Mine are: $NXRA around $100M MC (RWA) will be a billion dollar + MC somewhere this bull run $VRA around $50M MC will change their tokenomics this month so will finally take off like last run $CROWN around $50M MC is the DFK of this cycle. Just check it out and you’ll see for yourself how big this will get. Small bets: $AMO is a $20M MC that pays for you to work out. This will go viral again (reminds me of GMT but way better) could 100x IMO $TOOLS team is amazing and only $10M MC $BLOCK (The Block Explorer ) is an AI webbrowser. Only $1M MC. Not sure about this one but I took a leap of faith here. I’ve been researching my investments for the last 2 years and these are the ones I’m comfortable with. Don’t take my word for it but DYOR.
that entire Bitcoin is fake, the "BTC" "Bitcoin" isn't Bitcoin, it was a very clever hack in some ways, they snuck it by people, b/c the hack was to *keep a temporary variable in place*, MAX\_BLOCK\_SIZE, so that was subtle enough they could sneak it through ,, unfortunately for them it's not as effective a hack as they thought it would be & they've accidentally doomed the "Bitcoin" they boarded & attempted to control ,, it's a naturally uncontrollable system
this is b/c what they're dividing by, the number of transactions it's able to do, was forcefully limited by the hack of keeping the temporary variable MAX\_BLOCK\_SIZE is place--- this should be a clue to you that *this is not Bitcoin or even vaguely Bitcoin-like*,, the only currently functional realistic Bitcoin is BSV,, sorry about the confusion
do you not get it that this "Bitcoin" is broken, they hacked it & kept MAX\_BLOCK\_SIZE in (even though it was clearly documented to have been intended as temporary) which completely broke it, why are you just accepting that Bitcoin fees fluctuate like that, they're supposed to fluctuate from tiny to even tinier, this "Bitcoin" is very clearly broken
actual Bitcoin, BSV, is far more difficult to censor & control than the fake Bitcoin, censoring most transactions by hacking it to keep MAX\_BLOCK\_SIZE in permanently makes it easy to go the rest of the way & censor the last few remaining transactions
this fake "BTC" has been doomed ever since it was boarded & hacked by some thoughtless pirates who didn't realize that if they stuck the temporary restriction MAX\_BLOCK\_SIZE in place forever they would ultimately drown the chain, they've been bailing since
that's a fake Bitcoin that's been doomed to this ever since they created it by the hack of keeping in the temporary MAX\_BLOCK\_SIZE permanently--- they thought that hacking it like that would make people have to use their shit (it was Liquid at the time mostly rather than Lightning which came later, i think) & they didn't realize (charitably, or didn't care) that it ultimately doomed the system
you uh literally can't use "your" bitcoin, it's just a fake "bitcoin" where they intentionally broke it by keeping MAX\_BLOCK\_SIZE the same when it was clearly documented to be temporary i assume by "use" you just mean, occasionally send to an exchange, & you've never actually used bitcoin for much of anything
looool "in it for the tech" they didn't even have a white paper, OR A BLOCK CHAIN... and they don't even have any on chain history of their initial minting and distribution!!!, Moons are absolutely unique in all of cryptocurrency, for the very wrong reasons.
This one is going to have support for BIP324, wow lad. > The release notes draft is a temporary file that can be added to by anyone. See /doc/developer-notes.md#release-notes for the process. > > 26.0 Release Notes Draft > Bitcoin Core version 26.0 is now available from: > > https://bitcoincore.org/bin/bitcoin-core-26.0/ > > This release includes new features, various bug fixes and performance improvements, as well as updated translations. > > Please report bugs using the issue tracker at GitHub: > > https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues > > To receive security and update notifications, please subscribe to: > > https://bitcoincore.org/en/list/announcements/join/ > > How to Upgrade > If you are running an older version, shut it down. Wait until it has completely shut down (which might take a few minutes in some cases), then run the installer (on Windows) or just copy over /Applications/Bitcoin-Qt (on macOS) or bitcoind/bitcoin-qt (on Linux). > > Upgrading directly from a version of Bitcoin Core that has reached its EOL is possible, but it might take some time if the data directory needs to be migrated. Old wallet versions of Bitcoin Core are generally supported. > > Compatibility > Bitcoin Core is supported and extensively tested on operating systems using the Linux kernel, macOS 11.0+, and Windows 7 and newer. Bitcoin Core should also work on most other Unix-like systems but is not as frequently tested on them. It is not recommended to use Bitcoin Core on unsupported systems. > > Notable changes > P2P and network changes > Experimental support for the v2 transport protocol defined in BIP324 was added. It is off by default, but when enabled using -v2transport it will be negotiated on a per-connection basis with other peers that support it too. The existing v1 transport protocol remains fully supported. > > Nodes with multiple reachable networks will actively try to have at least one outbound connection to each network. This improves individual resistance to eclipse attacks and network level resistance to partition attacks. Users no longer need to perform active measures to ensure being connected to multiple enabled networks. (#27213) > > Pruning > When using assumeutxo with -prune, the prune budget may be exceeded if it is set lower than 1100MB (i.e. MIN_DISK_SPACE_FOR_BLOCK_FILES * 2). Prune budget is normally split evenly across each chainstate, unless the resulting prune budget per chainstate is beneath MIN_DISK_SPACE_FOR_BLOCK_FILES in which case that value will be used. (#27596) > Updated RPCs > Setting -rpcserialversion=0 is deprecated and will be removed in a future release. It can currently still be used by also adding the -deprecatedrpc=serialversion option. (#28448) > > The hash_serialized_2 value has been removed from gettxoutsetinfo since the value it calculated contained a bug and did not take all data into account. It is superseded by hash_serialized_3 which provides the same functionality but serves the correctly calculated hash. (#28685) > > New fields transport_protocol_type and session_id were added to the getpeerinfo RPC to indicate whether the v2 transport protocol is in use, and if so, what the session id is. > > A new argument v2transport was added to the addnode RPC to indicate whether a v2 transaction connection is to be attempted with the peer. > > Changes to wallet related RPCs can be found in the Wallet section below. > > New RPCs > loadtxoutset has been added, which allows loading a UTXO snapshot of the format generated by dumptxoutset. Once this snapshot is loaded, its contents will be deserialized into a second chainstate data structure, which is then used to sync to the network's tip. > > Meanwhile, the original chainstate will complete the initial block download process in the background, eventually validating up to the block that the snapshot is based upon. > > The result is a usable bitcoind instance that is current with the network tip in a matter of minutes rather than hours. UTXO snapshot are typically obtained via third-party sources (HTTP, torrent, etc.) which is reasonable since their contents are always checked by hash. > > You can find more information on this process in the assumeutxo design document (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/design/assumeutxo.md). > > getchainstates has been added to aid in monitoring the assumeutxo sync process. > > A new getprioritisedtransactions RPC has been added. It returns a map of all fee deltas created by the user with prioritisetransaction, indexed by txid. The map also indicates whether each transaction is present in the mempool. (#27501) > > A new RPC, submitpackage, has been added. It can be used to submit a list of raw hex transactions to the mempool to be evaluated as a package using consensus and mempool policy rules. These policies include package CPFP, allowing a child with high fees to bump a parent below the mempool minimum feerate (but not minimum relay feerate). (#27609) > > Warning: successful submission does not mean the transactions will propagate throughout the network, as package relay is not supported. > > Not all features are available. The package is limited to a child with all of its unconfirmed parents, and no parent may spend the output of another parent. Also, package RBF is not supported. Refer to doc/policy/packages.md for more details on package policies and limitations. > > This RPC is experimental. Its interface may change. > > A new RPC getaddrmaninfo has been added to view the distribution of addresses in the new and tried table of the node's address manager across different networks(ipv4, ipv6, onion, i2p, cjdns). The RPC returns count of addresses in new and tried table as well as their sum for all networks. (#27511) > > A new importmempool RPC has been added. It loads a valid mempool.dat file and attempts to add its contents to the mempool. This can be useful to import mempool data from another node without having to modify the datadir contents and without having to restart the node. (#27460) > > Warning: Importing untrusted files is dangerous, especially if metadata from the file is taken over. > If you want to apply fee deltas, it is recommended to use the getprioritisedtransactions and prioritisetransaction RPCs instead of the apply_fee_delta_priority option to avoid double-prioritising any already-prioritised transactions in the mempool. > Build System > Updated settings > bitcoind and bitcoin-qt will now raise an error on startup if a datadir that is being used contains a bitcoin.conf file that will be ignored, which can happen when a datadir= line is used in a bitcoin.conf file. The error