Hello, and thank you for all this work!
I am trying to test a couple of things bitcoin related, transactions and other various functions to get a better understanding.
This is my wallet: tb1qpxv2wzraeatq7yyvffcuee9y9r363crl3453ay
Thank you!
The standard amount has been sent: 4a4bc0914ba9b64829e2f75f1008f83bb6534ef6caf48277462189ece899d993 |
|
|
|
I have read several posts encouraging people to hold their bitcoin for the greater good of bitcoin and probably more reward in the future. I have also been able to buy some for myself and also holding. But there is this concern that usually pop up in my head anytime I am meditating and that is what will happen if everyone is holding their bitcoin and no one is willing to sell. This can possibly happen in the future when mining reward becomes too small. I know some people will say that miners will continue to mine and sell to sustain their business but when there is reduced selling, will mining still be a profitable business?
If this question appear dumb, please pardon me, I just need clarifications.
miners get the block reward and the sum of the fees of all transactions in the block they've solved... Next to this, ASIC's become more and more performant. Coupled with the fact there are thousands of miners, there'll probably always be some miners for whom mining is profitable. Granted, the total hashrate might drop (so the difficulty might drop aswell), but having no miners at all doesn't seem plausible. |
|
|
|
hello, i need testnet coins for learning purpose i'm planning on using noncustodial wallet for my holdings so i want to gather enough knowledge on how it works generally.
request id = tb1qewlprl52d6p3dq3p8cxyjerqk7wt6ufsqt77ts
any amount is highly appreciated
sent the standard testing amount: e0196b9358f286bab4b32b3958208e88e8b5374043ad16ecb85b7445829d4f56 |
|
|
|
Hy Bro, need some testnet/ signet bitcoin for a campaign, but almost all faucet stopped working. wasted too much time here and there. Any amount will be greatly appreciated, plus i will return soon. thanks Bro.
tb1qr3jelr9l6g45v6wr9accs334kr9cdrngh5mc8n
I've sent the default amount in transaction 261e5065343e322790268bf45648336861f51a58cadf9b9c4f06166a109fe7d4. It should be enough to conduct some basic tests in most usecases. |
|
|
|
|
i one satoshi ever goes to a fiat value of $10.000, an on-chain transaction with a 1 sat/vbyte fee would cost more than one million USD. At this point, only L2 sollutions would be viable. One of the most known L2 sollutions (the lightning network) already uses msat as smallest denomination (one msat = 1/1000th of a sat). A payment on the lightning network also doesn't need those huge fees. You'd only use L1 for opening and closing channels a couple times in a lifetime.
These L2 sollutions are more flexible, so it would be fairly easy to use microsat as smallest denomination instead of millisat.
|
|
|
|
--snip--
Probably who ever buys an account will exit scam then
Why dont people keep it real
There are reasons why one would have multiple accounts... For example, one that's anonymous and one that can be linked to their real identity. Or an account that's coupled to one's brand and one personal account... As for account sales: people could buy an account to level up faster... In the past this happened out in the open, everybody knew an account could change hands and one should always be careful dealing with anybody cause you never knew if the account was still owned by the same owner. Somewhere around 2015/2016 (IIRC), the community took a harsher stand against account sales, and even tough it's technically still allowed to sell accounts, the community usually tags sold accounts to warn other people they're not dealing with the original owner. Nowadays, account sales probably happen off-forum, and i personally think this makes people less vigilant. Personally, i don't care if you have two accounts or buy an account without malicious intent: if you don't scam, don't spam and treat me fairly, i couldn't care less if you're using a sold account or not... But yeah, sold accounts can be used to scam, and multi accounts can be used to join campaigns with multiple users at the same time, i certainly don't condone this behaviour. |
|
|
|
yes and yes. here's a snipplet from the (un)official forum rules about multi accounting: --snip--
18. Having multiple accounts and account sales are allowed, but account sales are discouraged.
--snip--
As for bypassing the evil fee: Theymos even gave a couple of users the permission to whitelist users... If he wanted to enforce the evil fee, he'd never have done this. |
|
|
|
To give you guys a "real" idear about the odd and timing, it might be a good idear to read the wiki time = difficulty * 2**32 / hashrate
where difficulty is the current difficulty, hashrate is the number of hashes your miner calculates per second, and time is the average in seconds between the blocks you find.
