For example, the EU recently held a vote to ban proof-of-work mining across member nations*. Thankfully, the vote failed, but this wasn't the first time they attempted it, and I don't think it'll be the last. Eventually, as younger and more 'progressive' politicians enter positions of political power in Europe, my guess is that they'll succeed. And, once they do, the other chimpanzees in countries around the world will follow them, causing the potential demise of our beloved cryptocurrency.
In order to stop Bitcoin, you must stop mining everywhere. You can't stop Bitcoin by stopping some people from mining. Even if mining is prohibited in the EU, it can be mined somewhere. Even the ban on mining in China has not stopped Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Every explanation of it reads the same and basically says "Bob alters the signature of Alice's transaction before it gets confirmed, thus producing a new transaction ID".
In short, it is possible to make valid copy of a transaction by modifying a signature in a certain way, and the copy has a different transaction ID. Now, that is not a problem for Bitcoin because only one of the copies will make it into the block chain and the others will be forgotten. The problem occurs in software that monitors transactions using the transaction ID. For example, suppose a customer of an exchange wants to withdraw some bitcoins. The exchange creates a transaction and records the transaction ID. Normally, the exchange debits the customer's account when it sees the transaction ID in a block. However, if a copy of the transaction with a different transaction ID is included in the block instead, then the exchange doesn't know that the bitcoins were received and it won't debit the account as it should. |
|
|
|
This is an interesting post: Surprisingly, Tail Emission Is Not InflationaryThis article will show that a fixed block reward does not lead to an abundant supply. In fact, due to the inevitability of lost coins, a fixed reward converges to a stable monetary supply that is neither inflationary nor deflationary, with the total supply proportional to rate of tail emission and probability of coin loss.
I think his analysis is a little naive, but it could be the start of something interesting. |
|
|
|
"A total of 5 billion people around the world use the internet today – equivalent to 63 percent of the world’s total population.
That leaves 37 percent of the world who have no choice but to use physical money. |
|
|
|
|
To those that insist that "physical" bitcoins have no use, I want to point out the interesting fact that most of the paper USD in the world is used by people outside of the U.S.
Don't forget that many people in the world have limited access to banks and telecommunications. For them, no electronic form of currency is available and they must rely primarily on paper money or perhaps "physical" bitcoins.
|
|
|
|
...However, the forum has accreted a self-appointed clique of vigilantes who delight in hunting for real or imagined alternate pseudonyms....
I haven't noticed this to be a problem. Can you go into more detail about it? Having multiple accounts has been an approved practice for a long time, so I think it would be helpful if you could point out the people that are giving negative trust to penalizing users simply because they have multiple accounts so that we can be more aware of their behavior. FYI, I have given negative trust to many scammers on all of their multiple accounts because they are scammers and not because they have multiple accounts. I don't see anything wrong with that. Also, I have heard that people try to cheat signature campaigns somehow by having multiple accounts, and they are given negative trust. TBH, I don't really know anything about that and I don't really care, unless the signature campaign people are expanding their agenda beyond just signature campaigns. Edit: Apparently, negative trust is not relevant to this discussion. My point was that if they wanted to return under new identities, they could not.
I don't understand why someone can't return under a new identity. Can you explain specifically what would prevent someone from doing that? |
|
|
|
On this note, it is believed that the production of the 3 nanometer chip will cause a relieve on miners from the current situation of the bitcoin high cost for energy demand in mining and the dip in the present market price, according to the Samsung, it said this will bring a dropdown in the amount of energy consumption and increasing the overal efficiency of bitcoin mining from the 3nm chips.
Because of the economics of Bitcoin mining, improved efficiency does not reduce the overall energy consumption. Bitcoin energy consumption depends primarily on the cost of energy and the value of the block reward, and efficiency affects neither of those. |
|
|
|
|
alexey14 is a NSA disinformation agent. I have proof but I cannot reveal it here.
|
|
|
|
I just finished some complex scientific and mathematical modeling and have confirmed in a proven way that the price of bitcoin will never be $20k or above for more than 30 consecutive days at any point in the next 5 years.
