Bitcoin Forum
June 29, 2022, 10:30:01 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 23.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 ... 218 »
1  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Taproot proposal on: February 03, 2020, 01:50:51 PM
obviously, schnorr signatures are on deck. that'll allow for cross-input aggregation to make coinjoins indistinguishable from regular transactions. that's a pretty massive development given that exchanges are beginning to target coinjoin users. estimating based on segwit's activation timeline, that could happen by early 2021 or maybe even the end of this year, optimistically.

but "useless"? that's quite a strong word. Lips sealed

confidential transactions (CT) to obfuscate transaction amounts seems like an attractive next step. but my understanding is it requires extension blocks or a hard fork. so.....probably not gonna be implemented at the consensus layer. there's always sidechains though. liquid (blockstream's sidechain) supports CT for example.

These things have to run at layer 0 to get any traction imo.

taproot/schnorr will run at layer 0. CT could in theory too but there are strong reasons it won't (bloat and lack of support for consensus change).

We should have had better fungibility since day 1. Things should be mixed by default, what should be optional is making a clear A to B transaction. If we are going to have privacy, we want it to be as close to default state as possible.

taproot offers the beginnings of that. amounts and output linkability are still unaddressed at this time, but basically everything under the hood of a transaction can be hidden. cross-input aggregation (once implemented) will further provide strong fee incentives to drive users towards schnorr-based coinjoin and/or adaptor signature-based mixing transactions. wallets could offer these as automatic/default mechanisms. if most of the network is using taproot, these are pretty huge privacy gains for everyone.

unfortunately, we can't approach this issue as if it were day 1. as gmaxwell pointed out, there is uncertainty around being able to deploy even mundane consensus changes---let alone ones that are actually contentious.

What will be interesting to see is how exchanges and businesses react to this, as well as governments. The only reason governments are allowing Bitcoin to stay legal, or even neutral, is due the fact that they think they have the means to control it with efforts such as chainanalysis. Once/if BTC reached a point of actual fungibility in which the costs of trying something like chainanalysis are bigger than simply outlawing it, that is what I would predict would happen (that governments outlaw it and go into a full front attack), which will only make other governments become tax havens for BTC holders. Ultimately the price would most likely be pushed upwards but there would be an awkward period of, once again, "Bitcoin is dead" all over mainstream media.
2  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Taproot proposal on: January 28, 2020, 02:08:57 PM
Can't regular bech32 addresses begin with a p?

I don't know what you have in mind when you say "regular address".
Bech-32 encoding is a rather simple encoding of any data that takes an octet string (8 bits) convert it to 5 bit chunks and then converts each chunk to one of 32 characters defined by BIP-173 (that is qpzry9x8gf2tvdw0s3jn54khce6mua7l).
For an address we add the witness version as its first 5-bit chunk without needing any conversion so when it is 0 you choose the first char that is "q" and when it is 1 you choose the second that is "p" and so on.
they are all "regular addresses" with a different version.

By regular I meant what you point to be as bc1q. So bc1p is it for the new one. I didn't realize it was bc1q, but bc1 then random string. Im not a segwit user myself, still only use legacy. There's no way in hell the regular average joe user will notice any of these changes. That's why I insist: we need everything to be "mixed by default" somehow, and optional would be the clear transactions, ideally. What I mean is, the end user should just have to click "send" and that would be by default a mixed transaction. Then have some box you can check to not mix it optionally. This would be the standardized functionality of all wallets. That's how we reach proper fungibility. Otherwise we are going to start seeing horror stories regarding chainanalysis and innocent people ending up with BTC that was "tainted" attached to their names when they deposit in exchanges and whatnot. The only way to avoid this is that everyone by default mixes coins.

3  Bitcoin / Electrum / Re: Error notification when trying to verify Electrum Sig...? on: January 28, 2020, 01:58:07 PM
You could try to reinstall Kleopatra and see if that will fix the issue.

