bot mistake? human mistake in sell order price? or? it is 1minute chart and it was very fast. just want to learn what is behind it based on experienced traders
You really can't tell what happened just by looking at a price chart, but here is my guess: Someone placed a large market sell order that was followed immediately by someone placing a normal market buy order. The ask side was quickly refilled and trading continued normally. |
|
|
|
What I can glean from the responses is that it's not worth increasing the number of TXs per bock because this will significantly increase rate of growth of the Bitcoin blockchain.
You can only conclude that it's not worth it by directly comparing costs and benefits. What is the benefit of increasing the throughput? What is the cost of significantly increasing the rate of growth of the block chain? Produce some concrete analysis and then you can come to a conclusion. |
|
|
|
what is grep command in Linux to find hex private key in my .txt file? i saved it somewhere on a backup drive, im not talking about WIF privatekey
Not an expert but I think this will work: grep -E '[a-fA-F0-9]{64,64}[^a-fA-F0-9]' <file> |
|
|
|
Reduce difficulty to target block time of 2 minutes..
After block solved nodes start timer to 8 minutes..
...
Reduces power consumption by 80%..
I hope I am not repeating what others have already written... Your proposal is ineffective. Regardless of how you structure it, PoW is designed such that the cost of mining approaches the value of the block reward. So, even if you only have 2 minutes of mining, a block reward's worth of energy will be expended in those two minutes. Your proposal is similar to proposals that attempt to get useful work out of mining (such as generating useful information). That also does not work in general because the money gained by using or selling the PoW is spent on more hash rate. Similarly, improving the efficiency of mining equipment is also ineffective because the money saved by efficiency is spent on increasing the hash rate. If a machine uses half the amount of electricity, the miner will run twice as many machines. |
|
|
|
It is not possible for regulators to make it illegal for individuals to own art.
Based on what? There are certain kinds of art that are illegal to possess in most countries today. Anyway, an NFT is not the thing that it represents. An art NFT is not art. So, go ahead and sell your NFT Bitcoins. They are shitcoins and only fools will buy them. |
|
|
|
...it'd realistically be a lot lower than 1/6 because difficulty is a lot lower for smaller blocks afaik since there's only one hash to compute - I *think*...
Your thinking is wrong. The difficulty is the same regardless of the size of the block. I'm assuming the tree is balanced compared to being one sided. If it's not balanced then it will take fewer hash functions once the initial ones are done. But non balanced trees seem quite inefficient. I guess I misunderstood your point. If you are counting the number of times that any SHA-256 hash is computed when building a block, then that depends on several factors (including the number of hashes needed to compute the merkle root). However, those are still only a fraction of the number of hash calculations needed to find a hash that is less than the target hash, and the target hash (which determines the difficulty value) is the same regardless of the size of the block. |
|
|
|
|
The difficulty value is only used by people. The target hash is what is used by the protocol for comparison. So rather than comparing to 1/65536 of the difficulty, you compare it to bitcoin target hash * pool max share difficulty / 65536.
Also, you don't count zeroes. You do an arithmetic comparison. The candidate must be less than or equal to the pool target in order to be accepted.
|
|
|
|
I'm very pissed off about my cat dying. I understand it's unlikely it's the vaccine but I'd love to be able to use the google of the early 2000s instead of what we have today to easily find out more about the issue.
There are other search engines. duckduckgo.com is popular because they don't track you and it is pretty good. |
|
|
|
...it'd realistically be a lot lower than 1/6 because difficulty is a lot lower for smaller blocks afaik since there's only one hash to compute - I *think*...
Your thinking is wrong. The difficulty is the same regardless of the size of the block. |
|
|
|
|
One problem with a floating-point representation is that the system will lose satoshis due to precision adjustment.
For example, lets assume a simple decimal system with 1 digit of precision. In this system, a transaction with 2 inputs of 0.9 satoshis each, can have a maximum output of 1 satoshi, for a permanent loss of 0.8 satoshis.
Of course, the precision is much higher in your system so the loss would be lower, but it would not be 0.
|
|
|
|
|
What you are proposing is not clear, but this might surprise you: A github repository is a block chain.
|
|
|
|
Check the block out. AntPool didn't mine the next 2 blocks, but it seems like they managed to raise the fees substantially since block 679115. Can you show that AntPool gained more than 1.03 BTC by not including transactions? Because, that's how much the miner of the next block got from including transactions. |
|
|
|
Miners profit from the fees staying high and the Bitcoin wallet estimating the traffic is heavy.
Empty blocks, with block rewards, are smart when it causes people to pay 10x to 25x the "normal" fee for confirmation within the next block.
It's the reverse of Pool Hopping basically, but against the network users rather than the miners this time.
