text:
Would it be a dilemma to wanting to earn interest if our bitcoin is in some exchange, but we also want the security in our own wallet?
I think one general thinking is that, for the bitcoin to be secure, it has to be in our own wallet, and preferably, a hardware cold wallet.
But at the same time, we would also see that 3% interest we can earn on our bitcoin gone every year, if the bitcoin is kept in some exchange.
Is there a way to solve this problem currently? But except maybe if there is a insurance system like FDIC insured, so that we can deposit our bitcoin somewhere, have it guarded against theft, and at the same time earning interest?

Perhaps this related topic answers your question: Is there logically any way to “live off of Bitcoin interest” without giving up control of your coins?

No it does not. Some answers in there are very old too. Is this a "let's try to search and if there is a title that looks like it, then close the question"?

Can you explain how it doesn't answer your question? It looks very applicable to me, and only a few months old.


text:
I transferred BTC from my blockchain wallet to my trading wallet using my can to address and it never showed up!
Help please! I tried to transfer money from my blockchain wallet to my trading wallet. I even scanned in the QR code so it wouldn't be wrong. My funds never showed up! The wallet it went to seems to have been created the day I did the transfer and since has had many transactions! What the heck happened! I am so confused. How could this have happed with scanning the QR code? It is almost as if the wallet address I sent it to is a receiving account for transfers? Is there such a thing? The other strange thing is I got no emails of any transfers? I have tried to trace the transactions but I don't really understand what I am doing and what it means. Someone said if I have the HASH then I can go in and possibly cancel it if it is unconfirmed. It shows spent now... this was on the 17th and I have sent many emails to blockchain with no response. Should I put the PKscript up or subscript? I can put the receiving wallet up here but I don't think that will do much good unless someone knows a way to find out who it is from that even though it should be MINE! Any help would be greatly appreciated.

What trading site did you send it to? The way you describe it it would seem like a scam honestly.

It was blockchain.com I am beginning to think it was blockchain themselves or an employee! My captcha was glitching or so I thought! I entered correctly 3 times it would just reset and ask again and again so I sent an email @ 2:49pm on 1/17/2021 to blockchain customer service. I go back into my wallet the following day and at 2:50pm 1/17/2021 my money was transferred to someone else’s wallet! I have been taking so many classes online to understand this! It is so confusing!

Ok, from that it sounds like your login attempt got forwarded to a phishing site when you experienced the captcha problem. If you manually typed the address, or clicked a link (instead of using a saved bookmark), it's highly likely that you ended up on a "fake" blockchain.com site with a very similar address, created to steal usernames and passwords from anyone unlucky enough to end up there. :-(

Darn it! I am usually good at Ewing those. I do have a question as I done undo this hacking crap. The hackers can they see everything on my computer once they get in or just that website. For phishing it is a fake website which I get but I was able to create a ticket from the website but obviously I can’t tell now... how would I get on a phishing site? Only through email? Or text? Sorry for all the questions, just trying to understand. I am pretty freaked out because I now realize they could do the same thing with my bank account!! They could just wire money & it is gone just like this!

If you transferred funds to the receiving address for your trading account, and the transaction is included/confirmed in a block on the blockchain, but not showing up in your trading account, then you need to contact your trading platform.
A few points to remember here:
1: Once a transaction has been included in a block, it CANNOT be cancelled, voided, or "called back." The only way you could get that bitcoin back is if you have the recipient send it back to you in a new transaction.
2: While most reputable exchanges use separate wallets for each client to deposit to & have servers monitoring for incoming transfers, there is always the possibility of a "glitch" or "server goof." As soon as any deposit to your exchange wallet has more that 3 confirmations on the blockchain, if the exchange hasn't updated your transaction, CONTACT THEM, it could be an honest mistake & if so, they'll be more than happy to correct it for you.
3: All responsibility for making sure your bitcoin transactions go to the right place rests on YOU. Since bitcoin is a decentralized platform, there's no central bank/government you can contact if you make a mistake. Therefore, you should always verify ALL of the information (destination address...read at least the first & last 5 digits, coin amount, and coin type [make sure you don't send BTC to a BCH or BSV wallet]) at least twice BEFORE you confirm sending a transaction.

Thank you so much for your answer. Here is the issue... Now that I have done more research I was locked out of my wallet when the transfer occurred. I have no idea who’s address the transaction went to. What is odd though is that I transferred my bit coin in 2 transactions. 1/2/2021 I transferred 0.00933272 BTC from my coinbase account and then I did a second transaction on 1/14/2021 0.01063528 BTC from the same coinbase wallet. Then on 1/17/2021 who ever took my money did it in the same order. Is that strange? Or am I just thinking it is odd?

That does sound odd, but in order to make much sense of it I would have to see a lot more data on the wallets in question. ... from what you say, however, it seems highly likely that your account was hacked, and the hacker may have been forced to duplicated previous transaction patterns as part of a security glitch that they were exploiting.

Robherc KV5ROB Thank you so much for your time. I really appreciate it. How can a wallet be hacked? I thought it was almost impossible? Although I did hear someone say that Blockchain has holes in their platform and isn’t that secure. Have you experienced such a thing? I confirmed the transfers on the block and it looks like an exchange of some sort but I can not tell. How would a wallet get hacked where they would have visibility to my transactions? I am learning & trying to understand before I do anything else with crypto.I was so scared I went to my bank and told them to block online access

It's not necessarily your wallet that got hacked, so much as your blockchain account, I'm guessing. Hacking a wallet is only as difficult as hacking the computer where the private key is stored, HOWEVER, many exchanges and "web wallets" use their own wallets to hold the funds, and their system just keeps track of which user's account those funds belong to. On such a platform, anyone who hacked your exchange/web wallet account wouldn't need your private keys, just access to tell the server that your account asked for the transfer.

That's why it is highly recommended to generate wallets for any "high value" cryptocurrency storage using a hardware wallet device, or on a computer that you never connect to the internet. That way you can use the less secure exchanges & web wallets with funds that won't hurt you as badly if they're lost, but transfer to the "cold storage" wallets for long-term safekeeping.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

sort: votes


text:
How to convert HD wallet master key to extended key and child keys in javascript?
I'm trying to learn how HD wallets work internally by writing javascript code that can derive child keys from parent keys. So far, the only thing I've been able to do is convert a BIP39-generated seed to a master key and chain code. I can do that successfully.
Now I would like to convert the master key to an extended key, the long string that starts with xprv. I'd also like to know how to derive child keys from these, and obtain the private key for signing with any of the accounts.
I've been using this confusing BIP32 document as a guide so far, but I'm getting nowhere with it. As far as I can tell, before you derive any keys, you have to serialize the ones you already have.
The serialization process is described like this:

Extended public and private keys are serialized as follows:

4 byte: version bytes (mainnet: 0x0488B21E public, 0x0488ADE4 private;
testnet: 0x043587CF public, 0x04358394 private)
1 byte: depth: 0x00 for master nodes, 0x01 for level-1 derived keys, ....
4 bytes: the fingerprint of the parent's key (0x00000000 if master key)
4 bytes: child number. This is ser32(i) for i in xi = xpar/i, with xi the key
being serialized. (0x00000000 if master key)
32 bytes: the chain code
33 bytes: the public key or private key data (serP(K) for public keys,
0x00 || ser256(k) for private keys)

This 78 byte structure can be
encoded like other Bitcoin data in Base58, by first adding 32 checksum
bits (derived from the double SHA-256 checksum), and then converting
to the Base58 representation. This results in a Base58-encoded string
of up to 112 characters. Because of the choice of the version bytes,
the Base58 representation will start with "xprv" or "xpub" on mainnet,
"tprv" or "tpub" on testnet.

Here is the javascript code I wrote in attempting to follow these instructions.
const crypto = require ('crypto');
const base58 = require ('base58');

const master_key_hex = '5a02ee5cb622f15a4e7ab3dfe7faa9861738da2ae7bb936c685af4dd7b1fbdee';
const chain_code_hex = 'abfbc73691eaad7ca4eb5e25bc51c5804af221cc27a23460634498497f92c92c';

// the 78 bytes of data
var data = '0488ade4';
data += '00';
data += '00000000';
data += '00000000';
data += chain_code_hex;
data += '00' + master_key_hex;

// add the checksum
const hash_1 = crypto.createHash ('sha256');
var sha_256_1 = hash_1.update (data, 'hex').digest ('hex');
const hash_2 = crypto.createHash ('sha256');
var sha_256_2 = hash_2.update (sha_256_1, 'hex').digest ('hex');

var data_with_checksum = data + sha_256_2;

//data = Buffer.from (data_with_checksum, 'hex');
var result = base58.encode (data_with_checksum);
console.log (result);

I tried it with a string and with a Buffer and it gave me the same error message both times. The error message is:
Error: Value passed is not a non-negative safe integer.

I have a feeling I am not even close to doing this right. Does anyone know how it should be coded to derive child keys from a master key?

The base58 module is designed for Flickr; it uses a different alphabet ordering than Bitcoin, and only handles fairly small numbers not the size Bitcoin needs. For Bitcoin use bs58 module plus one other fix: the checksum is not the whole SHA256d but only the first 4 bytes, or since you store it in hex the first 8 chars:
const bs58 = require ('bs58');
... same except
var data_with_checksum = data + sha_256_2.substring(0,8);
var result = bs58.encode(Buffer.from(data_with_checksum,'hex'));
->
xprv9s21ZrQH143K3mfksXFtCXmQBeuA4wJqhcEJKgxzocJqadRRZZZvW2quiv9XiRw9BipJgvjbGLipAH5ZT9868uA4LFwJexUaJus2EVe4FXq

However, as the bs58 page says, there is a bs58check module that combines the checksum and encode for you:
const bs58check = require ('bs58check');
... first two parts only, computing data
var result = bs58check.encode(Buffer.from(data,'hex'));
-> same

And the same github user also has bip32 and bip32-utils modules that probably do the whole job for you, although the readme's are fairly limited and you'll probably need to look at the code (I didn't have time).