message is just a diagnostic intended to prevent accidental misconfiguration, and it can be disabled to restore the previous behavior of using the datadir while ignoring the bitcoin.conf contained in it. (#27302) > > Passing an invalid -debug, -debugexclude, or -loglevel logging configuration option now raises an error, rather than logging an easily missed warning. (#27632) > > Changes to GUI or wallet related settings can be found in the GUI or Wallet section below. > > New settings > Tools and Utilities > A new bitcoinconsensus_verify_script_with_spent_outputs function is available in libconsensus which optionally accepts the spent outputs of the transaction being verified. > A new bitcoinconsensus_SCRIPT_FLAGS_VERIFY_TAPROOT flag is available in libconsensus that will verify scripts with the Taproot spending rules. > Wallet > Wallet loading has changed in this release. Wallets with some corrupted records that could be previously loaded (with warnings) may no longer load. For example, wallets with corrupted address book entries may no longer load. If this happens, it is recommended load the wallet in a previous version of Bitcoin Core and import the data into a new wallet. Please also report an issue to help improve the software and make wallet loading more robust in these cases. (#24914) > > The gettransaction, listtransactions, listsinceblock RPCs now return the abandoned field for all transactions. Previously, the "abandoned" field was only returned for sent transactions. (#25158) > > The listdescriptors, decodepsbt and similar RPC methods now show h rather than apostrophe (') to indicate hardened derivation. This does not apply when using the private parameter, which matches the marker used when descriptor was generated or imported. Newly created wallets use h. This change makes it easier to handle descriptor strings manually. E.g. the importdescriptors RPC call is easiest to use h as the marker: '["desc": ".../0h/..."]'. With this change listdescriptors will use h, so you can copy-paste the result, without having to add escape characters or switch ' to 'h' manually. Note that this changes the descriptor checksum. For legacy wallets the hdkeypath field in getaddressinfo is unchanged, nor is the serialization format of wallet dumps. (#26076) > > The getbalances RPC now returns a lastprocessedblock JSON object which contains the wallet's last processed block hash and height at the time the balances were calculated. This result shouldn't be cached because importing new keys could invalidate it. (#26094) >
OP this title is extremely misleading. MARA mined a invalid block that has been rejected instantly by network nodes. reason for rejection was misordered transactions: a transaction used as input another transaction in the same block, but the IN tx was listed after the OUT transaction. this tx caused the block to be rejected because it had a reference to an unexisting input. NO BLOCK WITH EXTRA BITCOIN WAS RELEASED
Reverse is the wrong term The Bitcoin network, because of the reality of physics, has latency. This means that it is possible for 2 different miners to release a block at the same time (near enough to the same time) to the node network. This happens roughly 10 times per year When there is a tied mining race, the node network has a 1-block chain tip fork. But every node is independent, which means that no node is aware that some other nodes are now following a slightly different chain When the next block arrives, it is mined by a miner whose node followed one or other side of the tied mining fork (previous block). Nodes on the other side of the fork are unable to add this new block to their chains because of a mismatch in PREV_BLOCK_HASH, the piece which links the entire chain from most recent block back to genesis The nodes on the "losing" side of the fork resolve this mismatch by requesting their peer nodes to send the previous block which fits the new block. This is called a chain tip reorg. It's common to read that Bitcoin "follows the longest chain" Thus, in the expectation of a 1-block chain tip fork caused by a tied mining race, we should expect to wait 2 confirmations before being certain that a transaction exists on the blockchain Note: there's no reversal. From the blockchain point of view, there is only the longest chain. A block which existed in a temporary 1-block tip fork no longer exists. Its transactions weren't reversed. They just don't exist (even though they obviously existed temporarily) Occasionally, there are 2 tied mining races in a row. The software is not limited to 1-block tip reorgs. In fact there is no limit to the depth of a chain tip reorg So, in anticipation of 2 tied mining races in a row, and a 2-block tip reorg, we should wait 3 confirmations Occasionally, a tip reorg is re-reorged, switching the longest chain back to the chain which had previously been reorged as he shorter chain. The mining conditions which might cause this are fairly simple, but not simple to put into words. These incidents are uncommon So, if you're super-cautious you might anticipate a 2-block reorg followed by a 2-block re-reorg. At this point I've lost my ability to count, but I think it means waiting either 3 confirmations or 4 confirmations I think 6 confirmations is over-cautious. I'm not sure where it originated. I've seen suggestions it was recommended by Satoshi, but a quick read of Satoshi Nov-2008 indicates he recommended 2 confirmations https://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/2008-November/014832.html > The recipient just needs to verify it back to a depth that is sufficiently far back in the block chain, which will often only require a depth of 2 transactions I think this might actually mean tracking transaction backlinks, not block confirmations In the same message ... > Receivers of transactions will normally need to hold transactions for perhaps an hour or more to allow time for this kind of possibility to be resolved It would be reasonable to interpret "an hour" as 6 confirmations
"The network" has no knowledge in itself. Each node operator chooses which set of consensus rules apply to the blockchain stored on his own node. There is no guarantee that all the nodes your own node is connected to have the same copy of the blockchain The network converges to consensus (the same history on every node) * because verification of a block is binary. The block is good or bad, never partially good. If a node verifies a block (including all transactions) as valid, it adds the block to its blockchain and propagates the block to its neighbor nodes. If the block is bad, the node does not add it to its blockchain, and does not propagate it * because every block is linked to the previous block. When a node receives a new block, it can not add the block to its chain unless the block's PREV_BLOCK_HASH is identical to the previous block's header hash If a rogue node, or a group of nodes with different consensus rules exists on the network, they're welcome to connect to any node. The network is open, with no authentication requirement. But their different consensus rules cause either of these two conditions * the rogues accept a block which the standard consensus rules reject * the rogues reject a block which the standard consensus rules accept In the first case, the rogue node adds a block to its chain, sends the block to neighbor nodes. The neighbor nodes all reject the block. This makes a fork, in that the block at the tip of the rogue nodes' chain does not exist in the other nodes' chain. A miner creates the next block. This block has a PREV_BLOCK_HASH matching the tip block of the regular nodes. The rogue nodes can not use this block to extend their chain. It follows that the rogue nodes' chain can never be extended. But if the miner is on the rogue side of the network, the rogue nodes' chain tip is now 2 blocks longer. If there are miners on both sides, the rogue miners make blocks which extend the rogue nodes' chains, and the regular miners make blocks which extend the regular nodes' chains. Who decides rogue vs regular. Obviously I do, because I choose those two words prejudicially. In practice, Bitcoin makes no value judgments In the second case, the rogue nodes reject valid blocks and do not extend their chains. Again, if there are some miners following the same consensus rules as the rogue nodes, there is no objective way to choose one chain as regular and the other chain as rogue Important: the longest chain rule applies where a temporary chain tip fork has occurred by chance, among nodes with identical consensus rules. This rule can not be used to resolve a chain fork caused by variant consensus rules Most important is the practical problem of making a transaction - Bitcoin's only purpose. Nodes and miners can fork into separate chains with different consensus rules, and a node only cares that its own chain is consistent with its own consensus rules. Now, I want to send Bitcoin to the company which provides my VPN service. This transaction will work if both my node and the VPN company's node have exactly the same blockchain. If one of us has forked to a separate chain, I can not make the purchase Expand this one transaction to the 40,000 similar transactions every day. It is evident that the merchants and customers have a common interest in their nodes having the same blockchain. So there is no incentive for any node operator to experiment with different consensus rules, either alone or in conspiracy with other nodes and miners The above mechanics, and the social motivations, ensure that Bitcoin nodes converge to the same blockchain, even though every node is operated independently
You need to add Arbitrum Nova network using these settings: ``` NAME: Arbitrum Nova RPC: https://nova.arbitrum.io/rpc CHAIN ID: 42170 SYMBOL: ETH BLOCK EXPLORER: https://nova-explorer.arbitrum.io/ ``` And then you need to import the Moon token contract: ``` 0x0057Ac2d777797d31CD3f8f13bF5e927571D6Ad0 ``` You'll be able to view and interact with your moons.
