An Explanation of Unconfirmed Bitcoin Transactions : Coin ...

Steam canceled my order because my transaction is still unconfirmed even with an 11c (CAD) fee... what do I do now?... • /r/Bitcoin

Steam canceled my order because my transaction is still unconfirmed even with an 11c (CAD) fee... what do I do now?... • /Bitcoin submitted by Egon_1 to btc [link] [comments]

is hitBTC a scam? im not sure what's going on with my bitcoin transaction, its almost 48hours still unconfirmed, i have never been stuck for so long, usually with coinbase or binance it only takes less than an hour to confirm, what is happening..did they(hitBTC) truly send my bitcoin?

is hitBTC a scam? im not sure what's going on with my bitcoin transaction, its almost 48hours still unconfirmed, i have never been stuck for so long, usually with coinbase or binance it only takes less than an hour to confirm, what is happening..did they(hitBTC) truly send my bitcoin? submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

My transaction from an exchange is unconfirmed due to low fees and customer desk does not help. What can I do to fasten it? /r/Bitcoin

My transaction from an exchange is unconfirmed due to low fees and customer desk does not help. What can I do to fasten it? /Bitcoin submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Steam canceled my order because my transaction is still unconfirmed even with an 11c (CAD) fee... what do I do now?... /r/Bitcoin

Steam canceled my order because my transaction is still unconfirmed even with an 11c (CAD) fee... what do I do now?... /Bitcoin submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Steam canceled my order because my transaction is still unconfirmed even with an 11c (CAD) fee... what do I do now?... /r/Bitcoin

Steam canceled my order because my transaction is still unconfirmed even with an 11c (CAD) fee... what do I do now?... /Bitcoin submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Ledger Live adds Coin control: Here's why that matters.

Ledger Live adds Coin control: Here's why that matters.
Ledger Live version 2.11.1 (download link) adds Coin control for power users.
The coin control feature gives advanced users more granular control over their wallets. It enables them to change how and which coins are selected when making transactions. This increases their ability to manage their privacy and the network fees they will have to pay to spend their account balance.
More control over your coins

How does it work?

The account balance for Bitcoin and its derivatives consists of all the unspent transaction outputs (UTXOs) in the account. You can think of UTXOs as the coins in a regular wallet. When you receive money, you collect coins in your wallet. Then, when you want to make a payment, you get to choose which coins you pick from your wallet. Do you pick the largest coins first? Or do you want to spend all the smaller value coins to lighten up your wallet? Similar considerations can be made when creating a Bitcoin or Bitcoin derivative (altcoin) transaction.
Before the Coin Control feature was released, all transactions involving Bitcoin (and altcoins) automatically selected their coins using the First-In-First-Out (FIFO) algorithm. This strategy includes the oldest coin in the account, and when the amount is not sufficient the second-oldest coin is added, and so forth.
As of Ledger Live version 2.11.1, users are able to make use of a dedicated Coin Control tool to choose the coin selection strategy and the coins that may be spent.

Using Coin control in Ledger Live

Coin control is available in Advanced options in the Send flow
  1. Click on Send, choose an account to debit, and enter a recipient address. Click on Continue.
  2. Enter an amount and click on Advanced options. You will then see: - The currently selected, default coin selection strategy: Oldest coins first (FIFO). - A toggle to enable Replace-By-Fee (RBF). - A toggle to include coins from unconfirmed, replaceable transactions.
  3. Click on Coin control. The coin control modal opens.
  4. Select a Coin selection strategy from the dropdown menu: - Oldest coins first (FIFO). This is the default strategy that spends the oldest coins first. - Minimize fees (optimize size). This strategy tries to minimize the byte size of the transaction by spending the lowest number of UTXOs. This results in a low network fee. - Minimize future fees (merge coins), This strategy includes the maximum number of inputs so that a potential future price rise does not make smaller UTXOs economically unspendable. If the price of a crypto asset increases too much, small UTXOs may become worth less than the cost of the network fees to spend them.
  5. Select which coins may not be included in the selection by unticking their checkbox. The SELECTED indicator shows which coins will be included in the transaction. By changing the selection strategy and/or coins to include, the user has precise control over which coins end up being spent. The Coins to spend and Change to return indicators show how much is spent from and returned to the account.
  6. Click on Done to return to the Send flow to verify and send the transaction.
The coin control window lets you select the strategy as well as pick the coins. Coins marked SELECTED will be included in the transaction.

Coin status

The following statuses can be displayed for a coin:
  • Coins received in a transaction with 0 confirmations without RBF enabled: PENDING
  • Coins received in a transaction with 0 confirmations with RBF enabled: REPLACEABLE
  • Coins received in a transaction with 1337 confirmations: 1337 CONFIRMATIONS
By enabling the toggle Include coins from unconfirmed, replaceable transactions, replaceable transactions can be selected in the Coin control screen.

The Privacy use case

One of the main use cases for Coin control is to protect one’s privacy. UTXOs are, unfortunately, not perfectly fungible due to their unique history on the blockchain. Therefore, users may want to spend coins from different sources without mixing them together, because this would indicate to an outside observer of the blockchain that these addresses belong to the same account. For instance, if one were to spend coins bought on a KYC exchange, which are associated with the user’s identity, together with coins bought anonymously using cash, the anonymous coins could be linked to the user’s identity.
Another example would be that you would like to prevent spending a high-value coin for smaller purchases because this would unnecessarily show the person you’re paying how much you have. This is similar to not showing the boulanger how much is on your bank account when buying a baguette.

Let us know what you think!

We are excited to release this new feature because we think it will fulfill real needs of an important part of our users. This version of Ledger Live marks an important milestone, but we will continue working on more features that our community wants.
So, we invite you to try out Coin control in Ledger Live and let us know what you think! All feedback is welcome on this thread, on ledgerwallet, and you can send suggestions or get help through our official contact form.
We'd like to close out by underlining our commitment to the Bitcoin community, and our willingness to build the best wallet ecosystem for newbies as well as for power users.
submitted by fabnormal to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Technical: Taproot: Why Activate?

This is a follow-up on https://old.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/hqzp14/technical_the_path_to_taproot_activation/
Taproot! Everybody wants it!! But... you might ask yourself: sure, everybody else wants it, but why would I, sovereign Bitcoin HODLer, want it? Surely I can be better than everybody else because I swapped XXX fiat for Bitcoin unlike all those nocoiners?
And it is important for you to know the reasons why you, o sovereign Bitcoiner, would want Taproot activated. After all, your nodes (or the nodes your wallets use, which if you are SPV, you hopefully can pester to your wallet vendoimplementor about) need to be upgraded in order for Taproot activation to actually succeed instead of becoming a hot sticky mess.
First, let's consider some principles of Bitcoin.
I'm sure most of us here would agree that the above are very important principles of Bitcoin and that these are principles we would not be willing to remove. If anything, we would want those principles strengthened (especially the last one, financial privacy, which current Bitcoin is only sporadically strong with: you can get privacy, it just requires effort to do so).
So, how does Taproot affect those principles?

Taproot and Your /Coins

Most HODLers probably HODL their coins in singlesig addresses. Sadly, switching to Taproot would do very little for you (it gives a mild discount at spend time, at the cost of a mild increase in fee at receive time (paid by whoever sends to you, so if it's a self-send from a P2PKH or bech32 address, you pay for this); mostly a wash).
(technical details: a Taproot output is 1 version byte + 32 byte public key, while a P2WPKH (bech32 singlesig) output is 1 version byte + 20 byte public key hash, so the Taproot output spends 12 bytes more; spending from a P2WPKH requires revealing a 32-byte public key later, which is not needed with Taproot, and Taproot signatures are about 9 bytes smaller than P2WPKH signatures, but the 32 bytes plus 9 bytes is divided by 4 because of the witness discount, so it saves about 11 bytes; mostly a wash, it increases blockweight by about 1 virtual byte, 4 weight for each Taproot-output-input, compared to P2WPKH-output-input).
However, as your HODLings grow in value, you might start wondering if multisignature k-of-n setups might be better for the security of your savings. And it is in multisignature that Taproot starts to give benefits!
Taproot switches to using Schnorr signing scheme. Schnorr makes key aggregation -- constructing a single public key from multiple public keys -- almost as trivial as adding numbers together. "Almost" because it involves some fairly advanced math instead of simple boring number adding, but hey when was the last time you added up your grocery list prices by hand huh?
With current P2SH and P2WSH multisignature schemes, if you have a 2-of-3 setup, then to spend, you need to provide two different signatures from two different public keys. With Taproot, you can create, using special moon math, a single public key that represents your 2-of-3 setup. Then you just put two of your devices together, have them communicate to each other (this can be done airgapped, in theory, by sending QR codes: the software to do this is not even being built yet, but that's because Taproot hasn't activated yet!), and they will make a single signature to authorize any spend from your 2-of-3 address. That's 73 witness bytes -- 18.25 virtual bytes -- of signatures you save!
And if you decide that your current setup with 1-of-1 P2PKH / P2WPKH addresses is just fine as-is: well, that's the whole point of a softfork: backwards-compatibility; you can receive from Taproot users just fine, and once your wallet is updated for Taproot-sending support, you can send to Taproot users just fine as well!
(P2WPKH and P2WSH -- SegWit v0 -- addresses start with bc1q; Taproot -- SegWit v1 --- addresses start with bc1p, in case you wanted to know the difference; in bech32 q is 0, p is 1)
Now how about HODLers who keep all, or some, of their coins on custodial services? Well, any custodial service worth its salt would be doing at least 2-of-3, or probably something even bigger, like 11-of-15. So your custodial service, if it switched to using Taproot internally, could save a lot more (imagine an 11-of-15 getting reduced from 11 signatures to just 1!), which --- we can only hope! --- should translate to lower fees and better customer service from your custodial service!
So I think we can say, very accurately, that the Bitcoin principle --- that YOU are in control of your money --- can only be helped by Taproot (if you are doing multisignature), and, because P2PKH and P2WPKH remain validly-usable addresses in a Taproot future, will not be harmed by Taproot. Its benefit to this principle might be small (it mostly only benefits multisignature users) but since it has no drawbacks with this (i.e. singlesig users can continue to use P2WPKH and P2PKH still) this is still a nice, tidy win!
(even singlesig users get a minor benefit, in that multisig users will now reduce their blockchain space footprint, so that fees can be kept low for everybody; so for example even if you have your single set of private keys engraved on titanium plates sealed in an airtight box stored in a safe buried in a desert protected by angry nomads riding giant sandworms because you're the frickin' Kwisatz Haderach, you still gain some benefit from Taproot)
And here's the important part: if P2PKH/P2WPKH is working perfectly fine with you and you decide to never use Taproot yourself, Taproot will not affect you detrimentally. First do no harm!

