Why does the installation of some cores such as bitcoin on linux require many different libraries and programs to be installed, other than window that (with bitcoin core) doesn't need any additional extensions at all!
The windows files comes with all of those libraries packaged into the exe file. Linux doesn't do that. As for why, I think it has something to do with the compilers. |
|
|
|
|
Get a VPN. There are a lot of different software to do this. I recommend hola and zenmate. They are browser extensions that can change your ip quickly.
|
|
|
|
|
You can attempt to do a CPFP transaction if there was an output that went to your wallet. Or you can shutdown electrum and wait for the transaction to be "forgotten" by the network in which case you can send it again but with a higher fee.
|
|
|
|
My problem isn't setting up a fullnode. My problem is how can I contact my local bitcoin core with my remote full node (bitcoind) to get rid of my local blockchain.
I dont want to use a lightweight wallet and I dont want to store whole blockchain on my local machine.
I'm not sure if this is possible.
You could set up the data directory on that server as a network share and then set the data directory of your local bitcoin core to be that shared folder. It might run into some problems and I would advise against doing this. Otherwise, there is no way to connect Bitcoin Core to your server without having to download the entire blockchain. |
|
|
|
Timestamps are unreliable in a peer to peer environment. The only true 'time stamping' is POW.
So nodes will accept blocks with timestamp > current time ? There is a wide bounds for acceptability, I can't remember the exact bounding they use. I think the bounds are 120 minutes either way of the node's time. |
|
|
|
silliness,
letting miners agree to a block limit of 1MB - 32MB is not "giving miners too much power"
what are they going to do with this power besides make sure block limit is always about twice as much as avg block size?
So let the miners collude to lower the block size and artificially raise the fees for their own profit? I am mistaken or the incentives are VERY badly aligned? Or the people who are making the transactions stop using Bitcoin and now the miners are not making any money, or are making less. There is a disincentive and higher risk for them to be creating small blocks since it does not guarantee that a fee market would form and that people would continue to use Bitcoin if the fees started to go up. The only way they would guarantee a profit from fees would be to keep the block sizes large enough to contain a lot of transactions to collect the most fees. |
|
|
|
There would probably be an alert sent out by the developers and then they would decide whether to roll back the blockchain back to the fork point, or choose one chain and set checkpoints into the software to make sure that is the one used.
In this situation it would be hard to avoid using the longest chain, especially if it was a significant difference. Including a checkpoint in the software would be like declaring war on the majority hashrate, and they may well respond by locking out the minority until they'd got the money they thought they were owed... This isn't entirely academic, because the majority hashrate is in an authoritarian regime that's long been propped up by a good economy, and that economy isn't looking good. If they felt at serious risk of a revolution it's not hard to imagine them turning off access to the outside world. I think the upshot would be that you couldn't safely use bitcoin until the situation sorted itself out. Well the scenario he was describing and I was explaining was if somehow the network was a 50/50 split. Half of the hashrate worked on one fork the other half on another fork and somehow the blockchain was the exact same length. This is incredibly unlikely (odds are next to nothing) but if it somehow were to happen, it would completely screw with people. |
|
|
|
|
So how exactly can miners manipulate the block size for their short term gain?
One scenario that I can think of are increasing the blocksize limit so that all transactions are accepted and confirmed and then they can collect all of the fees for higher profits.
Another is decreasing the blocksize limit and hope that a fee market exists so they can earn more from fees.
|
|
|
|
Ok so I tried out Purse.io The website has an explanatory video and stuff, and there's probably a thread here somewhere about it, but my question is: how does it really work? Like: how can they get 25% or more off Amazon products from trading Amazon products for bitcoin? People are willing to pay a premium to buy Bitcoin. And who are the people that do the purchasing when you put in an order? How many of them could there really be?
They are people who have enough money to buy what you want for you and are willing to pay your price for Bitcoin. There are many people there, I have spent some time there both as a bitcoin buyer and seller. Or why would they want to purchase Amazon items for other people in exchange for bitcoin? What incentive do they have?
It is a fast and easy way to get Bitcoin with a credit card without a lot of verification. It is also a place for carders who steal credit cards and use purse.io to launder exchange the money to Bitcoin. Or how can I know I won't be scammed by someone on there?
Your Bitcoin is held in escrow by purse.io. If the item doesn't arrive, you can dispute. Since Amazon does a lot of tracking and record keeping and since it is your account that you bought the item with, it can be difficult to scam people there. |
|
|
|
It's just an interactive version, but it still doesn't explain how you can ignore the checksum without first decoding the entire base58 string. On a few tests with random keys, using the technique shown in the 2nd link I posted, the checksum characters on average affect the last 6 characters of the wif, but I did find a key that affected the last 9 characters. You can't ignore the checksum without first decoding it. By converting it to base58 from base256 the last digits will be different and with each key it varies so it is not possible to know the checksum without decoding the base58 |
|
|
|
So you demonize Bitcoin, because of your security mistakes? You demonize the coin you hoped to clone and make money off of, because you fucked up? Anonymous tips to the CIA/FBI won't do much in terms of your attacker returning the stolen funds....
