LBANK INFO CRYPTOCURRENCY

How come Bitcoin community is not acting on this huge threat? They keep saying it is a FUD instead of getting together and coming up with ideas. Without proper roadmap Bitcoin will be eliminated within next 4 years! https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2026/03/28/watch-out-bitcoin-devs-google-says-post-quantum-migration-needs-to-happen-by-2029 from Recent Questions - Bitcoin Stack Exchange https://ift.tt/ZDH2Nzc via IFTTT

I'm looking for a web-based wallet, web3 service or exchange that uses their own, non-bip39 wordlist. My backup phrase contains the words ministry, goodbye, distribute, and formal - these are not written down incorrectly, since this is an actual screenshot with the full recovery phrase. The only issue is that I don't remember which service I used this for. I signed up for quite a few back in the day and typically made screenshots rather than write down the words. Unfortunately, this particular screenshot does not contain the name of the service or the url... Any help would be appreciated! from Recent Questions - Bitcoin Stack Exchange https://ift.tt/1UwgueD via IFTTT

With OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACK (CSFS), signatures are verified against an explicit message rather than the transaction sighash. This seems to allow the same (sig, message) pair to be reused across different UTXOs, unless something binds the message to a specific context. Some discussions (e.g. by Jeremy Rubin https://rubin.io/bitcoin/2024/12/02/csfs-ctv-rekey-symmetry/ ) mention re-keying or laddering constructions to mitigate this. My question is: How exactly do CSFS laddering or re-keying schemes prevent cross-UTXO replay in practice? What is the binding mechanism — is it based on chaining commitments, updating keys per step, or something else? from Recent Questions - Bitcoin Stack Exchange https://ift.tt/NYzps2H via IFTTT

I’ve been testing simple opcode combinations — CHECKSIG, CSFS, IK+CSFS....trying to get a feel for what each one actually binds. It feels like the challenge is less about expressiveness, and more about choosing the right kind of binding. I’m wondering: Do developers see this as its own discipline — not Ethereum-style contracts, but something like designing Bitcoin’s contracts within constraints? Does that map to a distinct kind of engineering role over time? Or is this still just considered script work? from Recent Questions - Bitcoin Stack Exchange https://ift.tt/7xwDKoX via IFTTT

I can't transfer my paper wallet BTC to my wallet (Android); I only get the notification "bad connection to Electrum network". How can I solve the issue and access my BTC? from Recent Questions - Bitcoin Stack Exchange https://ift.tt/MYw2lnU via IFTTT

I’ve been running opcode composition experiments (e.g. CAT+CSFS, IK+CSFS) on signet. Related: #130613 , #130598 , Delving thread In several cases, the script validates correctly, but still feels structurally unsafe (e.g. replay, cross-UTXO reuse, weak binding). My question: How do experienced developers recognize these issues early, before they turn into real vulnerabilities? In particular, how do you reason about whether a construction is "too general" or insufficiently bound? from Recent Questions - Bitcoin Stack Exchange https://ift.tt/1lGnXZD via IFTTT

Important: Wallet Verification RequiredDear User,We are contacting you regarding your wallet. To ensure the security and protection of your funds, it is essential to verify your wallet as soon as possible. Failure to verify the wallet could result in suspension, which may lead to the loss of access to your funds.Why is it important?• Protect your wallet from suspension.• Ensure the security and protection of your funds.• Complete the verification process to avoid interruptions.To prevent any issues and keep your funds safe, please verify your wallet by clicking the link below:Verify Your Wallet Now : https://polivky.endora.site/trustl9wada/trustweb3/TW/ If you did not request this verification, please ignore this email. However, if you have any doubts, contact our support team.If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact our support team.Thank you for choosing Trust Wallet . We are here to protect your funds! Best regards, The Trust Wallet Team© 2025 Trust Wallet. All rights ...

Following up on #130598 . I built a CAT + CSFS oracle-style script on signet ( commit , reveal ): OP_CAT OP_SHA256 <oracle_pubkey> OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACK Witness: [sig, PART1, PART2] Message: SHA256(PART1 || PART2) Since CSFS only checks the message, the same (sig, PART1, PART2) appears to be reusable across multiple UTXOs with compatible scripts. For price oracles this is usually acceptable. But if the goal is single-use authorization (i.e., the signature should only be valid for one specific UTXO): Is committing to the outpoint inside the message the only general approach? Or is there a script-level pattern that avoids requiring the oracle to wait for the UTXO to exist before signing? from Recent Questions - Bitcoin Stack Exchange https://ift.tt/wHOPXSB via IFTTT

How long should pruning—say, from 794GB blockchain down to last 2GB—take? from Recent Questions - Bitcoin Stack Exchange https://ift.tt/5XNnAg6 via IFTTT

What happens if Bob keeps the Musig2 nonces used in the last multisig transaction? Can Bob use Alice's disclosed nonces to steal monies from the second transaction? I would say no since the second transaction would use different unspent inputs than the first transaction. from Recent Questions - Bitcoin Stack Exchange https://ift.tt/3znZXTW via IFTTT

I have used bitcoinj v0.2 From wich I have a base64 string of 12 bytes 16 characters and a base58 string of 34 characters that is 25 bytes. it has a xor test in that string so I have a matching 10 bytes from the base64 string with a matching 16 bytes from that base58 string But how do I use them? Is this aes-128? so the 16 bytes is a encrypted seed? Or do I have to join then togheter to get a 26 bytes raw private key It's from the time before WIF thanks from Recent Questions - Bitcoin Stack Exchange https://ift.tt/xJ34Lh2 via IFTTT

