Hi anyone know why Bitcoin Core 0.19.0.1 mempool info constantly shows N/A?
both Current number of transactions and memory usage just say N/A
For now... you'll just have to use getmempoolinfo on the console (Window -> Console)...  size = Number of Transactions bytes = Total "size" of all transactions in mempool Returns details on the active state of the TX memory pool.
Result:
{
"loaded": true|false (boolean) True if the mempool is fully loaded
"size": xxxxx, (numeric) Current tx count
"bytes": xxxxx, (numeric) Sum of all virtual transaction sizes as defined in BIP 141. Differs from actual serialized size because witness data is discounted
"usage": xxxxx, (numeric) Total memory usage for the mempool
"maxmempool": xxxxx, (numeric) Maximum memory usage for the mempool
"mempoolminfee": xxxxx (numeric) Minimum fee rate in BTC/kB for tx to be accepted. Is the maximum of minrelaytxfee and minimum mempool fee
"minrelaytxfee": xxxxx (numeric) Current minimum relay fee for transactions
}
|
|
|
|
... but how the phone actually scan the small thing to open the mycelium directly and ask for a decrypt password?
It would have been using a simple dataset on the tag that was a "bitcoin:" URL... as described here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2n0k3i/breaking_bitcoin_nfc_payments_now_secure_bip38/Mycelium registers a listener in Android that advertises that it can handle "bitcoin:" URLs... so when you scan the NFC tag... it finds the "bitcoin:" URL and launches Mycelium automatically (if configured to use Mycelium as the default app for "bitcoin:" URLs, otherwise it'll prompt which app to use like it does on my device). It's just like scanning a QR Code that has the same URL... like this one:  (NOTE: Password should be "password123", but the functionality in Mycelium is broken as per the OP) When I scan it using "Barcode Scanner":  and tap the "Open Browser" link... it prompts to open it with Mycelium (or one of the other apps that is registered to handle "bitcoin:" URLs  ):  |
|
|
|
Sooooo... Hypothetically... if a thread titled something like "HCP's Ode to (aka Blatant Ripoff of) LoyceV's Legendary 10 Month 10 Person 10 Altcoin Investment Roller Coaster" were to pop up... would I get any takers? Or would everyone prefer for LoyceV or DarkStar_ to start it up again?  I'm bored... it's hot... and I feel like throwing even more money away on frivilous investments  Note that I'd be wanting to go with coins that were listed here: https://shop.ledger.com/pages/supported-crypto-assets (in the Nano S column) or here: https://trezor.io/coins/ (in the Trezor ONE column) And that are "easily" obtainable... (on an exchange like Poloniex or Binance or Bittrex etc) |
|
|
|
i am new here but this is stupidest suggestion i ve ever seen
Why? It's a fairly logical solution and it's exactly what "brick and mortar" casinos do... they return the overmax bet (in this case that would be $323.949 - $55.55)... and then payout what needs to be paid out... which in this case, is the max win of $2000. To me, the bigger questions in all of this is... has anyone else playing on the site placed an "overmax" bet? |
|
|
|
Ok... so today didn't start well (a wakeup call at 0550 from crewing calling me in for a standby duty)... and it got even worse when I looked at the notifications on my phone  Seems the bot decided that a "short" was the way to go... just before some whales decided to have some fun and the market spiked like a mofo and jumped like US$600-800  which triggered the stop-loss at "max 30% loss"  The net result is that the 17% gains from the first 5 days of trading... just got crushed and are now an overall 20% loss #bugger The Trade History from Today:  The Order History from Today:  Which gives us the daily PNL:  And the Overall:  So, there we are... -19.96% overall... that's going to take a while to turn around. I know some of the bot users are taking this opportunity to "re-fund" their accounts and deposit more... I guess this is an attempt to recover their loses by making more $$$ on any % gains that the bot makes over the next few weeks. I basically need to make 25% gains from my present position (0.08 BTC) to get back to break even (0.1 BTC). On previous bot history, that is going to take ~2-3 months. I guess this little "experiment" is going to run a little longer than I had initially hoped!  PS. It's not all bad... Liverpool stomped Everton 5-2 in the Merseyside Derby today  |
|
|
|
Based on that output, it seems that your node believes that it has 606214 blocks synced... and there are 606518 headers, so it needs to download another 304 blocks. (hence the 99.84% verification progress) Given that there has been about 2 weeks from your original post to this update... I'm assuming it just continued syncing during those 2 weeks? At this stage, it's kinda pointless attempting to troubleshoot why it didn't accept the data files that you copied over... as it is now pretty much fully synced. Unless, you're planning on trying to copy data files again to another new node? |
|
|
|
This was never a bug. Some sites do allow you to place a bet over max profit and some don't. The system we had in place allowed you to place these bets, but we've never encountered someone that has placed a bet that should pay over max profit like you have. You made this request to not allow this to happen, very apparent, in our forum launch post and as stated - we will rolling out an update for this along with our dice bug fixes (when dice comes back online). You were well aware that this was not fixed yet and you accidentally placed a bet with a value that could not pay over the max profit. We understand your frustration but this on your end was a mistake and as I do hear that you feel you should be compensated for this accidental bet, your request had not been fulfilled yet and as stated you were aware of this.
