The weight limit counts stuff that goes into the UTXO set more than it counts the rest. It doesn't have anything to do with aggregations or discounts or whatever--  it's just the limit on what can be in a block recognizes that UTXO data takes more resources.  Neither signature data nor op-return stuff goes in the utxo.   In all fairness the up-weighing ought to be much higher but there is a tradeoff vs how much bandwidth people can cause if they make unusual transactions with more witness data than typical... and a subset of users are more bandwidth limited than memory/io/etc. limited.

Perhaps to try to exploit some refund mechanism or some drain bramaged assets protocol.

FWIW, within a block as people have noted there is no mandatory order beyond topological consistency (parents come before children), which is why it's best to treat all txn in the block as happening at the same time.  So there is no "first" that matters other than whatever scheme you're trying to hack considers first... which might mean placed earlier in the block.

In practice, miners mostly sort transaction by ancestor feerate, and then if that's the same I think wtxid tiebreaks. So, assuming that the target considers earlier in the block to be first, to be 'first' given common network behavior you'd set your feerate to just slightly higher than the other txn.  It may also be helpful to be *smaller* in terms of weight than the other transaction to make sure that transaction selection doesn't skip over you as the block becomes full because you don't quite fit but include the other txn instead.

There is no particular difficulty in detecting unconfirmed transactions-- many thieves already do this:  The often refrain from stealing from addresses where they have the key in the hopes that the user will reuse the address and send more funds.  But if they see a transaction they try to take the funds as fast as they can and bet that they have faster txn relaying than the real owner along with a higher fee to make their txn more preferable to miners.

I fixed it, though I doubt it matters.  Sometimes people's errors provide an informative framing.

Mistaken.  That limit is only imposed by consensus at spending time.  FWIW the default 'daracarriersize' is just the maximum standard transaction size.

 

First, get off the AI.  It is wasting everyone's time here and may well be driving you astray.  Although it can be handy when you don't even know the terms to search, once you're actually talking to people on a subject the AI provides no or negative value because they frequently hallucinate and always sound authoritative when they do it.  Chatbot  style AI is even known to produce psychosis like symptoms in some people.  Plus because fraudsters are now frequently using AI you're just making yourself sound like one. Respond with another AI generated message and I will nuke your account for wasting everyone's time with AI-spam.

If a transaction is included in a block you can save the inclusion proof.  Bitcoin Core's wallet has all the commands to do it, it just doesn't do it automatically anymore. It used to save them for your own transactions, but it bloated up wallets and absolute no one was using it-- and you can always extract them yourself from any archive node that witnessed them, since other than pruning blocks are never deleted even if the block is now stale.    The inclusion proofs are extracted with the gettxoutproof command and can be verified by the verifytxoutproof.  This still works even for stale blocks.

I dunno about other wallet software, as everything but bitcoin core is trash, but in Bitcoin Core all of the user's own transactions in it are maintained by the wallet-- even if the blocks confirming them are made stale or even if the transaction is orphaned (meaning the parent block that generated the coins it is spending is eliminated, which would require a 100 block+ reorg for any non-generation transaction).   There is no need for txindex, as you can just see your transactions in the wallet.   If they were ever confirmed you can extract a txoutproof that anyone else can verify.

The blockchain itself is already the log you seek, your own wallet is already the log you seek.  Any kind of public log is going to have limitations arising from an admissions policy, otherwise spammers can just overload it.  Your own wallet doesn't have that issue, however.   Plus although they provide no automatic access all archive nodes remember all stale blocks and could extract proofs, if you foolishly didn't use a good wallet or didn't keep it around if you know the txid it could still be found.

On what basis do you believe that they did?  How do you know you haven't been lied to / tricked by someone or have not given yourself a false memory.   For years I have routinely received emails from people who have lost touch with reality and are absolutely convinced that they purchased bitcoin in 2004 or whatever other unambiguously impossible situation.  Some people fixate on a dream of bitcoin riches and then gradually forget that they're just dreams.

Mostly people have kept their wallets, which will include the transactions.