And BTW you can verify who created BTC. It's whoever can sign (holds the private key) to this pgp pub key, belonging to the user who first posted & shared the Bitcoin whitepaper -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32) mQGiBEkJ+qcRBADKDTcZlYDRtP1Q7/ShuzBJzUh9hoVVowogf2W07U6G9BqKW24r piOxYmErjMFfvNtozNk+33cd/sq3gi05O1IMmZzg2rbF4ne5t3iplXnNuzNh+j+6 VxxA16GPhBRprvnng8r9GYALLUpo9Xk17KE429YYKFgVvtTPtEGUlpO1EwCg7FmW dBbRp4mn5GfxQNT1hzp9WgkD/3pZ0cB5m4enzfylOHXmRfJKBMF02ZDnsY1GqeHv /LjkhCusTp2qz4thLycYOFKGmAddpVnMsE/TYZLgpsxjrJsrEPNSdoXk3IgEStow mXjTfr9xNOrB20Qk0ZOO1mipOWMgse4PmIu02X24OapWtyhdHsX3oBLcwDdke8aE gAh8A/sHlK7fL1Bi8rFzx6hb+2yIlD/fazMBVZUe0r2uo7ldqEz5+GeEiBFignd5 HHhqjJw8rUJkfeZBoTKYlDKo7XDrTRxfyzNuZZPxBLTj+keY8WgYhQ5MWsSC2MX7 FZHaJddYa0pzUmFZmQh0ydulVUQnLKzRSunsjGOnmxiWBZwb6bQjU2F0b3NoaSBO YWthbW90byA8c2F0b3NoaW5AZ214LmNvbT6IYAQTEQIAIAUCSQn6pwIbAwYLCQgH AwIEFQIIAwQWAgMBAh4BAheAAAoJEBjAnoZeyUihXGMAnjiWJ0fvmSgSM3o6Tu3q RME9GN7QAKCGrFw9SUD0e9/YDcqhX1aPMrYue7kCDQRJCfqnEAgA9OTCjLa6Sj7t dZcQxNufsDSCSB+yznIGzFGXXpJk7GgKmX3H9Zl4E6zJTQGXL2GAV4klkSfNtvgs SGJKqCnebuZVwutyq1vXRNVFPQFvLVVo2jJCBHWjb03fmXmavIUtRCHoc8xgVJMQ LrwvS943GgsqSbdoKZWdTnfnEq+UaGo+Qfv66NpT3Yl0CXUiNBITZOJcJdjHDTBO XRqomX2WSguv+btYdhQGGQiaEx73XMftXNCxbOpqwsODQns7xTcl2ENru9BNIQME I7L9FYBQUiKHm1k6RrBy1as8XElS2jEos7GAmlfF1wShFUX+NF1VOPdbN3ZdFoWq sUjKk+QbrwADBQgA9DiD4+uuRhwk2B1TmtrXnwwhcdkE7ZbLHjxBfCsLPAZiPh8c ICfV3S418i4H1YCz2ItcnC8KAPoS6mipyS28AU1B7zJYPODBn8E7aPSPzHJfudMK MqiCHljVJrE23xsKTC0sIhhSKcr2G+6ARoG5lwuoqJqEyDrblVQQFpVxBNPHSTqu O5PoLXQc7PKgC5SyQuZbEALEkItl2SL2yBRRGOlVJLnvZ6eaovkAlgsbGdlieOr0 UwWuJCwzZuBDruMYAfyQBvYfXZun3Zm84rW7Jclp18mXITwGCVHg/P5n7QMbBfZQ A25ymkuj636Nqh+c4zRnSINfyrDcID7AcqEb6IhJBBgRAgAJBQJJCfqnAhsMAAoJ EBjAnoZeyUihPrcAniVWl5M44RuGctJe+IMNX4eVkC08AJ9v7cXsp5uDdQNo8q3R 8RHwN4Gk8w== =3FTe -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Otherwise known under the pseudonym 'Satoshi Nakamoto' Of course we can't verify the true identity of that handle, but one of the beauties of the internet is that we don't have to. Bitcoin is an extension of that fundamental core principle of internet network, permissionless interaction verifiable while anonymous. Ofc the government has created obstacles in the form of regulation, allowing companies & IPS to invade internet privacy, and under the guise of antiML/KYC regulations are counterattacking bitcoins anonymity feature.
You need to add Arbitrum Nova network using these settings: ``` NAME: Arbitrum Nova RPC: https://nova.arbitrum.io/rpc CHAIN ID: 42170 SYMBOL: ETH BLOCK EXPLORER: https://nova-explorer.arbitrum.io/ ``` And then you need to import the Moon token contract: ``` 0x0057Ac2d777797d31CD3f8f13bF5e927571D6Ad0 ``` You'll be able to view and interact with your moons.
There's no voting, no majority. The Bitcoin node network is open. There is no way to authenticate a node. Nodes can not be counted. Bitcoin consensus emerges through every node verifying every block independently That is, I know my node has correctly validated every block in my copy of the blockchain, and I don't know whether any other node has the same blockchain If I need to purchase something using Bitcoin, the purchase transaction can only work if my node and the merchant's node have the same transaction history. Extrapolate from this to every transaction sent by anybody, and it follows that Bitcoin can only work if every node has the same blockchain ###The mechanism * Each node relies on its own consensus rules * Each block is locked up by the Merkle tree of transaction hashes, storing the Merkle root hash in the block header * The blockchain is locked up by storing the previous block's header hash in each block's header (that's why it's called a chain) * When a miner wins the race to publish a new block, he sends the new block to one or more nodes. Nodes do not trust miners. Each of those nodes applies the consensus rules. This verification is comprehensive - block header hash, each block header field, every transaction checked for no double spending, every transaction checked for valid signatures. If there are no errors, the node sends the block to his peers (124 nodes he's connected to). Nodes do not trust nodes. Each of the peer nodes applies the consensus rules. If the block or any of the block's transactions have any errors, the block is not added to the node's blockchain, and the block is not propagated to other nodes. This process - a node propagates the new block **only if it has no errors** - is the main reason that nodes converge to the same blockchain even though every node is independent * It follows that nodes with different consensus rules are not participating because their different rules * either prevent them from accepting a valid block * or cause them to send an invalid block to their peer nodes, and those peers do not propagate those blocks Rogue nodes are permitted to participate in the network, but they're unable to extend their chains because each new block has a PREV_BLOCK_HASH which fails to match the rogue node's chain tip block's header hash > Do all full nodes need to confirm that the block and its content is valid or do we need only a majority of them to do so? Only your own node needs to confirm that each block and all transactions are valid
As far as theories go, this is as decent as any, but really though, 21M is the result of math and a set of rules, it is not a number that was picked, but a result of rules that were set. !!Here are those rules!! 1. New units of currency would be issued with every block to serve as incentive for people to verify transactions, STARTING AT 50 UNITS PER BLOCK 2. ON AVERAGE, A NEW BLOCK SHOULD BE MINED EVERY 10 MINUTES (The mining difficulty adjusts itself to allow the network to achieve this) 3. The number of new units of currency issued per block would be halved every 210,000 blocks (or 4 years) 4. 50% of units should be released within the first "halving" cycle (now refer to rule 2 again) These rules when put into action, result in 21M BTC that will ever be newly issued. The code no where says that 21M would be the issuance. It is the FIXED monetary policy of Bitcoin that results in the total fixed supply. Hope this helps!!
He can import his seed phrase into something like MetaMask, and add the Arbitrum Nova network. MetaMask: https://metamask.io/download/ Network settings for Arbitrum Nova: ``` NAME : Arbitrum Nova RPC: https://nova.arbitrum.io/rpc CHAIN ID : 42170 SYMBOL: ETH BLOCK EXPLORER: https://nova-explorer.arbitrum.io/ ``` He will then be able to access his ETH on Nova.
