Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 31 results by Ayazura
Re: [ANN] KICKICO - PLATFORM FOR FUNDRAISING ON CRYPTOCURRENCY
Hello I can't find how to convert my 888888 Kick tokens from ETH to your new BNB network. How do I do this?
The responsibility of the developers is to ensure the proper functioning of the tokens and their exchange in case of network change.
What is the situation?
I got them too ages ago. You supposedly needed to unfreeze them until before July 1st 2021 so your tokens are not worth anything. But it seemed like a scam anyway so i don't think it would have been possible to gain anything from those anyway. Just google 888888 Kick tokens and you get a lot of scam accusations. Just be glad you didn't fall for it before.The responsibility of the developers is to ensure the proper functioning of the tokens and their exchange in case of network change.
What is the situation?
Thank you for telling me. It seems that this person is running the project? https://twitter.com/AntiDanilevski
I googled what you suggested, what I read is totally damning and it is not normal.
For all victims of scams I recommend to gather all your evidence and then file a formal complaint with
https://www.cftc.gov/Forms/tipsandcomplaints.html
It doesn't matter where you are, even if you are in the USA, China, Australia, Russia or elsewhere. As a consumer you can assert your rights and seek redress.
Re: [ANN] KICKICO - PLATFORM FOR FUNDRAISING ON CRYPTOCURRENCY
Hello I can't find how to convert my 888888 Kick tokens from ETH to your new BNB network. How do I do this?
The responsibility of the developers is to ensure the proper functioning of the tokens and their exchange in case of network change.
What is the situation?
The responsibility of the developers is to ensure the proper functioning of the tokens and their exchange in case of network change.
What is the situation?
⭐ Merited by Bitcoin SV (BSV) (2)
Quote
In Chapter nine of the 2021 - 2022 Bitcoin Association annual report video, we look at the many initiatives held by the Association with and for government institutions and regulatory bodies during the previous year.
One of the unique aspects of the Bitcoin SV ecosystem is our efforts to actively engage and involve government offices and regulatory bodies in developing the network. The Bitcoin Association views them as valued partners who play a major role in the realisation of Satoshi Nakamoto's vision for Bitcoin.
In the previous year, the Association joined several industry associations looking to grow blockchain technology in their regions. Bitcoin Association also signed a memorandum of understanding with the Presidential Initiative for Artificial Intelligence & Computing and the Pakistan Freelancers Association to advance the education and adoption of blockchain technology in Pakistan.
Bitcoin Association initiatives with governments include:
The Tuvalu National Digital Ledger aims to integrate Tuvalu's governance and financial systems with the BSV public ledger to make it the first paperless society.
Using the VXPASS application to track Covid-19 vaccinations in Lesotho, with the support of the World Health Organisation (WHO), the US State Department, and the World Bank.
A historic week-long official visit by BSV to Sudan at the invitation and patronage of its Ministry of Telecommunication and Digital Transformation.
Bitcoin Association also organised several global conferences and meetings with government leaders to discuss adopting blockchain technology for official use.
Learn more in our annual report video on how Bitcoin SV is getting recognition from governments and regulatory bodies worldwide.
https://bitcoinassociation.net/videos/government-and-regulatory-initiatives-introduced-by-bitcoin-association-annual-report-2021-2022-video/
One of the unique aspects of the Bitcoin SV ecosystem is our efforts to actively engage and involve government offices and regulatory bodies in developing the network. The Bitcoin Association views them as valued partners who play a major role in the realisation of Satoshi Nakamoto's vision for Bitcoin.
In the previous year, the Association joined several industry associations looking to grow blockchain technology in their regions. Bitcoin Association also signed a memorandum of understanding with the Presidential Initiative for Artificial Intelligence & Computing and the Pakistan Freelancers Association to advance the education and adoption of blockchain technology in Pakistan.
Bitcoin Association initiatives with governments include:
The Tuvalu National Digital Ledger aims to integrate Tuvalu's governance and financial systems with the BSV public ledger to make it the first paperless society.
Using the VXPASS application to track Covid-19 vaccinations in Lesotho, with the support of the World Health Organisation (WHO), the US State Department, and the World Bank.
A historic week-long official visit by BSV to Sudan at the invitation and patronage of its Ministry of Telecommunication and Digital Transformation.
Bitcoin Association also organised several global conferences and meetings with government leaders to discuss adopting blockchain technology for official use.
Learn more in our annual report video on how Bitcoin SV is getting recognition from governments and regulatory bodies worldwide.
https://bitcoinassociation.net/videos/government-and-regulatory-initiatives-introduced-by-bitcoin-association-annual-report-2021-2022-video/
☠️ If you own Bitcoin or cryptoshitcoins, use AMD or INTEL then you should read
Quote
☠️ If you own Bitcoin or cryptoshitcoins, use AMD or INTEL then you should read this....
Scientists from the University of Texas at Austin, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and the University of Washington say that attackers can use a vulnerability called "Hertzleed" to gain access to private keys in cryptographic libraries.
The problem has been identified in Intel's 8th to 11th generation desktop and laptop chips based on the Core microarchitecture, as well as AMD Ryzen chips based on the Zen 2 and Zen 3 architectures. The vulnerability was reported by Tom's Hardware Computer Division.
Earlier this year, Intel introduced its own processor for cryptocurrency mining.
Hertzleed attack
Hertzbleed is a new type of side-channel attack based on dynamic frequency management features (hence the name: Hertz (Hertz) and bleed (data suppression)). The study states:
"In the worst case, these attacks allow access to cryptographic keys on remote servers by analysing the computation time in cryptographic libraries. Previously, these libraries were considered hacker-proof.
The Hertzbleed attack analyses the dynamic frequency under various workloads and breaks the encryption by guessing and manipulating the ciphertext.
Dynamic frequency and voltage scaling (DVFS) is a feature that reduces power consumption. However, attackers can understand the difference in power consumption by analysing the server response time to certain requests.
"Hertzbleed is a real and practically possible security threat," the researchers noted.
How to protect yourself
Intel and AMD currently have no plans to deploy Hertzleed firmware patches, but there are steps users can take themselves.
Chip manufacturers advise disabling dynamic frequency control to protect against Hertzbleed. On Intel processors it is called Turbo Boost, and on AMD it is called Turbo Core or Precision Boost. Companies are confident that this will not affect processor performance.
According to senior director of public relations and incident response Jerry Bryant, this attack has no practical application outside the lab, as it would take an hour or even days to steal the keys. He also added that "cryptographic solutions that are immune to side-channel power analysis attacks are not affected by this vulnerability.
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-amd-hertzbleed-cpu-vulnerability-boost-clock-speed-steal-crypto-keys/
https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoincashSV/comments/vdlsv2/if_you_own_bitcoin_or_cryptoshitcoins_use_amd_or/
Scientists from the University of Texas at Austin, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and the University of Washington say that attackers can use a vulnerability called "Hertzleed" to gain access to private keys in cryptographic libraries.
