ETH Price:
$3,162.03
(+1.64%)
Gas:
15 Gwei
Search tokens, addresses and NFTs
Ecosystems
Greater Ethereum
Blockchains
Base
OP Mainnet
Blast
Mantle
Mint
zkSync Era
Zora
Cyber
Kinto
Metis
Mode
Orderly
Boba Ethereum
PGN
Ethereum Explorer
Blockchain
Transactions
Internal Transactions
Blocks
Forked Blocks (Reorgs)
Addresses
Verified Contracts
Tokens
ERC20 Tokens By MarketCap
ERC20 Transfers
ERC721 Tokens
ERC721 Transfers
ERC1155 Tokens
ERC1155 Transfers
Charts
Resources
Tools
Unit Converter
Contract Diff Checker
Account Balance Checker
Dumps
Export Data
Broadcast Transaction
UTF8 Converter
Explorer
Token Approvals
Gas Tracker
Dex Tracker
Domain Name Lookup
Developers
API Plans
Routescan APIs
ES Like APIs
Verify Contract
|
Sign In
Address ›
0x400FD87DfD378b8C6784da0d2a5e322945924413
Overview
Balance:
0.00005583432435 ETH
ETH Value:
$0.18
(@ $3,162.03/ETH)
Token:
$0.00
8
More Info
Tag:
Not Available.
Update?
First activity:
Transactions
Internal Txns
ERC20 Token Txns
ERC721 Token Txns
Latest 50 from a total of 25 ERC20 transfers
Export CSV
First
1 of 1
Last
Txn Hash
Method
From
To
Value
Token
Age
Latest 49 from a total of 49 ERC20 transfers
Export CSV
First
1 of 1
Last
Txn Hash
Method
From
To
Value
Token
Age
0xc9402...927c8c
Fill Quote Token To Eth
0x400F...924413
OUT
Rainbow: Rainbow
7,000,000,000.00
Many Men (50TRUMP)
122 days 14 hrs ago
0x745a6...d55013
Transfer
0xf51C...96E4F4
IN
0x400F...924413
7,000,000,000.00
Many Men (50TRUMP)
124 days 11 hrs ago
0xa77a2...4db1bd
Settle
0x400F...924413
OUT
CoW Protocol: GPv2 Settlement
49,900,000,000.00
Pepe (PEPE)
297 days 13 hrs ago
0x5c31a...46392d
Transfer
0xC32a...0ccaA9
IN
0x400F...924413
49,900,000,000.00
Pepe (PEPE)
297 days 13 hrs ago
0xd8099...380c5c
Transfer
0x1D55...221dCF
IN
0x400F...924413
0.70
环球股 (HQG)
423 days 15 hrs ago
0x7894d...a4cd26
Execute
Uniswap V 2
IN
0x400F...924413
1,049,185.36
Introduction to Bitcoin and Existing Concepts \n \n History \n \n The concept of decentralized digital currency, as well as alternative applications like property registries, has been around for decades. The anonymous e-cash protocols of the 1980s and the 1990s, mostly reliant on a cryptographic primitive known as Chaumian blinding, provided a currency with a high degree of privacy, but the protocols largely failed to gain traction because of their reliance on a centralized intermediary. In 1998, Wei Dai's b-money(opens in a new tab) became the first proposal to introduce the idea of creating money through solving computational puzzles as well as decentralized consensus, but the proposal was scant on details as to how decentralized consensus could actually be implemented. In 2005, Hal Finney introduced a concept of *reusable proofs of work(opens in a new tab)*, a system which uses ideas from b-money together with Adam Back's computationally difficult Hashcash puzzles to create a concept for a cryptocurrency, but once again fell short of the ideal by relying on trusted computing as a backend. In 2009, a decentralized currency was for the first time implemented in practice by Satoshi Nakamoto, combining established primitives for managing ownership through public key cryptography with a consensus algorithm for keeping track of who owns coins, known as *proof-of-work*. \n \n The mechanism behind proof-of-work was a breakthrough in the space because it simultaneously solved two problems. First, it provided a simple and moderately effective consensus algorithm, allowing nodes in the network to collectively agree on a set of canonical updates to the state of the Bitcoin ledger. Second, it provided a mechanism for allowing free entry into the consensus process, solving the political problem of deciding who gets to influence the consensus, while simultaneously preventing sybil attacks. It does this by substituting a formal barrier to participation, such as the requirement to be registered as a unique entity on a particular list, with an economic barrier - the weight of a single node in the consensus voting process is directly proportional to the computing power that the node brings. Since then, an alternative approach has been proposed called proof-of-stake, calculating the weight of a node as being proportional to its currency holdings and not computational resources; the discussion of the relative merits of the two approaches is beyond the scope of this paper but it should be noted that both approaches can be used to serve as the backbone of a cryptocurrency. (GENESIS)
428 days 21 hrs ago
0x2bf99...56d50a
Execute
Uniswap V 2 Pair
IN
0x400F...924413
21,480,647.68
𝗕𝗼𝘁 (BOT)
429 days 13 hrs ago
0xa348d...d32fd7
Execute