NAME : Arbitrum Nova RPC: https://nova.arbitrum.io/rpc CHAIN ID : 42170 SYMBOL: ETH BLOCK EXPLORER: https://nova-explorer.arbitrum.io/ MOONS Contract Address: 0x0057Ac2d777797d31CD3f8f13bF5e927571D6Ad0 BRICKS Contract Address: 0x6DcB98f460457fe4952e12779Ba852F82eCC62C1
The seed phrase proves ownership of the EVM address assigned to your Reddit vault. Not only can you restore the vault with those 12 words, but you can also import the address to MetaMask and interact with your funds on there. MetaMask: https://metamask.io/download/ Network settings for Arbitrum Nova: ``` NAME : Arbitrum Nova RPC: https://nova.arbitrum.io/rpc CHAIN ID : 42170 SYMBOL: ETH BLOCK EXPLORER: https://nova-explorer.arbitrum.io/ ``` MOONS Contract Address: ``` 0x0057Ac2d777797d31CD3f8f13bF5e927571D6Ad0 ``` tl;dr: yes
Well to be fair he could have dropped it the moment he saw hinman email. No logical fair person thinks that is ok... thier defense is always BLOCK BECAUSE ITS A PREVILEDGE. Why would you want to block a guidance? And the guidance must come to your office.
See chapter 10 in Antonopoulos for a nice diagram and explanation https://github.com/bitcoinbook/bitcoinbook/blob/develop/ch10.asciidoc > What happens if chain A "wins" You node sees that its chain can't be extended because there is a mismatch in PREV_BLOCK_HASH. In your example, this mismatch happens in block 6. The prevhash in block 6 matches the block 5 hash in chain A Now your node knows it needs to get a replacement block 5 from another node. When this arrives, it also has a mismatching prevhash, and so on until your node has collected all 5 blocks from the tip of chain A Your node makes your 5-block chain B tip stale, and performs a tip reorg to follow chain A > My transaction will turn “unsent” and back to the mempool A Core node will add your unconfirmed transaction back into its mempool (but not necessarily). In Chain A nodes, it was always in the mempool, unless it was confirmed in Chain A block 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 Note that mempool management and anything to do with unconfirmed transactions are not part of Bitcoin consensus. Consensus only applies to transactions which are in confirmed blocks. Your transaction's status changed from confirmed to unconfirmed, even if it's not in any mempool after the tip reorg > back to my address Bitcoin doesn't work that way. An unconfirmed transaction does not leave your wallet. There's nothing to return > Do I have to pay the mining fees again You didn't pay them because your transaction is not in the longest chain > the miners of chain B will still keep their rewards Coinbase transaction outputs (rewards) can not be spent for 100 blocks. If a chain tip reorg was more than 100 blocks long, life would be very interesting
You don't need to import a separate wallet after importing your seed phrase. Instead, you need to click the network menu and choose "add network". Then insert the following information: ``` NAME : Arbitrum Nova RPC: https://nova.arbitrum.io/rpc CHAIN ID : 42170 SYMBOL: ETH BLOCK EXPLORER: https://nova-explorer.arbitrum.io/ ``` After this, you need to import the token contract: ``` MOONS Contract Address: 0x0057Ac2d777797d31CD3f8f13bF5e927571D6Ad0 ```
``` NAME : Arbitrum Nova RPC: https://nova.arbitrum.io/rpc CHAIN ID : 42170 SYMBOL: ETH BLOCK EXPLORER: https://nova-explorer.arbitrum.io/ ``` MOONS Contract Address: ``` 0x0057Ac2d777797d31CD3f8f13bF5e927571D6Ad0 ``` Sushi link for swapping Moons to ETH and vice versa: https://app.sushi.com/swap?inputCurrency=0x0057Ac2d777797d31CD3f8f13bF5e927571D6Ad0&outputCurrency=ETH&chainId=42170
Coinbase wallet doesn’t support Arbitrum Nova OP! But don’t be afraid. What do you need to do? You can import the seed phrase from your Coinbase wallet in to MetaMask and you’ll be able to move your moons again. Step by step: 1. Look for your 12 or 24 words from your Coinbase wallet (or private key) 2. Use this seed phrase in MetaMask 3. Maybe you need to add the network and contract address again, I summed them up for you: NAME : Arbitrum Nova RPC: https://nova.arbitrum.io/rpc CHAIN ID : 42170 SYMBOL: ETH BLOCK EXPLORER: https://nova-explorer.arbitrum.io/ MOONS Contract Address: 0x0057Ac2d777797d31CD3f8f13bF5e927571D6Ad0 4) Sell your moons I hope you’ll be able to recover your funds OP! If you sent your moons to Coinbase directly (so not their wallet, it’s a difference) then you need to contact their customer service.
NAME : Arbitrum Nova RPC: https://nova.arbitrum.io/rpc CHAIN ID : 42170 SYMBOL: ETH BLOCK EXPLORER: https://nova-explorer.arbitrum.io/ MOONS Contract Address: 0x0057Ac2d777797d31CD3f8f13bF5e927571D6Ad0 BRICKS Contract Address: 0x6DcB98f460457fe4952e12779Ba852F82eCC62C1
Coinbase doesn't support moons. You can try importing your wallet to MetaMask Desktop: https://github.com/MetaMask/metamask-extension Mobile: https://github.com/MetaMask/metamask-mobile From there, you'll need to add Arbitrum Nova by going to Settings --> Network ---> Add Network ``` NAME : Arbitrum Nova RPC: https://nova.arbitrum.io/rpc CHAIN ID : 42170 SYMBOL: ETH BLOCK EXPLORER: ``` https://nova-explorer.arbitrum.io/ MOONS Contract Address: 0x0057Ac2d777797d31CD3f8f13bF5e927571D6Ad0
I use CDD too to BUY only the withdraw, If CDC was to ever go under like voyager , Celsius ETC- then your BTC or other crypto will never be able to withdrawn ( they own it) if you want to have it stored but not on an actual device I recommend Trust Wallet app ( search their official Twitter and only use their link to download) , it’s a cold wallet and transfer the BTC or any crypto there. BEWARE though never sync it with anything , never give anyone the 24 letter seed phrase and never store it on any cloud service,phone notes etc - only on paper and in safe or only place book you will know about and off the internet. If anyone ever messages you claiming they are support BLOCK then. Congrats on your BTC purchase.
BTCUSD $ 22,449.50 1.05% ETHUSD $ 1,570.01 0.87% LTCUSD $ 91.24 3.54% SOLUSD $ 21.40 4.45% THE BLOCK PRO HAS ARRIVED. A new platform powered by the industry's most sought-after experts. Learn more ✕ Connect Bybit halts deposits via USD bank transfer, citing partner 'service outages' Crypto's three biggest stories from the past week PancakeSwap V3 upgrade set to go live on BNB Chain in first week of April This week in markets: Crypto prices slide amid Silvergate fallout Crypto lender Celsius converts almost 23,000 WBTC into bitcoin Bybit halts deposits via USD bank transfer, citing partner 'service outages' Crypto's three biggest stories from the past week PancakeSwap V3 upgrade set to go live on BNB Chain in first week of April This week in markets: Crypto prices slide amid Silvergate fallout Crypto lender Celsius converts almost 23,000 WBTC into bitcoin USD JPY EUR GBP LIVE BTCUSD $ 22,449.50 1.05% ETHUSD $ 1,570.01 0.87% LTCUSD $ 91.24 3.54% SOLUSD $ 21.40 4.45% LATEST Silvergate short seller predicts crypto bank's demise within a week March 4, 2023, 2:36PM EST COMPANIES Prosecutors say SBF should only access approved websites. He wants Door Dash and the New York Post March 4, 2023, 2:23PM EST POLICY Bybit halts deposits via USD bank transfer, citing partner 'service outages' March 4, 2023, 10:45AM EST EXCHANGES Crypto's three biggest stories from the past week March 4, 2023, 10:30AM EST COMPANIES PancakeSwap V3 upgrade set to go live on BNB Chain in first week of April March 4, 2023, 8:20AM EST CRYPTO ECOSYSTEMS Silvergate short seller predicts crypto bank's demise within a week by Benjamin Robertson COMPANIES • MARCH 4, 2023, 2:36PM EST Published 2 HOURS AND 10 MINUTES EARLIER on ￼ The Block QUICK TAKE Short-seller Marc Cohodes, who has been attacking Silvergate since last year, now expects the bank to close within a week. Silvergate shuttered one of its key money transfer platforms on Friday, shortly after Moody’s downgraded its long-term issuer rating. ￼ ￼ Marc Cohodes spent part of his Friday afternoon playing the conquering victor. The veteran short seller posted pictures of a seemingly deserted Silvergate office on Twitter, while telling The Block that, ''Silvergate is a publicly traded crime scene and Alan Lane belongs in prison.” A spokesperson for the bank and its CEO Lane did not respond to multiple requests for comment. The California-based bank has taken a beating recently over its ties to FTX and Alameda Research. Shares are down around 95% over the past six months. The company's long-term issuer rating was downgraded by Moody's on Friday, which warned further rating cuts were on the table after the bank disclosed it was poorly capitalized and had failed to file its annual report on time. Shortly after the rating downgrade, the bank announced it was closing its 24-hour money transfer system known as the Silvergate Exchange Network. ''I would be very surprised if the bank is open next week,'' Cohodes said.