The problem has been identified in Intel's 8th to 11th generation desktop and laptop chips based on the Core microarchitecture, as well as AMD Ryzen chips based on the Zen 2 and Zen 3 architectures. The vulnerability was reported by Tom's Hardware Computer Division.
Earlier this year, Intel introduced its own processor for cryptocurrency mining.
Hertzleed attack
Hertzbleed is a new type of side-channel attack based on dynamic frequency management features (hence the name: Hertz (Hertz) and bleed (data suppression)). The study states:
"In the worst case, these attacks allow access to cryptographic keys on remote servers by analysing the computation time in cryptographic libraries. Previously, these libraries were considered hacker-proof.
The Hertzbleed attack analyses the dynamic frequency under various workloads and breaks the encryption by guessing and manipulating the ciphertext.
Dynamic frequency and voltage scaling (DVFS) is a feature that reduces power consumption. However, attackers can understand the difference in power consumption by analysing the server response time to certain requests.
"Hertzbleed is a real and practically possible security threat," the researchers noted.
How to protect yourself
Intel and AMD currently have no plans to deploy Hertzleed firmware patches, but there are steps users can take themselves.
Chip manufacturers advise disabling dynamic frequency control to protect against Hertzbleed. On Intel processors it is called Turbo Boost, and on AMD it is called Turbo Core or Precision Boost. Companies are confident that this will not affect processor performance.
According to senior director of public relations and incident response Jerry Bryant, this attack has no practical application outside the lab, as it would take an hour or even days to steal the keys. He also added that "cryptographic solutions that are immune to side-channel power analysis attacks are not affected by this vulnerability.
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-amd-hertzbleed-cpu-vulnerability-boost-clock-speed-steal-crypto-keys/
https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoincashSV/comments/vdlsv2/if_you_own_bitcoin_or_cryptoshitcoins_use_amd_or/
Quote
☠️ If you own Bitcoin or cryptoshitcoins, use AMD or INTEL then you should read this....
Scientists from the University of Texas at Austin, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and the University of Washington say that attackers can use a vulnerability called "Hertzleed" to gain access to private keys in cryptographic libraries.
The problem has been identified in Intel's 8th to 11th generation desktop and laptop chips based on the Core microarchitecture, as well as AMD Ryzen chips based on the Zen 2 and Zen 3 architectures. The vulnerability was reported by Tom's Hardware Computer Division.
Earlier this year, Intel introduced its own processor for cryptocurrency mining.
Hertzleed attack
Hertzbleed is a new type of side-channel attack based on dynamic frequency management features (hence the name: Hertz (Hertz) and bleed (data suppression)). The study states:
"In the worst case, these attacks allow access to cryptographic keys on remote servers by analysing the computation time in cryptographic libraries. Previously, these libraries were considered hacker-proof.
The Hertzbleed attack analyses the dynamic frequency under various workloads and breaks the encryption by guessing and manipulating the ciphertext.
Dynamic frequency and voltage scaling (DVFS) is a feature that reduces power consumption. However, attackers can understand the difference in power consumption by analysing the server response time to certain requests.
"Hertzbleed is a real and practically possible security threat," the researchers noted.
How to protect yourself
Intel and AMD currently have no plans to deploy Hertzleed firmware patches, but there are steps users can take themselves.
Chip manufacturers advise disabling dynamic frequency control to protect against Hertzbleed. On Intel processors it is called Turbo Boost, and on AMD it is called Turbo Core or Precision Boost. Companies are confident that this will not affect processor performance.
According to senior director of public relations and incident response Jerry Bryant, this attack has no practical application outside the lab, as it would take an hour or even days to steal the keys. He also added that "cryptographic solutions that are immune to side-channel power analysis attacks are not affected by this vulnerability.
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-amd-hertzbleed-cpu-vulnerability-boost-clock-speed-steal-crypto-keys/
https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoincashSV/comments/vdlsv2/if_you_own_bitcoin_or_cryptoshitcoins_use_amd_or/
Scientists from the University of Texas at Austin, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and the University of Washington say that attackers can use a vulnerability called "Hertzleed" to gain access to private keys in cryptographic libraries.
The problem has been identified in Intel's 8th to 11th generation desktop and laptop chips based on the Core microarchitecture, as well as AMD Ryzen chips based on the Zen 2 and Zen 3 architectures. The vulnerability was reported by Tom's Hardware Computer Division.
Earlier this year, Intel introduced its own processor for cryptocurrency mining.
Hertzleed attack
Hertzbleed is a new type of side-channel attack based on dynamic frequency management features (hence the name: Hertz (Hertz) and bleed (data suppression)). The study states:
"In the worst case, these attacks allow access to cryptographic keys on remote servers by analysing the computation time in cryptographic libraries. Previously, these libraries were considered hacker-proof.
The Hertzbleed attack analyses the dynamic frequency under various workloads and breaks the encryption by guessing and manipulating the ciphertext.
Dynamic frequency and voltage scaling (DVFS) is a feature that reduces power consumption. However, attackers can understand the difference in power consumption by analysing the server response time to certain requests.
"Hertzbleed is a real and practically possible security threat," the researchers noted.
How to protect yourself
Intel and AMD currently have no plans to deploy Hertzleed firmware patches, but there are steps users can take themselves.
Chip manufacturers advise disabling dynamic frequency control to protect against Hertzbleed. On Intel processors it is called Turbo Boost, and on AMD it is called Turbo Core or Precision Boost. Companies are confident that this will not affect processor performance.
According to senior director of public relations and incident response Jerry Bryant, this attack has no practical application outside the lab, as it would take an hour or even days to steal the keys. He also added that "cryptographic solutions that are immune to side-channel power analysis attacks are not affected by this vulnerability.
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-amd-hertzbleed-cpu-vulnerability-boost-clock-speed-steal-crypto-keys/
https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoincashSV/comments/vdlsv2/if_you_own_bitcoin_or_cryptoshitcoins_use_amd_or/
Quote
👨🎓 “Taproot on Bitcoin” by sCrypt - Yup, #BSV is the real Bitcoin
“Taproot on Bitcoin” by sCrypt in 20 minutes https://link.medium.com/WNQugqME4ob #BSV can do in 200EUR what’s taken Lightning Labs team 4 years to do on #BTC
“Taproot on Bitcoin” by sCrypt in 20 minutes https://link.medium.com/WNQugqME4ob #BSV can do in 200EUR what’s taken Lightning Labs team 4 years to do on #BTC
Here is another proof that #BSV is the real Bitcoin
Quote
So 200€ is the average wage for a one hour flat rate for a qualified engineer to deploy this Bitcoin solution (although it takes less than 20 minutes).
Now that you have read and accessed the recipe in the source, you can greatly reduce this amount to much less depending on the country of origin of your engineer or service provider who can now implement this perennial solution on the only blockchain scaled respectfully to the white paper that defines Bitcoin, aka BSV.