In any case, if you provide the address(es) and the height range when you say they were confirmed then perhaps someone here with a older node will scan their blockchain files for the transactions for you.  You can increase the odds of someone doing that by explaining in an convincing and non-AI way why you know they had previously confirmed payments to them.  Keep in mind that the bar on that is kinda high because very few confirmed transactions have ever been reorged out and not restored (which can happen due to doublespends, if they're just reorged out alone nodes will try to restore them until they are conflicted).

As pointed out up-thread:  it was closed in favor of an alternative approach that kept the setting but changed the default.

How so?

Common doesn't necessarily mean correct. Many of the larger 'miners' are owned by disinterested investors, and managed by hired managers that have very little interest themselves-- or, most commonly, aren't actually miners at all but are selling hashpower to pools with little capital investment and often extensive investment in bitcoin competitors.  Some of the largest hashers have never even used a Bitcoin wallet-- I've talked to people who owned significant percentages of the network hashrate that just mine with their pool paying directly to an exchange account, and for years I had a pretty good business selling options to several large hashers so they could reduce their Bitcoin exposure.

Similarly, many exchanges are predominantly invested in Bitcoin competitors, and spend a lot of resources promoting altcoin-of-the-day to anyone that uses their services.    I had the CEO of one of the largest exchanges tell me flat out that he'd make a lot more money if bitcoin died (and wasn't I stupid for not being invested in ethereum).

This is in comparison to bitcoin contributors who easily can have 99% of their net worth as Bitcoin as well as their professional reputation and ability to work tied up in Bitcoin, the same people are also sometimes miners themselves and involved in the ecosystem in other ways.  Absolutely there are miners (especially midsized ones) that have their necks on the line, but even though have significant short term cash flow pressures that can be very misaligned with Bitcoin's success.  The capital expenditures of miners are also rapidly deprecated and their primary cost is *power* which can be turned off at any point.  You can just look at all the inscriptions flood for example of how miners are easily somewhat misaligned with Bitcoin's long term success (or log into any of the larger exchanges for a very IN YOUR FACE example of the current massive misalignment).

The PR that removes the knob was closed weeks ago.  The remaining one which was merged today leaves the setting in and changes the default.

The witness data is not separated from the transactions, it's in each transaction before the nLocktime field.   It prevents malleability attacks by separating it from the txid so that child transactions aren't invalidated by changes to the signature, the same way *within* a transaction the various signatures don't sign each other.  It doesn't change the space of anything.  It doesn't directly lower fees, but because the witness field isn't counted in the original blocksize limit the change was able to effectively eliminate the old limit and replace it with a "weight limit"-- like measuring blocks by the pound instead of by the gallon and the witness data takes up less weight.  The increase in capacity can result in lower fees for a given amount of demand since users bid against each other for access to capacity.

How would you possibly know anything about anyone's finances???

Does it give you a little sexual thrill to just make shit up? lol

Everyone should be very wary of any kind of javascript tool like this.  The authors or someone who has "hacked" them can quietly change the code at any time,  or it could quietly include online components that remain online even if you downloaded the script, even ones that don't become active until later.   A billion dollars in eth was stolen from an exchange this year because they used a JS based "multisignature" wallet.  Just downloading it right before you use it probably doesn't improve the security because they could have substituted it just before.  Often malicious code sits out there on the internet live and active for months or years before anyone notices.

If it's your last option, then it is what it is,  but don't think you're not handing your private keys over to some internet stranger-- because you are.

FWIW, if you can actually just get the private keys you can probably recover wallets like this with bitcoin core with no extreme difficulty and avoid the JS signing code vulnerability.  But having not ever used Guarda I don't have a nice tutorial for you like this.

https://youtu.be/Hwk_-0UKcY4?t=510

William Duplessie, an investment manager for convicted felon Roger Ver, has been arrested for kidnapping and torturing a target to try to steal 22 million dollars worth of cryptocurrency.

People here should think carefully about the kind of violent thugs they're defending.

There are good reasons to doubt the faithfulness of that code, it's fragmentary and its source has told indisputable lies about the early history of Bitcoin.  So take it with a grain of salt.

You might be surprised to learn that I went and promoted your services to several early testnet miners.  Your service looks like a flashback to the glory days of the earliest bitcoin exchanges, which I think were much nicer in practice than the stuff people use today which looks pretty but is full of anti-features.