Just noting that the actual article is titled *'ADDRESSING ORDINAL CONCERNS: BITCOIN DECENTRALIZATION AND BLOCK SPACE'* - looks like the auto-titling as applied to the link post is slightly off-beam. Some interesting stats in there tbh - re cumulative inscription-specific storage at +3GB to date; fees now on the decrease, but the mempool backlog remaining high
1. No Fiat Onramp. How do I buy anything? I need crypto to buy crypto? How do I buy crypto? Your DEX cannot help. Piece of shit, you wasted by time. 2. "With 100% of the trading fees going back to the people" BLOCK, another pump and dump shitcoin token makes/mode the founders rich and does not make you the owner of the exchange. I've lost track of the number of these money grab shitcoin exchanges that returned trading fees to the "people." 3. " better security against hackers" I guarantee you, a shitcoin token money grab exchange is not spending as much as Coinbase, multi-billion dollar publicly traded exchange, on security. $3.8 Billion was stolen on "DEFI" protocols last year. 4. Zero transparency, controls, etc in DEX and usually a handful of people that control everything in these DEFI protocols and market it as the most secure, fair, governed by token holders, etc. Even what people consider the best example of a DAO is completely centrazlijed. I posted this 3 years ago when Maker had a protocol change voting to use USDC > One man, Rune Christensen controls the system, interest, fees, voting, etc. There are ELEVEN addresses that accounted for 98% of the voting for the protocol change for an "executive vote" used USDC. Eleven addresses control the entire protocol and a protocol change was voted in just...what 24 hrs? And most of those addresses are probably owned by a handful of people. On what planet is that decentralized? https://np.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/fl68d4/comment/fkxc40i 5. Usability. Download an app. Install it. Looks like the Bloomberg Terminal. Those 3 steps itself will scare 95% of users. 6. Support - CEXs have some of the worst support when you compare it to the financial services industry but DEX is even worse. I am not aware of any DEXes that are manning telephones or have ramped up email support to help users with issues.
In addition to all the other reasons already listed... Bitcoin is produced on a fairly predictable schedule going forward, marked by halving, etc. Gold is produced by mining it. So if some new source of gold comes on the market, it could drive it down. Imagine a 50 or a 100 years from now, some asteroid mining operation hauls back the freaking motherload and depresses the prices of gold. Or if you'd rather a historical analogy: Mansa Musa rolling in for Hajj and spending or giving away so much gold it actually drove down the the market price for gold. Bitcoin? TIK TOK, NEXT BLOCK!
But what you don't seem to realise is "Yes 80% of the validator do not build block with transaction related Tornado Cash" (Mostly because they all use the same Bot, initially designed to help validator make more money, but that is OFAC Compliant) That is true, and i do not refute this affirmation AT ALL. And i see there could be a risk in that. BUT, NONETHELESS, there are still validator which do include those transaction, even if they are a minority. THEY ARE STILL CHOSEN AS VALIDATOR and do ADD BLOCK WITH TORNADO CASH TX INSIDE THE BLOCKCHAIN. Those transaction STILL END UP BEING INSCRIBED IN THE BLOCKCHAIN. So no they are not "censored by the network" it juste mathematically take them longer to be inscribed because most of the validator does not incluse them on their block but they Will Always bé inscribed as long as 1 validator put them in the block they validate and the other validator are not forking the chain every 10s by choosing to never build New block on top of the block containing tornado cash transaction. And bout the 80% of hashrate being fucking expensive. Yes i know the sum.at play. But the fact is also that 51% of the Hashrate Is actually being detained by 6 compagnies. Capitalism being capitalism, they have no fucking interest to 51% attack the BTC blockchain. Economical reward are not worth the cost. But 6 CEO could theoratically sit down at a table and décide to 51% attack the BTC blockchain because they have this hashrate
In bitcoin "time" doesn't really exist in the same sense as you might think as the bitcoin network doesn't rely on an outside oracle to determine the time and doesn't keep a time consensus with "the real world" instead it is it's own clock, a distributed timestamp server where everyone HAS to agree on the order blocks and transactions occurred. >In this paper, we propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a peer-to-peer distributed timestamp server to generate computational proof of the chronological order of transactions - Satoshi Nakamoto (2009) Miners are required to add their own timestamps to the blocks they're building but it leaves the door open for potential manipulation - If miners say the blocks took longer on average than it did then the difficulty would adjust downwards and their profitability would go up. There are two rules in place with regards to how to "timestamp" blocks to prevent this being an issue: >Median Past Time (MPT) Rule – The timestamp must be further forwards than the median of the last eleven blocks. The median of eleven blocks implies six blocks could be re-organised and time would still not move backwards, which one can argue is reasonably consistent with the example, provided in Meni Rosenfeld’s 2012 paper, that six confirmations are necessary to decrease the probability of success below 0.1%, for an attacker with 10% of the network hashrate. >Future Block Time Rule – The timestamp cannot be more than 2 hours in the future based on the MAX_FUTURE_BLOCK_TIME constant, relative to the median time from the node’s peers. The maximum allowed gap between the time provided by the nodes and the local system clock is 90 minutes, another safeguard. It should be noted that unlike the MPT rule above, this is not a full consensus rule. Blocks with a timestamp too far in the future are not invalid, they can become valid as time moves forwards. https://blog.bitmex.com/bitcoins-block-timestamp-protection-rules/ So long as the timestamps abide by these rules the network will keep "time" and the individual timestamps don't really matter.
In Metamask, here is the custom network info you have to add NAME : Arbitrum Nova RPC: https://nova.arbitrum.io/rpc CHAIN ID : 42170 SYMBOL: ETH BLOCK EXPLORER: https://nova-explorer.arbitrum.io/ Then here is the custom token you need to import MOONS Contract Address: 0x0057Ac2d777797d31CD3f8f13bF5e927571D6Ad0
Why suspicious? Major mining firms from Argo Blockchain, BLOCK and GRIID Infrastructure are already deploying the chip in their centres. It's just a matter of scale. Keeping scale in mind, this isn't going to compete with an S19, it would be for the casual miner. This would be analogous to the past when a adding your GPU to a pool was competitive. >you gotta pay for the card, and the energy bill used by the card to hash. True, I just tried to give a sense of monthly profit after you pay off the card. The cost of the card is a question that depends on a lot more.