Core & Blockstream having dismantled the Bitcoin code in BTC, removed many features, such as the alert key, then justified without any basis to change the protocol in useless and terribly expensive upgrades, such as Segwit, Segwit2X, LN, Liquid, and now Taproot, justifying gaps to be filled .... This has allowed them all to pay themselves huge salaries over the years, providing so-called solutions to limitations that they themselves created, which openly generate conflicts of interest and other ubiquitous facts.
This is how people and other consortia of companies with common economic interests would have you believe that BTC is Bitcoin, even though this is technically no longer the case since before 2017. BTC is a fraud, nothing more and nothing less.
Now that you have read and accessed the recipe in the source, you can greatly reduce this amount to much less depending on the country of origin of your engineer or service provider who can now implement this perennial solution on the only blockchain scaled respectfully to the white paper that defines Bitcoin, aka BSV.
Core & Blockstream having dismantled the Bitcoin code in BTC, removed many features, such as the alert key, then justified without any basis to change the protocol in useless and terribly expensive upgrades, such as Segwit, Segwit2X, LN, Liquid, and now Taproot, justifying gaps to be filled .... This has allowed them all to pay themselves huge salaries over the years, providing so-called solutions to limitations that they themselves created, which openly generate conflicts of interest and other ubiquitous facts.
This is how people and other consortia of companies with common economic interests would have you believe that BTC is Bitcoin, even though this is technically no longer the case since before 2017. BTC is a fraud, nothing more and nothing less.
Although BSV continues to be ignored by the industry (fear), yet #BitcoinSV goes much further technically than any public or private blockchain. In the long run, utility will overtake capitalization, if flippenning occurs at some point in the future it could be immeasurable.
Why do you feel that its ok to claim others work as your own, and use others work without permission?
maybe now you know how Craig Wright a.k.a. Satoshi Nakamoto may have felt about Bitcoin, keys, IP & many more!Sinking Meta seeks COPA lifeline
Facebook’s membership in the Crypto Open Patent Alliance (COPA) is causing BTC maxis to question whether they’re still the anti-heroes they imagined themselves to be or just foot soldiers in the plot to keep Bitcoin from breaching Web2’s castle walls.
On January 31, COPA announced that Meta—the corporation formerly known as Facebook—has joined the ranks of those (allegedly) devoted to lowering the chance of patent litigation. Meta is also joining COPA’s board alongside crypto exchange Coinbase and Twitter founder Jack Dorsey’s payment processing company Block (formerly Square).
COPA’s announcement said Meta has “pledged not to enforce its core cryptocurrency patents against anyone, except for defensive reasons, effectively making these patents freely available for all to use.” Presumably, Meta will soon extend this magnanimous gesture to the 35,000 non-crypto patents it currently holds so that other industry sectors can feel similarly empowered. No? Why not? Oh, right… the whole capitalism thing.
Anyway, it’s not entirely clear what ‘core’ crypto patents Meta still possesses, given that the COPA news came the same day Meta announced that it had sold its ill-fated stablecoin project Diem (formerly Libra) to Silvergate Capital Corporation.
That sale included the “intellectual property and other assets related to the running of the Diem Payment Network” but Meta may have held on to patents related to its Novi digital currency wallet, along with those tied to its similarly scrapped game-based Facebook Credits virtual currency.
Despite its lofty rhetoric, COPA was actually formed in response to the growing number of blockchain related patents generated by Dr. Craig Wright, the real-world figure behind the Satoshi Nakamoto pseudonym credited with authoring the Bitcoin white paper. In fact, COPA’s only concrete action to date has been to launch a civil action against Wright to undermine his claim to the white paper’s copyright.
Interestingly, crypto news site CoinDesk quoted COPA GM Max Sills as saying Meta ‘committed to joining COPA in November 2021.’ That date coincides with the Kleiman v. Wright trial in Florida, which concluded with the jury declaring that Wright had no assistance from his former colleague Dave Kleiman in creating Bitcoin or writing the white paper.
But what would motivate these corporate colossuses to circle their wagons and direct their concentrated fire at an Australian inventor who until a few years ago was on absolutely no one’s radar? In a word: fear. Evidence produced during the Kleiman trial appears to have erased any lingering doubts that Wright is Satoshi, while amplifying concerns that Wright’s disruptive vision of Bitcoin’s future will tear down the walls that Twitter and Facebook have so painstakingly constructed around their digital gardens.
Patent war pending
Wright, an acknowledged polymath, earned COPA’s enmity by exercising his ever-active brain in dreaming up patent-worthy inventions and seeking to legally protect his ownership of said inventions. Wright has successfully implemented the white paper version of Bitcoin (BSV). The BSV Blockchain can pack an unprecedented number of transactions into individual blocks while users pay transaction fees measured in fractions of a penny.
In other words, BSV actually resembles the peer-to-peer electronic cash described in the Bitcoin white paper, while the BTC protocol that COPA supports has been so functionally neutered by the centralized BTC protocol developers that it can no longer serve as anything other than an inert form of ‘digital gold.’ Michael Saylor, founder and CEO of COPA member MicroStrategy, has gone so far as to publicly state that he will essentially use his company’s massive BTC holdings as collateral, presumably to borrow fiat currency so that he can actually pay for things in the real world.
This self-imposed technical hobbling allowed centralized protocol developer groups such as Blockstream to build so-called Layer 2 ‘solutions’ to remedy BTC’s manufactured throughput constraints, further centralizing control of the network. In legal terms, these centralized protocol developers and the people directing them represent a general partnership with all the attendant fiduciary responsibilities.
There wouldn’t be much point to these solutions if the larger world outside BTC Maxiville discovers that BSV is the real Bitcoin. That discovery would also threaten other digital payment methods—such as Block’s Cash App—while causing BTC’s overinflated value to plummet to the point that Saylor’s cache of tokens might not buy him a coffee.
Clearly Wright must be stopped, by whatever means necessary. So, COPA hits him high, while thousands of laser-eyed social media minions—like Peter McCormack and Magnus ‘hodlonaut’ Granath—aim lower, apparently based on their eagerness to play a role in the financial revolution they believe is occurring. But Meta’s COPA membership threatens to undermine that heroic narrative.
Decentralization theater
Most BTC maxis treat Dorsey with the fawning reverence normally associated with K-pop stans, but Facebook’s lengthy list of social crimes—harvesting and selling personal data, facilitating the spread of disinformation, anticompetitive tactics, lying about its intentions and pledging only to ‘do better’ when caught—means Meta boss Mark Zuckerberg is viewed through a far more pejorative lens.
That pejorative view was reflected in the fact that COPA’s Meta announcement chose not to mention Zuckerberg by name. His Libra/Diem project (Zuck’s Bucks?) was intended to create a universal online currency that, while donning a veneer of decentralization, would have almost certainly been under Zuck’s majority control.