Could it be that you are doing it wrong? Take a look at this guide and follow the steps > https://bitcoinelectrum.com/how-to-verify-your-electrum-download/

Try moving the downloaded files to the desktop.

It's not a Kleopatra bug. His installation is most likely fine. I bet OP is, by mistake, trying to verify the installer.exe with the portable.asc file. Because both files are next to each other and similar in filenames, he downloaded the portable.asc file, and when trying to verify the installer executable you get the i/o 218136625 error. If you try by yourself, you'll see this is the same error that you get when you are trying to match the wrong file with the wrong signature. If someone else finds this thread this will be useful to be left here because no one pointed this out yet.
4  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Taproot proposal on: January 28, 2020, 01:27:31 PM
How far are we from rendering efforts like "chainanalysis" useless?

Every single wallet should be sending transactions that by default obfuscate things so no one is liable of this bullshit idea of having "tainted coins", in other words, actual fungibility.

obviously, schnorr signatures are on deck. that'll allow for cross-input aggregation to make coinjoins indistinguishable from regular transactions. that's a pretty massive development given that exchanges are beginning to target coinjoin users. estimating based on segwit's activation timeline, that could happen by early 2021 or maybe even the end of this year, optimistically.

but "useless"? that's quite a strong word. Lips sealed

confidential transactions (CT) to obfuscate transaction amounts seems like an attractive next step. but my understanding is it requires extension blocks or a hard fork. so.....probably not gonna be implemented at the consensus layer. there's always sidechains though. liquid (blockstream's sidechain) supports CT for example.

These things have to run at layer 0 to get any traction imo. We should have had better fungibility since day 1. Things should be mixed by default, what should be optional is making a clear A to B transaction. If we are going to have privacy, we want it to be as close to default state as possible. The internet went throught this already. We would have avoided the spying clusterfuck that it has become if it ran private by default. Only now ages later Tor is becoming more known as well as VPNs, but thats far from ideal. It's still nothing in the grand scheme of things.

Looking at the title of BIP 341 (Taproot: SegWit version 1 spending rules), does that mean we'll see address with prefix bc1p?

yes. in a Bech32 encoding when you set the witness version to 1 the first character after the separator (ie. 1) is going to become letter "p".
BIP 173 doesn't mention this but it is easy to use one of the libraries to encode an arbitrary length byte array to see what the first character is. https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0173.mediawiki
empty 32 bytes= bc1pqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq5us4ke

Can't regular bech32 addresses begin with a p?
5  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Taproot proposal on: January 24, 2020, 11:42:43 PM
How far are we from rendering efforts like "chainanalysis" useless? As it stands, interacting with fiat exchanges is a risk by default. Most of us are regular people, we aren't criminals, yet, what those blacklisting services do is basically putting yourself into the insane liability of ending up in a risk linked to criminal activity because some of your addresses once pertained to an address that it's on their blacklists. On a long enough timeline, everyone's chances of having coins that are "tainted" increase to the point that it's absurd putting your coins in an exchange.

Every single wallet should be sending transactions that by default obfuscate things so no one is liable of this bullshit idea of having "tainted coins", in other words, actual fungibility. Until then, how is one supposed to deposit coins on exchanges? Again, as of right now, you are playing a sick lottery in which your coins may or not have traces of being tainted, and as time goes on and coins move, everyone's chances just keep going up.
6  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Trace transactions on: January 24, 2020, 11:32:35 PM
You should ask these guys:

https://www.chainalysis.com

It's what many exchanges are using. Apparently they are busting $millions worth of BTC coming from "criminal activity". Binance is the latest exchange to be using this.

Using BTC on exchanges is getting increasingly risky. Forget about this criminal bullshit, for us regular users, it's still a risk to put your money into what is basically a lottery of your coins having or not "criminal activity" linked to them. BTC needs to get the fungible part improved if you want to deal with fiat frontends.
7  Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion on: December 28, 2019, 07:45:38 PM
My term deposit at bank is about to mature after 6 months. I'm getting like $1k for this shitty investment. And what is worse, the interest rates got halved. Next time, I'll be getting like $500 for the same investment at the same bank.

