Finally took another bold step and this time , it's a step to become a merit source..
Here's my list of '
TEN posts written in the last couple of months by other people that have not received nearly enough merit for how good they are' :
#1I'm not even sure how legit it is, but it did lead me to realize that there will never be more than 21 million individuals to own 1 bitcoin and the numbers will only get lower.
There is a better chart here:
https://www.bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses.htmlI know it's hard to be a member of the 1
BTC club as we all know that it's too expensive for average joe investor like the majority of us. In any case though, I will just go and accumulate as much as I can and not thinking about that 1
BTC club.
If everything works out, then good, if you can have it, but if not then not gonna be an issue for me.
As long as I can have some in my wallet that I did work very hard for it regardless of the amount, I will be ok with it.
Mt Gox hacked for $8,750,000
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mt._Gox#Security_breach_and_invalid_addresses_(2011)
Bitcoin7 hacked
https://siliconangle.com/2011/10/07/bitcoin7-hacked-funds-recovery-requires-sensitive-personal-information/Bitcoinica hacked for $228,000
https://www.blockstuffs.com/blog/top-10-blockchain-hacksBitcoinica hacked again for $87,000
https://www.blockstuffs.com/blog/top-10-blockchain-hacksBitcoinica hacked AGAIN for $300,000
https://www.blockstuffs.com/blog/top-10-blockchain-hacksBitfloor hacked for $250,000
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitfloor-hacked-250000-missing-1346821046Vircurex hacked for $352,000
https://vircurex.com/Reports/2013-05.pdfInputs.io hacked for $1,200,000
https://www.coindesk.com/hackers-steal-bitcoins-inputs-io-wallet-serviceMt.Gox hacked for $661,348,000
https://blockonomi.com/mt-gox-hack/Picostocks hacked for $4,434,000
https://www.wired.com/2017/05/one-scrappy-startup-survived-early-bitcoin-wars/Flexcoin hacked for $600,000
https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-bank-flexcoin-close-600000-bitcoin-theftPoloniex hacked for $67,500
https://www.coindesk.com/poloniex-claims-customers-repaid-following-march-bitcoin-hackCrypto Rush hacked for $630,000
https://www.ccn.com/cryptorush-support-worker-leaks-inside-info/MintPal hacked for $1,933,000
https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-protected-vericoin-stolen-mintpal-wallet-breach~snip
So unless you have full access to their internal records, you cannot really know exactly how all those coins are moving inside the exchange.
There are no coins moving inside an exchange; it's all just data being shown, and that is how centralized platforms and services work. There are databases that contains all the data and records, and the exchange only uses that data to show everything on the platform. When your exchange balance shows that you have 2 Bitcoins, it doesn't mean that there is a separate wallet for you that has 2 Bitcoins, and when you sell 1 Bitcoin, they transfer 1 Bitcoin from your wallet to the wallet of the buyer, that's not how it works. The balances and funds are all kept in their cold wallets, whatever users deposit are stored there, and balances only move when we make a withdrawal.
If I create an exchange platform, I control the code, the databases, and everything else, which means that even if I don't have a wallet containing 1,000 bitcoins, but I can still show on my exchange wallet that I hold 1,000 bitcoins, because I can literally feed anything into the database or the source code, and it will be shown there. So, whatever we see on centralized websites and platforms, it is all just code and data being shown, balances are just kept in wallets and moved when there are withdrawals which means funds are going out of the platform, and anything that is done internally is just done through data.
So where should Bitcoin draw the line between immutability and adaptation?
The users decide on a case-by-case basis.
In the case of a major threat, like the 2010 overflow vulnerability, and quantum attack danger, it is very unlikely that the
consensus of the users [1] will refuse a change that makes sense.
In the case of "new features", like Segwit, there will often be two opposing camps in the user base, but eventually one will reach a majority in most cases. I can't really a feature where really about 50% would be in favour and 50% against. Perhaps something privacy-related ... In this case it is best to wait until the dust clears, the proposal is very mature, critic points have been solved, and then it is possible that the "upgrade camp" achieves a majority. If not, then the proposal cannot be added reasonably (nobody would like a 52:48% chain split, everybody would lose!), it either has to be refined even further, or abandoned (although you could say that a proposal can come back the number of times it is necessary, there is never a "hard deadline" when the proposal will be "rejected forever".)
[1] "The consensus of the users" is often misunderstood. Not miners and "nodes" (by number) are those that have power in the Bitcoin ecosystem, but those people and entities who 1) accept Bitcoin and 2) hold Bitcoin.
Those who accept BTC can refuse to do so if a controversial decision is taken, and they can choose the other side of the fork (or simply accept an altcoin instead, or no crypto at all). This reduces demand and has negative pressure of the price of the "controversial" fork.
Something similar can be said for those who hold Bitcoin: they can sell the BTC of the fork they don't like, also creating bearish pressure.
If we take the example of BCash: the way BTC ("Core")
really won at the end is because BCH was refused to be accepted as "Bitcoin" by the majority of the users, and after the fork many BTC/BCH holders sold the "airdropped" BCH. While the majority of the miners followed BTC, this was only because they could predict (due to community sentiment) that BCH would be dumped and thus would lose the game. Something similar happens to BIP110 now ...
Instead, a wallet is programmed to produce unique address.
HD wallets, commonly used by software and hardware wallets, use deterministic BIP32 key derivation. A fixed and standardized derivation path has normally then 2
31 possible child keys and public addresses, normally unhardened keys, but there're also 2
31 hardened keys possible (you can have that many keys on every branch level of the derivation path, but standard wallet behavior is not to go crazy here, because it's not needed).
