Bitcoin Forum
June 15, 2024, 01:15:46 PM *
News: Voting for pizza day contest
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 ... 590 »
1  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Vulnerability to privacy risk by combining UTXO on multiple addresses. on: June 14, 2024, 04:56:35 AM
It is important to note that when a transaction wants to be performed using a UTXO model, it uses  first in, first out pattern to choose a satisfactory UTXO. Which means for every address that contains multiple UTXO, the older UTXO are used (spent) for transactions before the new ones. Though, an UTXO can be skipped if it doesn't contain the neccessary input amount to be spent.
It doesn't have to. The wallet creating the transaction can choose whatever inputs it wants to use. Oldest first is an okay coin selection algorithm, but there's are many others which perform better, depending on the metric. Coin selection algorithms are an active area of research with many different ones being devised to optimize for some metrics, such as current fees, future fees, privacy, network health, etc.

1. Which address will the change(0.1244BTC) be sent to ?.( Address 1,2 or 3) - I am not quite sure if the first in, first out pattern would be used in this case.
Ideally none of the above. The wallet should create a new change address and send the change there. Otherwise, it's very obvious which output is change.

2. Could this result to privacy risk since any of these addresses belonging to a single user can possibly get involve with a cex exchange ?.
Yes, it's called the Common Input Heuristic. Strategies such as CoinJoin are designed to break this heuristic by having multiple people provide inputs to the transaction. If you don't want people to know that two UTXOs were owned by the same person, don't spend them in the same tx.

3. Is there such thing as consolidation fee ?. If Yes, how is it different from tx fee ?.
No. There is nothing that actually distinguishes consolidation transactions from other transactions nor some separate fee for them to pay. It's all just transaction fees. All transactions are validated in the same way, there's no special consideration for "consolidations", "regular", or anything else.
2  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / MOVED: Public keys and Addresses - Are there striking similarities or difference on: June 10, 2024, 03:27:46 PM
This topic has been moved to Beginners & Help.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5499462.0
3  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: Public keys and Addresses - Are there striking similarities or difference on: June 10, 2024, 06:58:33 AM
Addresses are not just public key hashes, they can be script hashes too, and some contain the public key itself.

Addresses are really an encoding for an output script. They inform the sender exactly what output script to create. In some instances, it is a script which contains a public key hash. I'm other instances, it is a script which contains a script hash. For yet others, a public key directly.
4  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / MOVED: about pools for solving Puzzle 66 on: June 09, 2024, 10:23:13 PM
This topic has been moved to Bitcoin Discussion.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5499429.0
5  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / MOVED: Urgent security alert: Over $1 Million stolen from FreeBitco.in on: June 09, 2024, 05:36:13 PM
This topic has been moved to Services.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5499351.0
6  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / MOVED: How are crypto assets frozen - On the Blockchain or wallet? on: June 09, 2024, 12:13:52 AM
This topic has been moved to Beginners & Help.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5499256.0
7  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Re: Why 6 comfirmation? on: June 06, 2024, 10:45:51 PM
The number of 6 confirmations comes from Satoshi. When the original Bitcoin client was released, it would only show a transaction as being settled when it had 6 confirmations. Since then, everyone has basically used this as the bar for acceptance of a transaction.

The value of 6 confirmations comes from a probability calculation. Since Bitcoin allows for the entire blockchain to be reorged and replaced with a different one if the replacement has more work than the original, the question becomes what is the probability of a reorg of N blocks by a malicious miner. This entirely depends upon the hashrate of the malicious miner and how lucky they are. You can read Satoshi's calculations in the white paper for this, and he ultimately concluded that 6 was good enough and that's what was implemented.
8  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Re: How does Bitcoin Core estimate the time left until synced? on: June 04, 2024, 09:30:37 PM
Bitcoin Core has a few hard coded values that are updated each release. The values relevant for this estimate is the number of transactions in the blockchain, the average number of transactions per second for a window of recent blocks (usually 4096), and the timestamp of the block for which this data was generated. Using these values, Bitcoin Core estimates the total number of txs in chain currently, then computes the progress by calculating the percentage of txs that have actually been processed so far.