Taproot and Your Contracts

No one is an island, no one lives alone. Give and you shall receive. You know: by trading with other people, you can gain expertise in some obscure little necessity of the world (and greatly increase your productivity in that little field), and then trade the products of your expertise for necessities other people have created, all of you thereby gaining gains from trade.
So, contracts, which are basically enforceable agreements that facilitate trading with people who you do not personally know and therefore might not trust.
Let's start with a simple example. You want to buy some gewgaws from somebody. But you don't know them personally. The seller wants the money, you want their gewgaws, but because of the lack of trust (you don't know them!! what if they're scammers??) neither of you can benefit from gains from trade.
However, suppose both of you know of some entity that both of you trust. That entity can act as a trusted escrow. The entity provides you security: this enables the trade, allowing both of you to get gains from trade.
In Bitcoin-land, this can be implemented as a 2-of-3 multisignature. The three signatories in the multisgnature would be you, the gewgaw seller, and the escrow. You put the payment for the gewgaws into this 2-of-3 multisignature address.
Now, suppose it turns out neither of you are scammers (whaaaat!). You receive the gewgaws just fine and you're willing to pay up for them. Then you and the gewgaw seller just sign a transaction --- you and the gewgaw seller are 2, sufficient to trigger the 2-of-3 --- that spends from the 2-of-3 address to a singlesig the gewgaw seller wants (or whatever address the gewgaw seller wants).
But suppose some problem arises. The seller gave you gawgews instead of gewgaws. Or you decided to keep the gewgaws but not sign the transaction to release the funds to the seller. In either case, the escrow is notified, and if it can sign with you to refund the funds back to you (if the seller was a scammer) or it can sign with the seller to forward the funds to the seller (if you were a scammer).
Taproot helps with this: like mentioned above, it allows multisignature setups to produce only one signature, reducing blockchain space usage, and thus making contracts --- which require multiple people, by definition, you don't make contracts with yourself --- is made cheaper (which we hope enables more of these setups to happen for more gains from trade for everyone, also, moon and lambos).
(technology-wise, it's easier to make an n-of-n than a k-of-n, making a k-of-n would require a complex setup involving a long ritual with many communication rounds between the n participants, but an n-of-n can be done trivially with some moon math. You can, however, make what is effectively a 2-of-3 by using a three-branch SCRIPT: either 2-of-2 of you and seller, OR 2-of-2 of you and escrow, OR 2-of-2 of escrow and seller. Fortunately, Taproot adds a facility to embed a SCRIPT inside a public key, so you can have a 2-of-2 Taprooted address (between you and seller) with a SCRIPT branch that can instead be spent with 2-of-2 (you + escrow) OR 2-of-2 (seller + escrow), which implements the three-branched SCRIPT above. If neither of you are scammers (hopefully the common case) then you both sign using your keys and never have to contact the escrow, since you are just using the escrow public key without coordinating with them (because n-of-n is trivial but k-of-n requires setup with communication rounds), so in the "best case" where both of you are honest traders, you also get a privacy boost, in that the escrow never learns you have been trading on gewgaws, I mean ewww, gawgews are much better than gewgaws and therefore I now judge you for being a gewgaw enthusiast, you filthy gewgawer).

Taproot and Your Contracts, Part 2: Cryptographic Boogaloo

Now suppose you want to buy some data instead of things. For example, maybe you have some closed-source software in trial mode installed, and want to pay the developer for the full version. You want to pay for an activation code.
This can be done, today, by using an HTLC. The developer tells you the hash of the activation code. You pay to an HTLC, paying out to the developer if it reveals the preimage (the activation code), or refunding the money back to you after a pre-agreed timeout. If the developer claims the funds, it has to reveal the preimage, which is the activation code, and you can now activate your software. If the developer does not claim the funds by the timeout, you get refunded.
And you can do that, with HTLCs, today.
Of course, HTLCs do have problems:
Fortunately, with Schnorr (which is enabled by Taproot), we can now use the Scriptless Script constuction by Andrew Poelstra. This Scriptless Script allows a new construction, the PTLC or Pointlocked Timelocked Contract. Instead of hashes and preimages, just replace "hash" with "point" and "preimage" with "scalar".
Or as you might know them: "point" is really "public key" and "scalar" is really a "private key". What a PTLC does is that, given a particular public key, the pointlocked branch can be spent only if the spender reveals the private key of the given public key to you.
Another nice thing with PTLCs is that they are deniable. What appears onchain is just a single 2-of-2 signature between you and the developemanufacturer. It's like a magic trick. This signature has no special watermarks, it's a perfectly normal signature (the pledge). However, from this signature, plus some datta given to you by the developemanufacturer (known as the adaptor signature) you can derive the private key of a particular public key you both agree on (the turn). Anyone scraping the blockchain will just see signatures that look just like every other signature, and as long as nobody manages to hack you and get a copy of the adaptor signature or the private key, they cannot get the private key behind the public key (point) that the pointlocked branch needs (the prestige).
(Just to be clear, the public key you are getting the private key from, is distinct from the public key that the developemanufacturer will use for its funds. The activation key is different from the developer's onchain Bitcoin key, and it is the activation key whose private key you will be learning, not the developer's/manufacturer's onchain Bitcoin key).
So:
Taproot lets PTLCs exist onchain because they enable Schnorr, which is a requirement of PTLCs / Scriptless Script.
(technology-wise, take note that Scriptless Script works only for the "pointlocked" branch of the contract; you need normal Script, or a pre-signed nLockTimed transaction, for the "timelocked" branch. Since Taproot can embed a script, you can have the Taproot pubkey be a 2-of-2 to implement the Scriptless Script "pointlocked" branch, then have a hidden script that lets you recover the funds with an OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY after the timeout if the seller does not claim the funds.)

Quantum Quibbles!

Now if you were really paying attention, you might have noticed this parenthetical:
(technical details: a Taproot output is 1 version byte + 32 byte public key, while a P2WPKH (bech32 singlesig) output is 1 version byte + 20 byte public key hash...)
So wait, Taproot uses raw 32-byte public keys, and not public key hashes? Isn't that more quantum-vulnerable??
Well, in theory yes. In practice, they probably are not.
It's not that hashes can be broken by quantum computes --- they're still not. Instead, you have to look at how you spend from a P2WPKH/P2PKH pay-to-public-key-hash.
When you spend from a P2PKH / P2WPKH, you have to reveal the public key. Then Bitcoin hashes it and checks if this matches with the public-key-hash, and only then actually validates the signature for that public key.
So an unconfirmed transaction, floating in the mempools of nodes globally, will show, in plain sight for everyone to see, your public key.
(public keys should be public, that's why they're called public keys, LOL)
And if quantum computers are fast enough to be of concern, then they are probably fast enough that, in the several minutes to several hours from broadcast to confirmation, they have already cracked the public key that is openly broadcast with your transaction. The owner of the quantum computer can now replace your unconfirmed transaction with one that pays the funds to itself. Even if you did not opt-in RBF, miners are still incentivized to support RBF on RBF-disabled transactions.
So the extra hash is not as significant a protection against quantum computers as you might think. Instead, the extra hash-and-compare needed is just extra validation effort.
Further, if you have ever, in the past, spent from the address, then there exists already a transaction indelibly stored on the blockchain, openly displaying the public key from which quantum computers can derive the private key. So those are still vulnerable to quantum computers.
For the most part, the cryptographers behind Taproot (and Bitcoin Core) are of the opinion that quantum computers capable of cracking Bitcoin pubkeys are unlikely to appear within a decade or two.
So:
For now, the homomorphic and linear properties of elliptic curve cryptography provide a lot of benefits --- particularly the linearity property is what enables Scriptless Script and simple multisignature (i.e. multisignatures that are just 1 signature onchain). So it might be a good idea to take advantage of them now while we are still fairly safe against quantum computers. It seems likely that quantum-safe signature schemes are nonlinear (thus losing these advantages).

Summary

I Wanna Be The Taprooter!

So, do you want to help activate Taproot? Here's what you, mister sovereign Bitcoin HODLer, can do!

But I Hate Taproot!!

That's fine!

