For a decentralized system like Bitcoin, the IO is much more expensive than the CPU. One byte of extra data means transferring to and storing on all nodes. So saving the data storage is very important to Bitcoin.
In the transaction structure of Bitcoin, if removing the public key part in the transaction data, we may save nearly 30% of storage. The cost is we have to check the previous output to check the signature. But still it is worth to do the trim, cause the 30% data saving. (the blockchain data may be decreased from 30GB to 20GB)
Is it possible to do that?
It is technically possible with a fork, but that will cause a much bigger problem. In current design, a node can forget all spent outputs. Also, a node can forget scriptSig after verification, and store the UTXO only. If a new transaction may refer to the information in the historical blockchain, nodes have to store the whole blockchain forever. Satoshi has already addressed this problem in the section 7 of his white paper: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf . Please read before you propose a new "solution". -------------------- Alternatively, it is possible to calculate the public key with only the signature and the signed message. The trade-off is spending more CPU time. Read more: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=6430.0http://www.secg.org/sec1-v2.pdf section 4.1.6 |
|
|
|
Every block includes a timestamp as set by the miner who mined the block. There is a rule that other nodes reject the block if its timestamp is more than 2 hours in the future. It is a hard limit: if the timestamp is 2:00:01 in the future relative to node time, the node rejects it; if it's only 1:59:59 in the future, the node accepts it.
What happens if a miner finds a block and sets its timestamp exactly 2 hours in the future relative to some accurate time source? Since the clocks of all other nodes are never perfectly synchronized and distributed somewhere around the true time, I would expect that approximately half of the nodes (whose clock is slightly ahead of the true time) accept the block, while the other half will reject and forget it. Half of the miners will accept the block and start building a new block on top of it (with half of the original hash power), the other half will continue working on the previous block. We've got a blockchain fork caused by misbehavior of just one node. One of the two forks will eventually win but, before that, transaction confirmations might be delayed. Did I get anything wrong?
I think when designing a distributed consensus system, such as Bitcoin, one should be cautious about making a decision based on node time. Node time is different at different nodes and this a source of disagreement that potentially destroys consensus. Hopefully just temporarily.
No rational miner would do this as that will increase the risk of being orphaned. As an attack, this is also not effective as 1-block fork is already very common. |
|
|
|
Just a quick update: it's about -1.985 now, while the all-time-low was -2.23. Still not in uncharted area. To break the ATL, the VWAP has to go below $173 today.
(This is based on bitfinex data as bitcoincharts.com has stopped reporting bitstamp data since the hack)
according to the OP formula calc, it went to -2.38 (new record) when BTC was $155 briefly. Right now -2.11 (at BTC=$203). I will wait for the double dip and if we will not go below $155, it might be a time for a longterm buy. Or not. Please note that the analysis is based on daily VWAP, not instantaneous minimum/maximum price. What price would a +1.5 be? +1.5? That would be $7300 today |
|
|
|
|
It does not mention BIP32 Hierarchical Deterministic Wallets. So it is not supported yet?
|
|
|
|
Just a quick update: it's about -1.985 now, while the all-time-low was -2.23. Still not in uncharted area. To break the ATL, the VWAP has to go below $173 today.
(This is based on bitfinex data as bitcoincharts.com has stopped reporting bitstamp data since the hack)
according to the OP formula calc, it went to -2.38 (new record) when BTC was $155 briefly. Right now -2.11 (at BTC=$203). I will wait for the double dip and if we will not go below $155, it might be a time for a longterm buy. Or not. Please note that the analysis is based on daily VWAP, not instantaneous minimum/maximum price. |
|
|
|
|
Just a quick update: it's about -1.985 now, while the all-time-low was -2.23. Still not in uncharted area. To break the ATL, the VWAP has to go below $173 today.
(This is based on bitfinex data as bitcoincharts.com has stopped reporting bitstamp data since the hack)
|
|
|
|
Well ironically the winkelvoss ETF would be a derivative. Their company plans to purchase one BTC for every 5 shares in the etf owned. Unfortunately this is exactly what BTC needs right now to allow the gamblers a regulated environment for purchasing BTC with stupid amounts of money.