> wouldn’t most nodes just refuse to enter the double-spend into the mempool The mempool is not relevant to consensus, nor is it relevant to miner double-spending Even in normal mining, a miner can build his candidate block from any source of valid transactions. He doesn't have to use his mempool. The mempool is, for obvious reasons, the best source of **unconfirmed** transactions An attacker will definitely not use a mempool for his double-spend. He will construct his own spending transaction and send it to the node network to be mined via the winning miner's mempool. When replacing the transaction with a send-to-self transaction, he includes the replacement transaction directly in his block directly. This transaction does not need to be seen by other nodes The node network follows the longest chain. A successful 51% attack will produce a longer chain than the regular miners. Every node in the node network will reorg its tip to follow the longer chain. The node network **does not judge** the replacement transaction as a double-spend. During the tip reorg, the original transaction disappears, as if it never existed --- Some extra background ... Chain tip reorgs happen whenever there is a tied mining race. This is not an attack, It is a normal occurrence - about 10 times per year. A node is not aware of a tied mining race until the next block arrives. If the new block does not follow the node's previous block (PREV_BLOCK_HASH does not match), then the node reorgs its tip to follow the longer chain A 51% attack forges a tied mining race, takes advantage of the nodes' consensus rule of always following the longest chain. A node never judges fraud or dishonesty. It prevents double-spending being recorded on the chain by choosing the longest chain https://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/2008-November/014832.html https://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/2008-November/014843.html https://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/2008-November/014858.html > The transaction in whichever branch ends up getting ahead becomes the valid one, the other is invalid. If someone tries to double spend like that, one and only one spend will always become valid, the others invalid > Receivers of transactions will normally need to hold transactions for perhaps an hour or more to allow time for this kind of possibility to be resolved > It is strictly necessary that the longest chain is always considered the valid one > When there are multiple double-spent versions of the same transaction, one and only one will become valid > The guy who received the double-spend that became invalid never thought he had it in the first place > We're not "on the lookout" for double spends to sound the alarm and catch the cheater. We merely adjudicate which one of the spends is valid >
It's Blocknet (BLOCK) Really interesting interoperability project But listed only on Bittrex and development, although active and ongoing, is kind of slow cause the team and funding aren't 't that large It's a true OG coin but times have changed and no one really cares about things like decentralisation and such
You need to manually import the tokens you own and the networks of course :) For RCPs it’s this: NAME : Arbitrum Nova RPC: https://nova.arbitrum.io/rpc CHAIN ID : 42170 SYMBOL: ETH BLOCK EXPLORER: https://nova-explorer.arbitrum.io/ MOONS Contract Address: 0x0057Ac2d777797d31CD3f8f13bF5e927571D6Ad0 BRICKS Contract Address: 0x6DcB98f460457fe4952e12779Ba852F82eCC62C1
Surprisingly well written and informative. FYI, the upgrade is the change as to how miners submit their work, currently name Stratum to v2. What is neat is that BLOCK is getting in on mining and using a Tesla solar farm. No wonder Jack and Musk are such buddies in recent times.
"This is reply from founder of Saito. Also if you have any queries you can directly ping him too he is very chill and he is the only founder in space of major L1 which addresses messages." A --> B --> C A ---> B ---> B2 ---> C as transactions propagate deeper into the network, the amount of "power" they provide for producing blocks falls. the same transaction is worth less for C than B, and less for B than A. so unless B or C are attacking the network (by spending their own money) A will produce blocks at 2x the speed of B. when A puts transactions into blocks, they will have shorter routing paths and thus be smaller transactions so I believe the first misunderstand of the person asking you this question is the assumption that we WANT or INCENTIVIZE random routing paths in the P2P network. we don't. we want shortly and highly efficient routing paths. we want to incentivize block producers to migrate into the P2P network and get as close to users as possible. now look at these two transactions A --> B --> C A ---> B ---> B2 ---> C they are the same transaction. the difference is that when the 2nd transaction arrives at C it already has the first in its mempool will C add the 2nd version? tx1 has 2 hops tx2 has 3 hops but the core tx is the same. tx1 is way better for the block producer when they get tx2, they'll delete it so node B2 is not going to get paid very much, because their transactions will rarely go into the blockchain but that's what we want, since they're not contributing real value if B and C can avoid them but that's what we want, since they're not contributing real value if B and C can avoid them they are consuming bandwidth without contributing value. technically they are a parasite. > the issue i have with this is that the path is selected using some decentralized source of randomness so that nodes on the path are not arbitrary but random. so this quote shows a misunderstanding the path that wins isn't random the lottery selects the winner from the txs that ARE included. but the block producers want to put in the TXS that give them the greatest chance of winning, they they are biased towards shorter and more efficient routing paths everyone else on the routing path also hates B2. a longer routing path makes everyone else less profitable and makes it less like that THEY get paid because it means their TXS are less likely to create a block the person you are talking to seems to think the lottery picks a random routing node in the network. it doesn't. it picks a random routing node FROM THE NODES IN THE ROUTING PATHS OF THE TXS THAT ARE IN THE BLOCK. block producers cut TXS from inefficient paths if they have better / shorter / more efficient paths
Here is the network details: NAME : Arbitrum Nova RPC: https://nova.arbitrum.io/rpc CHAIN ID : 42170 SYMBOL: ETH BLOCK EXPLORER: https://nova-explorer.arbitrum.io/ MOONS Contract Address: 0x0057Ac2d777797d31CD3f8f13bF5e927571D6Ad0 BRICKS Contract Address: 0x6DcB98f460457fe4952e12779Ba852F82eCC62C1
As far as i know, Mobile is the only way to key your seed phrase, you can recover it into metamask. Moons are on arbitrum nova. NAME : Arbitrum Nova RPC: https://nova.arbitrum.io/rpc CHAIN ID : 42170 SYMBOL: ETH BLOCK EXPLORER: https://nova-explorer.arbitrum.io/ MOONS Contract Address: 0x0057Ac2d777797d31CD3f8f13bF5e927571D6Ad0
This is a misconception. To control a POW chain you need to expend the energy and therefore cost EVERY SINGLE BLOCK, this is different to proof of work where you bear the expense once and then can rent seek once you are rich.
My understanding differs from the /u/nullc comment, so it could be wrong. This is based on my memory of reading snippets of Core source code about 2 years ago Also, I'm assuming the question is about processing of recently mined blocks, not about the initial block download. I suspect those cases have different answers. The question can be interpreted either way. Please clarify I think the node accepts the block as an orphan and stores it until the missing block is sent, doesn't ask for the missing block In a different case - a chain tip fork caused by a tied mining race - a node recognizes that it might have a stale chain tip when the next block's PREV_BLOCK_HASH doesn't match, preventing the new block from extending the chain. In this case, the node asks another node (or other nodes) to send the block which has a hash matching PREV_BLOCK_HASH of the new block. If that turns out to be the valid longest chain, the previous block becomes stale > signatures They are not directly important for extending the chain. They are important for validating the block at transaction level. SegWit transactions do have signatures, and they are stored in the blockchain
These things tie together * tied mining race * chain tip reorg * 51% attack The reality of network latency creates approximately 10 tied mining races per year. A tied mining race creates forked chain tips. An individual node is unaware of a fork until the next block is mined, and it follows (via PREV_BLOCK_HASH) a chain which is different to the node's current chain. To reorg, the node requests the previous block which matches PREV_BLOCK_HASH and makes the fork block stale In a 51% attack, a miner with sufficient hash power can forge a tied mining race and use the fork to double-spend Any chain tip fork is an opportunity to double-spend. Normally, the opportunity is impossible to exploit because a tied mining race is unpredictable Occasionally, a tip fork (tied mining race) can be two blocks deep. Occasionally, a node might reorg and follow a chain which is then (next block) found to be shorter. Then it needs to re-reorg. To cover these possibilities, safe confirmation advice recommends waiting 6 blocks. In 99% of tied mining races, 2 confirmations is enough. In an extreme 2-block tip which is reorganized and re-reorganized, waiting 4 blocks is sufficient Even though very, very few chain tip reorgs are deeper than 2 blocks, there is no defined limit to the depth of a reorg. Your hypothetical network outage can be handled by an arbitrarily deep chain tip reorg In 51% attacks on Bitcoin-like blockchains, the attacker mined in parallel for 2 hours, and then released 2 hours of blocks to the node network. This method allows an attacker to circumvent the usual 6-block confirmation rule, but the experience also motivated exchanges (the double-spend victims) to dynamically calculate confirmation delays according to each crpyotcurrency's attack risk In your hypothetical, mals who are aware of a chain fork caused by a network outage can try to exploit the outage by double-spending. The risk is mitigated by the fact that their likely victims (coin-to-coin exchanges) should be aware of the chain fork, and wary of double-spend possibility. Also, to double spend, the attacker needs to be on the slow mining side of the outage, which may not mine enough blocks to pull off the heist
While I think owning BTC is better than owning Microstrategy stock, what you say is not true, neither bound to happen. Microstrategy software business has been long time dwarfed by its BTC bet. The company would never be able to repay its debt and obligations if it only had to rely on the FCF generated by the business. In other words, the course set by Saylor is not reversible. That’s also why he gave up the CEO role and became chairman to focus on what actually matters to the company at this point - its BTC bet. If Saylor dies, the board would never appoint a new CEO that does not believe in BTC. It is actually very likely that at some point in the future saylor himself will decide to sell / spin-off the legacy software business and retain only its BTC bet as ‘core’ to the new company. It’s similar to what happened with a failing Yahoo and its stake in Alibaba a few years ago. Yahoo ended up being sold to MSFG and the Alibaba stake split to create value for shareholders. Even if an anti-BTC CEO comes around (impossible, but likely they will split the non BTC business, as I said before), he/she will not just make all BTC that microstrategy owns disappear. Whatever strategy it’s chosen to get out the BTC bet, the stock is and will be forever linked to BTC that the company owns. Even if as you say they liquidate all BTC they own, the money will be distributed a way or another to shareholders, so you won’t just lose your investment. It’s actually likely that any maunever to split BTC from Microstrategy will be positively received by markets. This is different than Tesla (or BLOCK), since those companies have large core businesses that have nothing to do with BTC, even if they own / have owned some. So, no, you are not subject to this kind of risk by owning Microstrategy. Personally I prefer Microstrategy than spot ETFs that tend to be very expensive. But again, nothing beats the real thing.
