Why work all your life for a tiny amount of money, while central banks create a million times more money than you earn in a lifetime in a millisecond? Because you don't know there's an alternative, and if you don't know that, then you will, rationally, fall back on thinking that's the only solution there is. No matter how unfair it is, if you can't imagine of something better, your brain will, automatically, stop thinking about the problem. You will get to admit it, sooner or later. But, it's time to change this. We do have a better alternative now. Bitcoin, that eliminates dishonest human behavior. There are no words in this system. Words are empty, they take no part in the way we construct consensus. Action is what matters. There's no faith in this system. Proof-of-Work is self-authenticating. Bitcoin is, ultimately, more fair. And that's before we even talk about the efficiency aspect. |
|
|
|
The signature is part of the unlocking script and cannot be modified by a malicious actor, but it is still possible to modify an unlocking script itself by adding additional opcodes that do nothing. Transactions with added unnecessary OP_DROP codes are non-standard and therefore, aren't relayed to the network, though. Transaction malleability can happen in a more efficient and shady way, by re-signing the same transaction with a different k value. Also, that this can't happen in a SegWit transaction, because changes of witness do not affect TXID. |
|
|
|
|
Username: BlackHatCoiner
BTC Address (SegWit): bc1qkt6d7tsffuf9zwnvwqywt406h2slg5tgtf8ydh
It is important to mention that the minimum amount required to participate in Wasabi's CoinJoin is currently 0.10584712 BTC, something I don't cross my fingers most users own. (And are willing to test)
|
|
|
|
Running a bitcoin node versus running a bitcoin node with a lightning node differs, indeed, in difficulty, because, besides setups, you also have to be aware of re-balancing your channels often, being online at all times, creating new channels etc. However, I think we need to settle down how much willing a "simple user" is, and should be, during their involvement with bitcoin. For example, I don't believe a "simple user" is willing to devote a part of their disk space and RAM for syncing the chain or for buying extra hardware, let alone to run their own lightning node. But, that's their loss. If they don't like trusting an SPV server, the tutorials, papers, github pages, internet boards are there to help them achieve it, whenever they decide to. You gain financial sovereignty when you have, disciplinedly, taken the time to study the subject. Just knowing what bitcoin is said it offers makes you a potentially financial sovereign. But, you gain this individual consciousness only if you do study it.
Now, when it comes to Lightning, a "simple user" has two options; - Losing custody of their money, but being able to use Lightning in a simple manner. (e.g., BlueWallet, Phoenix etc.)
- Deciding to study what's the Lightning Network and act accordingly to their benefits.
It's obvious that the latter is a difficult thing to do, objectively. But, that's how it goes. Simplicity, custody, efficiency; pick 2. Maybe there's some better network-proposal in the future, but currently that's what we have. |
|
|
|
Banks offer a stable or floating rate for your investment/deposit every 3/6/12 months. Yes, but it's not enough. Offering me ~3% in returns when there's a nearly 10% inflation in my country does only make me poorer. Bitcoin on the other hand, doesn't guarantee you a certain percentage of performance, but the possibility to rise in the future. And nobody guarantees you that the value of the dollar, the euro, the pound will continue as is. It might rise, it might fall. But, nobody knows for sure. Same goes for bitcoin. However, during the last 10 years, bitcoin has risen by more than 180% in every year, on average, while the fiat currency I use has a cumulative inflation of 18.58%, from 2012 to present. |
|
|
|
send RPC call has a parameter in the JSON dictionary of the first argument to allow you to specify arbitrary hex data for an address (which I assume represents a locking script). Yes, but you can only input an address there. P2PKH, P2SH, P2WPKH, P2WSH and P2TR (that I have forgotten to mention in OP). Not a custom script. As you can see, it does not specifically define the function of "data", nor gives any examples that use it, so this is my best-guess assumption. The value of data is taken as OP_RETURN data. (network: testnet)
