I can't do this in Electrum. It wants private keys in WIF format but my list is in hex format  FWIW public Electrum server also have anti-DDoS feature which limit how much request you make, which makes process of checking many address (or address with many transaction) become slow or even stuck. |
|
|
|
So any solution that tells to just increase blocksize will inevitably turn into a network of one or a few large servers controlled by an entity that could be blocked or physically raided by law enforcement.
That's why block size should be increased based on specific measurement (e.g. cost of hardware and cost of running) , rather than choosing arbitrary number (just like what BSV did). |
|
|
|
Actually years ago I once tried ElectrumX before but my old laptop's pathetic hardware seems insufficient for it. Thus I turned to EPS then. I may tried Electrs later. Thanks for your suggestion. If you still care about performance or time to obtain transaction data, please read this benchmark first https://www.sparrowwallet.com/docs/server-performance.html. IMO Electrs and Fulctrum are best option, although each of them have different trade-off. |
|
|
|
Among which are this pools stats:   SourceThat image contains old data (the reported hashrate is far lower than current ones), other reader should visit https://insights.braiins.com/en for more recent data. This brought me to the question
If there are bigger mining pools with bigger minning powers,
Could there be a possibility of 51% Attack since they could easily merge their minning powers and is there any possibility of a minning pool having a minning power which surpass the other minning networks
All corrections are also welcome...
It's possible, but it's not probable. I say it's not probable since, 1. 51% attack can be detected easily. 2. Such pool would lose it's popularity quickly. 3. If 51% attack also used to perform double-spend attack, there's risk they got sued by the victim. |
|
|
|
I'm down to 361,355 blocks left to index, but it says 10 days until completion. It's been running 30 hours. I was at 47 hours last night and decreasing quickly. Thanks in advance.
This is extremely slow. Last time i had to perform reindex, it took about 1-2 days where all files stored on HDD. Thank you for the replies. I am running a PC with 8gb ram and and an i7 processor and 400 Mbps internet connection. I have an attached Samsung T7 2tb external drive to run a full node, not pruned. It just seemed like it was indexing faster and faster than all of a sudden barely moving. If it's still downloading the blockchain regardless of speed, does that mean there was no corruption in the blockchain that is downloaded so far? There are 2 things I would improve: get more RAM, and don't use an external drive. It's very easy to accidentally disconnect the USB cable, and that will lead to file corruption. Chainstate when fully synced is 11 GB, that doesn't fit your RAM which will lead to terabytes of data written to your disk. Adding RAM will improve your overall computing experience, and is not very expensive anyway. And if you don't use your PC for other task, you can close most application and background application so you can let Bitcoin Core use a bit more of RAM. But I got a crashed os luckily I know how I could use the cmd-pmt for the retrieval of my file before resetting because i do keep my files hidden in the program data directory, what could have triggered it because It's was my first time experiencing it and that was when I started running the Bitcoin core
I recommend you to create new thread about your problem, rather than continue discussing on this thread. |
|
|
|
Hello,
I have wired idea I want to apply on myself. To Control my spending as I spend alot of money.
As I am 40 years now, I want to buy a new bitcoin wallet, send bitcoin with timelock to a bitcoin address I have, distrubuted for the next 40 years, that on daily basis ( or monthly or Weekly) I get some bitcoin for the coming 40 years.
--snip--
You better off learn some self-control. And aside from technical difficulty and TX fee mentioned by other user, who knows if you suddenly in condition where you need tons of money, but you can't sell your Bitcoin to cover that needs. |
|
|
|
...... Although it's different case if they also don't have either computer or laptop.
Well, actually, I had in mind precisely such cases when, for some personal reason, the user only has a smartphone, probably quite modern, but he does not have access to a computer or laptop. And now such situations happen in life; in some countries, this is even a very common life situation. And in such a situation, the user has no opportunity to deal with his old wallets. Because there are no necessary applications for the smartphone. Yeah, i'm aware some people only own smartphone. But aside from nobody create such application, such application would have less feature since an Android application can't just access file (e.g. wallet file) created by different Android application, unless your device is rooted or that file is stored on storage which can be accessed by all application. I don't expect we'll see such application unless someone got paid to port BTCrecover (or similar application) to Android and add GUI for it. |
|
|
|
The low payout of faucets is a problem. Saying you don't need larger amounts for testing is a myth repeated by many. Bitcointalk runs on PHP and MySQL and a large portion of the web still does. MySQL's max integer limit is 2,147,483,647, and it's best practice to store bitcoin amounts in satoshis, not floats. Therefore you need at least 21.48 tBTC to test your database and all aspects of your site and/or connected apps can handle integers larger than 32 bits. Is a deposit larger than 21.47 BTC likely? Probably not on most sites, but it's not impossible, and that's the last order you want to screw up when you switch your site to mainnet because you didn't test your site properly.
