Okay, so it's only on their US branch/based exchange. I thought it is the Bittrex exchangeas a whole. Well, good enough if the file won't be denied. Also, it's probably bad timing for its US users knowing there are only several exchanges can legally operate there and the BTC price keep hanging the 30k barrier.
If that is true, I wonder if it's the same company, how can they go bankrupt only partially, i.e. only in the U.S. Rather, I would say that this is an attempt to avoid responsibility, especially if we consider that their problem with the SEC is that they have been working illegally for years, without the necessary permits and licenses. Very disappointing, I don't know what to expect from them in the future. It's probably better to close them completely. Because legally it's a 100% separate company from the rest. They formed a corporation in the US that operated independently from the other Bittrex entities. It's actually quite common in a lot of businesses. You see it a lot in property. The building at 1 Dave Street is a different company then 2 Dave Street and 3 Dave Street. This way if something happens at or to 3 Dave Street that may cause it financial stress or something else #s 1 & 2 are not bothered by it. Also, if you want to sell 3 Dave Street, there is nothing to split up. It's 100% on it's own. Look at it this way, if instead of filing Chapter 11 they decided to sell off the US arm to 1 Dave Street properties, all they would have had to do is sell that one thing. Not split it off form some huge monolithic Bittrex World Wide entity. It was already split off. -Dave |
|
|
|
So as I ve seen above you are using a spinning drive to store bitcoin and fulcrum data, is that correct? If so, is there any other storage device on the PC? Or is it the only disk you have?
That is the one and only disk. Trying to make it as 'authentic' as possible, except for the fact that I put the drive in, it's just an old machine that I pulled off a shelf. The same way someone who wanted to run their own node + electum server might have an old machine sitting around or get one from a friend. No more memory, no multiple drives, no figuring out (or even noticing) that the CPU keeps throttling back. Just install core and wait, and then install Fulcrum and wait. Will play with tweaks after that. -Dave |
|
|
|
Taking it a bit past what was said above. IF they are doing it properly and that is a big IF a large pool is running several nodes all over the world, when a block comes in they all should start validating it. Once a certain percentage of them agree then and only then do they start building the new block for the pool. Loosing the fees even now is better then building a invalid block that gets rejected. AND not broadcasting an empty block as soon as possible risks loosing it too. It just comes down to routing. It takes about 1/2 a second to send 1 packet of data around the world without doing any kind of firewall / security inspection in an ideal setting. Allowing for the nodes to verify what is in the block, and sending it back out is another couple of seconds and then start building a new block. If all is ideal you should have a new block ready to go in 10 seconds or so. BUT, if you are waiting for minimum of 3 of 5 to do their thing you might add a few seconds on top of that. Add in a bloated memory pool and some DPI From firewalls and you add a few seconds again. All of a sudden you are looking at more time to build a block. Even now there are 2 schools of thought with what happened with what happened with foundry the other day. Some people including Kano are saying that they tried to orphan a couple of blocks. Others are saying that they saw foundrys blocks 1st. It has always been the way it works. And part of the problem is that even if you understand BTC perfectly, unless you understand the true issues of internet routing and the true delays that proper DPI can put into network performance then it's never going to seem logical as to what happened. Dave's pool can put it's nodes out there in public. A corporation with all kinds of security requirements probably has 3 layers of security devices looking at all data coming in before it even hits the node to be processed. Dave's node has seen, and processed the block before it has even gotten through the security devices of some places. On the flip side, it's a lot harder to take out big corps node(s) by flooding them with bad data since it never even makes it into the network. -Dave * DPI = deep packet inspection. https://www.fortinet.com/resources/cyberglossary/dpi-deep-packet-inspection |
|
|
|
Core is still syncing slowly:  There is a issue with the hardware for some reason the CPU keeps throttling. Was going to stop and start on a different box, but decided to see if it would finish syncing and then how Fulcrum would work on something with an old slow drive and funky hardware. Kind of a test to see if someone could do it on an old PC they pulled out of the closet. Although I don't know exactly when this PC was built, it has to be close to 8 or 9 years at this point. Just like what someone would have in storage to do something with sooner or later but never did. -Dave |
|
|
|
|
I'm in the this too shall pass mode of thinking.
Sooner or later all the ordinal people are going to give up and move on to the next big thing.
No idea what it will be, hopefully it will not involve the BTC blockchain. But if it does, sooner or later that next thing will give way too.
Altcoin boom & bust
ICO boom & bust
IEO boom & bust
Bitcoin forks boom & bust
NFT boom & bust
and so on.
So things are going to get funky for a while, so be it. It sucks but it will help cull the weaker players.
-Dave
|
|
|
|
|
Needs to keep being said. Phone (hot) wallets are NOT SECURE. Yes you should make sure that you can recover you wallet if needed, and yes there is nothing wrong with keeping your old wallet on an old phone stored someplace safe and secure and just importing it into your new phone.
BUT YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY 'REAL' FUNDS IN YOUR HOT WALLET.
