|
IF there is replay protection, no mid-chain pre-mine etc, essentially a clean fork at some block but with a new mining algorithm, then this is a nice backup of Bitcoin and a good test so that if mining becomes too centralized or under attack from a government that controls miners for example, it provides a codebase that could do another hard fork to break the control log jam quite quickly.
|
|
|
|
A couple of points: 1. Now they are saying no mid-chain premine - https://moneymorning.com/2017/10/06/the-bitcoin-gold-hard-fork-explained/2. Mining this chain will be more decentralized than the main chain. Particularly once ethereum switches to POS due to it being, 3. GPU minable. To me it seems like a better fork than BCH (didn’t buy any BCH) since it is wide open to GPU miners vs requiring ASICs. |
|
|
|
I exported private keys from MultiBit Classic in a file. After I open the file, copy its contents, after with the command importprivkey "my private key" I trying to import into Bitcoin ABC. It returns: Invalid private key encoding (code -5). What am I doing wrong?
Is the first character of the private key 5? D? Or C? Or something else? |
|
|
|
An address is a visualization of a Public Key.
Each Public Key has ONE correspondending private key ("which holds the BTC").
That is untrue. Each P2PKH public key has on average 2 96 possible private keys. In all likelihood you will only ever know 1 of them, but many more exist. No, that statement is true. Each ADDRESS has on average 2 96. Each public key has exactly one private key and vice versa. Public keys and addresses are not the same thing. I think there was a confusion of terminology 😀 |
|
|
|
An address is a visualization of a Public Key.
Each Public Key has ONE correspondending private key ("which holds the BTC").
Your Wallet generates Public/private key pairs.
If you have 0.1 btc on 1 address and 0.2 on another.. then your Wallet shows Balance of 0.3 BTC.
On Block Explorer you can search for addresses...
So 1 will Show 0.1 and the other 0.2 BTC.
That is untrue. Each P2PKH public key has on average 2 96 possible private keys. In all likelihood you will only ever know 1 of them, but many more exist. |
|
|
|
Hello, I don't think a lot of people, other than the real developers and hardcore fans :p , are subscribed to the bitcoin-dev mailing list. About a week ago I read something interesting. It is about Address expiration time added to BIP-173. Sometimes we have problems when an old address is used by someone who pays us frequently and we could just not want to use that address anymore. If a expiration time is set (and checked by Bob before sending BTC to Alice) we could avoid this uncomfortable situations and, of course, the losing of bitcoins in such transactions. If you want to read about BIP-173 this is the link to it: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0173.mediawikiWhat do you think about Address expiration settings? There was a lot of discussion about it on the list: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-September/thread.htmlI know I just wanted to bring the discussion to the forum because, as I said before, not a lot of people is subscribed. Just wanted to make the matter a little bit more public here. At least the forum goes through search engines spiders so people googling for it will read this. I figured you did, but thought a link might be helpful for others coming here so they could get up to speed. |
|
|
|
Any of you guys experienced that your post counts here in bitcointalk.org are being decreased and some posts being deleted? Just noticed that my post count went down from 96 to 90. I applied for a signature campaign and when i went to check back, my application is mo where to be found. Also i have noticed that some of my earlier posts are not on my profile anymore. Anyone having the same issue?
Perhaps because you are doing things like this post in the wrong section? It belongs in Meta (not bitcoin technical support) since it is not involving bitcoin. [edit: moved] Or you are posting spammy posts? |
|
|
|
Hello, I don't think a lot of people, other than the real developers and hardcore fans :p , are subscribed to the bitcoin-dev mailing list. About a week ago I read something interesting. It is about Address expiration time added to BIP-173. Sometimes we have problems when an old address is used by someone who pays us frequently and we could just not want to use that address anymore. If a expiration time is set (and checked by Bob before sending BTC to Alice) we could avoid this uncomfortable situations and, of course, the losing of bitcoins in such transactions. If you want to read about BIP-173 this is the link to it: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0173.mediawikiWhat do you think about Address expiration settings? There was a lot of discussion about it on the list: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-September/thread.html |
|
|
|
mb creation of the wallet must be limmited, may have any person verification with passport? Create the wallet using the special service with verification, and that service will controll all transactions legality. Block of blockchain will have personal data witch can be read only by "admins"
In that case, it will be able to everyone given something ALWAYS leaks from whomever these “admins” are. Might as well just use PayPal instead of the above. |
|
|
|
|
The more privacy the better. Then individuals can themselves decide if they wish to relinquish some (or all)based on their own beliefs. The nature of freedom.