I am making a big decision here:


Option 1: Keep collecting peanuts. Keep DCA'ing.

Option 2: Buy the dip, Keep DCA'ing. (1-2 btc)

Option 3: Nuke everything and become a 1 million club member while I still can. (all in)

*Option 3 violates my investment rules. Violates it like fuck all gimme lambo.






Option 2

I’m in the same boat. I have $xxx,xxx value in bitcoin.

I have $xx,xxx value in fiat savings.

I’m absolutely balls deep in bitcoin to be honest, probably way over invested than any sane person should be.

I currently get 1% interest per annum which on the fiat savings which is fucking pathetic. I really should pump it all into bitcoin like your option 2 says. It is nice to have some back up cash just incase something happens especially as I’m self employed - i.e. no sick pay, holiday pay etc.

Pump all is "option 3" I believe. Typo?

You current net worth is my target networth for my retirement  Grin Anything over 500k, and I am done. The closer it gets to $1m, the better it is though.

I guess I'll do option 2, and get 1 step closer to the double digits.

I’m close to mid 30’s, $500,000 isn’t enough for me in the UK. My plan is $2,000,000 - $3,000,000 but everything looks simple on paper doesn’t it.

I will never sell all my bitcoin’s though.

And yes typo - Option 3 lol


Are you factoring in taxes? those are some big numbers. Which are the % brackets on capital gains vs income tax on the UK? How did you acquire your BTC? In the US, I've heard if you hold for 1 year, any income tax that would apply expire and only capital gains apply. However the problem would be explaining to the administration that some guy on a forum paid you to post, that you acquired gains through forks, mining shitcoins and trading them on now dead exchanges years ago, faucets which have been dead for years and you  didn't keep any records... all those things add up into a tax nightmare hard to explain as most likely there's lack of documentation that got lost along the way. It's all licit origin, however, there is a risk they think you are bullshitting. It is a clusterfuck cashing out BTC in any scenario that isn't having purchased BTC in a regulated KYC/AML exchange, at your name with registered ID and keeping all buy and sell records. Other than that, you are playing a lottery in which they may or not think you are a dodgy individual trying to launder money. That's the problem for people that obtain BTC any other ways when they want to cash out. For some odd reason some people think they can simply cash out and "the burden of proof is on state authorities, they must prove im a criminal" as if that was a good idea. There's a lot of people that didn't do anything wrong stuck with BTC's not being able to cash out due fear of authorities, since they can't clearly prove the origin. I wonder how much % of that money is part of the BTC that hasn't moved.
8  Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion on: December 28, 2019, 07:08:40 PM
So apparently, CSWcoin is going to hardfork in the near future. Said hardfork includes the fantastic idea of basically stealing people's unclaimed BTC, which means, if you didn't claim your BSV, those coins will be "confiscated" by CSW-Ayre's mining operation (which I presume are the only people mining the thing). This also includes that satoshi's "1 million" coins will be stolen. According to raw calculations, they'll get $85million. I mean, it's not a lot, but still, this has to be a joke right? am I taking crazy pills? How is people unironically supporting such thing at this point?

I assume most here didn't even bother claiming the coins. I mean, it's such a pain claiming a forked coins, you have to do much for so little, but I don't appreciate CSW getting free money, but still, I may just don't bother.

If this is not the case, correct me if im wrong on the whole thing, but that is what I extracted from what I've read.

Can you link to highlighted, please?
Apart from rumors, i haven' seen anything solid, as it would be very weird.




