Is the native Bitcoin client intended for mining?
Long long A decade or so ago, back in the mists of time, in prehistoric days when dinosaurs roamed the earth, early versions of the Bitcoin software did indeed include a mining capability that used the pitiful capabilities of CPUs. But this function has long been rendered defunct by the advance of ...
The renaming was merged in December 2013 with prior discussion on this GitHub issue. The general motivation was to distinguish between one particular implementation of the Bitcoin protocol (many refer to Bitcoin Core as the "reference implementation") versus other implementations (libbitcoin, btcd, bcoin, bitcoin-s etc) that either existed at the ...
Blocks do not contain transcation ids at all, they contain the full transactions themselves. If you are using the getblock rpc and seeing txids, that's just because showing the details of all of the transactions is extremely verbose, so only the txids are output. You can see the full transaction details of a block by setting the second argument to 2.
As MCCCS commented, https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/3203 covers this
Rebrand client to 'Bitcoin Core' #3203
laanwj opened this issue on 5 Nov 2013 · 23 comments
laanwj commented on 5 Nov 2013
To remove the confusion between the Bitcoin network and the reference client implementation that we maintain in this repository, both confusingly named '...
bitcoind --version is asking the bitcoind binary what its version is
bitcoin-cli getnetworkinfo asks the currently running bitcoind what its version is
So this means that you at some point had a 0.18.0 bitcoind, started it, then installed a 0.20.0 one, but the 0.18.0 one is still running.
The node side of Bitcoin Core treats wallet transactions as any other transaction. They aren't treated any differently from transactions received over the network. So once the transaction is added to the node's mempool, it will be broadcast to connected nodes in the same way that any other transaction would be relayed.
All you can do is to ...
If SegWit removes signature data, where does it put it exactly ? what does it mean that it puts at the end of the transaction ? and how does it make a block to contain more transactiosn?
It doesn't remove anything. It moves witness data to a separate area, the segregated witness, which (a) does not contribute to the txid and (b) is counted differently.
To add to Pieter's answer here is a diagram. The witnesses at the bottom of the Merkle tree are not seen by old nodes that haven't enabled SegWit. Hence the block size limit (1MB) for these old nodes is not breached. It is only new nodes that have enabled SegWit that will see these witnesses and handle blocks that are effectively larger than the previous 1MB ...
Yes, these kinds of attack do effect Bitcoin and are known and described. Bitcoin does not have any consensus level mitigations for them because doing so requires consensus changes which are difficult to do. It is known that Bitcoin's merkle tree design has multiple vulnerabilities.
The particular attack described on wikipedia is that an internal level can ...
Import addresses in bitcoin core and use listunspent or scantxoutset (scantxoutset doesn't require importing addresses as mentioned by sipa in the comments)
Setup open source block explorers that use bitcoin core and use their API to get the required results:
The UTXO set is updated every time a block is connected to the chain. So if you imagine during initial sync, you download block #1 and verify it, then add one UTXO to the database (the coinbase output). Block #2 gets downloaded and verified, and you add one more UTXO to the set and so on. Eventually you download block #1000 which contains a transaction that ...
After some digging, I find out more about the answer.
In bitcoin core, it is possible to NOT broadcast your own transactions with "walletbroadcast=0" option
See more details at https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009422.html, https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Privacy ("Tor and tor broadcasting"), and https://github....
Adding to Michael Folkson's answer:
How do I protect my machine from attack?
Permissions, Firewall, Strong passwords, Backup, Encryption, Updates etc.
my IP address will be ...
How do I protect my machine from attack?
The most important thing is to download Bitcoin Core from the correct destination. You can download it from bitcoincore.org or the source code can be found on the Bitcoin Core GitHub repo. If you download it from a malicious party's destination you could have serious problems. Luke Dashjr has a blog post on the extra ...
I almost hate to provide a second answer to pair against RedGrittyBrick's beautifully worded answer, but there is a consideration that matters here beyond that of Mhash/s: profitability.
Most people run a miner for profit. Not many people are out there running miners just for the philosophical principle behind bitcoin.
The ASIC miners are extraordinarily ...
I think the main thing you've missed is the problem GHOST set out to solve.
It's first and foremost intended as a scalability/speed upgrade. We want to increase the size of each block and/or decrease the interval between blocks. Either of these would increase the ratio between propagation time and block interval.
The higher the ratio is, the more we get that ...
Generally, all confirmations are relativistic: any chaintip could still be replaced with a heavier chain! However, reorganizations become increasingly costly and unlikely the more proof of work is piled on a block.
You are right, an attacker exerting a majority-attack can censor or rollback any transactions, and thus perform a doublespend-attack to return a ...
"Creating a UTXO" is the side effect of transacting. It's an abbreviation of "unspent transaction output"
A transaction in Bitcoin consumes a number of UTXOs, and creates a number of new ones, possibly assigned to new owners.
So the answer is: send BTC somewhere (possibly to yourself).