I was checking an article on Cointelegraph about Who is the mysterious Bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto? and I discovered that Craig Wright is listed as the possible identities of Satoshi Nakamoto (btw if you ask me, I always imagined Satoshi looks exactly like Dorian Nakamoto). Now since it's officially proven (it was always proved) that Craig Wright is not Satoshi, can someone reach to Cointelegraph and ask them to update their article? This man doesn't deserve to stand next to Dorian, Finney and Szabo and shouldn't even be considered as the possible identity of a genius man. Cointelegraph is known for clickbait and inaccurate information detail, so it's not that surprising they list CSW in that article. In addition, that article was last updated on Mar 4, 2024, where by then CSW already lose to Holdonaut and on-going fight CSW against COPA already shows many proof that CSW is lying. At this point, i'd just advise other member to fully avoid Cointelegraph. |
|
|
|
I understand that this mining is unprofitable and useless on both a computer and a laptop, but is it possible to run mining on Windows for fun?
I think this guide meets your criteria, [Guide] Solo mine testnet bitcoins with bfgminer, Bitcoin Core, and a CPU/GPU. Although these days testnet blockchain size is rather big and you probably won't mine any block unless you use fast GPU or ASIC. While the guide use linux, bfgminer also support Windows according to it's GitHub page and build instruction. |
|
|
|
Will this start a new wave of network spamming? I don't think so. When it's Lightning Labs, expect Lightning upgrades. Introducing stablecoin transactions on the base layer is expensive, and that's why Omni layer (or Mastercoin called at that time?) probably stopped facilitating USDT transactions on Bitcoin. So whoever write the news title probably should be fired, since LN is not equal Bitcoin blockchain. I think they're talking about Taro, which is a protocol for asset issuance on top of Bitcoin (with Taproot) and Lightning. So, if they can issue and move assets through LN, then it's possible they can do the same with stablecoins. I get your point. But the title is wrong since it makes people perceive it as sending/receive the stablecoin on Bitcoin on-chain, where all TX is recorded on the blockchain. |
|
|
|
Aside from scratch, finding device to read/play it shouldn't be hard since you could use any DVD/BD reader. I expect few company will continue to make DVD/BD reader in the future. CDs, DVDs, and Blu-rays will suffer the same fate as cassette tapes. They will become obsolete. Modern laptops are already sold without such optical media. So, in the future, you'll have to buy a separate device just to run the discs. Compared to that, USB ports are much more represented and used for all kinds of things (at least for now). You're right, although i don't think it'll be obsolete that soon when bluray is still somewhat popular. I am confused by the stated service life of the device of 200 years. About CD also claimed that data on them could be stored for up to 60 years, but as practice has shown, after a couple of years the data became unreadable. Even if the creators of Blaustahl USB made a 10-fold mistake, the device’s service life will still be an impressive 20 years. By then, technology will surely advance and more advanced devices will appear.
Such claim is only true if you buy ones which meant for long-term storage and you handle it very properly. Although i recall many of my CD lasts longer than 2 years. |
|
|
|
--snip-- but he has been warned that he should read the rules and follow them and he doesn't care: Your posts are being deleted because they blatantly violate forum rules. Have you even bothered to read them? Here's a thought, genius: read the rules before you embarrass yourself further. Otherwise, you'll keep getting tossed in the moderation bin, clueless as to why. Rules are meant to be broke, we got new gambling technology, shut the fuck up and move to the side moron, and watch me work. Lol.
This is probably off-topic, but it made think whether he also broke rule of place where he buy the domain and server. Based on WHOIS data[1], it seems he use FastDomain for domain and Digital Ocean for server where both of them supposed to have fairly strict rules. How about we all leave him negative feedback and a couple of trust flags and then wait for the inevitable threats to happen. That should get him a nice ban.
But for the most part it's probably not worth it because tomorrow we will have unlimitedmoneygenerator2 show up with the same thing again.
