Have your parents drop you off at Walmart and have them pick you up in a few hours.  Spend the time looking for spare change people drop in the parking lot.  Honestly you make 1000% what you would make mining with obsolete hardware.  Now you probably will only make a few cents and hour but like you said it is "pure profit".  If that seems like a huge waste of time for a small gain, well it is.  The truth is what you are trying to do with a bunch of obsolete PCs is worse though.

You can do that right now.   Before the nlocktime has been reached nodes will not relay/store the unconfirmed txn but you could print it out and be sure that it can't be included in a block.  Maybe someone should make a fancy looking cert with a qr code and call it a Bitcoin Certificate Of Deposit.   You could give them as gifts and the recipient would not be able to spend them until the locktime has passed.

For a P2PkH address it would be 1QLbz7JHiBTspS962RLKV8GndWFwi5j6Qr and yes it is 34 digits.


You are right any version below a certain value will be 34 or less digits.  I was thinking full bytes but as you point out it is the bits that matter.  Even P2SH (0x05) only needs 4 bits.

So 34 *log2(58) = 199 bits.  As long as the value to be encoded is less than or equal to the max 199 bit number it won't require 35 bytes.  So with a 160 bit hash and 32 bit checksum that leaves 7 bits for version.  The largest 7 bit uint is 127 (0x7f).  

Just a heads up (which I didn't realize until now) testnet uses version 196 (0xc4) for P2SH addresses.

On edit: deleted prior post.  I realized I misunderstood azeteki's post when I saw Danny's.

Yeah that makes sense now.  Well I made my db fields 35 bytes so I guess I am "version 60+" compliant.


Just to be clear those are the resulting leading Base58 digits.  P2PkH is 0x00 and P2SH is 0x05 on main-net and 0x6f and 0xc4 on testnet.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Address


Decoded an address consists of
20 byte payload/hash
4 byte checksum
1 byte version
--------------------
total: 25 bytes

34 symbols * Log2(58)/8 bytes  per symbol = 24.896 bytes

So 35 digits?

That is a false conclusion.  Flip four coins at once and check if they are all heads.  What is the probability of that happening?  1:16 (2^4) right?  Will you get a set of all heads exactly every sixteen attempts?  Does that mean the outcome of a fair coin flip is not randomly distributed?  Of course not.

The expected time between blocks will be 10 minutes (if current hashrate exactly matches the estimated hashrate) but the actual times between blocks will be a Poisson distribution.  This is true even if there is a perfectly random distribution to hash outputs.  Transaction times of 1/5th to 5x the expected are not that rare in a poisson distribution.  Mathematically prove that Bitcoin block times don't follow a poisson distribution to some level of confidence and you might be able to say that the hash outputs are not randomly distributed.  All the evidence to date suggests they are.

I don't feel these are particularly good reasons to not use an existing standard.

RFC6979 is already incorporated into multiple libraries (bitcoinj, NBitcoin, bitcoinjs-lib, python-ecdsa, etc).  In the case of bitcoinjs-lib they claim it is used by blockchain.info so potentially the largest web wallet in the world has the ability to use deterministic signatures right now (if they aren't already).  I haven't verified this claim maybe someone from blockchain.info can verify if they are using bitcoinjs.

As gmaxwell pointed out RFC6979 can be used with HMAC-SHA512.  All existing implementations use HMAC-SHA256 but that isn't a requirement rather a choice. 

The "full" RFC6979 is rather complex as it is a universal solution which handles lots of edge cases which don't apply to Bitcoin signatures.  From bitcoinjs the "route" taken by Bitcoin signatures makes implementing a Bitcoin only subset pretty straight forward.


https://github.com/bitcoinjs/bitcoinjs-lib/blob/master/src/ecdsa.js

Yes.  The private keys need to be extracted from the original wallet and imported into a new wallet.

Blockchain.info has a bad habit of relaying txns which other nodes would simply drop.  It makes it worse when their wallet also creates txns that other clients wouldn't allow it to create.

Most of the network has either never received the original txn or they dropped it because it had insufficient fee/priority.

Then they will eventually drop it, a lot of nodes already have.  You will need to import the keys into a new wallet so you can create a "double spend" which pays the minimum fee.

I wouldn't call an unconstitutional search to be a technicality and I certainly would hope that a judge wouldn't either.  That being said we don't really know how strong the claim of a 4th amendment violation is.  A judge may disagree and allow the evidence to be presented.

People started following in his footsteps within days.

