I will be forever grateful to you, you changed my entire life and I will continue to preach on your behalf for the whole world to hear you saved me from huge financial debt with just a small investment, thank you Veronica Hoy.
Wow. I'm a bit perplexed seeing her been mentioned here also Didn’t know she has been good to so many people too this is wonderful, I'm in my fifth trade with her and it has been super.
She is my family's personal Broker and also a personal Broker to many families in the United states, she is a licensed broker and a FINRA AGENT in the United States.
A wonderful look at Bitcoin not difficult to follow along and I encourage anyone who is interested in Cryptocurrency to view this lecture and click the link and sign up for the deal.
Is no one else noticing that the full view slides are sometimes mismatching with the video view with the presenters and slides ? like at 3:07 and the use of Carol / Charlie, or at 8:42 and the use of input references between both views. There is a few others like this and i was scratching my head for a while before i realized the slides where wrong in few cases.
In 3:07 u r right, but in 8:42 I replayed the video several times he mentioned quickly 2 different example transactions .. the one assigning coins to David, and the one to Bob r different & both could be correct exclusively: -If both Carol & Bob decided to give the 8 coins to David both references would be to transaction 2, and both their signatures r needed. -While if Bob is just collecting his coins only his signature is needed, and he need to refer to transactions 1&2 ..1[2], 2[2] . -ps. I just started studying them now, sorry if it is a too much late reply!
No, I think it is correct to be signed by Carol, he means Carol gave Bob additional coins to those he earned in transaction 1, not that he gave her 2 of his -Check the last transaction in the example I'll find Bob has both values 17+2 . -ps. I just started studying them now, sorry if it is a too much late reply!
I think u r right it should be signed by Carol (as the slides, or Charlie as he speaks and other comments say it is written in the book) -ps. I just started studying them now, sorry if it is a too much late reply!
Hah, this confused me for a minute! Checked the book and Bob gets 9.0 in the latest draft, but I guess it was too much work to go back and fix the video as well :)
@@henryrodrick6468 So it is not that they only check for less than or equal, not necessarily equal? -I thought the example is deliberate by the book authors to stress on this fact but maybe he forgot to state it in the lecture?
The first value in each transaction is the VERSION of the protocol. Why not increment it to turn any hard fork into a soft fork? Outdated nodes will not process it and in fact, the longest chain will become this of the more updated nodes.
Great video, thanks. I spotted an error on one of the slides (pretty sure I did). Go to "A transaction-based ledger (Bitcoin)" [08:00] On that slide, transaction 3 points to 2[0], which is 17.0 BTC. However, tx 3 is 15.0 BTC. 17.0 is not equal to 15.0 :-(
corsomagenta the output of a transaction should be less than the input. This condition is still satisfied so it isn't wrong. In the previous lecture, it was mentioned that the difference is the Transaction Fee which goes to the person who makes validates the transactions and appends the new block to the ledger. 2 BTC is a huge transaction fee, but technically , I guess there isn't any mistake
How can a transcation with a script containing the OP_RETURN be accepted? You say that when it is reached it throws an error, wouldn't that mean the transaction is invalid (so wouldn't be accepted into the blockchain)?
Looks like the creators of etherium didn't understand why satoshi didn't include loops on purpose... Yet another example of the brilliance of the design!
1:15:32 And that's the story of the little node who tried and tried hashes until he came up with his own new valid block to be then rejected by the network :'(
Why's everyone pointing out the same errors over and over again? They are blatantly evident and you should just see that other people had them pointed out already and refrain yourself from looking a tantalizingly annoying snob you know...
In min [55+] What if the 2 transactions are valid? I mean what if Alice made 2 separate payments; ie. made the 2nd before assuring the validity of the 1st, or even worse wanted to cancel/deny the 1st payment getting advantage of the fact that the network hasn't verify it yet???
Do you mean two pending transactions? It's called a double-spend and was discussed in the previous lecture. There are two things to keep in mind: 1. Each node will *verify* each transaction before putting it into pending transactions list. 2. Each node will gossip about transactions that it found as valid and has not gossiped about before. So, let's say Alice issues two transactions, X and Z. Both of these transactions are trying to spend a coin from the same block output. Say, a node receives transaction X first, it validates the transaction, puts it onto pending transactions list. If it later hears about transaction Z which is trying to spend the same coin, it will not validate and the node will not gossip about Z. What you end up in is a sort of division within the network where some nodes have X as pending transaction and other nodes have Z. Whichever node gets to mine and puts either of the transactions in a block first, basically decide the fate of which transaction has the highest likelihood of ending up on the blockchain. Now, remember that as a rule of thumb, a transaction is considered as "put on blockchain" after 6 blocks being put after the block holding the transaction in question.