Gmaxwell did address this on bsv subreddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/bsv/comments/edr0av/massive_replay_theft_coming_to_a_scamchain_near/

And official bsv page says:

https://bitcoinsv.io/2019/12/23/bitcoin-sv-blocking-potential-p2sh-replay-attack-after-genesis-hard-fork/

Quote
Mitigation

In response, the Bitcoin SV Node team will update the “Genesis” hard fork specification by upgrading the rule rejecting the P2SH script pattern from a policy rule to a consensus rule.  That is the specific script template “OP_HASH160 <hash> OP_EQUAL” will not be allowed in new outputs and this rule will be directly implemented in the Bitcoin SV Node software.  Whilst unfortunate to restrict the usage of a particular script pattern, we note that the same effect can be achieved using variations of the script pattern e.g. “OP_SHA256 OP_RIPEMD160 <hash> OP_EQUAL”.

This change closes the attack vector and mitigates the need for honest miners to forcibly reject blocks containing theft transactions.  Whilst this could have triggered a valuable demonstration of the principle of honest miners acting punitively against dishonest miners, the public disclosure by Mr. Maxwell raises the potential cost to those miners to an unacceptable level.

Note: The theory is that it is argued if there were any "mistakes" here, and stealing funds was always part of the plan, they just got caught by gmaxwell.

I don't understand any of this.  I read the subreddit linked above.  Which coins might be stolen if the worst happens?  What does it mean for those of us who have bitcoins stored in segwit addresses and "compatibile" (starting with 3) addresses?




Trying to make any sense out of this clusterfuck. So apparently (and I forgot about this) Bitcoin SV did fork from Bitcoin Cash. Now, on BCH addresses:
Quote
When Bitcoin Cash (BCH) was created, it shared the same address format as bitcoin. In an effort to alleviate any confusion for users of both digital currencies, BCH developers later proposed a new unique format for BCH addresses called CashAddr. This new address format will help users more easily distinguish between bitcoin and BCH addresses. The updated format only changes how BCH addresses are displayed, not the underlying private and public keys.

Each BCH address also has a “legacy address,” which is its corresponding bitcoin address. Going forward, the Blockchain wallet will only display the corresponding CashAddr addresses. Users can continue to send and receive using legacy BCH addresses, but we recommend using the new format for an optimal user experience.

So the way I see it is that, people affected by this, will be the ones that had unclaimed BCH which remained in legacy addresses, but only the amounts that be sitting on p2sh... so to put it simple, any unclaimed amounts sitting on addresses that don't begin with 1 can be stolen. This proves in practice, an scenario in which the schelling point to hold your coins is addresses that begin with 1, and nothing else. Nobody will ever be stupid enough to break backwards-compatibility with addresses that begin with 1 (the original format) so seems reasonable to hold your coins in such format.

Now, if you bother with the clusterfuck that is claiming coins from a fork, then go for it, but a lot of people may simply don't even care they lose those coins all things considered. I mean, I would hate giving those guys "free money", but at this point I can't be fucking bothered with any of this nonsense, im trying to relax and enjoy the holidays, last thing on my mind is having to deal with this insanity to be frank. Remember that it requires that you move the entirety of your holdings, then download some dodgy software, then have to sync the entire blockchain of said altcoin, copy the empty wallet after you've moved your funds in there, and finally dump the damn thing. All of this without screwing up in the process.
9  Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion on: December 28, 2019, 03:27:46 AM
So apparently, CSWcoin is going to hardfork in the near future. Said hardfork includes the fantastic idea of basically stealing people's unclaimed BTC, which means, if you didn't claim your BSV, those coins will be "confiscated" by CSW-Ayre's mining operation (which I presume are the only people mining the thing). This also includes that satoshi's "1 million" coins will be stolen. According to raw calculations, they'll get $85million. I mean, it's not a lot, but still, this has to be a joke right? am I taking crazy pills? How is people unironically supporting such thing at this point?

I assume most here didn't even bother claiming the coins. I mean, it's such a pain claiming a forked coins, you have to do much for so little, but I don't appreciate CSW getting free money, but still, I may just don't bother.

If this is not the case, correct me if im wrong on the whole thing, but that is what I extracted from what I've read.