input: 46f1bfbe99e12841841e131b8ce04c4708881d8facc4729c16c97d78bcfad3c8
vout: 0
data: aa206fe28c0ab6f1b372c1a6a246ae63f74f931e8365e15a089c68d619000000000087 (OP_HASH256 OP_PUSHBYTES_32 6fe28c0ab6f1b372c1a6a246ae63f74f931e8365e15a089c68d6190000000000 OP_EQUAL) createrawtransaction "[{\"txid\":\"46f1bfbe99e12841841e131b8ce04c4708881d8facc4729c16c97d78bcfad3c8\",\"vout\":0}]" "[{\"data\":\"aa206fe28c0ab6f1b372c1a6a246ae63f74f931e8365e15a089c68d619000000000087\"}]"
0200000001c8d3fabc787dc9169c72c4ac8f1d8808474ce08c1b131e844128e199bebff1460000000000ffffffff010000000000000000256a23aa206fe28c0ab6f1b372c1a6a246ae63f74f931e8365e15a089c68d61900000000008700000000
decoderawtransaction 0200000001c8d3fabc787dc9169c72c4ac8f1d8808474ce08c1b131e844128e199bebff1460000000000ffffffff010000000000000000256a23aa206fe28c0ab6f1b372c1a6a246ae63f74f931e8365e15a089c68d61900000000008700000000
{
"txid": "b5a051fa0281d3f6b1023c8517f47011faef9e2de6e315cd71ed60ded9aee8f0",
"hash": "b5a051fa0281d3f6b1023c8517f47011faef9e2de6e315cd71ed60ded9aee8f0",
"version": 2,
"size": 97,
"vsize": 97,
"weight": 388,
"locktime": 0,
"vin": [
{
"txid": "46f1bfbe99e12841841e131b8ce04c4708881d8facc4729c16c97d78bcfad3c8",
"vout": 0,
"scriptSig": {
"asm": "",
"hex": ""
},
"sequence": 4294967295
}
],
"vout": [
{
"value": 0.00000000,
"n": 0,
"scriptPubKey": {
"asm": "OP_RETURN aa206fe28c0ab6f1b372c1a6a246ae63f74f931e8365e15a089c68d619000000000087",
"hex": "6a23aa206fe28c0ab6f1b372c1a6a246ae63f74f931e8365e15a089c68d619000000000087",
"type": "nulldata"
}
}
]
}
See? My assumption is the "data" key-value pair in the output is just OP_RETURN, it wont process scripts;
Reason is, it automatically prepend 0x6A to the value which is OP_RETURN. Exactly. If you want to spend a custom script's UTXO [...] I don't want to spend a custom script's UTXO. I want to create the custom script's UTXO. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin has NEVER seen an era of rising interest rates and tight money before. This time IS DIFFERENT !!!!! Ignore this fact at your own risk Higher interest rates favor the savers and disfavor the borrowers. It reduces, first, productivity and, later, consumption. However, I'm not sure there's a strict correlation between those two and bitcoin. Aren't many using bitcoin as savings and/or store of value? Bitcoin has ZERO intrinsic value, it is only worth what someone else will pay for it. That's true for everything. Food is worth what people are willing to pay for it, gold is worth what people are willing to pay for it, cars are worth what people are willing to pay for them. It has nothing to do with intrinsic value. |
|
|
|
|
It is unbelievable how far the bitcoin economy has changed since last week.
|
|
|
|
Yep, I confirm; it happened to me today and I had to remove the "<? .php". It's weird, because any text that's written to a post is recognized as text from the forum software, and so should from Cloudflare. I don't think the problem has to do with "attack with back-end execution". It's rather just a bug. How do I know? Try previewing this post which includes the php format intro and runs normally, and now try previewing this post, which is the same plus the next sentence; it will fail. |
|
|
|
As far as I know, with Core you can only create transaction with createrawtransaction. But, from what I can see in the examples, you can either create a script that pays to an address or to an OP_RETURN. My question is, can you create custom scripts with createrawtransaction, besides those four? OP_DUP OP_HASH160 <pubKeyHash> OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG (for P2PKH)
OP_HASH160 <redeemScriptHash> OP_EQUAL (for P2SH)
OP_0 OP_PUSHBYTES_20 <witnessScriptHash> (for P2WSH)
OP_RETURN <data> |
|
|
|
It is not for scam but spam, I want to touch some fellows without a need to pay for it Which is actually a scam, if you think of it twice. If you want to "touch" some fellows' addresses, then you'll have to either pay the dust amount or mine the block yourself, which will take you space, and therefore money again. Sorry, but these are the rules. That's what most nodes, by default, have configured. It happens to avoid spam. And again, having a transaction in the mempool means you're okay to having it confirmed. Not only that, but you've made it publicly provable with a digital signature. It's down to the network now to decide. |
|
|
|
|
This sounds like you want to scam someone.