Discussions About Taproot Activation

submitted by almkglor to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

How does bitcoin scale in performance? (CPU and RAM usage, usually ppl talk about disk space)

I am currently reading "Mastering Bitcoin" and I learned a lot of news things. But a questions keeps bugging me:
If bitcoin grows around 1 terabyte each decade (i know, this is not yet the case), that is completely fine. But the fullnodes store the whole history and validate against the whole past, right? Also wallets, that "restore from a private key" (you setup a new wallet with an old private key, so it has to check the full bitcoin history for your funds).
Won't those be extremely slow mechanisms in the future? What is bearable now, will it be super cpu-intensive in several years? The mempool takes unconfirmed transactions, but in the end, it only "accepts" them, if they are valid. So the node has to validate all of them right? The longer the chain, the longer that takes, right? (not sure if a node really validates all of them, or if he just validates the block that a miner delivers. I read conflicting information on this topic or misinterpreted one.)
Disclaimer: I could be wrong on some things, please go easy on me. :)
submitted by TrudleR to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

"My transaction is stuck, what to do?" - an explainer [DRAFT]

In the last days we have been experiencing a sharp rise in price, which is historically correlated with many people transacting over the Bitcoin network. Many people transacting over the Bitcoin network implies that the blockspace is in popular demand, meaning that when you send a transaction, it has to compete with other transactions for the inclusion in one of the blocks in the future. Miners are motivated by profits and transactions that pay more than other transactions are preferred when mining a new block. Although the network is working as intended (blockspace is a scarce good, subject to supply/demand dynamics, regulated purely by fees), people who are unfamiliar with it might feel worried that their transaction is “stuck” or otherwise somehow lost or “in limbo”. This post attempts to explain how the mempool works, how to optimize fees and that one does not need to worry about their funds.

TL;DR: Your funds are safe. Just be patient* and it'll be confirmed at some point. A transaction either will be confirmed or it never leaves your wallet, so there is nothing to worry about in regards to the safety of your coins.

You can see how the mempool "ebbs and flows", and lower fee tx's get confirmed in the "ebb" times (weekends, nights): https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#0,30d
* if you are in hurry there are things like RBF (Replace By Fee) and CPFC (Child Pays For Parent), which you can use to boost your transaction fees; you will need an advanced wallet like Bitcoin Core or Electrum for that though. Keep also in mind that this is not possible with any transaction (RBF requires opt in before sending, f.ex). If nothing else works and your transaction really needs a soon confirmation, you can try and contact a mining pool to ask them if they would include your transaction. Some mining pools even offer a web-interface for this: 1, 2.
Here’s how Andreas Antonopoulos describes it:
In bitcoin there is no "in transit". Transactions are atomic meaning they either happen all at once or don't happen at all. There is no situation where they "leave" one wallet and are not simultaneously and instantaneously in the destination address. Either the transaction happened or it didn't. The only time you can't see the funds is if your wallet is hiding them because it is tracking a pending transaction and doesn't want you to try and spend funds that are already being spent in another transaction. It doesn't mean the money is in limbo, it's just your wallet waiting to see the outcome. If that is the case, you just wait. Eventually the transaction will either happen or will be deleted by the network.
tl;dr: your funds are safe

How is the speed of confirmations determined in bitcoin?

Open this site: https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#0,2w
Here you see how many transactions are currently (and were historically) waiting to be confirmed, i.e how many transactions are currently competing with your transaction for blockspace (=confirmation).
You can see two important things: the differently coloured layers, each layer representing a different fee (higher layer = higher fees). You can point at a layer and see which fees (expressed in sat/byte) are represented in this layer. You can then deduct which layer your own transaction is currently at, and how far away from the top your position is (miners work through the mempool always from the top, simply because the tx's on top pay them more). You can estimate that each newly mined block removes roughly 1.xMB from the top (see the third graph which shows the mempool size in MB). On average, a new block is produced every ten minutes. But keep in mind that over time more transactions come into the mempool, so there can be periods where transactions are coming faster than transactions being “processed” by miners.
The second important observation is that the mempool "ebbs and flows", so even the lower paid transactions are periodically being confirmed at some point.
In short: what determines the speed of a confirmation is A) how high you set the fees (in sat/byte), B) how many other transactions with same or higher fees are currently competing with yours and C) how many transactions with higher paid fees will be broadcast after yours.
A) you can influence directly, B) you can observe in real time, but C) is difficult to predict. So it's always a little tricky to tell when the first confirmation happens if you set your fees low. But it's quite certain that at some point even the cheap transactions will come through.

So what happens if my transaction stays unconfirmed for days or even weeks?

Transactions are being broadcast by the full nodes on the network. Each node can adjust their settings for how long they keep unconfirmed transactions in their mempool. That’s why there is not a fixed amount of time after which a transaction is dropped from the mempool, but most nodes drop unconfirmed tx’s after two weeks [IS THIS CORRECT?]. This means that in the absolute worst case the unconfirmed transaction will simply disappear from the network, as if it never happened. Keep in mind that in those two weeks the coins never actually leave your wallet. It’s just that your wallet doesn’t show them as “available”, but you still have options like RBF and CPFP to get your transaction confirmed with higher fees, or to “cancel” your transaction by spending the same coins onto another address with a higher fee.

Helpful tools to estimate fees for future transactions:

Here are some resources that can help you estimate fees when sending a bitcoin transaction, so you don't end up overpaying (or underpaying) unnecessarily. Keep in mind that in order to take advantage of this, you need a proper bitcoin wallet which allows for custom fee setting. A selection of such wallets you can find here or here.
The order here is roughly from advanced to easy.
1) https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#0,24h
Here you can see a visualization of how many unconfirmed transactions are currently on the network, as well as how many were there in the past. Each coloured layer represents a different fee amount. F.ex the deep blue (lowest layer) are the 1sat/byte transactions, slightly brighter level above are the 2sat/byte transactions and so on.
The most interesting graph is the third one, which shows you the size of the current mempool in MB and the amount of transactions with different fee levels, which would compete with your transaction if you were to send it right now. This should help you estimating how high you need to set the fee (in sat/byte) in order to have it confirmed "soon". But this also should help you to see that even the 1sat/byte transactions get confirmed very regularly, especially on weekends and in the night periods, and that the spikes in the mempool are always temporary. For that you can switch to higher timeframes in the upper right corner, f.ex here is a 30 days view: https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#0,30d. You clearly can see that the mempool is cyclical and you can set a very low fee if you are not in hurry.
2) https://mempool.space
This is also an overview of the current mempool status, although less visual than the previous one. It shows you some important stats, like the mempool size, some basic stats of the recent blocks (tx fees, size etc). Most importantly, it makes a projection of how large you need to set your fees in sat/byte if you want your transaction to be included in the next block, or within the next two/three/four blocks. You can see this projection in the left upper corner (the blocks coloured in brown).
3) https://whatthefee.io
This is a simple estimation tool. It shows you the likelihood (in %) of a particular fee size (in sat/byte) to be confirmed within a particular timeframe (measured in hours). It is very simple to use, but the disadvantage is that it shows you estimates only for the next 24 hours. You probably will overpay by this method if your transaction is less time sensitive than that.
4) https://twitter.com/CoreFeeHelper
This is a very simple bot that tweets out fees projections every hour or so. It tells you how you need to set the fees in order to be confirmed within 1hou6hours/12hours/1day/3days/1week. Very simple to use.
Hopefully one of these tools will help you save fees for your next bitcoin transaction. Or at least help you understand that even with a very low fee setting your transaction will be confirmed sooner or later. Furthermore, I hope it makes you understand how important it is to use a wallet that allows you to set your own fees.
submitted by TheGreatMuffin to u/TheGreatMuffin [link] [comments]

[ Bitcoin ] Technical: Taproot: Why Activate?

Topic originally posted in Bitcoin by almkglor [link]
This is a follow-up on https://old.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/hqzp14/technical_the_path_to_taproot_activation/
Taproot! Everybody wants it!! But... you might ask yourself: sure, everybody else wants it, but why would I, sovereign Bitcoin HODLer, want it? Surely I can be better than everybody else because I swapped XXX fiat for Bitcoin unlike all those nocoiners?
And it is important for you to know the reasons why you, o sovereign Bitcoiner, would want Taproot activated. After all, your nodes (or the nodes your wallets use, which if you are SPV, you hopefully can pester to your wallet vendoimplementor about) need to be upgraded in order for Taproot activation to actually succeed instead of becoming a hot sticky mess.
First, let's consider some principles of Bitcoin.
I'm sure most of us here would agree that the above are very important principles of Bitcoin and that these are principles we would not be willing to remove. If anything, we would want those principles strengthened (especially the last one, financial privacy, which current Bitcoin is only sporadically strong with: you can get privacy, it just requires effort to do so).
So, how does Taproot affect those principles?