source:https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Difficulty the current difficulty is 75,5 T, that's 75.500.000.000.000 You can get to run your sidehack R909 @ 2,1 Th/second when you're talking about a cpu or a gpu, you can look here: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Non-specialized_hardware_comparison, but the fasted cpu hashes @140Hh/s and the fasted GPU @2568 Mh/s (those numbers are acutally quite old, but i would be supprised if new cpu's and gpu's have a SIGNIFICANT difference in the outcome of the calculation) So, a lottominer, the R909: time = (75.500.000.000.000 * 2**32)/ 2.100.000.000.000 = 1.544.143.004.038 seconds = 25.735.716.733 minutes = 428.928.612 hours = 17.872.025 days = 48.964 years So, on average, at current difficulty, it would take you about 50 thousand years to hit a block with an R909So, a gpu: time = (75.500.000.000.000 * 2**32)/ 2.568.000.000 = 126.273.376.498.442 seconds = 2.104.556.274.974 minutes = 35.075.937.916 hours = 1.461.497.413 days = 4.004.102 years So, on average, at current difficulty, it would take you about 4 million years to hit a block with the "best" gpu in the benchmarkSo, a cpu: time = (75.500.000.000.000 * 2**32)/ 140.000.000 = 2.316.214.506.057.142 seconds = 38.603.575.100.952 minutes = 643.392.918.349 hours = 26.808.038.264 days = 73.446.680 years So, on average, at current difficulty, it would take you about 73 million years to hit a block with the "best" cpu in the benchmarkThere are all averages offcourse... yes, in theory, there *is* a chance of hitting a block with an rpi whilst cpu mining for a couple of seconds... The thing is that people are very bad in interpreting the odds, as long as they see a number and the word "average", they think there's an actual possibility of hitting a block with a cpu/gpu, whilst in reality their odds are sooooo small, they are so close to zero that you can probably just round them down to zero to begin with... You'd probably have better odds of getting married, going for a swim before the ceremony, being bitten by a shark at the same day as being hit by lightning, winning the lottery and getting into a car crash on your way to the hospital (i didn't do the exact math tough). |
|
|
|
I'm hoping no one actually needs this explained to them, but just in case:
Do. Not. Enter. Your. Private. Keys. Into. A. Search. Engine.
Listening to people like the OP is how you lose your coins.
I'd like to extend this warning to: "AND do not look up your private key on a webpage showing (tabbed) lists of all keys". I've seen those sites listing "all" keys in tabbed pages with a couple hundred keys per page, using an easy way to drill down to the page with a list also containing your key. A malicious person could look into their webserver's log, look at which pages were visited by non-bot looking users, then try the 100 keys on each visited page... It would be a really easy way of bruteforcing since it would reduce the attack vector by a huuuuuuuuge factor. |
|
|
|
--snip--
Base on my understanding, isn't someone able to know your total holdings when they check one of your address using walletexplorer.com?
no. Walletexplorer will only know which addresses belong to the same wallet if you create a transaction and use several inputs funding different addresses. If you have 10 addresses that were funded in the past but they were freshly generated and no unspent outputs funding those addresses were ever spent, let's call them 'address_1'...'address_10', walletexplorer will not know they belong to the same wallet. But, if you ever create a transaction and use unspent_output_1 funding address_1 AND unspent_output_2 funding address_2, those explorers will know address_1 and address_2 belong to the same wallet. They'll have no idear address_3...address_10 also belong to this wallet. Things do get a bit more complicated if you look at change addresses, those have to be labelled to... Otherwise you'll spend change from a transaction with inputs to a different address, and they'll know those addresses belong together to. Walletexplorer also searches publicly available owner info, that's how they know wallets from big exchanges Case in point: this is an address of mine that's publicly known: bc1q50udcgfdyqanp56m9dkcqkxy5fayjc74vw9px7 Walletexplorer was able to deduct this wallet contains at least 5 addresses: https://www.walletexplorer.com/wallet/60911730d7ab735d/addressesIn reality, this is a wallet i've been using since 2019, currently i'm at address 125, and change address 72. So my wallet contains 197 addresses that were, at least at one point in time, funded. Walletexplorer has been able to group those addresses together whenever i created transactions using inputs funding more than one address. So they created groups of ~1-~5 addresses, whilst having no clue my wallet actually derived ~200 addresses (so far) |
|
|
|
|
I use labels and coin controll... Just create a new address each time you want to receive, and make sure you tag the address beforehand. When spending, use coin controll and only pick labels that go together. This way, i only need one wallet (eventough i do have to pay attention when spending). In the past, i did have a seperate wallet for inputs that went trough a mixer or a coinjoin session, but i've given up on this idear and just went with proper labeling.
|
|
|
|
|
I no longer have a node running, nor do i have an ubuntu machine to test things out... But looking at your output, there are a couple of things i see:
I see a lot of deprecation warnings. The developer of nomp should probably update his dependency list. I also see a timeout when a git fetch is executed. Was your network ok?
