I mean, why don't you and gmaxwell just create a public but private section (section for developers only).
Making a private section would be against the ethos of FOSS. It would literally be a "gang of old school b'developers" that you claim we will end up with without "changes". Making a private section that only an approved list of people are allowed to post in makes it almost impossible to get new people to join. How about new section which similar with "Development & Technical Discussion" but, 1. Disable signature (just like Serious Discussion board). 2. More strict moderation (even as geek, i find "Development & Technical Discussion" moderation is quite lax). |
|
|
|
Taproot won’t be activated in this period.  As I write we are above 78.08%: only 12% missing. Not so bad  hmm, checking the stats on my node (using bitcoin-cli getblockchaininfo), only 72.5% of blocks have signalled this difficulty period. Maybe I'm reading it wrong? whatever the true stats are, the number is clearly climbing. I think you read the statistic incorrectly, if you think "count": 725, means 72.5% block signal Taproot, then it's incorrect. According to "help getblockchaininfo", it refers to number of block which signal taproot. CMIIW. "taproot": {
"type": "bip9",
"bip9": {
"status": "started",
"bit": 2,
"start_time": 1619222400,
"timeout": 1628640000,
"since": 681408,
"statistics": {
"period": 2016,
"threshold": 1815,
"elapsed": 987,
"count": 725,
"possible": false
},
"min_activation_height": 709632
},
"active": false
}
},
"count" : n, (numeric) the number of blocks with the version bit set in the current period
|
|
|
|
|
I've used ElectrumX, but since i never use Proxmox (VirtualBox is easier for casual user/geek), i have 3 common suggestion
1. Check I/O usage of the partition, is it always near 100%?
2. Check whether proxmox have disk performance problem. I mention it because other virtualization (such as WSL) have this problem.
3. Check log file created by ElectrumX, does it give any hint?
|
|
|
|
Nothing prevents miners to survey the pool operators on how they have the pool software vote (e.g. when there is a fork ahead), and decide whether they want to contribute their mining power.
Pool software vote? If you actually mean pool mining protocol (such as stratum V2), i doubt such feature is exist. Miner usually just choose mining software (which uses stratum V2 protocol) and enter some personal detail (e.g. cryptocurrency address and pool website URL). It’s still the same debate. The biggest holders of the coin can unite, and become a “Staking Cartel”, or if an exchange is hacked, and 51% of coins are stolen by a hacker, the Nothing at Stake attack holds because it will not cost anything. Research Vericoin.
Even worse, exchange use the deposited coin to gain "free" voting power. An example on steemit, https://www.binance.com/en/blog/421499824684900453/A-Letter-to-the-STEEM-Community. |
|
|
|
|
2166
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: 79,228,162,514,264,337,593,543,950,336 Private keys per bitcoin address?
|
on: May 15, 2021, 09:55:43 AM
|
you are wrong.
He's right and you're the wrong one. It's called collusion attack where multiple input produce same output. It's not even true that there is only 1 address per private key. Each key can be associated with multiple addresses, since an address is just a representation of a script.
Additionally, 1 private key could have 3 different public key (hybrid, compressed and compressed), where each public key generate different address. However, the standard for SegWit address (P2SH-P2WSH, P2WPKH and P2WSH) using compressed public key. |
|
|
|
my GPU is small gtx 1050 just 1 millions is slow training
A bit off-topic, but i've heard my friend they're using Google colab and Kaggle which give you access to high-end professional/data server GPU. I don't know the limitation, but it might worth to try. |
|
|
|
Who decides if a code change is a "hard" fork or a "soft" fork?
It's not "Who", but "What". Basically if there's backward compatibility, usually it's classified as "soft" work. Usually user and node operator don't need to upgrade or change their software. For example, SegWit could be implemented as "hard" fork where there's less complexity. However SegWit is implemented as "soft" fork, where there's more complexity due to backward compatibility. Does Bitcoin have an issue of trust if ultimately it’s the responsibility of the development team, a few individuals, to approve and update the source code? I’m sure they’re good trustworthy people. But what about their successors?
