|
So many people claim that "the markets are rigged". Yet, they are unable to provide any kind of evidence, they can't show how the markets are rigged, and they can't show who is rigging the markets.
If you are going to claim that the markets are rigged, then I want to see some evidence so that I can agree or disagree. I'm not going to just take your word for it. Oh, and "everybody knows the markets are rigged" is not evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
...
6. working
7. playing with kids
8. arguing with the wife
9. dealing with relatives
Value is subjective. One man's trash is another man's treasure.
There is no point is imposing your values on someone else. It creates more problems than benefits.
|
|
|
|
I'm sure ...
With so little actual knowledge, how can you be so sure? |
|
|
|
My proposal to the solution of difficulty increase is that we impose a hard restriction of the maximum amount of hashing rate per device. This would then prevent any device including quantum computers from using all their power and prevent them from raising the difficulty too much to keep the mining market stable. Whether this is possible is beyond my understanding and I would like to have a little feedback on whether it is or not and what the pros and cons of this would be.
That won't work unless you can come up with a way to identify individual "devices". Read this for more info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybil_attack |
|
|
|
Is there a good reason any longer for the rule that the success of a Bitcoin proof of work has to be that there is an all-zero bits prefix?
Why not allow any 256-bit sequence?
For instance, suppose I want to create a blockchain just for mypersonaldomain.co. If I produce a SHA256 hash of that domain name and use that as the sequence of bits that the prefix must match, it would not conflict with the original Bitcoin blockchain and would be unique.
The Bitcoin block format would have to be revised to include my blockchain's 256-bit prefix so that nodes know what prefix they are solving for, but once that is done, the world could benefit from 2^256 unique blockchains.
Cheers.
There is no rule for an all-zero prefix. Controlling the difficulty with the number of leading 0 bits in a block's hash was outlined in the white paper, but that is not how it was implemented. As it is currently implemented, the hash must be less than a target value, so that is why you see zeroes. Anyway, there is no reason why you couldn't add a blockchain identifier to every block and it would not need to be part of the block hash. On the other hand, every blockchain is unique, so is it really necessary? |
|
|
|
You have to delete that block manually. You won't have to re-download previous blocks. Stop your Bitcoin Core instance and open its data directory. Go to blocks folder and delete files associated with this block ( blk.dat and rev.dat). A similar problem has been described here and it was answered by achow101 who is also a member of this forum. I deleted the last blk.dat and rev.dat files and restarted. It re-indexed all the blocks and continued syncing and now I'm up-to-date. Thanks for the suggestion and the link. I have some suggestions for any core developers that might read this: - 1. Since this problem seems to happen regularly, it would be helpful if the block processing code would detect that the last block is corrupted and do something about it.
- 2. Since it is the last block that is corrupted, there really isn't a need to re-index the entire chain. Recovering from a corrupted last block could only take a second.
Rather than deleting the bad records, I would rename them. This means that if you have a bad spot on the disk, the software won't try to reuse it. All other actions should be as suggested.
Thanks for the suggestion, but I don't think that managing bad sectors by hand is practical. If you suspect that there is a bad sector, you should have the operating system check the disk. |
|
|
|
My node refuses to sync beyond block 553342. I see this in the debug log: 2018-12-11T02:00:59Z InvalidChainFound: invalid block=0000000000000000001443924dba96339bfb0a06fb48ca8eb244c601a76a0e95 height=553343 log2_work=90.114118 date=2018-12-11T02:00:43Z
followed forever by this: 2018-12-11T02:00:59Z ERROR: AcceptBlockHeader: block 0000000000000000001443924dba96339bfb0a06fb48ca8eb244c601a76a0e95 is marked invalid
That block is height 553343 on the main chain according to blockchain.info. I tried restarting Core, but no luck. The disk is nowhere close to being full. Any suggestions? Is there a way to unmark it as invalid? I hope I don't have to sync from the beginning. |
|
|
|
|
The cost of POC is higher than POW because it is less efficient. So, if you can't make a profit with POW, you certainly won't make a profit with POC.
|
|
|
|
You forgot to remove your blinkers  instead of bitcoin mining, this green energy you talk here, could replace some coal power plants for real world electricity needs instead  its useless, don't try to greenwash bitcoin, it is not sustainable. point. I agree that the source of power for Bitcoin mining is irrelevant, which is why Bitcoin mining itself doesn't have a carbon footprint. However, your point appears to be that Bitcoin is not worth the amount of energy spent on it. What about the amount of energy spent on entertainment: video games, youtube, netflix, music, automobile racing, driving to a football game? Are those activities sustainable? Surely, all the energy spent on those activities is wasted, too. |
|
|
|
Hi there,
i'm almost going crazy while searching for a tool to calculate my profits with FIFO. I got more than 2000 transactions in an excel spreadsheet and all i want is using FIFO to figure out my profits (german tax law requires FIFO). I tried several excel sheets but nothing was satisfying. How do you guys solved it? Anyone got the same problem?
