Malicious people usually don't tend to work with anybody, even equally malicious people like them. Specially when their "cooperation" was based on pure profit, their interests and goals align for a short time but it is bound to fall apart as they turn on each other.

What the attack known as Ordinals calls "inscription" is simply an arbitrary data injected into the bitcoin blockchain by exploiting the protocol. Now the answer to your question is clearer, you can inject arbitrary data into the blockchain in one transaction very easily. The correct way is using an OP_RETURN output to do so.

That's somewhat true because from what I've seen when it comes to altcoins it is not about being experienced or not in coding because creating the large number of altcoins and specially the tokens is not about creating a solid project. Instead it is all about making money.
In other words I believe that even if the most experienced expert programmer were to create a token or even an altcoin, they'll create the same weak and flawed garbage as long as their purpose is the same (ie. make money fast).

That's the weird part specially when they claim they were "optimizing" stuff. I can't think of any other relationship between order of transactions and optimization than merkle root hash.

Why do you overcomplicate everything? A bug that leads to missing out on $160k+ revenue is an expensive bug.

Is it just me or this statement is super weird? Why "bitcoin core" and not "bitcoin" or "bitcoin blockchain"? Are they so incompetent and unfamiliar with the Bitcoin protocol and don't understand the difference? LOL

It is not a big deal though, it was a very simple invalid block and got rejected. It was not even some super secret and very little known consensus rule that led to its rejection...

My guess on the experiment is that they could have been trying to optimize merkle root hash computation process. That's the only reason I can think of for bothering with transactions and their order in the block you are trying to mine.

I don't think binging up Wright is even relevant in this context and I doubt he would use Twitter to run his scam through an account called Satoshi. Twitter is too centralized for him to do this, specially since Musk (as the owner of Twitter) could easily make a statement saying "this account has changed hands/was sold". That would shut down his claim very quickly.

That's a cool idea but it could become a bit messy.
If the wallet allows running multiple instances (which they sometimes don't) you'd have to open the other wallet at the same time so that you can get a new address for each change. You also would lose the visual indicators of what address belongs to you, slightly increasing the risk of making mistakes.

Go to Wikileaks and just search Yemen and then enjoy
The estimated oil reserves in al-Jawf alone is at least 500 billion barrel which is roughly 30% of the total global oil reserves if we believe your link.

I don't consider myself a trader but in my little experience, I don't find any kind of courses, books and other similar material to be helpful in trading. Even less so when it comes to trading altcoins because of the heavy manipulation that dominates the altcoin market (commonly known as pump and dumps).

The only thing that you need and is useful is going to be experience and understanding of HOW the market works. This knowledge is only acquired if you spend time studying the market, looking at the charts and making trades. You need to know what makes a shitcoin pump and when will the pump gives its place to a dump so that you can make wise decisions for your entry and exit strategies.
Usually these "courses" you mention teach you some nonsense about technical analysis which is completely useless in altcoin market. None of them help you speculate the pump and dump market.

One risk would be the double spend attack but it would require some hashrate. The attacker would send the user some bitcoins in a transaction they mine (they could receive cash or goods in return). That block could take a long time to mine too but it wouldn't matter since the receiver is not aware of the rest of the network (due to being connected to only one node, the attacker's). The attacker would also create another transaction double spending and sending the funds to their own address, which they would send to the network and get it mined in actual bitcoin blocks.

If the receiver tries spending the received coins, they would still send the transaction spending those coins to the only node they are connected to which is the malicious one and would accept the tx as valid.

Based on OP's post history I'm assuming they mean the ephemeral key used during signing operation, in which case considering how it is impossible to know the "nonce" by having the signature there can't be a database the way OP thinks. There are only a handful of cases where a weak key was used and it was revealed.

lol your information is far off
We will have fossil fuels for at least 2 or 3 more centuries. In Iran alone we have more fossil fuels for the next 200 years, not to mention that vast amounts of our resources are not yet even discovered like in the Caspian sea (north) or the southern provinces because there were no reason to.
Or the biggest resources that are in Yemen which both Soviets (back in USSR time) and American intelligence have approved has more fossil fuel than the entire West Asia combined and remains largely untapped to this day which is also one of the biggest incentives for the invasion of Yemen and the failed attempt to occupy it by the US-Saudi coalition in the past 9 years.