Can you link to highlighted, please?
Apart from rumors, i haven' seen anything solid, as it would be very weird.




Gmaxwell did address this on bsv subreddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/bsv/comments/edr0av/massive_replay_theft_coming_to_a_scamchain_near/

And official bsv page says:

https://bitcoinsv.io/2019/12/23/bitcoin-sv-blocking-potential-p2sh-replay-attack-after-genesis-hard-fork/

Quote
Mitigation

In response, the Bitcoin SV Node team will update the “Genesis” hard fork specification by upgrading the rule rejecting the P2SH script pattern from a policy rule to a consensus rule.  That is the specific script template “OP_HASH160 <hash> OP_EQUAL” will not be allowed in new outputs and this rule will be directly implemented in the Bitcoin SV Node software.  Whilst unfortunate to restrict the usage of a particular script pattern, we note that the same effect can be achieved using variations of the script pattern e.g. “OP_SHA256 OP_RIPEMD160 <hash> OP_EQUAL”.

This change closes the attack vector and mitigates the need for honest miners to forcibly reject blocks containing theft transactions.  Whilst this could have triggered a valuable demonstration of the principle of honest miners acting punitively against dishonest miners, the public disclosure by Mr. Maxwell raises the potential cost to those miners to an unacceptable level.

Note: The theory is that it is argued if there were any "mistakes" here, and stealing funds was always part of the plan, they just got caught by gmaxwell.
10  Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion on: December 28, 2019, 01:54:05 AM
So apparently, CSWcoin is going to hardfork in the near future. Said hardfork includes the fantastic idea of basically stealing people's unclaimed BTC, which means, if you didn't claim your BSV, those coins will be "confiscated" by CSW-Ayre's mining operation (which I presume are the only people mining the thing). This also includes that satoshi's "1 million" coins will be stolen. According to raw calculations, they'll get $85million. I mean, it's not a lot, but still, this has to be a joke right? am I taking crazy pills? How is people unironically supporting such thing at this point?

I assume most here didn't even bother claiming the coins. I mean, it's such a pain claiming a forked coins, you have to do much for so little, but I don't appreciate CSW getting free money, but still, I may just don't bother.

If this is not the case, correct me if im wrong on the whole thing, but that is what I extracted from what I've read.
11  Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion on: November 02, 2019, 04:43:47 PM
wait pereira you think the price would go or stay down if they made it illegal
i think it would go up up up whatever the stage in emission rate

I believe the initial shock would be negative for the price. Also my scenario includes mining operations being shut down, so with less hashrate comes lower price. Of course difficulty would adjust and someone elsewhere would find a good opportunity cost and open up mining operations. So things would go through this awkward phase were all exchanges with high liquidity are shut down, main market goes OTC... im talking really underground stuff, like going back to 2012. Eventually, long term hard money always wins, which means people that accumulated here get the fruits of understanding how hard money wins long term.

So either way, 1 million by 2032 or 100k by 2032 = rich.

What I think would skyrocket BTC automatically is if government made physical cash illegal, which I believe will happen somewhere next decade... so that's another thing to consider.
12  Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion on: November 02, 2019, 04:06:18 PM
And onto price predictions, the current 2 scenarios I consider are:

1) 100k by 2022
2) 100k by 2032

Scenario 2 would have a very long cryptowinter, giving you the opportunity to stack tons of cheap BTCs. This scenario completes an hyperwave hitting around 1k-ish as the lowest low before a new ATH. However things are leaning up towards scenario 1), which would mean 1MM by 2032, but also means you'll have less BTC in your pocket.

Scenario 2 would need to include global warfare against Bitcoin. Like governments going all-in against BTC, closing ALL exchanges, threatening with possession of BTC as illegal, closing all ongoing institutional brokerage activities, no Bakkt, CME, ETF, none of that, all is cancelled. Making mining illegal, having the POTUS shitting on BTC every so often on Twitter.. you get the idea. BTC would be really underground during this period. I don't rule this scenario out because things can change fast and governments can become increasingly tyrannical during hyperinflation times. This would mean really cheap coins for a long time. During this time demoralization would be high, so it would be possible to stack at low prices. Once reality hits in as halving go on, panic buying would kick in eventually, specially by 2032 when the emission rate becomes almost flat.

