Bech32 encoding has 3 parts: (a) a human readable part that is "bc" for bitcoin (other chars used for other coins/chains) (b) a separator which is always "1" (c) the data part that is at least 6 characters long. In bitcoin (SegWit) addresses the first character is the witness version. Bitcoin's Bech32 addresses are only defined for 2 witness versions and a total of 3 address types: * P2WPKH that is using witness version 0 and is a short address encoding 20 bytes of data (pubkey hash) and starts with bc1q ( q being the witness version) * P2WSH that is also using witness version 0 and is a longer address encoding 32 bytes of data (script hash) and starts with bc1q ( q being the witness version) * P2TR that is using witness version 1 and is as long as P2WSH address encoding 32 bytes of data (tweaked pubkey) and starts with bc1p ( p being the first byte of the data encoding the witness version). The reason why you find so many addresses starting with bc1p is because Taproot was activated a while ago and people are using it hence the addresses. Any other address you see that is using a different length or a different witness version (bc1 sw50qgdz25j with s being witness version 16) is non-standard and anybody can spend the coins sent to these addresses because there are no consensus rules defined for them yet. but no bc1p1 prefixed addresses.
1 is only used as the separator not as part of the bech32 charset for encoding which is why you will never see it as part of the encoded data. Note: If you see a string like this the human readable part is actually "bc1p" and the second 1 is considered as the separator and everything after that 1 is the data. What cirumstance led to this fact that no such bc1p1 prefixed addresses were generated and seen out there ?
A separator was needed, symbols would have made copying harder so "1" was chosen. When it is used as separator it should be removed from the charset. More here. |
|
|
|
The conflict between Russia and Ukraine has had a significant impact on the economy of our country. I remember when the conflict between these two countries just started, the price of gasoline increased a lot until the highest level reached was more than 2$ per liter.
But it's a good thing now that it has dropped to around 1$-1.2$ per liter, it's good that the conflict between these two countries has calmed down because they are not helping the economy of the countries that surround them in the world actually.
Don't confuse bubbles bursting with the conflict calming down. It is quite the opposite, the conflict is getting worse every day. Just recently US gave Ukraine the permission to attack Russian soil and Russia armed its nuclear missiles that could reach both US and Europe. Basically the world got used to this war which may be why you think it has calmed down; the 24/7 coverage during the first days is now a barely mentioned thing that people specially in EU react to as "what else is new" considering all the economical problems they have themselves. |
|
|
|
If you don't like the feature, just fork Bitcoin again. There is nothing any of us can do to reverse course. This is the decentralized consensus after all.
This is misleading because RBF is not a consensus rule to need any kind of fork to change. It is part of the standard rules which is how nodes treat the transactions they receive in their mempool. Kind of like fees. |
|
|
|
Oh, yeah, right that's why most open source wallets are the most targeted apps of any hacks, scams and phishing, e.g. Electrum. I remember millions was lost and got phished not once[1] but twice[2]. Well, there are lot of hack cases happened in an open source apps too including the smart contracts[3].
It is not impossible to see any vulnerability in open source software. The difference is that such vulnerabilities are extremely rare and are almost never in security critical parts. For example the example you used about Electrum was not a vulnerability in Electrum that led to any funds being lost by Electrum itself, it was a mistake by users who installed another malicious software from elsewhere and lost their coins to that scam. Your smart contract example is also a bad one because from day one we knew that Ethereum protocol is flawed and can be exploited. So there was no surprise there. And we knew that because it is open source! We also know that they never really fixed it either. Also, i bet there is no way you can verify that the code published publicly as open source are the same actual codes that were deployed on their live servers. Unless it was compiled by you to build the application from being open source, or from github it self.
Good projects like Electrum and bitcoin core are using deterministic builds which means whoever compiles the source code will get the same exact binaries. So we can be sure that the binary that they publish is the same as the source code. And talking about the coinomi, the lost amount of money
were too little compared to electrum.
You should also consider that Coinomi is far less popular with a lot less number of users. See, either its open source or closed source, hacks and scams happen. While being open source has huge advantage, but the fact that people still need to trust the developers who make the code and conduct the code audit because not everyone can read source codes, so you still need to "trust" someone/developer for your safety and fund security while most people who conduct this scams, hacks, phishing are developers as well.