Is there any government that is even considering adopting bitcoin as legal tender that is also hesitant because of energy consumption concerns? I seriously doubt it.
We've always known that governments don't like bitcoin because it is decentralized which means they can never control it, print it out of thin air, censor people's transactions, and stuff like that. Everything else including environmental impact, energy consumption, etc. is just an excuse because if they announced the real reason ("we [the gov.] can't control bitcoin so we fight it") it would lead to mass adoption in a blinking of an eye

As for the "waste to energy" idea, it is already being done in a lot of developed countries. The electricity it produces is not enough for mining farms though specially since there are easier and "cleaner" way of getting that electricity like something as simple as solar panels.

Bitcoin is not supposed to make you any money, it is made to be a currency


There is no such thing as "the right alt", they are all terrible as investments as they all get dumped in the long run. What you need to pick is the right time which is the time before they get pumped (to get in) and the time before they get dumped (to run out).

As long as patient doesn't mean "buy a shitcoin and bag hold it hoping for a pump to happen". That is the sure way to losing money.
As I said you should wait out (without buying the shitcoin) until the signs of pumping starts.

This is good advice although as I said the strategy in altcoins should be the way I explained which means if you see the dump starting you shouldn't wait for any drop below 10% of the entry price to sell. Just dump and run away... right to the next shitcoin to be pumped.

We've had enough red this past year that it is time for seeing some green candles now. Although we don't yet have the momentum but the potential is still there. Not to mention that every day when the market manipulators fail to push the price down despite their dumps, is a day where the buy support gets stronger

This is the whole point I've been making in this thread. Also keep in mind that the US dependence on others is not just their markets as export destinations, but also US depends on their resources to manufacture stuff they want to export.
For example we saw the significance of this in the sanction war between US and China where US started restricting export of chips to China and China started restricting export of materials used in manufacturing Chips to all those countries!

Yes, it is like mainnet. You don't need to store the whole blockchain, all you need is the chainstate (ie. the UTXO database) so you can prune the chain. But you still need to download and verify all blocks to build the chainstate before you can discard the old ones in the process called pruning.

Go to the main page of the repository on Github and click the green button on top saying Code and then select the Download ZIP option to get a full copy of the repository. Then inside it you will find the html file called index.html that should be enough to run this and although I haven't tested it considering it is an html file it should run on mobile too.

BTW smart phones can never be considered "truly offline".

Your question is too vague., it depends on what you mean by "use" and "public node".

Nodes aren't categorized as "public" and "private". They either accept incoming connection or not.
As for connection/usage, if you mean something like connecting to a single node and syncing that way, it is not only a privacy risk but also a security risk since that node may be either broken or malicious and end up feeding you false data. This is why SPV clients usually connect to multiple full nodes for syncing.

In any case you should clarify your question for a more detailed answer.

There is a huge assumption in your post. You are assuming that the F-16s that Ukraine is supposed to receive are the improved versions. However, from what I can tell this assumption may not be correct since what is being sent is the old versions with little to no improvement.

For example two of the batches that Ukraine may receive in the future are coming from Denmark and Netherlands. Both of these countries have purchased majority of their F-16s in the early 80's and some small numbers in the 90's; meaning most of what they are going to send to Ukraine is the old versions (A and B variants).

As for the lifespan, these old aircrafts have only gone through certain small upgrades for example one of them is what Lockheed-Martin refers to as the "MLU package" which Denmark paid for and only performs routine tests for fatigue, cracks, etc. and fixes some to increase the lifespan. It is like taking your 50 year old car to the shop to increase its lifespan for another decade!

As for the missiles, the only missiles that these countries have purchased (like the ones that RDAF owns) are medium range like the air-to-air missiles such as AM-110 that has a range of 30 miles (48 km), the air-to-ground missiles such as AGM-65 that has a range of 0.6-10 miles (1-16 km).

I couldn't find any reliable information about the radars installed in these aircrafts so I can't comment on that. But considering the rest, specifically the short range of their missiles, I wouldn't count on it to be anything "modern".