andrewtoth

Attackers dust addresses that have previously spent a utxo, not ones that currently control a utxo. So, now there is a new utxo at that address, and when the wallet goes to spend it will use the new dust utxo along with utxos at other addresses the wallet controls. Now this new spend tx reveals on chain that the previously used address is connected to other addresses.

2026-01-31 20:01:34 CET

- reply

#nevent1q…l5y8

2025-12-31 03:50:36 CET

- reply

@nprofile…xxx2

2025-12-30 17:56:15 CET

- reply

That seems to be the claim by the author of Libbitcoin. You would expect much faster sync time from Bitcoin Core too. It is limited by CPU signature validation.

2025-12-21 06:40:42 CET

- reply

Chicken nuggets? No! They're coffee beans!

2025-10-26 15:39:22 CET

- reply

What node version are you running?

2025-10-07 20:47:56 CEST

- reply

Yes

2025-10-02 16:13:50 CEST

- reply

What about population increase to the area? More people wanting to live there increases the demand for land. Supply is fixed.

2025-09-26 02:30:57 CEST

- reply

Wait for it https://youtu.be/ZfjNDpZQvhk

2025-09-17 16:11:42 CEST

- reply

The risk is purely hypothetical. However both pools made *more* money by mining sub sat txs. They certainly didn't *lose* money.

2025-09-17 04:36:26 CEST

- reply

That's not what your linked posts are complaining about. Both pools have an orphan rate of zero. In fact all pools mining sub sat txs have an orphan rate of zero https://x.com/mononautical/status/1968138304265900433

2025-09-17 04:28:39 CEST

- reply

Wrong. Stale blocks (what the above commenter calls orphan blocks) are very rare, and neither MARA not CKPool have mined any since including sub sat fee rate txs in their blocks. Read the posts you are linking and also see stale blocks here fork.observer

2025-08-22 21:36:13 CEST

- reply

Can you just connect to their IP directly? 103.165.192.203

2025-08-05 17:46:30 CEST

- reply

All you need is the utxo set to know if a tx you recieved is valid. Meanwhile the node syncs the chain in the background to eventually validate that the assumed utxo set is indeed the correct one.
See https://blog.lopp.net/bitcoin-node-sync-with-utxo-snapshots/

2025-08-05 17:44:09 CEST

- reply

This is the exact usecase for assumeutxo. You can use it in Bitcoin Core v29 but it's not the most user friendly experience.

2025-08-01 23:59:20 CEST

- reply

How are they not money transmitters already?

2025-07-18 14:07:23 CEST

- reply

Wow I have never seen her be so polite to anyone.

2025-07-15 04:40:18 CEST

- reply

The reason the minRelayFee filter works is because there is very little economic incentive to bypass it. It is cheaper to just bump your fee to 1 sat/vbyte. This is not so for larger OP_RETURN txs or other types of non-standard txs.

2025-07-12 00:12:29 CEST

- reply

Coyotes do this with the rabbit in their jaws.

2025-07-06 04:42:06 CEST

- reply

> open source software supercedes commercial software in almost every domain
Absolutely false. There are some big ones but mostly niche domains. Most software that normal people actually use is not open source.

2025-06-27 03:42:43 CEST

- reply

Yup #nevent1q…f0wq

2025-06-23 16:57:29 CEST

- reply

Version 29 has a significant performance improvement.

2025-06-21 15:09:48 CEST

- reply

Knuckles

2025-06-07 07:00:22 CEST

- reply

If that worked then at that point you could ask the agent to improve itself in ways you'd like. It would come back as an improved version of itself. Keep going and you have AGI.

2025-06-07 02:30:46 CEST

- reply

Yep, happens whenever I buy something for $12.34.

2025-05-26 23:57:13 CEST

- reply

Yeah I'm here coffee?

2025-05-21 03:38:37 CEST

- reply

Probably a better time to sell than others 🤷. Around 3 months ago it was sub $80.

2025-05-18 21:53:48 CEST

- reply

You didn't link to the actual PR because it isn't merged. It was closed without merging https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32359. Why are you lying?

2025-05-18 19:41:46 CEST

- reply

Why are you spreading this misinformation? No policy changes have been merged regarding OP_RETURN in Bitcoin Core. Version 30 is not even scheduled for release for another 5 months.

2025-05-18 14:31:02 CEST

- reply

It's only useful if you are mining with the node and want to collect fees from other txs. If you just want to mine your own txs you manually add them to the template.
You can also estimate fees for your txs without a mempool, but you can only do it against recently confirmed txs so it will be less accurate.
Every other feature will work the same except you deal with mined txs instead of not yet mined.

2025-05-18 06:14:48 CEST

- reply

> Core removed the 80-byte limit with almost no discussion.
> Thousands of nodes implemented it automatically.
This is complete nonsense. There has not been any removal or change of any limit. There has been ongoing discussion about potentially removing a limit for weeks now. There has not been any new release of Bitcoin Core that implements any change of policy in months. No nodes are implementing anything automatically.

