in one word: decentralization
specifically when it comes to altcoin trading platforms. for years we have seen exchanges either scam their users or get hacked and it is the users who are always the losers. having decentralized exchanges where the user remains in full control of his keys solves a lot of those issues but so far we don't have any as popular decentralized exchanges.
I know that in order to understand decentralization, I must have a basic understanding of cryptography and the blockchain itself. But are there any recommendation of topic that I will start with? Not directly related to decentralized exchanges, but if you're looking to expand your background knowledge of core concepts of cryptocurrencies and blockchains I'd recommend the following article as a starting point: https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=3136559 |
|
|
|
KYC is another issue because nobody knows where their info will be ended and who will see it or use it.
Y'all need proper data protection laws. GDPR got a lot of flak for forcing people to cLicK aWaY uNneCesSaRy cOoKie wARnInGs but it's the sort of legislation created for redeeming exactly that. For EU citizens there's the Right of access, which includings, amongst other things, information regarding: the recipients or categories of recipient you disclose the personal data to [...] the safeguards you provide if you transfer personal data to a third country or international organisation. (yes, I'm aware of the irony of quoting a UK site just a couple days short of Brexit) Apart from that, if you're tired of using opaque and untrustworthy exchanges... stop using them. It's a free market, there's plenty of alternatives out there these days. |
|
|
|
1) they can destroy or simply cut off the network some of these huge mining farms so hashrate would drop
Bitcoin's hashing power is so overwhelming that even after killing off half its network you'd still have plenty of protection left. Obsolete mining farms would take their place as mining becomes profitable for older hardware again. 2) they can use these mining farms in any way (rent them, command them)
There's not enough hashing power available for rent to mount a reasonable attack. Simply seizing private property of highly profitable companies to then run these companies into the ground on the off-chance that one could get enough hashing power for a successful attack is a losing proposition. 3) the hash rate maybe not constantly grow after 2 more halvings Which means less hardware being produced meaning less hardware being available for a potential attack. For me much simpler is forbid POW with the climate argument. Lets say the European union does forbid the trading, import and mining of proof of work currencys. Of course they can be used in shadow but the price will significant drop. Maybe this new regulation organisation some kind of foundet in Davos does that nearly wourld wide.
Making PoW mining illegal would simply push mining operations to countries where mining is still legal -- assuming you could even successfully persecute miners. A price drop caused by unfavorable regulation would lessen Bitcoin's hashrate but still not make an attack much easier (ie. see my answere to (3) above) |
|
|
|
Update: die Gesetze in Italien haben sich geändert und man kann keine Bitcoins mehr am Automaten erwerben. Leider..
Kommt nach Österreich, solange sogar die Post am Bitcoin-Handel mitverdient sind wir einigermaßen sicher!  Hast du genauere Infos dazu was sich in Italien rechtlich geändert hat? Das einzige was ich auf die schnelle finden konnte war die Senkung des Bargeld-Limits von EUR 3.000,- auf EUR 2.000,-. |
|
|
|
Sometimes this happens ... the last 51% attacks have succeeded in stealing of $19K + $53K = $72K worth of BTG. Bitcoin Gold (BTG) Suffers 51 Percent Attack with Barely Anyone Noticing That's the downside of running on an "ASIC-proof" PoW algorithm -- more easily available hashing power that can just as easily be reused for another coin so you don't even have to shoot your own foot when running an attack. BTG having relatively small hashing power to begin with didn't make things much better. |
|
|
|
|
I'm curious to see with which blockchain analysis company they'll end up working with. Chainalysis already has the IRS on their list of clients, adding the HMRC to that list would further cement their position in the market. On the other hand, who knows what the other companies have up their sleeves.
