This is inspired by https://blog.bitmex.com/bitcoin-miner-transaction-fee-gathering-capability/ , which is a good read for everyone interested in this topic.
I'd like to thank the people who have provided feedback on this project. You shall remain anonymous, as I don't want to imply endorsement.
For example, it becomes apparent that #682170 did NOT filter transactions.
All transactions missing from the block had only been in my mempool for a few seconds. None are sanctioned.
Differences between templates and blocks are to be expected!
MARA Pool mined its first 'clean' block today.
I wrote a quick tool that extracts the Bitcoin (and altcoin) addresses into text/json file: https://github.com/0xB10C/ofac-sanctioned-digital-currency-addresses
Bonus: automatically updated text/json lists pushed into a separate branch: https://github.com/0xB10C/ofac-sanctioned-digital-currency-addresses/tree/lists
Started to build something that diffs getblocktemplate and blocks looking for transactions not in the block and argument that with these addresses.
I'm curious, this OFAC list of Bitcoin addresses should be publicly available, right? I only found the two addresses mentioned here:
I could imagine something that, in it's basic form, diffs the getblocktemplate output with the actual blocks to see which transactions are missing.
hey all, i built both the vaccum TEP of shiftcrypto and the entropyseal.
apologies we have not yet published a video that clarifies some of the assumptions discussed here.
@giszmo - freezing attack is indeed not easily doable thanks to the protrusions, which we call pins, locking the entire system if the particles are frozen.
@giszmo - not friction makes cap insert rotate against the cap. there are teeth, actually heavy duty teeth that prevent from twisting the jar open without opening the particle insert into a loose state forcefully.
@kekcoin - slow and careful will still disturb the pattern due to pins inside cap and also from the other side of the insert. upside down opening does also not do the trick.
@jgettbtc - the design is foreseen in transparent polycarbonate, the locked particles should survive a simple drop easily. after all the design is made to be shipped internationally in locked state. thick tempered glass would be an option for the jar but would increase cost a bit.
- love the idea of russian doll style. tough that would need two initial sizes and injection mold tooling is quite a cost factor.
- the vacuum tep's main security was not the bag but the problem to pull away the velcro particle pouch from the container without disturbing the pattern.
i gladly answer any further arising questions, also via email@example.com
@stephanlivera @pox @ibz @lukedashjr @Mandrik @verretor @TallTim @zlok @nvk FYI, if you have a personal website that people might know (e.g. like Stephan), you can put a rel="me" link on it that points to your Mastodon profile, which the default Mastodon software will verify for people viewing your profile. E.g., here's mine.
BIP66 mentions that some nodes rejected the chain after an OpenSSL upgrade: "When this changed in OpenSSL 1.0.0p and 1.0.1k, it made some nodes reject the chain.". I wasn't around at the time, though.
This mentions that e.g. self-compiled versions were affected, but not the official releases.
I'm clarifying this in the article.
I've written about the evolution of the signature size in Bitcoin over the years.
In my third Mempool Observation, I describe and use a methodology to identify Blockchain wallet transactions, derive wallet-usage insights, and discuss potential wallet privacy improvements.
I believe they iterate one of the four pubkeys to find the vanity address and use the other three for the multisig.
I saw a lot of the pubkeys being reused and others never being reused. However, didn't check to which pubkeys the signatures belong to.
Good article but the particular mindblower is ... 3 of 4 with UNCOMPRESSED keys?? wtf bitmex