The nature of the open source codes gives the user a chance to review and decide which kind of changes they want to include or omit. Just because they've merged any changes, it doesn't mean that you have to follow them as well. Additionally, there are multiple software to run Bitcoin full node, so you're not forced to use specific software. However, some people find Bitcoin Core having big influence as a concern. |
|
|
|
|
Assuming you're using Bitcoin Core, all of them are impossible. If you wish to do it,
1. Follow @DaveF suggestion to use your own DB, which is indexable.
2. Follow @DaveF suggestion to use third party API.
3. Host your own blockchain explorer using open-source bitcoin block explorer. I took a peek at mempool.space and esplora API documentation, but it looks like it doesn't have feature you're looking for.
|
|
|
|
If you actually mean B2X or SegWit2x (when you say "b2xsegwit"), it's Bitcoin hard-fork which still uses SHA-256, but canceled due to lack of support. Please check this website ( https://www.coinlore.com/coins/x11) which shows lists of some of cryptocurrency which uses X11 to find coin you mined. Bitcoin Core is wallet only for Bitcoin, it's possible you used wallet for X11 cryptocurrency which is forked from Bitcoin Core, but have similar appearance. |
|
|
|
A bit off-topic, but for @NotATether and anyone who find good posts on Dev & Tech board, feel free to PM me or report it at [self-moderated] Report unmerited good posts to Merit Source. Currently i ran out of sMerit, but i'll bookmark it and merit it when sMerit source is refilled. Most of chosen posts are good, but i wouldn't choose post three.
I don't consider someone's personality to be indicative of how merit-worthy an individual post is. And thanks for your support. I said that not because his personality, but his history of 1. Make extraordinary claim without any proof or reference. 2. Spout technical FUD such as SHA-256 will broken on 2020, to the point where some member left negative trust. |
|
|
|
I tried it few times (reload page, change Tor circuit and use Tor Browser on VirtualBox), but i can't reproduce it (never see the "alt-svc" on response header).
Try restarting Tor Browser and check headers the first time you access bitcointalk.org (make sure to have the dev tools open before you access the site). I think the header is sent only when the browser connects via an exit node, which would be the first connection, and after that the browser may already be connecting via onion so would not be getting the alt-svc header. Also check if you have alt-svc enabled:  Now i can see the alt-svc parameter on response header. But the weird thing i can't use the onion link to access this forum, with or without https:// prefix. |
|
|
|
Most of chosen posts are good, but i wouldn't choose post three. Anyway, Dev & Tech board could use more merit source who have better technical knowledge, so i support your merit source application. I am one of the most active members on the Dev & Tech subboard. I have been posting there for about a year. And although it accounts for 4.66% of the merit distribution DdmrDdmr's statistics, I suspect most of it is going to its subboards. Unfortunately the stats don't offer more granularity to confirm this. This statistic https://public.tableau.com/profile/ddmrddmr#!/vizhome/shared/MX3XSCMGR show more details, but AFAIK it also include Dev & Tech child boards. I'm not really sure how many Dev&Tech - not global - merit sources there are, if they even exist.
AFAIK there's no merit source which focus only on Dev & Tech. But AFAIK i'm the most active/frequent one, where 56.99% merit send to Dev & Tech board (see https://public.tableau.com/profile/ddmrddmr#!/vizhome/shared/FJ8D3H652). |
|
|
|
There is a source code patch for Python 3.5 available at https://gist.github.com/PolarNick239/5168c2bbf2731171bc190a465cc4d052 to make it run on Windows XP, but you'll have to compile Python from source. Assuming that does succeed the last Electrum that supports Python 3.5 is version 3.2.4, which has phishing patches but can't connect to servers nonetheless because of a separate Denial of Service vulnerability (only versions 3.3.0 and later can connect to servers). Perhaps the patch will also work on Python 3.6, which will also allow you to use the latest Electrum version. I also found portable Python 3.6 for Windows (at https://sourceforge.net/projects/portable-python/files/Portable%20Python%203.6.5/) where the author made this claim Portable Python Contains
+ Python 3.6.5 from Python.org
+ PyScripter
+ Python PIP Package PreInstalled
Requirements
+ Windows XP - May work haven't tested.