That's true but based on popularity of the project you can be more sure that enough number of people have looked at the code to not have any backdoors. Regardless of how popular a closed source software is, you can never reach the same level of certainty. Where later on you can sue the business for what incident happen, while you can't to open source developers because they are excluded if people read open source license particularly the MIT, ISC and other no liability open source licenses.
I don't think you can sue any of them. There is always some sort of Terms of Services that protects them from being liable. For example Trust wallet that is closed source is released under GPL! See Liability part of TrustWallet or Limitations of Coinomi. |
|
|
|
It used to be like this, but today if this happens the transaction and the block containing it will be rejected as invalid.
But we can still have a block including a transaction with the same ID as an existing transaction, if the existing transaction has been fully spent. Right? I know the chance of that happening is almost zero. Yes. Your node only checks the UTXO database to see the transaction can be found among the unspent outputs not the whole blockchain. It would take a long time to search the entire blockchain that is not indexed anyways. I believe this is the line where it rejects such transactions if they exist among "coins": https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/968f03e65c98a9a36aea6c57a29306839b0ada57/src/validation.cpp#L2151 |
|
|
|
Binance (or any similar centralized entity in control of a closed source wallet) doesn't have to be malicious itself, their code could contain backdoors and they could never see it while it is being exploited by hackers, etc. On top of that the other issue with closed source software like this is that they usually rely on a centralized server which means the user has 0 privacy.
I'm still hostile to believe that it will be the case for closed source for having backdoors, or malicious codes. Especially for such business running financial apps, QA and other quality control will always be followed before releasing the app in production. For privacy matters, indeed its always be the case for most closed source apps. You have a very high (and unrealistic) opinion of these centralized services that doesn't seem true based on the history. All the hacks and weaknesses in their platforms in the past aside, we have also seen them be too incompetent in implementing new features like accepting SegWit addresses that most CEXes took years to do something very simple! Besides when it comes to backdoors the best case scenario is to have them unintentionally. These companies are not bigger than Microsoft and we know their product (Windows) is the mother of all backdoors and it is closed source! |
|
|
|
Cracking down on Bitcoin is very simple. All you need to do is outlaw it due to 'extremely high levels of illicit use'.
It is a valid theory but also I can't help but see this scenario as shutting down lots of businesses with a total worth in the billions in most countries. They won't be only cracking down on bitcoin. For example in US there is already big exchanges like Coinbase and Gemeni, different mining pools and farms like Marathon Digital, blockchain analysis companies, payment processors like BitPay, investment companies, even banks and a lot more. It is extremely difficult to suddenly decide to shut them all down. Not to mention the US government (and possibly other govs) is using bitcoin (and Tether) for illicit activities. Cracking down on bitcoin would significantly limit their own operations specially on social media. |
|
|
|
For a miner coinbase transaction contains always the same information
There are many variables in a transaction. The only thing that must always be the same is the outpoint of a coinbase transaction's only input. The other thing that must be different is the coinbase's signature script. The rest can be different (tx version, number of outputs, the outputs and the rest of the input's signature script). If a transaction has the same ID as an existing transaction, the second one would replace the first one and there wouldn't be any way to spend the fund received in the first one.
It used to be like this, but today if this happens the transaction and the block containing it will be rejected as invalid. Note that this is a general rule not just for coinbase txs and BIP30 only prevented coinbase duplication. even if two coinbase transactions are included in a block.
That has always been impossible because a coinbase tx spends a special input (null hash with -1 index) which is not possible to see in any other tx. So you can't have 2 coinbase transactions in a block regardless of what BIP30 did. |
|
|
|
Out of the loop and back to topic at hand. European countries are getting deeper in debt as the energy crisis worsens. For example Germany is going to set a record high debt of $539 billion according to bloomberg [1]. This is more than pandemic debt and even more than the 2008 financial crisis debt with all the bailouts and everything!  The other problem that is piling on everything is the NATO weapons storages getting empty. Multiple officials already expressed concerns. On one hand they have to build more weapons and equipment than their capacity allows to fill the gap, on another hand they have to donate more than they can manufacture while US keeps pressuring them to spend billions they don't have to build more (NATO budget is to be increased by 25%). [1] https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/germany-to-issue-record-539-billion-in-federal-debt-next-year-1.1859093 |
|
|
|
since then he switched away from LN and is now using a CEX of btc utility for its people and businesses.
