|
Your SHA256 value, are you calculating it using ASCII or hex? Most online converters tend to treat the value that you've entered as ASCII while Bitcoin treats it as hex.
|
|
|
|
|
Persistent storage is used to store your wallet files so potentially yes.
Do you have a backup of your seed? If you don't, refrain from touching your USB drive and there's a small chance that you might be able to recover the files.
|
|
|
|
Perhaps you are confused.
Yes, that's what I said. Back at the beginning of 2018, some people were paying miner fees in the amount of $50 or more.
Part of the Bitcoin idea was to use it for buying and selling. If my neighbor came over, and wanted to buy my old, used lawnmower from me for $50 in Bitcoin, but had to pay a $50 miner fee on top of it, why even think about using Bitcoin?
Yep. Some did, if they needed to confirm the transaction within a short period of time. I'm not disputing that. I agree that it's not practical for Bitcoin to exist in that situation but we've come a long way and now there's far more optimization (Segwit, LN, Schnorr) made to Bitcoin than that period of time. I don't find the correlation between having a high TX fee and the crash of that period of time. IIRC, the crash was a result of several institutions making the decision to clamp down on Bitcoin and the lack of support from the various governments. I have, even now, spent bitcoins with a miner fee too low, that it took forever to confirm the transactions, or that I had to go in and raise the transaction fee to get it to confirm.
Miners control the fee. If they get together and raise the fee, or they won't confirm the transactions without the proper high fee, nobody wants to use Bitcoin any longer. The price goes down.
And why not? Supply and demand. If the people who control it can make more money off it, why not?
No, no. My point is: What is going to happen if the miners crash Bitcoin? The miners can't sell their remaining Bitcoins, the Bitcoins that they mine are going to be worth less and they're going to be making less profit? I'm saying this because you're drawing a parallel between the miners gaming the fees and the market. What are the incentives for the miners by crashing the market? I'm not saying you're wrong but I just want some clarifications on my doubts. |
|
|
|
|
Miner's fees do not dictate the market's movement I think you've got it wrong. Why would people care about how high the miner's fees are when most of them don't even spend it and see it as a store of value? Not a lot of people cares about miner's fees especially when Lightning, Segwit already exists.
And also why would the miners collude and increase the mining fees AND make the price crash? Wouldn't they be losing out? What if it doesn't recover? I'm really confused.
|
|
|
|
In some parts of the world PCs are quite expensive. In the US you can get a cheap laptop on black Friday which costs as much as a Ledger Blue so I figured it's not that much of a burden financially. I guess it's more a matter of how meticulous people are with their online safety.
What I like to do is use a Raspberry Pi when I need something secure. It's cheap and small. I even use it as my cold storage wallet and though I can't say its as secure as a Ledger, it's a pretty safe way of storing Bitcoins for $35. Anyhow, I think using a USB disk drive as a live CD is a viable and cheap idea as well. |
|
|
|
If you can afford it, it’s wise to dedicate a separate machine for handling your wallet synchronizations that doesn’t do anything unsafe like downloading questionable torrents and surfing new websites.
It's pretty unnecessary. Hardware wallets can actually be used with infected computers and hence why they're a preferred method of storage. Its unrealistic for someone to get another computer just for Bitcoin. A good anti virus and some prudent measures are generally enough. • Hardware wallets are a good option if you’re willing to spend some money and like to access your wallets somewhat frequently but worry about residential theft. A hardware wallet, if fallen into the wrong hands, prevents thieves from accessing your coins as would a safe. It does not keep a backup of your private keys, however, so again make sure you can access those even if your hardware wallet is stolen.
It isn't what it's designed for. While hardware wallets are reasonably hardened against physical attacks, they're primarily used to guard against malware and use on compromised computer. They can defend against physical attacks but it'll be way better to keep them in a safe instead. • If you do choose to buy a hardware wallet only buy from reputable sources – preferably the vendor itself. Amazon used to be a safe place to buy from but they have been mixing their inventory recently and many people are receiving Nano and Trezor wallets that have been used or at least the box was open. Understand how seeds and wallets work before dumping all your coins into one.
It's okay to buy from the third party if you've the technical knowhows to wipe the device completely. Border agents tends to open the package and inspect the device and it's safe as long as the seal is not broken and that your device is not opened physically. • If you have any intention of sharing your coins with others in the event of injury or demise, make sure those involved know how to access the public and private keys. Making a convoluted 97 letter password is not a good idea if you’re the only one who will ever know the password.
Multisig could be a possible way to store Bitcoins. Try exploring that. Other than that it's comprehensive. Great work. |
|
|
|
Running a full node definitely help Bitcoin network, assuming you allow incoming connection.
It does help the network more if you allow incoming connections. But isn't a connection (incoming/outgoing) still bidirectional? Just by running a mode would strengthen the network by making it harder for sybil attacks already and an extra node validating the information being relayed. I think incoming connection would just help it a lot more. |
|
|
|
|
0.004BTC. I assume the Sunday means this upcoming Sunday?
|
|
|
|
A normal full node also has to upload several hundred gigabytes of block data to other peers (my node with about 80 peers has uploaded 1.8TB in the past month). Because pruned nodes don't retain the blocks, they skip uploading them to peers, saving you all that upload bandwidth, but you still must sustain the download requirements.
