Technical analysis is astrology for traders. It is a pseudo-science that dresses itself up to look like a science, but in fact is not based on anything more than fantasy, superstition, and wishful thinking.

Technical analysis is a textbook demonstration of two logical errors: confirmation bias and survivorship bias.

Confirmation bias: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
One problem with TA is that nobody actually keeps track of its results. The result is that people remember the times that it worked for them, and they discount or forget the times when it didn't. People want to believe that there is a magic formula so much that they ignore the evidence against it.

Survivorship bias: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias
Since TA is based on nonsense, it will randomly get it right sometimes. The odds are 50:50. Some people get lucky using TA and some do not. Basically, the people that get lucky go on believing in TA and promoting it, while everyone else just goes away. That is why you see lots of articles promoting TA, but you never see articles showing some how TA gets it wrong.

If you really believe that TA works, then I strongly suggest that you look at it objectively. Be professional. Take it seriously.

• Research its failures just as much as you research its successes.
• It can't all be true. Don't just accept any random bullshit that you read as if it were a fact. Demand evidence.
• It can't be right or appropriate all the time. At least, learn its shortcomings.
• Don't be fooled by its popularity. Lot's of people believe that astrology really works, too.
  

Do you have any kind of evidence to back your claim?

You are pretty sure about that? You should check before deciding you are absolutely sure.

I guess what I don't understand yet is how do you validate a transaction who's inputs come from a deleted block? I guess maybe you just assume it is valid because the transaction is so old. That's an interesting concept. Normally, you base validity on the genesis block, but in this case you assume validity based on the current block.

There is also an issue of determining the longest chain, since every chain will have the same length.

If A nodes must also download B blocks and B nodes must also download A blocks, then you have accomplished nothing by splitting them.

What happens to the coinbase transaction in a block that you are going to delete?

The order of the transactions does not affect the process for checking validity. In your example, the validator checks transaction 1db6...cd51 and verifies that its input matches output 0 of transaction c660...f617 regardless of where that transaction is -- in the same block or in an earlier block.

No rules are broken. The only positional requirement is that the input can't reference an output in a future block.

Perhaps you are talking about "CoinJoin", which is a process that combines transactions from many people. Here is a good article with links that might have some examples: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/coinjoin-combining-bitcoin-transactions-to-obfuscate-trails-and-increase-privacy-1465235087/

"Mixing" is something else involving secret off-chain transactions that break the associations implied by on-chain transactions.

This might help:

https://fossbytes.com/block-cryptocurrency-mining-in-browser/

It is not necessary to store transactions in order of dependency. I can see how storing the transactions in numerical order by hash would improve performance.

"Lost" bitcoins are not a problem so there is no need for a solution. However, the idea of dropping old blocks does have some merit. It would limit the sizes of the UTXO set and the blockchain, and that would reduce the cost of running a node. On the other hand, it's not clear how that could be done.

The english is poor. It is not from the FBI. Ignore it.

Banning the hard-coded seed nodes can't stop -seednode=<ip> or -connect=<ip> with a friend's IP on the command line

First, while the original white paper talks about leading zeroes, it doesn't actually work that way. The actual test requires that the hash's value to be less than a  "target" value.

Second, I don't know why you would think that 2³¹ hashes would be sufficient. Hashes have 256 bits. Currently, an average of approximately  3x10²² hashes are required to find a block

I think everyone has misunderstood what is being done.


The name and password are used to encrypt the wallet data. Nothing is said about how the private keys are generated.

FYI, It doesn't happen often, but is is possible for words to appear multiple times.

These are valid (albeit poorly generated) 12-word seeds:

abandon abandon abandon abandon abandon abandon abandon abandon abandon abandon abandon about
zoo zoo zoo zoo zoo zoo zoo zoo zoo zoo zoo wrong

I guess a perfect standard might be that a kg is the mass of 1000 moles of hydrogen. I think the problem is that we have no practical way to count atoms.

I agree. The OP seems to lack some understanding, or perhaps simply does not speak English well enough.

As for the "puzzle" term, I think "puzzle" is an accurate term, though it might be misleading and not the best term. It is also frequently described as a "complex mathematical problem", which I think is better though not by much.

Here is the "puzzle" (slightly simplified):


Even though there is no known method of "solving" the puzzle other than brute-force guessing, it can still be considered to be a puzzle.