Uniswap V 2 Pair
IN
0x400F...924413
1,186,374.57
A Next-Generation Smart Contract and Decentralized Application Platform \n \n Satoshi Nakamoto's development of Bitcoin in 2009 has often been hailed as a radical development in money and currency, being the first example of a digital asset which simultaneously has no backing or *intrinsic value(opens in a new tab)* and no centralized issuer or controller. However, another, arguably more important, part of the Bitcoin experiment is the underlying blockchain technology as a tool of distributed consensus, and attention is rapidly starting to shift to this other aspect of Bitcoin. Commonly cited alternative applications of blockchain technology include using on-blockchain digital assets to represent custom currencies and financial instruments (*colored coins(opens in a new tab)*), the ownership of an underlying physical device (*smart property(opens in a new tab)*), non-fungible assets such as domain names (*Namecoin(opens in a new tab)*), as well as more complex applications involving having digital assets being directly controlled by a piece of code implementing arbitrary rules (*smart contracts(opens in a new tab)*) or even blockchain-based *decentralized autonomous organizations(opens in a new tab)* (DAOs). What Ethereum intends to provide is a blockchain with a built-in fully fledged Turing-complete programming language that can be used to create *contracts* that can be used to encode arbitrary state transition functions, allowing users to create any of the systems described above, as well as many others that we have not yet imagined, simply by writing up the logic in a few lines of code. \n \n Introduction to Bitcoin and Existing Concepts \n \n History \n \n The concept of decentralized digital currency, as well as alternative applications like property registries, has been around for decades. The anonymous e-cash protocols of the 1980s and the 1990s, mostly reliant on a cryptographic primitive known as Chaumian blinding, provided a currency with a high degree of privacy, but the protocols largely failed to gain traction because of their reliance on a centralized intermediary. In 1998, Wei Dai's b-money(opens in a new tab) became the first proposal to introduce the idea of creating money through solving computational puzzles as well as decentralized consensus, but the proposal was scant on details as to how decentralized consensus could actually be implemented. In 2005, Hal Finney introduced a concept of *reusable proofs of work(opens in a new tab)*, a system which uses ideas from b-money together with Adam Back's computationally difficult Hashcash puzzles to create a concept for a cryptocurrency, but once again fell short of the ideal by relying on trusted computing as a backend. In 2009, a decentralized currency was for the first time implemented in practice by Satoshi Nakamoto, combining established primitives for managing ownership through public key cryptography with a consensus algorithm for keeping track of who owns coins, known as *proof-of-work*. \n \n The mechanism behind proof-of-work was a breakthrough in the space because it simultaneously solved two problems. First, it provided a simple and moderately effective consensus algorithm, allowing nodes in the network to collectively agree on a set of canonical updates to the state of the Bitcoin ledger. Second, it provided a mechanism for allowing free entry into the consensus process, solving the political problem of deciding who gets to influence the consensus, while simultaneously preventing sybil attacks. It does this by substituting a formal barrier to participation, such as the requirement to be registered as a unique entity on a particular list, with an economic barrier - the weight of a single node in the consensus voting process is directly proportional to the computing power that the node brings. Since then, an alternative approach has been proposed called proof-of-stake, calculating the weight of a node as being proportional to its currency holdings and not computational resources; the discussion of the relative merits of the two approaches is beyond the scope of this paper but it should be noted that both approaches can be used to serve as the backbone of a cryptocurrency. \n \n Bitcoin As A State Transition System \n \n From a technical standpoint, the ledger of a cryptocurrency such as Bitcoin can be thought of as a state transition system, where there is a *state* consisting of the ownership status of all existing bitcoins and a *state transition function* that takes a state and a transaction and outputs a new state which