All in all, i guess you'll have to double check your network, and if it works fine open an issue on the nomp git repository.
When this guide was written 2,5 years ago, this walktrough worked fine... But in tech 2,5 years is forever... Things change really fast...
|
|
|
|
|
There are several... If i'm not mistaking binance and kraken allow you to withdraw to your lightning wallet... Never tested it myself tough.
The exchange in my signature also allows you to do this (untested aswell)
|
|
|
|
I have a stupid question:
With all the new ETF Funds coming on the market, what happens if the funds buy all the existing 21 million bitcoins, in hope of future price increases ?
If no fund is selling bitcoins and no new bitcoins are created,there is no market, that could lead to a major sell off, because nobody wants to be the last seller with the lowest price...
So will be interesting to see how the ETF Approval will play out finallly....
Bitcoin doesn't have a set FIAT price... It's supply and demand... There'll always be people willing to sell if the price is high enough, and people to buy when it's low enough. If the ETF funds are hell-bent on buying 21.000.000 BTC, it would be impossible, since a big chunk is either lost or not yet mined as coinbase rewards. But even if they wanted to buy every available BTC, they'd probably have to pay billions of USD per BTC for the last satoshi's. If the demand is bigger than the supply, the price will rise... And that's the situation you're describing. If an ETF fund is hell bent on buying up all the BTC on the exchanges, sellers will increase the price since there is a limited supply and ETF funds and "normal" investors have to outbid each other to get their hands on some BTC. At some point, long time holders will be enticed to exchange their holdings aswell. |
|
|
|
Why 18.04? Will it break on anything newer?
Because you're answering to a thread that was initially created 2,5 years ago... https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ReleasesAt that time, 18.04 was the most recent LTS release. If you want to know if it works on a more recent release, just try it out and report back if you succeeded. |
|
|
|
|
Changing that limit would be a hard fork... Especially if you'd also change the rules for the block reward (which you would HAVE to do to increase or remove the supply limit).
Nodes running the "old" fork (with a ~21.000.000 supply limit) will start to reject all blocks whose block reward does not conform to the "old" rules (block reward halving every 210.000 blocks, starting with 50 BTC), and since the "new" fork will need to adjust this logic to replace (or remove) the supply limit, they'll actually HAVE to change this rule.
The fork could probably do something like: wait untill the next halving when the "old" chain's block reward becomes 3,125 BTC, then change the client's sourcecode to keep this block reward forever (disable halving in the future), that way your new chain will be "compatible" with the old chain for another ~4 years, but as soon as the next halving happens, the old chain will start to reject blocks with a 3,125 BTC block reward.
In, the end, you'd have 2 bitcoins: Bitcoin_super_unlimited and Bitcoin. Everybody who controlled unspent outputs on Bitcoin by the time of the fork will have the same value on both chains, and one of them *might* die off (even tough some forks actually exist for a long time, albeit not as popular as bitcoin).
Personally, i don't think you'd have to worry about this as a "normal" user. I think the chances are very slim anybody would tamper with the supply limit and risk a hard fork for something that will probably do the community no good... There are more pressing matters TBH. I worry a lot more wether a solid, mature L2 network will exist by the time the block reward becomes so small we'd have to pay $80 per transaction in order to keep the miners interested in mining bitcoin... I also worry about people spamming the mempool with crap transactions pushing the fee waaaaay up... People that want to start meddeling with the controlled supply aren't even in the top 10 when it comes to worries about our network and our community.
|
|
|
|
I'm really excited to explore and test tBTC, and I'd love to get my hands on some for my BTC testnet wallet. If you're open to it, would you mind sending a small amount my way? It'll help me dive into the project and provide valuable feedback.
