User: DifDramaAdditional information (optional):* This user sometimes make posts which doesn't make sense, where some of them got deleted. Although occasionally he also made helpful post and good question.
* This user previously accused of using chatbot,
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5458725.msg62530440#msg62530440.
List of post:This means the transaction is verified using a Merkle tree structure without broadcasting it to the public blockchain.
This post doesn't make sense, you don't need Merkle tree structure tree to verify transaction. Although it's worth to mention SPV wallet use Merkle tree structure to verify whether certain transaction actually included in a block.
I have 2 Internet providers,
one works OK the other one says "Your IP network is currently pending review"
everything is the same nothing is changes in the local network when it is swamped with the 2 Internet providers.
It's possible that the IP address range assigned by Internet provider B is flagged by bitnodes. io or other services due to previous activity or network behavior. This could result in your network being subject to additional scrutiny or review. If so, you need to contact Internet provider B's customer support.
Another user explain why it's bad suggestion.
If so, you need to contact Internet provider B's customer support.
This has to be one the dumbest pieces of advice I've read this year. Do you really think ISP B's customer support even know what a Bitcoin node is, let alone know about bitnodes?
Most likely the customers of this ISP have their computers infected and being used for DDoS attacks. This is the only way I think could trigger a residential ISP's addresses to be reviewed for malicious activity.
SegWit transactions enhance the security of the Bitcoin network by enforcing signature checks before any other checks. This prevents certain types of attacks and makes the network more resistant to vulnerabilities that exploit transaction malleability. Besides, SegWit's introduction was a soft fork, meaning that it did not require a majority consensus of miners to activate. This made the upgrade process smoother and allowed for a more gradual transition.
And here is a link for beginner to learn Segwit, hope it will be helpful.
https://blockgeeks.com/guides/what-is-segwit/Another user made correction.
SegWit transactions enhance the security of the Bitcoin network by enforcing signature checks before any other checks. This prevents certain types of attacks and makes the network more resistant to vulnerabilities that exploit transaction malleability. Besides, SegWit's introduction was a soft fork, meaning that it did not require a majority consensus of miners to activate. This made the upgrade process smoother and allowed for a more gradual transition.
And here is a link for beginner to learn Segwit, hope it will be helpful.
https://blockgeeks.com/guides/what-is-segwit/The transaction malleability wasn't due to the failure of checking for signatures, but it segregated the signature from the actual transaction itself. This prevents the signature from being modified and thus being malleable.
It was anything but smooth. It was totally unnecessary for it to be dragged on for longer than it did. Segwit's activation requires miners to signal support for it as well and it definitely required a super majority of the miners to signal support for it to be activated. In fact, most if not all soft forks work in this manner. USAF was not materialized and it was definitely not activated by user signalling. Any forks should have consensus and majority support.
It's worth noting that intentionally creating many low-fee or feeless transactions can contribute to network congestion and may be seen as spam behavior, which is generally discouraged by the Bitcoin community. As such, it's essential to use the Bitcoin network responsibly and pay appropriate fees for your transactions based on the current network conditions.
It doesn't congest the network in any meaningful way. If you attempt to broadcast a transaction with zero fee or a fee below the dynamic lower limit set by individual node's mempool settings, then nodes will simply not relay that transaction. Repeatedly try to do this, and nodes will simply blacklist your IP and ignore you.
Attempting to create a fake transaction without paying any fees and without it ever getting confirmed is not a practical scenario on the Bitcoin blockchain.
Correct. If the input is invalid, then the transaction is invalid and it will be rejected by EVERY node on the network.
While you might be able to create such a transaction and broadcast it,
Broadcast it to whom? Bitcoin nodes will simply reject it.
the likelihood of it being confirmed is close to zero.
It is exactly zero. Invalid transacitons can not be confirmed.
Instead, it will likely remain in the mempool (the pool of unconfirmed transactions) until it eventually gets removed by nodes after some time.
No. That is incorrect. Fake, invalid, transactions never get into the mempool in the first place. A transaction is verified BEFORE it is accepted into the mempool.
Further more, deliberately creating invalid or fake transactions . . . -snip- . . . may be against the terms of service of some wallets and exchanges.
How would a wallet or an exchange know that you created a fake transaction? Why would they care?
If you send Bitcoin to the address derived from this invalid private key (1NLqpZnW746xjdAgnrTb56V4uZJiV4jjrU), the funds will be associated with that address. However, since the private key is not valid, you won't be able to sign transactions to spend or transfer those funds. In essence, the funds sent to that address would be irrecoverable.
Am I right?
That string you listed is an address, not a private key. And also, its private key is not invalid. Even if the hex number is out of range it is converted into a valid private key by using modulo, as others here have pointed out (unless the number is 0 or a multiple of n). So no. Anybody will be able to retrieve any bitcoins sent to this address.