Taproot and Your /Coins

Most HODLers probably HODL their coins in singlesig addresses. Sadly, switching to Taproot would do very little for you (it gives a mild discount at spend time, at the cost of a mild increase in fee at receive time (paid by whoever sends to you, so if it's a self-send from a P2PKH or bech32 address, you pay for this); mostly a wash).
(technical details: a Taproot output is 1 version byte + 32 byte public key, while a P2WPKH (bech32 singlesig) output is 1 version byte + 20 byte public key hash, so the Taproot output spends 12 bytes more; spending from a P2WPKH requires revealing a 32-byte public key later, which is not needed with Taproot, and Taproot signatures are about 9 bytes smaller than P2WPKH signatures, but the 32 bytes plus 9 bytes is divided by 4 because of the witness discount, so it saves about 11 bytes; mostly a wash, it increases blockweight by about 1 virtual byte, 4 weight for each Taproot-output-input, compared to P2WPKH-output-input).
However, as your HODLings grow in value, you might start wondering if multisignature k-of-n setups might be better for the security of your savings. And it is in multisignature that Taproot starts to give benefits!
Taproot switches to using Schnorr signing scheme. Schnorr makes key aggregation -- constructing a single public key from multiple public keys -- almost as trivial as adding numbers together. "Almost" because it involves some fairly advanced math instead of simple boring number adding, but hey when was the last time you added up your grocery list prices by hand huh?
With current P2SH and P2WSH multisignature schemes, if you have a 2-of-3 setup, then to spend, you need to provide two different signatures from two different public keys. With Taproot, you can create, using special moon math, a single public key that represents your 2-of-3 setup. Then you just put two of your devices together, have them communicate to each other (this can be done airgapped, in theory, by sending QR codes: the software to do this is not even being built yet, but that's because Taproot hasn't activated yet!), and they will make a single signature to authorize any spend from your 2-of-3 address. That's 73 witness bytes -- 18.25 virtual bytes -- of signatures you save!
And if you decide that your current setup with 1-of-1 P2PKH / P2WPKH addresses is just fine as-is: well, that's the whole point of a softfork: backwards-compatibility; you can receive from Taproot users just fine, and once your wallet is updated for Taproot-sending support, you can send to Taproot users just fine as well!
(P2WPKH and P2WSH -- SegWit v0 -- addresses start with bc1q; Taproot -- SegWit v1 --- addresses start with bc1p, in case you wanted to know the difference; in bech32 q is 0, p is 1)
Now how about HODLers who keep all, or some, of their coins on custodial services? Well, any custodial service worth its salt would be doing at least 2-of-3, or probably something even bigger, like 11-of-15. So your custodial service, if it switched to using Taproot internally, could save a lot more (imagine an 11-of-15 getting reduced from 11 signatures to just 1!), which --- we can only hope! --- should translate to lower fees and better customer service from your custodial service!
So I think we can say, very accurately, that the Bitcoin principle --- that YOU are in control of your money --- can only be helped by Taproot (if you are doing multisignature), and, because P2PKH and P2WPKH remain validly-usable addresses in a Taproot future, will not be harmed by Taproot. Its benefit to this principle might be small (it mostly only benefits multisignature users) but since it has no drawbacks with this (i.e. singlesig users can continue to use P2WPKH and P2PKH still) this is still a nice, tidy win!
(even singlesig users get a minor benefit, in that multisig users will now reduce their blockchain space footprint, so that fees can be kept low for everybody; so for example even if you have your single set of private keys engraved on titanium plates sealed in an airtight box stored in a safe buried in a desert protected by angry nomads riding giant sandworms because you're the frickin' Kwisatz Haderach, you still gain some benefit from Taproot)
And here's the important part: if P2PKH/P2WPKH is working perfectly fine with you and you decide to never use Taproot yourself, Taproot will not affect you detrimentally. First do no harm!

Taproot and Your Contracts

No one is an island, no one lives alone. Give and you shall receive. You know: by trading with other people, you can gain expertise in some obscure little necessity of the world (and greatly increase your productivity in that little field), and then trade the products of your expertise for necessities other people have created, all of you thereby gaining gains from trade.
So, contracts, which are basically enforceable agreements that facilitate trading with people who you do not personally know and therefore might not trust.
Let's start with a simple example. You want to buy some gewgaws from somebody. But you don't know them personally. The seller wants the money, you want their gewgaws, but because of the lack of trust (you don't know them!! what if they're scammers??) neither of you can benefit from gains from trade.
However, suppose both of you know of some entity that both of you trust. That entity can act as a trusted escrow. The entity provides you security: this enables the trade, allowing both of you to get gains from trade.
In Bitcoin-land, this can be implemented as a 2-of-3 multisignature. The three signatories in the multisgnature would be you, the gewgaw seller, and the escrow. You put the payment for the gewgaws into this 2-of-3 multisignature address.
Now, suppose it turns out neither of you are scammers (whaaaat!). You receive the gewgaws just fine and you're willing to pay up for them. Then you and the gewgaw seller just sign a transaction --- you and the gewgaw seller are 2, sufficient to trigger the 2-of-3 --- that spends from the 2-of-3 address to a singlesig the gewgaw seller wants (or whatever address the gewgaw seller wants).
But suppose some problem arises. The seller gave you gawgews instead of gewgaws. Or you decided to keep the gewgaws but not sign the transaction to release the funds to the seller. In either case, the escrow is notified, and if it can sign with you to refund the funds back to you (if the seller was a scammer) or it can sign with the seller to forward the funds to the seller (if you were a scammer).
Taproot helps with this: like mentioned above, it allows multisignature setups to produce only one signature, reducing blockchain space usage, and thus making contracts --- which require multiple people, by definition, you don't make contracts with yourself --- is made cheaper (which we hope enables more of these setups to happen for more gains from trade for everyone, also, moon and lambos).
(technology-wise, it's easier to make an n-of-n than a k-of-n, making a k-of-n would require a complex setup involving a long ritual with many communication rounds between the n participants, but an n-of-n can be done trivially with some moon math. You can, however, make what is effectively a 2-of-3 by using a three-branch SCRIPT: either 2-of-2 of you and seller, OR 2-of-2 of you and escrow, OR 2-of-2 of escrow and seller. Fortunately, Taproot adds a facility to embed a SCRIPT inside a public key, so you can have a 2-of-2 Taprooted address (between you and seller) with a SCRIPT branch that can instead be spent with 2-of-2 (you + escrow) OR 2-of-2 (seller + escrow), which implements the three-branched SCRIPT above. If neither of you are scammers (hopefully the common case) then you both sign using your keys and never have to contact the escrow, since you are just using the escrow public key without coordinating with them (because n-of-n is trivial but k-of-n requires setup with communication rounds), so in the "best case" where both of you are honest traders, you also get a privacy boost, in that the escrow never learns you have been trading on gewgaws, I mean ewww, gawgews are much better than gewgaws and therefore I now judge you for being a gewgaw enthusiast, you filthy gewgawer).

Taproot and Your Contracts, Part 2: Cryptographic Boogaloo

Now suppose you want to buy some data instead of things. For example, maybe you have some closed-source software in trial mode installed, and want to pay the developer for the full version. You want to pay for an activation code.
This can be done, today, by using an HTLC. The developer tells you the hash of the activation code. You pay to an HTLC, paying out to the developer if it reveals the preimage (the activation code), or refunding the money back to you after a pre-agreed timeout. If the developer claims the funds, it has to reveal the preimage, which is the activation code, and you can now activate your software. If the developer does not claim the funds by the timeout, you get refunded.
And you can do that, with HTLCs, today.
Of course, HTLCs do have problems:
Fortunately, with Schnorr (which is enabled by Taproot), we can now use the Scriptless Script constuction by Andrew Poelstra. This Scriptless Script allows a new construction, the PTLC or Pointlocked Timelocked Contract. Instead of hashes and preimages, just replace "hash" with "point" and "preimage" with "scalar".
Or as you might know them: "point" is really "public key" and "scalar" is really a "private key". What a PTLC does is that, given a particular public key, the pointlocked branch can be spent only if the spender reveals the private key of the given private key to you.
Another nice thing with PTLCs is that they are deniable. What appears onchain is just a single 2-of-2 signature between you and the developemanufacturer. It's like a magic trick. This signature has no special watermarks, it's a perfectly normal signature (the pledge). However, from this signature, plus some datta given to you by the developemanufacturer (known as the adaptor signature) you can derive the private key of a particular public key you both agree on (the turn). Anyone scraping the blockchain will just see signatures that look just like every other signature, and as long as nobody manages to hack you and get a copy of the adaptor signature or the private key, they cannot get the private key behind the public key (point) that the pointlocked branch needs (the prestige).
(Just to be clear, the public key you are getting the private key from, is distinct from the public key that the developemanufacturer will use for its funds. The activation key is different from the developer's onchain Bitcoin key, and it is the activation key whose private key you will be learning, not the developer's/manufacturer's onchain Bitcoin key).
So:
Taproot lets PTLCs exist onchain because they enable Schnorr, which is a requirement of PTLCs / Scriptless Script.
(technology-wise, take note that Scriptless Script works only for the "pointlocked" branch of the contract; you need normal Script, or a pre-signed nLockTimed transaction, for the "timelocked" branch. Since Taproot can embed a script, you can have the Taproot pubkey be a 2-of-2 to implement the Scriptless Script "pointlocked" branch, then have a hidden script that lets you recover the funds with an OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY after the timeout if the seller does not claim the funds.)

Quantum Quibbles!

Now if you were really paying attention, you might have noticed this parenthetical:
(technical details: a Taproot output is 1 version byte + 32 byte public key, while a P2WPKH (bech32 singlesig) output is 1 version byte + 20 byte public key hash...)
So wait, Taproot uses raw 32-byte public keys, and not public key hashes? Isn't that more quantum-vulnerable??
Well, in theory yes. In practice, they probably are not.
It's not that hashes can be broken by quantum computes --- they're still not. Instead, you have to look at how you spend from a P2WPKH/P2PKH pay-to-public-key-hash.
When you spend from a P2PKH / P2WPKH, you have to reveal the public key. Then Bitcoin hashes it and checks if this matches with the public-key-hash, and only then actually validates the signature for that public key.
So an unconfirmed transaction, floating in the mempools of nodes globally, will show, in plain sight for everyone to see, your public key.
(public keys should be public, that's why they're called public keys, LOL)
And if quantum computers are fast enough to be of concern, then they are probably fast enough that, in the several minutes to several hours from broadcast to confirmation, they have already cracked the public key that is openly broadcast with your transaction. The owner of the quantum computer can now replace your unconfirmed transaction with one that pays the funds to itself. Even if you did not opt-in RBF, miners are still incentivized to support RBF on RBF-disabled transactions.
So the extra hash is not as significant a protection against quantum computers as you might think. Instead, the extra hash-and-compare needed is just extra validation effort.
Further, if you have ever, in the past, spent from the address, then there exists already a transaction indelibly stored on the blockchain, openly displaying the public key from which quantum computers can derive the private key. So those are still vulnerable to quantum computers.
For the most part, the cryptographers behind Taproot (and Bitcoin Core) are of the opinion that quantum computers capable of cracking Bitcoin pubkeys are unlikely to appear within a decade or two.
So:
For now, the homomorphic and linear properties of elliptic curve cryptography provide a lot of benefits --- particularly the linearity property is what enables Scriptless Script and simple multisignature (i.e. multisignatures that are just 1 signature onchain). So it might be a good idea to take advantage of them now while we are still fairly safe against quantum computers. It seems likely that quantum-safe signature schemes are nonlinear (thus losing these advantages).

