|
Let's be clear. It wasn't Satoshi's vision. It was the Cypherpunks vision and Satoshi found a way to make it work.
|
|
|
|
Probably I couldn't explain what I meant by "covering mixers". We can't follow the exact sats for sure! And we don't have such solution. What I meant was we can connect addresses through UTXOs shown in transactions, for example address A is connected to address B through one[tx1,tx2,tx3,txn] or many paths
in other words, address A was found in tx1, and later down the road the address B was found in txn. I hope this explains what exactly what we have in mind.
It seems simple in concept -- create a graph of transactions and find the path (or paths) from address A to address B. However, that won't work through a mixer because a mixer breaks the link between address A and address B. |
|
|
|
Micro electrical grids, totally clean energy, a couple of batteries and returning excess electrical flow to the main network.
The dependence of micro grids on batteries means that it is not currently a scalable solution. You need a lot of batteries. |
|
|
|
It is possible that there could be a txid collision (and in fact they have occurred in the past due to a specific oversight in the protocol), but normally they are extremely unlikely because like private keys, they are effectively 256-bit random numbers. However, collisions are avoided by rejecting new txids duplicating txids of any transactions with unspent outputs (see BIP-30). Are these transactions actually rejected and deleted from mempool or these transactions are skipped and still waiting for the moment when the previous transaction with the same txid will be deleted from LevelDB? I'm actually asking this question cause I've seen somewhere that when the UTXO is spent, it would be deleted from DB, am I right about it? If a transaction's output is spent, then it is no longer a UTXO and so it must be removed from the UTXO set. I don't know the details about the various node implementations, but I would guess that, in general, transactions with duplicated txids would be rejected and not stored in the mempool and not forwarded to other nodes. There is no rule against keeping transactions with duplicated txids around for possible use later, but I don't know why any implementation would do that. |
|
|
|
I expect to do cold storage through electrum with a 24 word seed.
I want to do « multi sig » but for only one person (me) instead of several people.
I expect to proceed like this:
1. Engrave recovery words 1-16 on the first metal device.
2. Engrave recovery words 1-8 and 17-24 on the second metal device.
3. Engrave recovery words 9-24 on the third metal device.
Hide the three plates in three different locations.
With 2 of them I can recover my funds.
This technique is not recommended. The basic problem is that finding any one device reduces the the search space to only 8 words. Methods such as Shamir's Secret Sharing are better because you gain no information about the seed from any single device. Watch this: Bitcoin Q&A: Why is Seed Splitting a Bad Idea? |
|
|
|
But what happens to the transaction if the same txid already exists? Cause it can’t be 100% impossible of creating transaction with the unique txid, can it? This transaction will be be waiting in the mempool for the moment when existing txid will be deleted from the LevelDB?
It is possible that there could be a txid collision (and in fact they have occurred in the past due to a specific oversight in the protocol), but normally they are extremely unlikely because like private keys, they are effectively 256-bit random numbers. However, collisions are avoided by rejecting new txids duplicating txids of any transactions with unspent outputs (see BIP-30). |
|
|
|
...a significant amount of these losses have been
borne by unsophisticated investors, including many minority investors seeking rapid
investment growth without the knowledge or information to assess the risks
associated with such investments The quote itself is racist, implying that minority investors are not capable of assessing risks, while non-minority investors are. |
|
|
|
I’m looking to run a node on one of the following: ...
I am running a Bitcoin/Lightning/Electrs node on a Raspberry Pi Model 4 with 8 GB RAM and an external SSD. You don't need anything more than that. |
|
|
|
... They're all down in terms of bitcoin.
How true is this statement?
It is true. However, that does not mean they will always be down in terms of bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
The last time developers had to intervene was in 2013, when an upgrade of the node software cause a fork in the block chain.
|
|
|
|
|
If the length of lst is 0, would you have infinite recursion?
|
|
|
|
Some questions: - Is the 64k word list the same for every seed, or is it randomized for each encoding?
- Encryption requires a secret. What is the secret in your method? You mention a password, but you don't use one in your algorithm.