Thanks a bunch! 🚀
tb1q9n8xha0pdaylh73hpy73nvmfu3qk9t29a7dhqw
I've sent you the new default value... fd7df351655633821bb2c816f166a9a4f73c8f111f117f7df3b6e2ca43ac6c88 |
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the input guys... You are right, i should keep the collateral. I just felt bad for the guy, so i wanted to help him out.
I'll probably offer him the value of the coin he loaned back then, and leave it at that.
I'm closing the thread now, i basically got the answer i was looking for. If anybody has anything else meaningful to add: just pm me and i'll unlock the thread again!
|
|
|
|
I'm looking for some ethical advice about a loan i gave 3,5 years ago. It was a free (as in 0% intrest) loan with collateral, under the conditions the loan HAD to be repayed within the year and the person taking the loan had to cover all fees. The collateral was sent to me, and i gave him the loan. The person who took the loan went off the grid for 3,5 years untill about 30 minutes ago. He just sent me a message indicating he was "late" and if i would be willing to give him his collateral back if he repayed the loan (it was a non-btc loan). The collateral was in XMR (2 XMR). At the time he took the loan, 2 XMR was worth 120€, now it's worth 282€. I'm proposing to him to give him 60€ worth of BTC if he gives the principal back. I personally think that's fair since he was 2,5 years late repaying, and i had to sell of the collateral, and now i have to send BTC whilst the mempool is full and the tx fees are high. I want to send the person who took the loan following reply, but i'm looking for some ethical input: is my offer fair or am i being overly harsh? Hi <redacted>,
I had to look into my archives to find out what this loan terms were exactly. If my records were correct, it was a loan of <redacted> from july 10th 2020 that had to be repayed before july 10th 2021. I considered this loan defaulted on july the 11th 2021.
I tend to keep collateral a couple of months after the latest repayment date just in case, but this loan was given about 3,5 years ago and it had to be repayed about 2,5 years ago. At that time, i had completely different wallets than i have right now. I don't know what happened to the XMR, but since i only hold BTC it was either sold off when i switched wallets or it's on a wallet i no longer have access to (it probably was sold off tough).
I'm willing to work with you and see if we can find some sort of agreement to give you a partial refund of your collateral after you've returned the <redacted>, but there's no way i'll be able to return 2 XMR, especially since it has more than doubled in value since the loan was given. If I'd have to buy 2 XMR now, it would probably cost me more than i got from selling off the collateral back in 2021, so i would effectively making a loss from giving out a free loan.
I've been looking at coinmarketcap, and it looks the collateral was worth about 120€ when you sent it to me (asking price, not including any fees). I've tought about it, and i think it would be fair if i gave you 50% of the value of the collateral after you sent the <redeacted> back to me. I think 50% is reasonable since you're 2,5 year late with the repayment, and i was in my right to sell the collateral (and by selling it, i had to pay deposit, exchange and withdrawal fees, and it also cost me some time to execute all transactions). I'll also have to cover transaction fees of sending back the collateral to you.
So, that's my offer: i'm willing to send you 60€ worth of BTC after you've returned the <redacted>, either directly in BTC or i can run it trough exch.cx to convert it to Monero, dash, litecoin, eth,... (but in this case, i'll only cover the fees up untill the exchange, the exchange and withdrawal fees are for you). In the end, it would have cost you about 60€ to have <redacted> at your disposal for allmost 3,5 years.
Kind regards,
M
|
|
|
|
user PaulGuzmanMade 4 posts so far. One in a thread i was posting in. The style, wording and lenght made me suspicious, especially when seeing it with a users that made only 4 posts: Post 1hivemoderation: 99.9%
writefull: 92%
writer.com (first 1500 chars): 55%
copyleaks: doesn't work (cloudflare error)
sapling: 83.6%
contentatscale:READS LIKE AI!
Post 2hivemoderation: 99,9%
writefull: 6%
writer.com (first 1500 chars): 61%
copyleaks: doesn't work (cloudflare error)
sapling: 100%
contentatscale: PASSES AS HUMAN!
Post 3hivemoderation: 99,9%
writefull: 1%
writer.com (first 1500 chars): 100%
copyleaks: doesn't work (cloudflare error)
sapling: 100%
contentatscale: HARD TO TELL!
Post 4hivemoderation: 99,9%
writefull: 11%
writer.com (first 1500 chars): 97%
copyleaks: doesn't work (cloudflare error)
sapling: 100%
contentatscale: HARD TO TELL!
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