2025-05-18 00:18:56 CEST

- reply

All use cases for a node with a mempool except mining for fees or more accurate fee estimation.

2025-05-10 19:19:06 CEST

- reply

Currently generateblock takes an address or descriptor as first argument. It could be extended to also take an array of descriptor/address and value tuples. That way we don't need a new RPC command.

2025-05-09 00:13:56 CEST

- reply

Happy birthday! 🎂

2025-05-06 20:37:14 CEST

- reply

I'm not sure of the stats, but a lot of spam are large jpegs, which would always be cheaper as inscriptions.
The one you quoted I calculate as 139 bytes.

2025-05-06 20:34:29 CEST

- reply

The ultimate solution would be to remove all standardness rules and use mempool for all txs.

2025-05-06 20:23:46 CEST

- reply

I think private mempools are a bigger threat than spam.

2025-05-06 20:08:44 CEST

- reply

Yes, only up to about 157 bytes (up from the current 80 bytes standard) will OP_RETURN be cheaper than using witness data to store data. And with OP_RETURN you can only make 1mb blocks. With inscriptions you can make 4mb. So if data enjoyers want to use OP_RETURN instead of inscriptions it will be less storage and bandwidth for nodes.

2025-05-06 20:05:26 CEST

- reply

Today using unspendable UTXOs costs *less* than OP_RETURN. That is your OP. Removing the mempool restrictions will reverse this.

2025-05-06 18:25:25 CEST

- reply

First of all, this tx did not make it into the mempool. As for why it would be desirable for it to have been first propagated to your nodes mempool, especially with respect to helping bitcoin and mining decentralization, this has been discussed ad nauseum. See https://antoinep.com/posts/relay_policy_drama/.

2025-05-06 18:09:42 CEST

- reply

This also costs the spammer 4x as much.

2025-05-06 18:06:18 CEST

- reply

Previously this would have taken 2 txs (1 to publish a Taproot output and the next to spend it, revealing the data in the witness).

2025-05-06 14:09:05 CEST

- reply

This is a strawman. The filters make it more expensive, so people are putting the data in non-provably unspendable UTXOs. This is worse for the network then putting that data in provably unspendable outputs that can be pruned from the UTXO set.

2025-05-04 18:12:16 CEST

- reply

Don't bother with 1080p at that size. It's too pixelated. The 4K ultra wide is great.

2025-05-04 06:15:16 CEST

- reply

Looks cozy

2025-05-02 18:41:30 CEST

- reply

This OP_RETURN change has nothing to do with JPEGs. It is 4x cheaper to store JPEGs in the witness data, and the witness data is *not* stored in the UTXO set.
This change is for protocols that need some small amount of data but bigger than 40 bytes to be in an output before being spent. Witness data is not suitable for this because the tx has to be spent to reveal the data.

2025-05-02 18:38:35 CEST

- reply

This is wrong. Witness data is not stored in the UTXO set. Witness data is revealed when spending a UTXO, removing it from the UTXO set. Witness data is only in blocks and can be pruned.

2025-04-26 18:58:43 CEST

- reply

How do you drain the wealth without appearing as a parasite yourself?

2025-04-17 00:54:05 CEST

- reply

Dragonsweeper is awesome - mixing dungeon crawler with minesweeper. https://danielben.itch.io/dragonsweeper

2025-04-10 16:31:22 CEST

- reply

Inspiring

2025-04-06 23:04:49 CEST

- reply

So glad it's not just me. I've programmed for decades, and the only programming language that I can remember making me legit feel like shedding tears and giving up is JavaScript.

2025-04-01 22:58:02 CEST

- reply

I am always impressed by the thoroughness and objectivity in your optech summaries. It does not go unnoticed! Thank you for all you do.

2025-03-25 16:55:33 CET

- reply

One can only hope🤞

2025-03-16 23:00:13 CET

- reply

Only imperial stormtroopers are so precise.

2025-03-16 19:09:51 CET

- reply

Neat! How long does it take to finish syncing?

2025-03-05 01:26:40 CET

- reply

Yes, and also you need to be at home for it to work.

2025-03-05 00:53:25 CET

- reply

You can block at DNS level with pihole instead.

2025-03-04 14:52:48 CET

- reply

*multiple TBs

2025-03-04 14:52:26 CET

- reply

I see some GitHub issue commenters saying they operate leveldb DBs with multiple Tabs and 100s of billions of entries with no issues.
I haven't done the math yet but I think it would take decades of constant utxo spam at a 4 MB per 10 minute rate to get there.

2025-03-04 14:40:16 CET

- reply

Yes, I'm trying to find out what that limit would be in leveldb without much luck.

2025-03-04 14:32:55 CET

- reply

The problem with this is that connecting blocks to tip once you reach steady state will be much slower. Instead of looking up each input prevout from the set of utxos, you will have to lookup each input prevout from the set of all txos ever created.