For this to be placed as a scam acquisition is a bit absurd. As we hear your frustration this is not a scam or a bug in any instance, this is just how our casino was set up. Hmmmm... looks like I missed that whole part of the thread... So, they're claiming that it wasn't a "bug" as such... but were (planning on?) implementing a "fix" after having already been advised by Yahoo of the possible problems... but left the "broken" system up... then this accidental bet happens, even though Yahoo was fully aware that the system could allow a potential overmax bet but only pay $2k max? If what they're claiming is true... then it would seem that we have culpability on the part of Roobet for continuing to operate a "broken" system... but also culpability on the part of Yahoo for knowingly using said "broken" system. Scam? no... total clusterfuck? yes |
|
|
|
When you click "manage" to enter your first wallet... you should see "More Options":  Click "Copy xpub"... then paste that into Ian coleman: "BIP32 Root Key" field:  You should get an error that says "Hardened derivation path is invalid with xpub key". IGNORE THIS ERROR! Click the "BIP32" tab in the "Derivation Path" section:  Then make sure that "Client" is set to "Custom" and that the derivation path is set to "m/0" like this:  Does your address appear below? If not... how many addresses show up in the "Used Addresses" section on b.info? If it is more than 20... you'll need to click the "more rows" button until you've created as many addresses as their are addresses in your "used addresses" list |
|
|
|
And the player is supposed pay attention to this ?! I didn't say that... There is a bit of a difference here that they don't make the max bet amount known and you kinda have to figure it out by finding the max win amount and dividing it by whatever the multiplier is. Combined with the fact that they would happily collect a $5000 loss for a $2000 max win.
I agree that it was indeed poor implemented. As for collecting overmax losses, has there been a verified instance where this actually happened? If so, has the user made a claim for the erroneous overmax bet amount to be refunded? If so, was it denied? If Yes, Yes and Yes... then I would definitely agree that the Casino is in the wrong and any overmax bet amounts should be refunded. I can't think of a good excuse for an online casino to not enforce the max bet upfront. I'd be more concerned if they turned my webcam on to track me down Me neither... but I try not to attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence... To me, this looks like a poorly implemented system (followed by bad customer service, insofar that it was explained and handled poorly)... as opposed to out and out deception on behalf of the casino. "we like to let players play how they like" is not a great explanation. If it was, I'd like to point out that "I like to play with 0.00000001 sat bets with 9999999999999x payout at 99% chance" #ICanHazBetNow? The error allowing players to bet over a max win is supposed to be fixed now.
...
If it is fixed great, they won't have the same issue pop up.
^-- This. I hope they at least gave you a "bug bounty" for your time and hassle. |
|
|
|
That could be the case but it decoded the private key just fine until now. Sure, I can access my btc in a different manner but I like my nfc chip wallet Just to clarify... you have your BIP38 (aka "encrypted" private key) stored on an NFC chip... and you used to be able to scan it using Mycelium, enter your passphrase and then Mycelium would decode it and then add the private key to your wallet? I'd honestly never heard of that... I didn't realise Mycelium even had NFC reading functionality in it... I thought you could only import via QR Code or copy/paste WIF key. Anyway, I just tried copy/pasting a BIP38 encrypted private key (created using bitaddress.org) into Mycelium using the "clipboard" method and it asked for the password... I entered the password and Mycelium says "Preparing decryption key..." and then just sits there doing sweet FA... so I'm guessing that's a bug in the newer version(s). I have taken the liberty of creating an issue on the Mycelium Github: https://github.com/mycelium-com/wallet-android/issues/532Feel free to add to it. |
|
|
|
CLEAR guide to red trust for EXTORTION and BLACKMAIL according to SOME DT members.
...
some DT members agree.
...
some DT members agree.
...
ALL SOME DT agrees with this and all some confirm the red trust is fine and deserving.
...
Some suggested edits for your OP, so you can maintain your "FACT BASED" qualifications... otherwise, please provide proof that I have agreed with any of those scenarios. NOTE: Just to clarify, I believe that the fact that I haven't made any statements in support, nor condemnation, with regards to any of the above "scenarios" is not proof of either on my behalf. I just dislike the fact that you're generalising and tarring everyone with the same brush. Even the "Switzerland" (apathetic?) DT members who don't really care for forum politics because #reasons. |
|
|
|
|
I know in (some) real life casinos... if an "overmax" bet is placed:
If it wins, the bet is reduced to the "max bet"... extra wager amount is then returned to the player and the payout is then made accordingly to the "max bet" amount.
