Das Grundlegende hat aundroid dir bereits erklärt. Sofern du in der Zukunft gerne näher technische Informationen erhalten möchtest, frag einfach. Hier gibt es genug Member welche ihr Wissen gerne teilen.
Gibt es auch Buch oder Online Empfehlungen, in denen das ganze in Deutsch erklärt ist? Das klingt jetzt vielleicht blöd aber die deutsche Wikipedia Seite zu Bitcoin ist gar kein so schlechter Einstiegspunkt: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitcoinVor allem hast du dann auch gleich die für Bitcoin relevanten kryptographischen Konzepte verlinkt. |
|
|
|
|
Has the transaction been confirmed in your wallet? There's a bit of a spike of unconfirmed transactions right now, maybe your transaction fee is too low.
If the transaction has already confirmed in your wallet you'll probably have to get in touch with the ATM provider. Is there any company name on the ATM?
If the transaction isn't marked as confirmed in your wallet, you could try doing a RBF transaction. What wallet software are you using?
|
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin will definitely survive. Why should it not?
I'm a bit on the fence how Bitcoin will behave during a recession though.
As figmentofmyass already pointed out, recessions make market participants very weary and allergic to risky investments. People tend to stay in cash rather than in any investment vehicles, especially unproven ones. Gold is a bit of an exception in this regard, but I'm afraid that Bitcoin has yet to build the trust that gold already has.
However I do believe that it will also depend on where Bitcoin will be in its boom / bust cycle. If recession hits while Bitcoin is already down it might very well act as a worthwhile hedge due to its cheapness and cement its position as uncorrelated asset. The likeliness of this happening is anyone's guess though.
|
|
|
|
Did any one of you lose money buying Bitcoin?
If yes, Did you again reinvest in Bitcoin after losing?
If yes, What need you reinvest your money on Bitcoin?
You only lose money by selling at a loss. If you already made a loss and are wondering whether you should enter the market again, ask yourself why you want to buy in once more. If your only reason to buy back in is because the price went up, than that's an excellent recipe for desaster because the next time Bitcoin goes down you'll likely panic sell at a loss once again. The same is true if you haven't made a loss yet but are considering selling vs doubling down on your investment. Only buy if you are convinced that there's a future for Bitcoin, not merely because the price went up recently. If you're not convinced by Bitcoin aside from its price, don't buy it. Simple as that. In both cases, don't invest more than you can afford to lose. Don't be invested at a level that is high enough to put pressure on you, financially or psychologically. |
|
|
|
In the case of gold certificates things are similar, it is just that those two stages are reversed. Namely in stage one, one party of the exchange deposits some gold at the bank and receives a certificate for it. This certificate is then traded for goods or services and in that way put into circulation. In stage two the opposite party i.e. a current holder of the certificate takes it to the bank to claim the deposited gold. Once the holder receives the gold the exchange process is finished. And this is how goods and services are exchanged with the help of gold certificates.
So the solution is easy. Just make Bitcoin certificates and use that as money. Problem solved  On a more serious note, anyone can establish a rather arbitrary definition of A and then claim that B is not A because B does not fit that arbitrary definition. But there's no knowledge to be gained from that line of argumentation. |
|
|
|
Given the nature of Bitcoin, you want things to stay anonymous, so this information must guarantee to not contain the wrong metadata.
If we've learned one thing about the corporate and governmental data collection binge of the last few years than it is that it doesn't matter whether it's "only" metadata. When someone wants to stay anonymous, any amount of metadata is a liability. You could raise the same point for bitcoin.org maintenance.
People do raise the same point for bitcoin.org Let's not introduce a new problem just because a similar one already exists. |
|
|
|
|
One common reason for people ignoring the small profits seems to be them trying to go for maximum profits by attempting to call the bottom and / or top (ie. trying to time the market). If people were better at accepting the impossibility of this notion fewer people would fuck themselves over. Just ease your way in and out of the market. It may not be an optimal strategy but it's less risky and more importantly less likely to make you tilt and FOMO.
|
|
|
|
I am wondering how OTP will prevent if you are sending crypto-currency into wrong address. OTP will ensure that fund sending by right person, it will not verify address that you are going to send funds.
I also don't see how OTP can mitigate cases where a user sends funds to the wrong address (eg. due to clipboard-malware). The only way I currently see to avoid this problem is to (1) double check the address before pressing send and (2) confirming the address over a secondary device / communication channel (eg. via phone or email). I'm not sure if there's a good solution for automating / integrating this process of recipient confirmation though. Obvioulsy the OTP would not autocorrect the addresses but it would give us the time to double check the transaction. Many users don't even cross verify the address and simply broadcast it to the blockchain and later regret. Adding an OTP won't help us with this but just provide an extra step thus providing an extra time to think before making the transaction. From this point of view maybe adding an "undo" feature like Gmail has could help. Obviously there's nothing being undone for real, but the short delay it introduces can help with the second thoughts that hit you after pressing "send". It's a neat little psychological trick that doesn't do much, technically, but at least from my personal experience it does make a difference. Problem being, I'm afraid the majority of people don't realize that they have sent funds to the wrong address until way after the fact. At least that's the impression I get from the support requests hitting the Bitcointalk forums. |
|
|
|
|
Die meisten Bitcoin Wallets generieren für jeden neuen Zahlungseingang eine eigene Bitcoin Adresse.
Ebenso werden bei Zahlungsausgängen idR sämtliche Bitcoins einer Adresse auf eine neue, sogenannte Change-Adresse ("Change" wie in "Wechselgeld") bewegt (minus dem ausgehenden Betrag, logischerweise) was dazu führt das alte Adressen auf einmal leer sind, die Bitcoins aber immer noch in deinem Wallet verfügbar sind (nur eben unter einer anderen Adresse).
Das ist normales Wallet-Verhalten und dient unter Anderem einer verbesserten Privatsphäre.
Solange du (1) eine legitime App installiert hast (die offizielle Blockchain.com App sollte in Ordnung sein) und (2) ein Backup der Seed Phrase hast sollten somit auf einem nicht-infizierten System keine Coins verloren gehen.
Außer bei Exchanges die so tun als wären sie Wallets gibt es keine Limits.
|
|
|
|
I am wondering how OTP will prevent if you are sending crypto-currency into wrong address. OTP will ensure that fund sending by right person, it will not verify address that you are going to send funds.
I also don't see how OTP can mitigate cases where a user sends funds to the wrong address (eg. due to clipboard-malware). The only way I currently see to avoid this problem is to (1) double check the address before pressing send and (2) confirming the address over a secondary device / communication channel (eg. via phone or email). I'm not sure if there's a good solution for automating / integrating this process of recipient confirmation though. |
|
|
|
Is this the library you are using? https://github.com/aceat64/EasyBitcoin-PHPBecause that library appears to be outdated: easybitcoin seems to be no longer working, or needs some tweaking. I have written a php function using curl. You can use this php function, if you are also looking for a solution: Just pass the method in the function and make sure to edit out your rpc details inside the function. <?php
function bitcoin($method){
$ch = curl_init();
$rpcuser='rpcusername';
$rpcpassword='rpcpassword';
$host='nodeIP'; //IP address of your node or localhost, if running locally
$port='port';
curl_setopt($ch, CURLOPT_URL, "http://$rpcuser:$rpcpassword@$host:$port/");
curl_setopt($ch, CURLOPT_RETURNTRANSFER, 1);
curl_setopt($ch, CURLOPT_POSTFIELDS, "{\"jsonrpc\":\"1.0\",\"id\":\"curltext\",\"method\":\"$method\",\"params\":[]}");
curl_setopt($ch, CURLOPT_POST, 1);
$headers = array();
$headers[] = "Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded";
curl_setopt($ch, CURLOPT_HTTPHEADER, $headers);
$result = curl_exec($ch);
if (curl_errno($ch)) {
echo 'Error:' . curl_error($ch);
}
curl_close ($ch);
return($result);
}
$method="getblockchaininfo"; //bitcoin-cli method like getchaininfo,getwalletinfo etceter
$lol=bitcoin($method);
?>
Cheers! It also says so on the GitHub page itself: If you are referring to another PHP library please post a link for clarification. |
|
|
|
For an AI wanting to obtain memory states and live on forever a incentivized blockchain would surely be the way to go, say if we reached a point where we could store our memory states on the blockchain such as altered carbon, would you really want to store that in a regular distributed system? No you would want to obtain the security that blockchain provides in a trustless manner, as our memory states would need to live on forever.
