Is a bitcoin address collision possible if generating 90 million addresses every 4 hours?

I am running a test to see if I can obtain a successful bitcoin address collision after generating billions of addresses. I am not entirely sure how I would check them yet. Basically I have an extra 10TB hard drive and am running supervanitygen on my 32-core, 128gb ram linux work computer. It seems to be generating about 90,000,000 (90 million) addresses (address + private key pair) every 4 hours.

Do you think it’s possible or likely to run into an address collision this way? Or perhaps if everyone in the world did the same thing? Or what if I waited 10-20 years, and then checked the addresses?

This is all just a test to see if the bitcoin system is secure enough for big investment decision.

Electrum 3.3.2 the transaction was rejected by network rules dust error…. Tried different nodes, Doesnt Work

I’m getting the an electrum 3.3.2 error with something to do with dust.

the transaction was rejected by network rules dust error

I’m using the cli to send out a transaction and its just using 1 input and 1 output only. And the fee is auto set. It was working fine yesterday. I read it’s something to do with the node. But what is wrong with it? I tried many other public nodes and it says the same error. What is happening? An attack?

What solutions are there for something like this? My application depends on having electrum working at all times.

result = server.runcmdline(configoptions)   File "/xxxx/Desktop/Electrum-3.3.2/packages/jsonrpclib/jsonrpc.py", line 650, in call     return self.send(self.name, args)    File "/xxxx/Desktop/Electrum-3.3.2/packages/jsonrpclib/jsonrpc.py", line 532, in request     checkforerrors(response)    File "/xxx/Desktop/Electrum-3.3.2/packages/jsonrpclib/jsonrpc.py", line 1220, in checkforerrors     raise ProtocolError((code, message))  jsonrpclib.jsonrpc.ProtocolError: (-32603, 'Server error: File "/home/xxx/Electrum-3.3.2/packages/aiorpcx/session.py", line 501, in sendrequest | aiorpcx.jsonrpc.RPCError: (1, \'the transaction was rejected by network rules.\n\ndust (code 64)\n01000000......70800\')\n') 

Adding a raw transaction to the wallet after broadcasting

I am creating a raw transaction and successfully broadcasting it. I am pulling the unspent outputs to use as inputs from listunspent command.

The problem is that it doesn’t seem like the listunspent command knows about the transaction.

Some of the outputs that I added to the raw transaction, signed, and then broadcast still show unspent even though running listunspent on the target address successfully shows that the transaction was successful and are a balance is unspent there.

Is this intended behavior or is there a way to “import” a raw transaction to the wallet? (or is it already being done and I am missing it?)

Is backward syncing viable for full nodes?

Currently, Every Bitcoin Core full node has to download the whole blockchain at least once. This situation is even worse if pruning is enabled – the user has to download the whole gigantic blockchain all over again if a rescan is required (typically after importing privkeys/addresses/wallet.dat).

I once heard that “backward syncing” might help. I also heard that “UTXO commitment” could eliminate the need for downloading old blocks. I wonder what exactly are them? Is there any relationship between them? Is there any technical hurdle that is very hard to overcome?

How does one calculate a margin position’s liquidation price for Bitfinex and other exchanges?

I’m learning how margin works and wanted to understand how does liquidation price work in a margin position when using an exchange like Bitfinex? Their requirements is 30% equity.

Let’s say I deposited $ 1000 in USD and purchased $ 2000 worth of Bitcoin at the price of $ 1000 each BTC.

I understand that my equity is $ 1000 which is what I deposited.

What is my liquidation price and how does one calculate it?

And what other factors do I need to know when if I wanted to hold onto this margin position for many months?

Could LN wallets be seamless?

Currently, the funds deposited in a payment channel cannot be sent on-chain without closing the channel. Similarly, the user must open a brand new channel in order to deposit some on-chain funds into LN.

Is it possible to make a LN wallet seamless, so that the user could be freed from dealing with hassles like channel opening/closing?

Coimarketcap api data different from coinmarketcap.com

I am using popular Coinmarketcap API request:

https://pro-api.coinmarketcap.com/v1/cryptocurrency/listings/latest?limit=100&convert=ETH 

In response percentChangeFor24h and some other parameters are always different from what is show on coinmarketcap.com. Do I miss something or data is just irrelevant? Could it be from timezone? I have not found any way to change timezone into requests itself.

how bitcoin reject invalid transaction?

i’m studying ‘Mastering Bitcoin’ and have a questions,

in this book, we can send coin to other wallet by createrawtransaction but there is no enough secure method.

we can find other’s wallet addresses at https://www.blockchain.com. and unused coin value too.

for example – https://www.blockchain.com/en/btc/address/34bN2MQcqA4JpbEVRU9KBsvhXgSEHQrqBz

718ae88f0eb13d2f2d3bc74cbf18721a82739b80f1bfc0658ed699263fca76fd(Fee: 0.00002057 BTC – 3.11 sat/WU – 8.33 sat/B – Size: 247 bytes) 2019-01-14 04:57:04 34bN2MQcqA4JpbEVRU9KBsvhXgSEHQrqBz (1.13215222 BTC – Output) 32T5urH6uN4jhKenhW4LWM66WouzSCERbA – (Spent) 0.03213165 BTC 3LnZGyRAeCA3LAMBU2RSQn6dAkHw8rWquw – (Unspent) 1.1 BTC

than we can make fake transaction such as

$ bitcoin-cli createrawtransaction ‘[{“txid” : “718ae88f0eb13d2f2d3bc74cbf18721a82739b80f1bfc0658ed699263fca76fd”,”vout”:0}]’ ‘ {“MY WALLET ADDRESS”: 1.0, “3LnZGyRAeCA3LAMBU2RSQn6dAkHw8rWquw“: fee}’

in conclusion, it doesn’t works but i want know why this code not working