@@OFfic3R1K Well after 4 months I look at my Q differently and knew a lot about Bitcoin details, however the point u mentioned (honestly I'm not sure that was what I had in mind 4 months ago, but probably yes) Is this fair? I mean if A sends its UTXO val to both B & C simultaneously, A should be questioned for fraud not just letting luck decides who will be the victim B or C? Even more if some nodes r like friends or enemies to either B or C, the decision could be biased not purely random???? . I think this probably happened a lot in illegal activities that used Blockchain for anonymity, ie A&B&C r all criminals and two of them (maybe one is a miner) r trying to steal the 3rd share of the crime, and none can go to the authorities to complain
@@shymaaarafat1342 you're right in both points. You should definitely question A's motives. And the modes can be biased but there would have to be many such nodes to have any meaningful impact on the outcome of the double-spend.
I think if both r honest they won't publish both the 100 coins transactions, only the actual timing transaction. If one of them is not honest and use the one for his benefit the other could do the same. That's my understanding I'm not sure, it is like each of them is holding a cheque guarantee against the other .. a situation like if u tell I'll tell.
Pretty surprised by the number of errors in this series. I thought this was based on courses taught at Princeton. I suppose if you are going to an Ivy League school you are there for the social connections to alumni and not an education.
I will be forever grateful to you, you changed my entire life and I will continue to preach on your behalf for the whole world to hear you saved me from huge financial debt with just a small investment, thank you Veronica Hoy.
Wow. I'm a bit perplexed seeing her been mentioned here also Didn’t know she has been good to so many people too this is wonderful, I'm in my fifth trade with her and it has been super.
She is my family's personal Broker and also a personal Broker to many families in the United states, she is a licensed broker and a FINRA AGENT in the United States.
You trade with Veronica Hoy too? Wow that woman has been a blessing to me and my family.
I'm new at this, please how can I reach her?
I was skeptical at first till I decided to try. Its huge returns is awesome. I can't say much
Thanks for making this. I did notice quite a few errors. Hopefully this episode can be remade with correct information one day soon.
Frank Flores I think po.st/wTn1D7 is better than this.
A wonderful look at Bitcoin not difficult to follow along and I encourage anyone who is interested in Cryptocurrency to view this lecture and click the link and sign up for the deal.
Wonderful lecture! Probably the best (free) one I have seen yet.
Great video - but one typo I noticed on the "Hard-coded limits in Bitcoin" slide. It says 23M total bitcoins maximum. It's actually 21M.
it's actually less than that, technically...
Everything I ever wanted to know about this topic. Great!
Excellent. GREAT series. So well presented. Much appreciated. Thank you.
Is no one else noticing that the full view slides are sometimes mismatching with the video view with the presenters and slides ? like at 3:07 and the use of Carol / Charlie, or at 8:42 and the use of input references between both views. There is a few others like this and i was scratching my head for a while before i realized the slides where wrong in few cases.
He's reading the book as it is. I have my exam tomorrow and i was reading the book. He isn't even changing words.
In 3:07 u r right, but in 8:42 I replayed the video several times he mentioned quickly 2 different example transactions .. the one assigning coins to David, and the one to Bob r different & both could be correct exclusively:
-If both Carol & Bob decided to give the 8 coins to David both references would be to transaction 2, and both their signatures r needed.
-While if Bob is just collecting his coins only his signature is needed, and he need to refer to transactions 1&2 ..1[2], 2[2]
.
-ps.
I just started studying them now, sorry if it is a too much late reply!
Thanks ! this also explains the Lightning Network principles even thought this was recorded way back
Amazing, detailed breakdown. Very useful! Thanks!
Correction needed on 8:39 on 2nd block . It should be signed by Alice and not Carol. Also the last block should have 1[0] and 2[0]
agreed! thanks !
No, I think it is correct to be signed by Carol, he means Carol gave Bob additional coins to those he earned in transaction 1, not that he gave her 2 of his
-Check the last transaction in the example I'll find Bob has both values 17+2
.
-ps.
I just started studying them now, sorry if it is a too much late reply!
3:19 why is the 4th transaction signed by bob?
I think u r right it should be signed by Carol (as the slides, or Charlie as he speaks and other comments say it is written in the book)
-ps.
I just started studying them now, sorry if it is a too much late reply!
At 8:03 Bob has 17 coins after transaction 2 but transaction 3 only accounts for 15 of those coins
Hah, this confused me for a minute! Checked the book and Bob gets 9.0 in the latest draft, but I guess it was too much work to go back and fix the video as well :)
i guess 8+7=17 in the crypto world
I thought I was missing something!
@@henryrodrick6468
So it is not that they only check for less than or equal, not necessarily equal?
-I thought the example is deliberate by the book authors to stress on this fact but maybe he forgot to state it in the lecture?
The first value in each transaction is the VERSION of the protocol. Why not increment it to turn any hard fork into a soft fork? Outdated nodes will not process it and in fact, the longest chain will become this of the more updated nodes.
Great video, thanks.
I spotted an error on one of the slides (pretty sure I did).
