|
Basically, anywhere that has cheap electricity and labour. China and certain US cities seems like those are good choices and those have pretty good laws. China seems to have the most amount of miners with BitMain being situated them. The shipping costs for ASICs are extremely low.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, if you don't take care of your security. Without sufficient security measures, you are exposed to various malwares that could be pretty dangerous to your personal information. By security measures, I'm not really talking about antiviruses. While anti-viruses are a good add-on to your computer, they are not fool-proof. Certain variants of malwares are capable of evading detection. The basic security measure you should take is to avoid going to suspicious websites or opening suspicious programs.
The protocol itself can't be hacked. Unless you can somehow get the private keys or get the script and its signature to equate to true, your Bitcoins are pretty safe (other than malwares).
|
|
|
|
Mostly the hard fork wallets use seed or recovery phrase to claim those altcoins, tho what are those hard forks you're trying to claim? Anyway, blockchain.info are completely out of this issue, its either there are some malware/keylogger/phishing wallets are injected on those wallets/software you used claiming the hard fork coins.
The addresses used across those forks are the same. Seeds/recovery phrase are used to derive the private key and then to import the addresses. Blockchain.info does use seeds though some addresses generated in the past are independent of it. |
|
|
|
|
If anything, it seems like a marketing tactic. Bitcoin is not meant to be used with bank. Banks can do whatever they want to transfer money and it doesn't matter. Using that bank just because its related to Bitcoin doesn't support what Bitcoin is meant for; Removing the bank from the equation. I don't see how they could deal with the volatility of Bitcoin when transferring money across. The fees incurred from trading between fiat and BTC could be significant.
|
|
|
|
Yes, but the risk is FAR greater now that we've seen it done successfully on a close cousin of Bitcoin. If the guy who owns that 7nm fab spends about $20M - I think he'd have enough to pull it off.
The only obvious similarity that Bitcoin Gold and Bitcoin has is the name. Bitcoin Gold has a completely different mining algorithm and that could make a huge difference. For a fair comparison, ZCash which has the same algorithm has 20 times the hashrate of Bitcoin Gold. This makes it much easier to attack BTG than ZCash. ZCash is still a very small altcoin as compared to Bitcoin. Until this week, 51% attack was just a fun theory. Today it is a very real thing that could be done with Bitcoin.
51% attack has never been a fun theory. It is a very real attack. They are viable for smaller altcoins like Bitcoin Gold, not bigger coins like Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Thanks a lot.
According to the bitcoin wiki I should't use this format until further adoption. Should I crate a new wallet an move my btc over?
It's up to you. While bc1 is not widely adopted, the segwit enabled Bitcoin Core versions already supports it. As a result, the network does support it and several exchange and services recognises bc1 address. You can also create an wallet that uses P2WPKH nested in P2SH address. The format is exactly like your normal P2SH address (multisig etc) but you can use segwit with it. P2SH is pretty old and everyone should recognise it as valid. |
|
|
|
|
Blockchain.info (or most explorers for that matter) do not support bech32(bc1) addresses. While they can recognise the transaction and the transaction itself, they won't show the full address. If I'm not wrong, they do not index bc1 addresses.
If you'd like, Blockchair and blockonomics indexes bc1 address.
|
|
|
|
|
The original intentions was to have a currency which is cheap and can serve as a viable alternative to fiat and other payment processors. While the transaction fees issue is largely solved by now, its still a problem if the adoption increases. The more obvious issue is the volatility. No one wants to use a currency which is so volatile and no one wants to invest in a currency that is stable. Until these two problems are solved, the adoption rate is likely to be extremely low.
|
|
|
|
|
No. With fiat, the adoption rate is just basically 100%. Everyone uses fiat and its pretty much the only form of currency that is legally recognised. With that in mind, the only way for people to pay for their things is using fiat. Bitcoin is an alternative method but it can't be the main form of currency. Governments are unlikely to recognise it as a legal tender and thus the adoption rate would likely remain very low for a long time.
|
|
|
|
So even with 51% attack possible, what prevents the rest 49% from forking into a legit chain and screwing the attacker?  They can, though it wouldn't screw the attacker over. This is possible though it probably wouldn't happen. 51% attacks are usually unexpected and people would likely not have time to react (especially with exchanges with automated deposits). Forking the chain wouldn't help either. Clients would follow the chain with the longest POW and the community doesn't have time to react to it, usually. The attacker could also very simply just switch his hashpower over to the honest chain. Either way, after its discovered, the damage to merchants/users isn't that big anymore. |
|
|
|
if all big miners collaborated and replicate what happened to Bitcoin Gold.