-Dave
I doubt he care about negative tag. But if he got banned, his other account will get banned quickly due to ban evasion. [1] https://www.whois.com/whois/unlimitedmoneygroup.com |
|
|
|
1. What would be the future impact of adding too many projects to the blockchain?
2. Are the impacts positive or negative?
3. Are there no ways to oppose some of these projects before their implementation?
Here's my short thoughts, 1. Blockchain size and total UTXO keep growing at rapid pace. 2. Depends on the project, but IMO many of example you mentioned have more negative impact. 3. Unless you can convince Bitcoin dev/community to make transaction created by those project as non-standard or invalid, probably no. |
|
|
|
Reading the reply, it seems some user miseed these parts of the news. During her speech at the Financial Times Crypto and Digital Assets Summit, Lightning Labs CEO Elizabeth Stark announced that the developer recently executed a test transaction on the Lightning Network using an asset created with the Taproot Assets protocol.
So whoever write the news title probably should be fired, since LN is not equal Bitcoin blockchain. But i'd rather see stable coin developed on Bitcoin Sidechain or different L2 instead, where user don't need to worry about complexity brought by LN. Stable coin is centralized anyway, so there's no big problem adding it on Bitcoin Sidechain or other L2 which is less decentralized than Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin Core offer wallet feature, although it doesn't have built-in swap with USDT though. And while Bitcoin Core require you to download 550GB+ blockchain, it fulfill other requirement stated by @purinZ14. But Unstoppable wallet is still good choice for @purinZ14 needs. |
|
|
|
But in terms of lifespan, M-Disc would be better option as it claims can last 1000 years with bigger storage. Although you need to encrypt the file manually and certain DVD writer which also support M-Disc writing.
I never in my life saw M-disc and you would probably have hard time finding and playing it in future, but yeah they will survive longer, unless someone scratches them  Aside from scratch, finding device to read/play it shouldn't be hard since you could use any DVD/BD reader. I expect few company will continue to make DVD/BD reader in the future. |
|
|
|
--snip--
There is one interesting new drive Blaustahl USB, that is based on FRAM (Ferroelectric RAM) that could last up to 200 years, but it can only store 8kb of data, that means only text files.
It is expected that future firmware updates are going to include encryption for better security.
--snip--
But in terms of lifespan, M-Disc would be better option as it claims can last 1000 years with bigger storage. Although you need to encrypt the file manually and certain DVD writer which also support M-Disc writing. USB flash drives generally don't have good lifetime unless they are industry graded, so I would not trust them as only backup option for storing bitcoin keys.
I'm not sure why the OP isn't considering USB external hard drives for backup purposes, because HDDs have a much better lifespan than the flash that you can find in a USB pen drive. --snip-- You're overthinking. Have you seen OP's feedback or post history? |
|
|
|
Layer 2 is fairly good approach to let people use (turing complete) smart contract and other feature which isn't available on Bitcoin itself, without using altcoin or different blockchain. But as usual, i expect almost all of them are either scam or will fail. Layer 2 is different from what you are asking question about. Layer 2 will refer to something like bitcoin lightning network, or the drive/spider chain. These are different from bitcoin tokens like Ordinals NFTs, BRC20 tokens and Runes.
What I noticed about the bitcoin tokens is that you should only use them to gamble. Their prices can increase significantly and decrease significantly just like altcoins.
so those Ordinals NFTs, BRC20 tokens and Runes are not on layer 2? Correct, all of them on Bitcoin main network. But take note none of them are part of Bitcoin protocol. They create their own rule (which isn't verified by Bitcoin node/miner) and hope other people follow it. |
|
|
|
Run a full node with modifications so that it can index the blockchain based on addresses like what the block explorers do so that there is an up to date list of addresses with all UTXOs.
OP also could run either block explorer/Electrum server, where OP could directly access database created by those.
Otherwise you can only use third party services like the existing block explorers with their limitations to get a historical snapshot of the blockchain, addresses or UTXOs. Like this one to get addresses (base58 and others) with balance alongside maybe this one. It's great suggestion. Although LoyceV website seems to be down where my browser shows ERR_CONNECTION_RESET or PR_IO_TIMEOUT_ERROR.
what would you recommend to web scrap for batches of Base58 (legacy) addresses? what is the best way to find loads of them and inquire into their TXs and balance?
