OK but RBF is still a thing today. Thats what's confusing. Satoshi disabled it but then at some point it got re-enabled apparently. Because apparently it is still a thing today.
Feature which disabled by Satoshi usually called "Transaction replacement". RBF is improvement of Transaction replacement which enabled since Bitcoin Core 0.12[1]. that's what i was thinking. if you make the transaction fee high enough, miners will definitely delete the old one and put in the new one. whether it is rbf or not they won't care.
Most node won't rely conflicted transaction, so miner would never see 2nd transaction with higher fee on their mempool. Well no one with half a brain would accept a transaction of any type with zero confirmations. Whether it is RBF or not.
Few business does that under certain condition, there was discussion about accepting 0-conf a year ago[2]. [1] https://bitcoincore.org/en/faq/optin_rbf/[2] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5363009.0 |
|
|
|
@ETFbitcoin
I don't know about the Bitcoind limitation to perform a smooth proof of concept. Thank you for the heads-up.
Do you recommend any other setup to integrate ERP & Bitcoin Payments?
My idea is to use Bitcoin core without any wrapper. (i am thinking to run umbrel on a side project, not sure if it works
for my proof of concept idea)
BTCPay usually is best option. But if you're looking for cheaper/easier setup and don't mind reduced privacy, consider Mycelium Gear[1]. While it's 3rd party service, only you have access to your Bitcoin since they only ask your xpub/master public key. And there's no fee when your monthly volume is 0.1BTC or less[3]. [1] https://gear.mycelium.com/[2] https://gear.mycelium.com/docs/creating_a_new_gateway[3] https://gear.mycelium.com/pricing |
|
|
|
It does not kick miners out, it just does not allow them to expand unless they are running on 100% renewables.
Maybe not in a direct manner, but it indirectly affects everyone who's involved in this field and personally, I see no reason to stay in a state that clearly doesn't like such operations. Finding suitable building and moving your hardware isn't exactly cheap though. I expect most miner on New York would stay unless their operational cost massively increased due to this bill. New York isn't the most important place in the world, when it comes to cryptocurrency mining, so we shouldn't pay that much attention to such news. Russia is way more important for the crypto miners.
New York is largest city on US though, this bill could influence government on different state or county. |
|
|
|
My Idea is to make supplier payments from ERP by calling the BItcoincore testnet first and then later on the mainnet. Any idea/documentation/thread/input is highly appreciated.
Are you aware of this Bitcoin Core limitation? I would not recommend doing that. Bitcoin Core is not well equipped to handle both large wallets, and a large number of wallets. Either it will perform very poorly or it will consume more memory than you have.
It is not possible to get a wallet's balance without loading it. Loading a wallet can take a lot of time, and constantly loading and unloading wallets will waste a lot of time. When a wallet is loaded, it is entirely loaded into memory and the entire wallet is iterated at least once.
Maybe you already know, but I want to be sure:
You will probably have to run bitcoind (i.e. the daemon, not the wallet UI).
When you start wallet UI (Bitcoin Qt), the daemon ( bitcoind) also running on background. But OP should use bitcoind directly for server. |
|
|
|
Well my whole point was, if it may be that people burn their coins maybe because the bitcoin network does not offer an address that does not lock the coins but redistributes them. But I guess it would be to difficult to implement such an address now in the network for a quiet little use that it would offer.
Bitcoin protocol simply doesn't have mechanism to redistribute your coin. Some altcoin have redistribute mechanism under certain condition (e.g. coin not moved in 3 years), but there's concern how should it works and who should receive it (all non-empty address, miner, master node, etc.). For Bitcoin, you need to do it by yourself. |
|
|
|
There's no duplicate. Currently blocks folder is about 434GB while txindex folder only about 35.3GB. txindex utilize LevelDB (which is key/value database) to store these information. 't' + 32-byte transaction hash -> transaction index record. These are optional and only exist if 'txindex' is enabled (see above). Each record stores:
Which block file number the transaction is stored in.