Not saying keep $20 there, but only keep enough that if you loose it, it's not going to matter.
Or, as I like to say, don't keep more crypto on your phone then your phone is worth or
Don't keep more crypto on your phone then the amount of cash you would be comfortable carrying around.
-Dave
|
|
|
|
~~~
At the time of me writing this post, Op's transaction has received 11confirmations so Op should have his coin in his wallet by now. It was nice learning new thing from this reply of yours, I never knew that exceeding the limit of unconfirmed ancestors or descendants one has could cause a delay in their transaction no wonder when I search for the transaction hash on mempool yesterday I found nothing there. Some people tried to scam by doing that last time the mempool got really full. I don't know if it was successful or not, but there was a discussion about how someone was trying to get someone else to accept a TX that went back to dozens of unconfirmed TXs. IIRC it was back in the 2017 mempool bloat. Have to see if I can find the discussion. Could have been later then that too. -Dave |
|
|
|
|
Or, they have a configuration issue and had a problem with something and just messed up.
It's the don't try to find malevolence when something can be explained by incompetence.
Could even not be pure incompetence, did they have their mempool setting at 1GB and decided to increase it and something else broke along the way.
Did they update one their BGP routers for the new vulnerability and it took a bit longer to get back online and one of their nodes did not see the antpool block.
And so on...
If it happens again, THEN you start thinking about them going evil.
-Dave
|
|
|
|
Click on the github link you gave, click on his personal website, https://russ.yanofsky.org/ that is listed there and the SSL is expired. Which if you ignore leads to a really old school website that has not been updated in 15+ years. If it means their focus is primarily on Bitcoin and not their personal site, then it's probably not a bad sign. Besides, seems to be a trend these days that social media has now effectively replaced personal websites. Easier to update, more obvious engagement from others, etc. I'm pretty sure that's normal. Agreed with 1 point, which was kind of my I made it. I have a lot of crap sites out there. I 100% admit it, a lot are not maintained or even looked at. But are still sitting out there, if you happen to trip across one of them so be it. If something dies on one of them like the letsencrypt renewal, then also so be it. However, since the link was directly in his github profile I would think that he (or someone) would have noticed it an fixed it, or changed the link. As Carlton said, more maintainers is better. -Dave |
|
|
|
|
Wonder if it's something in their back end programming. i.e. max fee = x (to prevent a massive screw up) but it's not enough to get into the next few blocks.
So people complain.
So you just stop for a while. It's not like they ever cared for or took care of their customers. They always just had the we do what works for us attitude.
This is just more of the same.
-Dave
|
|
|
|
|
That is the same error you get if you put in the wrong pin.
The question becomes is the phone / app is not displaying the PIN & keypad screen OR is it crashing before that.
If you just leave it alone does the error come up OR do you have to touch the screen?
If you have to touch the screen before the error comes up, you might be able to possibly fake entering the PIN by guessing where the numbers actually are.
If it just dies, you are probably going to have to extract the wallet file somehow.
As a last ditch effort, if everything else fails can you update the phone to 13?
-Dave
|
|
|
|
There is a such option! You don't import any key to the extension, just link it to your mobile. See screenshot:  It's just for approving transactions. It allows you to have a copy of your wallet on the desktop (ETH only) but use your phone as a 2fa device.  Did your friend not save the recovery phrase or did they loose it? I'm thinking either 1) The wallet is corrupted so putting in the correct passcode does not work or 2) They forgot the passcode to the wallet and the one you are entering is just the wrong one. Either way, even if you get to the wallet data on the phone it's still encrypted with the passcode that is either wrong or useless. -Dave |
|
|
|
Dave whare are you from , I need a 1TB Drive , how you got so many?
New York. In the IT field, just about anyone who does regular work on PCs / servers for their job has a shelf of old drives. The problem is that brand new, newer model, sealed in a box a 1 TB 7200 RPM drive OR a 2 TB 5400 RPM drive are $50 with a 2 year warranty. (Local retail, you can find them a bit cheaper online) As I said above a 1 TB Samsung SSD is $60 a 2TB is $120 / generic brands are $10 to $15 less. (Retail or online are about the same) So a few year old out of warranty 1TB spinning drive really has $0 residual value. Sure if you are close you can swing by and pick one up. But if you have to send me $10 to $15 ship it to you, you might as well to to Amazon and get one of these: https://www.amazon.com/Seagate-Enterprise-Capacity-3-5-Inch-ST1000NM0033/dp/B00A47FPL8Yes it's an older model, but it's new and only $31 shipped with a 5 year warranty. Which is how just about every tech out there has 'that shelf with the drives' And when it gets full, they e-waste out @ $0.50 a lb https://www.arrowscrap.com/pricesWhich goes back to the point I was making, there are a bunch of reasons for the full mempool, AND a bunch of reasons why larger block sizes may not be the best solution. This is not the thread to discuss it, but saying that storage costs are the reason not to increase block size is not a valid reason anymore. Because I'll bet you just about anything you want that in a few years, that shelf of 1TB drives I have is going to be filled with 2 and 4 TB drives that have $0 residual value. Late 2019 I got rid of all the spinning 256GB and 512GB drives that were on that shelf. The cycle keeps repeating..... -Dave |
|
|
|
It was also quite the monopoly of the P2P Bitcoin market which I never liked, so better that it shut down and paved the way for better alternatives. Similar to when there was a monopoly over a centralised exchange like MtGox, a darkweb market like Silk Road, a Bitcoin mixer like ChipMixer, or any other Bitcoin-based service. The ecosystem only gets stronger once the leading horse is taken down and the monopoly ends.