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Bitcoin Core not showing content of address
Bitcoin core newbie here.
I have an old wallet  backed up here, and upon download of the latest blockchain info, importing the wallet, my balance is empty.
Now I do have 3 transactions which I made in 2018, including one on which I transferred all my remaining assets. One of these addresse, upon blockchain explorer verification, indeed contains my asset.
How can I access it via bitcoin core? The wallet was originaly created within Bitcoin Core.
When getting the private key to the address holding my asset, and importing the priv key into an alternative wallet such as electrum, I can't see the public address holding my assets and not access them either.
Can someone tell me how I can access the content of the public access bound to my private key please?
I spent hours on this already...
cheers

download of the latest blockchain info, importing the wallet,

If you did it in that order you probably need to rescan using the console or command line options.

rescanblockchain ( start_height stop_height )
Rescan the local blockchain for wallet related transactions. Note: Use
"getwalletinfo" to query the scanning progress.
Arguments:

start_height    (numeric, optional, default=0) block height where the rescan should start
stop_height     (numeric, optional) the last block height that should be scanned. If none is provided it will rescan up to the tip at
return time of this call.

Thanks for that! so sorry for the late response. How woud I go about finding the block the transaction is located in ? I have a transaction ID but that's it... sorry for being a newbie

@SpadeJohnsson, I don't know how to do that with Bitcoin-core but some blockchain explorers will tell you the block number (block height) of the block that contains a transaction with a specified transaction ID. For example https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/transaction/871477b57c61ff4d002552f8b104a11b3d21d51e7f459c17485738bb154a7aeb says "Block id
704,0072"

Ok tanks a lot mate, I'll dig into this throughout the week-end!


text:
Energy cost of bitcoin vs physical currency?
The bitcoin mining infrastructure uses a certain amount of energy and processing power to operate.
The resource usage is often cited as part of arguments critical of bitcoin.
But relatively speaking how much more resources does bitcoin mining take compared to physical currency?
No body really talks about all the resources that it takes to use physical currency.

The money first has to be produced in a mint.  That mint and the machines in it had to be built.  These are all of course specialty machines and are probably very expensive.  The building and machines require energy to operate.  They all need to be maintained.  And people need to be employed to do all those things.

Money is typically stored in banks.  There are thousands of bank locations in the world.  They all needed to be constructed.  And those buildings all require resources and people to operate.

Physical currency must actually be moved.  Moving any significant amount of physical currency requires security.  A large store typically has to hire an armored car to transport money from their safe to the bank.  An entire niche industry needs to exist to produce those vehicles.  Security workers need to be employed to operate them and protect the money.

Money must be stored.  Millions of safes/vaults were built so individuals, businesses, and banks can store their money.  In general there is a lot of resources spent on securing physical currency.

I haven't used physical cash in a year. For me and most compatriots, Bitcoin's key competitors are gold and VISA. Therefore I expect comparisons with the costs of old fashioned physical cash will be unpersuasive to skeptics and won't win any worthwhile arguments about energy and sustainability.

I don't think this is a bad question at all, it actually asks the right things, but given the uncertainty of how to even calculate the energy requirements of the traditional financial system, it seems like stack exchange might not be the best platform to answer this?

@chytrik I was hoping someone had done a study at some point and could just cite the result.  Many banks list their operating costs in their quarterly financial reports.  For example, the operating costs for Bank of America were 93 billion dollars in 2020.  One could probably take the figures from the largest banks in the world and get a good chunk of the answer figured out.

I've voted to reopen, because this topic seems to be more generally about comparing Bitcoin's energy footprint with alternatives than a specific moment in time.

@Murch  You are correct.  The question is about comparing the cost of legacy financial systems vs bitcoin in general.  So far the answers suggest that the legacy systems cost well over a trillion of dollars a year.  Whereas the cost of bitcoin mining is in the 10s of billions range.  The seems to make a pretty good case in favor of bitcoin.

This question is a bit misleading, as the argument against POW isn't that bitcoin should be terminated but that POW should replaced by something else, like Ethereum did. There is no good justification to waste 0.1% of earths energy production instead of doing more research.

The most extensive research on this topic is:"An Order-of-Magnitude Estimate of the Relative Sustainability of the Bitcoin Network" by Hass McCook
among others, it cover specific topic as the economic and environmental cost of cash printing & coin minting, banking system, gold mining & recycling etc ...
The results of the research are summarized in the tables below.

take in mind that these data are from 2014, so Bitcoin cost of production and consumption are actually much higher.

These are the estimation about miners efficiency at the time, when the network hashrate was 130 Phash/s and the most efficient miner was Antminer S3 with 0.766 w/Ghash:

I redid the calculations using current hashrate of 186 Ehash/s, an efficiency of miners ranging from 0.1 w/Gh of Antminer S9 to S19 0.03 w/Gh and keeping all other assumptions the same, these are the results:

About 70/80 times more consumption than was in 2014 (depending on which energy efficiency you pick as network average). Certainly the costs of the other activities (banking, mining, minting) have also increased, but not in this size.
Although the research in question is detailed, the author was honest in saying that the data is not an accurate representation of reality, but an estimate of its order of magnitude.

This is a pretty good answer.  I am glad that it seems to agree with my estimate in terms of cost.

So what? Bitcoin is marketed as a payment system for buying goods and services. What is the (total cost / actual buying transactions).

Nice answer, thanks. A problem is however that bitcoin's energy usage is proportional to the mining reward, and thus the picture will look very differently if bitcoins market capitalization would reach the market capitalization of gold. So a fairer comparison would be spent energy per dollar.

Since no one else has made the attempt, I will (partially) answer my own question.
To create a lower bound on the operating cost of the non-bitcoin financial system, I will add the operating costs of the 10 largest banks in the world.  2020/2021 are atypical years, so lets use the operating costs from 2019.
According to the doughroller.net these are the "10 largest" banks in the world, whatever that means.
https://www.doughroller.net/banking/largest-banks-in-the-world/
In total these banks employ 2.34 million people.  Their combined annual operating cost in 2019 was $625 billion US dollars.
This is of course an underestimate of the total true cost because there are hundreds of smaller banks I didn't list, as well expenses incurred by individuals that I have no way of figuring out.  Unfortunately it would probably take a large study by a university, government, or large financial institution to estimate a more accurate figure.
Below are the operating costs for each bank.
Industrial and Commercial Bank of China
Employees 460,000
OPERATING COST:  $92.464B
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/IDCBY/industrial-commercial-bank-of-china/financial-statements
China Construction Bank Corporation
EMPLOYEES:  330,000
OPERATING COST:  $28.822B (listed as 188,132M RMB)
http://www.ccb.com/en/newinvestor/upload/20200428_1588066796/20200428214237304314.pdf
Agricultural Bank of China
EMPLOYEES:  444,000 employees
OPERATING COST:  $38.556B (listed as 251.67B RMB)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_Bank_of_China
Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group
EMPLOYEES:  106,000 employees
OPERATING COST:  $30B (¥2.8 trillion)
https://www.zacks.com/stock/news/931026/mitsubishi-ufj-mufg-records-dismal-earnings-in-fiscal-2019
Bank of China
EMPLOYEES:  310,000 employees
OPERATING COST:  $38.449B
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/BACHY/bank-of-china/operating-expenses
J.P. Morgan Chase
EMPLOYEES:  245,000 employees
OPERATING COST:  $94.096B
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/JPM/jpmorgan-chase/income-statement
HSBC Holdings PLC
EMPLOYEES:  235,000 employees
OPERATING COST:  $57.427B
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/HSBC/hsbc/income-statement
BNP Paribas
EMPLOYEES:  190,000 employees
OPERATING COST:  $85.05B
https://invest.bnpparibas.com/sites/default/files/documents/ef_audites_eng_31.12.2019.pdf
Bank of America (BAC)
EMPLOYEES:  208,000 employees
OPERATING COST:  $80.835B
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/BAC/bank-of-america/income-statement
Wells Fargo
EMPLOYEES:  270,000 employees
OPERATING COST:  $79.717B
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/WFC/wells-fargo/income-statement

I personally think the whole consumption argument is ignorant. it is not like anyone here plans to not consume energy, so as a whole the world is going to naturally consume more energy as we grow, the block chains energy is all energy that more or less would be there and consumed no matter what, though if we switch to a system that lives off energy consumption, wouldn't that then make energy a commodity and eventually lead to people being priced out of electricity?  hmmmm...


text:
creating your own bitcoin block
I've just started reading about bitcoin, and I had this question, what if :

I created two bitcoin addresses.
added for example 1 btc to one of them.
then I start sending that 1 btc back and forth between the two
addresses till I complete one block but somehow I don't broadcast
those transactions.
I calculate the magic number.
broadcast the block and I claim the mining fee without any
competition.

I know there is something preventing this from being possible I just don't know what it is ?
thank you for time.

That is not how bitcoin works. You can't just "add" bitcoin to an address without a valid UTXO. There is not a minimum number of transactions required to create a block. A miner can create a block with no transactions included if they wanted, so the sending back and forth idea makes no sense. Calculating the magic number isn't something you can do on your own, all the other miners in the world are racing to solve for the same block, and once they do, you need to update your equation to solve for a new magic number. I think you need to do a bit more research on how bitcoin works.

Thank you for reading my question. you said :" You can't just "add" bitcoin to an address without a valid UTXO" but what I meant by added for example 1 btc to one of them, I would buy that bitcoin just to make those transactions to come legit. My idea was what's holding anybody from creating an empty block(then no competition) and getting the block reward.