I don't understand why people are ruling out this scenario. We have never faced a full blown attack, and I think it's eventually coming, which would fit this long crypto winter period I describe. Sure, like I said scenario 1 looks like it's forming, but things can change fast, fundamentals are not shown on TA.
13  Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion on: November 02, 2019, 03:54:36 PM
Well I dream for 100k

Me too but I think it’s a realistic outcome. Think of the lifestyle $100,000 per BTC will give us.

People say oh the govt thugs (police, customs, army) won't come to bitcoiners' houses to arrest them for being bitcoiners because they'd be being paid in worthless dollars or other fiat. This is naive. They'll come and shake us down for free.

Good luck to them getting access to my coins.

In order to have a "rich lifestyle" you'll have to have your bitcoins taxed anyway, so it goes against your claim of "Good luck to them getting access to my coins."...

Suppose you have 100 BTC and price is $100k per coin, and you want to live a $10million lifestyle. You spend $1million on a nice condo and $100k on a car, you sell enough to make a decent yearly income from dividends, and so on... do you think the government will not ask where the money came from? because they will and they ask for origin of funds. What will you say and what data you have to back it up?

A lot of people live under the radar without flashy things because they couldn't prove the origin of their wealth (even if it's of licit origin, they didn't save the required documentation to prove so) and don't want to risk getting into a huge problem, so they are rich but still live a rather frugal lifestyle.

In order to bypass all of that with top accountants and lawyers I guess you would need a serious (9 figure or $billionaire) wealth, otherwise you can't pretend to be a big guy above laws.

14  Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion on: November 02, 2019, 03:04:05 AM
forks are on a different chain, not the same, and don't trade the same. I doubt you'll find anyone who will do 1 BTC = 1 BCH = 1 BSV when you're trading it.

You have not prevented copying of the data.  By your own admission, you have three forks of the same chain, all copies.  The copying has already been completed.  Case closed.  All you're referring to now is claiming one confidence game scam is better than the other two, because that's the only selection criteria for which one someone picks, not longest chain, their simple opinion.  A faith or confidence based monetary system is complete garbage.  We already have fiat if you want confidence game scams.

If they were actual copies (clones), they would trade at 1:1:1. What we have is counterfeit Bitcoin, chinese Bitcoin if you will, vs real Bitcoin.
Just because something it's physical in the classical, tangible sense, it doesn't mean there aren't copies, and there aren't markets for them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUyCO3FXHS4
15  Other / Serious discussion / $100K by 2022 vs $100k by 2032 on: November 02, 2019, 02:34:26 AM
Those are the two scenarios im contemplating right now.

$100k by 2022: We continue going through the current (which in my book, has already started) accumulation period to shoot up to a parabolic move to 100k by 2022, then crash an 70-80%. We do not revisit lower lows. $1million

$100k by 2032: We go throught a "crypto-winter" of sorts, we visit lower lows (as low as 1k ish, completing the model of an Hyperwave). We get to pic a fuckton of cheap coins for a while because Bitcoin becomes pretty much dead again by normies and stablishment. Which means good news as we spend years buying coins in this limbo of 1k-3k. By 2032, it shots up to 100k as people wake up to all the time they've lost saving fiat instead of Bitcoin.

On both scenarios we end up rich:

Scenario 1, your current BTC will be worth a fuckton by 2032, even if you are not able to increase your stack by much anymore in terms of BTC as it becomes increasingly harder to add in +1 BTC due the higher prices. You are now rich.