Actually I think they still do? BIP159 does allow them to serve recent blocks (within the buffer) and those which are being relayed. But yeah, they can still set an uploadtarget to limit the uploads in MB. You can change the prune within the UI btw: Settings>Options and it would work the same as if you would change the bitcoin.conf which I would imagine would be more newbie friendly. |
|
|
|
@farafara
The string of characters inside the box are your bitcoin address that has been derived from your public keys upon creating your wallet. In this case you are using Legacy (P2PKH) whose addresses start with 1. Take note that all receiving address are the addresses which you can use for receiving/depositing bitcoin however, it is not advisable to use them twice for security and privacy purposes.
The security part should be a non-factor. The main problem with address reuse is the fact that public keys are leaked but honestly I doubt that would be an issue for now. It did help to somewhat mitigate the effects of having a problematic RNG though where multiple signatures are using the same K. But that is solved with RFC 6979 as well. The privacy part cannot be mitigated if the exchange doesn't want to use a different address but I imagine the cumbersome process to monitor too many addresses. For some use case, it's inevitable for transactions to be linked to the exchange but the source of the coins could be masked using a mixer as well. |
|
|
|
This would be awesome, but since LN is considered "beta" or "experimental" I don't expect the exchanges hurry into this.
Of course, another idea would be to somehow reduce/throttle the trading bots, but that could mean less earning/fees for them, so again "no hurry".
That's why I am asking, maybe more brains can come with more solutions / ideas.
That's true. I don't think throttling the bots would be effective though, exchanges would not be happy about restricting their trading frequency. I've missed this part. Which company?
Bitmex, someone did a pretty in-depth analysis on this topic as well [1] and his writeups were pretty interesting to me. It's just a periodic surge though but I think they could've handled the TXes better. [1] https://b10c.me/mempool-observations/2-bitmex-broadcast-13-utc/ |
|
|
|
|
Make them shift to lightning I guess? What else can you realistically do? Mempool tends to get less full on weekends though and there's always this company that pushes a bunch of non-segwit transactions periodically and it can push the fees up at times during the day and it's effects is often compounded with the already full mempool.
I had a transaction back and wanted to take opportunity of the 18.5k price briefly but the TX pool was so saturated and I couldn't confirm my transaction in time even with a huge RBF. Sometimes, the mempool isn't as congested as it seems and it can just be some periods of block drought. It was definitely quite frustrating though.
|
|
|
|
well for the past decade that bitcoin market existed it never depended on any other market and has never been affected by any of them. there is no reason for it to start now either so checking these things is pointless.
the only thing i personally consider when buying bitcoin is first the benefits of using bitcoin as the only available decentralized censorship resistance global currency and the long term potential that it offers.
Hmm but the general trend is that when US market tends to do well, Bitcoin prices will rise too. As for the correlation, I'm not too sure about that because I don't have the specific market data to test for the correlation. I feel that it could also be the case whereby the news that benefits the US economy tends to paint Bitcoin in a more positive outlook as well. The recent rise can no doubt be attributed to the purchase of Bitcoin by the investment firms but it could also be related to the upbeat news of Covid vaccine as well. Would be great if any economist or someone with skills that relate to the expertise to weigh in on this though. |
|
|
|
|
It's pretty hard to determine the right time to buy into Bitcoin. But a trend that I've noticed recently is that Bitcoin is usually strongly correlated with the stock markets. At the same time, companies started to increase their Bitcoin holdings and the volumes spiked pretty heavily. It's still fairly inaccurate though, I find DCA more worthwhile for me.
|
|
|
|
So I can run a single node on a low spaced hard-disk? Should this be when installing the bitcoin core interface? Thanks
Yep. The absolute minimum is 2GB. You can specify it anytime you run Bitcoin Core, just go to the preferences tab and you should see a checkbox. You'll still help to relay newly mined blocks and transactions as well as the blocks that you've already stored in your disk. |
|
|
|
5 - ranochigo Thanks  |
|
|
|
|
Download Electrum wallet from the official website, validate its authenticity. After which, install it and you can restore your wallet when prompted during the initialization process. It's not hard and you could've just googled it...
|
|
|
|
My question as a newbie in bitcoin development is, how does the full nodes help the bitcoin network? Is it necessary for more volunteers to run on full nodes?
Full nodes helps to validate and relay information. In a sense, they do help to secure the network by minimizing the points of failure and adds to its redundancy. It's more beneficial for the individuals to run a full node because they'll be able to validate the information and be fully trustless. SPV clients like Electrum do not validate the entire block and trusts that the peers are feeding it honest info and that the work done by the honest portion of the network is more than those who are not. After reading on running a full node, It's quite interesting to run a full node. But the bandwidths and huge amount of space required to help this bitcoin network is too much for me at the moment.
It definitely is. For most people, running a full node is definitely not the most important thing. If you want to use it as a wallet, you can still run it pruned and discard the unnecessary files; you'll still help the network by validating the blocks and the trustless aspect is not compromised. This still means that the synchronization process will take equal amount of time as well as bandwidth. Tl;Dr: Running a node has more tangible benefits for the individuals than for the overall network. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