If one person wants a camera in their bedroom and all their purchases online, that is their business. If another doesn’t, that is their’s too.
|
|
|
|
i was listening to a discussion from a company and they were using a DaPP to pay for an item via Bitcoins. He mentioned that "No risk or volatility and the price is not going to change, the value is not going to change and its fixed to a certain merchant" So it got me to thinking...how could this be? So I came here with my questions..But the consensus seems like its not at all possible
Without knowing more details, they could just accept the payment and immediately sell it for fiat or hedge it somehow. Then there would be almost no price fluctuation risk. Or they could just pair people up via the distributed app between people who were buying and selling and do an instant swap. Hard to say for sure! |
|
|
|
Venezuelan Central Bank convened a symposium in which foreign exchange representatives, known as DICOM, and blockchain private sector experts took part. The discussions covered a wide range of topics ranging from the technical aspects of blockchain to practical guidance on the implementation of tokens. One of the speakers was Ángel Salazar, CEO of the Venezuelan blockchain- OnixCoin company. He explained that the motive behind organising the meeting was to find a way of using the technical capabilities cryptocurrencies in order to strengthen the state economy. https://dowbit.com/venezuela-wants-to-use-cryptocurrencies-potential/The best thing they could do the strengthen the state economy would be to shrink it and let the private economy and freedom grow. Bitcoin is pretty much the opposite of what the Venezuela state’s government is all about - centralized, authoritarian control. |
|
|
|
I make 3 transfers by blockchain wallet and from 9 hrs i have 0 confirmation.... ?Still in peding .,.... what`s wrong anybody know ?
What are the transaction IDs? |
|
|
|
This week, the Segwit2x development team merged a controversial implementation into the project’s Github repository that masks BTC1 nodes from 0.15 version Core nodes. Additionally, the project added opt-in replay protection for Segwit2x transactions.“To be honest, IMHO it was you who started the war by merging the change that disconnects their nodes from the Core’s network,” explained an individual that responded to Maxwell. "We will see how it develops. 96% of the recently mined blocks have “/NYA/” tag inside the coinbase. If the split and the post-fork hashrate distribution ends up with such proportions, your bitcoin Core project is doomed. And the “replay protection” bloating the Core’s UTXO set would be just the final nail in your coffin — I guess that’s what scares you." Read More Here >>> https://news.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-software-wars-segwit2x-node-masking-and-opt-in-replay-protection-merged/ BTC1 by DEFINITION will disconnect from the Bitcoin network as soon as they hard fork. Segregating the network beforehand provides numerous benefits at that point, particularly with regard to network partitioning. Transactions can still be routed between the two networks until the hard fork occurs. Then anything else that BTC1 does is purely for disruptive purposes. And this just demonstrates the recklessness and goals of BTC1 even more. |
|
|
|
Well as far as i know only 2MB will be stored on the blockchain. And the x4 increase thanks to segwit will only impact the nodes, but not the blockchain size.
Anyways i believe this will be very bad for Bitcoin if the sides do not come together and we actually end up with 2 Bitcoins. Could cause confusion, problems, and huge drop in price. Could set us years back.
Nodes store the block chain which includes Segwit transactions. It impacts the block chain size, hence the nodes. Whomever told you otherwise didn't know what they were talking about. |
|
|
|
Ive heard this discussed with block.gyft but I still dont fully understand it. Does anyone have a way to break this down to me
What does the question even mean? Record the value of one bitcoin in dollars? Forever fix the exchange rate of one bitcoin at $4200 per? What exactly are you asking? |
|
|
|
It isn’t. It is just set on your browser to show the dollar value. Click the dollar value to switch it back. |
|
|
|
If 90% or more of the miners supports it then its really core who should add replay protection and change the difficulty adjusting.
So Core should add replay protection via hard fork because some other group that hasn’t rallied consensus to them wants to hard fork? Never mind the complications from forks and rolling out new, well tested, software everywhere in a short period of time. Miners don’t dictate the protocol and it should be incumbent on the hard forkers to add replay protection if they can’t get consensus. Otherwise it seems likely that the goal is only disruption. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