is the result. In a standard banking system, for example, the state is a balance sheet, a transaction is a request to move $X from A to B, and the state transition function reduces the value in A's account by $X and increases the value in B's account by $X. If A's account has less than $X in the first place, the state transition function returns an error. Hence, one can formally define: \n The *state* in Bitcoin is the collection of all coins (technically, Üunspent transaction outputs* or UTXO) that have been minted and not yet spent, with each UTXO having a denomination and an owner (defined by a 20-byte address which is essentially a cryptographic public keyfn1). A transaction contains one or more inputs, with each input containing a reference to an existing UTXO and a cryptographic signature produced by the private key associated with the owner's address, and one or more outputs, with each output containing a new UTXO to be added to the state. \n The state transition function APPLY(S,TX) -> S' can be defined roughly as follows: For each input in TX: If the referenced UTXO is not in S, return an error. If the provided signature does not match the owner of the UTXO, return an error. If the sum of the denominations of all input UTXO is less than the sum of the denominations of all output UTXO, return an error. Return S with all input UTXO removed and all output UTXO added. \n The first half of the first step prevents transaction senders from spending coins that do not exist, the second half of the first step prevents transaction senders from spending other people's coins, and the second step enforces conservation of value. In order to use this for payment, the protocol is as follows. Suppose Alice wants to send 11.7 BTC to Bob. First, Alice will look for a set of available UTXO that she owns that totals up to at least 11.7 BTC. Realistically, Alice will not be able to get exactly 11.7 BTC; say that the smallest she can get is 6+4+2=12. She then creates a transaction with those three inputs and two outputs. The first output will be 11.7 BTC with Bob's address as its owner, and the second output will be the remaining 0.3 BTC *change*, with the owner being Alice herself \n (GENESIS)
429 days 15 hrs ago
0x35449...8d74bb
Execute
Uniswap V 2 Pair
IN
0x400F...924413
1,246,605.75
A Next-Generation Smart Contract and Decentralized Application Platform \n \n Satoshi Nakamoto's development of Bitcoin in 2009 has often been hailed as a radical development in money and currency, being the first example of a digital asset which simultaneously has no backing or *intrinsic value(opens in a new tab)* and no centralized issuer or controller. However, another, arguably more important, part of the Bitcoin experiment is the underlying blockchain technology as a tool of distributed consensus, and attention is rapidly starting to shift to this other aspect of Bitcoin. Commonly cited alternative applications of blockchain technology include using on-blockchain digital assets to represent custom currencies and financial instruments (*colored coins(opens in a new tab)*), the ownership of an underlying physical device (*smart property(opens in a new tab)*), non-fungible assets such as domain names (*Namecoin(opens in a new tab)*), as well as more complex applications involving having digital assets being directly controlled by a piece of code implementing arbitrary rules (*smart contracts(opens in a new tab)*) or even blockchain-based *decentralized autonomous organizations(opens in a new tab)* (DAOs). What Ethereum intends to provide is a blockchain with a built-in fully fledged Turing-complete programming language that can be used to create *contracts* that can be used to encode arbitrary state transition functions, allowing users to create any of the systems described above, as well as many others that we have not yet imagined, simply by writing up the logic in a few lines of code. \n \n Introduction to Bitcoin and Existing Concepts \n \n History \n \n The concept of decentralized digital currency, as well as alternative applications like property registries, has been around for decades. The anonymous e-cash protocols of the 1980s and the 1990s, mostly reliant on a cryptographic primitive known as Chaumian blinding, provided a currency with a high degree of privacy, but the protocols largely failed to gain traction because of their reliance on a centralized intermediary. In 1998, Wei Dai's b-money(opens in a new tab) became the first proposal to introduce the idea of creating money through solving computational puzzles as well as decentralized consensus, but the