Towards the end, say the last couple of years, it was not that big. First they got rid of the P2P face to face cash options. Then they started blocking people based on region, then the KYC. So many better options exist. They kind of did themselves in. For non KYC P2P trading options see: https://kycnot.me/-Dave |
|
|
|
By default there should be no sign out on the self custody wallet.
Did your friend link it to their coinbase account?
Where are you located? I don't think coinbase does any form of geoblocking on the self custody wallet, but if you are in a restricted country they might have turned on some odd blocking where even the self custody can't talk to their servers. But I really doubt that.
-Dave
There is a Coinbase Wallet extension for Chrome and he linked the mobile Coinbase Wallet with it, but if he tries to do something like transfer the extension says to confirm the notification on his phone but he is not getting it as the app is broken. He is in Europe so it shouldn't be a problem. The extension is a self custody wallet too. There is nothing that should matter. I think either he is not explaining it properly or there is a missing piece. There is no 'link' between the extension and the wallet. You just put your seed in the extension. And not all countries in Europe are supported. Spain, Belarus, and a few others are not allowed. Since it's self custody it should not matter, but the could just be blocking IPs from getting to their SPV servers. -Dave |
|
|
|
And why isn't there unity to fork bitcoin and increase the block size? There was a Bitcoin Cash fork from Bitmain, that owns Antpool and BTC.com, with aim to increase block size and get rid of stuck transactions, however, people here hate BCH and don't support it, what's the reason?
BCH has 8MB blocksize while BTC has 1MB. If you increase blocksize, considering all the blocks will be filled, it will cost more to run a node which will create less interest in running a full node. The more nodes you have, the more decentralized network it is. Since a node has no monetary gain, people wouldn't voluntarily spend a lot of money to run a node. Apart from that, it will lower the profit for miners too if I understand correctly. If the profit becomes lower for the miner, the number of miners will be decreased, and again, as philipma1957 said, will be easier to manipulate the fee. Maybe with fewer miners than right now we have, you may see no more 1sat/byte tx because it will be easier to manipulate the fee. Try reading- Title: Dynamically Controlled Bitcoin Block Size Max CapTitle: Consensus based block size retargeting algorithmIt would nominally cost more. At this point you need a 1TB drive to hold the blockchain. So if we jumped to 4mb blocks that were always 100% full then it's still going to take 2 years to fill it up. The gold standard of consumer SSD is still Samsung. A 1TB drive is $60 a 2TB drive is $120 not a dramatic difference when factoring in the cost of the rest of the system. Used spinning drives in the 1TB ans 2TB range are just about free, if not free in most parts of the world. They are really just scrap at this point so if you are going for used from that side, it's not a big deal. Seriously, I just took about 50 1TB spinning drives to the ewaste recycling place because I could not GIVE them away. I had them on freecycle and craigslist and they just sat there. I still have more, but the shelf was full. Not saying that the block size should be increased, just that it will drive up costs is not a good argument in 2023. -Dave |
|
|
|
|
Short version: It won't
Long version: There are going to be a lot of competing central bank / monetary authority digital coins coming out in the next few years. But they are all designed to be pegged stable coins. So things like USDT / USDC and all the other ones are going to take a hit in use and utility. But, for BTC since it does not have a fixed value it's going to keep going.
Sooner or later one or two of these srable coins might be de-facto in terms of default use. But BTC will keep going.
-Dave
|
|
|
|
|
By default there should be no sign out on the self custody wallet.
Did your friend link it to their coinbase account?
Where are you located? I don't think coinbase does any form of geoblocking on the self custody wallet, but if you are in a restricted country they might have turned on some odd blocking where even the self custody can't talk to their servers. But I really doubt that.
-Dave
|
|
|
|
The problem is that the cost of power in Montana for industrial power is about $0.075 per KWH. So unless they drop the rates no large mines are going to move there, protected or not. For the small private 'hobby' people with 1 or 2 miners it's not going to matter one way or another. Business follow the money. And, just because they support it today, does not mean they will support it tomorrow. After luring miners to Texas with low electric rates and support they look like they are going to pass this sooner or later: https://beincrypto.com/texas-lawmakers-pass-bill-limiting-bitcoin-mining/So, it's great, move to Montana you are protected from getting gouged in electric rates. However, that it today....tomorrow is tomorrow. -Dave |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
