LBANK INFO CRYPTOCURRENCY

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...

4d7d18183be26673221121fe21a989215f8a76600e5db0a1311aad64a0afcdaa — block 898457, tapscript 945,706 B , 497 witness items.（ link ) 8ecfefd438a229c7cea10f6973f49d8bbe3a620fd557f7f2cb3658ac59510249 — block 899747, tapscript 3,941,840 B , 859 witness items.( link ) ~9 days apart (2025-05); fee ≈ $785 and $11580; flagged Non-Standard. Opcode profile (push-aware): hundreds of thousands of OP_ADD / OP_PICK / OP_ROLL / OP_SUB , OP_TOALTSTACK / OP_FROMALTSTACK (alt-stack as memory), OP_IF / OP_ENDIF ~150k each, OP_HASH160 ladders; no signature opcode . Questions: (1) Are these BitVM2 mainnet disprove scripts? (2) What computation do they encode (and which step/gate)? (3) Is the deployment publicly documented (operator / repo)? from Recent Questions - Bitcoin Stack Exchange https://ift.tt/CBJyhU7 via IFTTT

I still have the email address and password to my Blockchain account but can't have access to my wallet due to my inability to provide the seed phrase linked to my wallet. from Recent Questions - Bitcoin Stack Exchange https://ift.tt/JBZG1Hy via IFTTT

I recently needed to do a BTC trade and ended up using CryptoSNearby. The trade went through smoothly, escrow worked as expected, and I didn't run into any issues during the process. Just sharing my experience since I see people asking about P2P options from time to time. Curious if anyone else here has tried it and how it went for them. from Recent Questions - Bitcoin Stack Exchange https://ift.tt/b16ltpT via IFTTT

I lost $1.7 million worth of Bitcoin to a fake investment platform that initially appeared legitimate. After seeing fake profits, I invested more, only to be blocked from withdrawing my funds. I felt completely hopeless until I contacted BitCrack Recovery Solutions (BRS). Their team quickly began tracing my stolen Bitcoin using advanced blockchain forensic tools and kept me informed throughout the process. Within a short time, they successfully recovered my funds. I’m incredibly grateful for their expertise and professionalism. from Recent Questions - Bitcoin Stack Exchange https://ift.tt/QmXfFR4 via IFTTT