Indeed. But they will just track the bitcoins (especially the first 1) and that alone can give plenty of information.


It's a start. From what I see they are (or have been) making mistakes, so it's not all the hope lost.

Eu "ma lovisem" de el indirect, ca omul a avut un fel de aventura cu acest concurs. A intrebat cum/unde poate sa il faca, i s-au dat niste sfaturi (chiar si de la mods), a facut concursul si... a fost sters rapid (de alt mod).
Apoi au mai avut loc discutii si l-a facut din nou, altfel (inainte a oferit LTC, acum BTC). Si pusese link.


Clar. Desi are contul din 2019, cel mai probabil omul nu a pierdut mult timp pe forum si nu stie de cate tampenii fac unii pentru un banut in plus.
Tot meritul pe care-l are l-a obtinut in ultimele 4 zile, deci inainte era Newbie.

Na, cu atat mai mult... noroc sa avem!

It would be nice if you would actually know what you're talking about.

"Switching to testnet mode" means to work with the testnet blockchain. That one has to be downloaded and so on. You need a node.
Even more, I certainly hope you have an ASIC for mining the block you want, the diff is afaik far too big for RasPi to mine.

I'd say somebody got impatient and decided to cash in early.
Not pleasant, but it happens. Keep in mind that not everybody targets over 100% profit even on bitcoin.
If you zoom out it may make more sense.

130 years is an awfully lot of time and many things can change, still, keep in mind that the things you're telling about are major changes and the consensus must be achieved in order to "come live".
This being said giving up PoW is quite unlikely. It's too much money involved there and far too many will not agree to this kind of chance.

Then the "Where miners will mine something other than bitcoin." is funny, since there are already plenty of such miners: the altcoin miners. They may or may not exchange their altcoins into bitcoin ... so this point is imho off topic.

Bitcoin no longer being main crypto is also a matter of time. At some point a worthy replacement will emerge. Imho that's not ETH, no matter the wishful thinking of some altcoin traders/investors.


I will add that changing the rules can be done by anybody, really. But the consensus will or will not follow them. And if the bulk of bitcoiners don't agree with the changes, that anybody will end up with his own fork, most probably a worthless one.

It's simple: the judge also doesn't understand them, so he feels safe to tell all kind of weak lies.
Isn't this all he has done on court until now.. with some notable success too?

Let's be fair and admit it, he's probably also paying for the adrenalin when the numbers are extracted/picked  
But I totally get your point. Of all get rich quick schemes, I think that the lottery is the worse.


Heh, timeless


"Rinse and repeat" is many scammers' strategy. And it keeps working astonishingly well in crypto.

I guess that some may not know where to look or simply not aware that the correct account is @VitalikButerin

I am surprised how on earth did those scammers got to verify those accounts (most probably with fake data, else the law enforcement agencies know where to look for them). Or some people were so dumb to sell genuinely verified accounts?!

I am pretty curious on how will this develop further (will this blow in Twitter's face or in the scammers'?).

I think that you've used the wrong word. Recovery is usually about finding removed wallets removed on HDDs. I think that you've meant restore from seed.

Wallets don't just generate randomly 1000s of addresses, there's a rather low gap limit, making only some tens of addresses being generated ad first. Then, when those addresses are all used, more will be generated, but, again, not too many.
My guess is that at restoring the wallet will pretty much do the same: generate the first tens of addresses, check if they're used, if so generate some more tens and so on, until it gets to a "gap" that's not used at all, then stops.

Every third party app you use for notifications and such is a privacy issue. Some use them, some not.
However, using special apps for notifications is overkill imho when a wallet on your smartphone can do that (and you can also import there only the address or master public key to keep it watch only).

And as said, whale tracking is counter productive: it doesn't give any relevant info, it can only scare some newbies.

Lol about the big numbers! I usually don't need them either, but lately, especially with the Hodlonaut trial, I've been "counting his pennies" hoping they'll suffice. And yes, the 70+ BTC there returns a number rather hard to read.

About implementation, just an (another idea) : if the number is bigger than 100k (or even 10k, up to you), then you can safely lose the numbers after the decimal point, since they no longer matter.
So the custom function would have to only "decide" whether the user works with big numbers or small ones.

However, if it's difficult, leave it as it is. It's already very good, well done!