Still I love the low quality reporting by coinfinance

Well no that is not the case.  Evidence from an illegal search can be excluded on the grounds that it violated the defendants rights.  It is also possible that any subsequence evidence obtained could also be excluded "fruit of the poisonous tree".  That is what the lawyer is seeking.

Even if a judge agrees and excludes some or all of the evidence, it is possible to sustain the indictment using evidence which isn't excluded.  On the other hand it is is possible that with the evidence excluded the government will not be able to meet the minimum burden required.  The defense would then move to have the charges dropped with prejudice (jeopardy has already attached) on the grounds that the prosecution has not met its prima facie case.  This could be done immediately and it could also be done when the prosecution rests its case.  It would be a huge victory for DPR but there is no magic "bad search = drop charges" law in the US.

The error may be due to the fact the BCT adds hidden spaces to long strings.  Always write txn related stuff in code blocks.  However the user doesn't really want the old txn pushed it is actually a good thing if it has poor propogation as it will make it easier to "double spend" it with a txn that has the proper fee.

Correction.  120V and 240V circuits use the same wiring.  Wire gauge is based on current not voltage.


As a heads up most electricians that do residential work are more familiar with straight connectors but most PDUs use locking connectors.  Make sure they understand you will need an outlet with a locking connector if that is the plug your PDU uses.   For example a NEMA L6-30R not a NEMA 6-30R.  The L indicates locking connector.


By code on continual loads, the current should be 20% lower when than the nameplate rating.  So 24A or 5,760W on a 30A PDU.

Well nobody runs a 1200W PSU @ 1200W of load.  30A is good for 5760W (after 20% derate).   30A PDU are dirt cheap if you are willing to buy used.   Datacenters go through tens of thousands of these so there is never ending supply.



AP9571 is one example but there are plenty of other models which work equally well.  New ones are $150+ but used ones tend to go for $30 to $50 each.  A basic PDU is pretty much a high current power strip with a breaker.  It pretty much works or it doesn't so I have never had a problem buying used.

You will need to install* a 30A double pole breaker and NEMA L6-30R outlet for each one.  The AP9571 comes prewired with a matching NEMA L6-30P plug.  By the NEC, continual loads are derated 20% so you only get 24A usable from a 30A branch circuit.  One circuit (breaker, branch wiring, outlet, pdu) is good for 5.76KW (240V * 30A * 80%) which is probably more than most people can handle.  Remember electricity in = heat out.   So for those with dreams of building 100KW farms I would say start "small" you can build out in 5.76KW segments.  Even 5.76KW is a lot of heat.


* I can be done DIY, I put two in so I could power a 11KW GPU farm but this isn't a beginner project.  Remember electricity kills instantly and without warning.  Parts on the inside of the circuit breaker panel may remain energized with lethal voltage even if breakers are off.  It isn't a nuclear reactor but it does require some competence and good tools never hurt.

I think he was writing it as 208V/240V because it is the same exact connectors for 208V single phase and 240V.  Same wiring configuration, same plugs, same outlets, same PDUs, etc.  Never seen a PDU that didn't work on both 208V and 240V.  All the components have to be rated to 240V anyways or they would be a code violation.   

Well no difficulty is also adjusted normally every 2016 blocks.

So in 2016 blocks the difficulty will rise based on the time of the last 2016 blocks just like it does on mainnet every 2016 blocks.  Exactly the same rules, exactly the same outcome.  If hashrate is constant that would be two weeks but it could be two months or two minutes.  

The only difference between the networks is that tesnet has an "anti-dirtbag reset" built into it.   If (in addition to all the normal difficulty adjustment rules) there is no block found in the last 20 minutes then difficulty is instantly and automatically reset to 1.  Note this is horribly insecure to use on a mainnet as it could easily be exploited by an attacker due to the loose timestamp rules but testnet isn't designed to be secure from reorgs.

Well US service is 240V.  It is 240V split phase producing 120V between either leg and the ground and 240V between both legs.  There are no 120V mains in the US (or it would be very non-standard and archaic).

If no blocks are found on testnet in 20 minutes it will reset difficulty back to 1.  This is done because difficulty is suppose to remain low to allow easy block creation even with development CPU but at one time some idiots would dump TH/s on testnet drive difficulty to insane levels and leave.

Also difficulty 1 on testnet is equal to difficulty 0.5 on mainnet.  That threw me off the first I was looking at block hashes.

Why would you want to use 120V?  PC power supplies can run on either.  240V is more efficient, cheaper, and puts less stress/heat on the power supplies.