2025-03-04 14:28:51 CET

- reply

I think there are ways to make validating a block very slow due to script validation, but that is orthogonal to utxo cardinality.
Both blocks and utxos are stored in leveldb, and blocks are an order of magnitude bigger on disk with no performance issues. However, value sizes for utxos are much smaller, so the number of entries is bigger.
The next release of Bitcoin Core has a change to greatly speed up disk lookups of utxos as well.

2025-03-04 13:41:21 CET

- reply

The Bitcoin Core implementation only keeps a subset of utxos in memory, which by default is only 450 MB. The rest are on disk, which for this thought experiment you say we have plenty of.
Since blocks are limited to 4 MB, we will never have to exceed memory usage to process utxos in a block due to memory.
I don't think a sufficient number of utxos could cause it to fall over and crash.

2025-02-26 19:27:58 CET

- reply

The last part is not the issue. A Ledger could blind sign Bitcoin hashes too. It can be fixed by Safe developers making a Ledger firmware app that could parse all Safe txs, instead of using the generic Ethereum app. The same thing acinq did for lightning txs. https://x.com/acinq_co/status/1894036594866212894

2025-02-19 00:30:54 CET

- reply

Anora

2025-02-11 13:37:57 CET

- reply

From Canada https://image.nostr.build/a3e10cd5276f91a10e04963dd8e26c7ff3d906a65b90f459c954026a5da32fc3.jpg

2025-02-09 17:46:04 CET

- reply

One way is to whitelist all domains that the app can make network requests to. That way a malicious library won't be able to send the payload to itself unless it compromises your servers as well.

2025-02-08 21:48:27 CET

- reply

Sounds reasonable

2025-02-08 00:33:04 CET

- reply

Namecheap has BTCPay as the first option before BitPay. They do not require any info and just show a QR code.

2025-02-03 21:32:34 CET

- reply

$EXOD is trading on NYSE.

2025-02-03 02:18:30 CET

- reply

Was everyone booing?

2025-02-02 03:51:06 CET

- reply

Congratulations

2025-02-01 16:19:51 CET

- reply

Because you can then buy Bitcoin with it.

2025-01-30 23:16:21 CET

- reply

I'm deficient in #2. Any good recommendations that are low on time commitment?

2025-01-20 23:25:13 CET

- reply

Is the other tom brady?

2025-01-18 16:23:47 CET

- reply

Neat! You have to add audit=false
https://mempool.space/block/0000000000000000000341cc26cda4af82cd25f7063c448772228cbf2836915b?audit=false

2025-01-18 16:05:21 CET

- reply

Oooh link?

2025-01-17 20:57:29 CET

- reply

Read the OP_RETURNS. It was the mining pool itself that paid for it by forgoing the fees it could have earned in the mempool. Some 0.018 BTC that was awarded the next block.

2025-01-14 19:21:25 CET

- reply

THERE
ARE
21 MILLION BITCOINS!

2025-01-08 15:34:48 CET

- reply

Just going to leave this here https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1687

2024-12-31 17:42:33 CET

- reply

https://silentpayments.xyz/

2024-12-24 20:24:35 CET

- reply

P2A yes, but op_returns I think should count as a "transaction". They could represent a "payment" in some way. It could be one op_return and change.

2024-12-24 04:55:54 CET

- reply

I think outputs per block would be an interesting metric to track as well. A lot of the transactions could be large batch payments.

2024-11-26 23:18:33 CET

- reply

Canadians have their Thanksgiving second week of October. Got my Christmas lights up already.

2024-11-13 14:30:48 CET

- reply

Try with https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31132 :).

2024-11-13 14:22:33 CET

- reply

Merging both https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30039 and https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31132 for Bitcoin Core v29 would get us there.

2024-11-03 18:13:47 CET

- reply

Isn't that Minecraft?

2024-10-31 22:01:41 CET

- reply

https://github.com/mermaid-js/mermaid

2024-10-31 22:00:54 CET

- reply

mermaid?

2024-10-11 03:32:34 CEST

- reply

That's rich coming from an Austrian

2024-10-06 00:27:09 CEST

- reply

metal

2024-10-05 02:26:21 CEST

- reply

Thank you for your contribution

2024-10-04 04:42:35 CEST

- reply

Chances would be greater for real world data. It's not perfectly random. Server could record the most common byte sequences and report those.

2024-09-18 16:34:54 CEST

- reply

Not sure, but it is a work in progress for libsecp256k1 https://github.com/bitcoin-core/secp256k1/pull/1134

2024-09-16 01:45:40 CEST

- reply

It *should* suggest using migratewallet RPC to migrate the wallet. Not sure what happens exactly.
https://bitcoincore.org/en/doc/27.0.0/rpc/wallet/migratewallet/

2024-09-14 18:51:05 CEST

- reply

Oh I see, you ship to an American and they cross into Canada anywhere and ship out.

2024-09-14 18:49:40 CEST

- reply

That border is the longest one in the world. Which part?