Which offset into that file the block the transaction is part of is stored at.
The offset from the start of that block to the position where that transaction itself is stored.
|
|
|
|
Jika melihat disini: https://download.electrum.org/4.2.2/, pada nama file AppImage Electrum di Linux nya itu tertera: electrum-4.2.2-x86_64.AppImage, jadi mestinya sih tidak masalah kalaupun diinstall di Linux OS 32 bit/x86 sekalipun. x86_64 adalah nama untuk 64-bit processor/OS. Untuk 32-bit processor/OS, istilah yang umum digunakan pada distro linux adalah i386. x86-64 (also known as x64, x86_64, AMD64, and Intel 64)[note 1] is a 64-bit version of the x86 instruction set, first released in 1999.
IA-32 (short for "Intel Architecture, 32-bit", sometimes also called i386[1][2])[3] is the 32-bit version of the x86 instruction set architecture, designed by Intel and first implemented in the 80386 microprocessor in 1985. IA-32 is the first incarnation of x86 that supports 32-bit computing;[4] as a result, the "IA-32" term may be used as a metonym to refer to all x86 versions that support 32-bit computing.[5][6]
Atau mungkin coba install Electrum-nya dari Python sources.
Saya juga menyarankan opsi ini jika masih menggunakan OS 32-bit. |
|
|
|
I also pasted the image here. If you zoom in you can see it here in the forum.
I had poor experience by zooming in forum page, i'd recommend to open the image on new tab instead. I GET SUSPICIOUS LINK ERROR, HOW I CAN SOLVE THIS?
You could try using different website or evade forum system such as replacing . with [dot]. An example, viewer[dot]diagrams[dot]net
|
|
|
|
While your approach have some flaws which already mentioned, i appreciate your effort to think new approach and writing it neatly. I think the variable-blocksize method has already been proposed/attempted before. Possibly Segwit2x for example. Or maybe I'm just imagining about that one.
Definitely not Segwit2x, but i think you refer to BIP 104, 106 and 107. The thing is when the blocksize is based on a difficulty, there's a chance for the blocksize to rise exponentially in proportion to difficulty without ever going down. This would keep the size at e.g. 100MB for a 100x increase in difficulty.
Even if someday, disks do get that kind of capacity to store a blockchain with that large blocks (and not eat up space from everything else), network speeds and internet prices would still be a bottleneck to downloading such a chain.
CPU and RAM would be bigger concern than internet speed/price. I agree that the difficulty isn't really a measure for transaction demand. However, and I might also be wrong about this one, I believe that a relation (not necessarily a linear one) might exist. I went to check some data to see something more visual. I checked these 2 tables: https://ycharts.com/indicators/bitcoin_transactions_per_dayhttps://www.blockchain.com/charts/hash-rateI have seen 2 significant things: 1) It appears that there is no linear relation between the hashing rate and the transactions per day. One thing that I think should be taken into account, is that today we are already facing the scalability issue's consequences. Meaning that I think it's possible to say with just a little of confidence, that if transaction fees weren't as high - we would see much more transactions occurring. So basically saying that it might be possible that the data we are seeing today is "manipulated" by the problem itself. 2) When major changes in trends occur, it is seen in both the hashing rate and the transaction 'demand'. You can look at the end of June 2021, end of April 2021, end of October 2020, end of May 2020, end of March 2020. Although not identical, the downwards trend is similar. It should be said that it's possible that there a 3rd factor I didn't take into account that is effecting both of these rates. So to sum this one up - I don't believe that the relation between the two factors should be linear. It could be inverted, divided, and etc. 1. Correlation doesn't necessary imply causation. 2. Have you used other data to compare it with bitcoin transaction/day? IIRC big Bitcoin price swing have bigger correlation with Bitcoin transaction/day since holder would either buy and withdraw from exchange or deposit to exchange and sell. |
|
|
|
This post reminded me of the message in the README from the mempool.space production setup: HDD vs SSD vs NVMe
If you don't have a fast SSD or NVMe-backed disk, that's fine—go online and buy some fast new NVMe drives. When they arrive, install them, throw away your old HDDs, and then proceed with the rest of this guide.  To be fair, that instruction meant to run blockexplorer for 6 (six) different cryptocurrency network. Mempool also mention this on their installation methods. Mempool can be self-hosted on a wide variety of your own hardware, ranging from a simple one-click installation on a Raspberry Pi full-node distro all the way to a robust production instance on a powerful FreeBSD server.