If you have a transaction, that complies with the consensus rules, and you broadcast that transaction, it's like saying "I want this confirmed". It doesn't make sense to not want it confirmed neither for the users nor for the protocol.
|
|
|
|
You're saying if I sell 1BTC on Bisq and I suddenly get $20,000 via bank transfer, which on other days doesn't happen too often, the bank is going to ask questions? I mean, you could just reply to those questions honestly and say you bought BTC at a certain earlier point in time and sold it online. Not so simple if the money come from a complete stranger. But, if they come from a well-known, billion dollar worth of company, "the bell might not ring". Again, though, I'm not so sure what to do with the tax office. I don't think it would be a big issue; it's going to be similar to buying (or selling) another expensive item like a car. It isn't, because, first of all I can't evade the taxation of a mobile (in contrast with bitcoin), and second, there's normally a legal framework around that and I know what I should do, how much it'll cost me in the end etc. but I believe most countries do have something by now Unfortunately, not. In general I don't think using a centralized exchange to do something illegal in your country, is going to make it legal. Me neither, but I have a feeling that people who use a centralized exchange cover up this issue. Maybe I need to reach an accountant. |
|
|
|
That's what I thought. IIRC, it is a bip39 compatible HD wallet, correct? Yes. Don't you have to send a transaction to the Join Coordinator server, and if so and it's rejected, what happens to that transaction? When you coinjoin, the server you use, which works as a portal for those who want to mix, requires you to send it your UTXOs, that will be used as inputs for the coinjoin transaction. So, it's down to the server. If the server doesn't agree to pass your UTXOs, you won't participate in the coinjoin. You don't sign nor broadcast any transaction until you get the "OK" from the server. |
|
|
|
There is really no incentive to use use centralized exchanges. There's one case, though, in which I justify the use of centralized exchanges: If you're sending (or receiving) a lot of money via a bank account or another financial institution and there is no legal framework for cryptocurrencies in your country. This is some trouble, because not only do you have to somehow justify the transaction to the bank, but you also have to be aware of some special-arbitrary treatment from the tax office. Using a centralized exchange is probably going to pull you through the former, but I'm not so sure about the latter. Exchanging with Bisq in this case might not be a wise move. |
|
|
|
There is no other way around for them, is there? Well... Assuming the Wasabi Wallet continues having a github repository, where the source code is there to check, compile and run yourself, no. I was thinking, is it possible for them to somehow accept UTXO's for Coin Joins and then freeze them until your victim client provides further information? No, because there's no information transferred other than your inputs. I suppose there is no way unless Wasabi becomes a custodial wallet and starts requiring accounts? Although, it's already pointless to use Wasabi, "upgrading" it to a custodial service would make it further pointless. I don't hold my breath. This is scary. Integrity is, admissibly, important for everything in life. In this case, for the development of a project. |
|
|
|
|
Bumping this, because somebody had to do it.
Here's some users whose interviews I believe would be enjoyable to read: @theymos, @n0nce, @o_e_l_e_o, @PrivacyG, @suchmoon, @nullius/death_wish, @DannyHamilton, @achow101, @ETFbitcoin, @DdmrDdmr, @garlonicon, @Rath_, @Welsh, @hilariousandco, @HCP.
|
|
|
|
You better move this to the Services board, since that's what you're providing. If you think it deserves to be moved to the Project Development, so be it. In either case, it does not belong to the Dev & Tech board. |
|
|
|
I better get rid of all my coins, someone just double-spent bitcoin!  What's going on here? Probably something wrong with Ledger's server? Either you or Ledger, that's forcing you to use its server AFAIK, is the one to blame for. Did you, by any chance, copy the address with the 1.5 BTC and imported it somehow twice? No, so it's either Ledger's front-end or back-end. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