proposal was scant on details as to how decentralized consensus could actually be implemented. In 2005, Hal Finney introduced a concept of *reusable proofs of work(opens in a new tab)*, a system which uses ideas from b-money together with Adam Back's computationally difficult Hashcash puzzles to create a concept for a cryptocurrency, but once again fell short of the ideal by relying on trusted computing as a backend. In 2009, a decentralized currency was for the first time implemented in practice by Satoshi Nakamoto, combining established primitives for managing ownership through public key cryptography with a consensus algorithm for keeping track of who owns coins, known as *proof-of-work*. \n \n The mechanism behind proof-of-work was a breakthrough in the space because it simultaneously solved two problems. First, it provided a simple and moderately effective consensus algorithm, allowing nodes in the network to collectively agree on a set of canonical updates to the state of the Bitcoin ledger. Second, it provided a mechanism for allowing free entry into the consensus process, solving the political problem of deciding who gets to influence the consensus, while simultaneously preventing sybil attacks. It does this by substituting a formal barrier to participation, such as the requirement to be registered as a unique entity on a particular list, with an economic barrier - the weight of a single node in the consensus voting process is directly proportional to the computing power that the node brings. Since then, an alternative approach has been proposed called proof-of-stake, calculating the weight of a node as being proportional to its currency holdings and not computational resources; the discussion of the relative merits of the two approaches is beyond the scope of this paper but it should be noted that both approaches can be used to serve as the backbone of a cryptocurrency. \n \n Bitcoin As A State Transition System \n \n From a technical standpoint, the ledger of a cryptocurrency such as Bitcoin can be thought of as a state transition system, where there is a *state* consisting of the ownership status of all existing bitcoins and a *state transition function* that takes a state and a transaction and outputs a new state which is the result. In a standard banking system, for example, the state is a balance sheet, a transaction is a request to move $X from A to B, and the state transition function reduces the value in A's account by $X and increases the value in B's account by $X. If A's account has less than $X in the first place, the state transition function returns an error. Hence, one can formally define: \n The *state* in Bitcoin is the collection of all coins (technically, Üunspent transaction outputs* or UTXO) that have been minted and not yet spent, with each UTXO having a denomination and an owner (defined by a 20-byte address which is essentially a cryptographic public keyfn1). A transaction contains one or more inputs, with each input containing a reference to an existing UTXO and a cryptographic signature produced by the private key associated with the owner's address, and one or more outputs, with each output containing a new UTXO to be added to the state. \n The state transition function APPLY(S,TX) -> S' can be defined roughly as follows: For each input in TX: If the referenced UTXO is not in S, return an error. If the provided signature does not match the owner of the UTXO, return an error. If the sum of the denominations of all input UTXO is less than the sum of the denominations of all output UTXO, return an error. Return S with all input UTXO removed and all output UTXO added. \n The first half of the first step prevents transaction senders from spending coins that do not exist, the second half of the first step prevents transaction senders from spending other people's coins, and the second step enforces conservation of value. In order to use this for payment, the protocol is as follows. Suppose Alice wants to send 11.7 BTC to Bob. First, Alice will look for a set of available UTXO that she owns that totals up to at least 11.7 BTC. Realistically, Alice will not be able to get exactly 11.7 BTC; say that the smallest she can get is 6+4+2=12. She then creates a transaction with those three inputs and two outputs. The first output will be 11.7 BTC with Bob's address as its owner, and the second output will be the remaining 0.3 BTC *change*, with the owner being Alice herself \n (GENESIS)
429 days 15 hrs ago
0x9caea...75b002
Execute
Uniswap V 2 Pair
IN
0x400F...924413
560,092.95
