set a tiny version of PoW during handshaking stage among nodes.
Could you explain what is the point of making it harder for people to run a node? If it is security then you'll have to first explain what the security flaw and the attack vector is that you are trying to prevent and then explain whether this step would prevent it or not. You should also explain why wouldn't this make running a full node harder than it is and what would you do to avoid discouraging people running full nodes. In this workflow, server nodes send a challenge like job to client nodes and ask for solving a difficulty thingy.
Technically in a decentralized peer to peer network there shouldn't be a server client relationship, everyone is a peer (at the same level). 1- We may meet a safer communication among nodes.
You aren't changing anything about the communication, just adding a computation step in handshake. Again please explain what "lack of safety" you are trying to solve. 2- We could issue a shadow-coin under the main coin that encourages people to install more and more perfect nodes with same incentives that main PoW does to the entire network.
What would stop someone from running a farm of fake or semi-fake nodes with minimal cost earning that "shadow reward"? You certainly won't be able to increase the difficulty of this PoW without making it impossible for regular users to run a full node. |
|
|
|
I'm looking for a developer to write a script to generate all possible private keys and write them to an SQL database. Payment available
using AlienTechnologies.TimeTravel;
using Encoders;
public void Main()
{
var storage = TimeTravelToFuture();
var sql = new SqlDatabase(storage);
for (BigInteger i = 1; i < 115792089237316195423570985008687907852837564279074904382605163141518161494337; i++)
{
sql.Write(Base58Encoder.GetWif(i));
}
}
private Storage TimeTravelToFuture()
{
TimeMachine.Engine.TurnOn();
TimeMachine.Time.Set("2120-01-01-12-45-00");
TimeMachine.Travel();
return TimeMachine.RetreiveStorageDisk();
}
You're welcome. |
|
|
|
it's clear that Jack wants to focus more on blockchain space. Will Jack be the next person to influence the global economy, especially bitcoin, to rival Elon's influence as the richest man? Keep in mind that Jack is very supportive of bitcoin, and I don't think he's going to create his own version of a new cryptocurrency.
A while back when Dorsey's tweets came coming out about bitcoin and how he praised it I said he may pull another Musk in the near future. Obviously he hasn't yet started FUDing bitcoin but at the same time he has been gaining popularity by "praising bitcoin" (like others did before him) and have been using that popularity to make money from different businesses he runs. From the exchange service to this and some more. So I wouldn't really be surprised if he eventually created an altcoin and started spreading FUD about bitcoin at some point in near future. He certainly wouldn't be the first person to do something like this... |
|
|
|
I think the reason why many people complain is due to people like that s2f guy on Twitter who was promising that Bitcoin has to hit $98K at the end of November and like $150K or so in Dec and Jan.
Or maybe they are complaining because there is no logical explanation for the trend change and the big drop that brought price to below intrinsic value of bitcoin, under a strong resistance. Even if price remained somewhere around $60k for months nobody would have really complained. But $49k-$48k prices don't make any sense at this point where intrinsic value is a lot higher. |
|
|
|
What is more important knowledge or money?
I feel nostalgic. It's as if I'm back in school and the teacher asked us to write an essay titled "is knowledge better or wealth" and we're supposed to say "knowledge". Then I grew older and realized wealth is more important. Then I grew older and realized the life is not a choice between A or B, there are hundreds of choices in front of you one of which is to choose "both". I came to this forum for knowledge, but that knowledge gave me money too. I understood what bitcoin is through that knowledge that gave me an insight into its true potential which helped me improve my finances. |
|
|
|
|
Knowing some skills is not enough specially when they are some basic ones that are commonly known by many people. You have to be good at them and have a decent amount of experience in working in each field. If you don't have that, don't worry you can gain it but it will be harder since you'll need to compete with those who have more experience. You could do that by offering cheaper services and work hard to do a good job, so that you can give yourself a small edge.
|
|
|
|
If something not right with eth i can complain to V Butern
Even though the statement is a dumb one but I'm glad that even trolls admit that ETH is a centralized shitcoin. I trust exchangers as i trust people who are well known
But i think we not ready for decentralized finances as someone got to give out guarantees.
You can only speak for yourself. YOU aren't ready for decentralized finance, the rest of us who have adopted bitcoin have been ready for it and have been using it for about 12 years now. My grandfather said if no responsebility of person then no assurence of great business.
Bitcoin is a currency or a payment system not a business. P.S. Nobody is putting a gun to your head forcing you to use bitcoin, you chose to be here!!! |
|
|
|
Your arguments have nothing to do with bitcoin and the anonymity of transactions though. It is all about the regulations of a specific country regarding bitcoin and taxes. Although many countries have similar laws but it is not everywhere, there are many countries that aren't so invasive about people's affairs. I guess a better title would be whether you want to abide by your country's laws even if you don't agree with them and what can you do about it. After all the laws are there to serve you not to eff you up the arse.  |
|
|
|
But AFAIK, blockchain wallets have gained more popularity since 2015 until now, and here are the statistic reports.
