Does this sound like a good idea? Would you donate? Does anyone know of any trustworthy Venezuelans who would be willing to work on this?
I wonder if any Venezuelan is actually reading this to provide their side of the story... |
|
|
|
Is the owner of this site is still sane?, because this is really insane having a gambling site that has 0% house edge, lol, just saying. I bet that this person is a very rich one because he is just giving his money by setting his gambling site to 0% house edge so whoever plays on his gambling site would never lose, the players would just keep on winning until they are tired of winning. 0% house edge does not guarantee a win. But it increases your chance to win. To be brief, 1% more chance to win than a site with 1% house edge.  |
|
|
|
Is it using some popular open source script? |
|
|
|
So, locktime has a max limit as well?
Not in the sense that you are thinking about. There is a limit of 4294967296 seconds past the epoch since the nlocktime field is only 32 bits. Ok. Could u plz point me to the relevant part of the code in Github, where it is written that Tx having locktime higher than a certain difference between block height will be rejected?
That's not how it works. Any transaction that has nLocktime set is considered non-final and thus rejected by nodes. This happens if the locktime is a few days away, or a few years. So, only Tx with nLocktime of few hour is kept in mempool? If that is the case, then there must be a check in the code that filter Tx with nLocktime higher than a few hour. No? |
|
|
|
so a locktime transaction can be added to the block chain up to two hours before its time lock officially expires. nlocktime is not an issue. nodes will just reject and not relay transactions if the nlocktime is a year away. So, locktime has a max limit as well? Could u plz point me to the relevant part of the code in Github, where it is written that Tx having locktime higher than a certain difference between block height will be rejected? |
|
|
|
If an attackers broadcast a bunch of Tx with the following criteria... a. high Tx fee b. total size of the bunch of Tx higher than mempool capacity c. transaction locktime of a block, which is supposed to be mined after one year Then which of the following will happen? i. nodes will crash ii. Tx fee required for new Tx to be in mempool will be higher than what is set by the attacker iii. nodes will remove the bunch of Tx with transaction locktime of far future block p.s. If u dont know about transaction locktime, please refer to - https://bitcoin.org/en/developer-guide#locktime-and-sequence-number |
|
|
|
Bitcoin Core has a default max mempool of 300 MB, after which point it will start kicking transactions and increasing the minimum fee to get accepted.
Thanks a Lot. Could u plz point me to the relevant part of the code in Github? |
|
|
|
Well you told us how to sign a message .. But please tell me why it is needed to sign a message. What is it used for and why to sign a message??  Primarily it is used to prove ownership of a bitcoin address. |
|
|
|
My knowledge is not enough to suggest you.
Then why did u make this post in the first place to bump this months old thread? |
|
|
|
How do I use keybase.io? I tried to search it but its really confusing and cant get what I want to know can anyone help me or just simplify it to me or anything thanks
Keybase.io allows u to generate your own PGP key and sign any message with that. Which part appears difficult to u? |
|
|
|
|
I mean 32mb/64mb/128mb beyond which it will crash or wont relay new Tx or remove old Tx to accept new one. If there is no such fixed size, I'd like to know the max limit of an average node...
|
|
|
|
This Q has been discussed many times before... but what is stopping a miner from setting some rules for the transactions they receive like a very high minimal fee/kb and only create empty blocks?
No. There is no network rule to stop miners from doing this. is there any way to prevent this if some day a bad miner decided to do this for any reason?
They are not economically incentivized to do this. More Tx = More fees. If a pool keep creating blocks without high fee Tx, miners will abandon it and move to another pool for their own benefit. |
|
|
|
Payment: 0.04 BTC Weekly for all participants
Additionally: Members with 2 and more Trust score qualify for additional benefits
Trust (2 -10) + 0.01 BTC weekly
Trust (10 +) + 0.02 BTC weekly
Do u mean trust from 2-10 different people or trust score within the range of 2-10? If I consider to join your campaign, do I qualify for the stated additional benefit of + 0.01 BTC weekly? |
|
|
|
My advice go to namecheap they have best services and accept Bitcoin as wall.
NameCheap they are the best not only that but you get a free domain with the order YourDomain.website it also accepts bitcoin
I do agree that NameCheap is great for domains and they do accept bitcoin as well. But, I think, one should not keep all his eggs in the same basket. Hence, hosting should be from elsewhere. |
|
|
|
|
If my potential activity is in the range of Legendary, then is there any way to confirm whether I will be a real Legendary once my post count equals my potential activity?
|
|
|
|
Seriously ? Woo, that's very awesome news ! I've always been attracted by NetBet and its included live-streaming service.
Be careful. AFAIK, they dont allow bitcoin withdrawal yet... |
|
|
|
Fantastic work! It would be great if u added a JS based signed message verifier as well. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