But if someone intend to test that far, IMO they better off using regtest where they can generate tons of blocks (and earn tons of regtest Bitcoin) almost instantly. Or use integer 64-bit in the first place at cost of higher memory/storage usage. |
|
|
|
Um I realize I am very late to this but how tf did fastestfee go all the way up to 50+ sats/vb a few days ago? Probably some new ordinal drop or a BRC drop? There's so many of these it's hard to keep track. It's like the shitcoin craze of 2013 or the ICO bubble of 2017. Yes it was the whole Runes launch by Rodarmor. He got bored with Ordinals and invented a new ordinals-like system... Seems like he's just trying to milk a cash cow by this point. I suspect this fad will be even more short-lived than Ordinals. Have anyone see it's technical detail[1]? While ordinals use witness data and UTXO, runes use UTXO and OP_RETURN which create somewhat less bloat. And while ordinals idea looks fresh at it's time, both ordinals and runes looks outdated as Bitcoin sidechain/L2 gaining popularity. So yeah, i hope Runes lose it's popularity quickly. [1] https://rodarmor.com/blog/runes/ |
|
|
|
|
Peers corruption probably refers to peers.dat file got corrupted. In such case, deleting that file (which located on where Bitcoin Core store blockchain data) should fix the problem, where Bitcoin Core will generate new ones. Other than that, please provide more information.
|
|
|
|
--snip--
be prepared core devs are already trying to remove legacy key functionality within core. which other wallet that follow core code usually then follow.. so if you disappeared for a decade, expect a headache trying to get wallets of the future from even understanding old key import methods yep they have for last few years been preparing to remove legacy key import methods and pretend there will be a separate migration tool (eaier to just keep it in core.. but core devs dont care for whats best for users) but funnily enough although preparing to remove legacy key import from core, the irritating narcissist pushing to remove it has not actually built the "separate migration tool" he pretends would be the "promise of backward compatibility" so be prepared if they are removing legacy soon, expect they will remove other things later.. Thats insane. The seed will be useless in that case. who the hell would allow importing methods to be removed? --snip-- I think @franky1 refer to Bitcoin Core software, not Bitcoin protocol, CMIIW. But just like Bitcoin Core never support BIP 39 even though it's supported by most wallet, i expect there'll be few wallet which still support importing private key/seed which generate legacy address in the future. |
|
|
|
Thank you all for the follow up.
I'm going to answer to some of you.
ABCbits - "Mere copies? Ridiculous, many sidechain/L2 offer feature what Bitcoin doesn't."
That's not what I said, the "current system" I'm referring in that specific quote is the FIAT system.
I see. But your thread doesn't mention fiat, bank or government, so how would i know you refer to fiat system? Besides, only some sidechain/L2 are centralized or federated with only few members. |
|
|
|
I see the reward is very low but I think the testnet coins should be worth at least 1% of the mainnet price
But even BCH and other forked coin doesn't even have 1% of BTC price. you need an ASIC if you don't want to wait for the 20 minute difficulty reset to 1. I tried it for about a week, and never hit a block. CPU mining loses from ASIC even if the difficulty is reset to 1. Even at difficulty 1, using ASIC would allow you to find block in far shorter duration. Using simple formula[1], i found that using CPU is nearly impossible. Core i7 3930k (6 core) at 66.6 MH/s[1]. average time to find a block = 1 * 2**32 / 66600000 = 64 second
GekkoScience Compac F at 200 GH/s. average time to find a block = 1 * 2**32 / 200000000000 = 0.021 second
You'll need far faster hardware (e.g. high end GPU) to close the average time gap and hope you're faster during block propagation. [1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1682.msg63066#msg63066[2] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Non-specialized_hardware_comparison |
|
|
|
I've got that wallet. I'm looking to separate the price of the testnet coins No wonder your question is unusual, you fall into XY Problem. |
|
|
|
What does it have to do with custody? Blocksize war isn't related to that. I'm curious as to what point and how it connects with the topic you presented OP. I'm quite confused now.
Based on example he mentioned, i assume he refer usage of custodial service to avoid high free. For example, custodial LN wallet or using centralized/federated sidechain where theoretically they can freeze/steal your pegged Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
If you asked this question due to security reason, have you consider different approach? For example, running Electrum inside rootless docker and perform X11 forwarding.
|
|
|
|
Honestly i'm more interested with it's encoding format rather than usage of soda can. It's easy to understand since basically it's just certain line indicate certain position of binary bits. --snip--
You can just remember it, it is pretty easy !
You could also save the website or website's source code. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