A Next-Generation Smart Contract and Decentralized Application Platform \n \n Satoshi Nakamoto's development of Bitcoin in 2009 has often been hailed as a radical development in money and currency, being the first example of a digital asset which simultaneously has no backing or *intrinsic value(opens in a new tab)* and no centralized issuer or controller. However, another, arguably more important, part of the Bitcoin experiment is the underlying blockchain technology as a tool of distributed consensus, and attention is rapidly starting to shift to this other aspect of Bitcoin. Commonly cited alternative applications of blockchain technology include using on-blockchain digital assets to represent custom currencies and financial instruments (*colored coins(opens in a new tab)*), the ownership of an underlying physical device (*smart property(opens in a new tab)*), non-fungible assets such as domain names (*Namecoin(opens in a new tab)*), as well as more complex applications involving having digital assets being directly controlled by a piece of code implementing arbitrary rules (*smart contracts(opens in a new tab)*) or even blockchain-based *decentralized autonomous organizations(opens in a new tab)* (DAOs). What Ethereum intends to provide is a blockchain with a built-in fully fledged Turing-complete programming language that can be used to create *contracts* that can be used to encode arbitrary state transition functions, allowing users to create any of the systems described above, as well as many others that we have not yet imagined, simply by writing up the logic in a few lines of code. \n \n Introduction to Bitcoin and Existing Concepts \n \n History \n \n The concept of decentralized digital currency, as well as alternative applications like property registries, has been around for decades. The anonymous e-cash protocols of the 1980s and the 1990s, mostly reliant on a cryptographic primitive known as Chaumian blinding, provided a currency with a high degree of privacy, but the protocols largely failed to gain traction because of their reliance on a centralized intermediary. In 1998, Wei Dai's b-money(opens in a new tab) became the first proposal to introduce the idea of creating money through solving computational puzzles as well as decentralized consensus, but the proposal was scant on details as to how decentralized consensus could actually be implemented. In 2005, Hal Finney introduced a concept of *reusable proofs of work(opens in a new tab)*, a system which uses ideas from b-money together with Adam Back's computationally difficult Hashcash puzzles to create a concept for a cryptocurrency, but once again fell short of the ideal by relying on trusted computing as a backend. In 2009, a decentralized currency was for the first time implemented in practice by Satoshi Nakamoto, combining established primitives for managing ownership through public key cryptography with a consensus algorithm for keeping track of who owns coins, known as *proof-of-work*. \n \n The mechanism behind proof-of-work was a breakthrough in the space because it simultaneously solved two problems. First, it provided a simple and moderately effective consensus algorithm, allowing nodes in the network to collectively agree on a set of canonical updates to the state of the Bitcoin ledger. Second, it provided a mechanism for allowing free entry into the consensus process, solving the political problem of deciding who gets to influence the consensus, while simultaneously preventing sybil attacks. It does this by substituting a formal barrier to participation, such as the requirement to be registered as a unique entity on a particular list, with an economic barrier - the weight of a single node in the consensus voting process is directly proportional to the computing power that the node brings. Since then, an alternative approach has been proposed called proof-of-stake, calculating the weight of a node as being proportional to its currency holdings and not computational resources; the discussion of the relative merits of the two approaches is beyond the scope of this paper but it should be noted that both approaches can be used to serve as the backbone of a cryptocurrency. \n \n Bitcoin As A State Transition System \n \n From a technical standpoint, the ledger of a cryptocurrency such as Bitcoin can be thought of as a state transition system, where there is a *state* consisting of the ownership status of all existing bitcoins and a *state transition function* that takes a state and a transaction and outputs a new state which is the result. In a standard banking system, for example, the state is a balance sheet, a transaction