|
|
|
|
I have been following Bitcoin prices for some time, and now I'm doubtful if it is a good time to start accepting it as it has changed so much in the past months. Those who accept Bitcoin - is it worth it? And do you accept Bitcoin straight to your wallet, or do you use third-party services?
If your main concern is volatile Bitcoin price, you could either find custodial Bitcoin payment processor which automatically convert received Bitcoin to fiat or exchange it frequently. While there's no bad time to accept Bitcoin, i would recommend you to research how much your customer wants to pay using Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Looks like they ran out of idea how to earn money scam people, so they decided to re-invent old wheel. AFAIK yobit frequently send email, so clearly they don't respect the fact you already unsubscribed if you haven't receive any email from them in long time. I would recommend you to find option "Report Spam". Strange  A BTC fork should be well recognised and known about around the crypto space just like BCH and other forks but with Yobit exchange they are just doing as they like, this isn't a genuine fork they are trying to deceive their customers once again, it's nothing new. While it's not genuine fork, most BTC fork isn't recognized even by BTC holder. Website such as https://findmycoins.ninja lists some which have some value, but it's likely you only heard 2-5 of them. |
|
|
|
Regarding the cooling required for RPi4, I ran into some throttling with RPi4 during synchronization and slapped a heatsink, which more or less solved the issue. Active cooling wasn't really necessary in my case. Never really an issue with the previous revisions though (7w vs 5w). It is still painfully slow regardless.
Also update the firmware of the Pi 4, there are few update which reduce the heat without sacrifice the performance. The noise produced by HDD is actually quite overstated most of the time and it is barely audible.
Then maybe I'm wrong. The HDD I use for blockchain is more than 12 years old, it's a WD Black and it's pretty noisy. WD Black isn't exactly average customer HDD, it's designed for best performance at high price. Besides, i find newer HDD has less noise than older ones. |
|
|
|
The aim I have towards altcoins is to never be a holder but a opportunity taker, altcoins give me more bitcoin, Bitcoin indeed deserves to sleep in our wallet address than altcoins but with altcoins you will have more bitcoin in no time.
It's fair point, but it goes both way. You took wrong "opportunity" and you'll have less Bitcoin in short time. Short-term investment isn't for everyone, especially those who don't want to regularly check the news. You're supposed to use term "Public relations (PR)" since it sounds more professional. Right now the dump part is so funny because it was so big that the percentage rounded up to 100% and the price is so ridiculously low that the number of zeros in the price doesn't even fit in the cell   https://coinmarketcap.com/gainers-losers/CMC should consider using 5.551e-20 (i didn't count 0 amount on screenshot) and "six 9s" which represent 99.999999%  . |
|
|
|
but the question would be what to do if / when the minimum transaction size will be too large for everyday transactions or the minimum transaction fee of 1sat/vB will be in the dozens of dollars or something like that.
1 sat/vB limitation only enforced by node, not by Bitcoin protocol. It can be solved easily by changing default minimum relay fee on Bitcoin full node implementation. But if 1 sat is deemed expensive for transaction fee, a fork will be needed. I miss those days when I could broadcast up to 1000 byte with 0 fee, as long as one of the inputs was "mature" enough to qualify. I think it was called "medium priority" in Bitcoin Core, when destroying a certain number of coin days.
At that time, people are lucky since miner still following Bitcoin Qt behavior to include fee-less transaction under certain condition. These days, miner simply prioritize profit. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