Perhaps we got off on the wrong foot, so to say--  I don't have and I doubt any current developer has any issue with you trading testnet coins generally only that trade in the current testnet screws up some people's ability to use it for testing. Now than TN3 is no longer the default in Bitcoin trade isn't a problem (well it is for some still using it, of course).   Unlike the bulk of the twitter bitcoin maxies most bitcoin developers don't have some blood hate of altcoins, mostly they just consider them irrelevant (and or a source of amusement / moral lessons) or a minor irritation (e.g. when people promoting them make a nuisance of themselves).  I'm very very happy that people have the freedom to create and use altcoins, because that is the same freedom that allows bitcoin to exist and which backstops bitcoin against corruption (e.g. if somehow a hostile force takes over all bitcoin mining or whatever, people will migrate onto an alternative -- which undermines the incentive to try the attack in the first place).

When it comes to testnet developers want a valueless alternative to bitcoin for testing so that doing arbitrary nonsense doesn't have accounting/legal/tax/etc. implications or friction from having to buy stuff, or churn from people hovering up all the coins they can to sell them for a few cents -- and they're just gonna continue to do whatever it takes to get to that for their own use (which is more possible than you might realize because for this purpose there isn't so much a hard requirement for the result to be open/inclusive/etc.) of course no one else is obligated to use their test thing.

Maybe there is a place in the market for another altcoin which is just "bitcoin but not bitcoin".  I'm kinda dubious in that there are just so many obvious improvements that haven't been done in Bitcoin due to the tremendous conservatism that goes along with being widely used and valuable.  But if so, I don't think testnet (of any version) is the best way to get there.  Particularly because Bitcoin Core has been designed in a way that makes it extremely easy to make a fork that just changes the chain parameters.


As a total aside, I have a totally offtopic forum question for you:  How do get notified about responses in old threads.  There were good odds that I'd never noticed your reply here since I don't normally read the altcoin subforum.  I only find replies like this by manually checking threads I was recently active in, but clearly there must be some SMF feature I've never noticed.

The whole story you're missing on BSV is that once the chain way beyond anyone's tolerance to sync anymore it was essentially controlled by a monopolist miner, Calvin Ayre the sponsor and co-conspirator of Wright,  and they used their control to force hard fork consensus rule changes onto the system like "asset recovery" -- basically allowing themselves the ability to steal any coin on the system whenever they want.

So like, sure spam bad or whatever.  But so what, who cares?  There is a *reason* the bloat is bad-- and that's because users autonomy to reject rule changes depends on the ability to run a full node being a practical choice.

I can't figure out what you're saying here.


Huh? You just acknowledged up thread that asking people to not trade testnet coins for value goes all the way back to Satoshi.  It's not new, nor is resetting the chain used in the node software for testnet when people do a new thing-- though it went a long time without being needed.

It solved an immediate problem for them-- the fact that it would go the same way isn't the biggest deal since it doesn't cost anything for the developers just switch to another one.  It probably would have been superior to implement a better approach, but I guess they thought it was better to address it immediately than immediately take the extra time for a more generalized solution.

When tn3 was created it was proposed by some to just reset the chain accepted by the software every major version.   I think discussion on that just landed on that the project could switch to doing that later if problems continued.  For a decade the problems didn't continue. Now that they are back I suspect the project will end up doing something like that.

It's a test harness, the only purpose exists for is the developers testing.  It's often the case that test harnesses have intentional defects to facilitate testing.   It seems to have worked out fine so far.

The existing testnet today is testnet 4 created only recently.

The testnet you knew before then is testnet3  which was created to replace testnet 2 once people traded testnet 2 for money.  Which was created to replace testnet 1 when people traded that for money.  Testnet 3 was made purposefully defective in a number of ways so it went a long time before anyone was foolish enough to pay much for it, but it just goes to show that if you make something fool proof nature will just create a bigger fool.

TN1 was the only one that existed when Satoshi was still potentially around.  So no, the thing you call testnet wouldn't be linked to Satoshi.

60 Satoshi per tn3 offered for <300 coins,  that's more of a joke than actual economic activity.

The altcoin subforum awaits your loving embrace.