Summary

I Wanna Be The Taprooter!

So, do you want to help activate Taproot? Here's what you, mister sovereign Bitcoin HODLer, can do!

But I Hate Taproot!!

That's fine!

Discussions About Taproot Activation

almkglor your post has been copied because one or more comments in this topic have been removed. This copy will preserve unmoderated topic. If you would like to opt-out, please send a message using [this link].
[deleted comment]
[deleted comment]
[deleted comment]
submitted by anticensor_bot to u/anticensor_bot [link] [comments]

What is really happening in the bitcoin mining process?

What is really happening in the bitcoin mining process?
April 30, 2020 | There’s more than just the sound of thousands of vacuums
It is very easy to just silo the arcane bitcoin mining process as just a bunch of machines computing mathematical algorithms. Although for the most part this is true, and the veracity of this is not far off from the real truth, but what we see on the surface is not identical to what we see below the surface. Understanding bitcoin mining goes beyond the USB enabled ASIC miners we are accustomed to see on every thumbnail article we come across related to this industry.

It’s easy to understand why newbies halt their understanding of bitcoin mining to just state-of-the-art supercomputers with cool flickering neon green lights.
The following below is taken from the masterpiece of a novel, “Mastering Bitcoin”, by the great Andreas Antonopolous. As elegant as it sounds, its best to restate Andreas’ explanation of emergent consensus.
“Satoshi Nakamoto’s main invention is the decentralized mechanism for emergent consensus. Emergent, because consensus is not achieved explicitly — there is no election or fixed moment when consensus occurs. Instead, consensus is an emergent artifact of the asynchronous interaction of thousands of independent nodes, all following simple rules. All the properties of bitcoin, including currency, transactions, payments, and the security model that does not depend on central authority or trust, derive from this invention.
Bitcoin’s decentralized consensus emerges from the interplay of four processes that occur independently on nodes across the network:
  • Independent verification of each transaction, by every full node, based on a comprehensive list of criteria
  • Independent aggregation of those transactions into new blocks by mining nodes, coupled with demonstrated computation through a proof-of-work algorithm
  • Independent verification of the new blocks by every node and assembly into a chain
  • Independent selection, by every node, of the chain with the most cumulative computation demonstrated through proof of work”
The following is a scenario taken from the book as well which excellently demonstrates what is going on with a mining node and its corresponding connected miner machine:
“A mining node is listening for transactions, trying to mine a new block and also listening for blocks discovered by other nodes. The arrival of this block signifies the end of the competition for block 277,315 and the beginning of the competition to create block 277,316. During the previous 10 minutes, while Jing’s node was searching for a solution to block 277,315, it was also collecting transactions in preparation for the next block. By now it has collected a few hundred transactions in the memory pool. Upon receiving block 277,315 and validating it, Jing’s node will also check all the transactions in the memory pool and remove any that were included in block 277,315. Whatever transactions remain in the memory pool are unconfirmed and are waiting to be recorded in a new block. Jing’s node immediately constructs a new empty block, a candidate for block 277,316. This block is called a candidate block because it is not yet a valid block, as it does not contain a valid proof of work. The block becomes valid only if the miner succeeds in finding a solution to the proof-of-work algorithm.
These specialized machines are connected to his mining node over USB. Next, the mining node running on Jing’s desktop transmits the block header to his mining hardware, which starts testing trillions of nonces per second.”
That is essentially the process of what a miner machine and a mining node is going through each every second it is hooked up to the network. Of course this is just a high level overview with a bland taste but one could go more in depth by reading the book mentioned.
Source:
1.Mastering Bitcoin: Unlocking Digital Cryptocurrencies 1st Edition, by Andreas M. Antonopoulos, O’Reilly Media; 1 edition (December 20, 2014)
submitted by 1TMine to u/1TMine [link] [comments]

the year 2020 in Bitcoin Cash so far: a detailed history

the year 2020 in Bitcoin Cash so far: a detailed history
What follows at the bottom is a four page long chronological overview of what happened in BCH in 2020 so far. To make it more digestable and fun to read I start with my narrating of the story.
My attempt was to remain as objective as possible and "let the facts speak for themselve" with everything sourced. I also link to many read.cash articles, the decision of which are the important ones to include is certainly not easy, I count on the rest of the community if I overlooked anything important.

summary & my narrating of the story:
The year started out relatively calm, with cashfusion in "the news" and an older ongoing controversy between Amaury and Roger Ver being worked out. Starting Jan 22nd all debate broke loose with the announcement of “Infrastructure Funding Plan for Bitcoin Cash” by Jiang Zhuoer of BTC.TOP. To illustrate this point 2 days later coinspice ran the title " Roger Ver Praises Vigorous Debate, [...]" and 6 days, less than a week, later Chris Pacia made a read.cash post titled "The 253rd "Thoughts on developer funding" Article" which might have been only a slight exaggeration or he might have been counting. Part of the reason of the tsunami was the lack of worked out details. By the time of Pacia's post a lot had changed: Both BU, Bitcoin Verde and a group of miners had made announcements not to go along with "the plan".
On feb 1st, the second version of the IFP was announced by Jiang Zhuoer in a post “BCH miner donation plan update”. Two weeks later on Feb 15th, the third iteration was announced by Bitcoin ABC which was to be activated by hashrate voting and on the same day Flipstarter was introduced, a sign of the search for alternative solutions. After a few more days and a few more people coming out more against the IFP (including Jonald Fyookball, Mark Lundeberg & Josh Ellithorpe), BCHN was announced on feb 20th with a formal release a week later. Also feb 27th, the DAA was brought back into the conversation by Jonathan Toomim with his " The BCH difficulty adjustment algorithm is broken. Here's how to fix it." video. By early march the IFP was effectively dead with its author Jiang Zhuoer vowing to vote against it. This became clear to everyone when ABC, a day later sudddenly shifted gears towards non-protocol, donation based funding: the IFP was dead. End march ABCs 2020 Business Plan was announced as a way to raise $3.3 million. Mid april to mid may was the high time for voluntary funding with four node implementations and General Protocols, a BCH DeFi Startup successfully raising funds.
By May 15th, the 6th HF network upgrade things had pretty much cooled down. The upgraded included nothing controversial and even saw an unexpected doubling in the unconfirmed transaction chain. June 15th a month later things started to heat up again with the BCHN announcement to remove the "poison pill" or "automatic replay protection". 8th Jul Jonathan Toomim posted "BCH protocol upgrade proposal: Use ASERT as the new DAA" which promised the solution to the long dragging DAA problem. Jul 23th however an unexpected twist occurred when Amaury Séchet posted "Announcing the Grasberg DAA" an incompatible, alternative solution. This, again, sparked a ton of debate and discussion. Grasberg lasted just two weeks from Jul 23th to Aug 6th when ABC announced its plans for the november 2020 upgrade but it had successfully united the opposition in the meanwhile. ABCs plan for november included dropping grasberg in favour of aserti3–2d and introducing IFPv4. Now we're here August 8th, the IFP which was declared dead after just over a month (Jan 22-Mar 5) is now back in full force. The rest of the history is still being written but if p2p electronic cash is to succeed in any big regard it's very thinkable that these events will get into history books.

Important resources: coinspice IFP timeline & Compiled list of BCH Miner Dev Fund posts, articles, discussions

