pull down to refresh
What is this clown show?
A 130 bit Bitcoin Puzzle was already solved using Pollard's Kangaroo back in 2024:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5218972.msg53649852#msg53649852
If they configure negative fees on their channels, then yes. This is meant to help with balancing channel liquidity by setting incentives via routing fees.
You mean with:
blocksdir=/path/to/hddPut the blocks onto a slow hard drive and keep only the chainstate and the other small stuff on the fast SSD.
Those were the cloud mining scams of 2017. They would take your money and tell you: trust me bro, we are mining. Often times it was just a ponzi.
But renting hashrate that points to your own node is different. By receiving shares you have the ultimate proof that they are indeed mining.
Why is the public key directly included in the output? While typical earlier constructions store a hash of a script or a public key in the output, this is rather wasteful when a public key is always involved. To guarantee batch verifiability, the public key must be known to every verifier, and thus only revealing its hash as an output would imply adding an additional 32 bytes to the witness. Furthermore, to maintain 128-bit collision security for outputs, a 256-bit hash would be required anyway, which is comparable in size (and thus in cost for senders) to revealing the public key directly. While the usage of public key hashes is often said to protect against ECDLP breaks or quantum computers, this protection is very weak at best: transactions are not protected while being confirmed, and a very large portion of the currency's supply is not under such protection regardless. Actual resistance to such systems can be introduced by relying on different cryptographic assumptions, but this proposal focuses on improvements that do not change the security model.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0341.mediawiki#cite_note-2
That advantage is that you don't have to store the UTXO set. This could improve validation performance if you are RAM constrained, since you don't have to access the disk to load some part of the UTXO set you don't currently have cached in RAM.
I would add that another trade-off of Utreexo is that nodes need archive nodes to do IBD. There is a distinction in Utreexo that nodes that only store the set of hashes can't help other nodes bootstrap. They rely on at least some nodes storing the full chain.
You don't have to prune the chain to use Utreexo.
feeds luke jr spam paranoia (even though its bullshit)
Massive signatures make this problem even worse. They would make more use of the witness discount and thereby bloat blocks to 3-4 MB, thereby making it harder to run a node.
The aim has always been to scale Bitcoin while using as little space as possible (Segwit, Taproot, and hopefully CISA soon). I have no interest in crippling Bitcoin transaction throughput with massive signatures because some people like to spread FUD.
And here’s the kicker: Anthropic acquired Bun at the end of last year, and Claude Code is built on top of it. A Bun bug (oven-sh/bun#28001), filed on March 11, reports that source maps are served in production mode even though Bun’s own docs say they should be disabled. The issue is still open. If that’s what caused the leak, then Anthropic’s own toolchain shipped a known bug that exposed their own product’s source code.
lol, you can't make this up
Wow you might be right. It seems this is what actually happened.
https://bnoc.xyz/t/two-block-reorg-at-height-941880/97/20
What a massive coincidence though.
Maybe, but it's not just OCEAN miners who didn't see the Foundry block 941882. I have so far not seen anyone who claims to have seen this block before 15:55:00. Also all the mining pools listed on https://stratum.work/ didn't see it either.
Even if this wasn't intentional by Foundry, it wouldn't change the fact that they benefited from this and AntPool+ViaBTC lost their reward. (Accidental Selfish Mining) And this was only possible because they already control so much hash rate.
Ocean has can reject the template or shares you submit to their pool server. The state can easily target Ocean and mandate conditions on what temaplates/shares they accept.
Yes they could.
But they cannot stop a miner from broadcasting a valid block.
Did you mean Liechtenstein?