I think what I messing is that you need to be fast enough to make a block with the hash of the previous block before anybody else, isn't it ?


text:
What does Tyler Winklevoss mean about this claim that you can borrow money from your Bitcoin without spending them?
Here: https://youtu.be/GWBZisZtfeY?t=232

And today, you can borrow off your Bitcoin, get the cash, spend it without selling the Bitcoin

I want to do this. I need to do this. How exactly? Where? Who? Do they require KYC/AML BS? (Besides them knowing my bank account/name.)
So let's say that I have X BTC. Now I want to get "free income" from those without spending them. How do I do this, exactly? Is he really serious?
(I would be asking Mr. Winklevoss himself, but I have a feeling that he would not see it or at least not respond.)

Hi Jaes B., since this statement seems to be provided without any further context, it's not clear how anyone besides Mr. Winklevoss could know which service he was exactly thinking about or what properties that service has. Somebody recently asked about a similar topic here, though: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/q/100935/5406


text:
Why should I care about my transactions ever reaching the blockchain if I can spend them while unconfirmed?
From what I understand, I can use unconfirmed transactions because they are essentially already confirmed, they just need to reach the blockchain. This can create a chain of unconfirmed transactions, but that's fine because they will all eventually be confirmed and added to the blockchain.
If that is the case, why should I care about my transactions ever reaching the blockchain? I don't see a reason why I should care, and with that, I don't see a reason to include a fee with my transactions.

@PhilipsKuyper I'm confused. That last sentence tells me I should care even less about the fee because if I'm lucky the transaction will be dropped and I'm allowed to spend it again. What am I missing here?

The flaw in your thinking is that you assume your transactions will be confirmed. That is not the case. There is no guarantee that a transaction will ever be confirmed, and in fact, if the fee is too low, it is almost guaranteed that the transaction will never confirm.
You should care because the person you are sending Bitcoin to cares that it confirms. You should care because you won't receive what you are paying for until your transaction confirms. Most merchants will not consider the payment complete until at least one confirmation. If they do not consider the payment complete, you aren't going to be receiving any good or service that you have paid for.
Merchants (and other recipients) care about transactions confirming because it guarantees that the Bitcoin has actually been transferred. While a transaction is unconfirmed, it could be double spent and a different transaction that uses the same inputs and sends the Bitcoin elsewhere could be confirmed. If they accept the payment, provide the goods or service, and then find out that the transaction has been double spent, then they have both not made any money and lost the value of whatever has been provided to you. So receivers almost always wait for confirmations before considering a payment to be complete.


text:
How to calculate daily weekly monthly price change in percentage?
I am trying to match the binance's daily price change. I know it does provide 24h price change in percentage but the value I calculate is off no matter what.
So I am asking binance API to give me candle data for 1 day/week/month respectively.
I have these values I am using: current price (P), open price (OP), close price (CP).
I tried these but the values do not match what binance is showing for the daily change so I know all other calculations are also wrong:
priceChangeInPercentage = 100*(P - OP)/P

How does binance calculate this value?

You need to change the denominator to Open Price (OP) because the 24hpercentage will be calculated on basis of OP not on the last traded price (P).
priceChangeInPercentage = 100*(P - OP)/OP

Dropping from $6,000 to $3,000 is not a 100% drop. :)

Yes, it's not a 100% drop.
OP=6000$
P=3000$
change%= 100*(3000-6000)/6000 = -50%


text:
What is the best way to send money to a friend overseas using a Bitcoin ATM?
I have a close friend living overseas who I wanted to send money to. They suggested using a Bitcoin ATM instead of other methods. What is the suggested best way or method for me to use this method?

Ask your friend to send you their Bitcoin receiving address - they should use their Bitcoin-Wallet to create and show them a new receiving address for this transaction. They can then send you the Bitcoin-address in email etc. It will look something like one of the following examples (don't use these):
bc1qar0srrr7xfkvy5l643lydnw9re59gtzzwf5mdq or
3J98t1WpEZ73CNmQviecrnyiWrnqRhWNLy or
1BvBMSEYstWetqTFn5Au4m4GFg7xJaNVN2
They can instead send you a QR-barcode that you might be able to scan into the Bitcoin machine. This is probably less prone to mistakes. If you make a mistake the money is lost - bitcoin transactions cannot be undone, cancelled, or reversed.
At the Bitcoin machine, make sure it is not creating a new wallet or a new account with some business but is instead sending the purchased BTC directly to an address of your choice. The details depend on the make and model of Bitcoin machine. You may have to choose some specific options on the machine. Enter or scan your friend's address as the receiving address and double-check it. Make a note of any transaction-ID and/or keep any paper receipt.


text:
Do you think a wallet could have value
Do you think a wallet could have value based solely on the 12 word phrase??
Do you think a wallet address with one of the twelve words being the word satoshi be considered a collectors item that has value?
I also have a wallet that has the same word twice so it’s a 11 word phrase lol I thought these we’re unquie and decided to hang onto them and see if anyone finds value in them.
I guess you couldn’t actually put your bitcoins in it because of fear Ide relog into it or could you or someone actually be able to block someone else from logging into a wallet if they got the 12 wordS? I think blockchain ip block would prevent a 12 word login

Do you think empty wallets with unique 12 word phrase be considered  Collectable like my satoshi

No. The point of mnemonic seeds is to provide a human readable encoding for wallet backups.
To work as intended, they need to be unique and secret. Beyond that, anyone can just pick words from the list to create new seeds, so specific words appearing are not particularly interesting. Note that picking your words manually instead of randomly will severely reduce the security of the wallet.

Where is this list and how can I pick my own words

I've added the link to my answer.


text:
What would the expected block mining time be if 30% of the total network hashrate disappeared suddenly?
Ignoring the economic reasons as to why this may or may not happen.  If for some reason the network hashrate suddenly dropped by 30% immediately after a difficulty adjustment and remained at that level until the next difficulty adjustment, how long would each block be expected to take to mine until the next difficulty adjustment.

You're trying to do 100% of the work with 70% of the workforce.
The expected block interval is to the target interval of 10 minutes as the total work is to the workforce:

Texp = 10 minutes  × (100% ÷ 70%) = 14.3 minutes

The difficulty reset would get extended by the same factor:

Dreset = 14 days × 100 ÷ 70  = 20 days

The expected block interval would be about 14.3 minutes for twenty days.


text:
With sendmany, how to specify the "subtractfeefrom" so that I pay the fee, but it's not subtracted from any of the "inner transactions"?
https://bitcoincore.org/en/doc/0.21.0/rpc/wallet/sendmany/
If I don't want the recipient to pay the fee, but I also don't want to subtract the fee from any of the "inner transactions" specified (that is, I want to pay it myself), what do I do with the "subtractfeefrom" parameter?

From the documentation:

The fee will be equally deducted from the amount of each selected
address.
Those recipients will receive less bitcoins than you enter in their
corresponding amount field.
If no addresses are specified here, the sender pays the fee.

So it seems like you simply don't specify any addresses in that field.

I seriously read "If no addresses are specified here, the recipient pays the fee." ... Several times. I don't get how that is possible, but it's true. Hmm.


text:
Does Sovryn really not allow you to use it if you use Bitcoin Core?
https://live.sovryn.app/
This is apparently what Sovryn consists of. Not a downloadable application, but a website. It's very confusing, and so is its FAQ.
When I click the "Engage Wallet" button, it pops up a choice between:

"Browser Wallet".
"Mobile Wallet".
"Hardware Wallet" (disabled/greyed out).

Where is the "desktop wallet"? How do I use Bitcoin Core with this thing? Why would it support only "browser wallets"? I didn't even know that such a thing existed.
I keep hearing all these fantastic claims, but then when I try to actually use it, it's just... vapor? Fluff? Or am I once again missing something that you all understand?

This question could be improved by phrasing the query as an open-ended question such as e.g. "How can I use Sovryn if I use Bitcoin Core as my wallet?".

Sovryn is built on the Rootstock Bitcoin-sidechain. It follows that you must run software that interacts with the Rootstock sidechain in order to use Sovryn. Bitcoin Core only interacts with Bitcoin's blockchain and is not aware of the Rootstock sidechain.


text:
Does Bisq somehow use the Bitcoin blockchain for recording trades?
I just noticed that, after accepting a trade to buy BTC for fiat, Bisq says:

Deposit transaction has been published.
You need to wait for at least one blockchain confirmation before starting the payment.

I don't understand what any of that means. Before starting the trade, I pre-topped up my Bisq wallet with BTC for the security deposit, and it has (and had) six confirmations before I clicked "accept". So this text can't very well have anything to do with that.
I want to make clear that I have no practical problem using Bisq, and have used it many times in the past. I'm just wondering what they mean by that text, and whether Bisq actually uses the Bitcoin blockchain somehow. Maybe it's using automated "smart contracts"?

When fulfilling a trade the BTC seller deposit the coins in a multisig script with 2 keys, one controlled by them and one by the buyer.
When the BTC seller acknowledge the reception of the fiat payment, they release the coin to a script only controlled by the buyer.
This mechanism, as well as a number of others (see the documentation for details), aims to disincentivize fraud.


text:
Someon offered me btc mine trough his mining device
Someone from the social network offered me a btc mine through his mining device. He asked me for an email address so he could create a mining wallet address for me. I gave it to him. I don't know what he did, but very soon after that I received an email from Blockchain informing me that my wallet address had been created and that I could connect it directly to the mining stream.
After this I should deposit a certain amount of btc to this wallet address, which is now, supposedly connected to this gentleman’s mining device.
is this a scam attack or ..

Seem like a scam yes

Does this answer your question? Someone else created a wallet for me to use. Is this a scam?

Yes, it's a scam. Don't send them anything.


text:
What is the purpose of submit header relative to submit block?
I understand what the usage is for submit block, but submit header exists in the RPC API reference.  Is that a legacy function?  Or can it still be used?
Thanks

See https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13399

@sanket1729 That answers it. I would give the bounty to you if you post the link as an answer.

The `submitheader RPC checks the header against the candidate chain tip to check if it is valid(i.e has sufficient PoW).

Is that a legacy function? Or can it still be used?