Scenario 2, you have accumulated a lot of BTC through the crypto winter period, which means that by the time it goes to 100k, you are sitting on a lot of BTC, also rich.
16  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Re: Rapid disconnections when connecting to Node on: November 02, 2019, 02:14:14 AM
The socket recv error Connection reset by peer (104) message happened to me while having Comodo Firewall enabled. So do this:


1) Close Comodo Firewall
2) Delete "chainstate" folder
3) Delete "peers.dat"

It will take a while as it generates the fresh files. I told you to delete those to generate them from scratch just in case. While it syncs be sure to disable ALL posible firewalls (and this may include going into the actual router setup, not only on your linux file) and watch the log again.

Edit: I see it's a Pi.

Well other things to try, discard it's an I/O error... can you plug another HDD and try a fresh install there?

And are you using an VPS?

And another thing to try.. can you try with 0.17? Some things changed since 0.18 so maybe you have something wrong in your config, for instance:

The rpcallowip option can no longer be used to automatically listen on all network interfaces. Instead, the rpcbind parameter must be used to specify the IP addresses to listen on. Listening for RPC commands over a public network connection is insecure and should be disabled, so a warning is now printed if a user selects such a configuration. If you need to expose RPC in order to use a tool like Docker, ensure you only bind RPC to your localhost, e.g. docker run [...] -p 127.0.0.1:8332:8332 (this is an extra :8332 over the normal Docker port specification).


17  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Game theory involving Quantum Resistance protocol on: November 02, 2019, 02:03:45 AM
What if pools and wallet companies and devs decided (for the interests of their multi-billion business) to block terrorist wallets, e.g. because of US authorities threatening the whole community?  Huh

you are comparing apples and oranges!

your other arguments are like saying our browsers must not have stopped rejecting SHA1 SSL certificates because some people might be lazy in upgrading their certificate to a more secure hash algorithm even though there was a transition period given to everyone to move to new algorithms! instead they should have given the "lazy server" a workaround to push their SHA1 certificates as valid!!!
It is the true apples and oranges comparison, what you are doing. A digital asset, especially a cryptocurrency deposit is absolutely different artifact. I'm done rehashing the same argument over and over, it is the code, a constitutional right, for users not to be worried about developments and forks, their assets should be kept immune. period.

And it is not all about laziness (which is absolutely a right), people may be away for a long period of time from tech news, maybe they are paranoid about tracking/surveillance systems being watching them and trying to locate them, whales may feel uncomfortable with moving their strategic wallets, some may possibly lose their keys temporarily, others may have deposited their keys in a safe box to be handed to the heirs in a special occasion, ...

Plus, if missing a deadline should have a penalty it is not necessarily losing all funds. In my proposal users that you are calling them lazy have tp pay for it but in a reasonable way.


If Bitcoin wants to be digital gold, you can't be having arbitrary countdowns in which you are going to lose all of your affected funds unless you move them from A to B. That is what has been my point for a while.

However, what do you really and concisely propose? I have not seen convincing arguments, when it comes to avoiding the need for funds being moved in case of an exploit on the algorithm (QC attack or otherwise).

Perhaps it's something we can't avoid, and every generation or so, you will need to do this, at least once in your lifetime.
With gold, the analogy could be that you may need to reallocate all of your holdings... the place in which they are sitting isn't supposedly safe forever.
18  Local / Español (Spanish) / Re: La visión de Proyectos para Bitcoin y Altcoins por fín ya cambió? on: October 11, 2019, 11:50:36 PM
A mí me parece bastante ilustrativo el post siguiente:

Even after the onset of the bear market in January 2018, ICOs were still happening at a rate
of well over a hundred each month, but by 2019 the flow of projects had dwindled to almost nothing.



ICO PROCEEDS DROP TO $338M..