Forget about 'all big miners', what if Jihan Wu and maybe just one other guy set out to do this? They'd probably be successful. Of course, if they have a combined hashpower of 51% of the network. Jihan Wu isn't that stupid. He wouldn't just go and attack Bitcoin if he feels like it. The cost for attacking Bitcoin is way higher than the gain that he can get from it. Remember, he is the co-founder of Bitmain, an ASIC producer. If he decides to do this, every crypto in the world would be under loads of scrutiny. He can't go undetected with Bitcoin's community. Well it can be hacked only if somebody would owe 51% of all Bitcoins in the world.
God I love the level of fucking stupidity in this forum!!! lol Lmao. That's just outright rubbish. |
|
|
|
|
Nothing surprising. No one said that Bitcoin can't suffer a 51% attack. In fact, its just outright listed as one of the possible attacks that Bitcoin can suffer. It doesn't constitutes to a hack, by definition. It doesn't involve someone else gaining access to any unauthorised system.
The criteria for someone to execute a 51% attack is to obviously have at least 51% of the hashrate. With Bitcoin Gold, their hashrate is still relatively small. Just because some other coin has a similar name to Bitcoin, it doesn't mean that it is Bitcoin. 51% attacks are still far too expensive to execute for Bitcoin as compared to altcoin. This post is just spreading FUD.
|
|
|
|
|
Soft fork is when there is a change in the protocol and the old clients will recognise the new transactions and blocks as valid. Segwit is one of them; Older nodes simply ignored the witness message and they can still spend outputs from segwit transactions.
Hard fork is when there is a change in the protocol and only the new clients recognise the transactions and blocks as valid. Since the older clients do not recognise the new transaction and blocks, they will reject any of the transactions/blocks following the new rules. The un-upgraded nodes will thus diverge from the majority of the network and an update is mandatory.
|
|
|
|
|
No one should ever be using Blockchain.info in the first place. By design, web wallets are incredibly insecure as they can insert codes as they wish without notifying their users. In this case, I doubt its their fault; did you have 2FA? Did you install/run any suspicious programs?
If you didn't setup 2FA, any hackers would be able to get into your account with ease. Even with 2FA, it isn't that difficult. Desktop wallets are way more secure than web wallets, 2FA or not.
|
|
|
|
|
If its confirmed on the network, then it isn't anything that you can do. It's possible that their wallet is out of sync and therefore isn't receiving any blocks. The only thing you can do is to contact whoever is managing that wallet.
|
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin will never be legal in any countries at all. The nature of Bitcoin makes it difficult to regulate and control the transactions that is being made. Bitcoin doesn't have anything backing it and the country cannot take any responsibility for the volatility of the coin. The lack of control would likely make tax evasion and money laundering easier. I can't see why any country would legitimise Bitcoin with these in mind.
|
|
|
|
Of course, you right on that, it can have some elaborated program logic behind it. (when release private blockchain, when to drop it and follow the main chain, ect.) But I think RoeiDimi can first implement something simple. Something like: if (privateChainLen > 4)
releasePrivateChain();
else (nBlocksBehindOfMainChain > 2)
dropPrivateChain(); Agreed, some refinements could be made. Selfish mining works the best if you can at least compete with others when they are at the same block height as you. When you're in this attack, you should be connected to the peers which are the major mining pools. If any of them relay a block, you would also broadcast your own block. As such, there is still a chance for the network to build on your chain. |
|
|
|
Oops, sorry. I totally forgot about Schnorr. However we should be able go get Schnorr Signatures, that's just a soft fork isn't it..?
Yup. Segwit's version script system allows for Schnorr signature to be activated without a hard fork. It's not totally clear to me from your answer above..Can you please confirm that we can achieve coin-join transactions that are cheaper than normal transactions with the use of Schnorr Signatures only?
Likely not. Schnorr signature can combine the signatures of the non segwit transactions into one. While this could be useful if you're using CoinJoin to spend several inputs, I would expect the price to be the same whether you're spending it with or without using CoinJoin. So we actually don't need Bulletproofs for this to happen?
No. |
|
|
|
|
Nope. Coinjoin works by having a transaction with inputs from various addresses and outputs to various addresses. The size of a transaction depends largely on the number of inputs and/or outputs. While batching transaction would make the size smaller, it would only be applicable if the transaction has one or only a few inputs.
For Coinjoin, each input would correspond to at least one or more output. As a result, the size used by each participant could be about the same or even bigger when compared to the scenario where they are making their individual transactions.
It's highly impossible for the protocol to recognise which transactions are meant to mix coins; any flags would potentially weaken the purpose. Bitcoin would likely prioritise scaling over anonymity.
|
|
|
|
|
No. None of the Bitcoins ever fell off the earth.
If you're talking about the Bitcoins which are lost or has never been created, then no. If you spend the coins to a provably unspendable address, there's a reason for the Bitcoin holder to do that and the Bitcoin is theirs; they can do whatever they want with it. Redistributing it would just be an outright theft. If you're talking about the Bitcoins which has never been created, there isn't a way to fairly distribute it nor is it worth it to hard fork the network for this.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