Actually blockchain.com lost its popularity early on due to a lot of issues including bugs that led to users losing their funds. They tried to take back parts of what they've lost with different techniques like changing their design, adding altcoins, adding purchase option, etc and were somewhat successful but they remain vastly unpopular still. The only reason why the number of users grew is because the number of bitcoins has been growing in total and a small percentage is going to this terrible service. |
|
|
|
I'd be thankful if you represented the implementation of this as I don't understand what's R.
In python and in csharp and CIn an ECDSA signature "r" is the x coordinate of the point "R". You can compute the full point R(x,y) by assuming y was even for this case. First, you find the two points R, R′ which have the value r as the x-coordinate r. Essentially this is what we do when we are verifying transactions but the public key is compressed. But since there we have the y odd/even-ness we can compute only one point but if we don't know it (like the case with r) we have 2 points. Also, if you can derive the public key from R, S, Z why do we have to provide it in the scriptSig? It only takes space and hence, makes the transaction fee greater.
Because recovering public keys is an expensive operation and if we omit public keys from our scripts then verifying blocks and transactions become slower. Also we can recover multiple public keys (up to 4 for secp256k1) which would make verification that much slower. On top of that, we are using hash of the public key and public key has to exist to satisfy OP_SOMEHASH OP_EQUALVERIFY. |
|
|
|
Do you want to derive the public key from the R, S, Z values or from a transaction raw that may have many inputs/outputs? If it's the former, it's impossible,
It is possible. The logical way is to just read the transaction and almost all signatures come with their public key and viola you have the public key! The other way is to perform what is known as public key recovery operation (section 4.1.6 of Standards for Efficient Cryptography 1 vol. 2). This way you can recover a number of possible public keys from signature and message. Cryptography libraries that support ECC should have this option. In bitcoin libraries you may find it used in message verification methods. |
|
|
|
The Wright vs Core devs is likely about whether Bitcoin core has been changed in a way such that it makes old transactions invalid - in particular I am talking about ~removed scam website url~NLocktime and nSequence</a> it could be that as a result of those changes some older coins may be inaccessible.
Nothing about locktime or sequence values changed in a way to make any existing outputs unspendable. As part of this case, core devs may be compelled to update the bitcoin core software in order to allow access to these coins.
Unlike centralized altcoins such as bcashsv, the bitcoin protocol is not owned by anyone to be able to change it. If core devs made any change that we didn't like, they would be forking off to a shitcoin of their own the same way bcashsv forked off to a shitcoin of their own. Meanwhile bitcoin continues as is. I think that may have a material effect on price, because many people are invested on the premise that BTC sits outside of law.
Back in 2017 some devs were compelled to change the code. We rejected them and bitcoin continued rising while their code became an altcoin. This was repeated more than a hundred times and each time bitcoin didn't care. P.S. My initial observation seems to have been correct, despite your account age you don't seem to have any understanding of how Bitcoin works. |
|
|
|
PoW vs PoS So 2014 ish. Forum was flooded with the junk. Get used to it because the forum will be increasingly flooded with topics like this from now on because a popular shitcoin with 72 million premine is trying to convince the plebs into thinking their switch from PoW to PoS is actually a good move that is going to save their shitcoin. |
|
|
|
| | | BTC | | | ETH | | Decentralized | | | Y | | | N | | Immutable | | | Y | | | N | | Limited_supply | | | Y | | | N | | No_premine | | | Y | | | N | | No_ICO | | | Y | | | N | | Fair_distribution | | | Y | | | N | | Secure_protocol | | | Y | | | N | | Useful_in_real_world | | | Y | | | N | | Cheap_fee | | | Y | | | N | | Easy_to_use | | | Y | | | N | | Easy_to_run_full_node | | | Y | | | N | | Scaleable | | | Y | | | N |
Ethereum seems to provide everything that Bitcoin offers but it has a huge advantage: smart contracts.
Well you are just parroting back something you've read. Why do you think ETH smart contracts are providing advantage? Have you ever used a ETH smart contract in real world or seen any that solves any problem in real world? Better said have you even seen a single ETH smart contract used for anything other than fundraising? The answer is always no. So you see not only they don't have any advantage but also they are useless. Now ask the same questions about bitcoin. Bitcoin as a currency with smart contracts is used every day to solve real world issues and transactions are not just for some hyped up fund raising that dies shortly after creation. |
|
|
|
|
You need to look at the charts. It hasn't been "for months", it only took about 2 days for bitcoin price to have a drop and then stay there.
Again if you look at the charts you can see that this is a very common pattern each time we have a rise. Price comes down a little, sometimes as a correction, sometimes as a panic sell,... then it enters accumulation phase before it goes back up.