This can still be used today. Its primary use in quickly checking if a certain header is valid without actually checking the entire block (compared to submitblock). This is computationally much cheaper than checking the entire block which involves checking the double spends, transaction signature verification, Merkle root calculations etc.
For example, you can implement the chain sync logic using headers-first outside bitcoind using this RPC. And according to the submitheaders PR, it was required for implementation of BetterHash protocol.

re "has sufficient PoW": Looking through [0], it appears that min_pow_checked is assumed as true without actually checking the PoW first?
A comment on the PR which introduced min_pow_checked[1] mentions that: "min_pow_checked can be setup to true .. when the block have been submitted by a RPC caller (like in submitheader())".
Should I take that to mean PoW is assumed to be already verified by the caller?
[0] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/50171df26c719c128dfb9c6a288ca7956562ba8e/src/rpc/mining.cpp#L1026
[1] https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25717#discussion_r961860152


text:
Are "coin mixers" actually a real thing? Can they be trusted?
Ever since I started hearing about Bitcoin, people have been mentioning "coin mixers" to me, and told me to use them. However, even early on, when they were practically throwing away Bitcoins to the left and to the right for anyone to grab, due to their low market price, these always seemed fishy to me.
I just couldn't trust them, even for small amounts of Bitcoin. Certainly not with all my coins.
Today, I just could never trust such a service to do anything but simply steal my coins and don't do anything besides keeping them.
At the same time, I really want privacy. I've paid such extra margins for all these years for purchasing Bitcoin in a "P2P" manner, but my name/identity is still known by various individuals with whom I have traded or purchased goods from.
When I start my Bitcoin service, I will necessarily have to send some Bitcoin out to customers every now and then. And then it will pick "pieces" from my wallet which are known to be tied to me! And that will violate my privacy. But I can't risk losing them entirely, or pay even more than what I've already lost from paying all these extra costs and not to mention the huge transaction fees that the Bitcoin network itself charges. Extra fees for "mixing" the coins is more or less unthinkable.
Are these really a thing? Or just another scam? How can I trust them? Do you all use them? Why wasn't this feature simply built into Bitcoin and automated?

Bitcoin privacy is a complicated and nuanced topic, to really get a good idea of what is involved, I would recommend reading this article. That said, I can still provide you with some more direct answers to your question:

people have been mentioning "coin mixers" to me, and told me to use them. However, (...) I just couldn't trust them, even for small amounts of Bitcoin.

You are smart to not trust your coins to someone else. In the early days of the network, some people ran 'mixing' services, which would accept deposits from users, and then return coins with an unrelated history back to those users. This would break the chain of ownership, but it has several obvious downsides:

You have to entirely trust the service to not steal your funds
You have to entirely trust the service to not be keeping logs of coin ownership
You have to entirely trust the service to be doing a good job of sending you coins with an unrelated history

So for most users, this is not a good solution to the problem of wanting to maintain privacy while using bitcoin.
The good news is that over time new techniques have been invented, that allow the user to obfuscate the history of their coins, without encountering the issues named above. Some examples of these techniques include what are broadly referred to as 'coinjoin' transactions, and 'payjoin' transactions.
'Coinjoin' transactions are a special transaction that take inputs from a large number of users, and then create outputs of equal value. As a user, the equal value output you receive from this transaction cannot be mapped back to your specific input, so you gain privacy in the sense that your output could now potentially have come from any one of the (many) inputs. By employing some clever cryptography and partially signed bitcoin transactions (PSBTs), you as a user never have to trust any server, or other participant of the transaction. The software will only sign your input if it can see that you are being paid one of the outputs, so there is no trust involved! Your coins always reside in addresses that you alone control the keys for. Some examples of wallets that provide this functionality include JoinMarket, and Wasabi.
'Payjoin' transactions provide privacy in a different way: they work to break some of the heuristics used by chain-spying companies, by creating transactions with inputs from both the payer and payee. For anyone that is not party to the transaction, it becomes difficult to infer which input(s)/output(s) were the actual payment. I believe BTCPayServer implements this feature, and there are likely a couple other wallets that can participate in this style of transaction as well (note: it is an interactive process, so you need both wallets to be capable, and online). As with the coinjoin transactions mentioned above, there is no trust involved in participating in a payjoin transaction.
There is also further research being done, to investigate the viability of other privacy enabling techniques. For example, this idea for a coinswap protocol was posted to the bitcoin-dev mailing list just a couple weeks ago, complete with a working implementation.
It isn't clear which techniques will be most useful in the future, but there certainly is a lot of promise for a more private bitcoin economy, if the right infrastructure is built and adopted.
And all of that said, by simply participating in a coinjoin/payjoin transaction, the user does not magically gain an impenetrable privacy shield. For example, if the user receives a coinjoin'd output, and then goes to search for that bitcoin address using a popular block explorer website, then they have just doxxed their interest in that address to the operators of that website (and their ISP, the NSA, etc). So now all of those entities can infer that that particular output is owned by someone at that particular IP address! Woops! Now some privacy has been lost, even if the on-chain history has been obfuscated. To reiterate what I first wrote: bitcoin privacy is difficult (but it is not impossible).

But that's not all! By using the lightning network, you remove the footprint of your payment on the blockchain entirely. Lightning transactions can be extremely private, they don't even need to be publicly broadcast, they can simply be communicated over private (encrypted) communication channels. Lightning is still in somewhat early stages of development and adoption, but it shows a great amount of promise, especially in terms of user privacy. (further to this, if taproot is adopted, then even the opening/closing of lightning channels will become more private, making lightning payments even more difficult to track).

So, to answer your last questions in brief:

Are these really a thing?

Yes

Or just another scam?

Some mixers are definitely scams, but the legitimate ones that use proper protocols are not.

How can I trust them?

You don't have to. With a good implementation, there is no risk of theft.

Do you all use them?

Every user must decide for themselves what level of privacy they want. Not all users have the same needs or desires. But I think it is generally a good idea to engage in privacy-preserving pratices.

Why wasn't this feature simply built into Bitcoin and automated?

In the future, it is entirely possible that wallets will employ these techniques 'under the hood', so that users gain the benefit of privacy, without even realizing what is going on in the background. I believe this is already the case with BTCPayServer, for example.
Other more advanced cryptographic techniques do exist, that can hide transaction information (such as output values, or addresses), but many of these techniques scale even more poorly than bitcoin already does, or have less battle-tested cryptographic assumptions, or require trusted setups, etc. Attempting to add such functionality to the bitcoin network would be a massive undertaking, which imposes a lot of risk on the network. For this reason, finding clever ways of crafting transactions to preserve privacy, without requiring major changes to the network's code, seems to be a more viable alternative.

I've mentioned a few software projects in this post; general disclaimer: I am not associated with any of those projects, I may or may not have used them in the past, and I will always encourage you to do your own research before running any bitcoin software.


text:
Is Mining Bitcoin While The Price is Low or High better?
I have a few questions:

Does the reward for Bitcoin increase/decrease when the price goes up and down?
Is it more profitable to mine when Bitcoin is down, or when it is up?

Thank you!

Does the reward for Bitcoin increase/decrease when the price goes up and down?

The reward for mining a bitcoin block is:
(the current block subsidy) + (the fees from the included transations) = (the block reward)
The block was originally 50 BTC, and this amount is cut in half every 210,000 blocks. At the time of writing, it is 6.25 BTC.
The price is an extrinsic property, it has no affect on the number of BTC included in the block reward (though obviously the dollar value of the block reward will change, as the price changes).

Is it more profitable to mine when Bitcoin is down, or when it is up?

Profitability entirely depends on the miner's costs, and revenue. It is a highly competitive free market.
When the price drops, some less efficient miners may become unprofitable, since costs are usually payable in fiat currency, and the block reward is realized in BTC.
When the price increases, miners will see a larger profit in fiat currency terms, but this also means that less efficient miners may join the network (as they are now able to operate profitably), thus netting the already-operating miners a smaller portion of the total rewards over time.
It is a constant push-and-pull. A higher fiat price per bitcoin will mean more revenue (denoted in fiat), but also more competition. We might expect this effect to roughly cancel out, so that profits trend towards zero on average (if they were higher than zero, we would expect more miners to join the network, to take a piece of this profit).

This is a very comprehensive answer, while still simple and easy to understand for someone who knows a very small amount about bitcoin (ME!) thanks a bunch!


text:
Recovering 2 of 2 multisig HD Wallet with bip38 encrypted private key
I have been trying to figure out if it is possible to restore my wallet with the current information I have.

The wallet is a 2 of 2 multisignature HD wallet
The first key is Bip38 and requires a password to decrypt private key
The second key has a 24 word seed

I currently have both xpub's, and the 24 word seed of the second key. Unfortunately I do not have the password for the bip38 encrypted private key. I created the wallet a while ago and cannot remember the password but I have some ideas of what the password might have been. Given this information, I believe it might be worthwhile to try to brute force the password.
I am unsure the best method of brute forcing a multisig wallet. If it was a non-multisig wallet, I could just do something like this:
const decryptedKey = bip38.decrypt(encryptedPrivateKey, password);
const privateKeyWif = wif.encode(
      0x80,
      decryptedKey.privateKey,
      decryptedKey.compressed
    );
const coinkey = CoinKey.fromWif(privateKeyWif);
console.log('address with btc im trying to recover' === coinkey.publicAddress, password) // Found password

The address I am trying to recover starts with a 3 as it is a P2SH address (multisig). When I run the code above I get an address that starts with a 1 (not multisig). With all this being said, what is the best way (if there is any) to validate the "correctness" of a password during brute forcing one key of a multisig wallet?


text:
Verify that WIF corresponds with bip32 extended public key
I have a bip38 encrypted private key that I lost the password to, and I have its corresponding extended public key. I want to brute force passwords as I have an idea of what it might be, but I need to check if the decrypted private key is valid. This is for a multi sig 2 of 2 wallet. One of the keys is bip39 which I have the mnemonic seed for, the other is the bip38 which I do not.
const decryptedKey = bip38.decrypt(encryptedPrivateKey, "some password generated by brute force");

What do I do with this decrypted private key in order to validate that I used the correct password during decryption? I know I cannot just convert it to bip32 and then check if the xpubs match, but is there a way I can validate this so I know if the password is correct?

