... a site like https://<suspicious link>/ gives the ability to virtually explore all the private keys existing in the elliptic curve. The Random button on the site https://<suspicious link> generates pages of private keys that could reveal addresses with a positive balance!!!
Be very careful with these sites. Many of them are phishing sites. They encourage you to enter private keys in order to steal your coins. |
|
|
|
What if transaction fees aren't enough to incentivize the miners to secure the bitcoin network? I think this is a potential problem we may see in the next few decades as the halving continues on. My hope is that we will have enough people using the bitcoin network to have a healthy fee market, but if we have weak periods like now where there are several unfilled blocks, wont miners just turn off their equipment as they are unprofitable? What options or solutions are being discussed to help mitigate this?
The difficulty adjustment is designed so that mining is always profitable for the most efficient miners, regardless of the value of the block reward. The real question is whether or not the block reward is high enough to make a 51% attack economically infeasible. One consideration is that if it is not, then perhaps it is because Bitcoin has failed and so it is not worth saving anyway. In theory, with each halving, block reward halved and as consequence of it, Bitcoin price should increase (should double its price at least). How about miner transaction fee?
There is nothing to support that belief. The halving does not halve the supply. |
|
|
|
There are 70 blockchains, you need to generate addresses and private keys from them using Brainwallet alone.
Is there any information on this subject? Or do you need to separate each open source project?
Maybe some libraries.
Similar to Private Key > address
Most coins use a 256-bit random value as a private key, so any method for generating a brain wallet will generally work for all of them. However, the derivation of an address from the private key varies greatly, so each coin would need to be handled separately. |
|
|
|
- the VDF is designed to take e.g. 5 minutes to solve
A VDF can provide a provable delay, but it cannot control the length of the delay without requiring standardized hardware Also, PoW is a VDF, but the proof is stochastic and not mathematical. |
|
|
|
If regular people are all using custodial wallets, Bitcoin will have lost a key property that made it so revolutionary.
I was shocked to see this on Twitter, I was not shocked about bitcoin, ..., but what I was shocked about is that a bitcoin cash advocate with bitcoin cash having its own blockchain and noncustododial wallets can tweet in support of what can make privacy not to exist which is centralized exchanges, all because of his selfish thinking and ambition. I think you misread his tweet. I agree with it. The first sentence of the Bitcoin white paper is "A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution." If everyone holds their bitcoins on exchanges, then what would the purpose of Bitcoin be? |
|
|
|
The problem with your premise is that there are countries that choose not to have a fiat currency. Many countries use USD as their currency, and USD is a hard currency to them because they have no control over it.
And what are these countries? Something I don’t know of a single state that, being independent, used the currency of another country, even if it is the US dollar. More than 65 countries peg their currencies to the U.S. dollar and eleven foreign nations use it as their official currency of exchange, according to Countries That Use the U.S. Dollar. The countries that use USD are: Ecuador, Republic of El Salvador, Republic of Zimbabwe, The British Virgin Islands, Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste, Bonaire, Federated States of Micronesia, Republic of Palau, Marshall Islands, Panama, Turks and Caicos. Additionally, there are a few countries not in the E.U. that use the euro and there are countries in Africa that use the rand. |
|
|
|
Tbf it is probably a good starting pint for learning quite a few things.
You haven't been very specific though. If you've got a computer with a decent cpu/gpu then I'd think it's a good way to start testing out things with crypto. If you're wanting to try out cloud mining then it might be a good place to start too (I doubt there's much to be made there unless you do longer contracts).
If you had a larger setup, you might be better off looking at other places.
Im about to get a larger setup... what other places would you recommend I would learn more about what you are doing before you start putting more money into it: Alternate cryptocurrencies > Mining (Altcoins) |
|
|
|
|
It's a good starting point.
|
|
|
|
... buy and save the data in my phone and he gave me a paper with all the data inside and he asked me to save this paper well...
