To add to Murch's answer:
The output was created by Matthew Zipkin to test support for sending to SegWit v1 support on purse.io. This was done in the context of the Bitcoin Optech Compatibility Matix.
Here is a screenshot of the purse.io withdrawal that was added in PR 303 to the Bitcoin Optech website.
You should be able to as long as the vendor provides you with a BTC address in a format that the exchange you're using supports.
Also, some exchanges are known to censor transactions to some addresses, so there's a slight chance your payment might get denied. That's a risk you take when sending from a custodial exchange... not your keys, not your coins. On ...
Transactions include a fee, which miners are allowed to claim if they include that transaction in their block. While it is legal to not include any transactions, miners who do this will miss out on the fees.
Furthermore, the computational cost needed to verify a transaction is absolutely negligible compared to the work of producing PoW. What is more ...
Transactions pay transaction fees to the miner which includes that transaction in a block. So miners are incentivized to include transactions because it means they get paid more. This becomes more important as the block subsidy goes down as then a miner's revenue will primarily come from transaction fees rather than the generation of new Bitcoin.
The first output of transaction b53e3bc5…5377f141 has the following scriptPubKey:
OP_PUSHNUM_1 OP_PUSHBYTES_32 01010101…0101010101
The segwit softfork in 2017 defined versioning rules for all native segwit outputs, but only defined spending rules for version 0.¹
This output worth 5431 satoshis matches the native segwit schema, but the leading OP_PUSHNUM_1 ...
I assume that you are talking about a Pay to Public Key Hash (P2PKH) address.
Cryptographic hash functions have the pre-image resistance property:
Given a hash value h, it should be difficult to find a message m for which h = hash(m).
P2PKH addresses encode a locking script that commits funds to the hash of a public key. Given that the address only ...
No, because that would just result in miners stuffing their own blocks with back-and-forth transactions.
Every block has a finite amount of space (called "weight"), and every transaction has a certain weight based on its complexity. The sum of the weights of the transactions in a block cannot exceed 4000000. Transactions also each define a fee. ...
Not trustlessly, but if the source can trust you to destroy information or come up with a scheme where you wouldn't be able to view or save the private key, you could:
Send to an address you have the private key for
Sign a transaction spending the output to the target address
Destroy the private key
Give your recipient the signed transaction.
Of course, ...
This kind of thing is called a "covenant transaction". It is not currently possible in bitcoin, however there are proposals to add this to bitcion and one of them will likely land sometime in the next few years. One is OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY and another is OP_CONSTRAINDESTINATION.
In the Lightning Conference 2019, Jameson Lopp mentioned that Exchanges are responsible for most of the bitcoin transactions. It is discussed in a tweet thread.
Bitcoin is not used much in darknet markets now because people realized privacy isn't the priority for many users and Bitcoin developers. Still, we can look at the relevant charts and see that most ...
Not entirely sure how to answer this question since I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve. But from what I'm reading, it looks like you're trying to send Bitcoin in a manner which is untraceable on your system.
If that is the case, then you don't need to run a full node. Transactions are stateless, so as long as you have the necessary information as ...
I don't know how to do exactly what you are asking, but I think you could use some wallet like Wasabi. Run it on the offline laptop with encrypted disk, and connect to local full node (bitcoind running on your online laptop) through local IP address. You can configure Wasabi to do that in the settings.
I use similar setup where my Wasabi wallet connects to a ...
Correct. A single miner can slow down a transaction simply by not including it in their blocks. Of course, unless they possess enough hashrate compared to everyone else, the effect will not really be noticeable.
Completely blocking a transaction would become possible with 51% or more of the network hashrate, as any chain including a "forbidden" ...
Of course, if there was even one node which didn't want to restrict the addresses activity, the transactions would eventually get through, but these neutral nodes might notice that that address has a harder time making transactions, so those neutral nodes might realize that they can demand a higher price for transactions from that address.
I think you ...
The solution to this problem is: anyone can become a miner, in theory.
Proof of work replaces a central party that can censor with a consensus protocol, where miners jointly decide what transactions get processed, and in what order.
But that's just part of the picture - if we fully trusted miners (or a majority of them) to never behave maliciously, we could ...
If you don't have your private key, and the custodial wallet that does have your private key is no longer accessible, then you cannot move your coins or "cash out".
Invest in a hardware wallet, and transfer your coins out of any custodial wallet if you plan on hodling the coins. That way, if you ever need to cash out, you can.
TL;DR: your question is a valid one; there is no easy solution but CoinJoin and XMR swaps will help.
The 3rd party payment processors use wallet that is shared for all customers so this specific attack against specific merchant is not effective. But then you have another problem: the payment processor itself will leak your data, 1) ~legally to multiple ...
You set the fee rate to 6 sat/vbyte. That's very low, median fee in recent blocks has been 30-70 sat/vbyte. See mempool.space.
You could wait until the weekend when the mining difficulty is expected to drop by more than 25%. This will decrease fees as more blocks can be mined per hour. The difficulty drop happens around 1AM UTC on Saturday.
Is this the highest number of transactions in a block until now?
The highest number of transactions in a block is 12239 in block 00000000000000001080e6de32add416cd6cda29f35ec9bce694fea4b964c7be at height 367853.
What are the things that affect the number of transactions possible in a block?
Besides the block size/weight limit, the primary thing that ...
The whitepaper just gives a conceptual overview of Bitcoin, but certainly isn't a full specification. Anyway, beyond the blockchain itself, keeping track of transactions and UTXOs is more of an implementation detail than a protocol concern. Various explorers, nodes, and wallets will differ in their approaches, but generally there are a few different mappings ...
The result you are getting is correct. The error is that you think it's too high when it's correct.
Say I buy a book for $5, but I pay with a $100 bill. The amount "sent to anyone" from my wallet is $100, not $5. So the total of the amounts sent will be greater than the net amounts paid.
The total of the amounts "sent to anyone from a known ...
Unlikely the OP is still waiting for the answer but the question remains valid and six years later community actually has some good answers.
Open source, self-hosted payment processors for Bitcoin:
https://btcpayserver.org/ - the most powerful one
https://cypherpunkpay.org/ - the lightweight one (disclosure: author here)