ETF users don't need on-chain fees  I never said they need them  I never said you said that  But you never said that I said that you said that. Never mind, I'm going to get a drink |
|
|
|
ETF finally got approved ETF users don't need on-chain fees |
|
|
|
BTW I am limited by internet. RAM (8gb) should not be an issue because Bitcoin core is the only thing that is running on my device. Nothing else on the foreground or background as you can see on the screenshot (only 50% ram occupied).
Just checked your graph. It seems progress decreased as you got closer to sync. Another user said the same thing.
Keep an eye on the size of your chainstate directory. Once that grows, your RAM won't be sufficient anymore. |
|
|
|
Does the progress gets affected, for example slow down as we get closer to sync or when less blocks are left?  I made a graph for that, when limited by RAM. If you're limited by internet instead of RAM, your result may be different. |
|
|
|
don't click on shady links such as "GET FREE BITCOINS HERE" This is one of the things that got me into Bitcoin back in the days |
|
|
|
Here are the unbanned users as of yet: Only one of them created one post since the unban. If they only become active once their signature ban expires, does that mean the "second chances" failed? |
|
|
|
Have a look at the 30 day mempool fees:  This supports my theory that only one entity is responsible for the massive Ordinal spam. Recently, they had changed their "tactics" from paying $40 per dust transaction to abusing ViaBTC's free transaction accelerator. That lead to a very stable flood of transactions paying 23 sat/vbyte. That stopped after ViaBTC reduced the availability from 100 to 20 transactions per hour, and the spammer switched to paying around 30 sat/vbyte instead. That's no longer enough to make fees go up higher, but it created a "floor" under the fees for anyone who wants his transaction to be confirmed. There are now so many transactions waiting at 23 sat/vbyte, that the purging fee is not much lower than that. I can't tell how this will continue, but for now mempool is no longer increasing. |
|
|
|
one of my main target was to introduce Bitcoin and this forum to as many people as I could. Why? I like my privacy, and talking about Bitcoin to strangers is terrible OPSEC. When I was first introduced into this forum, I was overwhelmed by the workload Like any other forum, you join it for a reason ( like this). There is no "workload", it's not a job, unless you joined with the intention of earning money from your signature, and in that case I think you joined for the wrong reasons. No, I don't have a hard time because I don't even try to convince anyone of anything related to Bitcoin. If I hear someone talking about it I play dumb. The less people know that I have Bitcoin, the better. And the less I would even think of talking about it while traveling around. You want to put a bull's eye on yourself. We even use code words at home, so the kids don't start talking about Bitcoin in school. Now that I think about it: in a way, OPSEC restricts Bitcoin adoption. People might think you are rich when you introduce them or keep speaking about Bitcoin. Knowing someone is rich isn't really a problem, if your Lambo costs half a million, it's registered in your name and you'll have insurance. Bitcoin is like cash, and you don't go around telling people your backpack is filled with cash. |
|
|
|
Yes it is 100 kb. But I have a question that I wanted to have asked in the past. For legacy address, it is 100 kb, but what about other addresses that are not using bytes but virtual bytes instead like segwit? Let us say the input is 750, having over 110 kb but the virtual size is 51044 vkb. Will such transaction be able to broadcast until it reaches 100 vkb? I'm not sure. If I ever have that many inputs to consolidate, I'd probably do it in more smaller transactions anyway. |
|
|
|
If the hack happened for using the same password and teleporting the account then only the admin/moderators of that site may know the password. I read the word "teleporting" several times, and it turns out to be something offered by a shitcoin forum. Are people dumb enough to share their password with them for extra "perks"? If so, that's not even a hack, it's just giving it away. It's not a good practice to use the same passwords on different platforms Don't be subtle: it's stupid Get a password manager, don't store your password database in the cloud, and make regular backups. It takes a while to set up and change passwords for everything, but it's worth it. if his laptop/computer/mobile phone is used by his friends then the occurrence might happen by one of his friends who does not require anything change. That's why computers have user accounts. Nobody uses my account, but I don't mind creating new accounts for friends. There's no need to give others access to your data. |