... assuming your model is accurate, of course. |
|
|
|
|
That reddit post is so incredibly biased that it would be smart to disregard it because many of the statements made by the author are likely to be false.
|
|
|
|
I had 0.00018 btc in my privet btc wallet And i send 0.00006 btc to someone and fee was 0.00002 btc and total cost was 0.00008. now it shows my balance in wallet 0.0001 btc without any issue but on blockchain.com explore it shows 0.00000. What is the issue ? something related to Utxo model? my bitcoin wallet is new one and my friend sent me 0.00018 btc for first time to that wallet . please explain me if it is something about utxo model....
A blockchain explorer can be useful for monitoring a transaction, but do not use it to monitor the balance in your wallet. Your wallet uses multiple addresses and a blockchain explorer is not aware of that. If you expect your wallet to have 0.0001 BTC and it says that it has 0.0001 BTC, then it probably does. |
|
|
|
...you can avoid investing more than you can lose by keeping part of your fund in stable coins (especially decentralized) and move the rest to bitcoin.
A stablecoin such as UST? |
|
|
|
It's now emerging that in return for their $250 million bailout of BlockFi, FTX will be acquiring a stake in BlockFi. I can't really think of a bigger red flag than when the entity holding your coins is auctioning off themselves to remain solvent. Latest update to this story: https://www.coindesk.com/business/2022/06/25/morgan-creek-is-trying-to-counter-ftxs-blockfi-bailout-leaked-call-shows/The $250 million bailout is set to wipe out all other BlockFi shareholders, as it gives FTX the ability to buy out BlockFi at close to no cost. One of these shareholders - Morgan Creek Digital - are now trying to come up with their own rescue package for BlockFi to stop this from happening. BlockFi apparently receive a number of other bailout offers, all of which would have used clients funds to secure the loan from the lender. So, it doesn't really matter which way you look at this - BlockFi are in trouble and if you have any coins on their platform then you are at a significant risk of losing everything. FTX's bailout of blockfi is concerning, but what bothers me more are the withdrawal fees. It costs $25 to withdraw stablecoins, for example. If you have $1000 in blockfi, it will take 5 months of interest to pay for the withdrawal. Also, I think many people will be withdrawing all of their money before the fees start and that will create even more problems for blockfi. |
|
|
|
Can't access my primary wallet. This will be my secondary address for verification of ownership if any need arises. My primary address(1edgym1sR5wLyhiziT8nk5spF1MUWAJcA ) is still valid and is not compromised. Address:1SiDiZqbAUN4TvyCCbSM4g1SLiwxedgVt
Message:Today is 27th of June 2022. This address is owned by edgycorner.
Signature:HIVJozDmMMtjnAKGUhcjT98OLIOcwUQZhSiVV05Rp2gQPl314TqwHTqcOWwonLlBZSNMgvVG18M/Us89vHUvKrE=
Simply stated, there is no issue with signing with the 1SiD... address, but if somebody signs with the 1edgy... address, we should believe them over anything that you say. That's how signature proofs work. Typically, if you want to use a different address, you would sign a message with the original address saying so. Then there is no question, even if the original address is compromised. Yes. 1edgy is still mine but no access for now. If I am able to recover it, I will post a signed message here. It's not compromised for sure. You can continue repeating that 1edgy... is yours as many times as you want, but there is no reason to believe you without a signature. Somebody else could claim that they own 1edgy..., and their claim could be just as valid. It's not a big deal as long as the address is never compromised, and as long as you never need to prove that you are the person that posted the 1edgy... address or that you owned the edgycorner account before now. |
|
|
|
Can't access my primary wallet. This will be my secondary address for verification of ownership if any need arises. My primary address(1edgym1sR5wLyhiziT8nk5spF1MUWAJcA ) is still valid and is not compromised. Address:1SiDiZqbAUN4TvyCCbSM4g1SLiwxedgVt
Message:Today is 27th of June 2022. This address is owned by edgycorner.