If you also look at the altcoin market you can see that over the long haul they are always dumping so again this is not "for months" it is "for years".
|
|
|
|
How is Blockchair.com broken if the transactions actually exist? See:
At blockchain level we don't have addresses, we have scripts. Block explorers (wallets, etc.) take those scripts and convert them to their corresponding address. In case of SegWit output scripts they have to take the witness program and witness version and encode them using Bech32 encoding. But when witness version is 0 they should use Bech32 (BIP-173) and when version is 1 and more they should use Bech32m (BIP-350). Blockchair is taking the program and version and encodes them using Bech32 which is wrong and should be rejected if given to any wallet software for payment (there is a flaw in BIP173 encoding that affects programs with unfixed lengths). How? It would be really cool if you can transfer this dust and explain in details how you did it!
I won't be able to do it because such transactions are considered non-standard by majority of bitcoin nodes so they will never reach a miner. @achow101 posted a good example which is spending Taproot outputs before it activates without providing any signature or witness. This is most probably created and mined by a miner (another indication is the 0 fee). The way it works is due to forward compatibility. The current clients have to be able to ignore verification of future versions so that any future witness version doesn't need a hard fork. So the existing nodes simply skip verification of witness versions above what they understand (which is currently 1). This little "else" expression simply returns true for any witness program currently bigger than 1 or version 1 programs that are not 32 bytes or if you wrap it in a P2SH script. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/65b49f60a4cf521889297b2006f66efa11d769c5/src/script/interpreter.cpp#L1959-L1965 } else {
if (flags & SCRIPT_VERIFY_DISCOURAGE_UPGRADABLE_WITNESS_PROGRAM) {
return set_error(serror, SCRIPT_ERR_DISCOURAGE_UPGRADABLE_WITNESS_PROGRAM);
}
// Other version/size/p2sh combinations return true for future softfork compatibility
return true;
}
You can also see the standard flag that rejects the transactions from mempool (but not from blocks) as non-standard. |
|
|
|
A harsh rate has a considerable effect on the price
Wrong. There are only certain affects that you can talk about: 1. The panic sell by weak hands. Which is in now way a "significant" effect. It is a weak one at best that may not even last long enough to be considered an "effect"! 2. In an unprecedented event where there is a ridiculously huge drop in hashrate. Something like 80% of it vanishing. And that's only because it has the potential to threaten bitcoin security. Other than that the relationship between hashrate and price is that price has significant effect on hashrate not the other way around. but its ultimate advantage is in the number of transactions being processed in the Bitcoin blockchain at a given period,
This is not affected by hashrate at all. In certain extreme scenarios when there is a big change in hashrate the number of blocks found every day could increase or decrease (depending on what happened to hashrate) but that would only last until difficulty adjustment which happens every 2016 blocks. in the last few days bitcoin hash rate increased to its highest since June when the hash rate dropped significantly due to the Chinese slim down on bitcoin miners.
It wasn't last few days, it was much longer than that and it has been rising because price has been rising from $30k to $60k. The Chinese thing was way before we started rising up from $30k or the hashrate starting to pick up. |
|
|
|
I have also found it interesting that on the link that was shared above, a really short address like "bc1sw50qa3jx3s" is a valid Native Segwit address. I have never seen anything that short. I remember that I generated bech32 addresses that were visibly shorter by several characters in the past, but nothing like that one.
The consensus rules dictate that a witness program has to be between 2 and 40 bytes so the smallest bech32 address string you are going to get is 14 characters long and the biggest 74. If you are wondering about the difference, that's because bytes are 8-bit each but a bech32 string characters are 5-bit each. The length also includes the HRP and separator characters. There is also a 6 character checksum at the end. Here are examples with random bytes: bc1sjq8qn0wcax
bc1s0fvtqh7c30rcmcvh49eq7pynnsrerfhcx5s53h3a0hp93lvdyr3vjgqmcwevnvxevgv0pc |
|
|
|
However, it could be like last year, we were at around 20k last year and had trouble going above 20k for a very long time, by the time the new year started we reached to 30k and having trouble going above 30k, as we all know in the year we reached to 60k+ prices after that. So it could be similar, we could reach to 70k and have hard time going above that, then we could have the new year trying to break above 100k, that way in 2022 we could reach to a 2022 level for sure.
To be fair we can't really compare any of these cases with the current situation. From $20k which was the most different resistance since it was the previous ATH and historically they are extremely hard to break due to the sell offs close to these prices. The rest of the troubles were mostly because of the nonsense news such as the 2 big FUDs we had in the past years one about the energy consumption which is now completely forgotten! And another one about this country and that country banning bitcoin which is again completely forgotten now. |
|
|
|
Traders know that BTC has great effects on altcoin price movements, but doesn’t solely look at BTC to see how alts would perform. Because if alts were totally reliant on BTC, then why even trade alts?
Actually one of the trading strategies in shitcoin market is to look at what bitcoin is doing. When bitcoin isn't making any move at all (like right now) they take their BTC to the shitcoin market to trade with it and increase the amount of bitcoin they own then come back as soon as bitcoin movements started. Which is why altcoins dump each time bitcoin rises or falls. BTW OP is not arguing about what or why traders do what they do, he is claiming that this is the only purpose bitcoin has  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
