LBANK INFO CRYPTOCURRENCY

Title says all. Any help is appreciated, thanks. from Recent Questions - Bitcoin Stack Exchange https://ift.tt/HBfZpzd via IFTTT

I am planning to withdraw some sats from my exchange (Gemini) to my Trezor one . But they seem to have a very strict withdrawal SOP that requires me to prove the ownership of a public address. The problems, as I see, are twofold my trezor wallet has a few sats, but the specific address I created is brand new and I never received any fund there I can send a few sats from my trezor device to the exchange, as a small deposit test, but I do not see a way to control the origin address . I mean, is not my trezor device just the collection of all addresses? I can receive in any of them, but can I send from a specific one of them? So what's the way out here? Does Trezor 1 support this feature? Or have to resort to something else? from Recent Questions - Bitcoin Stack Exchange https://ift.tt/DMOu5Tl via IFTTT

A Scenario Question: If Alice sends UTXOs to an ASP to issue vTXOs for Bob, the vTXO needs to be instantaneous, but the ASP’s on-chain transaction may take a long time to confirm. What happens if the on-chain transaction fails (with funds returning to the ASP)? In this case, could the ASP act maliciously by issuing the vTXO to Bob without backing it up, leaving Bob with unredeemable vTXOs when he tries to cash them out later? Possible Solution: Could the ARK protocol ensure that the ASP only uses Alice's UTXOs after the on-chain transaction for Bob is successfully broadcast and confirmed? Additionally, can Bob's vTXOs indicate whether they are backed by UTXOs or not, notify him of any failure, and maintain a "Not Backed" status until the ASP backs it up with a new UTXO transaction? This would ensure that the ASP can only use Alice's funds after successfully creating a UTXO for Bob, with the entire process being publicly verifiable while respecting user privacy. ...

I bought Bitcoins in 2009 or 2010 from a finance broker who posted his adv online with his name and contact info. he said that he could help people invest in Bitcoin with just just $2 to start, I contacted him and he sent me a link or site (I can't remember it anymore) to register an account, after I had done the account register and sent him money ( just $2) in 2009 or 2010 ?, however, I completely forgot about it over years until today. I completely forgot my log in details ( user name, password ), the email address which I used to register has been inactive and no long to get recovery anymore due to the platform stopped its services and no long exist anymore 10 years ago, and the platform have deleted data permanently, I also have lost the broker's contact info as well as I have changed my phone number years ago, then I tried to check the bank transaction but it isn't available because the transaction has been done over 7 years passed for recording period time. Now I hav...

When I check the time or mediantime fields recorded in bitcoin blocks, the delta between consecutive blocks is rarely the commonly known 10 min interval. For instance, Block Median Time Delta ------ ----------- ----- 299996 1399700280 299997 1399700940 660 299998 1399700975 35 299999 1399701277 302 300000 1399701278 1 I wonder if the "10 min" interval is recorded in the blocks; why the median time does not match the "10 min" expected interval? from Recent Questions - Bitcoin Stack Exchange https://ift.tt/zpAv3Xl via IFTTT

It is commonly said that Bitcoin has 128 bits of security because there is an algorithm that can find the private key of a given public key in an average of 2^128 steps. However, this assumes that the attacker knows the public key associated with the funds, so this attack is only possible with P2PK outputs or with addresses that have already been spent from. In the case of an unspent P2PKH or P2WPKH, the attacker only knows the 160-bit address. Therefore, they must first brute force to find the public key associated with the given address. For each attempt, they have a 1 in 2^160 chance of succeeding, meaning the security here is effectively 160 bits. Once the attacker finds the public key, they can then apply the algorithm to find the private key. So doesn't this imply 160 bits of security? Even if the attacker immediately found the private key corresponding to a public key, they would still need to perform a 160-bit brute-force attack first. from Recent Questions - Bitcoin ...