LBANK INFO CRYPTOCURRENCY

I’m trying to understand how margin trading affects the crypto market. If a trader uses margin to open a large long or short position, does the executed trade directly affect the underlying crypto order book, similar to a regular spot trade? Or does margin trading operate through a separate order book, depending on the trading product? For example, how would this work on an exchange such as Nezobank ? Does the impact on the order book depend on whether the position is spot margin or a derivative? I’d appreciate a simple explanation with an example if possible. from Recent Questions - Bitcoin Stack Exchange https://ift.tt/oX1Fb5M via IFTTT

Bitcoin is an independent decentralized financial system. It does not need any exchanges or the clarity act. It needs us to hold our own keys when we buy it and never sell. Only buy with self, collab, or multi-sig custody. Only use as collateral and borrow any crypto. Why would anyone sell bitcoin? from Recent Questions - Bitcoin Stack Exchange https://ift.tt/2aM4Bi3 via IFTTT

I'm setting up a Bitcoin wallet where the signing keys remain offline, while an online machine only has a watch-only output descriptor. For example, the online wallet may contain an account xpub together with the master fingerprint, derivation path and address type, but it has no seed or private keys. I understand that someone who obtains the descriptor cannot directly sign transactions, but they may be able to derive the wallet's addresses and monitor its transaction history. I'm trying to understand the exact security boundary here: What information can an attacker learn from a watch-only descriptor alone? Does leaking the descriptor create any direct risk of losing funds, or is it only a privacy risk as long as no private key is exposed? If one non-hardened child private key were later compromised, could the account xpub contained in the descriptor then be used to recover the corresponding account private key? Does the hardened account boundary protect t...

OLA COMUNIDADE TENHO UMA IDEIA DE DESENVOLVIMENTO GOSTARIA DE SABER SE É INTERESSANTE OU JA EXISTE ALGO PARECIDO. UMA DISTRIBUIÇAO LINUX BASEADA EM STABECOINS ONDE TERA PROGRAMAS PARA MINERAÇAO EM REDE DE CRIPTOMOEDAS EM DIFERENTES REDES, CARTEIRAS, MONITORAMENTO DE MINERAÇAO, ESPAÇO PARA DESENVOLVERORES,INTEGRAÇAO COM SISTEMAS DE IA, DESENVOLVIMENTO PARA SMART CONTRACTS E MAIS ALGUMAS COISAS RELACIONADA A TECNOLOGIAS WE3. UM PROJETO DESSA MAGNITUDE SERIA INTERESSANTE PARA AS COMUNIDADES CRIPTOMOEDAS E BITCOIN? from Recent Questions - Bitcoin Stack Exchange https://ift.tt/fR8HtkJ via IFTTT

My Knots full node seems to have stopped receiving blocks after 961636, which seems to indicate it followed the BIP-110 * soft-fork: bitcoin-cli getchainstates returns: { "headers": 961636, "chainstates": [ { "blocks": 961636, "bestblockhash": "0000000000000000000216a2691f8b2b7b2275b0ce6131cf4e8c0fe5361fb9c0", "bits": "1702353d", "target": "00000000000000000002353d0000000000000000000000000000000000000000", "difficulty": 127479855693691.4, "verificationprogress": 0.9999767532445456, "coins_db_cache_bytes": 8388608, "coins_tip_cache_bytes": 17169383424, "validated": true } ] } (Why does verificationprogress ≠ 1, anyway?) " BIP110 Situation Monitor: Live " shows this: What about Bitcoin Knots made it follow the BIP-110 fork? Is there a way I can make ...

Would there be any drawback of using sum of amounts instead of SHA-256 of amounts in the TapRoot signature message? There is the sha_amounts (32): the SHA256 of the serialization of all input amounts. specified in the BIP-341: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0341.mediawiki#common-signature-message . SHA-256 seems more expensive than e.g. sum_amount (8): sum of all input amounts . from Recent Questions - Bitcoin Stack Exchange https://ift.tt/T21IoCn via IFTTT