|
Unfortunately, there are more spammer/spam post than moderators could handle. The only thing you could do is by self-moderate your thread and remove all spam/FUD.
There's solution such as disable signature on "Bitcoin Discussion" or ban all Signature Bounty, but we know that won't happen.
That's why most member don't visit that boards or only participate on/make self-moderated thread.
|
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin won't face this problem in 2038 as bitcoin use unsigned 32-bit/4-byte int
But i'm not sure if all client or wallet uses same data format or already migrate to longer timestamp format (such as unsigned 64-bit/8-byte int)
|
|
|
|
With rollback you erase a chunk of the history. And yes, that means all the transactions included in that block / those blocks.
Luckily Bitcoin network is strong enough to make 51% attack too expensive to worth it, because the rollback is a nightmare and really nobody would consent to support it.
Actually, AFAIK it happened twice : 1. Value overflow in 2010 where attacker generate 184,467,440,737.09551616 Bitcoin 2. Accidental hard-fork after QT 0.8 release where it has different DB version and not compatible with older version So, if something major like that happen again, rollback might be supported by parts of the community Note that a long range 50%+1 attack is impractical and won't e carried out in real world because the attacker will ruin the coin under consideration by such an attack while spending too much resources (electricity, rents, ...) it turns the whole purpose of the attack to be void.
I agree as it's not impractical, expect it happened once with Bitcoin Gold (a fork of BTC). AFAIK attacker borrow hashrate from various mining rental services such as NiceHash to reverse 22 blocks, which is far higher than average confirmation needed by most merchants/exchange (1-6 confirmation). While it can't happen to Bitcoin as there's no services which could provide hashrate enough to perform 51% attack. All cryptocurrency which it's hashrate is lower than hashrate of mining rental service combined should be very careful. |
|
|
|
Unlike, BCH, the BTC network already has consensus mechanisms in place that they are willing to use in order to ensure the vast majority of the network is on the same page before proceeding. As demonstrated by the UASF, we can also implement ways to ensure the miners can be persuaded to go along with the wishes of the non-mining users. If someone doesn't want to wait for a high consensus in order to implement their "improvements," they are free to go fork off. That's why we already have hundreds of alt coins right now. As I have already acknowledged, the "bigger block" solution probably won't be practical for at least a decade or so. I have also acknowledged that the second layer solution would probably end up being more efficient with the resources. However, it is nice to know that there is a plan "B" to the scaling solution, just in case the problems with the LN cannot be overcome.
Looks like no one remember about transaction compression (reduce transaction size). This is similar scenario with internet scaling in past where people only focus on increasing bandwidth rather than compress the content and compression format such as MP3 solve many problem (including internet scaling a bit). IMO, bitcoin need all of it ( n-layer network, higher block size limit and lower transaction size) to be able to scale without lots of security/decentralization trade-off. |
|
|
|
This has been discussed many times and unfortunately, majority of Bitcoiner would disagree since increasing block size would increase the cost of running full nodes. Split block data to many different nodes type is called Sharding and already proposed many times such as BlockReduce: Scaling Blockchain to human commerceBesides, IMO sharding open lots of attack vector, increase development complexity and requiring more trust. Additionally, LN help bitcoin scaling a lot, even though it's not perfect solution. Those who said that clearly don't understand how LN works and it's potential. Lots of cryptocurrency including Ethereum are preparing 2nd-layer/off-chain as scaling solution because they know it's good scaling solution. |
|
|
|
Well, in principle you are right. But with that particular person's background Roubini (...) was Senior Economist for International Affairs in the White House's Council of Economic Advisers during the Clinton Administration. He has worked for the International Monetary Fund, the US Federal Reserve, and the World Bank
you would expect him to know what he is talking about when he talks about money, even crypto-money, especially if he talks about it. When I read such controversial information coming from people who would be expected to know what they are talking about, I always feel there may be their own hidden agenda behind their words. You just prove what i'm said is right, because : 1. Most experts on same fields (with him) who voice his/her opinion about Bitcoin/Cryptocurrency clearly have no idea or don't understand about what they're talking about. 2. I doubt anonymity/pseudonymity, full-control over money, un-censorable & decentralization are important things in today's economy which makes those expert can't see potential of Bitcoin/Cryptocurrency |