Still, with a budget of GBP 100,000,- I don't seem them going very far as far as mixers and privacy-focused cryptocurrencies are concerned. Either way yet another reason to focus on privacy and stay a step ahead of governmental institutions.
|
|
|
|
Since Peter Schiff's tweet is what lead to this thread, an update might be in order: My #Bitcoin mystery is solved. I mistook my pin for my password. When Blockchain updated their app I got logged out. I tired logging back in using my pin, which was the only "password" I had ever known or used. I also never had a copy of my seed phrase. Honest but costly mistake! To clarify my last tweet I was not able to recover my #Bitcoin. Since I never actually knew my password, just the pin, and never had a copy of my seed phrase, I have no way to recover the Bitcoin. So the problem was not a corrupted wallet, but my confusing a pin for a password. Learn how to use wallets, folks! You can't have financial sovereignity without personal responsibility! |
|
|
|
Before there is a link to download the whole latest blockchain blocks but right now they stop providing it directly to download.
Because it won't save your time since Bitcoin Core still need to verifying downloaded blockchain. To be more concrete, the Bitcoin bootstrap torrent used to save time, but since 0.10.0 the direct download via Bitcoin Core is actually faster [1]. [1] https://bitcoin.org/bin/block-chain/README.txt@OP: If you're not planning on running a full node consider using a SPV wallet such as Electrum ( https://electrum.org/ ) instead. That way you can use Bitcoin without having to download the whole blockchain. |
|
|
|
You're trying to imagine Game Theory will protect bitcoin ,
and it would if bitcoin was the only network the miners could mine.
But since the Miners have access to mining multiple networks, they will be true to their greedy nature and play them against each other,
untiil they decide for certain which one gives them personally the most profit.
Which due to the decreased rewards and ever growing reliance on transactions fees,
the transaction fees profit will lead the miners away from bitcoin as LN will dominate it's fees.
There's very little to no competition for Bitcoin's hashpower which probably won't change for two reasons: 1) Transaction-fees-only from a highly valued cryptocurrency is still more profitable (ie. able to pay for more hashpower) than transaction-fees-with-block-subsidy from a cryptocurrency that has very little value. LN is unlikely to "steal" fees from miners as there's still transactions to be made and mining fees to be paid -- just shared across a much larger user base, decreasing the cost for the individual. That's if LN succeeds. If it fails its impact on mining fees will be -- obviously -- nil. 2) The largest cryptocurrencies sharing their hashing algorithms with Bitcoin are (currently) Bitcoin hard forks that follow the same emission rate, so they have no advantage in terms of transaction-fees-with-block-subsidy vs transaction-fees-only. All other SHA256 coins are way out in the water, the introduction of new SHA256 coins (apart from the stray Bitcoin hard fork) is unlikely to happen. That being said, what's your opinion on Ethereum's Casper? |
|
|
|
It's not that I have much sympathy for Bitmain, but getting into legal troubles for merely selling mining equipment to the wrong company does seem a bit excessive. Maybe it's just a way of "playing it safe" and covering all their legal bases?
They didn't just sell There is an interesting topic about bitclub going down herePeople from bitmain were meeting with the operators of bitclub, and another familiar face also  , and main knew all the time how much gear they've sold to them and how their claims of buying millions in equipment were fake but never denied them, they've kept quiet. And of course, there is also the possibility of bitmain actually helping them with a bit of hash rate to fake the stats, wouldn't be surprising Thanks for the link, Bitmain just gets more likeable by the minute. In that case I'd also keep my head down, jesus christ. |
|
|
|
Let's see what their actual association with it is. There's no details in there. I wonder why it would be anything beyond selling them hardware in which case there's nothing to answer for.
It's not that I have much sympathy for Bitmain, but getting into legal troubles for merely selling mining equipment to the wrong company does seem a bit excessive. Maybe it's just a way of "playing it safe" and covering all their legal bases? |
|
|
|
That report, however, was published last 2018. Assuming Peter's claim and the several "I lost my btc" threads here are true, what do you think is the current estimate of total lost bitcoin?
Most coins were lost in the early days, so any coins that are being lost now are little more than a drop in the bucket. Also I think it's fairly safe to assume that the majority of people and companies holding significant amount of coins nowadays know better than to lose their password, so the amount of coins being lost over the next few years will probably be rather limited. |
|
|
|
Is there any mathematical probability of a certain character of the hash. It can be one of sixteen correct? (1234567890abcdef) Or does a number have more probability than a letter?
