Jackpot Miner Apk Download

The last previous Megabucks jackpot in Nevada was hit at Westgate Las Vegas in March 2015 for $10.7 million. The all-time high record Megabucks jackpot in Nevada was $39.7 million hit at Excalibur in 2003.

Noel Aguirre also works at Leeville. He was on night shift when he received a message that his father won the money. Newmont employees saw posts about the jackpot on Facebook and called the Leeville dispatch. The dispatcher told Noel Aguirre to call him.

DOWNLOAD 🔥 https://blltly.com/2y2S1l 🔥

But this is a common occurrence in Bitcoin-land. Just two days ago, someonesent a transaction for 0.001 BTC (about 5 cents), with a291 BTC (approximately $137,000) in fees.A lucky miner quietly collected a jackpot.

If I really want to erase all connection topast transactions recorded on the blockchain,I can just find a miner that I trust and let him mine mytransactions with hefty fees. To the rest of the world,the miner looks like he's doing valuable work, miningmy transactions, securing the distributed ledger. Inreality, it's a rigged game, where I give my transactions,with fat fees totaling $X, solely to a designated miner for him to mine.In return, he collects the fees and pays out $X back tome, minus his cut. My payment is going to be with newlymined coins, the Bitcoin equivalent of fresh, crisp dollarbills straight from the Mint. There will be no white powderresidue on these particular bills.

This is a brilliant way to launder money, because it leavesno trace on the blockchain. Miners, in effect, terminate andregenerate cash flows, the same way the US mint withdrawsold and tattered bills out of circulation and reissues brandnew ones. The only fly in the ointment is the need to trustthe miner, but hey, people with these kinds of cash flowstypically have what we in the distributed systems communitywould euphemistically call "exogeneous enforcement mechanisms."

If anyone will engage in MML with ultra-large fees, and they don'twant to take any additional risk, they'll do soby prearranging the deal with a miner they trust. They shouldsend their mega-fee bearing transaction to their designatedminer via a private channel, because if another miner gets their handson a megafee transaction, they'll mine it, collect the huge fee and keep it.

It turns out that this transaction carrying a $137K megafee wasseen on the public Bitcoin network a full two minutes before thecorresponding block was mined. This suggests that minershad a fair shot at mining this transaction. It most likely wasnot part of an MML effort. By the same argument, this likely was nota directed gift to this specific miner, as it could have beencollected by anyone.

There's still the small possibility that the miner may have pre-mined hisblock, but if that's the case, they took a risk by not announcingthe block for a full two minutes, at least as observed from the vantagepoints of Dr. Decker's measurement apparatus.

Overall, the evidence is stacked high on the side of an unintentional error.This particular transaction most likely was not part ofan MML scheme to launder the cash through a colludingminer. Instead, it is much more likely that there was anerror of some kind, wherein the transaction amount andfee fields got swapped, perhaps in a script that was programmaticallymoving money around.

Now, that erroneous script may have been written to performmoney laundering the traditional way via tumbling. But at least,subject to the provisos in the precedingsection, we can clear the miner from complicity.

The particular lucky miner turns out to be a Chinese MLM operation. Whilethere wassome initial noise that the miner may voluntarily return the erroneousfee, these early indications came from affiliates in the MLM scheme whowere speaking without authority. To date, there is noofficial word from the people in charge. It's not even quite clearwho they are.

And even if the miner wanted to return the fee, it might be difficultfor the sender to collect it. If the $137K needed to be tumbled,how does the rightful owner of the coins come out and claim them?The miner, if it's operating above-board, may have to book the incomingcoins and deduct the payment as a business expense to balance theirbooks. Depending on their jurisdiction, the recipient may have toprovide a name and address, and of course, be subject to scrutiny.The owner could provide proof of address by signing a message withtheir private key, and the miner could just return the cash to thataddress out of the kindness of their hearts. Of course, the kind ofscript that swaps arguments by mistake may be the kind of script thatdoes not write its keys out to a database, so the private keys may belong gone.