is a request to move $X from A to B, and the state transition function reduces the value in A's account by $X and increases the value in B's account by $X. If A's account has less than $X in the first place, the state transition function returns an error. Hence, one can formally define: \n The *state* in Bitcoin is the collection of all coins (technically, Üunspent transaction outputs* or UTXO) that have been minted and not yet spent, with each UTXO having a denomination and an owner (defined by a 20-byte address which is essentially a cryptographic public keyfn1). A transaction contains one or more inputs, with each input containing a reference to an existing UTXO and a cryptographic signature produced by the private key associated with the owner's address, and one or more outputs, with each output containing a new UTXO to be added to the state. \n The state transition function APPLY(S,TX) -> S' can be defined roughly as follows: For each input in TX: If the referenced UTXO is not in S, return an error. If the provided signature does not match the owner of the UTXO, return an error. If the sum of the denominations of all input UTXO is less than the sum of the denominations of all output UTXO, return an error. Return S with all input UTXO removed and all output UTXO added. \n The first half of the first step prevents transaction senders from spending coins that do not exist, the second half of the first step prevents transaction senders from spending other people's coins, and the second step enforces conservation of value. In order to use this for payment, the protocol is as follows. Suppose Alice wants to send 11.7 BTC to Bob. First, Alice will look for a set of available UTXO that she owns that totals up to at least 11.7 BTC. Realistically, Alice will not be able to get exactly 11.7 BTC; say that the smallest she can get is 6+4+2=12. She then creates a transaction with those three inputs and two outputs. The first output will be 11.7 BTC with Bob's address as its owner, and the second output will be the remaining 0.3 BTC *change*, with the owner being Alice herself \n (GENESIS)
429 days 15 hrs ago
0x2480e...3437ec
Execute
Uniswap V 2 Pair
IN
0x400F...924413
915,573.65
A Next-Generation Smart Contract and Decentralized Application Platform \n \n Satoshi Nakamoto's development of Bitcoin in 2009 has often been hailed as a radical development in money and currency, being the first example of a digital asset which simultaneously has no backing or *intrinsic value(opens in a new tab)* and no centralized issuer or controller. However, another, arguably more important, part of the Bitcoin experiment is the underlying blockchain technology as a tool of distributed consensus, and attention is rapidly starting to shift to this other aspect of Bitcoin. Commonly cited alternative applications of blockchain technology include using on-blockchain digital assets to represent custom currencies and financial instruments (*colored coins(opens in a new tab)*), the ownership of an underlying physical device (*smart property(opens in a new tab)*), non-fungible assets such as domain names (*Namecoin(opens in a new tab)*), as well as more complex applications involving having digital assets being directly controlled by a piece of code implementing arbitrary rules (*smart contracts(opens in a new tab)*) or even blockchain-based *decentralized autonomous organizations(opens in a new tab)* (DAOs). What Ethereum intends to provide is a blockchain with a built-in fully fledged Turing-complete programming language that can be used to create *contracts* that can be used to encode arbitrary state transition functions, allowing users to create any of the systems described above, as well as many others that we have not yet imagined, simply by writing up the logic in a few lines of code. \n \n Introduction to Bitcoin and Existing Concepts \n \n History \n \n The concept of decentralized digital currency, as well as alternative applications like property registries, has been around for decades. The anonymous e-cash protocols of the 1980s and the 1990s, mostly reliant on a cryptographic primitive known as Chaumian blinding, provided a currency with a high degree of privacy, but the protocols largely failed to gain traction because of their reliance on a centralized intermediary. In 1998, Wei Dai's b-money(opens in a new tab) became the first proposal to introduce the idea of creating money through solving computational puzzles as well as decentralized consensus, but the proposal was scant on details as to how decentralized consensus could actually be implemented. In 2005, Hal