As an alternative, replacing your laptop disk with a bigger disk drive (hdd or even ssd) might be a relatively cheap solution for the coming years.
Replacing your DVD/optical-disc drive with bigger storage drive (with HDD caddy) also works. DVD/optical-disc drive barely used these days and you don't need to throw your older laptop storage drive. |
|
|
|
i made a bech32 key with vanitysearch and imported the wif into bitcoin-qt 0.18.0 but it ends up giving me the old style with the 1 prefix. i have bech32 enabled as default in the options; if i let the wallet generate a random key for me it is bech32. so how to import a key as bech32 ?
you must import the private key full like "p2wpkh-p2sh:5priv.key" or "p2wpkh:5priv.key" AFAIK this will only work with Electrum. Have you tried this prefix method with Bitcoin-qt or Bitcoin Core? You just need remove the prefix which indicate address type (p2pkh, p2sh, p2wpkh-p2sh, p2wpkh or p2wph) if you want import private key generated from vanitygen to Bitcoin Core |
|
|
|
Anyway, wrong. Your Ledger Nano recovery seed can work on the Trezor hardware wallets. As long as the hardware wallet follows the same BIP standards, then it would work.
Take note each wallet might have derivation path. I've seen few people who thought they couldn't recover their coins (while they only have mnemonic seed) either because they don't have knowledge or know about derivation path. |
|
|
|
It's pretty possible to implement something like this by yourself with the official Bitcoin Core and Full Node Softwares for bitcoin's clones, like litecoin and dogecoin.
Probably no, AFAIK Bitcoin core isn't designed for such tasks. So how do all of these cryptocurrency exchanges operate? Do they simply write these wrappers around the node software that collects needed data and saves in the database?
There's no way to know that since most exchange keep it "closed-source", but i doubt it's that simple. Some of them have hundreds of coins! Do they have an instance of every coin running on their servers and separate software around these instances? Is there a common name for such payment processing? Is there any more information that I can look at?
No idea, but few known common standard are : 1. Use cold and hot wallet. Hot wallet only refilled when it's empty. 2. Withdraw request with small amount are verified and processed automatically, but it's done manually for withdraw request with big amount. 3. Using multi-signature address for cold wallet. On a side note, there are few open-source software for cryptocurrency such as https://github.com/peatio/peatio |
|
|
|
|
Just be patient, RPi is barebone PC and there's nothing much you could do.
But if you're not patient, there are few options :
1. Tweak dbcache, maxsigcachesize & rpcthreads value on start-up parameter or bitcoin.conf file. Not recommended because you could encounter "Out of memory" problem
2. Overclock CPU & RAM. Also not recommended for obvious reason.
3. Store whole Bitcoin folder on SSD. But, AFAIK there's major bottleneck from CPU/RAM and IMO you won't see any significant performance difference.
|
|
|
|
Decreasing hashrate might happen. However, miners can also invent more electricity efficient ASICs and exploit cheaper forms of electricity.
Additionally, there are few another factor : 1. Bitcoin price 2. Total transaction fees in a mined block 3. Finding weakness on PoW algorithm which allow more efficient mining Ok but why is this system better than ethereum's?
Can't say without knowing technical details how BTC and ETH mining. But one of the reason is it's more expensive to launch 51% attack on Bitcoin network. is there a possibility to change it in the future if things start going grim?
Perhaps |
|
|
|
1. You can name addresses yourself (just like you can name wallets) that is up to the user
2. ^
3 Bookmarks
Users could index the websites (vote thumbs up or thumbs down) so they can find the better youtube.com/whatever (like a darknet directory with levels of trust)
1. If you meant vanity address, then overall domain is still long Your idea is feasible if we compare it with darknet (such as Tor and I2P) which also don't have user-friendly domain. But not when when we compare it with clear net which could have short, attractive and rememberable domain name. "There are 2^160 possible address combination (excluding P2SH and Bech32 address format) and chances for address collusion is near zero."