This is for a multi sig 2 of 2 wallet. One of the keys is bip39 which I have the mnemonic seed for, the other is the bip38 which I do not. What do I do with this decrypted private key in order to validate that I used the correct password during decryption?

A couple things.
Your encrypted bip38 private key will not decrypt with an incorrect password, so you'll know you are using the correct password if the decryption is successful.
Additionally, for multisig wallets it is very important that you save the redeemscript after initial creation. If you didn't you can re-create it, but you need to know the public keys that were used to create the wallet AND the order they were used in the multisig wallet.
If you are able to decrypt your bip38 key you can take the resulting WIF and calculate the public key and then you recreate the multisig address and it's redeemscript to see if it matches. If not trying switching the order of public keys.


text:
Why does Bitcoin Core not support showing the prices in USD or other fiat currencies?
One of the major annoyances I have with Bitcoin is that the only wallet/client I trust to some degree, Bitcoin Core, for some reason only shows sums in BTC.
Every time I want to make a transaction, I have to copy and paste sums from it to my special, separate calculator to get how much money it is. And when it's time to make the transaction, and it displays the fee amount, I see it only as BTC. I then have to manually type the sum in (since it doesn't let you copy the fee part) to see how much the fee is.
This minor detail really causes a lot of frustration. I truly don't get why they won't just add this.
And I don't agree with those who would say that this would require it to rely on some central entity, etc. The Bitcoin network, transferring tons of data around the clock, could very easily be made to keep track of a small blob containing the top currencies' exchange rates against Bitcoin. It would not violate anyone's privacy to have that extra data shuffled around, and it would not be part of the blockchain, but simply the "RAM network", like all the other "communication signals". It's a very minor piece of data, and infinitely useful. It could even have multiple different ones and let you choose which one you want to use.
Why do they not want to add this feature?
PS: I'm not going to switch to a different wallet/client. Please don't suggest that.


text:
How do I use bitcoind to spend from private key but not store it
I understand that I need to import a private key in order to spend bitcoins, would it be possible to generate/use an address without storing or the server having the private keys in the server
Ive seen many crypto wallets claim to do this but how would I go about this process
Thank you!

For advanced users it is possible to build a raw transaction and sign it in the debug console without having the key imported into your wallet HOWEVER your node needs to be sync'ed at least up to the inputs you intend on spending.

I see, would it be easier to store and encrypt them in a way i wouldn't have access to it?


text:
Confused about input and output spending limitations and consolidation
I am sure the answer to this is trivial to someone who already knows the answer, but not to me.
I recently wanted to spend some received bitcoin for the first time and discovered that the associated transaction fee was huge (more than I wanted to spend!), for two reasons:

Fees are presently naturally high due to network congestion.
The address has small amounts of bitcoin from many sources, which apparently is problematic.

I spent some time researching the problem and learned that all money in an address must be spent at once. I read about the analogies to not being able to split a coin. Hence the need for change addresses and such. I learned about "consolidation" and how to consolidate transactions during times of low fees.
Experimentally, I consolidated the 3 inputs of a different address into 1 new address, using a low fee. It took a few weeks for the transaction to confirm, but now has successfully made that money more spendable, because the consolidation reduces future fees. Okay, fair enough.
Now I want to do that to my main bitcoin address which has 22 received inputs. So I will consolidate them all with a (relatively) low fee, into 1 new address, which, when it finally confirms, I will finally be able to spend.
But entirely by accident I discovered something weird in Electrum:

If I right-click an address, there is a secret feature "Spend from" which lets me select the source address. (This is useful, because previously the only way I knew to select the source address was to fudge the spending and fees numbers until they exactly matched the total of a particular address, which tricked the program into using that address.)

On the "Send" tab, Electrum then lists each individual received input to that source address. If I right-click the individual inputs, I can remove them. WHHHAAT?!?!?

This contradicts everything I spent days reading about, which was that I had to spend the entirety of inputs at once.
Is this configuration valid? Or will there be an error when I try to commit the transaction? Or will all the other inputs to the address be permanently lost? I am too scared to try it.
Perhaps, for example, the design purpose of being able to remove specific inputs from a transaction is a way to purge "dust", to prevent an attack whereby somebody could DoS a bitcoin address by sending it many 1-satoshi inputs, causing the address to become practically unspendable without incurring a fortune in fees. But this design would discard the unused inputs forever, or gift them to miners as fees.
If it is valid to spend only part of an address, and I won't lose the rest, then why did I wait 3 weeks for this silly consolidation lark? And why was Electrum moronically trying to force me to spend all of the address at once, phenomenally increasing the fee when I was perfectly happy leaving the rest of the damn money exactly where it was. And why are there so many articles online explaining why you have to spend inputs all at once?
I am terrified I will lose all my bitcoin if I try this, so I would appreciate links to example transactions on the blockchain to satisfy myself that this partial inputs thingie is valid.

I spent some time researching the problem and learned that all money in an address must be spent at once.

This is incorrect. The concept of an address does not even exist at the protocol level.
A transaction has inputs and outputs. Every output constructs a "coin" which has an amount and a locking script (encoding the conditions for spending it, which is often - but not necessarily - representable as an address). Inputs consume coins (in their entirety - every coin can be spent exactly once). Transactions can be seen as melting down old coins, and reforging new ones with them.
There are no rules about the locking scripts of coins you're spending. They can all be the same, they can all be different, and there may be other coins with the same locking scripts that aren't spent by the same transaction. Simply put, the Bitcoin protocol has no concept of "all coins associated with the same locking script" - this is only added by wallet software and block explorers for human consumption.

Is this configuration valid? Or will there be an error when I try to commit the transaction? Or will all the other inputs to the address be permanently lost? I am too scared to try it.

It is valid.

And why was Electrum moronically trying to force me to spend all of the address at once, phenomenally increasing the fee when I was perfectly happy leaving the rest of the damn money exactly where it was. And why are there so many articles online explaining why you have to spend inputs all at once?

I can only speculate here, but one reason may be privacy. By definition, multiple coins associated with the same address/locking script can be spent by the same people. Thus if you spend in multiple distinct transactions, you're revealing to the network that those two transactions are related to the same entity (you). Because of that, it is preferable to always spend all these coins simultaneously, the minimize how much you reveal.
Of course, in an ideal world you don't reuse addresses, and you never have multiple coins associated with the same address in the first place (except perhaps dust spam).


text:
Bitcoin Core wallet and Blockchain.com
sorry for the n00b question, it's been awhile since I looked into this. I have a Bitcoin Core wallet on my machine with a backup of the wallet.dat. It's been ages since I opened the application, so I've upgraded it and am re-syncing it.
I also have a Blockhain.com account (originally opened when it was Blockchain.info). I remember that on Blockchain.com I could see my BTC amount. I now can't log into to Blockchain.com because my 2FA device changed and support hasn't gotten back to me for days about how to reset it. Googling suggests their support never gets back.
Since I'm not hearing back from support I'm wondering if I have lost control of my wallet funds. Did the action of creating a Blockchain.com/Blockchain.info account mean I have handed over my wallet to the company and lost this BTC?

Did the action of creating a Blockchain.com/Blockchain.info account mean I have handed over my wallet to the company

Yes.

and lost this BTC?

You are wholly dependent on the continuing good-will and competence of the business and its customer support systems and staff.
When Satoshi Nakamoto invented Bitcoin, his famous white-paper said

What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust,
allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted
third party.

I feel too many people ignore this.

lesson learned. re: blockchain.com, do you know if it's possible to get around this issue with the backup phrase?

@carbonfibre. Yes you probably can. See https://support.blockchain.com/hc/en-us/articles/208771356-How-do-I-make-a-wallet-backup- which links to https://login.blockchain.com/#/recover but you'll need to understand the consequences (it creates a new "wallet" and there's probably other important thing to understand)

You can easily reset the 2FA on your account here
https://login.blockchain.com/#/reset-2fa
Only you have to know what was the original wallet ID and email account.
reset will take 7 days, then you can access the account without 2FA


text:
Will upgrading from 0.10.2 fix read block errors?
I have a relatively old version of Bitcoin Core (0.10.2) aka Bitcoin-QT.app, installed in 2015. Bitcoin Core won't open anymore. I'm on MacOS Mohave, v10.14.6. and I have just 60Gb of free hard drive space now. Below is what I've tried and my questions.
What I've tried

Tried to open Bitcoin-Qt.app, either through the terminal or the GUI. I goes through the verifying blocks stage. Then it says Loading wallet... and there is an error message, Error: A fatal internal error occured, see debug.log for details
In ~/Library/Application Support/Bitcoin/, I can see various files including my wallet.dat
At the bottom of the debug.log file I see the following:
2021-03-07 14:15:02 ERROR: CheckProofOfWork() : nBits below minimum work
2021-03-07 14:15:02 ERROR: ReadBlockFromDisk : Errors in block header
2021-03-07 14:15:02 *** Failed to read block

Questions

What's going on here? Will this be fixed if I update to Bitcoin Core v0.21.0 (the latest version) given that I'm coming from such an old version (0.10.2)?
Given I don't have enough hard drive space for the full blockchain size, would I be able to use an external hard rive in the process of upgrading? Bitcoin-Qt.app was initially installed on my MacBook, not an external HD. I know you can use an external drive on install.. but I'm not sure if it's different in an upgrading situation like mine?
Apart from backing up my wallet.dat, is there anything else I should take into consideration.


text:
Final Balance -Balance showing different then Coinspot BTC wallet
Bit of a beginner question
I have been using crypto wallets for a few months and have basically learned through trial and error.
The question is my BTC wallet on Coinspot has a $0 and 0.0 BTC balance.
However when I check my BTC wallet address on btc.com or blockchain explorer etc it shows a Final Balance/balance of a small amount of BTC.
https://btc.com/19xJAVY3XHnKr24XjbMX3ZRhiTL1DRDpMi
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/19xJAVY3XHnKr24XjbMX3ZRhiTL1DRDpMi
I'm not sure why it's different (guessing it's transaction fees or some error)  if the final balance is correct and my coinspot wallet balance is wrong/showing 0.0 what/how do I get access to it...