|
|
|
There are many ways if he rely on trusted people or 3rd party which already mentioned by others. Otherwise, the closest things that i could think is using P2SH transaction/bitcoin script where the receiver only can claim the Bitcoin after n days/blocks. To prevent claim abuse while he's still alive, he could remake the script with different timelock before current timelock is "expired". The rough code should look like this (i'm still learning bitcoin script, so most likely it's inaccurate) : OP_IF
<Alice's Public Key> OP_CHECKSIG
OP_ELSE
<90 days> OP_CSV <Bob's Public Key> OP_CHECKSIG
OP_ENDIF
|
|
|
|
As the title mentioned, how do i verify Electrum on Linux? I'm talking about installing Electrum on Terminal with these command : Install dependencies:
sudo apt-get install python3-setuptools python3-pyqt5 python3-pip
Install Electrum:
sudo python3 -m pip install https://download.electrum.org/3.2.3/Electrum-3.2.3.tar.gz#egg=electrum[fast]
or should i just download Electrum's source, verify it's signature and compile it myself? |
|
|
|
Your idea has been suggested by many members previously (including me), but until now it doesn't happen. IMO it's because : 1. No moderator with sufficient altcoin's technical knowledge which means moderator can't identify which post is FUD, troll or not 2. Many members would pretend they have in-depth knowledge, even though all they do are throw some terminology or details from other website/whitepaper 3. The board would turn into announcement/promotion board where each coins claims they have best technology Besides, few of non-bitcoin/altcoin technology already discussed on Development & Technical Discussion. Things might be different if this suggested-board have some restriction such as signature disabled or minimum rank (Jr. Member / Member). |
|
|
|
This is what I need. How do I check if a specific address (that I know) had an outgoing transaction?
There are few ways : 1. If you're running full node, add address as watch-only address. Then configure walletnotify to run script ( https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/24457/how-do-i-use-walletnotify) 2. Use 3rd party API/service which notify when there's transaction related with specified address |
|
|
|
--snip--
Stop promoting your centralized & closed-source wallet service. Your wallet service is the opposite of what Bitcoin trying to reach, which is decentralization and full control over your money. Wallet such as Electrum might be harder to use, but it's better than lose pseudonymity & full control over your coins.There's no difference between bank and your service, expect different currency choice. I didn't self-moderate this thread because I thought I didn't need to in this section.
I reported Freewallet reply for being off-topic spam.
Usually you don't need to as almost all spam/off-topic are deleted in this section, even if it's made by reputable member. Most of the times, spam are done by newbie / newly created account and all of them are deleted. |
|
|
|
|
While i agree with your opinion, most of the hurdle comes from :
1. Wallet developer who don't bother upgrade their wallet to support newer Bitcoin features (Bech32 SegWit, Payment protocol, RBF, etc.)
2. No automatic update or message to upgrade wallet to latest version
3. User choose bad/centralized wallet (freewallet, coinbase, etc.)
4. There's no implementation guide/standard yet, such as signing message with Bech32 address (no idea if there's standard now)
The only way to unify bitcoin's transaction standard (without hard-fork which force user and developer update their wallet) that i could think are :
1. Constantly ask wallet's company/developer to support newer features
2. Encourage user only to use wallet which support newer features (and decentralized obviously)
3. Boycott all wallet/services which don't support newer features (Last resort)
|
|
|
|
It's quite confusing (since there are various changes), but AFAIK : 1. Mastercoin is rebranded as OMNI. You can check basic info at https://www.openmarketcap.com/tokens/omni or https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/omni/2. OMNI is part of OmniLayer platform. The most popular usage was Tether/USDT and there's list of OmniLayer usage at https://www.omniexplorer.info/properties/production. 3. Most tasks are done on OMNI network, not on Bitcoin network. With 4-Layer internet model as analogy, Bitcoin is Network Layer while OMNI is Application Layer. I will keep making posts like this. So, do you think is it better to post in the serious discussion or in the Altcoin spam discussion?