Be aware that the letters are just numbers as well in this case. Hashes are commonly displayed as hexadecimal numbers -- ie. base 16 instead of base 10 as is commonly used in day-to-day live -- hence the letters are simply numbers as well (a = 10, b = 11 and so on). |
|
|
|
Since segwit is a soft fork, what would happen if a miner treats some of the segwit outputs as anyone-can-spend scripts (as pre-seg scripts) and spend them in a new block?
SegWit-enabled nodes (ie. non-legacy nodes) will deem the transaction invalid and ignore it. Legacy nodes (ie. ones that can't validate SegWit transactions as emphasized by nc50lc) will deem the transaction valid and fork off the main chain (assuming there's enough legacy nodes left to propagate this transaction amongst each other). Unless the majority of miners decide to follow this fork it will be orphaned rather quickly though. |
|
|
|
1. Is it possible to save only the hash on the blockchain and the rest on a cloud? Yes, see opentimestamps.org as posted by Abdussamad for an example of how this can work. 2. If I save the hash of the data on the Blockchain, is the data still as save as saving all the data on the Blockchain? Assuming you have been using a secure hashing algorithm to create a hash of the data, you have reasonable proof that the data you stored off-chain has not been modified. However the data itself is only as save as your off-chain storage (ie. if the server or cloud service goes down that hosts the data, the data disappears as well). 3. What else than saving storage is the difference between saving only the hash and saving all the data on the Blockchain?
See above. |
|
|
|
|
To unlock your wallet file the password you used when initially setting up the wallet should be all you need. When opening your wallet in Electrum, it will ask you for the password. There's no username, if that's what you're asking.
|
|
|
|
Does it x-reference which transactions were included in the loosing but not he winning fork?
No. Orphaned blocks and their transactions are not stored and referenced. Some blockchain explorers may store the orphaned blocks that they received in their database for public viewing, but that's unrelated to how the Bitcoin protocol works. What happens after chain reorg with the transactions confirmed on the shorter chain (lets assume a somewhat possible 3 blocks reorg), but not included in the longer chain? I believe those are not in the mempool anymore as they were included in a block earlier.
Does Bitcoin core re-queues the transactions from the overwritten blocks?
"The" mempool does not exist. Every node has their own mempool. That means while nodes that followed the "losing" fork will have removed the transaction from their mempool, other nodes that have been following the "winning" fork all along will still have the transactions in their mempool -- given, of course, the transactions have not yet been included in the "winning" chain as well. |
|
|
|
|
Yeah, that sounds pretty much like a scam to me as well. Stay clear.
What's this "service" supposed to be, what are you trying to do?
|
|
|
|
I'm not a developer myself, so would have to hire one.
you can't expect to earn money from an open source non-custodial wallet. so you would be only spending money trying to build something like that. additionally a wallet needs constant developer's attention. it is not a one time hire and build thing to be done with it. specially since it would deal with other people's money. Yeah, this can't be stressed enough. Building the software is where it begins, not where it ends. Don't underestimate the maintenance cost that follows once a project like this is "done". 1) The ability for a developer to act malicious and somehow put a backdoor in my app? Which seems unlikely if open source software is used?
For this (1) your code needs to be open source as well, not just the software you base it on and (2) someone else needs to actually care reviewing the code that is being written and deployed. The many eyes principle only applies if there's many eyes watching (and even then it's not always effective). |
|
|
|
It doesn't automatically increase the price. That assumes that demand won't decrease or that non-mining supply won't increase. In other words, we can't view the halving in a vacuum since the inflation rate is just one factor affecting the price.
Take a huge note of this. This could actually drop the price if we assume that people already bought enough bitcoin in anticipation of the halving, and them panic selling their coins if the price didn't actually increase as they were expecting. [...] The halving is definitely already priced in, to what extend, that's the big question  now can this also benefits altcoins
When Bitcoin enters a bull market, alt coins usually follow. However they also tend to get hit harder during bust cycles, behave like hot potatoes and attempting to pick a good one is a bit of a crapshot. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