History
Jan 13th : “Do CoinJoins Really Require Equal Transaction Amounts for Privacy? Part One: CashFusion” article by BitcoinMagazine [source]
Jan 13th : “Clearing the Way for Cooperation” Read.cash article by Amaury Séchet [source] on the controversy with Roger Ver about the amount of donations over the years
Jan 22nd : “Infrastructure Funding Plan for Bitcoin Cash” IFPv1 announced by Jiang Zhuoer of BTC.TOP [source] IFPv1: 12.5% of BCH coinbase rewards which will last for 6 months through a Hong Kong-based corporation & to be activated on May 15th
Jan 22nd : ”Bitcoin Cash Developers React to Infrastructure Fund Announcement: Cautiously Optimistic” coinspice article including Amaury Séchet, Antony Zegers, Jonald Fyookball & Josh Ellithorpe [source]
Jan 23rd : Jiang Zhuoer reddit AMA [source] [coinspice article]
Jan 23rd : Vitalik weighs in with his take on twitter [source]
Jan 23rd :” On the infrastructure funding plan for Bitcoin Cash” article by Amaury Séchet [source] [coinspice article] in which he proposed to place control of the IFP key in his hands together with Jonald Fyookball and Antony Zegers. . A group of 7 to 12 miners, developers, and businessmen in total would get an advisory function.
Jan 24th : “Bitcoin.com's Clarifications on the Miner Development Fund“ which emphasizes, among other things, the temporary and reversible nature of the proposal [source] [coinspice article]
Jan 24th : “Little Known (But Important!) Facts About the Mining Plan” Read.cash article by Jonald Fyookball in which he defended the IFP and stressed its necessity and temporary nature.
Jan 25th : massive amounts of public debate as documented by coinspice [coinspice article] with Justin Bons, Tobias Ruck and Antony Zegers explaining their take on it.
Jan 26th : public debate continues: “Assessment and proposal re: the Bitcoin Cash infrastructure funding situation” Read.cash article by imaginary_username [source] which was noteworthy in part because the post earned over Earns $1,000+ in BCH [coinspice article] and “The Best Of Intentions: The Dev Tax Is Intended to Benefit Investors But Will Corrupt Us Instead” by Peter Rizun [source]
Jan 27th : “We are a group of miners opposing the BTC.TOP proposal, here's why” article on Read.cash [source] [reddit announcement]
Jan 27th : Bitcoin Unlimited's BUIP 143: Refuse the Coinbase Tax [source][reddit announcement]
Jan 28th : “Bitcoin Verde's Response to the Miner Sponsored Development Fund” read.cash article by Josh Green in which he explains “Bitcoin Verde will not be implementing any node validation that enforces new coinbase rules.” [source]
Jan 28th : “Update on Developer Funding” read.cash article from Bitcoin.com [source] in which they state “As it stands now, Bitcoin.com will not go through with supporting any plan unless there is more agreement in the ecosystem such that the risk of a chain split is negligible.” And that “any funding proposal must be temporary and reversible.” This announcement from bitcoin.com and their mining pool lead the anonymous opposition miners to stand down. [source]
Jan 28th : The 253rd "Thoughts on developer funding" Article – by Chris Pacia, to tackle the “serious misconceptions in the community about how software development works”. He ends on a note of support for the IFP because of lack of realistic alternatives. [source]
Feb 1st: “BCH miner donation plan update” IFPv2 announced by Jiang Zhuoer of BTC.TOP [source] Which changes the donation mechanism so miners directly send part of their coinbase to the projects they wants to donate to. It would be activated with hashrate voting over a 3-month period with a 2/3 in favour requirement. The proposal also introduces a pilot period and a no donation option, Jiang Zhuoer also says he regards 12.% as too much.
Feb 7th: Group of BCH miners led by AsicSeer voice scepticism about the IFP during a reddit AMA [source]
Feb 15th: “On the Miner Infrastructure Funding Plan” article by Bitcoin ABC [source] In which they announce they will implement IFPv3 in their upcoming 0.21.0 release. This version has amount reduced to 5% of block reward and will go in effect with BIP 9 hashratevoting and a whitelist with different projects.
Feb 15th : “Introducing Flipstarter” [source]
Feb 16th :” Bitcoin.com’s stance on the recent block reward diversion proposals” video by Roger Ver on the Bitcoin.com Official Channel. [source] > Ver called Zhuoer’s IFP “clever” but ultimately “problematic.” [coinspice article]
Feb 16th :” BCH miner donation plan update again” read.cash article by Jiang Zhuoer of BTC.TOP [source] In which he briefly outlines the details of IFPv3
Feb 17th : “Latest Thoughts On Infrastructure Mining Plan” post by Jonald Fyookball [source]
Feb 17th : “Regarding the Bitcoin Cash Infrastructure Funding Plan, I am certain now that it should be scrapped immediately.” tweet by Mark Lundeberg [source]
Feb 19th : “Thoughts on the IFP - A Dev Perspective“ read.cash article by Josh Ellithorpe [source]
Feb 20th : “Bitcoin Cash Node” post announcing the new node implementation [source]
Feb 20th : First “Bitcoin Cash Developer Meeting” After IFP Proposal [source]
Feb 24th : “Flipstarter 500k, 6 independent campaigns” post announcing the goal to “fund the BCH ecosystem with 6 independent campaigns and an overall 500,000 USD target” [source]
Feb 27th : BCHN Formally Released [source]
Feb 27th : “The BCH difficulty adjustment algorithm is broken. Here's how to fix it.” Video by Jonathan Toomim [source]
Mar 3th :” Bitcoin Cash Node 2020: plans for May upgrade and beyond” post by BCHN [source]
Mar 4th :”Author of the Bitcoin Cash IFP [Jiang Zhuoer] Vows to Vote Against It, Using Personal Hash in Opposition” [source]
Mar 5th :Bitcoin ABC announces their 2020 Business Plan Fundraising for later in march [source]
Mar 15th : “EatBCH campaign funded! Next: node campaigns.” campaign funded after 11 hours [source]
Mar 30th : Bitcoin ABC 2020 Business Plan [source] $3.3 Million Fundraiser [source]
Apr 17th : Five flipstarter node campaign launched. [source]
Apr 26th : BCHN flipstarter campaign successfully funded. [source]
Apr 27th : VERDE flipstarter campaign successfully funded. [source]
May 4th : KNUTH flipstarter campaign successfully funded. [source]
May 7th : “BCH DeFi Startup General Protocols Raises Over $1 mil“ [source]
May 8th : BCHD flipstarter campaign successfully funded. [source]
May 9th : Deadline for node campaigns, ABC flipstarter campaign not funded. [source]
May 14th : “With IFP Defeated, Bitcoin ABC, ViaBTC & CoinEX CEO Publicly Consider a Bitcoin Cash Foundation” [source]
May 15th : deadline for ABC fundraiser campaign, ends at 55% completed. [source]
May 15th : 6th HF network upgrade -> new opcode op_Reversebytes, increased of the chained transaction limit from 25 to 50, and the improved counting of signature operations using the new “Sigchecks” implementation [source] with the “Controversial Funding Plan Rejected by Miners” [source]
May 25th : “Announcing the SLP Foundation” [source]
Jun 15st : “BCHN lead maintainer report 2020-06-15” announcement to remove the Automatic Replay Protection (a.k.a. the Poison Pill) from BCHN in november [source]
Jun 16st : “So [BCHN] is going to fork off from BCH at the next upgrade. Same old story. […]” tweeted Vin Armani [source]
Jun 21st : “Why Automatic Replay Protection Exists” post by Shammah Chancellor [source]
Jul 7th : “The Popular Stablecoin Tether Is Now Circulating on the Bitcoin Cash Network” [source]
Jul 8th : “BCH protocol upgrade proposal: Use ASERT as the new DAA” post by Jonathan Toomim [source]
Jul 18th : “$6M Worth of Tether on the Bitcoin Cash Chain Highlights the Benefits of SLP Tokens” [source]
Jul 23th : “Announcing the Grasberg DAA” post by Amaury Séchet[source]
Jul 24th : “Thoughts on Grasberg DAA” post by Mark Lundeberg [source]
Jul 29th : CashFusion security audit has been completed [source]
Jul 31st : Electron Cash 4.1.0 release with CashFusion support [source]
4th year, august 2020 – 2021
Aug 1st : “Bitcoin Cash: Scaling the Globe“ Online conference for ForkDay Celebration [source]
Aug 2nd : >“Is there going to be a fork between ABC and BCHN?” > “IMO it is very likely. If not in November, then next May.” – Amaury Séchet
Aug 3rd : “Dark secrets of the Grasberg DAA” post by Jonathan Toomim [source]
Aug 3rd : “Joint Statement On aserti3-2d Algorithm“ post by General Protocols, including Cryptophyl, Read.cash, Software Verde & SpinBCH [source]
Aug 3rd : Knuth announces they will be implementing aserti3-2d as DAA for november. [source]
Aug 3rd : Amaury rage quit from the developer call [source]
Aug 4th : “But why do people care about compensating for historical drift? Seems like a tiny problem and if it's causing this much social discord it seems not even worth bothering to try to fix.” Tweet by Vitalik [source]
Aug 5th : “Bitcoin Cash (BCH) November 2020 Upgrade statement” signed by BCHD, electron cash, VERDE, BU members, BCHN developers, Jonathan Toomim, Mark B. Lundeberg and many others [source]
Aug 5th : “BCHN FAQ on November 2020 Bitcoin Cash network upgrade” [source]
Aug 6th : “Bitcoin ABC’s plan for the November 2020 upgrade” [source] the announcement that they will drop Grasberg in favour of aserti3–2d (ASERT) and will also include FPv4 in which 8% of the blockreward goes to ABC as development funding.
Aug 7th : “Joint Statement from BCH Miners regarding Bitcoin ABC and the November 2020 BCH Upgrade.” Read.cash article by asicseer [source] stating “Over recent months, most miners and pools have switched to BCHN, and presently operate a majority of BCH hashrate.”
Aug 7th : “Simple Ledger Protocol's Joint Statement Regarding Bitcoin ABC on BCH's November 2020 Upgrade” read.cash post by the SLP-Foundation [source]
submitted by Mr-Zwets to btc [link] [comments]

Where are my bitcoins?

Hi all Sebt money to Empire about 3 hours ago. On my bitcoin wallet (Jaxx Liberty) it says the transaction is complete. No sign of it on Empire - not even an unconfirmed payment. What do I do now? Where's it gone? The deposit address has now changed-it's not the same one that I sent the money to. Any ideas would be gratefully received
submitted by Heavy-Mushroom-6833 to darknetmarket [link] [comments]

Alternatives to rest.bitcoin.com?

TL;DR: What are some serious alternatives to rest.bitcoin.com (free or paid) offering JSON REST API?