Because the
Child key derivation (CKD) funktions use the hash function HMAC-SHA512, it's simply so extremely unlikely that hash collisions will ever occur (I'd boldly say, not in the lifetime of the universe), that it's OK to say, we will never observe two different wallets to generate ever two same keys or addresses. Mathematically possible, because a collision can happen, probability is basically so close to zero that it practically matches zero (cough, cough, don't tell this a mathematician). For us mortals the probability of a collision with HMAC-SHA512 is basically zero as zero can be.
Cake Wallet
v6.3.0 release has seen the light of day, and the gist of this release lies in modifying the home screen and refactoring the core. The former means you can now see your recent transaction history right on the home screen, and sending to aliases (OpenAlias, ENS, Unstoppable Domains) resolves faster and more reliably. The latter implies that the app rewrote how it calculates crypto amounts (fixing decimal edge-case bugs) and upgraded the Flutter engine, plus core code refactoring for more responsive app,
not to mention the usual round of bug fixes.
One thing I do not like about Cake wallet is that it is not synchronizing fast when I receive bitcoin after I open the app.
Could be the connectivity problem from your side.
To check basic reachability run
ping -c 4 btc-electrum.cakewallet.com
ping -c 4 electrs.cakewallet.com
ping -c 4 fulcrum.sethforprivacy.com
ping -c 4 electrum.cakewallet.com
and after that
nc -zv -w3 btc-electrum.cakewallet.com 50002
nc -zv -w3 electrs.cakewallet.com 50001
nc -zv -w3 fulcrum.sethforprivacy.com 50002
nc -zv -w3 electrum.cakewallet.com 50002
for actual port check.
A real bit coin key does not resemble this at all. WIF private keys begin with 5, K, or L. Hex private keys (as shown below are 64hex characters).
Addresses begin with a 1, 3, or bc1.
More details from Bitcoin Wiki and a book Mastering Bitcoin of Andreas Antonopoulos.
List of Bitcoin address prefixes.Base58check version prefix and encoded result examples . | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | Type | | | Version prefix (hex) | | | Base58 result prefix | | |
| | | Address for pay to public key hash (P2PKH) | | | 0x00 | | | 1 | | |
| | | Address for pay to script hash (P2SH) | | | 0x05 | | | 3 | | |
| | | Testnet Address for P2PKH | | | 0x6F | | | m or n | | |
| | | Testnet Address for P2SH | | | 0xC4 | | | 2 | | |
| | | Private Key WIF | | | 0x80 | | | 5, K, or L | | |
| | | BIP32 Extended Public Key | | | 0x0488B21E | | | xpub | | |
You can read the news on
https://lcx.com/en/cryptonews/russian-parliament-passes-law-regulating-crypto-marketThe bill still requires approval by the Federation Council and President Vladimir Putin’s signature before it becomes law which will possibly be what would happen.
Russia’s State Duma, the lower house of parliament, approved bill No. 1194918-8, titled “On Digital Currency and Digital Rights,” in its second and third readings on Tuesday, according to official parliamentary records.
If enacted, the bill would establish rules for crypto market participants, including exchanges, brokers, asset managers and custodians, while allowing crypto assets to be used in foreign trade operations.
There are more things to be read, like non-qualified investors annual limit and the implementation expectation periods and foreign trades.
It has been signed by the Russian president, Vladimir Putin
If you want to read more it:
Russian president signs crypto law, core rules take effect in 2026
https://cointelegraph.com/news/putin-signs-crypto-law-core-rules-take-effect-2026The core provisions of the law take effect on Sept. 1, 2026, while some measures, including rules for non-resident digital depositories, will take effect on July 1, 2027. The law also maintains a ban on using crypto assets to pay for goods and services inside Russia.
We are seeing more adoption already.
.....So my question is, who is doing the actual voting under bitcoin consensus? The developers? The node operators? The bitcoin holders? Or someone else?
How do we know or see the results of the votes?...
The miners. They are the only ones that really matter. You can run whatever node you like with whatever rules you like. Since day one unless you are mining you didn't and don't get a vote. Now that mining mining pools exist if you want proposal "X" you would find a pool that is signaling that and mine there.
Very very basic: Go back to 2017 with the BTC - BCH block size fight. At the end of the day miners mined BTC not BCH.
There was a lot of other things going on at the time but more or less you could see who was signalling what.
Nothing has changed since then.
-Dave
Interesting. If you are correct (which you may very well be) that miners have all the power then it would seem bitcoin isn't decentralized at all.
Why would you say that, anyone can buy a miner and mine.
https://cryptorank.io/news/feed/fec8e-solo-miner-with-futurebit-earns-3-125-btcEven in the past week 20 different pools have found blocks:
https://mempool.space/graphs/mining/pools#1wCore 30 changed nothing in the amounts of what you consider spam could be mined.
Greg says it better then I could.
There is absolutely no perceivable increase in >80b op_return,
What does "perceivable" mean to you? OP_returns aren't 'perceivable' at all generally because the bitcoin software intentionally doesn't show them. There are op_returns over 80 bytes, as there were *before* Bitcoin Core 30 because, as I just reiterated in this thread and which you went on to lie about again: Miners already removed the limit before a matching removal was proposed in Bitcoin Core. You claimed that this would bring forth all kinds of negative effects, we can all see now that your hysterics were entirely misplaced ... and they continue to be misplaced.
If you don't like these simple facts start your own pool and get people to mine there. Or just buy some miners and mine for yourself.
-Dave
Thank you...