Diem’s centralized nature was openly mocked by BTC Maxis, whose blinders allow them to overlook the fact that control over the BTC protocol is absolutely centralized in the hands of a few BTC Core protocol developers. Moreover, these protocol developers, including Blockstream, are entirely beholden to investors such as quasi-ponzi Tether and Digital Currency Group, the Mastercard-linked Little Jack Horners of crypto (determined to stick their thumbs in everyone’s pie).
So BTC is neither decentralized nor an emancipation proclamation from big banks. But at least it’s cool, right? Got that bleeding edge vibe to it. Only now it’s inextricably linked to Facebook and its legions of tipsy soccer moms and would-be mad scientists drinking their own urine to cure rickets. Still, totally cool. Totally.
Caught in a Web(2)
Even as Meta’s COPA membership was announced, Dorsey was publicly slamming Zuckerberg for wasting time in developing the proprietary Diem rather than incorporating BTC into Facebook. Dorsey accused Zuckerberg of trying to create “a currency that was owned by Facebook … to bring more and more people onto the Facebook ecosystem.”
Yet Dorsey and Zuck have common cause in ensuring that BSV remains in the shadows, as its data- and transaction-handling capacity makes it the perfect vehicle for bringing Web3—the internet’s newest and most promising phase—from mere concept to execution. The transition from a data harvesting advertising economic model on the internet to a data sovereign transaction based economic model on the metanet is gaining steam much to the dismay of Zuck and Dorsey.
For the uninitiated, Web1 represents the internet’s early, highly decentralized system of standalone websites created largely by individuals. Web2 imposed a centralized system of vertical silos from which corporations such as Twitter, Facebook, TikTok et al harvested reams of customer data, which was then sold to third parties to drive Web2’s advertising-based revenue model.
Web3—in the form of BSV’s Metanet—aims to offer users a reprieve from this predatory behavior by restoring control over their personal data, allowing users to decide who can access their data and what fees they might charge third parties for access. Users pay the platforms and transaction processors micropayments in transaction fee giving them ownership over the data they generate. Simply put, it’s digital sovereignty, and it’s making the Web2 giants feel like dinosaurs nervously scanning the sky for any extinction-level asteroids hurtling their way.
Dr. Wright put the Web2 titans—specifically, “today’s cancerous evil Twitter-based Silicon Valley” ecosystem—on notice last June that the Metanet’s digital cash transaction-based system would “destroy their business model.” Dorsey and Zuckerberg appear to have received this message loud and clear, at least, if their ensuing actions are any indication.
https://twitter.com/bitcoinkaiser/status/1488909613940543491
https://twitter.com/i/status/1488909613940543491
A few months after Wright’s missive, Zuckerberg announced Facebook’s pivot to focusing on building the Metaverse, while Dorsey left his role as Twitter’s CEO the month after that (perhaps not so coincidentally the day the Kleiman v. Wright jury went out for deliberation). Dorsey has since gone on a public vendetta against the very notion of Web3, largely because he fears that someone other than the Web2 incumbents will end up controlling it.
Zuck took an even more predictable (and predictably selfish) course, attempting to paint Meta as leading the charge on Web3. However, given the utter lack of specifics on Meta’s progress, the net effect was a bit like Zuck planting his flag in a field in Kansas and declaring Meta’s now in sole control of Neptune or something.
But with Meta now officially part of the COPA cabal, Zuckerberg does seem poised to assume control of the group’s direction. For one thing, he’s a control freak who ought to have ‘doesn’t play well with others’ tattooed on his forehead. And Zuckerberg also appears to be the COPA member most acutely aware of the power slipping from his grasp.
Desperate times, desperate measures
On Wednesday, Meta’s Q4 2021 earnings report revealed that Facebook had suffered its first ever decline in daily active users, while growth at its other apps (Instagram, WhatsApp) is slowing. This resulted in Meta’s share price falling by more than one-quarter, with total paper losses topping $200b, making it the biggest single-day plunge by an American company ever. (Zuck’s personal loss was said to be around $29b.)
Zuckerberg blamed the decline on increased competition from rivals like TikTok and warned that future revenue would decline now that Apple has imposed ad-tracking privacy changes, limiting Meta’s ability to scrape the data on which its ad-based revenue depends.
But investors also expressed alarm at the $10b+ Meta burned last year in its push to develop its metaverse (with Meta at the center of this ‘verse’, naturally). As the Libra/Diem fiasco amply demonstrated, the general public (and any number of governments) simply doesn’t trust Zuckerberg not to impose dictatorial control on any system over which he might gain control, leading investors to worry that this metaverse push will ultimately join Diem on the discard pile.
A way out (and forward)
Zuckerberg’s minions likely returned from this January’s CES technology trade show with reports that some of the biggest buzz centered on Transmira and its Omniscape XR (experiential reality) platform. Zuckerberg was likely alarmed at how much further ahead of the game Transmira is, particularly compared to Meta’s in-house vaporware.
Transmira CEO Robert Rice hasn’t been shy in crediting BSV for providing the foundation on which he could build a product like Omniscape. “We’re building it all on Bitcoin SV because it’s fast, scalable, and very inexpensive to do transactions.”
Zuckerberg has a history of using his deep pockets to simply buy innovation rather than develop it in-house, so he might soon make Rice an offer he can’t refuse. But attempting to replicate Omniscape’s success without utilizing the BSV blockchain would be like taking the fat tires off a Formula 1 machine and replacing them with training wheels.
Zuckerberg isn’t about to admit that he needs any external elements to be successful but one of his less self-absorbed rivals—perhaps one that has so far resisted the urge to join the COPA cabal—might make the calculation that it was worth striking a deal with nChain, the company through which Dr. Wright develops his patents, to take advantage of the disruptive technology on offer.
https://twitter.com/CalvinAyre/status/1489160871787962375
The history of business is littered with comfortable incumbents who resisted change by sandbagging plucky upstarts who, unlike the fat cats, didn’t fear innovation. The oil and gas industry spent decades and billions of dollars to convince both regulators and the public that climate change was a hoax and that renewable energy sources would never meet the world’s energy needs. They did this despite their own internal research showing that these statements were lies, because they were too invested in the status quo to make significant changes to their operations.
Like these fossil fuel laggards who eventually saw the wisdom (and the profits) in developing renewable operations of their own, today’s Web2 dinosaurs will eventually come to their senses and admit—publicly for a change—that Wright is Satoshi and BSV is the only blockchain with the capacity to grow to meet tomorrow’s needs.
To paraphrase Zuckerberg’s go-to phrase whenever he’s caught in a lie, he and his Web2 ilk need to do better. If the individuals making the decisions for these companies can’t—or won’t—recognize the wisdom of switching to superior technology like BSV, two facades will crumble: (a) they’re not the all-knowing visionaries they allowed the world to think they are, and (b) they really don’t give a damn about their users after all.
