LBANK INFO CRYPTOCURRENCY

The classic empty-redeemScript P2SH example address 3J98t1WpEZ73CNmQviecrnyiWrnqRhWNLy (HASH160 of an empty script) is anyone-can-spend, and funds sent to it get swept. Anecdotally these sweeps land in the same block the funding confirms, with the winner overpaying fees many-fold. Has anyone published an empirical measurement of (a) the reaction-time distribution (funding → sweep) and (b) the fee-overpayment / RBF fee-auction among competing sweepers for anyone-can-spend outputs (P2SH empty-script, bare OP_TRUE, Lightning anchors, etc.)? I can only find scattered forum mentions, no systematic study. Pointers to prior work appreciated before I write up my own measurements. from Recent Questions - Bitcoin Stack Exchange https://ift.tt/uv4JPfY via IFTTT

E-MOBI / EKONOMIK MOBIL, S.R.L. - Your Partner in Artificial Intelligence At E-MOBI / EKONOMIK MOBIL, S.R.L., through our specialized branch E-MOBI Robotics Developments, we are pioneers in integrating Artificial Intelligence to power the future of your business. We don't just provide solutions; we create synergies that transform your potential. Our expertise is built around the following fundamental pillars, ensuring a holistic and results-oriented approach: Revolutionary Innovations: We are at the forefront of the latest advances in AI, developing innovative solutions that redefine industry standards. From fundamental research to practical application, our goal is to offer you a decisive competitive advantage. Profound Transformations: AI is a catalyst for change. We help companies achieve significant transformations by rethinking their processes, strategies, and business models to fully embrace the digital age. Limitless Scalability: Our solutions are desig...

Background I am exploring ways to encourage mainstream, everyday adoption of Bitcoin among non-technical users. While Bitcoin is heavily viewed as digital gold or a store of value, the average person often finds the technical barriers and lack of daily practical utility intimidating. I recently read about a Blockonomics Product Update detailing how native text and message searching has been integrated into their blockchain explorer, making embedded Bitcoin messages easily searchable. This got me thinking about whether data-carrying capabilities could be leveraged to drive human-centric utility. The Question What are the technical and economic implications of leaning into data/message utilities (like searchable on-chain communication) to drive consumer adoption, rather than focusing purely on financial transactions? Specifically, I am interested in: Scalability & Fees: How does encouraging users to embed and search text messages affect UTXO set bloat and overa...

What is the endianness of the values returned by bitcoin-cli RPC commands getblockhash and getblockheader (verbose = false) ? Bitcoin Wiki's " Block hashing algorithm " page says the header is comprised of " little-endian values in hex notation ". It continues (§ " Endianess "): Note that the hash, which is a 256-bit number, has lots of leading zero bytes when stored or printed as a big-endian hexadecimal constant, but it has trailing zero bytes when stored or printed in little-endian. Is this correct? So does getblockheader (verbose = false) return little-endian hex: $ bitcoin-cli getblockheader 00000000000000001e8d6829a8a21adc5d38d0a473b144b6765798e61f98bd1d false 0100000081cd02ab7e569e8bcd9317e2fe99f2de44d49ab2b8851ba4a308000000000000e320b6c2fffc8d750423db8b1eb942ae710e951ed797f7affc8892b0f1fc122bc7f5d74df2b9441a42a14695 and getblockhash : $ bitcoin-cli getblockhash 125552 00000000000000001e8d6829a8a21adc5d38d0a473b144b676...

I built a Taproot address with a SHA256-hashlock leaf ( OP_SHA256 <h> OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_TRUE , preimage "helloworld" ). On mainnet I spent that leaf — the witness necessarily contains the preimage and the leaf script. Within a few minutes, a different transaction spent the same UTXO to an unrelated address, paying a far higher fee, and confirmed instead of mine: my spend: 44bb85269ffacd88903154e8e2af0d4963ba4022cc57e706b5819fd008e978d3 (replaced) the replacement: 9fc1923c513cdf5a620ef88f61dbc3997e697cad0381b6f6c28827e4332dc363 （ link ) My understanding is that spending a hashlock reveals the preimage in the public mempool before confirmation , and under default full-RBF anyone can broadcast a higher-fee conflicting spend of the same output. Is this the correct explanation? Is automated "sweeping" of revealed-preimage / anyone-can-spend outputs a known, active phenomenon on mainnet, and is there any way to spend such an output without expos...

I was testing Bitcoin Core 31.0 to see if I could make chains of unconfirmed transactions longer than 25. Release notes say: The mempool no longer enforces ancestor or descendant size/count limits. Instead, two new default policy limits are introduced governing connected components, or clusters, in the mempool, limiting clusters to 64 transactions and up to 101 kB in virtual size. Transactions are considered to be in the same cluster if they are connected to each other via any combination of parent/child relationships in the mempool. These limits can be overridden using command-line arguments; see the extended help (-help-debug) for more information. Does this only hold for transactions being relayed to my node, and not for transactions my wallet creates? Does the wallet still enforce the 25 txn limit during a transition period until the new mempool policy is more widespread? The following script on a newly started Bitocoin Core 31.0 regtest node fails on the last co...