You and your FUD about LN will never cease  El Salvador started adoption of bitcoin with a mixture of decentralized and centralized solutions. The very first wallet they introduced to their population (Chivo) was a centralized closed source wallet that mostly attracted people with the free giveaway. At the same time they accepted decentralized solutions including LN and haven't stopped. |
|
|
|
I don't know why there are many people who remain to follow that charlatan.
One word: profit. Although it is a little more complicated than that. It is one of humanity's traits that they don't want to accept they were wrong. Nobody can deny the big pumps that ethereum had in the past which has given a lot of profit to many people and worst of all has given hope of future profits to a lot more who are now bag holders. They do not want to accept that they were wrong about this whole thing being a sham even though ETH has gotten dumped so much in the past 5 years without being capable of seeing its ATH against bitcoin ever again. |
|
|
|
|
You say it is bs but still you compare things that don't even fall into the same category and are too confused about them too.
Fiat vs. Bitcoin vs. Crypto vs. Stock vs. Property.
You can't even begin to compare these. For example altcoins (aka crypto) are useless ergo there is no justification for buying them except for gambling. Meanwhile stocks at least are linked to a company and a product or service which get their value from on top of the speculation and market manipulation. Same with bitcoin, it offers useful utilities so it gets its value from there on top of speculation and market manipulation.
When it comes to property, the situation is not very different. There is an underlying value and on top of that we have the speculation.
You see from an investment point of view, these things (except altcoins) are not different.
|
|
|
|
Yeah and don't forget about the war still in EU, it could have been the biggest effect for us since the beginning of this yeare.
I also do agree that $20k is the biggest support we have so far but due to the FTX collapse, that support also crumbles. So it's good to see if we can reach that price again, hopefully at the end of the year. Although not good to see that once we reach $18,300 there was a lot of selling moving the price back to $17,700.
Unfortunately a lot of negative things are happening in the world these days. Russia just armed its ICBM with nuclear warheads looking to target EU and US. Meanwhile the protests across Europe is expanding and in some countries like UK the strikes are getting worse that are "halting" the economy. As I always say, bitcoin is not correlated with any other market but it is affected by the global economy. This is why we are still seeing a weird struggle to go back above $20k. |
|
|
|
Binance (who according to Coingecko controls ~27% bitcoin trading volume)
I just want to point out that the volume that matters and affects bitcoin price is the bitcoin/fiat pair volume but sometimes these altcoin exchanges report their altcoin/bitcoin pair volumes as their bitcoin volume, so it looks higher. Short term or long term; is the risk worth taking? Knowing that most of the bitcoin price prediction failed this year
We are not taking any risks, the risk is always present as long as there are centralized services that can go down and cause a panic sell and market manipulation. So why not focus on telling people not to panic sell instead of trying to protect CEXes? |
|
|
|
The article you shared (I didn't read through it) is one of many very biased articles about bitcoin adoption in El Salvador. Basically they all expect a large percentage of adoption in this poor country and anything below that is called a failure. The reality is that the adoption in El Salvador is growing like anywhere else in the world, it is slow. But after recognition as a legal tender the speed picked up. We don't see mass adoption and we shouldn't expect it either specially during this time where the economy is bad and bitcoin price has fallen. as merchants over there prefer to accept payment for service using the country's fiat
El Salvador does not have its own fiat. They use US dollar! |
|
|
|
I mean since they are like kind of a mother to trust wallet since CZ runs it, Binance goes bankrupt and trust wallet's follows ?
First of all, it's a wallet. What it has to have a downfall? It's a product/service we use without paying anything (I think some data is collected). If Binance goes bankrupt, people may stop using the Trust wallet but that doesn't change the fact that "Only you have control over the funds". The wallet can be closed source (afaik, it's open source), but since it's non-custodial, you have nothing to worry about unless a hacker gets control of your phone and steal your assets. However, it's always best to not use a hot wallet. A hardware wallet is the best, you have to spend little money to be your own bank. Trust wallet is closed source and that is the problem. Don't let their account on GitHub fool you, they do not publish the source code for their wallet. That means you do not know what the wallet is actually doing. If Binance decides to scam its users some day and run away (insolvency or whatever) they could have introduced a backdoor in their wallet to have access to users' keys and steal their coins any time they want. This is the problem with using closed source software for as a cryptocurrency wallet. |
|
|
|
I agree with the main subject that the current circulating FUD about exchanges being insolvent is a negative thing specially since the only thing it is achieving is to force a lot of newbies to panic withdraw from their exchange accounts! This doesn't help anybody or anything considering that these same newbies would re-deposit their funds to the same exchanges after a while! As I said they are panic withdrawing, they have no understanding of "not your keys, not your coins" thing. However I disagree with some parts: Binance is without a doubt the largest crypto exchange and must be protected at all costs,
Not at all. If anything we should do something that Binance is no longer the "largest" crypto exchange. Go back to 2013 and see what MtGox being the largest bitcoin exchange did to bitcoin price. Binance is to altcoins as MtGox used to be to bitcoin. Back then MtGox controlled >85% of the volume and single-handedly screwed up the market, today no bitcoin exchange controls a volume bigger than 10%. But when it comes to altcoin exchanges like Binance they suddenly control a huge percentage of altcoin volumes and it has to change. if Binance fails, [..], and the price of bitcoin would suffer in the long term.