Finney introduced a concept of *reusable proofs of work(opens in a new tab)*, a system which uses ideas from b-money together with Adam Back's computationally difficult Hashcash puzzles to create a concept for a cryptocurrency, but once again fell short of the ideal by relying on trusted computing as a backend. In 2009, a decentralized currency was for the first time implemented in practice by Satoshi Nakamoto, combining established primitives for managing ownership through public key cryptography with a consensus algorithm for keeping track of who owns coins, known as *proof-of-work*. \n \n The mechanism behind proof-of-work was a breakthrough in the space because it simultaneously solved two problems. First, it provided a simple and moderately effective consensus algorithm, allowing nodes in the network to collectively agree on a set of canonical updates to the state of the Bitcoin ledger. Second, it provided a mechanism for allowing free entry into the consensus process, solving the political problem of deciding who gets to influence the consensus, while simultaneously preventing sybil attacks. It does this by substituting a formal barrier to participation, such as the requirement to be registered as a unique entity on a particular list, with an economic barrier - the weight of a single node in the consensus voting process is directly proportional to the computing power that the node brings. Since then, an alternative approach has been proposed called proof-of-stake, calculating the weight of a node as being proportional to its currency holdings and not computational resources; the discussion of the relative merits of the two approaches is beyond the scope of this paper but it should be noted that both approaches can be used to serve as the backbone of a cryptocurrency. \n \n Bitcoin As A State Transition System \n \n From a technical standpoint, the ledger of a cryptocurrency such as Bitcoin can be thought of as a state transition system, where there is a *state* consisting of the ownership status of all existing bitcoins and a *state transition function* that takes a state and a transaction and outputs a new state which is the result. In a standard banking system, for example, the state is a balance sheet, a transaction is a request to move $X from A to B, and the state transition function reduces the value in A's account by $X and increases the value in B's account by $X. If A's account has less than $X in the first place, the state transition function returns an error. Hence, one can formally define: \n The *state* in Bitcoin is the collection of all coins (technically, Üunspent transaction outputs* or UTXO) that have been minted and not yet spent, with each UTXO having a denomination and an owner (defined by a 20-byte address which is essentially a cryptographic public keyfn1). A transaction contains one or more inputs, with each input containing a reference to an existing UTXO and a cryptographic signature produced by the private key associated with the owner's address, and one or more outputs, with each output containing a new UTXO to be added to the state. \n The state transition function APPLY(S,TX) -> S' can be defined roughly as follows: For each input in TX: If the referenced UTXO is not in S, return an error. If the provided signature does not match the owner of the UTXO, return an error. If the sum of the denominations of all input UTXO is less than the sum of the denominations of all output UTXO, return an error. Return S with all input UTXO removed and all output UTXO added. \n The first half of the first step prevents transaction senders from spending coins that do not exist, the second half of the first step prevents transaction senders from spending other people's coins, and the second step enforces conservation of value. In order to use this for payment, the protocol is as follows. Suppose Alice wants to send 11.7 BTC to Bob. First, Alice will look for a set of available UTXO that she owns that totals up to at least 11.7 BTC. Realistically, Alice will not be able to get exactly 11.7 BTC; say that the smallest she can get is 6+4+2=12. She then creates a transaction with those three inputs and two outputs. The first output will be 11.7 BTC with Bob's address as its owner, and the second output will be the remaining 0.3 BTC *change*, with the owner being Alice herself \n (GENESIS)
429 days 15 hrs ago
0x0b38e...517261
Execute
0x400F...924413
OUT
Uniswap V 2 Pair
24,869,500.20
Banana Printer (BP)
429 days 15 hrs ago
0x0b38e...517261
Execute
0x400F...924413
OUT
Banana Printer
4,048,523.29
Banana Printer (BP)
429 days 15 hrs ago