I was thinking the same thing, it's like putting a big wad of cash on your cars dashboard and then blaming cash in general for getting stolen. Everybody is just jumping on the troll like it's their own fault something got stolen. In the example above it's foolish to blame cash in general. It's equally wrong to blame the careless person that kept in a very unsafe way (though they did fuck up, I agree with that). How about we start blaming the criminals? We could blame the criminals, but what is that going to do? If people don't realize that part of it is their fault for bad security, then they aren't going to change things and criminals are going to steal it. If something is exploitable, someone's going to exploit it. |
|
|
|
|
There was a reply by Garzik to the question about how the votes are counted. The block size chosen is the 20th percentile block, meaning that the supposed 21% attack cannot work. This means that it will choose the block size which is greater than 20% of the all of the other votes. Even if a miner had 21% of the mining power, they cannot change or force a minimum since all of their blocks would not be in the 20th percentile, they would probably be in the 1st or 2nd percentile.
|
|
|
|
Nope. Different account. Got it a few months ago from a different auction. |
|
|
|
Can you please help to provide more details on posts quality? Decent means is it mostly single line post or mostly constructive posts? Also in which section of this forum you posted most of these comments?
These details will really help members to bid higher price if your account can be used to join a good high paying signature campaign.
A lot of the early posts were 1 liners, and some of the later ones. Most of the later posts are 2 -3 lines. Many of the posts are in the gambling section but many of the later ones are in dev and tech as well as Bitcoin discussion. It was in a signature and avatar campaign before so it probably will still be accepted into another. |
|
|
|
|
This has definitely been discussed for a very long time. It started when Satoshi was still around so I'm gonna guess this started up sometime in 2010 when the 1MB limit was first introduced.
|
|
|
|
We're talking about Chinese mining pools right? Not all Chinese miners are solo mining. Most of them are in mining pools, which use Stratum and GBT Do you have something that shows that the pools they're using use Stratum/GBT? F2pool uses stratum. They have their miners connect to stratum+tcp://stratum.f2pool.com:3333 BTC China uses stratum. They have their miners connect to stratum+tcp://stratum.btcchina.com:3333 AntPool uses stratum. They have their miners connect to stratum.antpool.com:3333 So yes, Chinese miners are using stratum for their pools In either event, pool-based mining, which they clearly use, does not require the download of the transaction data. The block size does not matter. You can verify this yourself - connect to any of these pools and watch the data transfer - it is a teeny tiny fraction of the full transaction data volume.
Even a dial-up connection can handle that kind of bandwidth.
Red. Herring.
Even so, Chinese miners have their full nodes inside China. While you say that "they can just move their full nodes outside of China" that is easier said than done. |
|
|
|
I am looking at Blocktrail API now,
but I cant see anything similar to receive payment API by blockchain.info, can you enlighten me?
Yeah.. Looking at it a little more, it isn't very similar to blockchain.info's. There's a lot of API I can use if I am to create wallet and addresses for my web users. But receive payment API allow me to check either payment sent from a user to another user despite we dont have any access to neither wallets. My developers dont have any experience using create wallet/address APIs and I am already running this website live with more than 20k users  Try googling around for bitcoin payment forwarding api. I found that blockcypher and block.io may have what you need, but they require you to register an account and get a token for the api requests. Can you PM me your contact information? I am looking for BTC developer. I may not be able to help you since my programming skills are limited to Java. What language are you using? |
|
|
|
There is a historical limit of 32 Mb on Bitcoin message sizes, thus also limiting blocks since blocks are passed in the block p2p message.
Miners vote for block sizes within the range of half of the current to double the current block size (e.g if the block size is 1 mb, then miners can vote to change the block size to somewhere between 0.5 mb and 2 mb. They cannot go below 0 or greater than 32 mb whatsoever. The hard fork is scheduled to occur after 90% of the last 12000 blocks support BIP 100 and the date is past Jan 11 2016. Presumably (the bip is unclear on when the votes are counted) the block size limit is also changed every 12000 blocks. Miners vote by encoding ‘BV’+BlockSizeRequestValue into the coinbase script to vote for their block size limit. The final size is determined by dropping the highest 20% and lowest 20% votes and then choosing the minimum (the bip is not very clear on what is actually chosen).
If he said that, he is really bad at math.  If you drop the lowest 20% and take the minimum, it doesn't matter if you also drop the highest 20%, since the minimum stays the same That is what I understood from the pdf, but I could be wrong. Someone on the mailing list did ask him for clarification on this but he did not respond yet. |
|
|
|
Also, the data does get larger if the block size increases. Stratun and GBT both send the miners an array of all of the transactions. If there are more transactions, then the array is larger. This is of course more data to send. Stratum and GBT are designed with transparency in mind, so that the pool members can verify that the pool is above board. Within a mining operation, there is no reason for this double-check. So, no, there's no need for the data size to increase at all. We're talking about Chinese mining pools right? Not all Chinese miners are solo mining. Most of them are in mining pools, which use Stratum and GBT |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