If only AI or blockchains would work that way. While I have no idea how consciousness can be stored -- no one has, humanity hasn't yet the slightest clue what consciousness even is -- I'm fairly certain it won't be on a blockchain. Maybe one day humanity will be able to externally store memories (beyond mere audiovisual reproductions) and minds (be they human or artificial) but that technology is probably still a few generations out and won't be technology we'll be able to fathom. |
|
|
|
Where in my statement do I show to not have understood such obvious assumption? Any consensus mechanism which is highly demanding on computational resources will obviously have fee's, they go hand in hand  I think the "problem" with "blockchain the technology", ie. outside the context of cryptocurrencies is two-fold: 1) Permissioned blockchains still seem rather pointless. For most use cases classical distributed databases (or distributed systems in general) are doing a much better job. Even in the iRobot takedown scenario the main properties that were missing are security and robustness. That you can do in a distributed manner without using "blockchain the technology", in a much more reliable and efficient way at a much lower cost. 2) Permissionless blockchains without PoW-based consensus algorithms so far are often either not really permissionless or not really secure or both. Most of the time you either have (a) committee-based validators or an other form of central coordination which mostly rids of permissionlessness -- which leads back to (1) above. Or (b) variants of Proof-of-Resource like PoS that -- as of now -- are still mostly work in progress in terms of security and robustness. I guess there could be ways in which permissionless blockchains could support AI and vice versa but I think the overlap where they would complement one another are rather limited. I'm afraid in most cases you'll end up with either a shitty AI or a shitty cryptocurrency. |
|
|
|
I read that omni uses omnicore, will this accept the bitcoin blockchain and is it compatible with lightning once I get that up and running (I want to test out omni and see what it offers) ?
I'm afraid for LN-based Bitcoin tokens you'll have to keep an eye on RGB: https://github.com/rgb-org/specAs far as I know neither OMNI nor XCP (Counterparty, a similar Bitcoin-based token project) are currently LN-capable and so far I'm not aware of any announcements in this regard. |
|
|
|
Ahhh thanks pooya I'll have to take a look at omni I haven't looked into it but it looks like a way of making tokens and contracts much like on ethereum (without the virtual machine part).
USDT is probably the most famous OMNI token, just as a reference. Also it used to be called Mastercoin, so it might well be that you have already stumbled over this project in the past, with its old name. |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin's emergence and conception has been fairly transparent and well documented (apart from satoshi's identity, obviously).
The work that preceded and laid the foundation of Bitcoin (hashcash, bit gold, etc) is no secret either and happened independently of any government agencies (often even going as far as opposing governmental interference).
As such it's highly unlikely that Bitcoin was created by any such agency.
But then again maybe that's what the chemtrails make me believe.
|
|
|
|
I wonder about it as well. I only could think potential error such as Overflow/Underflow error if OP use static programming language
but couldn't it be tested even without "actual" test cases? something like overflow belongs to lower level functions and in all programming languages that i know there is always easy ways to test them. for instance in object oriented programming we use Mocks to test any special case we want easily! Yes, but in reality it often happens even on Bitcoin (somewhere in 2010) and big company such as Boeing 787. And the worst part, it creates domino effect. I'm not software engineer, so i might be wrong though and we can't know OP's reason needs lots of tBTC for sure. Boeing is kind of a bad example in that case though. Their whole Boeing 737 Max mess killed hundreds of people and was mostly caused by questionable management decisions -- ie. having pilots rely on warning lights that weren't enabled by default [1], horrendly cheap outsourcing to developers that completely lacked the expertise [2], all of which lead to software errors that could have been easily avoided. That being said, while manual testing is also important for creating stable software, I agree with pooya87 that in this case testing could be easily done using mocks. At least I personally can't think of any edge cases where using 2 tBTC would make any difference to using 0.002 tBTC. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/05/business/boeing-737-max-warning-light.html [2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-28/boeing-s-737-max-software-outsourced-to-9-an-hour-engineers |
|
|
|
Also keep in mind that having a white paper does not automatically make a legit project. Sometimes it's just scammers going the extra mile to appear legitimate.
Additionally, even once you've successfully circumnavigated the cesspool of scam projects, remember that crypto is still a high risk environment. You don't have to get scammed to lose money in crypto.
Scammers can spend their time and write polish Whitepaper, but they can not build up good blockchains and real applications on those blockchains. As much as I like blockchain, I have to admit this is more or less accurate. We don't just need another blockchain. We need blockchains with real applications.
To be fair even non-scammers sometimes fail at building up a good blockchain and real applications. Crypto is one of the few environments where legit operations can pivot into a scam within a heartbeat. |
|
|
|
1) Absence of Key information like "No WhitePaper" and "Absence of team members info". It is important to check the white paper information of any coin. Also, information about the founders and developers team of a crypto should be found, if not then it is a doubtful project.
Keep in mind that not all anonymous project are outright scams, especially if they don't look for ICO and just went straight developing codes and releasing stuff. Bitcoin is the example of this one. So, if you find an anonymous project that doesn't look to raise funds and just want to develop a product, don't be too quick to judge them. Also keep in mind that having a white paper does not automatically make a legit project. Sometimes it's just scammers going the extra mile to appear legitimate. Additionally, even once you've successfully circumnavigated the cesspool of scam projects, remember that crypto is still a high risk environment. You don't have to get scammed to lose money in crypto. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