Without the phone or the paper, your bitcoins are permanently lost. There is no other way to retrieve them. |
|
|
|
|
There is nothing in an address that indicates whether it is derived from a compressed or uncompressed public key. I can't tell you when various wallets switched from uncompressed to compressed, but maybe somebody else can. Regardless, it is unlikely that you will be able to find out how many wallets have existed, how many addresses have been generated, and how many addresses were compressed or uncompressed addresses.
The original Bitcoin-Qt wallet created a pool of 100 addresses by default. That may or may not have changed when it was switched to an HD wallet. An HD wallet does not need a pool of addresses since an address can be generated on demand.
Maybe I am misunderstanding your question. You stated that your goal is to "check the plausibility of two .dat files containing a valuable address". Do you mean two different wallets having the same address that has bitcoins? If that is the case then I think the solution would start with finding the probability that any random address is in a UTXO. Then, by counting the number of addresses in a wallet, you can compute the probability of that wallet having an address in a UTXO. An address in a UTXO was generated by some wallet, so that gives you the probability that the wallet in question shares an address with another wallet (assuming that it is not the wallet the created the transaction).
|
|
|
|
Even though mining is intensely difficult, the number of possible in today's term Stull looks like quite a large number.
Based on different arrangements of nonce, headers, txns, it looks like quite a large number of solutions can satisfy solution requirement s. Does the math below make sense? (Which shows quite high number of possible aolutions)
2022 blocks (19 zeroes)
solution => 00000000000000000001b3b857465688e53f3fafc11d50a794690f7bae2f7ff6
No of bits in solution => 256
No of zeroes in solution=> 19
Other Possible solution => 2^ (256-19) => 2^237=> 2.2*10^71
First of all, Bitcoin does not count the number of 0 bits as many people seem to think. That technique was mentioned in the white paper, but Bitcoin was never implemented like that. The actual problem is to find a hash (treated as a number) that is less than or equal to the target value. The current target is 955,133,703,543,227,653,230,735,945,040,239,725,552,721,938,878,562,304 (9f8d90000000000000000000000000000000000000000 hex). Any number less than or equal to that is a solution, so there are 955,133,703,543,227,653,230,735,945,040,239,725,552,721,938,878,562,305 possible solutions (0 is a solution). Note, you are also confusing binary 0 with hexadecimal 0. Your answer should have been, 16 (64-19) = 16 45 = 1.5x10 54, which is not too far from the actual answer of 0.955x10 54. Thanks for clearing this up. I have a small question though. How is this target number derived?(9f8d90000000000000000000000000000000000000000 and this has 41 zeros) Normally the block explorer still shows the hash of the previous block starting with 19 0s'. and yes thanks for the correction, number of zeros => 19(hex) => 19*4(bits) => 76 possible solution => 2^(256-76) => 2^180 => 1.5*10^54 which comes exactly to your solution but in a different way. So, I guess the number of required zeros of the current block to have certain amount of zeroes still seems to be valid. No? Again, the number of zeros is irrelevant. Counting zeros happens to give similar results, but it is not how it actually works. The block's hash is 256 bits or 64 hexadecimal digits, so you will see all of the digits when showing the hash. However, the target is a number and I generally don't show preceding zeros when writing a number because there are an infinite number of them. The target is computed by taking the previous target and multiplying it by a factor determined by comparing the time it took to mine the previous 2015 blocks to the time it was supposed to take the last 2016 blocks (1209600 seconds). For example, if the total hash rate has increased and it took only 1100000 seconds to mine the last 2015 blocks, then the new target is the previous target multiplied by 1100000/1209600 = 0.91. Note that target is stored as a floating point number with a precision of about 24 bits. Also, the time for the previous 2015 blocks is used instead of 2016 blocks due to a bug that will probably never be fixed. The result is that the nominal block time is actually 10.005 minutes. |
|
|
|
|
I think your approach has a problem because the number of addresses that can be generated by a wallet is unlimited.