When the hard coded tx count is passed, the progress estimator switches to using the current tx count and the current block's timestamp, rather than the hard coded tx count and timestamp. It does still use the hard coded tx rate though.
9  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Core 27.0 Released on: June 03, 2024, 08:04:22 PM
the menace of achow never stops
The menace of franky1 never stops. I'll humor you this one time, but do know that I will remove any of your posts from any of my self moderated topics, including this release announcement and future announcements. Your gish gallop deserves no response, and no one should have to read it. Not to mention your continuous abuse and deadnaming towards me.

the word "legacy support depreciation" is YOUR(achow) buzzword for removing legacy functionality in core
its YOUR efforts of trying to push it forward
There are many things referred to as "legacy" in Bitcoin Core. The only "legacy" thing being removed that I have been pushing for has been the non-descriptors based wallet which uses BDB. Do not confuse this legacy wallet to be legacy addresses or legacy anything else in Bitcoin and Bitcoin Core.

multiple default functions and features of legacy have already been depreciated. and you know it. stop pretending. your efforts/campaigns have not been unnoticed
you dont want legacy functionality and its obvious now
No shit sherlock, it's all public, been publicly announced, and publicly discussed. But do not confuse the legacy wallet with legacy address or legacy anything else in Bitcoin and Bitcoin Core

yet you then on this forum pretend its not happening and you pretend to have no involvement or clue about the roadmap plans you want about depreciating legacy support
Nowhere have I ever claimed that.

2020
Proposed Timeline for Legacy Wallet and BDB removal #20160
..
Note that we expect users who go through the effort to make a legacy-sqlite or descriptor-bdb wallet to suck it up and deal with the consequences of doing something that isn't really supported. Such users should be able to figure out for themselves how to migrate their wallets. (Maybe migratewallet can migrate legacy-sqlite to descriptor-sqlite. bdb to sqlite is way easier than legacy to descriptor).
You've highlighted something in red which I assume you want to draw attention to, yet failed to equally highlight the sentence before that which discusses which configuration it is that is actually unsupported. It's not legacy wallets in general, it's specifically two configurations for which the user had to explicitly go out of their way to create using external tooling.
10  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Core 27.0 Released on: June 02, 2024, 08:41:14 PM
Legacy address types (address types that existed prior to segwit), are not guaranteed to stick around and there has been a little bit of discussion about maybe soft forking them out eventually, but this is not a seriously considered idea yet.
truth is andrew chow is the main instigator that wants to remove legacy address utility
he is the one that keeps trying to make it part of the roadmap agenda and promoting votes towards getting it prioritised in one of the next versions
Everything in that issue seem to be related to wallet layer not the consensus layer so it doesn't matter even if it completely removed legacy support or not since you'd just use another wallet that does.

However, I dare say "invalidating" legacy outputs would go against Bitcoin principles and it should not even be considered specially not through a soft fork. If anything I would argue for a hard fork to also remove/fix a lot of other mess in the protocol!
To be clear, legacy address types are not being removed, neither from consensus, nor from the wallet. Descriptor wallets support legacy address types and makes a descriptor for them by default too.
11  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / MOVED: Google, Yahoo and Byzantine (fault) generals problem on: June 02, 2024, 08:36:37 PM
This topic has been moved to Bitcoin Discussion.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5498538.0
12  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / MOVED: I got a tx pending since New Years. If you solve it you get 50% of the money. on: June 02, 2024, 08:35:48 PM
This topic has been moved to Bitcoin Technical Support.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5497797.0
13  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Re: An unsolicited update broke my Bitcoin Core on: May 25, 2024, 12:59:35 AM
Snaps have additional sandboxing and isolation implemented, so when you run a snap app, it will generally be unable to access arbitrary locations on the filesystem.

I would suggest just downloading the binary tarball from bitcoincore.org and copying the binaries to your desired target locations.
14  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: C°bra announces Bitcoin Core can now be downloaded in the UK on: May 24, 2024, 05:28:16 PM
the case against bitcoin.org was not a case against a named person. so cobra could have hired anyone he wants without revealing himself
anyone could have been c0bra
all he has to do is on the website announce his representative for the site is [insert representative] and the courts would see that as valid proof of who represents the site
Sure, but as Fiatless noted, it could be an ethics violation for a lawyer to accept an anonymous client. Even if it weren't, I would expect that you'd have a hard time finding a lawyer who would represent you as an anonymous person without you revealing any information of your identity to them.

many websites do this. many brands do it too. courts do not go through whole processes of investigating that stuff
cobra could even say "for all legal enquiries or actions please contact [representative]"
lawyers dont need to meetup and ask for identity of their clients. they form a contract revolving money as the retainer not their clients identity
Companies are legal entities whose identity is the company itself. For small companies, the lawyers probably do want to know who they are interacting with and whether they actually legally control that company. They may be allowed to not ask for identification, but they may still want to do so anyways.