Source: Steven Stradbrooke https://coingeek.com/sinking-meta-seeks-copa-lifeline/
Craig Wright aka Satoshi Nakamoto WIN 
https://twitter.com/CarolinaBolado/status/1467898095623151616
Message from Satoshi Nakamoto: https://twitter.com/JimmyWinSV/status/1467910308953997314
https://twitter.com/CarolinaBolado/status/1467898095623151616
Message from Satoshi Nakamoto: https://twitter.com/JimmyWinSV/status/1467910308953997314
All that's needed now is proof lol
Never going to happen 😴
The evidence in this case was tried in: The case is Kleiman v. Wright, case number 9:18-cv-80176, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
https://www.law360.com/capitalmarkets/articles/1443808
https://www.law360.com/dockets/619baabc4a31420129e7ea64For the rest of your suggestions it would be best to contact Satoshi Nakamoto (Craig Wright) directlyl or meet him in a court of law
That's just reality and you know it
Oh I didn't realize right away that you are the clown troll on duty 🤡
Stay in your false reality and your BTC PONZI scheme world, the one that is not the same as the decision of the judge and jury in this trial.
BSV is Bitcoin and you know it. End of discussion.
Craig Wright aka Satoshi Nakamoto WIN
https://twitter.com/CarolinaBolado/status/1467898095623151616
Message from Satoshi Nakamoto: https://twitter.com/JimmyWinSV/status/1467910308953997314
https://twitter.com/CarolinaBolado/status/1467898095623151616
Message from Satoshi Nakamoto: https://twitter.com/JimmyWinSV/status/1467910308953997314
All that's needed now is proof lol
Never going to happen 😴
The evidence in this case was tried in: The case is Kleiman v. Wright, case number 9:18-cv-80176, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
https://www.law360.com/capitalmarkets/articles/1443808
https://www.law360.com/dockets/619baabc4a31420129e7ea64For the rest of your suggestions it would be best to contact Satoshi Nakamoto (Craig Wright) directly on his usual Slack channel.
Craig Wright aka Satoshi Nakamoto WIN
https://twitter.com/CarolinaBolado/status/1467898095623151616
Message from Satoshi Nakamoto: https://twitter.com/JimmyWinSV/status/1467910308953997314
https://twitter.com/CarolinaBolado/status/1467898095623151616
Message from Satoshi Nakamoto: https://twitter.com/JimmyWinSV/status/1467910308953997314
Quote
Kleiman v Wright Day 14: Plaintiff Strategy of Painting Craig Wright as Serial Forger Backfires
It is Day 14 of the controversial Kleiman v Wright trial, which is centered on the real identity of the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto who authored the Bitcoin white paper and allegedly mined 1.1 million Bitcoin, now valued at over $63 billion.
The plaintiff, represented by Ira Kleiman, is accusing computer scientist Craig Wright of cheating David Kleiman of the credit of co-writing the Bitcoin white paper and up to half of the Satoshi coins the two allegedly mined together.
The defense is arguing that Wright solely wrote the Bitcoin white paper under the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto and that there is no evidence of a partnership between Wright and David Kleiman in co-authoring the historic white paper and the mining of the 1.1 million coins.
Wright Takes Stand Again
Wright has previously taken the stand as a witness for the plaintiff; and now, he takes the stand again as the last witness for his defense. It seems that many are speculating that Wright’s lawyers did not want to have him testify again, and it was only Wright himself who insisted on doing so after witnessing a heated conversation between the parties concerned during the break.
It seems that Wright had won over his defense team as he was called in again to take the stand. Wright’s testimony further solidified the claim made by the defense through other witnesses that Wright was highly immersed in Japanese culture as he was influenced greatly by his grandfather on the maternal side, who served in the Australian army during World War II.
This then led to Wright choosing the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto, a combination of two Japanese philosophers, when he wrote the Bitcoin white paper. After which, more about Wright’s career history was examined.
According to Wright, it was in 1998 when he was working for online casino Lasseters, that he first had the idea for Bitcoin. The token system Wright developed for the casino was the first version of what is now Bitcoin.
Minutes of a meeting Wright had with Allan Granger from the well-known accounting firm BDO was then presented as evidence of Wright proposing a P2P e-cash system. The proposal was rejected and never came to fruition. This compelling evidence shows a “precursor to Bitcoin,” and how Wright alone could have created it as Satoshi Nakamoto based on his past work experience.
https://youtu.be/6a3GiqcNGmg
The Bombshell
Previously, the plaintiff has resorted to attempting to discredit Wright and painting him as someone who has forged at least 40 emails presented as evidence. Although Wright has denied having forged even one email in his life, an expert witness for the plaintiff has alluded to Wright being the only one capable of forging said email exchanges between himself and David Kleiman.
Now, the bombshell comes from an email exchange between David Kleiman and Wright provided by Ira Kleiman, which the plaintiff has alleged was forged by Wright. The email was about Wright asking David Kleiman for help in a project called “bit cash,” and was the only email exchange between Wright and Kleiman that even made mention of anything similar to Bitcoin.
It was also discovered that the IP address where the email was sent from was actually one that allegedly Jamie Wilson, Wright’s former disgruntled CFO who also testified for the plaintiff, had access to. What seems to have shocked the plaintiff more is that it was not possible for Wright to have sent the said email in 2008 because the email address it was sent from, craig@rcjbr.org, was actually a family domain that represents the initials of Wright’s second wife Ramona, himself and their three children.
At the time the email was allegedly sent, Wright had not even met Ramona yet. In fact, the two met about two years later in 2010 and only became romantically involved in 2011—not to mention the fact that they did not have children until after 2011. How would their initials be used in an email sent in 2008?
With this established in court, it has now put in question who was actually the serial forger that the plaintiff had been making out to be as Wright? While Wright could not have sent those emails and did not have access to the said family domain until years after that particular email was sent, who could have forged it?
Earlier in the trial, Ira Kleiman said under oath that he still has access to his brother’s email and would even send himself a birthday email yearly from David Kleiman’s email account. Email evidence presented in court also showed that Ira Kleiman had over 30 email addresses he used to communicate with different persons or organizations.
Could Ira Kleiman have enlisted the help of Wilson, who seemed to have a grudge against Wright, to forge emails from Wright to David Kleiman in order to strengthen their case and get their hands on half of the Satoshi coins? Could using forged emails as evidence and attributing these forgeries to Wright have been the plaintiff grasping at straws in a case that lacks meaningful evidence for the plaintiff?
What could the jury have thought about this most recent information? Could it have completely tipped the case over to the defense’s side? The defense has rested their case, and closing arguments are on the schedule Wednesday. Soon, all of these questions will be answered.
https://youtu.be/O10WCnzMasc
Source https://worldfinancialreview.com/kleiman-v-wright-day-14-plaintiff-strategy-of-painting-craig-wright-as-serial-forger-backfires/
Quote
Notorious defamation troll Arthur Van Pelt who constantly harasses BSV and Craig Wright with misinformation and lies, admits that he "lives off of donations to do this" in reference to defaming Craig Wright and trolling BSV on Social Media at 1:18 mark:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHvzIbnQ_mQ&t=4685s
Source: https://twitter.com/cryptorebel_SV/status/1448872867098025985
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHvzIbnQ_mQ&t=4685s
Source: https://twitter.com/cryptorebel_SV/status/1448872867098025985
Getting paid to harass people? Seriously! The 🤡 is fucking wasting his life, time is running out but he only has one life and he's wasting his time.
sad.