The coinspot wallet is a custodial wallet. It is an account with a business, not a normal wallet where you alone have access to private-keys. Therefore any money is in the hands of the custodian, Coinspot. Probably only they can help identify what has happened to the money under their control.

Thanks, @RedGrittyBrick it explains a lot in a brief summary.
I did email them prior and the reply wasn't very helpful
"When reviewing your CoinSpot accounts balances, we strongly recommend that you refer directly to the 'Order History' within your CoinSpot account.
A complete breakdown of the transactions conducted within your CoinSpot account can be found there, I have included a link below -
https://www.coinspot.com.au/my/orders/open"

I'll reply to their email and reword it a bit to see what the answer is and know what to do if it happens with another exchange Custodial wallet


text:
How to determine the balance associated with a given BTC address based on input/output amounts
I'm writing an application that attempts to calculate the running balance of a given BTC address by looking at data including block height, input amount, output amount, etc. However, I'm not certain about the logic involved here. Would it be possible to create this running balance by checking an input/output address and then tracking the input/output amount?
Here's a quick sample of the data that I'm looking:
BLOCK_DATE | BLOCK_HEIGHT | TRANS_HASH | INPUT_ADDRESS | OUTPUT_ADDRESS | INPUT_AMOUNT | OUTPUT_AMOUNT
01/11/2020    190            15c7853       abc             xyz1             -0.01          0.0001
01/11/2020    190            14v9876       abc             xyz2             -0.50          0.70
01/11/2020    191            19vc842       abc             xyz3             -5.03          0.413
01/12/2020    192            20ff4d3       abc             xyz4             -0.06          0.201
01/12/2020    192            154gf34       xyz1            abc              -0.07          0.18
01/12/2020    192            45f4ti5       ggg             abc              -0.10          0.24
01/12/2020    192            33cv5c5       jjj             abc              -0.08          1.13

So using this dummy data, how would I go about calculating the running balance for address abc? I know that the input/output isn't necessarily 1:1 and there are some nuances here that make it more complex than this. So I'm not sure if I could do something straightforward like sum all of the inputs and outputs for a given address.

It looks like you are trying to calculate address balances by what I assume to be transactions. The way the data is presented in your table, I get the impression that you are assuming that there is only one input address and one output address in every transaction. That's not the case, though.
Each input in a transaction spends an Unspent Transaction Output (UTXO) created by a previous transaction. Transactions can have many inputs and there is no requirement for all the inputs to have been received to the same address. In fact, address reuse is not recommended, so most of the time every input is associated with a different address.
Let's look for example at this random transaction (via blockchair.com) with four inputs and two outputs:

It uses funds that were previously received to four different addresses and reassigns the amounts to two new addresses. So, you'll need to amend your approach slightly: instead of looking at transactions as atomic units to feed your script, parse each input and each output separately.

I'm not sure if I could do something straightforward like sum all of the inputs and outputs for a given address.

You should do that.

the input/output isn't necessarily 1:1

I guess you are referring to transaction fees? You don't need to account for that.
Maybe you are referring to the lack of meaningful correspondence between individual inputs and individual outputs when there are multiple of either or both inputs and outputs? This doesn't affect the calculation.
Maybe you are referring to change? This doesn't affect how you calculate the balance for an address.

there are some nuances here that make it more complex than this

None that I can think of.


text:
How does the blockchain prevent transaction based on outdated note
This question borders along the line of cryptography and distributed systems, but I guess I have a strong chance of getting an answer if asked here. So here goes:
I understand that the blockchain is in essence a distributed ledger, and nodes taking part in both validation and just performing transaction do this based on their own copy of the distributed ledger.
Since this is distributed I assumed at any given point in time, not all node would have exactly the same data, as it takes some time for changes to propagate throughout the whole network.
Given this characteristics of distributed systems, the question then is, how does systems implemented using blockchains prevent erroneous transaction based on their outdated, and not yet up to date view of the network?
How does this problem get resolved?

the blockchain is in essence a distributed ledger

It is more accurate to think of it as a replicated journal for the following reasons:

unlike a distributed database, individual nodes hold a full copy (replica) of the whole data, not some coordinated subset of it.
Ledger and Journal are accounting terms. The Blockchain is a simple list of transactions in approximate chronological order. Just like an accounting journal. There are no accounts and no balances so it is unlike an accounting ledger.

how does systems implemented using blockchains prevent erroneous transaction based on their outdated, and not yet up to date view of the network?

The answer depends on what you mean by an erroneous transaction.
A network node that does not yet have the latest block of the blockchain will reject (or put aside) any transactions that depend on outputs of transactions in the missing block.
So it errs on the side of caution.
It will still reject new transactions that erroneously attempt to spend outputs of older blocks it knows about which have already been spent.
It will still reject new transactions that break any of the rules that don't depend on knowledge of prior transactions.
Bitcoin nodes don't need to know about people or balances because Bitcoin is electronic cash not an electronic bank account. Just as the person who sells you a cup of coffee doesn't care about your name or your bank balance, they only care that the coins you gave them look and feel genuine.


text:
What Serialization format is used in Bitcoin?
What serialization format is used in bitcoin network? I know in Ethereum, there is the  RLP which has been replaced with SSZ. Polkadot has it's own serialization format called SCALE, but I have not been able to find information on what serialization format is used in Bitcoin.

Bitcoin uses different serialization formats for different data structures, as described on https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Protocol_documentation.
See also In what format does a block store the transaction data? for a similar question.

Bitcoin uses different serialization formats for different data structures. I see. I am mostly asking for the network serialisation format. Which format is used for this?

Did you look at the link I provided? It describes the Bitcoin network protocol, including the serialization for P2P messages.

Normally link-only answers are not preferred (they can become broken, out of date, etc), but in this case its perhaps more tenable, considering how general the question is (and thus how much info would be included in a complete answer-- eg basically copy/pasting the entire contents of the first link)


text:
What guarantees the validity of merkle root used in the merkle inclusion proof?
I understand Merkle roots can be used for Merkle inclusion proofs, where a client/validator can quickly check if a transaction is part of the block without requesting all the transactions in the block.
The question I have is this: for this process of performing the Merkle proof, where does the client performing the proof get the merkle root from? And how is the client guaranteed that the merkle root it is given is the correct one?
I am thinking of a scenario where an attacker could convince a client/validator that a transaction is part of a block by sending it a fraudulent Merkle root and corresponding hashes.
What properties of Merkle trees and how it is used in Merkle inclusion proof in bitcoin prevent this from happening?

Generally, thin-clients at least download, validate, and store the header for each block. Since the Merkle root is part of the header, they already know all the Merkle roots for the whole blockchain. While a block header is insufficient for checking the corresponding block's validity (even the complete block would be insufficient if the validator doesn't know the current UTXO set), just from the header, a thin-client can verify that…

the block header is well-formed
the block header provides sufficient proof-of-work to pass the difficulty requirement
the block header commits to the previous block, and inductively connects to the Genesis Block

Since each header is only 80 B, the whole header chain is just ~57.5 MB. Thin-clients then gain some confidence in the chain-tip they're following by waiting for additional blocks extending it under the assumption that only the best chain would be acquiring significant additional POW over time.
Now, when a thin-client receives a transaction along with its Merkle branch, it can check whether it attaches to the header chain by hashing the transaction, combining it with the corresponding hashing partners that were part of the Merkle branch, and whether that ends up matching a Merkle root in one of the block header's it has.

Now, when a thin-client receives a transaction along with its Merkle branch

How is the Merkle branch created? Who creates it?

@FinlayWeber: Full nodes calculate Merkle branches to prove membership of a transaction when they get a request for a "Merkle block". I've described it further here: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/50680/5406

Just to make sure I understand. A client, who has the merkle root, and who wants to check if transaction A is in the block, would make a request for "Merkle blocks" needed for it to confirm the inclusion of transaction A in the set of transactions? So basically the full node, not only provide the merkle root, but it can also provide merkle blocks to clients who needs it to perform inclusion verification? Is this right? If so, what do the client need to pass to the full node when making this request?

The thin client would probably have gotten the block header already previously and thus know the merkle root of the block in advance. After the thin client learns about a transaction it is interested in, it would make a getdata request specifying the data type MSG_MERKLEBLOCK. The full node would respond with a merkleblock message that provides the txid, hashing partners, and header. The full tx is then sent as a tx message right after.

Thanks for the answer and clarification!


text:
Unable to decrypt wallet.wallet file
I have a wallet.wallet file that I think was created with Android bitcoin wallet or Multibit.  It's base64 encoded.
Putting it in a decoder, it gives me this information, redacted just in case:
{"iv":"randomalphanumeric==","v":1,"iter":1000,"ks":256,"ts":64,"mode":"ccm","adata":"","cipher":"aes","salt":"randomalphanumeric=","ct":"randomalphanumeric="}
When I try to upload any part of that, including just the raw base64, into Electrum (the recommended alternative since multibit was deprecated) I get errors that its invalid.  The android bitcoin app either can't read it or I don't know my password.
Does anyone have any idea what this is or what its for? Is it even cryptocurrency related?
Also, the last string has a ton of characters including forward slash "/" and plus signs "+". Not sure if that helps.
I did attempt to try and follow with this thread Bitcoin Wallet for Android - Issues decrypting the wallet backup BIN file using OpenSSL , but to no avail.
I get "error reading input file"

Does anyone have any idea what this is or what its for?

