|
I could swear that both these links sent me to the same transaction. SMF bug? ... Anyway, thanks, I'll try to mine a block and let you know.
|
|
|
|
Test coins are weird: some of them are free, some of them are burned. Both the "free" and the "burned" link to the same transaction. I get that the coinbase reward is burned, because it is sent to OP_RETURN, but where are the free coins? Of course, for CPU-based mining, some modifications are needed, but I think grinding coins with bitcoin-util should still be possible. I will think about some kind of such implementation. What's the recommended way to mine testnet4 with CPU? Is it possible directly from Core with generatetoaddress? And, is there mining software for testnet that is configurable with GPUs? |
|
|
|
I propose a cryptocurrency that utilizes a combination of PoW (Proof of Work) and forged blocks. In this system, blocks are mined using PoW, while forged blocks are selected randomly from a public key that has already mined a block. If forged blocks are selected based on the value of a public key, then that certainly isn't "random". What prevents miners from searching for "lucky public keys" beforehand? I also cannot see how this is relevant with sustainability. Network sustainability has to do with keeping enough of an incentive to secure the network. For example, tail emission is a solution. Another solution is to rely on small blocks that will create valuable block space. |
|
|
|
Is it better for the monero network to run a node over clearnet or tor? I've heard running over tor increases chances of a sybil attack
The only advantage of a Sybil attacker in Tor is that they can create an infinite number of onion addresses for free, which would come at a cost to do with IP addresses. I cannot think of any other advantage. If you're being Sybil attacked in a Proof-of-Work blockchain system, it means the attacker owns a good percentage of the hashrate, because otherwise, your client would stuck on a block height, and you could notice that you're being Sybil attacked. In the case of an attacker who has the incentive and amount of money to Sybil attack, the cost to acquire a few IP addresses would really be negligible. |
|
|
|
|
I completely agree with Knight Hider. I would love to write a review, but the Terms of Service are absolutely unacceptable. There’s nothing to review when I’m forced to accept having my privacy invaded just because your arbitrary metrics might label my coins as "tainted". The service is terrible from the start.
It also says that the XMR<->BTC swap is unavailable, which makes it even worse, as I'll have to install shitcoin software to complete the trade.
|
|
|
|
if the anon set is low on that coordinator and blacklisted UTXO's are allowed into the coinjoin could that potentially flag my non-blacklisted coins as blacklisted? No one can provide a completely satisfactory answer to this question. Generally, if you use services that discriminate against users based on flawed blockchain analysis results, you could be blacklisted even if you haven't used coinjoin. This could happen because the previous owner of your coins was flagged by their systems, and as a result, you could be flagged too. If I remember correctly, there have been instances where Wasabi coinjoins were flagged as "suspicious" activity by popular centralized exchanges. It's not a question to ask Wasabi, but blockchain analysis firms. However, you might find this write-up useful: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5464886.0. |
|
|
|
I just saw on a publication that 1st rank wallet was Satoshi Wallet, with 1.1 million BTC in it. After comes Binance exchange with 500k btc, blackrock, us government, micro strategy ... There is no evidence that Satoshi owns 1.1 million bitcoin. There's only flawed speculation. Any one have an idea of what can happen if theses 1.1 Million BTC are sold at once ? At once? Absolutely nothing. $68 billion would swap from banking accounts, and that might terrified some. But, if a sell order of 1.1M bitcoin was accepted at once, then it'd have no influence to the price. The price would drop if these million bitcoins were spread across many sell orders, at lower prices than the current. |
|
|
|
|
Time: 15'
Exact Score: 2-2
|
|
|
|