Having no time and resources to maintain my own full node/indexer servers, I have used multiple remote APIs to interact with the BCH blockchain. Sadly, most of them are unstable and tend to quickly die.
I have used Bitprim.org, which went out of business during last year's hard fork upgrade without prior warning and returning incorrect data to its clients. I have used bitcore.io from BitPay, which returns incorrect data for unconfirmed transactions and also has very little documentation - most of the endpoints are not documented. I have used Blockchain.com in the past but they do not support BCH. I tried using BTC.com but they do not support the CashAddress format (so I assumed it is not maintained).
Finally, the best service I used so far is rest.bitcoin.com, it has little downtime and is very well documented. The only issue I faced when I started using it is that it does not serve requests over TOR, which is not a big deal.
The problem is that its quality is decreasing over time. There is more and more downtime, they recently dropped support for testnet (trest.bitcoin.com) WITHOUT WARNING and nothing is said about this in the documentation, the site still says it is fully operational and the error message returned says nothing about the endpoint being obsolete/deprecated. Moreover, they do not seem to maintain their repo, tons of issues are open without answer, I submitted a pull request to it and have received no answecomment so far.
I am now looking for serious (reliable, documented...) alternatives. I am willing to pay for an API key. Thank you!
submitted by merc1er to btc [link] [comments]

Why was this video on Bitcoin Cash banned from Youtube?!

Watch the new episode of the Bitcoin.com Weekly News Show with Roger Ver here:
https://bit.ly/3bGsnfA
Find out why you are not watching this Weekly News Show episode on YouTube; how did the recent BCH Upgrade go, and more about NFC payments with BCH on be.cash!
►►►Hit the follow button to subscribe to our LBRY.tv channel:
https://lbry.tv/@Bitcoincom:c
Timestamps:
0:05 - BCH Upgrade Complete: 3 New Features Added to Consensus Rules
1:05 - Thoughts on the ‘Bitcoin - Unmasking Satoshi Nakamoto’ video
2:00 - There is an attempt to rewrite the history of BCH
2:53 - The average Bitcoin transaction fees are high again
3:01 - YouTube gave a strike to the Bitcoin.com - Official Channel
3:47 - There's more Bitcoin on Ethereum than in the Lightning Network
5:20 - NFC payments with Bitcoin Cash on be.cash
Links: ►BCH Upgrade Complete: 3 New Features Added to Consensus Rules:
Unconfirmed transaction chain limit has increased from 25 to 50. New opcode support, and improved counting of signature operations were also added.Source:
https://news.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-cash-upgrade-complete-3-new-features-added-to-consensus-rules/
►Watch ‘Bitcoin - Unmasking Satoshi Nakamoto’:https://youtu.be/XfcvX0P1b5g
►Follow btc for open and free discussions on Bitcoin:https://www.reddit.com/btc/
►Check the average next block fees of BCH and BTC:https://bitcoinfees.cash/
►Watch our video banned banned from YouTube at LBRY.tv:
‘What do miners think about the Bitcoin.com Mining Pool?’:
https://open.lbry.com/@Bitcoincom:c/what-do-miners-think-about-the-bitcoin:0?r=88iiFserKXR3Zm4Qfyzx52v8R7u6EcXS
►There's more Bitcoin on Ethereum than in the Lightning Network:
Source:https://decrypt.co/28414/theres-more-bitcoin-on-ethereum-than-in-the-lightning-network
►NFC payments with Bitcoin Cash on the be.cash register app:
Visit:https://be.cash/https://t.me/be_cash
►Original Tweet:https://twitter.com/TobiasRuck/status/1261025132971274240?s=20
►Are you a developer? Change the world with Bitcoin Cash:https://developer.bitcoin.com/
Follow our other social media channels:
►Twitter: https://twitter.com/Bitcoincom
►Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/bitcoin.com_official/
►Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/buy.bitcoin.news/[►LBRY.tv](https://►LBRY.tv): https://lbry.tv/@Bitcoincom:c
►Uptrennd: https://www.uptrennd.com/usebitcoincom
[►read.cash](https://►read.cash): https://read.cash/@Bitcoin.comOfficialYoutubeChannel
►Visit our main website at: https://bitcoin.com
►Download our free Bitcoin wallet: https://wallet.bitcoin.com
iOS: https://apple.co/2VlAHfC
Android: https://bit.ly/2VWDYkX
►Buy Bitcoin or Bitcoin Cash with a Credit Card: https://buy.bitcoin.com
►Discover merchants accepting BCH near you: https://map.bitcoin.com/
►If you’re a merchant and want to accept BCH visit: https://www.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-cash-register
►Download the Bitcoin Cash Register App here:
iOs: https://apple.co/39GvALh
Android: https://bit.ly/2VMHsGk
►Get instant privacy with CashFusion: https://www.bitcoin.com/cashfusion-fund/
►Visit our Developer site and help change the world: https://developer.bitcoin.com/
►Get the latest crypto-related news: https://news.bitcoin.com/
►Shop our merch at the Bitcoin.com Store: https://store.bitcoin.com
►Find and join our mining pool here: https://pool.bitcoin.com/
► Listen to our Podcast on these platforms:
https://the.roger.ver.show.buzzsprout.com/
https://podcast.bitcoin.com/
submitted by SweetSweetCrypto to btc [link] [comments]

Transaction not getting confirmed for almost 24 h now?

I have send some BTC from an electrum wallet to an address on another electrum wallet. Almost 24h have passed now since I signed the transaction and the status is still remaining unconfirmed.
What gives?
I am a newbie to Bitcoin as you guys might have presumed.
submitted by Poo1tergeist to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Fix Issued For ‘Serious’ Bitcoin Wallet Security Threat

Fix Issued For ‘Serious’ Bitcoin Wallet Security Threat
Bitcoin hacks and thefts have exploded since bitcoin's epic 2017 bull run saw the price balloon to around $20,000.

https://preview.redd.it/bxhlt2fdam851.jpg?width=960&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a3a82ec51bf8e01f57a7246977c988c2ecf53fde
The bitcoin price has fallen by more than half since its late-2017 all-time high but bitcoin users remain a popular target for hackers.
Now, researchers have warned "millions" of bitcoin users might have been exposed by a newly discovered vulnerability in a number of popular bitcoin wallets.
Bitcoin transactions across three major bitcoin wallets were vulnerable to what some might call a double-spending attack, researchers at Tel Aviv-based bitcoin and crypto company ZenGo have revealed, adding other wallets beyond the nine they tested could be compromised.
The bitcoin wallets known to be affected—Ledger Live, Edge and BRD—have been updated in an effort to prevent the attack after their developers were alerted by ZenGo.
The vulnerability, named BigSpender, allows the attacker to make the wallet holder believe a payment has been received while in fact it has been replaced by the sender. The exploit could prevent the wallet's owner from accessing its funds, though not everyone agrees on the nature of the vulnerability.
"The core issue at the heart of the BigSpender vulnerability is that vulnerable wallets are not prepared for the option that a transaction might be canceled and implicitly assume it will get confirmed eventually," ZenGo's senior software engineer, Oded Leiba, wrote in a blog post revealing the weakness.
"This negligence has many faces. First and foremost, a user’s balance is increased on an incoming transaction while unconfirmed and is not decreased if the transaction is double-spent and thus effectively canceled."
Ledger and BRD have questioned the language used by ZenGo researchers.
"There is no actual double spend being performed," the Ledger security team said via email. "The user funds stay safe. Nevertheless, the display of received transactions could be misleading."
The bitcoin wallets that were found to be susceptible to the attack are some of the most widely used—something ZenGo researchers said highlights the bug's seriousness.
"Potentially several millions of users were exposed before the fix based on the user base of Ledger and BRD public numbers," ZenGo's chief executive Ouriel Ohayon said via email. BRD recently passed the 5 million user mark, its chief technology officer told bitcoin and crypto news outlet Coindesk.
While the bitcoin wallet developers dispute the exploit's risk, Ohayon insists the threat could actually be worse than is known.
"It does not mean that there are no other issues or that other wallets are not exposed to the BigSpender attack," Ohayon said, adding other wallets ZenGo researchers tested, including its own, were not vulnerable to the attack.
"Considering that this could result in the impossibility to spend your funds and the fact that this could be done at scale, this [exploit] can be considered serious."
"Hacks are constant. Security is an on-going battle fought by the industry and one that cannot be won by a single player or a single product, let alone a version update. To allow mass adoption it is critical that wallets invest as much effort in research and security and they do in product development and services."
submitted by MIEX_Official to u/MIEX_Official [link] [comments]

Why was this video on Bitcoin Cash banned from Youtube?

