Hello BitcoinTalk,

I am confused why BIP39 includes both 12 and 24 seed Phrases.  Shouldn't there be a separate BIP for each as I assume they are not compatible?  This question came to mind today because my friend asked me which wallets support 12 word phrases.

The below list outlines wallets that use BIP39.  However, there is no description which wallet uses 12 or 24 words (Why is that?)  My understanding is that Ledger uses 24 words.  Hence I assume you cannot use 12 words on the Ledger?

https://www.blockplate.com/blogs/blockplate/list-of-bip39-wallets-mnemonic-seed

Thank you

Hello,

According to this post https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6z886e/coinbin_adds_segwit_support/ Coinb.in does support Segwit.

However, when I entered my SegWit address (bc1...) in order to create a new transaction no Inputs or Outputs appear for my address which does have Bitcoin.

https://coinb.in/#newTransaction

Is the conclusion that Coinb.in doesn't support bc1 addresses accurate?

Thank you.

In the below video at the 50 min mark, Andreas discusses how Bitcoin Atomic Swaps require special Scripts in order to work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugPa1r2OdIU&t=448s

I am confused by his discussion of special scripts since they will not be relayed by the Bitcoin network.

In theory they can have any arbitrary script. In practice, only a handful of scripts are considered standard and will be relayed on the network: pay to pubkey, pay to pubkey hash, null data (op_return), pay to script hash and raw multisig.

https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/29987/what-are-the-requirements-for-a-scriptpubkey-to-be-valid

So is this just a theoretical discussion by Andreas?   I am confused why Andreas is discussing this since it's not applicable at the moment, but he says "at least on Bitcoin this would be difficult... you would need a specialized wallet" and then he discusses something called Mini Script for creating special Bitcoin Scripts.

Thank you.

In the below video at 33:42 min Charlie Lee says that Litecoin (and Bitcoin) can be censored if the Litecoin was previously used in illicit activity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_pTOomVtI8

Were there any Bitcoin transactions that were actually censored in the history of Bitcoin?

Thank you

According to this site http://bitcoinstats.com/network/propagation/ in 2017 it took 1.818 seconds to propagate a newly mined block to 50% of the Nodes.  However, it took 3.792 seconds to propagate a single transaction to 50% of the nodes.  (Scroll down to the bottom of the page to see the above mentioned stats)

I don't understand how a transaction would take more time to propagate than an entire block filled with thousands of transactions?

Thank you

[ultimately]

According to this article published on March 28th, 2020 the below individuals are the Bitcoin Core Maintainers.

https://blog.bitmex.com/who-funds-bitcoin-development/


Wladimir van der Laan    
Pieter Wuille    
Marco Falke    
Michael Ford    
Jonas Schnelli    
Samuel Dobson

What are the responsibilities of the Bitcoin Core Maintainers?  Does this group ultimately decide what changes are implemented in the Bitcoin Core code base?

Thank you

I use Bitinfocharts to monitor Bitcoin's Network Hashrate but today I looked at Block Size and it's under 1 MB (around 900KB) which is wrong.  The average Block Size is above 1MB due to Segwit.

https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/size-btc.html#2y

Is the information on Bitinfocharts unreliable for Hashrate?  Where can I track Bitcoin's network Hashrate and Difficulty?

Thank you

Hello Bitcoin Expert,

I was wondering if the entire Transaction is included in the Signature and then came across the below post where Pieter Wuille makes the following statement:

What is being signed is indeed (a modified version of) the entire transaction. The details are complex (see the question linked to be the answer), but most importantly, the transaction inputs are stripped before signing (as otherwise, the signature would need to sign itself before signing, which is computationally infeasible). – Pieter Wuille Jan 24 '13 at 12:14

https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/7253/signing-bitcoin-transactions

I don't understand how the transaction inputs can be stripped before signing.  If only the Output is signed then a Miner could simply inject another UTXO from the same Bitcoin address and utilize the same Signature and give himself a big Tip (large transaction fee)

Thank you.

I want to confirm my understanding of Proof of work.  The below is all in base 10.

The range of numbers SHA256 can generate is from 0 to x where x= 115,792,089,237,316,195,423,570,985,008,687,907,853,269, 984,665,640,564,039,457,584,007,913,129,639,936  (1.15792E+77)

The current difficulty is y where y =17,557,993,035,167.31

So when a miner is Hashing the Block Header they must find a SHA256 result that is currently less than x / y = 6.59484E+63 correct?

Thank you

I was exploring the Blocks on https://www.blockchain.com/btc/blocks and noticed Block 644928 is only 217 bytes.  It only contains the Coinbase Transaction.  Same thing with Block 644937.

Why are these blocks empty?  It's hard to believe the memPool would be empty.

Thank you

In the below YouTube video Andreas Antonopoulos states that Colored Coins can be implemented using OP_RETURN.  I don't understand how OP_RETURN can create a transferable colored Coin since OP_RETURN is not spendable after its creation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2FaaLS9vqE&t=309s  He mentions OP_RETURN at the 3:38 minute mark.

From my understanding, OP_RETURN is simply used to permanently embed data in the BlockChain but ownership of this Output can never be transferred so how can OP_RETURN enable the creation of Colored coins?

Thank you

[Y]

Hello Bitcoin Expert,

What happens currently if I create Transaction X, without RBF enabled, with UTXO A and then 1 minute later I create another Transaction Y with UTXO A.  Will the nodes receiving Transaction Y flag it as a double spend and reject it?

Thanks

The below short article explains how Seqwit works.

https://medium.com/@BlockTalkChain/how-does-non-segwit-legacy-node-verify-segwit-transaction-c3bc0872842b

When running a verification on transaction like this, a SegWit miner or node knows where to find the signature data for verification

Does this mean a SeqWit miner will transmit a successfully mined Bitcoin Block that is > 1 MB.   The data beyond the 1 MB point in the Block stores the scriptSig and scriptPubKey?

A non-SegWit (Legacy) Miner will just store the traditional 1 MB block?  What marks the end of a traditional Bitcoin Block, marking the beginning of the witness data in the extended Segwit Block?

Thank you

Hello Bitcoin Expert,

I understand how Merkle trees are created and how they are used to quickly verify a transaction in a block but I don’t understand how or why they are used.

A google search presents the following:

Merkle trees enable SPV nodes on the blockchain to check if miners have verified the transactions in a block without downloading all the transactions in a block.

What I don’t understand is that once a Transaction is in a confirmed Block why does it have to be verified?  Once it is in a confirmed Block the transaction is verified and immutable. 

I watched this video by Andreas https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdjEhNdvTNM and he mentions Side Chains but I still don't understand why we need to confirm a transaction has been verified in a confirmed block.

Thank you.