Signature:HIVJozDmMMtjnAKGUhcjT98OLIOcwUQZhSiVV05Rp2gQPl314TqwHTqcOWwonLlBZSNMgvVG18M/Us89vHUvKrE=
Simply stated, there is no issue with signing with the 1SiD... address, but if somebody signs with the 1edgy... address, we should believe them over anything that you say. That's how signature proofs work. Typically, if you want to use a different address, you would sign a message with the original address saying so. Then there is no question, even if the original address is compromised. bc1ql79tc97m3yswrxeerngewzrp74ue7z4rlv9ss0
You need to sign the address to prove the ownership. Many non-custodial wallet will give you easy access to sign an address. You can check this tutorial. Electrum was used in this example. Signing the address initially is not strictly necessary. It's a good idea in order to make sure that you can sign a message with the address, but it is really just a formality. The reason is that there is no benefit to claiming that you own a random address. You don't really need to prove that you own an address until you want to make a statement that requires a proof. In this case, the purpose of posting an address is to be able to prove that you are the original owner of the account at some time in the future. |
|
|
|
But instead of the joy an investor derives after a smart business move, I felt like a betrayer.
Bitcoin doesn't care. Your loyalty is irrational. |
|
|
|
“The Cryptopians” puts real substance behind the crypto community’s longstanding antipathy for Charles Hoskinson, CEO of IOHK and founder of Cardano and Ethereum who was voted out of the Ethereum founding team at the same time as Chetrit. Hoskinson is convincingly depicted as a liar and manipulator of staggering boldness, bordering on sociopathy. This has allegedly included various false claims about his education and, according to Shin’s sources including Joe Lubin himself, claiming to be Bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto. In crypto, sins don’t come much more cardinal than that one. You are citing an article about a book that says that Joe Lubin says that Charles Hoskinson claims to be Satoshi. I have never heard him claim to be Satoshi. I think that is a little bit of a stretch. |
|
|
|
We know that typical legacy address is made from pubkey -> sha256 -> ripemd160. On the other hand, ETH address is made from pubkey -> keccak -> "ending".
Now, if someone created a bitcoin address based on keccak, is it possible to spend from that address?
I'm going to say NO, but for a different reason than everyone else. A legacy pubKeyHash is derived from "pubkey -> sha256 -> ripemd160" and the locking script is OP_DUP OP_HASH160 <pubKeyHash> OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG. OP_HASH160 does the "pubkey -> sha256 -> ripemd160". Now, if you want to use a bitcoin address based on keccak, you would use a locking script that looks something like this: OP_DUP <keccak hash script> <pubKeyKeccakHash> OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG, where <keccak hash script> implements the Keccak hash algorithm. Unfortunately, the Keccak hash algorithm probably cannot be implemented in Bitcoin's scripting language, I believe, simply due to a lack of the necessary of operators. Somebody correct me if I am wrong. |
|
|
|
But my point was that when it comes to malleability problem, it's the miner that can change the data and cause the transaction to have to a new ID. It's not that anyone can do that (unless the original transaction has been marked as RBF which is a different topic)
Let's say I created a non-RBF and non-segwit transaction and broadcast it to the network. Now I create another transaction with same inputs and outputs, but a different transaction ID.
Will the new transaction be accepted by the nodes? It's so unlikely.
Can the miner change the data, so a transaction with same inputs and outputs but a different ID as the one I had broadcast is included into the blockchain? Yes.
I think we are just talking semantics. When I say "can", I mean it is possible. When you say "can't", you mean it is difficult or unlikely to succeed. I agree with both. However, it has actually occurred in the past without involving miners (I presume), so I don't think that saying it can only be done by miners is accurate. |
|
|
|
In my opinion, the idiom "don't invest more than you can afford to lose" is still valid, but the reasons have changed. Originally, it was not clear that Bitcoin had no fatal flaws, or that it would even work. It was an experiment. It was not wise to buy bitcoins with money that you could not afford to lose because the whole system could have failed at any time and for some unexpected reason. Now, after a few near-fatal incidents and 12 years of improvements, the failure of Bitcoin itself looks very unlikely. However, much of the infrastructure and systems built around Bitcoin are still new and are still failing. So, the main risks now are the price of a bitcoin and the failures of the services around it. - Hypothetically, if you buy bitcoins at $60k and hold them in your own wallet and a fall of the price to $17k will cause you hardship, then you should not invest. It could happen again, even at the current price.
- You should still consider that any bitcoin-related companies that hold your bitcoins or that you might invest with could lose, confiscate, or freeze your bitcoins at any time. It happens all the time.
As for other coins, they could fail at any time without warning. They should be considered to be experimental. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
