until they vanish (narrow band superior mirages not withstanding). ...
So, if I put my eye at ground level the sun doesn't appear to set? ... However if the observers eye level is elevated, it increases their angle of attack and objects are no longer uniformly compressed as they vanish, the elevated perspective causes objects to be compressed bottom up.
It should be noted that as the observers angle of attack (eye elevation) increases, the topmost part of objects that have been compressed beyond the ARL become expanded, thus bringing them back into view and increasing the distance to the vanishing point.
This optical compression effect known as foreshortening can be easily demonstrated by checking a pool cue for deformations.
None of that makes sense. You are saying that refraction magnifies the sun so that its size remains constant until it gets a certain distance away, and then suddenly it stops magnifying it vertically (or perhaps the perspective effect suddenly begins to overpower the magnification in the vertical direction). |
|
|
|
|
I have the Sony WH-1000XM3 noise cancelling headphones. They are excellent, but they are also expensive.
|
|
|
|
Since hot wallets are connected to the Internet, funds are more accessible for day to day trading or payments, but on the other hand, they’re also more prone to hacking. Examples of hot wallets include exchange wallets, mobile wallets, and web wallets. If you bought your crypto from a centralized exchange like Coinbase, you’re actually using their hot wallet service.
As you wrote, a "hot" wallet is a wallet that is accessible from the internet. That includes any wallet on your desktop computer, laptop, tablet, or phone since those devices are accessible from the internet. |
|
|
|
In finance/economics, the two terms are completely different.
Bitcoin has intrinsic value. The damage and drawbacks created by traditional "currencies" goes against almost every single one of Bitcoin's founding principles.
That is why it is important. By getting the messaging through that it is MONEY and not CURRENCY will make a bigger impact on people, particularly people with financial/economics backgrounds.
Ok, here are the definitions from Investopedia. They imply to me that "money" is a technology, and a "currency" is a specific manifestation of that technology, but I see no distinction based on intrinsic value. Money is an economic unit that functions as a generally recognized medium of exchange for transactional purposes in an economy. Money provides the service of reducing transaction cost, namely the double coincidence of wants. Money originates in the form of a commodity, having a physical property to be adopted by market participants as a medium of exchange. Money can be: market-determined, officially issued legal tender or fiat moneys, money substitutes and fiduciary media, and electronic cryptocurrencies.
Currency is a medium of exchange for goods and services. In short, it's money, in the form of paper or coins, usually issued by a government and generally accepted at its face value as a method of payment.
Currency is the primary medium of exchange in the modern world, having long ago replaced bartering as a means of trading goods and services.
In the 21st century, a new form of currency has entered the vocabulary, the virtual currency. Virtual currencies such as bitcoins have no physical existence or government backing and are traded and stored in electronic form.
Perhaps you can convince us that your definitions are those used in finance and economics by providing a source. |
|
|
|
Anyway, I don't understand how the combination of magnification and foreshortening can cause the sun to appear to go below the plane. Are you saying that it actually doesn't, and instead it is compressed so much vertically that it can no longer be seen? Yes the foreshortening is a bottom up vertical compression, looming then magnifies the compressed image. A narrow band superior mirage is often also present and mirrors the bottom half. Foreshortening is not a "bottom up vertical compression". Foreshortening is the same in all orientations and directions. Look up at tall buildings. Look down a deep hole. Even your own diagrams show horizontal foreshortening.  |
|
|
|
|
I don't understand why some people are hung up on their definitions of "currency" and "money". If you want to have your own definitions for the words, fine. But I don't think other people will reject the commonly accepted meanings in favor of yours.
currency
[ kur-uh n-see, kuhr- ]
noun, plural cur·ren·cies.
1. something that is used as a medium of exchange; money.
...
money
[ muhn-ee ]
noun, plural mon·eys, mon·ies.
1. any circulating medium of exchange, including coins, paper money, and demand deposits.
...
|
|
|
|
|
You are assuming that nothing has changed and that nothing will change. I think that is highly unlikely, and thus so is your prediction.
|
|
|
|
"...looming is taken into account with the setting sun. It is what causes the sun to appear to flatten out as it sets..."
The flattening effect with the setting sun is cased by perspective, foreshortening occurs as the sun approaches the angular resolution limit of the observer. This is not a refractive effect. There is no reason why perspective should affect the vertical direction differently than the horizontal direction, so how can perspective cause flattening? Also, because the angular size of the sun is always 0.5 degrees, there is no way that it can approach the angular limit of the observer. Either way it still doesn't explain why the sun appears compressed in one direction as it sets. "...The looming effect raises the apparent elevation of an object, and globe believers use this to explain how we can see the tops of objects that should be below the horizon. How can the flat earth model reject looming in this case but accept it as the reason that the size of the sun doesn't change? Actually, I don't understand how looming is associated with magnification in the first place..."