Just post it on serious discussion, you won't get accurate/detailed answer on Altcoin discussion. Even if you self-moderate the thread, your thread will be buried quickly. |
|
|
|
1. MimbleWimble is actively developed, but not for Bitcoin. It lacks support from Bitcoin community, mainly because it's not popular and not compatible with bitcoin script 2. TumbleBit already available today on Breeze Wallet3. Schnorr Signatures is actively developed, but it took long time since there's no standard for it 4. Confidential Transactions won't coming to Bitcoin since it has scalability trade-off (bigger transaction size and longer verification time). Most privacy-based cryptocurrency use it though Also, there are few upcoming proposal which are interesting - Dandelion
- MAST
- Eltoo
- Bulletproof (useless unless CT is used as well)
Edit : looks like Pmalek already answer your question while i verify my memory  |
|
|
|
Thank you for your answer.
I don't found how to run the prune mode.
1. Settings > Options  2. Enable "Prune block storage" then input storage size  Regarding:
"If you insist to keep all blockchain data, then move blockchain to external storage or add/replace with new HDD to your Mac are the only option.
Just move whole bitcoin folder to different location, make sure there's no bitcoin folder on default location and run Bitcoin Core again. Bitcoin Core think it's first time you run Bitcoin Core and ask you to choose directory location, then you just need to choose location of moved bitcoin folder."
I don't really know how to do; could you detail me the way to do it please?
Easiest guide that i could find https://bitzuma.com/posts/moving-the-bitcoin-core-data-directory/P.S. External HDD isn't best storage option since there's higher chance block/wallet corrupted. |
|
|
|
First setting up full nodes. I use prune 5000, it took me 5 days to sync.
Pruning only reduce storage space used by only store x latest blocks, you still need to download (and verify) all blocks. That's why it took so long. are all these people are only parroting what others said and never do it themselves?
Only running full nodes is easy, but configure it for specific usage (such as payment services) is tricky. why the fuck is this so fucking hards?
Because you chose the hard way, there are some better alternatives which don't involve 3rd party such as : |
|
|
|
|
FYI, some people refer native SegWit address (starting with bc1) as Bech32 address and refer nested SegWit address as P2SH SegWit address. Just in case so you won't be confused with the terminology.
While SegWit have many advantage which mentioned by BitCryptex, not all Bitcoin wallet support sending Bitcoin to Bech32 address (but all of them support send to nested SegWit address).
|
|
|
|
IS the utxo set stored independently from the block set?
Yes. It's called chainstate, few call it UTXO set. so for each block that comes in you store;
block (Key: BlockHash)
then extract each tx and store;
tx (Key: TxHash)
AFAIK it's true, chainstate uses key/value pair method which contain TX hash and block hash. how does bitcoin search the db for a given utxo to verify a transaction is legitimate if it just stores the blocks?
By access chainstate, not access blocks |
|
|
|
Anyone who suggest KYC in cryptocurrency space shouldn't use cryptocurrency in first place and keep using fiat (exception for centralized exchange and few merchant). I would rather leave this forum rather than give my identity. Even CloudFlare implementation is enough to make good member who want preseve their anonymity left this forum. If we want to prevent spam, scam or merit farming, disable signature and remove bounty child board are better option. TLDR : Your idea can go to hell. 
Rather than blocking newly created accounts through IP addresses tracking, I would suggest that a thorough KYC should be done for newly registered members (such as email and ID verification)
Hey Mike.  You really should check out bitcoin - it is an anonymous decentralized currency. You meant pseudonymous |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
