Free Bitcoin – Claim upto 0.03405000 BTC every hour

Gane miles de Satoshis todos los días Reclame hasta 0.03405000 BTC por hora

¡Gane Bitcoin gratis diariamente completando encuestas, paneles de ofertas, enlaces cortos y mucho más!



BITCOIN FAUCET Claim Free Bitcoin Today




Claim Free Bitcoin Today!



What’s the Ideal Satoshi Claim in a bitcoin faucet for you? | NewProxyLists

I was a faucet claimer before . I was claiming only from faycets linked to faucethub. The day of those faycets depends on the Bitcoin price at that time. If the Bitcoin price is higher , then you can claim 5-10 satoshis every 5 minutes from standard faucets linked to faucethub. And if the Bitcoin price is lower , then I remember I was claiming upto 40 satoshis every 5 minutes through shortlinks like 7 months ago when Bitcoin price reached 3k$.

pathfinder 1e – Can a Harbinger use Dark Claim on an animated object?

Assuming you are fighting said object, yes you can Claim non-sapients*

Dark Claim has “specific” (really, non-specific) targeting requirements; you must consider them an enemy.

As a swift action, the harbinger may Claim an opponent that she can see…

Other portions of the ability refer to Creatures, which is a game-term in Pathfinder

A harbinger can have a maximum number of creatures Claimed… may not Claim a creature she has already Claimed… (etc)

However, even non-sapient things (such as animated objects) are “creatures” in Pathfinder. Specifically, they are Construct creatures.

*It usually goes without saying, but the GM (not other party members) has the right and responsibility to interpret the rules in a way that they deem fun and fair. This probably means that they will agree that Dark Claim works fine on Constructs, but they could also rule that (for instance, to be realistic) it does not. If you have concerns about this type of ruling, I strongly recommend talking to your GM in an open way outside of game time.

Harbinger Dark Claim

In the case of animated objects, is there any reason a Harbinger wouldn’t be able to use Dark Claim? Party members trying to claim that since animated objects are not sentient I cannot claim them.

real analysis – A claim about Lebesgue-Cantor function on $[0,1]$

Suppose I have the Lebesgue-Cantor function on $(0,1)$. That is $f(0)=0$ and $f(1)=1$, $f$ is nondecreasing and $f'(x)=0$ a.e. on the interval. Initiating with $f(x)=x$, do the following construction: $f(x)=begin{cases}frac{3}{2}x, &xin(0,frac{1}{3})\ frac{1}{2}, &xin(frac{1}{3},frac{2}{3})\ frac{1}{2}+frac{3}{2}(x-frac{2}{3}), &xin(frac{2}{3},1)end{cases}$. Repeat this process while leaving the middle piece constant, I get $2^n$ pieces of slope $(frac{3}{2})^n$ on intervals of size $(frac{1}{3})^n$, which is the Lebesgue-Cantor function on $(0,1)$.

Now do the following: Take $xin(0,1)$ and expand it in binary expansion as $x=sum_{j=1}^{infty}frac{a_j}{2^j}$ where $a_j=0,1$. Define the map $T(x)=sum_{j=1}^{infty}frac{b_j}{3^j}$, where $b_j=0$ if $a_j=0$ and $b_j=2$ if $a_j=1$. The claim is:

Claim: If $mu$ is the Lebesgue measure, then $mu T^{-1}$ will provide a counterexample.

My question is how is the claim related to the Lebesgue-Cantor function I provided and how can I find such counterexample? Thank you!


My friend sent BCH funds to my Btc address but I can't find it in my luno btc wallet, but every time I explore my wallet address, I always see a transaction. I believe sent it to a bch address that they generated themselves. You will find below the information on the transaction.
My address is: 32ouYsCH2YcgkMHjeKdM4AR6Uy33TBkGnx
The address generated by is: bitcoincash: pqxytdut66fqs4zqultyxjfduyg9ljxg4sz80pe2sa

uk – Baggage claim at London Heathrow

Our cousin was born in Belfast, Northern Ireland, and has ILR in the United Kingdom. She is a double American and Irish citizen.

Next week, she has a ticket to fly San Francisco> Dallas> London Heathrow> Dublin on a single ticket purchased from British Air. The first stage is provided by American, the second by British Air and the third by Aer Lingus. She will have checked the baggage.

Will his luggage be checked from SFO to DUB? Or will she have to collect it from LHR in order to pass British customs as the first stop in the common travel area?

mining theory – BIP34, BIP66 and BIP65 should have been applied to unique block heights. Why do different sources claim different block heights for the application?

Inconsistent consensus / activation of BIPs


Block height activated 227835 (BitMEX reference)

Block height enabled 227,930 (Bitcoin developer reference)

Height of activated block 227 931 (Github reference)


Height of activated block 363 724 (previous question)

Height of activated block 363 725 (Github reference)

Block height activated 363 731 (BitMEX reference)


Block height activated 388 380 (BitMEX reference)

Block height activated 388.381 (Github reference)

Confused documentation

BIP34 indicates that it is activated when 950 of the 1000 blocks report for version 2. It is not clear whether this includes the current block or refers to the previous blocks

BIP66 indicates that it is activated when 950 of the 1000 previous blocks report for version 3. However, the client notes that 951 of the previous 1001 blocks. The BIP66 then indicates that it activates using the BIP34 protocol. We now have three possible methods. They don't match.

Any advice on what's going on here?