Go to "A transaction-based ledger (Bitcoin)" [08:00] On that slide, transaction 3 points to 2[0], which is 17.0 BTC. However, tx 3 is 15.0 BTC. 17.0 is not equal to 15.0 :-(
corsomagenta the output of a transaction should be less than the input. This condition is still satisfied so it isn't wrong. In the previous lecture, it was mentioned that the difference is the Transaction Fee which goes to the person who makes validates the transactions and appends the new block to the ledger. 2 BTC is a huge transaction fee, but technically , I guess there isn't any mistake
technically correct, but i dont think they intended to make make a fee, because in transaction 2 and 4 there are also no Tx fees.
Great lecture..
fantastic job!
How was Judy selected to mediator? Is she provided by 3rd part?
How can a transcation with a script containing the OP_RETURN be accepted? You say that when it is reached it throws an error, wouldn't that mean the transaction is invalid (so wouldn't be accepted into the blockchain)?
multisig is really heavily in use nowadays?
Is there an updated video on this that can use examples like Bcash?
Looks like the creators of etherium didn't understand why satoshi didn't include loops on purpose... Yet another example of the brilliance of the design!
stachowi eth implemented loops on purpose to make it possible to run loops, because ethereum isn’t supposed to be only a currency.
1:15:32 And that's the story of the little node who tried and tried hashes until he came up with his own new valid block to be then rejected by the network :'(
Why's everyone pointing out the same errors over and over again? They are blatantly evident and you should just see that other people had them pointed out already and refrain yourself from looking a tantalizingly annoying snob you know...
lecture is great but tch sound after every line is very irritating. :|
seriously taking too long to complete this video because of that sound. :/
Thank you for this very interesting lecture, but please, drink some water next time, that tic you have is quite distracting.
In min [55+]
What if the 2 transactions are valid?
I mean what if Alice made 2 separate payments; ie. made the 2nd before assuring the validity of the 1st, or even worse wanted to cancel/deny the 1st payment getting advantage of the fact that the network hasn't verify it yet???
Do you mean two pending transactions? It's called a double-spend and was discussed in the previous lecture.
There are two things to keep in mind:
1. Each node will *verify* each transaction before putting it into pending transactions list.
2. Each node will gossip about transactions that it found as valid and has not gossiped about before.
So, let's say Alice issues two transactions, X and Z. Both of these transactions are trying to spend a coin from the same block output. Say, a node receives transaction X first, it validates the transaction, puts it onto pending transactions list. If it later hears about transaction Z which is trying to spend the same coin, it will not validate and the node will not gossip about Z.
What you end up in is a sort of division within the network where some nodes have X as pending transaction and other nodes have Z. Whichever node gets to mine and puts either of the transactions in a block first, basically decide the fate of which transaction has the highest likelihood of ending up on the blockchain. Now, remember that as a rule of thumb, a transaction is considered as "put on blockchain" after 6 blocks being put after the block holding the transaction in question.
@@OFfic3R1K
Well after 4 months I look at my Q differently and knew a lot about Bitcoin details, however the point u mentioned (honestly I'm not sure that was what I had in mind 4 months ago, but probably yes)
Is this fair?
I mean if A sends its UTXO val to both B & C simultaneously, A should be questioned for fraud not just letting luck decides who will be the victim B or C?
Even more if some nodes r like friends or enemies to either B or C, the decision could be biased not purely random????
.
I think this probably happened a lot in illegal activities that used Blockchain for anonymity, ie A&B&C r all criminals and two of them (maybe one is a miner) r trying to steal the 3rd share of the crime, and none can go to the authorities to complain
@@shymaaarafat1342 you're right in both points. You should definitely question A's motives. And the modes can be biased but there would have to be many such nodes to have any meaningful impact on the outcome of the double-spend.
Best viewed at 1.5x
At 39:20, what if the Bob is honest and signs the last payment? Won't Alice get back her 100 BTC after time T?
I think if both r honest they won't publish both the 100 coins transactions, only the actual timing transaction. If one of them is not honest and use the one for his benefit the other could do the same.
That's my understanding I'm not sure, it is like each of them is holding a cheque guarantee against the other .. a situation like if u tell I'll tell.
,,Whst is mets mssk,?
Awesome guide, the worst possible music tho, why adding it...
please stop the tching noise at the end of each sentence, i can't focus because i am actually spending my concentrating hoping you dont do that.
wow... really gonna bully a dude giving you a free lecture over a tick? What are you contributing, exactly?
As for 2021, the 20 GiB blockchain storage increased to ~200GiB 😂
Pretty surprised by the number of errors in this series. I thought this was based on courses taught at Princeton. I suppose if you are going to an Ivy League school you are there for the social connections to alumni and not an education.
Great lecture but the vocal fry and upspeak that many American females use is even more cringeworthy on a man.
I can´t stand a guy doing sounds with his mouth for an hour. Had to stop. Swallow you saliva.
can he drink water or something? that lip lick everytime he does finish a sentence is cringe and unprofessional.
I never thought I could make money online but it's clear to me now, it's real!!, contact the financial freedom fighter on WhatsApp