According to figures from cryptocurrency analytics firm LongHash and published on October 1,
ICOs are no longer profitable. They may even disappear completely in 2020, said researchers.
https://bitcoinist.com/icos-will-disappear-in-2020-as-data-shows-95-funding-decline/

But here on BitcoinTalk we see new [ANN] threads and [BOUNTIES]
Is this just smoke and mirrors or does this forum know something researchers do not?
El análisis original habla sobre ICOs, y no contempla IEOs, pero vamos, que primo-hermanos …


Ese grafico es brutal. No veremos ese volumen de ICOs, altcoins, y en general "movidas raras" y exoticas de indole "criptomonedica" como lo vimos en 2017 con el pump a $20k. Vamos, o eso creo. Quiza veamos otra ronda de pumps de shitcoins varias en el siguiente rally a ATH de Bitcoin, pero no le doy mas que una oportunidad, sera la ultima para soltar lastre de altcoins. Para el halving de 2024 no preveo que existan altcoins, fuera de un par de proyectos, y para el de 2028, coincidiendo con la llegada de la "agenda 2030", preveo una dominacion absoluta de BTC con precios que ahora ni alcanzamos a imaginar. Para entonces BTC estara consolidado como valor refugio global, habiendo sobrevivido a lo que, preveo, puede ser un periodo muy oscuro de un ataque frontal de los gobiernos con baneos masivos, en algun momento en la decada de los 20's. Los que hagan hodl durante ese periodo son los que ganaran la partida.
19  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Re: Desktop wallet: any risk of hardware backdoor? on: October 11, 2019, 11:23:30 PM
Not every Intel... you should be safe if you use a Core2Duo, but only if you Libreboot it, which means you will need to do hardware changes unless you buy one that is directly modified by someone you can trust. There are some Laptops like the Thinkpad x60 which only require you to flash the bios and do some changes without modifying the hardware.

If you want it to be ME free by default, you have to go as back as Pentium 4...

With AMD, you have PSP, so it's the same, and you can't disable it, we know less about the PSP than the ME. You would need to back in time too, I think 2013 was the last year it was PSP free. Still faster than a Raspberry.

There are some workaround against IME, and Purism and System76 sell laptops with the IME disabled. They all have Intel laptops, though, not sure how things look with AMD.

Purism aren't safe.. it's an overpriced gimmick. You can't disable IME with the modern CPU's that are used in Purism laptops. It's a workaround with Coreboot but you still have Intel's propietary binary blobs. There's no workaround, you need old hardware, and you need to do the hardware changes I said, if you want to use Intel and be as private as possible. You need Libreboot, not Coreboot, and thus you are limited to a very small array of hardware. Same applies for System76. They are using i5s and i7s.

With AMD there's nothing to do, other than buying older hardware.
20  Economy / Economics / Re: The re-accumulation period is in on: October 11, 2019, 11:13:25 PM
2) Huge updates coming for Bitcoin, start reading on this for instance: https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.10518
That's bullish for those who are genuinely interested in Bitcoin. I doubt most people here have a clue about what upgrades Bitcoin will undergo in the forthcoming years. Most people focus on 'when moon?' Anything beyond that is unknown territory and for that reason will avoid dabbling with it.

How much are you buying monthly?
I'm more of a so called smart buyer. I follow the trend and utilize it to the best of my ability. I plan to accumulate somewhere between $7000-$7500 and increase each entry point the lower we go. I did the same during the crash from $6000 to $3000 last year. While people don't dare to touch Bitcoin, I am a happy satoshi stacker.

This discussion should be on Bitcoin Discussion bro, I don't see we are talking about economics here, just saying...
If you want this thread to turn into a spammers cesspool then definitely move this thread to Bitcoin discussion.  Roll Eyes

The moonboysa re the ones that came last and pump the price to insane levels. The smart people are starting to buy now, while learning about all the good news regarding the tech. I was really hoping to retest $3000 again and get myself a big chunk but I may be starting to become biased and deluded with a perfect entry. Im once again trapped in this feeling of wanting to buy now, but a part of me tells me to keep waiting, because we may see another dump. This is how I lost $3k entry point last time on Dec 12th...
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 ... 218 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!