Craig Wright is ~ ~ ~ blablablaaa~ ~ ~
Nice! I suggest that you make your accusations in a court of law instead of hiding in the shadows of your internet connection like no balls.
But why waste time? BSv is like #60 shitcoin by market cap, meaning objectively time is better spent warning noobs about gambling on 55 more relevant shitcoins. On top of that, we all know that those coins are never moving, and i expect Faketoshi has already transferred all of his assets to Ayre. This way he's uncollectable and will just declare bankruptcy so Ira won't be able to get a penny.
Quote
Understand that bitcoin is not a ticker, it is a computer protocol.
You & your troll friends know that but you participate in fooling consumers into believing that BTC is legitimate, but BTC is not BSV, BSV is bitcoin, compare source codes, functions, attributes, white paper.
The white paper governs the bitcoin computer protocol .
No SegWit functions in the white paper, no LN; no replaceByFee, ChildPays4Parent, let alone Taproot, mixer functions, not present in the white paper.
Be brave & honest, be ethical, be humble, if you are really a bitcoin enthusiast, build, share your passion with beginners they deserve to have a compliant, solid, secure, stable & scalable tool such as BSV and its original Bitcoin protocol to work well and have access to infinite possibilities. Respecting satoshi, the creator of the software, respecting his work, is the least you can do as a former user I don't understand why you don't see all this (knowingly?)
Put down your lasers that blind you. It's about time!
Check, verify & wake up! https://coingeek.com/crypto-crime-cartel-behind-adam-back-and-blockstreams-attempts-to-constrain-bitcoin/
Craig Wright is ~ ~ ~ blablablaaa~ ~ ~
Nice! I suggest that you make your accusations in a court of law instead of hiding in the shadows of your internet connection like no balls.
But why waste time? BSv is like #60 shitcoin by market cap, meaning objectively time is better spent warning noobs about gambling on 55 more relevant shitcoins. On top of that, we all know that those coins are never moving, and i expect Faketoshi has already transferred all of his assets to Ayre. This way he's uncollectable and will just declare bankruptcy so Ira won't be able to get a penny.
Quote
Understand that bitcoin is not a ticker, it is a computer protocol.
You & your troll friends know that but you participate in fooling consumers into believing that BTC is legitimate, but BTC is not BSV, BSV is bitcoin, compare source codes, functions, attributes, white paper.
The white paper governs the bitcoin computer protocol .
No SegWit functions in the white paper, no LN; no replaceByFee, ChildPays4Parent, let alone Taproot, mixer functions, not present in the white paper.
Be brave & honest, be ethical, be humble, if you are really a bitcoin enthusiast, build, share your passion with beginners they deserve to have a compliant, solid, secure, stable & scalable tool such as BSV and its original Bitcoin protocol to work well and have access to infinite possibilities. Respecting satoshi, the creator of the software, respecting his work, is the least you can do as a former user I don't understand why you don't see all this (knowingly?)
Put down your lasers that blind you. It's about time!
Check, verify & wake up! https://coingeek.com/crypto-crime-cartel-behind-adam-back-and-blockstreams-attempts-to-constrain-bitcoin/
anyone who refuses to understand this is a moron. Both Canadian auditors MNP & https://coincarboncap.com confirm #BSV is the the greenest blockchain: https://www.mnp.ca/en/insights/directory/the-search-for-a-more-efficient-bitcoinRe: BitBay OFFICIAL BITBAY Thread Smart Contracts Decentralized Markets Rolling Peg
Hello, I have several questions,
- Why is BAY not on CoinmarketCap / Coingecko anymore?
- Your website has not been updated for several years, roadmap, devs... Is the project still alive?
- How to buy or sell BAY native?
- How much total supply?
- What position do you take regarding the BAYs that will be returned from the Cryptopia hack in the coming months?
Quote
ERROR: invalid header received
ERROR: AcceptBlockHeader: Consensus::ContextualCheckBlockHeader: 0000000000000000029e471c41818d24b8b74c911071c4ef0b4a0509f9b5a8ce, bad-diffbits, incorrect proof of work (code 16)
ERROR: AcceptBlockHeader: Consensus::ContextualCheckBlockHeader: 0000000000000000029e471c41818d24b8b74c911071c4ef0b4a0509f9b5a8ce, bad-diffbits, incorrect proof of work (code 16)
Does the wallet need to bu updated?
Quote
"version": 101000600,
"protocolversion": 70015,
"walletversion": 160300,
"balance": XYZ,
"blocks": 700595,
"protocolversion": 70015,
"walletversion": 160300,
"balance": XYZ,
"blocks": 700595,
I would appreciate any help
Current node version is 1.0.8/ https://github.com/bitcoin-sv/bitcoin-sv/releases
Check: https://bitcoinsv.io/2021/05/11/2-upgrades-released-simultaneously-bsv-v1-0-8-beta-mapi-v1-3-0-beta/
https://download.bitcoinsv.io/bitcoinsv/
If you need wallet see https://electrumsv.io/
Quote
The Bitcoin SV team are releasing 2 upgrades simultaneously.
These are:
Bitcoin SV Node software – Upgrade to v1.0.8 Beta Release
mAPI v1.3.0 Beta Release
Bitcoin SV Node software – Upgrade to v1.0.8 (Beta Release)
Version 1.0.8 (beta release) is a recommended upgrade from version 1.0.7.1; This new version brings support for reporting double spend attempts towards the remote endpoints such as mAPI or custom applications. It also contains performance improvements, most notably in relation to the processing of complex graphs of dependant transactions.
Content details listed below:
Support for double-spend-notify enabled transactions; if a double-spend of an input is seen, a HTTP notification will be sent to a specified endpoint. (Please refer to https://github.com/bitcoin-sv-specs/protocol for further details)
New getorphaninfo RPC.
New verifyScript RPC.
New getmerkleproof2 RPC consistent with latest TSC.
maxstackmemoryusageconsensus parameter added to output of getsettings RPC.
sendrawtransaction and sendrawtransactions RPC can be used with dontCheckFees even when a transaction is already known.
sendrawtransaction and sendrawtransactions RPC modified to optionally return list of unconfirmed parents.
New configuration parameter dustlimitfactor available to define dust. *
Dust return transactions. *
Adjusted default maximum validation duration for async tasks to better handle chains and long graphs.
Change algorithm for using ancestor height rather than ancestor count.
Improve release rate from Orphan pool.
Better performance due to improvements in cs_main processing.
Improved validation of chains.