The people who's funds are deposited into the Tornado pool are the ones ~~writing to the blockchain~~ writing to a brand new blockchain for those coins (because the blockchain history of those coins has been mixed up). Which entirely defeats the purpose of having a BLOCK-CHAIN. It breaks the chain and restarts it.
>so, prove this to me (and all), create a video where you can BLOCK transactions using your node. Wat? All you have to do is turn the node off. Boom. Your counterparty can't use LN and must close the channel, after waiting days or weeks for the channel timeout to expire.
>Those funds move within the LN if and only if the counterparty agrees, like a bank. so, prove this to me (and all), create a video where you can BLOCK transactions using your node. there is no one documented video on all internet documenting this. to this point, all what bcash community can create is theoretical verbiage that doesn't work outside the bcash echochamber.
You basically dont know how software development works. LOL They released the base-code and keep improving things. Why, does Version 1 equate to every single complete well-performing product? Idk if you ever know the term CIPs? If you dont know the basic of SDLC stop acting that you know everything. >Because a single smart contract takes a lot of space inside a block. From what you've said this is very wrong. a BLOCK can handle many smart contracts. There is a max script size. WHAT this new update will do is just REFERENCE that script. If you know how C++ pointers work you should understand that. But I guess YOU dont know that because you dont even know how to write code
Its pretty f##$%in simple man.. POS - UNLESS YOURE A MULTI MILLION DOLLAR CORP/USER RUNNING MULTI MILLION DOLLAR VALIDATION HARDWARE.. YOU DONT GET A BLOCK REWARD you stake in a pool.. which offers rewards... and rewards for most staking pools are interest based on your stake which fluctuates not a return on transactional block rewards (thpugh correctly me if im wrong.. im rly intoxicated)
Post is by: Awhodothey and the url/text [ ](https://goo.gl/GP6ppk)is: /r/CryptoCurrency/comments/s7pjy5/12_reasons_cardano_cant_scale_in_2022/ This post is a reality check on IOHK's latest investor disinformation campaign: https://iohk.io/en/blog/posts/2022/01/14/how-we-re-scaling-cardano-in-2022/ Tldr: It's great to see they are starting to acknowledge Cardano's scalability problem, or at least pumping the brakes on their unsubstantiated claims of having solved the trilemma. For the first time, 2021 saw the Cardano community publicly acknowledge some of the limitations of their design that critics have pointed out for years. We've come a long way since IOHK was still pretending this was almost ready to go: https://nitter.net/iohk_charles/status/1287481374224420864 **1. BLOCK SIZE/ 2. MEMORY/ 3. STORAGE INCREASES** The bigger the blocks, the higher the memory, and the more storage- the faster the chain. Basically every chain that isn't already run on super computers can increase blocksizes, memory or storage requirements if they are OK with more centralization and less stability. That's the trade off. That's true for Cardano, and it's true for every other chain. But how much room does Cardano have to increase parameters? Cardano already has pretty much the same blocksize as Ethereum (72Kb vs ETH's average of 80Kb) and dramatic increases in blocksize will decrease the number of people who can afford to run nodes, and it also makes the network more likely to fork. The theoretical max limit is 28x the current blocksize, but that is almost certainly not practically possible, and no one supports increasing it to even half of that (which is about the most that has ever been tested), because increasing the blocksize isn't free. How critical is it for Cardano to maintain as small of blocksizes as possible? Critical enough that the plan is to only increase in 12.5% intervals when absolutely necessary. The fact that anyone is at all hesitant to increase Cardano's limit when it's 72kb tells you that this isn't a free trade. There is no plan to ever reach max parameters. Edit: they can actually increase the block size OR decrease the block time, but as they both directly factor into block propagation times, either choice produces the same throughput limit. The decision has more to do with which hardware requirements you want to increase. https://np.reddit.com/r/cardano/comments/pf25jk/without_hydra_cardano_probably_wont_be_faster/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share What makes Cardano fundamentally slower than every other chain is how bloated their tx sizes are. We've all heard the sales pitch "And Cardano has native tokens that don't need smart contracts!," but what you didn't get told is that native UTXO txs on Cardano are an average of 500 bytes WITHOUT smart contracts. And that a basic, native tx is larger than the average Ethereum tx WITH smart contracts. And no, the "And Cardano can combine 20 txs into 1 !" meme doesn't make any difference. The size and speed of each block is all the same regardless of whether you call it 1 tx or 20tx's. The only thing combining txs does is make Cardano significantly cheaper to DDOS. https://messari.io/asset/ethereum/metrics/network-activity Native Cardano UTXOs are bigger than the average Ethereum tx, and Plutus smart contracts txs are even bigger that - a lot bigger- like 40x the size of Ethereum smart contracts: **Sundaeswap determined that the Cardano network was their primary bottle neck and measured Cardano's real-world throughput for their smart contracts to be 0.15 TPS.** That's 47x slower than a native UTXO on Cardano, 100x slower than an Ethereum tx, and 66,000x slower than a Cosmos and Terra tx. 0.15 TPS is a max of 12,960 txs per day, under ideal conditions... on the entire Cardano chain. https://sundaeswap-finance.medium.com/expectations-congestion-mainnet-launch-e9da5abfd819 Edit: Sunday swaps medium posts are all offline now. https://web.archive.org/web/20220117005224/https://sundaeswap-finance.medium.com/expectations-congestion-mainnet-launch-e9da5abfd819 Cardano's problem is much bigger than anything that can be fixed with a 2x parameter adjustment. Max parameters will never be implemented, and even then, they would still leave Cardano more than 3x slower than the second slowest L1 chain, Ethereum. **4. Pipe Lining and 5. Input Endorsers** ...are great ideas. So why are these still in the research phase? They're promising to deliver a plan that hasn't even been designed yet. Let's assume these get designed and developed in 2022. Then Cardano is in the ballpark of Ethereum L1's low tps and high congestion. **6. Plutus Script Enhancements** These are basic functions (that are still in the research phase because of how they conflict with provability in Hydra). Plutus should not even have been released before they developed reference and data inputs. That was an obvious problem, and it was a huge mistake that will create chaos and disappointment. Edit: putting something as basic and critical as reference inputs on the roadmap for 9 months after smart contracts are released is the definition of "move fast and break things." Also, nobody has explained how they solved the conflict with provability. They didn't leave it out of Plutus because it's a minor problem: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3dc6zG9EjWE&t=37m30s Cardano will alway have much larger txs than non-UTXO chains because native UTXOs are so large. On top of that, Plutus' smart contract implementation is extremely bloated and inefficient. The problem is that Cardano's UTXO model can't store smart contracts on-chain. So instead of calling an on-chain smart contract, every Cardano SC tx must include the SC script in every tx, because there is no on-chain SC that can simply be referenced again and again. This makes every Cardano smart contract very large. Cardano currently does native asset txs (without smart contracts) at 7 TPS, and that's the theoretical minimum SC size, if they figure out how to compress SCs 47x. And that means that Cardano SCs will always be at least twice as slow as Ethereum L1's unbearably slow 15 TPS, for the same blocksize. Now is a good time to point out that it's clear from their rhetorical focus of comparing their chain to the next slowest chain, that Cardano holders have no idea how slow Ethereum is. Up to this point in time, almost all of Cardano's txs have been basic UTXO's that haven't filled up blocks, because they are a small fraction of the size of smart contracts. Four months after going live, no one really uses smart contracts on Cardano yet. Muesliswap doesn't even have $100 Million in TVL (and doesn't have $5M in liquidity to other tokens). Small NFT drops did bring the network to a crawl, but we haven't seen speeds across the whole network change dramatically like they will when Sundaeswap launches a real DEX and much bigger txs flood the chain Thursday. And catching up to Ethereum L1 will not be good