Other nodes won't accept it, if your own node will reject it. You have to configure your node first, to accept those transactions locally. I just opened Bitcoin Core after the last time I posted. Transaction is confirmed, even though I checked it hadn't reached mempool.space's node, at the time I sent it. Isn't that strange? My node's configuration is default, probably rejecting anything lower than 1 sat/vb. I have no configuration file, and start Core with ./bitcoin-qt --testnet4. The only reasonable explanation is that some of you broadcasted it for me. |
|
|
|
You can check your peers, maybe some of them accept free transactions? I get the exact same result as you do, but nodes reject my 0 sat/vb transaction: createrawtransaction '[{"txid":"d9251a6f083848d190664c721b5ee3a1690c09b02afcefe08fe7fce4977f18c7","vout":0}]' '[{"tb1qv9m80m7y7zt8u30qwdwajcmlzv3jvg4mey7zju":8.98999859}]' 0 true
0200000001c7187f97e4fce78fe0effc2ab0090c69a1e35e1b724c6690d14838086f1a25d90000000000fdffffff0133a6953500000000160014617677efc4f0967e45e0735dd9637f13232622bb00000000
signrawtransactionwithwallet "0200000001c7187f97e4fce78fe0effc2ab0090c69a1e35e1b724c6690d14838086f1a25d90000000000fdffffff0133a6953500000000160014617677efc4f0967e45e0735dd9637f13232622bb00000000" '[{"txid":"d9251a6f083848d190664c721b5ee3a1690c09b02afcefe08fe7fce4977f18c7","vout":0,"scriptPubKey":"0014617677efc4f0967e45e0735dd9637f13232622bb","amount":8.98999859}]'
{
"hex": "02000000000101c7187f97e4fce78fe0effc2ab0090c69a1e35e1b724c6690d14838086f1a25d90000000000fdffffff0133a6953500000000160014617677efc4f0967e45e0735dd9637f13232622bb0247304402202544c93845d2a565817c00c76987fdee4b9ac0019374f2185db2188bfe0a4a97022020458c57f7e54521236b137b24a9363305adb3a30fc521bdf06dfa801a16992e012103d3216bfc75eb4a7d9327398adf31b863bb3efcab932d2968d459d64df8333bcc00000000",
"complete": true
}
sendrawtransaction 02000000000101c7187f97e4fce78fe0effc2ab0090c69a1e35e1b724c6690d14838086f1a25d90000000000fdffffff0133a6953500000000160014617677efc4f0967e45e0735dd9637f13232622bb0247304402202544c93845d2a565817c00c76987fdee4b9ac0019374f2185db2188bfe0a4a97022020458c57f7e54521236b137b24a9363305adb3a30fc521bdf06dfa801a16992e012103d3216bfc75eb4a7d9327398adf31b863bb3efcab932d2968d459d64df8333bcc00000000
min relay fee not met, 0 < 110 (code -26)Lol. It's kinda cool, having some testnet4 coins could come in handy some day. Is that the address in my profile? Yep, it's the bech32 one, sitting on your profile page. I was hoping getting testnet4 working would be easier by now, but I'm still stuck on boost errors. I guess I'll just wait until testnet4 is enabled by default. For now, I've labeled the address as "testnet4"  I was facing some problems too when I tried to do this manually, but all it needed was just to fetch the clone properly. Did you fetch it as written in here? |
|
|
|
If Ordinals is taken seriously It all comes down to what that means. The vast majority of centralized exchanges enforce blacklists based on inaccurate blockchain analysis, and spread the notion that some coins are less valuable. Yet, it's completely possible to trade them for an equal value in a decentralized exchange like Bisq, or even in centralized swap services for altcoins. Try to buy a U.S. 1943 steel penny for its nominal value of $0.01. The important difference between Bitcoin and the 1943 steel penny is that a Bitcoin buyer does not care if their Bitcoin is a "rare satoshi" or not, whereas a 1943 steel penny buyer is a collector. The Bitcoin seller might charge a premium if they know that Ordinal buyers are willing to pay for it, but a Bitcoin buyer will just want the Bitcoin, so they'll simply go buy it elsewhere. Or to put it this way: Nobody treats a 1943 steel penny as currency. |
|
|
|
I was surprised that no one mentioned Nostr But, Nostr isn't a messenger, at least not just a messenger. It's an entire protocol for social media. And, to be frank with you, I neither understand how it works. Perhaps I haven't dedicated enough time to study the details, but it's absurd to me how can a Twitter clone run decentralized. It might be partially decentralized and partially federated, in the sense that a few nodes store the entire database, and need to be online at all times, otherwise users cannot connect. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