..
although CSW named lots of devs in the 'btc core claim'.. guess who turned up to defend it(as official defendants):
Quote
Defendants in the BTC Core Claim
JONATHAN HOUGH KC, JONATHAN MOSS (instructed by Bird & Bird LLP)
and TRISTAN SHERLIKER (of Bird & Bird LLP) appeared for COPA.
LORD GRABINER KC, CRAIG ORR KC, MEHDI BAIOU, TIMOTHY
GOLDFARB and RICHARD GREENBERG (instructed by Shoosmiths LLP)
appeared for Dr Wright.
ALEX GUNNING KC and BETH COLLETT (instructed by Macfarlanes LLP)
appeared for the Developers in the BTC Core Claim (Defendants 2-12, 14 & 15).
TERENCE BERGIN KC and JACK CASTLE (instructed by Harcus Parker LLP)
made brief submissions on behalf of the Claimants in the BTC Core Claim

note no devs are named officially
That's literally untrue. In the final judgement, the actual claimants and defendants are listed right there as the first thing you see. The lawyers aren't listed as claimants or defendants - that wouldn't make any sense. While there may be other documentation that refers to and discusses the lawyers as "claimants" or "defendants", they aren't the actual claimants or defendants. They represent them, not are them.
15  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: C°bra announces Bitcoin Core can now be downloaded in the UK on: May 24, 2024, 03:31:35 PM
and no cobra does not need to reveal himself..
much like "government" has representatives(solicitors/lawyers/prosecutors) cobra does not need to personally turn up, he can just send a representative.. much like how gmax(and other devs) didnt need to attend or fight the case in the UK for the COPA vs CSW. instead they hired solicitors to stand in court

when any business is sued, the ceo does not need to attend
There's more to remaining anonymous than simply not needing to show up in court.

In order to hire representation, he probably needs to identify himself to his solicitors. Additionally, my understanding is that, even if sealed by the court, his identity would still be revealed to the court in order for the litigation to proceed. The suit may also involve discovery of documents that will tie his identity to his nym. All of these things could happen that would result in him revealing his identity to someone else, none of which requires actually showing up in person to court.

If it were possible for Cobra to have representation while remaining anonymous, I believe that is what would've happened when the original lawsuit against him was brought. The judgement against him is a default judgement because he refused to defend since doing so would reveal his identity.
16  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: ripem160 not working in buntu 22... on: May 24, 2024, 01:13:44 AM
What is the result of
Code:
openssl version -d
17  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: ripem160 not working in buntu 22... on: May 24, 2024, 12:30:43 AM
Where did you put the openssl.cnf file?
18  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: ripem160 not working in buntu 22... on: May 23, 2024, 10:56:16 PM
What OpenSSL version?
19  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / MOVED: C°bra announces Bitcoin Core can now be downloaded in the UK on: May 23, 2024, 10:43:49 PM
This topic has been moved to Bitcoin Discussion.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5497584.0
20  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: C°bra announces Bitcoin Core can now be downloaded in the UK on: May 23, 2024, 10:43:11 PM
It's unclear to me why he did not allow downloading Bitcoin Core from bitcoin.org in the UK. The judgement against him only ever talks about the white paper, so making Bitcoin Core not available seems like he did more than was necessary.

Which begs the question, do this mean that the UK users also have access to the Bitcoin whitepaper via Bitcoin.org?
This is more complicated since Cobra wants to remain anonymous. There's basically 2 ways about this: 1) Mellor (the judge in the COPA case) finds some loophole that allows him to rule on the previous judgement, or 2) new litigation is brought against Craig by Cobra and/or "bitcoin.org developers" to reverse the previous judgement.

For the first, it would be really weird though for Mellor to rule on a basically unrelated case that was decided by a different judge. However, maybe there could be some wiggle room with wording related to the fact that some of the developer defendants had contributed to bitcoin.org in the past, and could therefore be part of "the person or persons responsible for the operation and publication of the website bitcoin.org" so he may be able to make a ruling on this.

For the second, Cobra wants to remain anonymous so that seems like it probably wouldn't happen.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 ... 590 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!