Looming raises the apparent elevation of an object because the object is enlarged, clearly I'm not rejecting the effect. I meant that flat earth rejects the claim that looming is what allows objects that are behind the earth's curvature be seen even though it "raises the apparent elevation of an object because the object is enlarged." "...How does the flat earth model explain the setting sun? It can't be looming or even refraction in general because those have the opposite effect..."
Your understanding of refractive looming is incorrect, it causes magnification not just an apparent elevation rise. That combined with perspective foreshortening accounts for what is observed at sunset. My understanding of refraction and looming is good. Atmospheric refraction is caused by the differences in the density of the air at different elevations. Generally, the air at lower elevations is denser and this causes the effect of looming, making distance objects appear higher than they actually are. However, local conditions can also cause other refractive effects. Anyway, I don't understand how the combination of magnification and foreshortening can cause the sun to appear to go below the plane. Are you saying that it actually doesn't, and instead it is compressed so much vertically that it can no longer be seen? |
|
|
|
In regards to the setting sun, the refractive effect of looming is not taken into account by "modern science"; the heliocentric model is assumed thus a refractive effect causing magnification due to an atmospheric plane is excluded from consideration. However when the scientific method is applied the refractive effect of looming can be experimentally observed to occur over relatively long distances and must apply to the sun.
First, looming is taken into account with the setting sun. It is what causes the sun to appear to flatten out as it sets. I assume that you are using looming/refraction here to explain why the sun does not shrink as it gets farther away, but I think that your explanation raises more questions than it answers. Can the effect be enough to account for the 3x magnification that would be necessary for the sun to be the same size when it is overhead and at dawn and dusk at the equator, and the 6x magnification necessary at the southern edge? Why aren't other objects magnified like this? As other objects get farther away, their sizes should also be magnified in the same way. The looming effect raises the apparent elevation of an object, and globe believers use this to explain how we can see the tops of objects that should be below the horizon. How can the flat earth model reject looming in this case but accept it as the reason that the size of the sun doesn't change? Actually, I don't understand how looming is associated with magnification in the first place. How does the flat earth model explain the setting sun? It can't be looming or even refraction in general because those have the opposite effect. You need to realize that "modern scientists" wander off through mathematical models based on assumptions and presuppositions and end up on a mad carnival ride spinning in their mind.
Accurate predictions by a mathematical or physical model affirms the validity of the model. That is science. On the other hand, I agree with you that some physicists can wander into fantasy land with their mathematical models. Some will create a mathematical model in order to generate hypotheses and then end up just presupposing that the model is valid. I can admit when I've made a mistake, can you?
I certainly can if you can point it out. |
|
|
|
I believe that you are referring to the post in which he considers the possibility of Bitcoin replacing all the wealth of the world. Simply stated, he is wrong because money can't do that. He is conflating the "store of value" and "unit of account" aspects of money. For example, a house that you own has a value that is part of your wealth, but the house cannot not be replaced by Bitcoin. It is also a mistake to compare Bitcoin to M1, M2, etc. because those money supply values include the result of fractional reserve banking. The correct comparison is the global monetary base. Matthew Mežinskis and Fernando Ulrich ( cryptovoices.com) have done a lot of work along these lines and have come up with a maximum potential value of the Bitcoin money supply -- about 19 trillion USD, or about 900 thousand USD per bitcoin. Keep in mind that those values assume that Bitcoin will replace all of the money, which is not likely to ever happen. Note also that the values do not account for future economic growth and lost bitcoins. ... Don't be an ass. I may make some assumptions that you don't agree with, but that does not make me wrong. I assume that Bitcoin is (or will be) a form of money, and that people will value it as a money. That is why I think it is valid to equate its value to the other monies in the world. In contrast, you have yet to support your $10 million valuation by anything more than fantasy, wishful thinking, and irrational exuberance. You would have said the same when Bitcoin was @ 1 dollar per coin. "iT is impossible for Bitcoin to reach 1'000 dollars per coin' (It went to 20,000) Sorry, no. This is what I wrote in 2012, when the price was about $10: ...
Anyway, the number of bitcoins doesn't have to be matched to the world's GDP. For example, the amount of dollars in circulation is less than the U.S. GDP.
However, if Bitcoin completely replaced the dollar today, then 1 BTC would be valued at $1 million ($10 trillion dollars in the world / 10 million BTC). Let's shoot for 10% of that!
The numbers have changed as I gained new insight and information, but I was basically saying the same thing then that I am saying now. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