enough. Ethereum has L2s already, and nobody would use Eth L1 if it went live for the first time today. Ethereum has the first mover advantage of having all the liquidity. Whales don't care about a $200 fee, they care about liquidity. They need to move in and out of large positions quickly with as little price impact and slippage as possible. **7. Node Enhancements** This is not a scaling solution. Yes, fix your bugs and optimize your code. No other chain thinks a node update is a "scaling solution." This is ridiculous. Let me say this again: Cardano is currently 66,000x slower than Cosmos and Terra. **8. Side-chains** Great idea. But Cardano doesn't have any decentralized side-chains, and they didn't even get serious about funding any until late last summer. Proper sidechains are the real solution. Milkomeda is on the right track with their M1 sidechain. It's an accounts model Solidity EVM sidechain that has 32 permissioned nodes and uses slashing. Congratulations on abandoning all of your stated goals, and rushing to produce something usable. We waited six years so Catalyst could fund BSC 2.0. https://dcspark.gitbook.io/milkomeda/our-solution-1/the-m-1-sidechain **9. Hydra** A comprehensive plan for interhead Hydra implementation that approaches anything close to a generalized L2 has yet to be described, let alone developed. We're still waiting for a basic description of how isomorphic state channels will ever scale dApps or have any use between untrusted parties. Hydra's 2022 release schedule is for payment channels between trusted parties. Yes, it will be able to handle smart contracts, but not any smart contracts that dApps use. Hydra heads have to be closed every time a party joins or leaves, and they have no known application for dApps. Hydra is really irrelevant, because native UTXO transfers aren't the problem right now. https://np.reddit.com/r/cardano/comments/s18wie/should_cardano_be_prepared_to_abandon_hydra/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share **10. Off-chain computing** >"Transactions occur outside of the blockchain itself, yet can offer fast, cheap transactions via a trust model." Brilliant. This is a creative solution. Off-chain **trusted** computations. *Finally something that makes sense.* Yes, Cardano users should definitely do their computations somewhere they trust, off-chain... Muhammad Fucking Christ. Let me suggest they do their computations on one of the 79 other L1 blockchains. Edit: there's a massive difference between off-chain to a trusted party and off-chain to decentralized, trustless rollup or side chain. They are not remotely the same. That's why Sundaeswap had to come up with the convoluted scooper model and Maladex wrote a book detailing their experimental solution to countering the specific vulnerabilities of off-chain code (some of which on-chain verification will never detect). In the YouTube link above, Sebastien from DC Spark says Cardano is years away from having rollups. **11.
>*I said earlier it is currently overkill already. It is based on a budget system setup in 2009, and it was pretty conservative towards security.* > >How much less secure can it get before its a serious security issue? 2x? 10x? 20x? If you know its already over-budget for what it needs you should be able to put a ballpark figure on what it needs. Unless that would make Bitcoin either look too insecure if it was a low number, or too inefficient if it was a high number. In which case I fully understand that you don't want to say. I pretty much said as much when I said I don't see a problem for decades. * The hashing power has nothing to do with custodial control of tokens, all that breaking the hashing power does is allow for censorship and dominance of the rewards. * If Bitcoin is secure for say, 30 years, this would imply we have an excess of security in the order of four halvings, or 16x + * And over 30 years the budget for Bitcoin as a ratio of the value it protects will go down by more than a factor of 16x * Banks will not reduce their carbon footprint over the next 30 years by anything much at all. At least they have not released a plan to do so. >*Why? The real question is if Bitcoin has the ability to adjust if it is needed. And I'd say ,"yes it can".* > >So we can just re-institute block rewards if the security budget gets too low? > >What happened to the selling point of scarce, sound, hard, money of only 21,000,000 coins ever (less including lost coins!)? I guess they forgot to mention "unless the security model turns out to be unsustainable, in which case forget that part, we can change the supply rate to whatever we want later" Bitcoin in the end is a system maintained by people. I do not believe Bitcoin will fail in 30 years or 60 years even without any major change to rewards given for mining. Bitcoin has the advantage of spreading its control over many different people and total transparency and incentives spread out over many, many parties. >If you end up with an inflationary currency primarily traded through centralized financial institutions you've gone to a lot of effort to replicate something that will be fairly indistinguishable from CBDCs that won't have to waste resources on PoW, aside from the ideological selling point of "decentralization" which no one actually gives a fuck about as evidenced by the number of centralized coins in the top 10. 2 stable coins and Ripple? Number 3, 5, and 7? Combined are not worth more than Ethereum, much less Bitcoin. What is your point? How did we get here when we were talking about the efficiency of Bitcoin and the value of mining? >*Uhhh..... Where in the world did you get that idea? There was hardly any transactions on Bitcoin 12 years ago. I mean, less than 5 transactions per day. Peak transactions on chain was in 2017, but nothing has changed as far as capacity. The amount of value moved on chain continues to grow.* > >Just because not many people used Bitcoin back then doesn't mean the capacity wasn't higher. If a bus has 2 passengers in it, and a car has 3 passengers in it, does that mean the car can hold more people than the bus? > >Bitcoin didn't have a blocksize limit until 2010, and it was kept quiet until 2013, since it was implemented as an anti-spam measure. As always it defends attacks by making it more expensive to use. It's crazy anyone would claim its become more cost efficient over time when the entire security design is for it to become more expensive to use as it scales. Only. If. You. Only. Count. A. Subset. Of. Bitcoin. Transactions. If you count *every way* two people can exchange Bitcoin, Bitcoin has no limits and has vastly greater capacity today than any time in history, and less capacity than it will have in a year. And the year after that. And the year after that. Your whole argument amounts to my claim I am taller than my brother.... If you don't count his legs. Sorry, your google skills are great, but your understanding and knowledge of technology are lacking. I'll leave the change in Bitcoin that was "kept quiet until 2013" ... factually not true, but meh. Totally beside any point other than you are in an argument rather than in a discussion where we might both learn from each other. Anyway, for your enjoyment: >On the public repository, in main.c, on Jul 14, 2010, Satoshi changed: > >**static const unsigned int MAX\_SIZE = 0x02000000;** > >to > >**static const unsigned int MAX\_BLOCK\_SIZE = 1000000;** Wow. Super secret....
A couple of people in the Blocknet community discord tipped me big chunks adding up to 800 BLOCK. Worth +$1K back then! They decided to reward me for bringing the Blocknet to the attention of a YouTuber. It worked and he made a video about the project.
Can anyone clarify something tax related having to do with crypto. Say you sell $300 dollars worth of crypto at a cost basis of $100, for a gain of $200 dollars. Obviously the $200 dollars is taxable income, *but is that sale of $300 all considered income*? If the $100 dollars I used to buy the crypto came from a different income stream, how is it now *also* property income? I ask because on HR BLOCK, they seem to consider the *total* for the sale as income, and not just the capital gain. This is problematic if you would otherwise qualify for certain insurance benefits if your income weren’t to go over the limit for eligibility. Any insight would be appreciated. I don’t know if it’s a glitch or basically income that’s *actually* counted twice.
She was a young journalist hoping to finally land a huge story that would allow her to break through to the mainstream. She knew Satoshi had secrets…but also knew she’d be able to push past his defenses and get the real scoop. But how far would she go to gain Satoshi’s trust? Would she allow him to put her pussy on the blockchain, and what would it mean to be verified by 138,000 miners? Now she’s in too deep. Can her engineer friend help her get her life back, and at what cost? Coming this winter… GENESIS BLOCK: FUCKED BY THE BLOCKCHAIN a new erotic thriller