Transactions will not be accepted if the result is an in-mempool ancestor chain of height 10,000 or more. Previously this figure was 1,000 transactions.
The default value for the maxorphantxsize configuration parameter has been changed to 1GB
The maxcollectedoutpoints configuration parameter is no longer used and has been removed.
The STN is being reset.
*Additional Notes:
8. New command line option -dustlimitfactor available to define dust.
Until now, the minimum ratio between a transaction output amount and its corresponding fee is 3/1. If this condition was not met, the transaction was considered “dust” and was rejected during validation.
This factor can now be configured via the new “-dustlimitfactor” option in percent, which still defaults to 300% but can be set to any value between 300% and 0%.
If the –dustlimitfactor is set to zero, then no transaction output is regarded as dust.
The formula for calculating the dust threshold is as follows (integer arithmetic):
s = serialized size of transaction output
d = dustlimitfactor, percent value between 300 and 0, default: 300
r = dustrelayfee, default: default-minrelaytxfee, 250 as of v1.0.8
m = 148, minimum bytes of spendable input
d * (r * (s + m)/1000)) / 100
Note that the division by 100 as the dustlimitfactor specifies a percentage value.
Example: For a typical transaction with an output of 34 bytes in size, the formula yields a threshold of 135 Satoshis.
d = 300
s = 34
r = 250
Threshold = (300 * (250 * (34 + 148)/1000)) / 100 = 135
Note the same formula would give a threshold of 136.5 Satoshis if floating point arithmetic is used:
Consequently, with the default parameter settings in 1.0.8, a typical transaction output needs to be worth 135 Satoshis at least to be not considered dust. Note that due to rounding, the calculated dust threshold for the example transaction becomes 0 if the dustlimitfactor and the dustrelayfee are very low.
9. Dust return transactions.
Transaction validation has now been relaxed to allow a new kind of transaction, the dust return transaction. This new transaction type allows donating dust to miners via fees as a new way to counter wallet dusting attacks. This is more economical for the network because it allows clearing the wallets and UTXO databases from otherwise practically unspendable outputs. Whilst completely removing the incentive to conduct dust attacks at all.
A transaction is considered a dust return transaction if the following conditions are met:
The transaction has a single output of zero value (zero amount).
the scriptPubKey is as follows:
OP_FALSE OP_RETURN n ‘dust’.
where n = length of the protocol ID, i.e. string size of ‘dust’.
either all inputs are standard or configuration following parameter is set:
-acceptnonstdconsolidationinput=1 (default: 0)
non standard transactions must be allowed, i.e. following configuration must be set:
-acceptnonstdtx=1 (default: 1)
Note that dust return transactions share two configuration parameters with consolidation transactions:
-acceptnonstdconsolidationinput (default: false)
-minconsolidationfactor (default: not zero. Setting consolidation factor to 0 disables consolidation transactions and dust return transactions as well)
Example Dust Return Transaction:
{
‘txid’: ‘7a234eaa8615858e7b59cc46820fb71940fa9b1fd2cbac6c4ca3efc33767c6dc’,
‘hash’: ‘7a234eaa8615858e7b59cc46820fb71940fa9b1fd2cbac6c4ca3efc33767c6dc’,
‘version’: 1,
‘size’: 226,
‘locktime’: 0,
‘vin’: [
{
‘txid’: ‘471e1070d48faf20b599b2291c5c7550f9152d6e3549987d85dae82f2e96e93f’,
‘vout’: 0,
‘scriptSig’: {
‘asm’: ‘61616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161c2’,
‘hex’: ‘4c9561616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161c2’
},
‘sequence’: 0
}
],
‘vout’: [
{
‘value’: Decimal(‘0.00’),
‘n’: 0,
‘scriptPubKey’: {
‘asm’: ‘0 OP_RETURN 1953723748’,
‘hex’: ‘006a0464757374’,
‘type’: ‘nulldata’
}
}
],
‘blockhash’: ‘380fe8631752b75ee3ce027bdf80e22f3445f4b620a9585b369fb9a0c3f2677e’,
‘confirmations’: 1,
‘time’: 1620224004,
‘blocktime’: 1620224004,
‘blockheight’: 208,
}
Binaries and source code can be downloaded here:
URL: https://download.bitcoinsv.io/bitcoinsv/
Should you have any support questions, please direct them via support@bitcoinsv.io or via telegram at https://t.me/bitcoinsvsupport
mAPI software – Upgrade to v1.3.0 (Beta Release)
Version 1.3.0 (Beta release) is a recommended upgrade from version 1.2.0; With this release of mAPI we are introducing support for receiving double spend notifications from remote nodes.
In addition to local nodes, that are connected directly to mAPI through ZMQ subscription, any remote node in the BSV network that detects a double spend of a transaction, that contains a double spend notification address, can now notify mAPI about detected double spend through HTTP callback. Please refer to https://github.com/bitcoin-sv-specs/protocol for further details.
Double spend notifications have also been improved with detection of double spends on unconfirmed parents. mAPI will notify merchants should it detect double spends, not only for their transaction, but also if the double spend is detected on one of its unconfirmed parents.
Merkle proof notifications can now use standard TSC format which returns hex encoded block header in callback notifications.
Additional improvements include, support for callback reason parameters in callback URLs, support for custom database server deployment and additional configuration options for better integration.
Content details listed below:
Double spend notification for unconfirmed parents.
Support for callback endpoint for double spend notifications from a remote node.
Add support for TSC merkle proof format.
Enable support for callback reason parameter in callback URL.
Support custom database server deployment.
Configuration option to disable fee check.
Option to supply ZMQ endpoint when registering node with mAPI.
Option to run mAPI over HTTP for development purposes.
Binaries and source code can be downloaded here:
URL: https://github.com/bitcoin-sv-specs/brfc-merchantapi
Should you have any support questions, please direct them via support@bitcoinsv.io or via telegram at https://t.me/bitcoinsvsupport
Thank you for your continued support of Bitcoin SV.
Source https://bitcoinsv.io/2021/05/11/2-upgrades-released-simultaneously-bsv-v1-0-8-beta-mapi-v1-3-0-beta/
These are:
Bitcoin SV Node software – Upgrade to v1.0.8 Beta Release
mAPI v1.3.0 Beta Release
Bitcoin SV Node software – Upgrade to v1.0.8 (Beta Release)
Version 1.0.8 (beta release) is a recommended upgrade from version 1.0.7.1; This new version brings support for reporting double spend attempts towards the remote endpoints such as mAPI or custom applications. It also contains performance improvements, most notably in relation to the processing of complex graphs of dependant transactions.
Content details listed below:
Support for double-spend-notify enabled transactions; if a double-spend of an input is seen, a HTTP notification will be sent to a specified endpoint. (Please refer to https://github.com/bitcoin-sv-specs/protocol for further details)
New getorphaninfo RPC.
New verifyScript RPC.