It needs to be 0. I can make around 100,000 accounts a day or maybe in a hour or less actually on my household computer just running 1 bitcoin wallet and 1 auto clicker, Imagine a super computer multi boxing the same wallet 500x-500,000x or more.
0 (Zero) probability? It's impossible unless we switched to cryptography where collusion is impossible ( if it's exist) Why not have a "if address already belongs to a user, double the AES or P2SH and Bech32 format" (sure address would be long in future but at least we won`t get duplicates)
"if address already belongs to user at double, triple the format" and so on.
or "if address is already in use, reroll address" - "if all addresses are in use double amount of characters allowed" - "if all addresses are in use triple amount of characters allowed"
Does this make sense to you?
Yes. Read my reply above. Also, what stops user to modify wallet source-code to prevent "reformat address" when collusion if found? |
|
|
|
|
I'm a bit confused. Did you store your blockchain files on external storage, but somehow Bitcoin Core store it on your SD card?
If so, all you need to do move whole Bitcoin files (blockchain, chainstate, wallet.dat, etc.) to your external storage and run Bitcoin Core. Bitcoin Core should show first time welcome pop-up and then you can set it to use external storage.
|
|
|
|
When you start running a pruned node, your node still has to verify each and every block, from the genesis.
As far as I know, this is incorrect. They do not have the entire blockchain so they cannot verify from the Genesis block. A pruned node can only verify after a determined block, which is stored in the node. So you have to trust that you received the transaction history from a "trusted user". And that that history is correct. A full node just need to know that the Genesis block is correct. That's easy to check. But check the entire pruned blockchain is not. I think you missed the point, just like full node, pruned full node also download and verify downloaded blocks from other full nodes. The difference are pruned mode remove blocks data after verification is done and verification information of that block is still stored. Spv nodes are completely different and do not verify transactions, just look for transactions related to the wallet addresses from other full nodes.
This is completely wrong, few SPV wallet usually perform at least 3 verification : 1. Whether it has valid format 2. Download and verify all Block header 3. Using Merkle tree to perform verification whether an transaction included in a block Take note not other SPV wallet have same method. |
|
|
|
Alternatively, you can configure Bitcoin Core to use less RAM by modify mempool, UTXO cache and signature cache size. Example from https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/50743 : -blocksonly -dbcache=20 -maxsigcachesize=4 -maxconnections=4 -rpcthreads=1
Take note the sync process will be longer due to less cache used. |
|
|
|
|
Performance of a RPi3 very low, it's only as fast as Pentium III or IV (according to few benchmark i've seen as fast), there's no way it could beat GTX 1060.
But as a side note, NVIDIA release NVIDIA Jeston Nano which have powerful GPU (for barebone PC) with price $99, i don't know cluster of Jetson Nano could beat GTX 1060 for vanity address task, but it definitely far faster than RPi3.
|
|
|
|
Not bad idea, but the biggest question is, what stops someone who wants another party suffer losses or/and he don't care about his losses? On escrow system with 2-of-3 multi-signature, it can be mitigated easily. I don't know about ETH, but on Bitcoin it's already possible with 2-of-2 multi-signature scheme. Let's say the locked fund are large enough, will it reduce fraudulent transactions?
Maybe yes, since scammer don't want risks big amount for small "profit" Who will use this box to trade?
Probably no one, since deposit big money is required, unless there's user-friendly wallet for it. Will there be a lot of extortion?
No idea |
|
|
|
*EDIT* spoke one day too soon. just crashed again. but maybe this is a different issue 2019-05-07T21:43:34Z ERROR: ReadBlockFromDisk: Deserialize or I/O error - non-canonical ReadCompactSize(): iostream error at CBlockDiskPos(nFile=1625, nPos=8) According to https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8081 and https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/70193, start Bitcoin Core once with reindex should fix/avoid the problem. Corrupt storage drive also possible, did you same SDCard/HDD on your Raspberry Pi 3? |
|
|
|
Yes
--snip--
Thanks for detailed explanation  Nobody in her right mind would change the TCP/IP and Bitcoin is the TCP/IP of the internet money.