- How is your method better than standard encryption methods?
|
|
|
|
|
Another potential problem is that each field has a fixed size. So, when you generate the hex for the values, you need to ensure that leading 0s are included.
|
|
|
|
RAM usage sits at about 99% and never reaches 100% (which seems suspicious). Is that including cache? If it is, it's normal: RAM is supposed to be used. If it's really used by all running programs, you need more RAM. Now I got it. The reason it never exceeds 100% and no swap is used is that actual usage is only about 4 GB and the rest is just buffer/cache. total used free shared buff/cache available
Mem: 7.6Gi 3.9Gi 120Mi 1.0Mi 3.7Gi 3.7Gi
Swap: 0B 0B 0B
|
|
|
|
One python-based project that you could work on is JoinMarket. It is a CoinJoin implementation that is market-driven and decentralized. |
|
|
|
Soo in general how much should one invest in Bitcoin should it be "how much you can easily invest without stress " or "as much as you can invest at all cost"
Certainly the first and certainly not the second. Investing in Bitcoin is risky, so don't invest more than you can afford to lose. Diversification is a key component of investing, so allocate only a portion of your savings to any particular investment. |
|
|
|
|
Read more, post less. It is as simple as that.
Status is gained by earning merits. Someone may award your post a merit if they feel it is worthwhile. Posts that have little value rarely earn any merits. So, read as much as you can so that you can write posts and replies that others consider to be worth awarding merits.
|
|
|
|
1 - Can BIP32 drive every private key of 256 range?
As far as I know, t is assumed that it can, but it has not been proven. And as far as I know, whether it can or not doesn't really matter as long as the number of unique keys generated from a seed is greater than the number of keys being used. (I am not an expert) what i was getting idea that bip32 is 128 bit and in 256 range this cannot simply drive every address as master or first address of HD wallet.  BIP-32 generates a sequence of 256-bit numbers. The BIP-39 128-bit entropy value simply defines the starting point of the sequence. Obviously, with a 128-bit source of entropy, not every private key can be the first key in the sequence, but is that important? |
|
|
|
...the amount of Bitcoin which is in circulation is far less than the total money available in circulation.also the Bitcoin ecosystem is not large enough to cover liquidity properly Since mining is not promisingly efficient how will enough Bitcoin get into circulation?
It's not clear what you mean by "amount". If you mean the number of bitcoins, then it should be pointed out that the number is arbitrary and irrelevant as a bitcoin can be subdivided to millisatoshis, giving a total of 2.1 quintillion units. If you instead mean the value of the bitcoins, then I would say that the value of the bitcoins in circulation will rise to whatever value is necessary due to the economics of money and Bitcoin. Note that this is the reason behind investing in bitcoins. The assumption is that adoption will increase and the value of the bitcoins will necessarily increase. ... Such that everyone has enough Bitcoins to cover their net worth
Even Hal Finney believed the common misconception that there is (or must be) enough money in the world to back the total net worth of the world. It is not true. Money is reused. For example, if I own a house, there is no money sitting in a bank somewhere backing the value of the house. When I buy a house, then the money I pay the previous owner is used by them to by their new house, and then it is used again to buy a new house for that previous owner, and so on... |
|
|
|
Then try to find a way that the universe could exist without God. You can't.
That's a poor argument and you risk your credibility when you make that argument. The argument is called "god of the gaps". You are claiming that because we don't understand how something works, it must be the work of a god. That argument has been shown to be wrong a countless number of times -- lightning, earthquakes, floods, etc. Consider a magic trick where the magician produces a rabbit from a hat. You can't conclude that it can only be a supernatural act of magic just because you can't figure out how the magician does it. It is also circular reasoning. You can't say that the universe can only exist through a god without first showing that a god actually exists. If the existence of a god is necessary for the existence of the universe, then you can't use the existence of the universe to prove that a god exists. You didn't quote the rest of what I posted. "God of the gaps" doesn't have anything to do with it. My claim had to do with the fallacies in standard scientific theory understanding of all kinds of things regarding the operation of the universe and life. Those things seem to be the standard by which you make your argument. We aren't getting deep enough into it in the posts here to even know what we are referring to. The universe, itself, shows that God exists. The simple science of the combined existence of Complexity + Cause and Effect + Entropy as they exist together is impossible without God. Further, the simple idea of machine universe - a complex machine made up of many complex machines - expresses God. Machines have makers. A machine as complex as the universe has to have a Maker far greater than the machine universe. As I said before, such a Maker matches our definition of God Almighty. I didn't quote the second part because I didn't address it. I simply wanted to point out that I think you should avoid the first part because its obvious flaws will reduce the credibility of anything that follows. As for the second part, the result of your claim that "every machine has a maker" is that your god exists simply because you define it as the "first cause". In short, you have defined a god as the "first cause" and named it God, so therefore it exists. I agree that your logic is irrefutable. It exists because you have conceived it, but the existence of a concept is not the same as a the existence of a physical manifestation in reality. And even if this first cause is real, it certainly doesn't support anything else attributed to your god. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