Wrong. Some people will panic sell bitcoin and we may see a drop but it will never be long term. As I said we've already reached a good balance between bitcoin exchanges where nobody controls a large percentage of the volume to have a significant effect on the price. Damage to the reputation of the cryptocurrency: FUD can damage the reputation of a cryptocurrency, which can make it less attractive to investors and users. This can lead to a decline in its popularity and use, which can in turn reduce its value.
I disagree. The only thing damaging reputation of cryptocurrency is the cryptocurrency itself. There hasn't been more FUD about anything apart from bitcoin and we know its reputation hasn't been damaged. Altcoins on the other hand already have a bad reputation for being useless and only used for pump and dumps. |
|
|
|
What they are saying is that Trust wallet is not opensource wallet which could mean Binance may have altered something to the codes that are not known to users. Who knows maybe they put some backdoors to it.
Even though this is a "thing" for a closed source application, i think this is not possible "right now" considering binance is the one behind the continuous development of the wallet. Well, unless they become like FTX which will be the worst to happen in crypto considering how the market was affected previously, or those shitty exchanges, anyway that's a different topic already. But of course, being security cautious will keep you away from related danger better safe than never. Binance (or any similar centralized entity in control of a closed source wallet) doesn't have to be malicious itself, their code could contain backdoors and they could never see it while it is being exploited by hackers, etc. On top of that the other issue with closed source software like this is that they usually rely on a centralized server which means the user has 0 privacy. |
|
|
|
Things are just like previous months without any change. We are not in a bear market nor a bull market. And the price is not going to go down unless some negative event takes place like FTX crap that happened and caused a drop or the Russian invasion that was the beginning of all this.
In short if nothing changes we will continue seeing sideways with a little rise...
I have to say that price will not go down, but it's not like it's going up neither. By the looks of it, we are going to probably live a very calm month and the price will stay the same for sure. I am not saying that's the best thing neither, maybe that's good or maybe that's bad, but that is what we are going to end up living in for sure. This is why I made all my financial arrangements according to what we have been living currently and as if we are going to end up with the same price range for the rest of the month. If I am somehow wrong and it moves up or down too much I will be fine, I am a long term investor but it wouldn't really be a great deal. The market doesn't seem to be ready for a big rise yet considering what is happening to the economy in EU and to some extent US. But at the same time market is very ready to go back above $20k which was the strong support before the FTX thing happened. Right now we are seeing a small but a good momentum with price passing $18k... |
|
|
|
If Europe reopens its nuclear facilities it will reduce dependency on Russia.
I don't think so because they have to buy nuclear fuel from Russia again. Even US is buying it from Russia and that's not something they can diversify by going to Qatar or something like that like oil and gas. If anything it looks like by reopening their nuclear facilities they become even more dependent on Russia! Most likely, this will speed up the process of introducing energy-saving technologies.
That only looks feasible on paper. Not to mention that in reality a lot of industries depend on Gas itself. For example you can't produce fertilizers without gas and that is not something you can substitute! Additional LPG supplies from the US may be required. In any case, this problem will be solved.
Liquid gas is always a lot more expensive than normal gas they buy and transfer through a pipeline. We are talking about a competitive market. An industry that has to buy gas at a much higher price is not capable of competing with other foreign industries that are buying it super cheap prices (eg. Germany vs India/China). But Russia will have serious problems.
Obviously, when they lost a large portion of their market they will face problems in the long run. I say long run because this year their income was so much higher compared to last year! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