I disagree, if there's way to optimize "lower" layer which also backward-compatible. I don't see anything wrong with it. I'd agree if we're talking about implement complex feature on "lower" layer. Sure, I agree on that, but what I mean is that if you build multiple protocol layers over the fundamental layer of Bitcoin protocol, if you modify anything on the lower one, the risk of getting something wrecked in the upper layers increases dramatically. So when you build many layers over Bitcoin protocol, this get “compressed as a Jenga piece” and becomes immutable, as the risk of touching it and wrecking something somewhere becomes too high. Can't disagree with that, but : 1. That's why we always wait years for new improvement, due to through-full testing 2. Many improvement add new feature rather than modify existing feature, such as creating P2SH address for scripting and Bech32 for SegWit. |
|
|
|
Ane rasa Indodax dan berbagai macam exchange itu bakal mulai adopsi SegWit ketika ada kompetitor yang menerapkan fungsi ini dengan volume / pengguna yang banyak. Emang sih kebanyakan exchange pakai fixed rate, tapi semestinya rate tersebut bisa jauh lebih murah kalau mereka menggunakan SegWit (CMIIW).
Mungkin Indodax dan exchange lainnya mungkin akan menggukan SegWit jika banyak pengguna exchange tersebut demo melakukan petisi berkaitan dengan penggunaan SegWit. Contoh : https://www.change.org/p/coinbase-coinbase-prioritize-segwit-implementation-on-the-coinbase-bitcoin-wallet-gdax-exchangeMungkin hal yg mendasari exchange enggan untuk migrasi ke segwit address, karena faktor waktu prosesnya. Karena untuk melakukan migrasi pihak exchange harus melakukan sweep atau memindahkan semua balance dari tiap-tiap membernya dan masih harus mengupdate data-data member pada database mereka.
Tidak relevan, exchange hanya perlu : 1. Memindahkan Bitcoin ke alamat Bitcoin SegWit lainnya hanya ketika diperlukan 2. Data-data member yang perlu diupdate/ditambah hanyalah alamat Bitcoin SegWit untuk deposit
Pertanyaan tentang Exchange dan SegWit menurut saya sudah dijawab dengan jelas, jangan off-topic lagi. |
|
|
|
I felt that it was a good heads up for people to give a 2nd look before downloading a wallet.
Was I wrong? No issue if I was, just looking for input.
If i had to guess, it's because : 1. A bit off-topic 2. Developer would notice if their website/repository breached 3. Verify hash or signature of installer/application starting become common practice |
|
|
|
With segwit the tx fees are reduced by 40% (found online).
Actually that depends on the transaction structure itself (total input, total output, script size, etc.). But on some cases, it's true. So my question is the following :
If I load some legacy addresses (paper wallet for example or vanity addresses ) with some low amount of crypto ( $50 to $100).
(They are going to be birthday presents for family members in 5 to 10 years).
When they will want to redeem the coins to a segwit or LN compatible wallet, what kind of fees are we expecting?
It's hardly predictable (especially we're talking few years in future), there are few important parameter/variable : 1. Transaction size. Upcoming technology such as Schnorr Signature will reduce transaction size on transaction with more an input. 2. Minimum transaction fees allowed to be broadcasted. Currently it's 1 sat/byte, but there are plans to reduce it. 3. Maximum block size 4. Average transaction per second (TPS) 5. Total unconfirmed transaction But obviously it will be higher than redeem/spend coins from SegWit address. |
|
|
|
You also can disable xpinstall.signatures.required on about:config page on some version/build of Firefox.
It's more convenient than o_e_l_e_o, but have few security implication and you should make sure to enable it again once the problem has been resolved. This works for Dev and Nightly builds, but unfortunately not for standard Firefox builds, which the majority of users are using. Actually, it also works on Firefox ESR, even though it's usually only available by default on some linux distro or organization (business, academic, government, etc.). Also, download Firefox ESR is safer than execute script from stranger, especially for regular users. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