+ Windows 7 or above
And i also found Python 3.7 explicity for windows XP ( https://msfn.org/board/topic/177972-python-371-for-windows-xp/). It's hosted on free 3rd party file hosting, so you might want to grab it quickly. P.S. Since it's from unofficial source, you need to trust the author not to do anything malicious. If i were you, i won't even try it and rather use Linux or buy new computer. |
|
|
|
Did Taproot decrease lower the fees?
I think bitcoin now still high fee, if Taproot make fee to low is will better and very great to use often
Yes, because Taproot transaction size is smaller on many cases, although only noticeable on transaction with script which have multiple condition or have many inputs. I think bitcoin now still high fee, if Taproot make fee to low is will better and very great to use often
IMO Taproot won't bring much impact towards transaction fee, besides it'll take few months to years before wallet supporting Taproot. FWIW, 22% of my peers claim to be running 0.21.1 or 21.99.0 (master), may be because I ban a massive amount of fake spy nodes which may be diluting the figures. I also have tor inbounds which may tend to be more frequently updated.
(To be clear, I don't claim that this little sample is representative, just adding a bit of color)
Additional information would be great, 1. What's the number of peer/incoming connection? 10? 100? 1000? 2. How do you ban fake spy nodes? A fixed list from someone else, automatic detection or manually created list by yourself? |
|
|
|
While i agree with your post, why would someone intentionally use value different from default value used on Bitcoin Core (Unless they have specific goal or ideology)? People usually would follow most popular reference (Bitcoin Core) rather than enter arbitrary value.
It is not about ideology, just being different code and different implementation. Maybe the other one is less efficient (or more) where the mempool code is in a way that takes up more space in memory (or less) so you have to decrease (or can increase) your node's mempool size when running that alternative implementation which also affects your minrelaytxfee. While i didn't think about different implementation and it's efficiency, i think it's possible there are ideology involved for other parameter, such as 1. Set minrelayfee lower than 1 sat/vbyte because Bitcoin price will rise and transaction fee will feel more expensive. 2. Accept non-standard transaction () to mempool because it's stupid to froze user Bitcoin due to buggy wallet. An example, [~1 BTC Bounty]. |
|
|
|
Point 2 is what kevin meant. There are tools that create a Hotspot with the same name as your network, and monitor the access switches, that is, when you type in a password and the network and it does not work, it does not matter to them. The important thing is that the password you are trying to enter has been sent to them, and then they enter your original network through it. Ie: entering the password into the wrong network is same as chatting the hacker your original network password.
Very good point, i never thinking such social engineering attack. I would fell to such engineering attack and thought i simply mistyped password. |
|
|
|
Moreover, you're prone to the WiFi attack: someone finds your cloaked SSID and creates a malicious network with a conflicting SSID, making you possibly choose that one instead of yours.
You're being paranoid. Even if attacker create malicious network with conflicting ID, there are few ways to avoid it 1. Your device will auto connect to correct network (if you already connected to it before and set it to auto-connect) 2. If both connection uses password, the malicious network should've use different password, where you shouldn't be able connect to malicious network. 3. If the fake network don't use password, you should realize it by check the security type of the WiFi network. |
|
|
|
However, if you use HDD and use it to boot the OS, you'll notice your computer run slower.
But i wouldn't use encryption if you're regular user, since recovering the file will be far more difficult.
Whole-disk encryption is unrecommended because the encrypting is part of the operating system, and it can lead to lockout problems even if the files themselves are fine. One error can literally lock you out of the whole drive. I've heard that before, but are there any case where it actually happen? File-and-folder encryption can be just as secure as whole-disk encryption.
On most cases, i agree. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