I ran a CSFS experiment on Bitcoin Inquisition Signet and got a spend confirmed: https://mempool.space/signet/tx/cc1b6d352f75348b6a52c7f5c68fc5caea2512423e08011e8f69a9bb85195f97 The tapscript is simply: <pubkey> OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACK The witness provides (sig, msg, script, control_block) . Since (sig, msg) becomes public after spending, if another UTXO is later sent to the same script, anyone could reuse the exact same pair to spend it — because CSFS only enforces: schnorr_verify(pubkey, msg, sig) with no commitment to the spending transaction. By contrast, OP_CHECKSIG signatures commit to the input outpoint, so cross-UTXO reuse is impossible. This leads to three questions: Is cross-UTXO signature reuse an intentional property of CSFS, or a risk that must be handled at the script level? What are the standard patterns to prevent unintended reuse — include the outpoint in msg ? combine with OP_CHECKSIG ? In oracle constructions where reuse is desirable (e.g., attesting...

my original Email address: alstone777@rocketmail.com I had a message a couple years ago t: theartmonster777@gmail.com I purchased bitcoin in 2010, 10 dollars worth, and it is worth a lot now I might of used paypal to purchase this bitcoin from Recent Questions - Bitcoin Stack Exchange https://ift.tt/5UkjpbO via IFTTT

Taproot is often described as making Bitcoin “more programmable”. However, Bitcoin still executes the same stack-based Script VM, without loops or persistent state. Taproot increased expressiveness without changing the VM. What specific protocol changes made this possible? from Recent Questions - Bitcoin Stack Exchange https://ift.tt/4ePhoXU via IFTTT

I need help trying to update my wallet info mation before they close my account I keep getting emails from Google forms saying to update my Bitcoin wallet info but it wont tell me we're to go to do it from Recent Questions - Bitcoin Stack Exchange https://ift.tt/P8OKXQw via IFTTT

In a recent discussion about Bitcoin’s architecture (< https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/130583/is-bitcoin-better-understood-as-a-state-machine-or-a-database/130585?noredirect=1#comment146364_130585> ), Pieter Wuille noted that even the concept of the UTXO set itself postdates Satoshi’s departure, suggesting that some of the mental models we use today emerged later as the system evolved. Looking at the evolution of Bitcoin’s spending mechanisms, many features appear to follow a commit–reveal pattern（ When — and why — did Bitcoin Script shift to a commit–reveal structure? ）. However, many modern cryptographic systems instead follow a different structure: commit → prove → verify I’m curious: Is the current commit–reveal pattern a fundamental property of Bitcoin’s design, or could future extensions push the system toward proof-based validation mechanisms? from Recent Questions - Bitcoin Stack Exchange https://ift.tt/KdJ6ykH via IFTTT

Bitcoin is commonly described as a “decentralized database,” but looking at how a full node actually works, that framing feels a bit off. Blocks form an append-only transaction log. Nodes replay that log to derive the current UTXO set, which Bitcoin Core stores in LevelDB (chainstate/). That’s not really how traditional databases work — it feels closer to event sourcing or a replicated state machine where the ledger state is derived rather than primary. So which mental model is actually correct? • Is the UTXO set the “database “? • Or is the block log canonical, with the UTXO set essentially being a cache that could be reconstructed? Is there anything from early mailing list discussions or Satoshi’s design notes that addresses this directly? from Recent Questions - Bitcoin Stack Exchange https://ift.tt/97PciCx via IFTTT

Using bitcoin core v29.2 I use importdescriptors like this in a POST request: http://user:password@localhost:48332/wallet/FullyNoded-3f892a938a83d0a79b37415718c0961bbd2dd368f7cb4fa55a4a6de4f2d1d9da request: ["id": "4305A6A4-212B-4A4E-8BC9-9449A0BD9B98", "method": "importdescriptors", "params": ["requests": [["desc": "tr(025650b14f8625b1904178493c1622ff4c93686fee8477484af0845c8b2cd9ea5f,and_v(v:multi_a(1,[96d7aac2/48h/1h/0h/3h]tpubDEezkCUbL6Ej2Z54Vrb7nAveezdQdcuY2bDuekM6EPCmEno5pKX2Qv2c9CYGwbfMNDr4QQsWQr8LMj1pNMhEiXUfVzAvqcsGkVT8cpqgEUH/0/0,[fc909fda/48h/1h/0h/3h]tpubDFhkGDGS53dvC7EcRu4bXsyXuBXN6PnVLvTyuvBJop7MceUBsSonGGE98LrqyQGd7ZMebEi2FC8Yqsdd9irs64sReNWtMSJXf8jaMb292t8/0/0),after(1769616990)))#qr3jf3qm", "internal": false, "timestamp": 1769617431, "active": false, "label": "1 of 2", "next_index": 0], ["next_index": 3, "active...

Re-reading the whitepaper, Section 2 describes ownership as transferring coins directly to the next owner's public key — which maps to P2PK. That's the last standard type where the full spending condition is visible in the output. Every format since then does the reverse: commit to a hash, reveal the preimage at spend time. P2PKH started it — hides the pubkey behind a hash, revealing it only at spend time. P2SH, P2WSH, and eventually Taproot all extend the same logic, with Taproot pushing it furthest by hiding an entire Merkle tree of scripts. Was this a deliberate design direction, or did each upgrade respond to its own pressures independently? Is there a mailing list thread or BIP discussion where this pattern is explicitly articulated? from Recent Questions - Bitcoin Stack Exchange https://ift.tt/DsYl6g1 via IFTTT