Blockchair.com has data dumps. https://gz.blockchair.com/bitcoin/addresses/The file for Bitcoin addresses on 22-May-2024 01:23 is 1 GB. You can download the file (.tsv) and do your filter to check Legacy addresses and balances. It's not practical due to default 10 kB/s limit though. You can download 1 file at a time and the speed is limited to 10 kB/s. Our API keys are not applicable for increasing the download speed of data dumps. If you are a business or an academia/non-profit organisation that requires a higher speed, please contact us at < info@blockchair.com>. |
|
|
|
OP, try to these visit these pages and check whether example mentioned on those pages have similar format with data on your csv file. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/List_of_address_prefixeshttps://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Mini_private_key_formatI never heard that Bitcoin core or Electrum generates a .csv wallet backup maybe that backup is your list of addresses or transaction history.
I also don't remembre Bitcoin Core having such feature. dumpwallet create human-readable text file, but it's not in CSV format. But Electrum actually offer such feature. Here's a screenshot i take from Electrum version 4.5.0.  P.S. Do not use those private keys/address. I generate new wallet only to create this screenshot, so i'm not risking any real Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
Sounds very risky to me. Many DeFi have questionable decentralization, while Wrapped Bitcoin require you to trust company behind it. I'm not expert, but have you looked for loan offered by conventional banking/financial service? Depending on where you live and financial condition, you could get offer which doesn't require collateral.
|
|
|
|
What's the problem?
I feel some boards got harder to explore due to spammer who use AI/chatbot to spam generic or garbage post. Those spammer rarely got permanent banned or even temporary ban. I also feel some people no longer report spam on some boards. This forum is tedious to use on a smartphone (there's no mobile theme, font size is too small, you have to use landscape mode + zoom). How come nobody has mentioned it? Theymos could fund some devs to improve the forum.
I think you forget about epochtalk which is in development since many years ago, https://github.com/epochtalk/. Sometimes i think people should've suggest theymos to use different open-source forum software (such as Discourse) many years ago. |
|
|
|
I was thinking about making OP_FALSE OP_IF ... OP_ENDIF non-standard, since BRC-20 usually put data less than 100 bytes. I would not be happy with such a direct blocking, but I think I made my point clear already in other threads. Of course projects using BRC-20 could now simply switch to Runes (as they could have done before to platforms like OpenAssets, Counterparty, RGB ...). But I think it's better to simply let BRC-20 die alone. I don't discard there could be some waves still but judging from what we've seen in the past weeks since the halving they will be much smaller and do no harm. It's almost die, where some exchange (including Binance) already delist it. And such change will take some time, so it's possible BRC-20 will die or at least closer to die. Such a measure would be considered arbitrary if there was no technical reason other to block a standard some do not like. Include me of course among those that don't like BRC-20  , but I think Bitcoin never should target any standard, only real vulnerabilities. So I personally would only support such a "direct block" if the OP_FALSE / OP_IF -> OP_ENDIF combination is really technically dangerous, allowing really malicious scripts, but is that a thing in Bitcoin Script? (I'm not knowledgeable enough to answer this question, but IMO the harm which can be done only is related to that the script size limit can be circunvented). AFAIK from what I have read in the developer mailing list they don't consider this script to be a "bug" which should be "fixed". Except Luke-Jr, of course, but I think with his datacarriersize method he implemented in Bitcoin Knots, he found a reasonable way for nodes to block Ordinals as "data transactions" if they don't want to relay them. AFAIK there's no security risk. But why should it considered as standard, when the script itself never executed (due to OP_FALSE in the beginning)? |
|
|
|
We already know it'll happen. But with this release, this should make csw and other fraud have harder time to falsely claim as Satoshi. my bet is the BSV team will spin this that Mellor was and is all part of some conspiracy or that this is all part of Craig's 5d chess play.
Or simply lying that Craig is proved as Satoshi. Last time, they made lie where they falsely claim that UK claim that Satoshi created BSV. |
|
|
|
maybe if you guys (the OGs) put those idiots back in their place instead of ignoring the problem, this place would look decent.
but nah you accept it, you accept the AI posts, you accept the repetitive topics ("how can i make people buy btc?" "is now a good time to invest?"...).
and i'm not talking about all the shills and the scams.
But some member do something against problems you mentioned. Have you seen AI Spam Report Reference Thread and Monthly Report Statistics ? As reminder, you could provide strong/hard proof if you bother sign message which contain lot of coin. But it require you to use non-custodial wallet with sign message feature.
well aware of that and no, i'm not signing anything. again, i could easily be doxxed if i did that. you're gonna have to trust me on that. i don't really care if you don't, i really don't think it's the issue here. Fair enough, privacy should be prioritized. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