0x600e2...1ccfce
Execute
0x400F...924413
OUT
Uniswap V 2 Pair
2,489,077.78
KEY MEASURING CONTEST (KMC)
429 days 15 hrs ago
0x600e2...1ccfce
Execute
0x400F...924413
OUT
KMC
25,142.20
KEY MEASURING CONTEST (KMC)
429 days 15 hrs ago
0x48ea6...05e2df
Execute
0x400F...924413
OUT
Uniswap V 2 Pair
1,239,019,043.12
PUMPY (PUMP)
429 days 16 hrs ago
0xd7bf4...686e00
Execute
0x400F...924413
OUT
Uniswap V 2 Pair
12,742,113.71
? (🌒😎🌘)
429 days 16 hrs ago
0xae122...b46651
Execute
Uniswap V 2 Pair
IN
0x400F...924413
12,742,113.71
? (🌒😎🌘)
430 days 11 hrs ago
0x6895b...9e568a
Execute
0x400F...924413
OUT
Uniswap V 2 Pair
312,627,691.96
ProbablyObsessiveNarcissisticDementia2IQ (POND)
430 days 11 hrs ago
0x6f8a2...f34eaa
Execute
Uniswap V 2 Pair
IN
0x400F...924413
1,121,264.38
KEY MEASURING CONTEST (KMC)
430 days 13 hrs ago
0x2120d...b3f831
Execute
Uniswap V 2 Pair
IN
0x400F...924413
1,392,955.60
KEY MEASURING CONTEST (KMC)
430 days 13 hrs ago
0x6998f...fb7bdc
Execute
0x400F...924413
OUT
Uniswap V2: Uniswap V 2 Pair
144.00
Banana (BANANA)
430 days 13 hrs ago
0x6998f...fb7bdc
Execute
0x400F...924413
OUT
Banana Gun: Banana
6.00
Banana (BANANA)
430 days 13 hrs ago
0xb7325...028fd2
Execute
Uniswap V 2 Pair
IN
0x400F...924413
312,627,691.96
ProbablyObsessiveNarcissisticDementia2IQ (POND)
430 days 18 hrs ago
0x6a283...02fb95
Execute
0x400F...924413
OUT
Uniswap V2: Uniswap V 2 Pair
88.82
Banana (BANANA)
430 days 18 hrs ago
0x6a283...02fb95
Execute
0x400F...924413
OUT
Banana Gun: Banana
3.70
Banana (BANANA)
430 days 18 hrs ago
0x756af...bfe50c
Execute
Uniswap V 2 Pair
IN
0x400F...924413
28,918,023.49
Banana Printer (BP)
430 days 19 hrs ago
0x874c5...b5021b
Execute
Uniswap V2: Uniswap V 2 Pair
IN
0x400F...924413
242.52
Banana (BANANA)
430 days 19 hrs ago
0x6d2b1...4f2484
Execute
Uniswap V 2 Pair
IN
0x400F...924413
1,239,019,043.12
PUMPY (PUMP)
430 days 23 hrs ago
0xb75e7...35e92b
Execute
0x400F...924413
OUT
Uniswap V 2 Pair
29,309,422.60
DOINKER (DOINK)
430 days 23 hrs ago
0xb75e7...35e92b
Execute
0x400F...924413
OUT
DOINKER
296,054.77
DOINKER (DOINK)
430 days 23 hrs ago
0x3b78d...037882
Execute
0x400F...924413
OUT
Uniswap V 2 Pair
186,258.61
Real Smurf Pepe (Настоящий Пепе)
430 days 23 hrs ago
0x3b78d...037882
Execute
0x400F...924413
OUT
Pepe
1,881.40
Real Smurf Pepe (Настоящий Пепе)
430 days 23 hrs ago
0xffe01...197a5f
Execute
0x400F...924413
OUT
Uniswap V 2 Pair
1,693,151.15
Celsius 2.0 (CEL2.0)
430 days 23 hrs ago
0xffe01...197a5f
Execute
0x400F...924413
OUT
CELSIUS 2
17,102.54
Celsius 2.0 (CEL2.0)
430 days 23 hrs ago
0x9339d...9104f6
Execute
0x400F...924413
OUT
Uniswap V 2 Pair
7,966,031.74
1000YearAlienUFOFoundInMexicoProbablyNothingAndProbablyFake911IsFakeItsAllFakeLookWhatTheyDidToTrumpAndTateJustAPsyopGlitchInTheMatrixButNoneOfThisMattersBecauseBTCXRPNewATHIncoming2024Inu (ALIEN)
430 days 23 hrs ago
0x9339d...9104f6
Execute
0x400F...924413
OUT
ALIEN
162,572.08
1000YearAlienUFOFoundInMexicoProbablyNothingAndProbablyFake911IsFakeItsAllFakeLookWhatTheyDidToTrumpAndTateJustAPsyopGlitchInTheMatrixButNoneOfThisMattersBecauseBTCXRPNewATHIncoming2024Inu (ALIEN)
430 days 23 hrs ago
0xe1e7b...7fe6fa
Execute
Uniswap V 2 Pair
IN
0x400F...924413
3,072,775.52
🫶 (🫶)
431 days 13 hrs ago
0x86b16...813a53
Execute
Uniswap V 2 Pair
IN
0x400F...924413
7,179,121.36
🫶 (🫶)
431 days 13 hrs ago
0x2b682...d0759c
Execute
0x400F...924413
OUT
Uniswap V 2 Pair
1,188,687.03
Pepe Is Fine (PINE)
431 days 13 hrs ago
0x2b682...d0759c
Execute
0x400F...924413
OUT
Pepe Is Fine
12,006.94
Pepe Is Fine (PINE)
431 days 13 hrs ago
0x6877b...31878a
Execute
Uniswap V2: BANANA 87
IN
0x400F...924413
95.04
Banana (BANANA)
431 days 13 hrs ago
0xccc76...ed846c
Execute
Uniswap V 2 Pair
IN
0x400F...924413
7,350,894.56
Smurf Sighting (шайлушай)
431 days 14 hrs ago
0xce826...340dce
Execute
Uniswap V 2 Pair
IN
0x400F...924413
1,710,253.69
Celsius 2.0 (CEL2.0)
431 days 15 hrs ago
0x22a5d...f2a978
Execute
Uniswap V 2 Pair
IN
0x400F...924413
42,750,845.69
CHEETOS (Cheetos)
431 days 15 hrs ago
0x945ff...67c71d
Execute
Uniswap V 2 Pair
IN
0x400F...924413
8,128,603.81
1000YearAlienUFOFoundInMexicoProbablyNothingAndProbablyFake911IsFakeItsAllFakeLookWhatTheyDidToTrumpAndTateJustAPsyopGlitchInTheMatrixButNoneOfThisMattersBecauseBTCXRPNewATHIncoming2024Inu (ALIEN)
431 days 15 hrs ago
0xa39a7...75dad1
Execute
Uniswap V 2 Pair
IN
0x400F...924413
188,140.01
Real Smurf Pepe (Настоящий Пепе)
431 days 15 hrs ago
0xf324a...fa4d83
Execute
Uniswap V 2 Pair
IN
0x400F...924413
29,605,477.37
DOINKER (DOINK)
431 days 15 hrs ago
0x11045...359063
Execute
Uniswap V 2 Pair
IN
0x400F...924413
1,200,693.97
Pepe Is Fine (PINE)
431 days 15 hrs ago