I think a better approach might be to compare the total number of addresses in the block chain to the number of possible addresses.
|
|
|
|
Proof-of-History: A Clock Before Consensus
Because nodes in a distributed network cannot trust the timestamp on messages received from other nodes, the biggest problem in distributed networks is agreeing on the time and order in which events happen.Solana uses Proof of History (PoH) to overcome this problem by establishing a cryptographically safe source of time throughout the network. Proof of History is a high-frequency Verifiable Delay Function (VDF) that takes a certain number of steps to evaluate but provides a unique result that can be publicly confirmed.Because they can trust the date and sequencing of the messages they’ve received, nodes may generate the next block without having to align itself with the entire network beforehand. As a result, the consensus overhead is reduced.
i'm not saying solana is the greatest thing in the world but they seem to have achieved a trustless timestamped currency. would you agree? i'm a little bit unclear on how they keep timestamps in sync though...
From what I can tell, Solana's PoH requires a node to use standardized hardware in order to ensure that the time is synchronized. |
|
|
|
Even though mining is intensely difficult, the number of possible in today's term Stull looks like quite a large number.
Based on different arrangements of nonce, headers, txns, it looks like quite a large number of solutions can satisfy solution requirement s. Does the math below make sense? (Which shows quite high number of possible aolutions)
2022 blocks (19 zeroes)
solution => 00000000000000000001b3b857465688e53f3fafc11d50a794690f7bae2f7ff6
No of bits in solution => 256
No of zeroes in solution=> 19
Other Possible solution => 2^ (256-19) => 2^237=> 2.2*10^71
First of all, Bitcoin does not count the number of 0 bits as many people seem to think. That technique was mentioned in the white paper, but Bitcoin was never implemented like that. The actual problem is to find a hash (treated as a number) that is less than or equal to the target value. The current target is 955,133,703,543,227,653,230,735,945,040,239,725,552,721,938,878,562,304 (9f8d90000000000000000000000000000000000000000 hex). Any number less than or equal to that is a solution, so there are 955,133,703,543,227,653,230,735,945,040,239,725,552,721,938,878,562,305 possible solutions (0 is a solution). Note, you are also confusing binary 0 with hexadecimal 0. Your answer should have been, 16 (64-19) = 16 45 = 1.5x10 54, which is not too far from the actual answer of 0.955x10 54. |
|
|
|
My goal is to make an ASIC...
Is you goal to manufacture an ASIC or just design one? Either way, if you have only a rudimentary understanding of everything, then this is not something that you can accomplish in your spare time over the summer. |
|
|
|
|
I believe the problem is that your coinbase transaction is a pay-to-pubkey (P2PK) transaction (which was common very early on) and not a pay-to-pubkeyhash (P2PKH) transaction. That kind of output is no longer used and perhaps the wallet software does not know how to handle it. You might try other wallets. The reference clients will probably be able to handle it.
|
|
|
|
Conclusion: As everybody and their mother basically agrees with me here that the "price floor" doesn't exist, I think we can bury this "mining cost price floor" theory as a strange piece of 2018 economic esotericism. Perhaps the theory was born out of frustration with the bear market of this year, to create at least a bit of hope. But ... as history told us from 2019 onwards, the theory wasn't needed.  I think that many years ago when mining was a significant way to obtain bitcoins, there may have been something close to a price floor determined by the cost of mining. That was because if mining became unprofitable for some miners, they would buy them instead. The increase in demand from these ex-miners would cause the price to rise toward the cost of mining. The same process might be happening now, too. But, miners now are such a small portion of the market that they couldn't have any significant effect on prices. |
|
|
|
There might be an argument that some work is waisted when two miners find a block at approximately the same time,... This causes a soft fork in which the leading end of the blockchain splits into two or more chains. It gets resolved when one of the chains gets longer than the others. That's not what a "soft fork" means. A "soft fork" is a backward compatible change to the protocol. What you are describing is generally called a "fork/branch/split in the chain" and one of the blocks will eventually become a "stale block". It doesn't happen very often, as you already wrote. |
|
|
|
|
You don't know that he is a scammer, but either way -- He sent you $300, so you should send him $300 in Bitcoin (minus whatever fee you agreed on) to show that you are trustworthy.
|
|
|
|
|
It is very simple. The price of a bitcoin is determined by supply and demand. The cost of mining has no effect on supply or demand. Therefore, there is no mining cost price floor.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