|
|
|
Honestly, I'd probably feel pretty safe doing a small to medium-sized trade with digaran, so his received-feedback seems a bit over-the-top to me, like he's had a microscope put on him and had all his mistakes blown out of proportion and then hung around his neck for all to see. He does post a lot of things that I don't agree with or that leave me scratching my head, but there is good stuff sometimes buried in digaran's posts, and some part of me wonders how much better his posts might skew if he felt less attacked/ostracized. I agree, that's why I once in a while read some of his posts, even though I have him on ignore. He could be a good forum member, but he seems to prefer trolling. We do not nee any strange so-called "ban evading" rule. Account farmers would love it if only one of their accounts gets banned after breaking the rules. |
|
|
|
Say I have thousands of inputs and the total size exceed the block size. What will happen? I can't sign the tx? As far as I know, the limit per transaction is 100kB. Obviously the block size is a hard limit. |
|
|
|
I didn't purchase the private keys so I am not out of pocket How did you get them? Normally, when I create my own private key and fund it, I know my funds are there. |
|
|
|
I am exhausted by the new rule already. I absolutely HATE and despise having to live with a constant fear of getting auto banned for writing a post freely. I don't think you understand what Autoban means: it's not automatic, it's just a (weird) name for a manual ban. Unless you put in an effort to break the rules, I don't think you have much to worry about! I'm pretty sure I can mention [banned mixer] and [banned mixer] (and yes, I checked the Preview for this, and then changed the URLs into [banned mixer] myself just to be sure) without getting banned, simply because the URLs won't even show up. You'll get banned if you start obfuscating the URL to avoid the wordfilter, so by promoting k.i.t.c.h.e.n.a.i.d.com for the best mixers (according to my wife). As long as you don't do crazy shit, I don't think you have anything to worry about. |
|
|
|
|
Thanks again for your flawless timing!
|
|
|
|
In 2015, El Salvador had 6656 homicides and one of highest murder rates out of all the countries in the world
In 2022, President @nayibbukele’s campaign against organized crime had managed to decrease the figure to 496 homicides
El Salvador just closed 2023 with 154 homicides! I remember the outrage up to the media in my country, when El Salvador arrested 15000 (suspected) gang members. Well, guess what: arresting criminals works  |
|
|
|
I can fill my fake blocks with real transactions taken from the real blockchain, thereby padding them to full size and padding the UTXO set to full size as well. In fact, I could probably just use the last x number of real blocks and add in the fake transactions - without running a full node he isn't verifying anything anyway. Wouldn't the user notice something's wrong the moment his Bitcoin Core can't download new blocks? Or are you going to run many nodes to support this (hypothetical) scam? Or conversely if he does want to verify but only the most recent x number of blocks, then I just do the same thing but add my fake transactions in to a historic block he isn't going to verify. That would be in chainstate, right? |
|
|
|
You connect to my server, and I show you 500 fake blocks with a difficulty of 1 which I just generated a minute ago. How do you know my blocks are fake unless you verify them yourself? This would actually be really good to do as a proof of concept. But still: the user will know soon enough when he realized blocks and chainstate are too small, and his new deposits don't show up. |
|
|
|
The mixer account from this accusation still has a link to his site in his forum profile That's one backlink that can be removed, but the mixer's name is like "DomainExtension", which still makes it very obvious. |
|
|
|
IBD, why every node has to do it? You can of course use prunednode.today, and download a pruned node. I just tried: it took my server 75 seconds. But you'll never be absolutely sure it's completely legit. And if enough people do it, someone will find a way to scam them. This guy knows a thing or 2 about the subject: FWIW, I just removed a nearly year old post with a .bitcoin directory download that would have stolen all your bitcoins.
Case in point as to why these "download the blockchain" links are a disaster. God knows how many people got robbed due to it. But the chainstate database/etc. aren't intended as external interfaces and I would be totally unsurprised if there was a way for malicious data in them to result in code execution. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