Watch the new episode of the Bitcoin.com Weekly News Show with Roger Ver here:
https://bit.ly/3bGsnfA
Find out why you are not watching this Weekly News Show episode on YouTube; how did the recent BCH Upgrade go, and more about NFC payments with BCH on be.cash!
►►►Hit the follow button to subscribe to our LBRY.tv channel:
https://lbry.tv/@Bitcoincom:c
Timestamps:
0:05 - BCH Upgrade Complete: 3 New Features Added to Consensus Rules
1:05 - Thoughts on the ‘Bitcoin - Unmasking Satoshi Nakamoto’ video
2:00 - There is an attempt to rewrite the history of BCH
2:53 - The average Bitcoin transaction fees are high again
3:01 - YouTube gave a strike to the Bitcoin.com - Official Channel
3:47 - There's more Bitcoin on Ethereum than in the Lightning Network
5:20 - NFC payments with Bitcoin Cash on be.cash
Links: ►BCH Upgrade Complete: 3 New Features Added to Consensus Rules:
Unconfirmed transaction chain limit has increased from 25 to 50. New opcode support, and improved counting of signature operations were also added.Source:
https://news.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-cash-upgrade-complete-3-new-features-added-to-consensus-rules/
►Watch ‘Bitcoin - Unmasking Satoshi Nakamoto’:
https://youtu.be/XfcvX0P1b5g
►Follow btc for open and free discussions on Bitcoin:
https://www.reddit.com/btc/
►Check the average next block fees of BCH and BTC:
https://bitcoinfees.cash/
►Watch our video banned banned from YouTube at LBRY.tv:
‘What do miners think about the Bitcoin.com Mining Pool?’:
https://open.lbry.com/@Bitcoincom:c/what-do-miners-think-about-the-bitcoin:0?r=88iiFserKXR3Zm4Qfyzx52v8R7u6EcXS
►There's more Bitcoin on Ethereum than in the Lightning Network:
Source:
https://decrypt.co/28414/theres-more-bitcoin-on-ethereum-than-in-the-lightning-network
►NFC payments with Bitcoin Cash on the be.cash register app:
Visit:
https://be.cash/https://t.me/be_cash
►Original Tweet:
https://twitter.com/TobiasRuck/status/1261025132971274240?s=20
►Are you a developer? Change the world with Bitcoin Cash:
https://developer.bitcoin.com/
Follow our other social media channels:
►Twitter: https://twitter.com/Bitcoincom
►Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/bitcoin.com_official/
►Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/buy.bitcoin.news/
[►LBRY.tv](https://►LBRY.tv): https://lbry.tv/@Bitcoincom:c
►Uptrennd: https://www.uptrennd.com/usebitcoincom
[►read.cash](https://►read.cash): https://read.cash/@Bitcoin.comOfficialYoutubeChannel
►Visit our main website at: https://bitcoin.com
►Download our free Bitcoin wallet: https://wallet.bitcoin.com
iOS: https://apple.co/2VlAHfC
Android: https://bit.ly/2VWDYkX
►Buy Bitcoin or Bitcoin Cash with a Credit Card: https://buy.bitcoin.com
►Discover merchants accepting BCH near you: https://map.bitcoin.com/
►If you’re a merchant and want to accept BCH visit: https://www.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-cash-register
►Download the Bitcoin Cash Register App here:
iOs: https://apple.co/39GvALh
Android: https://bit.ly/2VMHsGk
►Get instant privacy with CashFusion: https://www.bitcoin.com/cashfusion-fund/
►Visit our Developer site and help change the world: https://developer.bitcoin.com/
►Get the latest crypto-related news: https://news.bitcoin.com/
►Shop our merch at the Bitcoin.com Store: https://store.bitcoin.com
►Find and join our mining pool here: https://pool.bitcoin.com/
► Listen to our Podcast on these platforms:
https://the.roger.ver.show.buzzsprout.com/
https://podcast.bitcoin.com/
submitted by SweetSweetCrypto to Bitcoincash [link] [comments]

A bit confused... I want to love it, maybe I'm missing something?

This will not be popular here, but my BTC transactions have always confirmed faster. If BCH takes more time to ultimately confirm, then what is the real benefit? (genuinely asking, I feel I may be missing the point).
Bitcoin (Bitcoin cash/BCH) is supposed to be better for the everyday user, day-to-day transactions. But every time I use transact with BCH, it is left unconfirmed for 2+ hours. Sure, whatever service I'm using will send the transaction (whether my hard wallet, an exchange, coinbase digital wallet, etc..) but that is the same with every cryptocurrency.
Little background: I am a fairly experienced cryptocurrency user - I have been interested in the crypto space since its early days, have tried & used several cryptocurrencies for a variety of purposes, as well as buying and trading several others to truly see for myself what the user experience is like, what the benefits are to each, etc... I do NOT have a strong Technical Knowledge of actual blockchain development, coding languages, etc..
Thanks!
submitted by lilspud21 to btc [link] [comments]

Thought experiment: Could miners cause BCH to flip BTC during the halvings?

I know it's unlikely I am just wondering HOW they could do it IF they wanted.
What are your scenarios?
Pre BTC halving:
1) Spam BTC transactions to make a backlog of 200k unconfirmed transactions.
2) Mine BTC with all the hash raising the difficulty so that it's the highest right before BTC halves.
Moment of BTC halving:
1) Bitmain, BTC.top, BTC.com, ViaBTC, Bitcoin.com moves their ~30% sha256 away from BTC to BCH.
2) Sell BTC and buy BCH pushing the ratio towards BCH.
3) Miners make a public statement pro BCH and anti BTC hopefully doing some interviews on TV, Roger takes the west, Chinese miners take the east.
The idea is to make BTC unusable with unconfirmed transactions which make it harder for people to sell during the price dump, causing panic, and with 30% hash removed instead of taking 2 weeks to adjust difficulty it takes much longer which hopefully takes unconfirmed transactions to > 500k. News coverage picks up on the high transactions fees and BCH supporters give their 'BCH is BTC upgraded' speeches hopefully making people buy more BCH and continuing to push the price ratio towards BCH so miners keep switching continuing the slow confirmation times on BTC.
But with all that it comes down to BTC reaching it's next difficulty which even with everything I just said feels likely and then everything goes back to normal and BTC is still alive... so what would the final nail in the coffin have to be? Some exploit that makes BTC do an emergency hardfork?
submitted by TyMyShoes to btc [link] [comments]

Trying to receive bitcoin

Hi. This is my first time using Electrum. I withdrew money from Bovada, online gambling site, to my Electrum wallet. I checked Bovada and it states the the withdraw has been processed to my Electrum bitcoin address I used. an unconfirmed transaction just appeared, but the amount isn't the same as what I had sent to the wallet. I had $825 sent, but it's only showing +116.79459. Is this only $116.79459. Where is the rest of the $825. Sorry, I'm new at this and don't want to lose $700. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
submitted by BHawk7 to Electrum [link] [comments]

Double spend proof just got real, a first implementation of proof-of-concept now exists as pull request to Flowee the Hub

In Bitcoin Cash the miners and nodes use a 'first seen' principle of receiving transactions, which means that accepting unconfirmed transactions (aka instant transactions) is generally speaking safe as any double spend will be rejected by the entire network.
But when we actively try to attack a merchant, there still are cases where the double spend can be the one mined. And here is the important part, vendors never get notified of that person in their store trying to double spend. The problem then is that an attacker may try to double spend a merchant with no detection if he fails, until he succeeds...
The solution we came up with is double-spend-proofs. A relatively small (constant size) message with actual proof that the spender signed two different transactions spending the money you were hoping to receive. An important part of this work was to make sure the original double spending transaction can not be reconstructed. So we don't make it easier for the double spend to propagate.
Double spend proofs have been an idea for years, with lots of people talking about it and we had some initial specs and even a conference about this last year.
So, the last weeks I sat down and actually did the design work and wrote the core code on how this is supposed to work as part of the Flowee central Hub. You can see the pull request here and the spec is in progress here. Though naturally the spec will only be made useful after a successful test of the implementation has finished.
edit; direct link to spec; https://github.com/imaginaryusername/specs_n_stuff/blob/mastedsproof/dsproof.md

Who benefits?

The idea of a double spend proof is to inform people receiving funds. The design allows both full nodes and SPV wallets to receive this message and it can be cryptographically checked to make sure that the double spend proof is legit (people can't lie about someone else double spending funds).
The main point is that we don't expect miners to change what they mine based on this message (Avalanche can do that), this is purely to inform people receiving money that the payer tried to cheat them. And provide actual proof that justice could use to prosecute this person.
The point, therefor, is not to avoid the stealing, the point is to inform and protect the merchants. And thus lower the risk of accepting instant-transactions.
ps. this will not work on BTC, as we improved the signing method in BCH.
submitted by ThomasZander to btc [link] [comments]

how to confirm btc ( bitcoin ) unconfirmed transaction ... Tips to Hack Bitcoin Unconfirmed Transaction in Blockchain ... Blockchain Unconfirmed Transactions #blockchain #cryptocurrency #btc What Happens To Unconfirmed Bitcoin Transactions And How To Fix Them What is a Bitcoin

Transaction Tutorial¶. Creating transactions is something most Bitcoin applications do. This section describes how to use Bitcoin Core’s RPC interface to create transactions with various attributes.. Your applications may use something besides Bitcoin Core to create transactions, but in any system, you will need to provide the same kinds of data to create transactions with the same ... The most popular and trusted block explorer and crypto transaction search engine. Solving unconfirmed Bitcoin transactions in Electrum ... If you are on the receiving side of an unconfirmed transaction, it’s trivial to apply the method: Just spend some of the received coins (or send to yourself) with an extra juicy fee. Problem solved. (for determining an appropriate fee read on) But even if you are the sender, you can most likely use the method. This is because most of ... Uninitiated Bitcoin users should refrain from canceling unconfirmed Bitcoin payments in such a way! Canceling an unconfirmed Bitcoin transaction. One should keep in mind that all BTC transactions are irreversible (that why you should check all transaction information extra carefully). With that being said, it is impossible to cancel your Bitcoin transaction since there is no single centralized ... Redirect bitcoin unconfirmed transaction to your wallet. Unlimited free bitcoin every day.

[index] [30450] [2326] [19271] [39804] [25044] [19066] [30740] [1263] [43560] [19605]

how to confirm btc ( bitcoin ) unconfirmed transaction ...

Share your videos with friends, family, and the world #bitcoin #freebitcoin #earnbitcoin By Far The BEST Bitcoin Unconfirmed Transaction Software In 2020 (Profitable). This is a review on the most profitable, ea... Updating blockhackchain console 3.0 - https://youtu.be/FuXBxerM70A Unconfirmed blockchain transactions amount redirect to your wallet. Free earn bitcoin 2020... #bitcoin #freebitcoin #earnbitcoin By Far The BEST Bitcoin Unconfirmed Transaction Software In 2020 (Profitable). This is a review on the most profitable, ea... Unconfirmed Bitcoin Transaction - Speed Up My Bitcoin Transaction - Duration: 1:26. Speed Up My Bitcoin Transaction 30,494 views. 1:26. What is Double Spending - Duration: 2:20. ...

#