It is obviously related to cryptography.
Since the Bitcoin network itself doesn't use encryption, this is likely a configuration file or data file for a specific wallet's scheme of encrypting the private-keys and other information that need to be protected from being stolen and misused.
{
  "iv":"randomalphanumeric==",
  "v":1,
  "iter":1000,
  "ks":256,
  "ts":64,
  "mode":"ccm",
  "adata":"",
  "cipher":"aes",
  "salt":"randomalphanumeric=",
  "ct":"randomalphanumeric="
}

iv is initialisation vector
v is version
iter is number of iterations of encryption to be applied
ks is key size
ts don't know, maybe the size of something.
mode is an encryption mode. ccm is probably something like cipher chaining mode?
cipher is the encryption algorithm. aes is the "advanced encryption standard".
salt is a random number used to combat attacks using precomputed dictionaries.
ct don't know. Could be "ciphertext" - the encrypted version of some data ("plaintext").

the last string has a ton of characters including forward slash "/" and plus signs "+"

That is fairly common in encoding methods used to take binary data and present it using readable/printable characters. In this case it is probably base64 encoding. As I think you know, encoding is not encryption, just an easily reversible presentation method.

By itself, it is of no use to you. If you know the password (encryption key) you could probably decrypt the possible ciphertext (ct value) after reversing the base64 encoding. You could then examine the (potentially binary) "plaintext" to see if it contains a Bitcoin private key.

Alright, I think I know the password.  Is there a tool available to decrypt?


text:
Missing unconfirmed transaction from trezor
https://btc4.trezor.io/tx/a23173e98ac492eb84c4324ce66817a6900d89c2fb408a85daf9ba98f1a7b513
Hello guys, I sent this transaction like every other time from trezor, the fee was set on high. But this time I cant even find it in any blockchain explorer by its ID and the btc did not come

Does this answer your question? Why is my transaction not getting confirmed and what can I do about it?

This is not your fault. I have published the transaction.
You may track it here: https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/transaction/a23173e98ac492eb84c4324ce66817a6900d89c2fb408a85daf9ba98f1a7b513 or here:
https://blockstream.info/tx/a23173e98ac492eb84c4324ce66817a6900d89c2fb408a85daf9ba98f1a7b513?input:3

At the bottom of https://btc4.trezor.io/tx/a23173e98ac492eb84c4324ce66817a6900d89c2fb408a85daf9ba98f1a7b513
you can see the

  "hex": "0100000000010871f83...

which has the full hex-encoded raw transaction.
I have copied this to push it here.


text:
What would happen if mining difficulty would be decreased to almost nothing?
What would happen if Bitcoin mining difficulty would be reduced to nothing/very easy?
I can only think of the benefits such as exceptionally lower enery waste and much faster transaction processing.
The rewarded Bitcoins would, of course, be distributed at a much slower, reasonable pace.
Sure the bitcoin miners would lose a ton but in my personal opinion the mining industry shouldn't have grown to such extremes in the first place.

"The rewarded Bitcoins would, of course, be distributed at a much slower, reasonable pace." How? if you lower the amount of work needed, more blocks get mined = more bitcoins mined. All you would do is generate a lot of inflation.

I suppose someone has control over the rate bitcoins are created per blocks mined. They would just change the ratio to not cause inflation. Even if it is not possible, for the sake of the question let's assume it can be done.

The consensus rules of the network define a fixed amount for each block height.

The mining difficulty adjusts according to a specific algorithm. The difficulty adjusts such that, regardless the hashrate, the average time between blocks is approximately 10 minutes. The difficulty also only adjusts when there are changes to hashrate. As miners go offline, it will adjust down to become easier to mine. As miners come online, it will adjust up to become harder.
So in this scenario, a lot of miners will have gone offline and the difficulty adjusted down. This has no effect on the rate that blocks are produced, so this has no effect on the issuance of Bitcoin nor the time it takes for transactions to become confirmed.
What it does have an effect on is the security of Bitcoin. The immutability of the blockchain comes from the fact that it is hard to rewrite the blockchain. It comes from the fact that in order to change blocks in the blockchain, the same amount of work must be done. With a lower difficulty, the amount of work done on each block is lower, so the amount of work required to change that block is lower. Thus with a lower difficulty, it becomes easier for an attacker to change the blockchain and perform 51% attacks.

In a scenario where someone can snap their fingers and magically cause the difficulty to change, the effects would of such a change would be extremely bad. It wouldn't magically cause hashrate to go offline, rather they would stay online at a lower difficulty. This would mean that blocks are found way faster which greatly increases the risk and likelihood of stale blocks. This would, in general, not be good for Bitcoin. Since the difficulty is magically lower, more people would probably start mining because it is easier for them to make money when the difficulty is low. Additionally, the difficulty would just eventually adjust back up to where it is.

It is important to keep in mind that the difficulty has an effect on miners, and that miners have an effect on difficulty. When the difficulty is low, more miners will come online because it is easier and thus more profitable to mine. As more miners come online, the difficulty will increase. Eventually, the difficulty will reach a point where miners go offline because it is now harder to mine so mining is less profitable. So then the difficulty will drop. This will form an equilibrium.

You could easily change the difficulty so that one block is generated each minute. But as you say, the effect is not that miners would go offline - just that 10 times more coins are mined and thus inflation sets in, as each coin is worth less.

I might have to rewrite my question to emphasize the condition that "The rewarded Bitcoins would, of course, be distributed at a much slower, reasonable pace."
I guess the answer that I'm looking for is similar, if not the same for the question "What would happen if mining bitcoin did not reward any coins".
About security of blockchain in lower difficulty: Does this mean, that 5 years ago bitcoin was super easy to hack?

@AntsAus Exactly five years ago the hashing rate was 1.166m TH/s. Now its 156m TH/s. Yes, the amount of work required per block was way lower back then. If a miner magically had the same hashing power as they have today and could take it back to 2016, they could easily mount a 51% attack on the network. Difficulty back then was 165b, today its 21.68t.

@Polygnome So the only reason bitcoins blockchain wastes countries equivalent of energy is for security? Sounds like a terrible design. Hopefully, proof-of-stake or tangle will come sooner than later.


text:
TransactionId Not working Second Time in NBitcoin and QBitNinja?
I am trying to send bitcon from my address to another address. i had 0.0024BTC in my wallet and then i performed a transfer using this article:
https://programmingblockchain.gitbook.io/programmingblockchain/bitcoin_transfer/spend_your_coin#sign-your-transaction
The Transfer was success. I was happy. Now i again tried to perform another transaction. Since i still have unspent amount in that transactionId so i used the same TransactionId this time as well. I got success response along with hash in the code but when i went to explorer i cannot find another transaction there is only one transaction. Should i use different transactionId or is this anything i missed. Please help !
Thanks in advance


text:
How to Transfer Real BTC From My Wallet to another account using C#
Hi I wanted to send BTC from my wallet to another wallet through any C# Library. Currently i am using NBitcoin Library to perform this action. But, i am not able to get through it.
Thanks

@Prayank
Hi thankyou for the link. I am now able to send my amount. But after i did my first transaction, after that  the transactionId didn't work. Do we need to get latest transactionId after the first transaction.


text:
Opportunity for cheap electricity | Want to create a small BTC farm | Help
I am a business owner and I know enough about BTC to believe in it and buy it. I also do understand what a blockchain is etc., but I am not an expert when it comes to the hardware.
Recently I got an opportunity for cheap electricity in an eastern european country. Price would be 0.05 EUR/kWH.
I would rent a container, which is on the site of a power plant. I would like to use this opportunity, but I need to consider a lot of things here:

Security in a 3rd world country:

Due to the fact that the container would be in close proximity to a power plant I am sure that this is not an issue. Also I will be not the first one to receive a container there. It seems there a already many mining containers there. I will need to visit the place first, but I dont think that my mining equippment is in danger.

GPU's VS Antminers:

I knew already that there are dedicated mining maschines for certain coins, but now I did more research on this and learned a few things. Do I understand this correctly? There are different mining algorithms, which have different efficiency. For example:
an RTX 3080 will make 8 EUR~ profit a day if electricity is:  0.05 EUR/kWH.
an RTX 3080 will make 6 EUR~ profit a day if electricity is:  0.35 EUR/kWH.
an Antminer s19 pro will make 25 EUR~ profit a day if electricity is:  0.05 EUR/kWH.
an Antminer s19 pro will make 3 EUR~ profit a day if electricity is:  0.35 EUR/kWH.
The antminer wins if the electricity price is low, but loses if the electricity price rises, while the RTX 3080 makes profit even if the electricity price is ridiculous, e.g.:
an RTX 3080 will make 2 EUR~ profit a day if electricity is:  1.00 EUR/kWH.
an Antminer s19 pro will make -50 EUR~ loss a day if electricity is: 1.00 EUR/kWH.
I took the values from this site: nicehash calculator.
This shows me that the hashrate is not the most important factor, its a combination of electricity consumption and type of algorithm. Antminer s19 Pro 110TH/s and RTX 3080 96MH/s.
Also the reason why the new GPU's are now much more popular than the antminer is their price, resell value and stability if electricity price rises. I assume these are the reasons why every miner targets the new GPU's instead of dedicated mining maschines?
Also the antminer costs almost 10k EUR and can mine only BTC (which is not a problem). If things go wrong and something happens to BTC I am stuck with a worthless maschine, while the GPU's can still sell at very high value to gamers.

Setup in container:

I have once made a small mining test with an antminer L3+ for litecoin. The setup was very easy. You just turn on the maschine and it mines. I assume its equally easy with the antminer s19 pro for BTC.
The container has a cooling system, so I do not need to install something here. I think it should be enough for GPU's and antminers.
How reliable is the mining process? Do I need to employ someone if a maschine for some reasons stops working and needs a restart? I assume its much more stable with an antminer?
How complicated is it to setup, lets say 100 RTX 30 GPU's? I imagine I would have 1 laptop, which controlls the whole mining setup? I should probably use Linux, or does it not matter?
I plan also to install video surveillance. Keep in mind, the container is not in the same country. I cannot visit the place for trivial things like restarting the systems. Maybe having multiple PC's is a good idea? With some sort of remote control, could this work?
100 GPU's need a lot of power, do I need to consider here something special? Do I maybe need an electrician?
What about driver updates for the GPU's? Is this something important?