Except that the first 200'000 BTC or so will be purchased from the Winkles' personal holdings. Source? They are rumored to have 200'000 BTC. The SEC filing says that the initial offer will be 1 million shares each representing 0.2 BTC. So that's your pure speculation. As far as I know, they bought those bitcoin at 2 digits. If they wanted to sell, they could have sold anytime since late 2013 in the open market with sound profit. Why do they need to wait for SEC approval? Why do you think they (or anyone) would want to create a bitcoin ETF? Same question could be asked for any commodity ETF. One reason is to earn management fee. An ETF on NASDAQ will also significantly improve the liquidity of the bitcoin market and increase the value of their personal stash. |
|
|
|
http://qntra.net/2015/01/the-hard-fork-missile-crisis/"... Today Gavin posted on his personal blog an article titled "Looking before the Scaling Up Leap", stating "My goal is to prove that it is safe to raise the maximum block size from 1MB to at least 20MB" along with "I'll argue we should schedule a hard fork." Reddit soon blindly praised Gavin for his work, with comments such as "Fork it hard." It appears as if Gavin will not give up unless his hard fork is a reality, and thus Mircea Popescu has made a declaration of war if Gavin proceeds with his plans. ..." http://trilema.com/2015/if-you-go-on-a-bitcoin-fork-irrespective-which-scammer-proposes-it-you-will-lose-your-bitcoins/"... To make it perfectly clear : in no case will MPEx accept this fake Bitcoin, as it's not accepted any other fake Bitcoin to date, and for the exact reasons. Moreover, my budget to sink this scam exceeds the budget of everyone involved on the supporting side.vi That is all. ..." So, Gavin, do you really want to lose little people their coins? Or could you just let it drop? A fork, no matter hard or soft, would not be successful without >95% of miner's support. If Gavin's fork is really supported by 95% of miners, good luck to the 5% and MPEx: they will have a block every 200 minutes for 280 days, followed by a block every 50 minutes for 70 days, until they get back to normal speed. But actually, block size could be increased without hardfork: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=283746.0 . It's just a bit cumbersome |
|
|
|
Well ironically the winkelvoss ETF would be a derivative. Their company plans to purchase one BTC for every 5 shares in the etf owned. Unfortunately this is exactly what BTC needs right now to allow the gamblers a regulated environment for purchasing BTC with stupid amounts of money.
Except that the first 200'000 BTC or so will be purchased from the Winkles' personal holdings. Source? |
|
|
|
This is a 2-of-2 multisig using "addresses" OP_DUP OP_HASH160 <pubKeyHash1> OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIGVERIFY OP_DUP OP_HASH160 <pubKeyHash2> OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG 1-of-2 multisig OP_DUP OP_HASH160 <pubKeyHash1> OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG OP_TOALTSTACK OP_DUP OP_HASH160 <pubKeyHash2> OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG OP_FROMALTSTACK OP_ADD 2-of-3 multisig OP_DUP OP_HASH160 <pubKeyHash1> OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG OP_TOALTSTACK OP_DUP OP_HASH160 <pubKeyHash2> OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG OP_TOALTSTACK OP_DUP OP_HASH160 <pubKeyHash3> OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG OP_FROMALTSTACK OP_FROMALTSTACK OP_ADD OP_ADD OP_2 OP_EQUAL However this is non-standard so not many miners will mine for you (P2SH may work?). Most importantly, none of the current bitcoin clients is able to create a signature for the script. |
|
|
|
"Random number" generated by MS Windows:  |
|
|
|
But why dont plug-off the computer / laptop ?!
Have you heard of power-over-ethernet? Use an external laptop battery charger so your off-line laptop will never connect to the power socket. And don't forget to wrap the laptop and your head with tinfoil |
|
|
|
|
It is a bad idea to ask your customers to send bitcoin to your hot wallet. In this case, the amount of hot bitcoin could not be controlled and it is difficult to manage the risk.
Bitcoin should be sent to a cold wallet, and manually replenish the hot wallet if needed.
|
|
|
|
Currently at -1.85, lowest we've been in over 3 years but not uncharted territory.
It's around -1.8 as the slope is decresing The all-time-low was -2.23. To go there today it has to reach around $170  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