Thanks in advance
Freefall101
I think all you must do is compute the total number of coins you have sold and the total of the amount you received. Then sum the costs of the coins in order of purchase date up to the number that were sold. |
|
|
|
|
It is the generation of electricity that has a carbon footprint, not its consumption.
|
|
|
|
There will be new services that will offer to mix your coins and remove the taint. It's not possible to mix coins to remove taint. You can spread the taint around, or add different sources of taint (they're both kind of the same thing really) Mixers don't remove taint, they just give it to someone else. If you send coins to a mixer, you could get tainted coins in return. |
|
|
|
...
Is this the correct way? In my understanding, an input only consumes a previous output, when someone wants to make a subsequent transaction. This is why this picture irritates me a little, because it says "Alice receives"... But isn't she already the owner of the output, before the input of transaction B consumes the output of transaction A?
So, in my optionen: Alice won't unlock the 0.5 BTC in order to possess them, but in order to spend them.
I hope someone can explain me......
Yes. It is more accurate to say that you receive or possess the ability to use bitcoins, rather than saying that you receive or possess the bitcoins themselves, though they are effectively the same. |
|
|
|
|
The article was written by somebody that has limited knowledge about Bitcoin mining. The author doesn't seem to understand that there is no overall benefit to efficiency. Because of the economics of mining, more efficient mining only increases the difficulty and the benefit of the efficiency is neutralized.
|
|
|
|
BIP 21 supports URI and BIP 70-72 supports attaching messages to transactions.
That is not what they do. They standardize the communication of payment information between a wallet and a merchant or payment processor. |
|
|
|
I will listen to that podcast, thanks for that. But somehow I cant get this idea out of my head that Caster Semenya chose to participate in women's competitions because it is easier for her to be successful than in men's competitions.
Isn't that the point of having separate competition for women? |
|
|
|
If you cannot ensure that the rightful owner retains ownership, then the best choice is to do nothing. If you do anything, you are potentially harming someone, and if you do nothing you lose nothing, so the best outcome comes from doing nothing. If you take the coins (or "safeguard" them) you are stealing them since you don't know that they were lost or abandoned.
If you find the private key online like the question stated then if you do nothing - With the key being online it will only be a matter of time when someone will either: a) Steal it b) Safeguard them So doing nothing is just leaving the decision for someone else. If you move them to another wallet for safe keeping then at least they don't get stolen and the owner has the chance to recover them. Bitcoin is a messaging system (they can send a small amount of bitcoin with a message if they want to get in contact) and there would be various ways of proving ownership. "Safeguard" is just another way to say "I might as well take them because someone else is going to steal them anyway." However you want to justify it, it is stealing. If someone is going to steal the coins, it would be better for you if it were not you. Tell me, how are you going to contact the person that owns the address? There is no Bitcoin "messaging system". I don't know where you got that idea. The odds of you returning the coins that you are "safeguarding" is 0, so it is just stealing. |
|
|
|
You’ve managed to somewhat confuse the terms ordinal and discrete into a horrible fashion. Maybe take a look, at that?
A question answered badly is one which was asked badly when the questioner is less intelligent than the answered such as in this case.
You clearly do not know what ordinals are. I asked a perfectly reasonable question, but your mathematical knowledge is deficient. That is very sad. It is a greater tragedy than Hans Christian Andersen's "The Little Mermaid" (I am not talking about the Disney version. You can tell that the Disney version of The Little Mermaid is watered down because you never see nipples on the mermaids because their breasts are covered with seashells). You need Jesus. oooooh, a nerd pissing match. This is gonna get good!  Could you do me a favor and solve this math problem before you get out the popcorn so that you have demonstrated that you have the intellectual capacity to appreciate what I have to say (the other people commenting on this thread are simply blathering nonsensical utterances)? Using ultrafilters, prove that for each function f:[N]^2-->2 where N denotes the set of natural numbers, there exists an infinite subset A of N where f is constant on [A]^2 (here [X]^2 denotes the set of all ordered pairs (x,y) where both x and y belong to X). Have you accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as your personal Lord, Savior, and Saviour? Because you certainly act like you hate God. I have the intellectual capacity to appreciate that nobody here cares about your math problem or your mathematical abilities or your religious superstitions. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