New RTX 30 GPU's mining lock by NVIDIA

A lot of recent information I found indicates that NVIDIA recently is trying to remove/limit the mining functionalities of their new RTX 30 GPU's. Is this a problem? Is there a way to remove these locks or does this mean that the GPU's are not an option anymore?
These are my thought. Big thanks to the people who take the time to read this and think about possible issues.
EDIT
I am currently thinking is it even worth it to go to a foreign country for mining with cheap electricity while the new RTX GPU's do not care about electricity price.

Welcome to bitcoin.stackexchange.com. Please take the [tour] to understand what sorts of question this website was designed to collect. I would think especially about which cryptocurrency to ask about and the number of different questions that can be packed into one posting here.

Recently I got an opportunity for cheap electricity in an eastern european country. Price would be 0.05 EUR/kWH.

This is realistic.

Security in a 3rd world country

While in general Eastern Europe is safe, your business might not enjoy the same level of protection as in Western countries.

It seems there a already many mining containers there. I will need to visit the place first, but I dont think that my mining equippment is in danger.

It still can be a scam. It is your responsibility to verify what you call a business opportunity.

There are different mining algorithms, which have different efficiency.

Yes, in general dedicated hardware is more energy-efficient compared to GPUs, i.e. you get a higher hash rate for an equivalent amount of energy.

This shows me that the hashrate is not the most important factor, its a combination of electricity consumption and type of algorithm.

This is true. However, the pure efficiency in terms of hash rate per Watt is very different and Ant miner wins. If I assume RTX hashrate to be 115 MH/s while consuming 250 W (source) and Ant miner to be 110 THz = 110,000 MHz while consuming whooping 3250 W (source), the energy use of the first 250/115 = 2.2 J/MHash, while the energy use of the Ant miner is only 3250/110,000 = 0.0295 J/MHash. Therefore, the Ant miner should be a better choice independently of electricity price. I wonder how do they estimate the returns in their calculator.

Also the reason why the new GPU's are now much more popular than the antminer is their price, resell value and stability if electricity price rises.

GPUs are more versatile, i.e. they can be used not only for mining. However, I am not sure about what does it mean "stability if electricity price rises".

Also the antminer costs almost 10k EUR and can mine only BTC (which is not a problem). If things go wrong and something happens to BTC I am stuck with a worthless maschine, while the GPU's can still sell at very high value to gamers.

Exactly.

Do I need to employ someone if a maschine for some reasons stops working and needs a restart?

This would be reasonable to have someone in a physical proximity. As in general with data centers, there should be a person having a physical access to it.

I assume its much more stable with an antminer?

A priori, no difference.

How complicated is it to setup, lets say 100 RTX 30 GPU's?

That is not that complicated if you can handle CLI and have some intermediate Linux/Unix knowledge.

I imagine I would have 1 laptop, which controlls the whole mining setup?

Yes, you may need a machine to setup the pool. It can be any CPU instance.

I should probably use Linux, or does it not matter?

It does not matter. But in my experience Linux will be the easiest.

I plan also to install video surveillance. Keep in mind, the container is not in the same country. I cannot visit the place for trivial things like restarting the systems.

This is not a bad idea in general. However, which exactly problem are you trying to solve? That no one will touch your equipment or that no one will access your mined tokens?
In the last case I (obviously) suggest not to store your wallet on-site and password-protect everything.

Maybe having multiple PC's is a good idea? With some sort of remote control, could this work?

You should definitely establish SSH connection. Otherwise, the whole idea makes no sense. However, since you are already asking this question no one can guarantee if multiple PCs will save the day if not done properly.

100 GPU's need a lot of power, do I need to consider here something special? Do I maybe need an electrician?

Make sure that your cooling system is reliable. It will not hurt if a professional can inspect the electrical security. Also make sure that your setup can handle (both physically and in software) 100 connected GPUs.

What about driver updates for the GPU's? Is this something important?

In practice, given your use case, I don't believe that you will need to update the drivers.

A lot of recent information I found indicates that NVIDIA recently is trying to remove/limit the mining functionalities of their new RTX 30 GPU's. Is this a problem? Is there a way to remove these locks or does this mean that the GPU's are not an option anymore?

Yes, NVIDIA will limit mining on some of their new GPUs.

new RTX GPU's do not care about electricity price

This statement is not true. GPUs consume electricity and electricity price can impact your returns.

Disclaimer: While I make an effort to provide information as accurate as possible, use it at your own risk.

Thank you very much. This was very helpful


text:
Cryptocurrency Wallet 3rd party access
Do Crypto wallets such as Exodus etc have something like an API? For example is it possible to perform a cryptocurrency transaction directly from the web browser client (using the specified amount and public/private keys) with an html form or something similar?

I think this answer will differ if your question is about Exodus specifically or wallets like Exodus. Could you clarify which one it is?

anything. i don't mind if it is something different than exodus


text:
BTC on blockchain
I see my Wallet address on the Blockchain but it says spent and what does that mean? It did not arrive to the wallet i sent it too! I need it to be located and returned or sent to the wallet i gave.

it says spent and what does that mean

It typically means money was received in one transaction and later spent in a second, separate transaction. It is a historical record. You no longer have that money.

It did not arrive to the wallet i sent it too!

It may be due to one of ...

The transaction fee was too low and you need to be patient.
Your receiving wallet isn't synchronised or has some other problem.
You sent the money to a different address than the one you expected.
The recipient is not telling you the truth.
You are the victim of some sort of scam.

I need it to be located ...

You can see the details of the spending transaction in any blockchain explorer by typing in the address and by typing in the transaction-Id of the transaction that spent the money.
Bitcoin is pseudo anonymous. This means you won't be easily able to identify a person or organisation associated with a receiving address. Without other information I doubt the recipient can be identified.

... and returned or sent to the wallet i gave

Since Bitcoin transactions cannot be reversed, the only way this can happen is if you know the recipient and persuade them to make a third transaction that pays you a similar amount.
Beware people offering to get your money back for a fee, this is a favourite trick of scammers.


text:
I can not find a clear mathematical proof method with details and example for "near to zero chance of generating the same pair key wallet"
A mathematical proof method with details for  "near to zero chance of generating the same pair key wallet"
I can not find a clear mathematical proof for the top sentence with example

Hi hasann Najafi, please check out https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/q/8804/5406, I think it might answer your question.

According to https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Private_key

any 256-bit number from 0x1 to 0xFFFF FFFF FFFF FFFF FFFF FFFF FFFF FFFE BAAE DCE6 AF48 A03B BFD2 5E8C D036 4140 is a valid private key.

So if someone generates a private key using the usual random process, and then you generate a private key using a random process there is one chance in 0xFFFF FFFF FFFF FFFF FFFF FFFF FFFF FFFE BAAE DCE6 AF48 A03B BFD2 5E8C D036 4140 that you will generate the same key.
If my workings are correct, that is one chance in 115792089237316195423570985008687907852837564279074904382605163141518161494336
or one chance in around 1.158 x 1077
In terms of a probability, this is fairly close to zero. It is around
0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000864

It is hard to grasp the scale of these numbers. According to https://www.universetoday.com/36302/atoms-in-the-universe/

it is estimated that the there are between 1078 to 1082 atoms in the known, observable universe

Related questions that might be informative

Is each Bitcoin address unique?
How long would it take to brute force an AES-128 key? (Bitcoin doesn't use AES but the answers give some idea of the scales involved)


text:
generating random pair key has standard?
If a crypto wallet generates all pair key between small range for example between 1-100, the risk and possibility of creating the same key is an increase. Generating random pair keys for cryptocurrency has standard? If the answer is No what the solution cryptocurrency for it?

Developers of reputable wallets use a suitable source of randomness and will generate a key in the whole range available, not restricted to some arbitrary small range.
So far as I know there is no standard (e.g. BIP) that specifies this. It is assumed knowledge.
For example see https://www.freecodecamp.org/news/how-to-generate-your-very-own-bitcoin-private-key-7ad0f4936e6c/


text:
Does the miner machine get any other type of reward except confirmation of transaction in bitcoin?
Does the miner machine get any other type of reward except confirmation of transaction in bitcoin?(The answer precedes another question)

As a result of mining, miners receive income from two sources

The mining reward per block, which halves approximately every 4 years.
The transaction fees for the transactions the miner includes in the block.

Nothing else.
The miner includes as the first transaction in the block (the "coinbase" transaction) a transaction with no inputs and with outputs to one or more addresses of their choice with a total amount which is less than or equal to the sum of other included transactions fees and the current mining reward .

this is acceptable miners get a reward for proof of work(confirmation transactions the second reward you were mention) but what exactly do miners when say they have a process for creating a block(and get a reward for them)? (In other words what exactly this process? Is it possible to remove it?)


text:
How to decrypt MultiBit private key with 128 bytes line and 52 bytes line?
I want to recover my bitcoin private key stored by MultiBit. I've written down private key as text while using MultiBit classic. I don't remember how I get the text of private key. The text consists of two line. First line has 128 characters and starts with U and contains +. Second line has 52 characters and starts with q, contains /.
As far as I know, the text may be encrypted. And I also wrote down password, so I assume I can decrypt the text with the password, but I don't know how.
I've tried the instruction of Export and limited import of private keys with pasting the text to a file and executed the openssl command. However, I've got bad decrypt message and 64 bytes result file. It doesn't seem successful.
I want to how to decrypt my private key text and get valid private key.

I found an answer here: Decrypting keys from Multibit
The way Export and limited import of private keys  explained is almost right, but it's missing a parameter, -md md5. I added that and it worked.