I will simplify it so I may not be 100% correct but, let's try - you will have to try to think of two chains of events happening in paralel.

Let's say a malicious player send a transaction of 1M BTC. And at this point he starts his paralel "business" of attacking Bitcoin, i.e. he starts mining blocks, but he doesn't tell everybody about them, only to his (many) miners.

At some point the 1M BTC transaction is confirmed and he quickly trades that and cashes it in. (As a note you should read at the end: only confirmed transactions matter and even then, on big amounts the businesses may wait for 6 confirmations, which is one hour; this makes the scenario harder to be implemented, hence even more unlikely).

Now, the trick is that "the world" always considers as valid the longest chain. This is how Bitcoin consensus works. And meanwhile, in a closed environment, he mined more blocks (in the past hour, let's say) than the rest of the network, the blocks are correct, and this will become the "correct" chain, since it's longer. Even more, in this closed environment, he has made and confirmed another transaction spending the same 1M BTC, but sending to himself.

The world will use the new blockchain, the old one will be forgotten and our guy has cached in 1M BTC he didn't spend.



...Just the thing is that there are so many miners now that trying to do this would cost far too much.

---

This was the 51% attack.
Another way of "faking" can be transaction malleability attack. But that not possible on Bitcoin blockchain, period.
Another way of "faking" can be persuading people consider unconfirmed transactions as good, then double spend them (which is possible as long as they are not confirmed). But this is not an attack, this is taking advantage of newbies.

Oh, yea, yet another piece of the great list of "strong" businesses, built on top of each other like castle of playing cards...
I guess that we have to be happy there's crypto winter now and then to get rid of these before they grow bigger (and make even more damage when they collapse).

Treaba este ca probabil nici jurnalistul nu stie ce a fost acolo, ca fiind ancheta in desfasurare nu se dau informatii, plus ca probabil habar n-avea ce sa intrebe, ca daca e crypto e deja cel putin pe jumatate ilegal, nu?


Am ajuns la concluzia ca idioti sunt peste tot, si idiotenii se pot intampla peste tot. Iar de plecat de pe planeta nu as avea chef, s-ar putea sa nu o duc prea bine fara oxigen, apa si alte cele
Dar sa stii ca iti inteleg frustrarea.

I think that somebody may have been misleading you.
There are no such things like fake blocks: a block has to be accepted by the majority of nodes in order to get into the blockchain (if this doesn't happen, that block will get ignored by the majority). No miner would risk that.
Maybe you were reading about the 51% attack? In that case somebody has to have more than half of the miners, but will still make correct blocks, not fake.

You may have to explain even more what you think the fake blocks are.

You've made a mix of terms then asked something that may or may not be related, I don't know. As said, please ask clearer; maybe even ask more questions instead of assuming things.

However, I will try to answer:
1. A message can be signed, hence one person (actually his wallet) can sign a message with a digital signature.
The only thing is that (in Bitcoin world) one has to sign it with the private key of an address, not with something random, and this will allow people acknowledge the address is indeed his.

2. I am not sure what you mean by using digital signature on their own. Isn't using their own local wallet (even offline) good enough?


Maybe the way people use digital signatures to certify owning addresses here could help: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=996318.msg60584851#msg60584851

This is the preev replacement that seems to work closest to what I'd like, but I would ask you consider some (hopefully) small improvements:
1. Digit grouping. Right now, if I put there 10 BC, preecs shows 223219.70 USD. While the tab title tells nicely the current BTC price (22,322 USD), I would also like to see something similar on the lower area/edit box too, i.e. numbers like 223,219.70; you already have this for sats, maybe applying the same logic everywhere is not something big.
2. This is less important, however: multiple dots are allowed in the edit box (0..1) and also multiple 0 before the dot are allowed (00.01 BTC)

My address: bc1qeuvhugrlu8g34e8wl3s8dtm2k8mjf0khvqxmaf

Thank you for the giveaway. Glad you finally got to do it.

$25 Giveaway in BTC
Link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5413258

Organizator: Mitch212

Se poate castiga: echivalentul a 25$ in bitcoin

Poate participa oricine (din pacate).
Modalitate de inscriere: fiecare participant se inscrie cu adresa lui de bitcoin.

Concurs incheiat