Probably a bug in the accounts system which is slated for removal anyways. It is deprecated and no longer supported.

What do you mean "block data before OP_CHECKSIG"?

Every time you try to post, the timer resets.

This is a coinbase transaction so it is special. Conbase transactions are always the first transaction of a block.

It pushes three bytes which is the block height in little endian format. The remainder of the script is arbitrary data that the miner includes in the script. This usually is where the extra nonce goes and the miner will put info to identify who mined the block.

The script is 67 bytes. Then 65 bytes are pushed. This pushes the pubkey of the address this output is for. The last byte is OP_CHECKSIG.

Normal will display all of the information for the account. Merchant hides some of it to prevent buyers from knowing what the actual account being sold is but it still allows them to see some stats about the account being sold.

Sure, you can do it that way too. Each block is the 4 byte magic bytes, then the size of the block, then the block in raw format. The first 80 bytes is the header and that is hashed using sha256d. The output is then represented using little endian. The rest of the block is just the transactions. For full info on the serialized format, see https://bitcoin.org/en/developer-reference#serialized-blocks

Yes. The seed can be used to import your wallet to any new install of Electrum because all of your addresses are based upon that seed.

Your transaction paid a fee of 0.0001 BTC, which, for the size of your transaction, is very small. Your transaction is 8935 bytes, which means that you are paying about 1 satoshi per byte, a very low fee. The current recommended is about 20 satoshs per byte (https://bitcoinfees.21.co/).

What service are you using? There is nothing that users here can do. All you can do is to contact support of whatever online wallet you are using.

As for the medium priority transaction, Blockchain.info's time estimates are usually wrong. If you need help with confirming a transaction, then it we need to know what the transaction id of it is.

There is no description of the format of leveldb files that I know of. You will have to write your own client which uses LevelDB in order to read the data from those db files.

The indices for the blocks are in a separate LevelDB database. The blk*.dat files are simply where the blocks are stored, but it means nothing to the software without the database which indexes the blocks. Those indices are kept in the index folder inside of the blocks folder. Bitcoin Core will write to the disk every valid block it receives, so this does include forks and stale blocks in case of blockchain reorgs.

The IP address is not an identifier. Because Bitcoin is a p2p network, the ip that relayed a block is most likely not the ip of the miner.

ip addresses are public addresses. Unless your computer is not behind a firewall or not secure, than simply knowing an ip is not particularly useful. Every internet connection has an ip address, and that includes Bitcoin which uses the internet.

Litecoin uses a different algorithm than Bitcoin. Mining Bitcoin is pretty much unprofitable unless you have a couple TH/s. 360 kH/s is not going be enough to make any significant amount mining Bitcoin.

The blocks are written to the disk exactly in the way that Bitcoin Core receives them. It just writes the actually block messages. What exactly are you asking?

Blockchain.info is neither regular nor the "original". The original wallet is bitcoin 0.1.0 released by Satoshi, and its successor is Bitcoin Core. So if you want to run a modern wallet that is the "original" then you are using Bitcoin Core.

Why?

TPTB_need_war, you cannot prove nor disprove that the Sartre text Craig Wright supposedly hashed is a collision for SHA256. The hash that he published is the exact hash that is signed by the signature that spent the Block 9 coinbase. Because calculating that hash is trivial and the signature is already public, it is reasonable and safe to assume that Craig Wright simply took that hash and claimed that it was the hash of the sartre text.

You also pointed out that he supposedly has access to a supercomputer. Even with access to a supercomputer, he would not be able to find a collision as other researchers have already tried. Simply having a lot of computing power does not mean that he can find a collision.

Alternatively, Craig could have found a vulnerability in sha256, in which case a lot more things than just Bitcoin is screwed. If Craig did not responsibly disclose such a vulnerability and instead exploited it, this would be incredibly sketchy and dishonest behavior.

The theory that the sha256 double hash is weaker than sha256 is false. It has been proven that performing multiple iterations of a hash is more secure than just one iteration. Specifically, many websites will store users passwords in the form of a multiple iteration hash. This is significantly more secure than a single iteration hash. The resulting hash of a multihash function (including multiple iterations) has the same collision resistance as the collision resistance of the weakest hash. This means that sha256d has the same collision resistance as sha256. What multiple hashes protect against is a preimage attack.

---

It isn't really, it started as a complaint against the removal of his thread and then he promptly continued the thread here.

That is what it is supposed to do. If you don't see your full balance, try rescanning. Continuing to get new addresses will only work if your backup didn't have all of the addresses you previously used.

It would be pretty normal if he didn't sign up with an email, thus that setting would not be enabled by default.

Also, note how he says that


Anyways, this is a pointless argument. Either way, he probably got malware on his computer which stole his password or his private keys, or both.

A password alone cant get you into a blockchain.info account, if you are trying to sign into your account with a new IP, you need email confirmation
[/quote]
It depends on your security settings. You don't need to have an email linked to the account and if you did, you could also have it not set to email you. It really just depends on what he set for security, and based upon previous cases, the most common issue is password theft, not private keys being compromised which is insanely difficult and almost impossible to do with a web wallet unless the service is hacked.