Dark Roast. Put a little get-up-and-go in your mornin' cup o' joe! Felix's custom blend of Alaskan roasted coffee beans is what has kept this ol' miner out there diggin' in the dirt for so many decades.

Transactions spending from a nested SegWit address on Bitcoin Cash break one of these standardness rules (the cleanstack rule, to be precise) and therefore will not be relayed; they can only be mined if included directly by a miner. So miners, or a user in direct contact with a miner, can spend from nested SegWit addresses on Bitcoin Cash, while normal users cannot.

$500k jackpot: at the time the user wrote his post, there were slightly more than 400 BCH (worth around $500k at the time) sent to nested SegWit addresses on Bitcoin Cash that could only be claimed by miners.

Around this time, our Russian Bitcointalk user probably took notice of the issue and started searching for a miner amenable to mining transactions breaking the standardness rule which prevents regular users from claiming these coins.

\u201CI thought for a long time whether to write here. And now that I am doing it, I doubt whether I am doing the right thing. Imagine that there is a casino with a jackpot of $500k. To hit it, you need to bet about $15k and the probability that the bet will payout is about 60%. The problem is that there are several more people that know about this jackpot for sure. What would you do in a similar situation?\u201D

Over time, users have been mistakenly sending BCH to nested SegWit addresses. As Bitcoin Cash doesn\u2019t implement SegWit, these addresses\u2019 scripts fallback to looking like anyone-can-spend addresses (which do not require a signature; all you need is the knowledge of the script). This misplaced BCH is therefore effectively a jackpot waiting for whoever can get there first.

There is one slight caveat though: only miners can access this jackpot. Transactions have to obey consensus rules (no double spending, etc.) but there\u2019s another set of rules they have to obey in order to be relayed by nodes: standardness rules, which were implemented to avoid denial-of-service attacks using large or very complex transactions. Bitcoin has a small number of standard scripts that are relayed from node to node. Non-standard scripts are accepted as part of mined blocks, but these non-standard scripts are not relayed from node to node.

On September 10th 2017, Reddit user /u/btctroubadour noticed a worrying pattern of events: many Trezor users were sending BCH to nested SegWit addresses. He recommended setting up a miner-run recovery service that would gather this lost BCH and give them back to users (minus a finder\u2019s fee for the pools\u2019 trouble). As per usual with constructive contributions on the internet, the discussion quickly degenerated into endless debates and attacks and nothing came out of it.

The block that included this recovery transaction included a second recovery operation of 12.64 BCH sent to a nested SegWit address. However, this recovery was special because the script needed to recover the BCH was never made public on the Bitcoin chain. Therefore it must have been communicated to the miner directly, to avoid having the lost BCH \u201Cclaimed\u201D by someone that wouldn\u2019t give it back.

As analyzed by BitMEX research, several issues compounded after the hard fork which caused various chain splits. One of these issues made miners produce empty blocks. Right after this bug was fixed, the \u201Cfake unknown\u201D miner claimed the nested SegWit BCH bounty for himself. According to an account of the incident by Chinese user \u201CBCH Bruce Lee\u201D on WeChat:

\u201CAfter discovering this situation, the big BCH miners urgently allocated a large amount of hashpower from BTC to mine BCH, actively initiated the chain reorganization of the two blocks, voided the \\\"fake unknown\\\" mining pool transaction, and sent back the mistakenly lost BCHs to their original owner.\u201D

Mining pools orphaning an otherwise valid block on purpose is a very rare event. The fact that it happened to avoid many innocent users losing access to their lost BCH makes it unique. This incident can be contrasted with another event that happened one week earlier on BTC: Binance lost 7,000 BTC from a hack and considered colluding with miners to reorg the thief\u2019s transactions out. However, this plan was quickly abandoned.

However, BTC.TOP didn\u2019t recover all the claimable BCH post-fork; 10 blocks after they recovered 3.8k BCH, the \u201Cfake unknown\u201D miner claimed 216 mistakenly lost BCH, whose fate is unknown. ff782bc1db