No. Miners profit from the fees staying high and the Bitcoin wallet estimating the traffic is heavy.
Empty blocks, with block rewards, are smart when it causes people to pay 10x to 25x the "normal" fee for confirmation within the next block.
So they're increasing network congestion in an attempt to increase the fees? That seems a bit extreme, especially since higher fees in the next block could go to another pool. Does this happen often, or only when the network activity is higher than usual (say because the price is up considerably for the day)? No. So they're increasing network congestion in an attempt to increase the fees?
I don't know, but it certainly feels that way to me. I believe they contribute to the congestion as well. Perhaps, but perhaps the pools are in on it together? Seems like the most profitable for every one mining and there aren't very many that need to agree. No. Unlikely. Empty blocks occur because miners start mining the next block immediately after receiving a new block, and they don't wait to process the new block and gather the transactions for the next block. However, once the miner is ready, they will switch to mining a full block -- they don't want to miss out on the transaction fees. A miner that gives up transaction fees effectively gives that revenue to other miners, so there is unlikely to be collusion because miners that are not colluding would take all the fees from those that are. Also, it doesn't happen very often. |
|
|
|
Yes I did check out this in advance and tried to use/build a compatible solution. ...
Yes, you are right. Sorry for the poor advice. I forgot that SLIP-39 is incompatible with BIP-39. On the other hand, the designers argue that the incompatibility is not a major issue, but I don't completely agree with them. Converting existing SLIP-0039 shares to a BIP-0039 mnemonic
This is not possible due to the overly coupled design of BIP-0039 and its use of a one-way derivation function. BIP-0039 works by first generating a high-entropy secret, then converting it to a mnemonic and finally using the mnemonic itself as input to PBKDF2 to derive the seed. This means that for any new scheme to be compatible with BIP-0039, it would have to be built on top of BIP-0039 with all of its now obsolete aspects. That includes the conversion of the high-entropy secret to the mnemonic using the old wordlist, which would have to be included in the implementation, unreasonably bloating its size. SLIP-0039 instead introduces a new decoupled design which is more feature-rich and allows maximum flexibility for future upgrades.
Some individuals have expressed a concern that the inability to convert SLIP-0039 shares to BIP-0039 may lead to vendor lock-in due to slow adoption of SLIP-0039 by hardware wallet vendors. This concern is unwarranted, since even if the conversion to BIP-0039 were possible and a user needed to recover their seed onto a device which does not support SLIP-0039, then they would need to use some conversion tool running on their computer. In that case they might as well simply recover their SLIP-0039 shares in a software wallet running on their computer and send all of their funds to a new seed on their new device. Thus the ability to convert shares to a BIP-0039 mnemonic makes no difference in this respect.
Perhaps, with some effort you could come up with a SSS protocol that is compatible with BIP-39 and propose it as a new BIP. |
|
|
|
|
I prefer stacking sats to stacking trash.
|
|
|
|
Some virologists are of the opinion that as many as 95% of the population have innate immunity to the whole family of Corona viruses.
Please don't believe everything you read -- especially just because it validates your beliefs. If 95% of the population is immune to corona viruses, then we could not have had a SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. And people would also not be getting sick from other corona viruses such as 229E, NL63, OC43, and HKU1. At 95% immunity, transmission from one person to any other person is very unlikely, so it could not spread like it does, and therefore the claim cannot be true. |
|
|
|
Crypto market capitalization is currently $2trilliion gradually trying to meet up with the daily volume market capitalization of the forex market worth over $6.6 triiiion and still counting. FTFY You are comparing apples to oranges. The cryptocurrency market capitalization (the hypothetical sum of the values of all cryptocurrencies) is about $2 trillion. However, the daily volume of the forex is market is $6.6 trillion. Market cap and daily volume are not the same things. The daily volume of the cryptocurrency markets (according to coinmarketcap.com) is $0.14 trillion, which is about 7% of the forex daily volume. |
|
|
|
Hello, i had a question, it's about work process of a miner,
I was wondering what does a miner do during minig process, 1. It first finds a random number smaller than network target, broadcast it's wining to other nodes then adds transactions from pool or 2. It first adds transactions to the block until finds a valid hash smaller than network target and broadcast ot other nodes ?
Which information is neede as input of hash function (specially Nonce) ?
What other miners do in the next 10 minute until finding new hash puzzel?
It is essentially #2. The block "header" is hashed. The header contains information about the transactions in the block and other information, including a nonce. The miner constructs a block and then hashes the block header, changing the nonce and other information in the header, until a hash is found that is less than the target. When none of the direct changes to the header result in a winning hash, the block is modified so the header is changed, and hashing continues as before. All miners are doing the same thing at the same time, but the contents of their blocks, and thus their block headers, and thus their hashes are guaranteed to be different. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