New getmerkleproof2 RPC consistent with latest TSC.
maxstackmemoryusageconsensus parameter added to output of getsettings RPC.
sendrawtransaction and sendrawtransactions RPC can be used with dontCheckFees even when a transaction is already known.
sendrawtransaction and sendrawtransactions RPC modified to optionally return list of unconfirmed parents.
New configuration parameter dustlimitfactor available to define dust. *
Dust return transactions. *
Adjusted default maximum validation duration for async tasks to better handle chains and long graphs.
Change algorithm for using ancestor height rather than ancestor count.
Improve release rate from Orphan pool.
Better performance due to improvements in cs_main processing.
Improved validation of chains.
Transactions will not be accepted if the result is an in-mempool ancestor chain of height 10,000 or more. Previously this figure was 1,000 transactions.
The default value for the maxorphantxsize configuration parameter has been changed to 1GB
The maxcollectedoutpoints configuration parameter is no longer used and has been removed.
The STN is being reset.
*Additional Notes:
8. New command line option -dustlimitfactor available to define dust.
Until now, the minimum ratio between a transaction output amount and its corresponding fee is 3/1. If this condition was not met, the transaction was considered “dust” and was rejected during validation.
This factor can now be configured via the new “-dustlimitfactor” option in percent, which still defaults to 300% but can be set to any value between 300% and 0%.
If the –dustlimitfactor is set to zero, then no transaction output is regarded as dust.
The formula for calculating the dust threshold is as follows (integer arithmetic):
s = serialized size of transaction output
d = dustlimitfactor, percent value between 300 and 0, default: 300
r = dustrelayfee, default: default-minrelaytxfee, 250 as of v1.0.8
m = 148, minimum bytes of spendable input
d * (r * (s + m)/1000)) / 100
Note that the division by 100 as the dustlimitfactor specifies a percentage value.
Example: For a typical transaction with an output of 34 bytes in size, the formula yields a threshold of 135 Satoshis.
d = 300
s = 34
r = 250
Threshold = (300 * (250 * (34 + 148)/1000)) / 100 = 135
Note the same formula would give a threshold of 136.5 Satoshis if floating point arithmetic is used:
Consequently, with the default parameter settings in 1.0.8, a typical transaction output needs to be worth 135 Satoshis at least to be not considered dust. Note that due to rounding, the calculated dust threshold for the example transaction becomes 0 if the dustlimitfactor and the dustrelayfee are very low.
9. Dust return transactions.
Transaction validation has now been relaxed to allow a new kind of transaction, the dust return transaction. This new transaction type allows donating dust to miners via fees as a new way to counter wallet dusting attacks. This is more economical for the network because it allows clearing the wallets and UTXO databases from otherwise practically unspendable outputs. Whilst completely removing the incentive to conduct dust attacks at all.
A transaction is considered a dust return transaction if the following conditions are met:
The transaction has a single output of zero value (zero amount).
the scriptPubKey is as follows:
OP_FALSE OP_RETURN n ‘dust’.
where n = length of the protocol ID, i.e. string size of ‘dust’.
either all inputs are standard or configuration following parameter is set:
-acceptnonstdconsolidationinput=1 (default: 0)
non standard transactions must be allowed, i.e. following configuration must be set:
-acceptnonstdtx=1 (default: 1)
Note that dust return transactions share two configuration parameters with consolidation transactions:
-acceptnonstdconsolidationinput (default: false)
-minconsolidationfactor (default: not zero. Setting consolidation factor to 0 disables consolidation transactions and dust return transactions as well)
Example Dust Return Transaction:
{
‘txid’: ‘7a234eaa8615858e7b59cc46820fb71940fa9b1fd2cbac6c4ca3efc33767c6dc’,
‘hash’: ‘7a234eaa8615858e7b59cc46820fb71940fa9b1fd2cbac6c4ca3efc33767c6dc’,
‘version’: 1,
‘size’: 226,
‘locktime’: 0,
‘vin’: [
{
‘txid’: ‘471e1070d48faf20b599b2291c5c7550f9152d6e3549987d85dae82f2e96e93f’,
‘vout’: 0,
‘scriptSig’: {
‘asm’: ‘61616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161c2’,
‘hex’: ‘4c9561616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161616161c2’
},
‘sequence’: 0
}
],
‘vout’: [
{
‘value’: Decimal(‘0.00’),
‘n’: 0,
‘scriptPubKey’: {
‘asm’: ‘0 OP_RETURN 1953723748’,
‘hex’: ‘006a0464757374’,
‘type’: ‘nulldata’
}
}
],
‘blockhash’: ‘380fe8631752b75ee3ce027bdf80e22f3445f4b620a9585b369fb9a0c3f2677e’,
‘confirmations’: 1,
‘time’: 1620224004,
‘blocktime’: 1620224004,
‘blockheight’: 208,
}
Binaries and source code can be downloaded here:
URL: https://download.bitcoinsv.io/bitcoinsv/
Should you have any support questions, please direct them via support@bitcoinsv.io or via telegram at https://t.me/bitcoinsvsupport
mAPI software – Upgrade to v1.3.0 (Beta Release)
Version 1.3.0 (Beta release) is a recommended upgrade from version 1.2.0; With this release of mAPI we are introducing support for receiving double spend notifications from remote nodes.
In addition to local nodes, that are connected directly to mAPI through ZMQ subscription, any remote node in the BSV network that detects a double spend of a transaction, that contains a double spend notification address, can now notify mAPI about detected double spend through HTTP callback. Please refer to https://github.com/bitcoin-sv-specs/protocol for further details.
Double spend notifications have also been improved with detection of double spends on unconfirmed parents. mAPI will notify merchants should it detect double spends, not only for their transaction, but also if the double spend is detected on one of its unconfirmed parents.
Merkle proof notifications can now use standard TSC format which returns hex encoded block header in callback notifications.
Additional improvements include, support for callback reason parameters in callback URLs, support for custom database server deployment and additional configuration options for better integration.
Content details listed below:
Double spend notification for unconfirmed parents.
Support for callback endpoint for double spend notifications from a remote node.
Add support for TSC merkle proof format.
Enable support for callback reason parameter in callback URL.
Support custom database server deployment.
Configuration option to disable fee check.
Option to supply ZMQ endpoint when registering node with mAPI.
Option to run mAPI over HTTP for development purposes.
Binaries and source code can be downloaded here:
URL: https://github.com/bitcoin-sv-specs/brfc-merchantapi
Should you have any support questions, please direct them via support@bitcoinsv.io or via telegram at https://t.me/bitcoinsvsupport
Thank you for your continued support of Bitcoin SV.
Source https://bitcoinsv.io/2021/05/11/2-upgrades-released-simultaneously-bsv-v1-0-8-beta-mapi-v1-3-0-beta/
⭐ Merited by hv_ (5)
It's very good to see that Bitcoin SV is making solid progress in researching and exploiting the real Bitcoin protocol. Keep up the good work! Very soon the public will understand that BTC is not Bitcoin, but BSV is the real Bitcoin.