pull down to refresh
Make a few different sizes, so you can take a smaller amount out of cold storage if you only need a smaller amount. Otherwise, make it big enough so only a small portion of the funds are lost to fees if the feerates are much higher in the future.
I would not be surprised if there are fewer than 100 people that are even aware that LNHANCE is in its signaling window.
“This guy” is by the way, Will Clark, a Bitcoin Core contributor.
b10c posted a salient update to this one on bnoc.xyz:
A miner mining on Foundry shared the following stratum job data with me.
[…]
- at 15.49:54, Foundry send a job building on top of the AntPool 941881 block, but switched to it’s Foundry 941881 block around 1s later
- then, at 15:51:47, ViaBTC found a block at height 941882, Foundry switched to this block, but after 1.3s switched to Foundry’s 941882
https://bnoc.xyz/t/two-block-reorg-at-height-941880/97/19
Adding this as a top reply for obvious reasons.
b10c writes:
- at 15.49:54, Foundry send a job building on top of the AntPool 941881 block, but switched to it’s Foundry 941881 block around 1s later
- then, at 15:51:47, ViaBTC found a block at height 941882, Foundry switched to this block, but after 1.3s switched to Foundry’s 941882
https://bnoc.xyz/t/two-block-reorg-at-height-941880/97/19
2026-03-23T15:51:47.110255+00:00 Saw new header hash=00000000000000000000bd4930a5982911e7749eb491886206e71abdc1ec0cc6 height=941881
[…]
2026-03-23T16:01:47.135347+00:00 Timeout downloading block 00000000000000000000bd4930a5982911e7749eb491886206e71abdc1ec0cc6, disconnecting peer=622260
These are interesting by the way: this means that the peer that announced the header of that block first to your node at 15:51:47.110, did so with an INV message (instead of a compact block announcement), but then did not give you the block body for ten minutes after your node requested it. Block processing got stalled out by the peer, and you also did not receive a high-bandwidth compact block announcement for the block.
As I mentioned above, Bitcoin Core nodes will request and store blocks in competing chaintips with the same PoW as their best chaintip, but they will not announce those blocks to their own peers. Even if Foundry had announced it after having found it, the block could have not made it beyond the Foundry nodes’ peers if they all had seen the competing block before it, or it would have possible made it another hope from a few peers before getting blackholed.
I think that it is plausible, yeah. And if we’re honest, Bitcoiners tend to entertain conspiracy theories perhaps a little to enthusiastically.
It could perhaps even be the case that the block was found by a pool participant even after Foundry saw the Antpool block, but before they had updated all the jobs. It would still make sense and not be malicious for a pool to mine on their own block when they have one.
Nodes will retrieve and store competing chaintips with the same amount of POW, when they are offered, but they will only propagate their best chaintip to peers. So a second competing block would not be forwarded. It would therefore be expected for competing blocks to propagate less widely than uncontested blocks.
Foundry’s first block was timestamped 12s after the Antpool block and Foundry’s second block was timestamped six seconds after ViaBTC’s block. Timestamps do not have to be super accurate, but looking at Foundry’s recent blocks, those seem to be pretty accurate to the actual time (some miners time-roll, but it might be the case Foundry does not—I’d have to look more into it to confidently say so).
However, if the timestamps are accurate, it is possible that Foundry found both of those blocks just after the competing blocks were found, before they had learned about the competing blocks, but after their block would have propagated widely on the network.
Yeah, I looked at your profile from your QA-Assets PR, wondering whether you were the same person, glanced at your blog from there.
"I'm not doing much because I'm burned out. But how can I be burned out if I'm not doing much?"
Yeah, it’s a vicious cycle. I had been feeling a bit like this earlier this year again, but now I’ve put a small vacation on my calendar.
I’ve often felt the same. There is always more to do, and it often feels like we don’t get done enough.
Go home after ~eight hours anyway! At least in my experience, when I spend more time in the chair, I just get distracted more often, become exhausted, and my productivity per time adjusts to roughly the same or even lower output. Your mind will continue to work on your open problems in the background anyway, and some rest will help you be more productive the next day.
You mostly need many UTXOs if you are sending a lot of transactions in small time windows. For a personal cold-storage wallet, I don’t see why you’d go bigger than between a dozen or a score. Not sure why you’d want to make them all the same size.
For 0.5 BTC, I suppose you could do something along the lines of: