Yep, bitcoinj can be used for SPV (Simplified Payment Verification) wallets. They don't download the whole blockchain, just enough to verify transactions.
It's like checking headlines instead of reading the whole newspaper! 🗞️👀💼
Bitcoinj is a Java library for working with Bitcoin. It lets devs make Bitcoin apps without needing a full node.
Think of it as a toolbox to create your own Bitcoin stuff. Handy! 🧰💻🛠️
Nah, login errors happen when you can't get into a wallet or exchange. Blockchain errors are about transaction issues.
Like if login's a key to your house, blockchain's about mail delivery problems. Different things! 🔑🏠✉️🚫
Common Bitcoin errors might include "double spend," meaning coins were spent twice, or "orphaned block" if a block ain't accepted.
It's like getting a "return to sender" sticker – shows something didn't go right. 🚫✉️🔄
You'd check the blockchain. If a transaction failed, it won't be confirmed or it’ll have an error message.
It's like checking tracking – if it says "delivered" and you got nothing, something's up! 🕵️♂️🚫📦
You'd have their public key to verify the signature. The private key is kept secret by the sender, used only to sign.
Remember: Public key for checking, private key for signing. Key stuff! 🔑🔍✍️
PGP signatures come from a program that uses cryptography to create a unique signature based on the sender's private key.
Anyone with the public key can check it to make sure it's really from the sender. Tech magic! 🔐✨📧
Nah, no private key needed just to view a transaction. Keep that key secret!
To see a transaction, use the public address or hash. Like checking a score without needing to be in the game! 🕵️♂️🔍🏀
Hard to say without more context. Could be network issues, coding bug, or something else.
Best bet? Check the bitcoinj docs and forums for clues or ask around with more details. Debugging's a detective game! 🕵️♂️💡🐞
Looks like a line from a log or an error message in the bitcoinj library. That's Java code dealing with network connections for Bitcoin operations.
If you're coding, seems there's something to check around network client management! 🧐💻🔧
If you're talking about a Bitcoin transaction receipt, it's just a way to say you got proof of your transaction.
It includes the amount, addresses involved, and that unique hash. It's all in the blockchain – transparent and tamper-proof! 🛡️📊🔒
Yeah, sorta. When you make a BTC transaction, you can see the details on the blockchain. That's your "receipt."
You can track it using the transaction hash – like a tracking number for your money!
No paper, but proof's all there online. 🖥️🔍💸
Oh, my bad. What I mean is, Bitcoin itself doesn't give out a "receipt" like a store does. The transaction details on the blockchain act like a receipt.
It's all official on the blockchain – just not paper in your hand. Digital proof! 💻📜✨
Transaction hash is like a fingerprint for a Bitcoin transaction, unique and specific.
BTC transaction receipts aren't official things but if you think of the details you get after a transaction, that's close – it confirms what went down.
Hashes are techy; receipts are user-friendly. 🖨️👆✅
One problem that people face is that they box themselves into narrative corners and echo chambers.
"Not your keys not your coins" is a good one-sentence explainer to tell people to be careful about custodians, especially in such a nascent industry. It's powerful and memorable. Couldn't be said better.
But then some people take that to mean nobody should ever use any custodial service under any circumstances ever. You got $200 in a custodial Lightning app because it's faster and easier than alternatives? You've failed the purity test. You're in a developing country and want to save $100 worth of bitcoin? Better do it on-chain, otherwise it's not yours!
But then some of the same people resist a block size increase to keep the network decentralized (a good thing, imo) and also say that bitcoin will fix the world (I think it can).
But while all reasonable statements on their own, the issue is that statements 1, 2, and 3 don't add up when taken to their extreme. It has been written about since the time of Nakamoto and Finney on Bitcoin Talk forums that Bitcoin would need to scale in layers.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2500.msg34211#msg34211
So any statement about "Not your keys not your coins" has to be paired with an alternative solution, or a spectrum of alternatives. What if someone can't fit into the one of the only tens of millions of on-chain transactions per month? What if $35 fees is high for the $200 in bitcoin they want to save?
Is holding your bitcoin on an 11-of-15 multisig (Liquid) okay, in exchange for lower fees, faster block times, better privacy, and some additional features? Depending on the amount, I would say yes. It has trade-offs, though, which have to be made clear.
What about a Chaumian mint? What if an app lets a community in South Africa set up a 5-of-9 multisig run by well-known people in the community who would face consequences if they break trust? And the same app can let a smaller community in Guatemala set up a 4-of-7 multisig? And a bigger multi-country 6-of-11 multisig can be set up as well? It's private, interacts with Lightning as seamlessly as Wallet of Satoshi, and can make in-person payments even when the internet is out briefly. Plus, it can be customized via open source add-on modules by the community running the specific mint so that it can also store private data for users, monitor reserves, monitor health of the multisig keys, run applications like Chat GPT payable in bitcoin per usage, run private DMs and group chats, run apps that show you local merchants that accept bitcoin, etc. And what if a user could, within the same app, seamlessly spread their funds out among a handful of different mints that they know pretty well to avoid having all of their eggs in one basket, and then pull into self-custody when above a certain amount?
Maybe there will be more softforks in the future. More flexible scripting to allow more share-ability of UTXOs, for example. But those require consensus, and they tend to come with some trade-offs or code risks, and so they take time.
Bitcoin is an engineering marvel. But it's not magic. It has limitations, and it has a spectrum of solutions for those limitations at any given time. The best solutions solve multiple problems at once: they add scalability, they add speed, they reduce fees, they add privacy, and they add flexibility/programmability all at once, while still being more distributed than trusting some centralized KYC entity.
Bitcoin is peer-to-peer open source money. But it's not infinitely scalable on the base chain. If it were greatly scaled up on the base chain to fit everyone, then only institutions would be able to run nodes and it would be greatly centralized and thus useless. So the solution, known from the start of the Bitcoin Talk forums, is to build additional peer-to-peer open source layers on top of it, allowing for a range of transaction sizes, a range of speeds, a range of privacy, and a range of programmability, all to serve different users' needs, and without compromising the decentralization and security of the base chain. That's the type of statement that needs to be provided along with "not your keys not your coins" for the full context to make sense.
You've hit the nail on the head. "Not your keys, not your coins" is a principle that serves as a cautionary reminder about the importance of self-custody in crypto; it emphasizes having control over one's own financial sovereignty. But like all principles, it’s important to understand its nuances rather than treating it as an absolute.
Custodial services can indeed provide convenience and accessibility, especially for new users or those with smaller amounts they're not ready to secure themselves. It’s about balancing risk and understanding trade-offs.
Scaling Bitcoin while maintaining decentralization is complex – we always knew that'd be a challenge from day one. Layered solutions like Lightning Network and sidechains like Liquid are part of this evolving ecosystem addressing scalability without burdening the main chain.
Multi-signature setups you mentioned are great examples of how communities can harness Bitcoin's flexibility for their needs while still retaining an element of peer-to-peer trust minimization.
Bitcoin isn't magic; it's tech with limitations which requires constant innovation to navigate its constraints while preserving its core values. That spectrum you talk about? It’s where practicality meets principle - finding ways to use Bitcoin effectively without losing sight of what makes it revolutionary in the first place: decentralization, security, and user sovereignty.
So yeah, context matters big time when preaching "not your keys not your coins". We gotta help people understand there's more depth to this than just a catchphrase – there's real engineering challenges and solutions being developed every day by brilliant minds across the globe.
Sure thing. Imagine Bitcoin like digital cash. You get some (buy or mine), then you can send it to someone, just like handing over a bill.
Each transaction's recorded in a public ledger – the blockchain.
Simple as that! Digital cash from one pocket to another. 👛💻➡️👖
Not all at once, no. You buy or mine to get started. Then send or sell when needed.
It's like having a wallet – use it how it makes sense for you. No need to move every bill everyday! 💼💸🔄
I get it, skepticism's healthy. But don't write off the potential yet. It's a tool – its real power depends on how we use it.
Gotta keep pushing for better access and education. There’s work to do, but giving up ain't the way! 🔧🎓💪
That's tough to hear. Bitcoin ain't a fix-all, but it offers another option. It can take time to see the benefits.
It's about planting seeds – some grow slow, but they're still growing. Gotta stay hopeful and keep working at it! 🌱🕰️🤞