If it loses, the bet is reduced to the "max bet"... extra wager amount is then returned to the player and the "max bet" amount is then forfeited as the bet was lost.
I've spent countless hours reviewing footage and tracking down patrons to recover over-payments to patrons who won on an overmax bet... AND to return the "extra" amount on overmax bets that were lost and should not have been taken.
So, personally, I have no problem with them only paying out the max. I don't see that as being "scammy". However, I would consider it a problem if you had lost... and they had then refused to return the "extra" amount that you should not have been able to wager in the first place.
Honestly, this seems more like a "customer service" issue than a "scam".
That being the case, I can't say I'd support this and I certainly don't think you've been scammed out of $9K
|
|
|
|
Nothing new here. It's just a variation on the "Free money to test our Casino" scam... where they offer you a starting bonus, but you need to deposit BTC to "confirm your account" or "unlock the balance" etc. |
|
|
|
I feel like I may have confused you in the other thread regarding "Sum of Outputs" and "Total Leaving Wallet". Please note that the "sum of outputs" on the preview dialog and the "Total Leaving Wallet" on the transaction confirmation dialog will not be the same if you have coins returning to a change address in your wallet. Hopefully these screenshots from the two different dialogs (for the same transaction) will help clarify... "Preview" dialog:  "Confirmation" dialog:  In the preview, you can see that the wallet is consuming UTXOs worth 0.2994 BTC... however, only 0.10053741 (0.1 spent + 0.00053741 fee) is actually "leaving" the wallet... the balance will be returned as "change". The key takeaway here, is that you really want to make sure that the "Total Leaving Wallet" value is what you expect (and should be "total you want to send + fee") |
|
|
|
The term "collision" is being used very loosely here... you don't have any collisions at all... you have what are effectively hashes of some very large numbers that have a few of the most significant bytes that are the same... surprising? Not really... assuming the hash function has results that are evenly spread amongst the total hash space, you'd expect some results to be "somewhat near each other". Its like saying... I was generating hashes from random numbers and got this "collision": 12583497236598327780860956843764674908093582309 and 12583403334565765756676575672389472394242152634 They're obviously not a "collision"... |
|
|
|
pruning happens after downloading the core or before. You can turn on pruning whenever you want... but note that even if you enable pruning right at the beginning... you will still need to download the entire blockchain from the beginning... so you're still going to be downloading 250+gigs worth of block data. It's just that it isn't stored permanently on the disk... There are also some caveats to using a pruned node... like if you ever need to reindex (corrupted blocks) or rescan (in the event of importing a private key or "watch only" address)... you will need to redownload the entire blockchain again, so the wallet can scan all the blocks looking for transactions that involve those imported key(s) and/or address(es). |
|
|
|
Sorry, my fault. I take all my words back. I have the ledger nano X, not S.
Hah! That would definitely explain it! Still confusing. Seems like the 1.2.4-1 is the oldest version for nano X
Not really... they're completely different devices really. So they obviously have different firmware versions... just keep an eye on their blog ( https://www.ledger.com/category/blog-posts/) or their twitter ( https://twitter.com/Ledger) or sign up to the email newsletter and you'll know when they release new firmware for the Nano X... |
|
|
|
... [all the maths] ...
+ 41.3% in 3 months is a monstrous result !!!! Well done !!
Thanks for doing that... saves me the trouble of working it out myself! And I agree... even with the fees taken out... it's still a fantastic % increase... I'm hoping my gamble shows similar results in 3 months...  |
|
|
|
Looking forward to your dailies (yes, please do dailies if possible, would like to see the entry/exit, durations of the trade too). Daily's aren't necessarily worthwhile... There are some days where the bot remains in "stasis" (as the dev calls it)... Basically, the bot is looking for favourable conditions before activating and starting to trade. It could be several days before more action. In the meantime, all you'd see would be the 0.000000xx BTC "insta-trades" to prevent the "API death" bug as mentioned in the OP. P.S. 11% nett is pretty nifty so far, but I almost would always avoid something with such a seemingly high commission and cost. It's certainly at the higher end of what I am "comfortable" with commission-wise... But it literally is ZERO effort/knowledge required. People talk about "longs" and "shorts"... To me those are different length pants! Who knows... Maybe if he gets enough users, the commission rates might come down? P.P.S. Hope people realise this is, after all, a gamble! Nothing less;)
Exactly... Nothing is guaranteed...But hoping for the best obviously! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
