text:
Bitcoin Core for ARM-based Macs?
Should we expect in the foreseeable future a Bitcoin Core release optimised for ARM-based Macs?

Why are people voting to close this? I am perplexed sometimes at what people vote to close. This is a perfectly reasonable question and specific to Bitcoin Core.

Well, the question sounds like it's asking for an option. Whether Bitcoin Core releases for ARM-based Macs will exist in the future depends on whether someone works on it. It would be different if the question were formulated as e.g. "Are there any technical hurdles that prevent Bitcoin Core from being compiled for ARM-based Macs?".

Ok fair enough. There is the technical hurdles part to this question but there is also the "Is it being discussed amongst core developers?", "Are there signs from those discussions that this will happen?", "How much work will it be?" "Will it need an outside contributor to work on this or is it looking like existing core developers will ensure it happens?" like questions too. Closing it seems harsh to me.

Yeah, agree - I didn't vote for closing; just giving some context why people may have an "opinion based" impression here.

Of course. QT, the GUI framework Bitcoin Core uses, is one of the most portable GUI frameworks. Sooner or later, Apple Silicon support will be added. Meanwhile you can track the progress here: https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-85279
Then Core developers will do the rest: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20371

It was discussed at an anonymized Sydney Socratic Seminar in July. I'm assuming MacOS will continue to be supported but it is becoming harder "to build and distribute binaries in the completely reproducible, trustless manner" that Bitcoin Core would like to.

Apple is introducing these notarization requirements where we would
have to build our binary and then send it to Apple servers so they
could notarize it. Then they would send it back to us and that’s the
only way we could distribute a binary out to end users that would run
on their Macs. Obviously doing that sort of stuff is tricky for us
especially if it requires more official things like having an
organization. I guess we already do that in some part because we have
code signing certificates but I think the direction that Apple is
going is making it harder and harder for us to continue or want to
continue releasing Mac OS binaries. I know some of the developers are
getting less enthused about having to deal with all of Apple’s changes
and distribution requirements.


text:
Are Confidential Transactions on Liquid Opt-in?
Are confidential transactions on the Liquid network opt-in or mandatory? I know peg transactions reveal the amount and asset ID, but wondering if I can construct vanilla p2pkh outputs with no confidentiality if I want to? I know I can prove these already with binding key but my question is about transaction standardization.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Do Liquid support large integers?
I’m wondering if Liquid network supports arithmetic operations with integers larger than 32-bits.

Do you mean in Script ? Could you clarify your question?

Yes I’m talking about stack operations.

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


text:
Advanced math operations in TapScript?
Hence BIP 342 proposes to enable opcodes like OP_MOD, OP_DIV, OP_MUL is it possible to perform advanced math operations like EC point addition/multiplication in a script size of up to 10kB?

BIP 342 does not add any of these opcodes, and it is not possible to perform elliptic curve operations in it.
The only new/changed opcode semantics in BIP342 are:

Schnorr signatures instead of ECDSA.
OP_CHECKSIGADD instead of OP_CHECKMULTISIG(VERIFY).
OP_SUCCESSx opcodes for future extensibility
Unknown pubkey types for future extensibility.
Changes in resource accounting/limits.

Got it. One or more OP_SUCCESSx opcodes could potentially function as OP_MOD, OP_DIV, OP_MUL in a future soft fork right?

Yes, potentially.


text:
1 of n Multisig Scriptless Scripts?
I know MuSig makes n of n multisig  scriptless. However, can we also aggregate multiple internal public keys in one public key, and unlock funds using either one of the internal public keys?

MuSig does not support m-of-n multisig, so you should use a threshold signature scheme like this:
http://cacr.uwaterloo.ca/techreports/2001/corr2001-13.ps


text:
How to validate the change address in a multisig transaction?
I am using Specter Desktop to create a PSBT for a multisig transaction with some hardware wallets to sign. Part of the PSBT is a change address and I can match what the hardware wallet says to what Specter Desktop intends, but since I don't trust Specter Desktop 100% how can I validate that this change address derives from my multisig wallet?

I went and RTFM and found a sufficient answer: Using the proper change-address descriptor for the wallet, I called deriveaddresses and I see the corresponding change address returned from bitcoin core.


text:
What's the relationship between Bittorrent and Bitcoin?
I know both implementations make use of decentralization, but is Bitcoin using any technology that was developed by Bittorrent?

I don't think there is much overlap, beyond the conceptual "making connections between nodes over the internet" part.
There are also hash functions in both, and probably a few more very basic constructions.


text:
Why is data stored in reverse in the blockchain files?
I'm parsing the binary data from the bitcoin core blockchain blkxxxxx.dat files.
If I read out the magic number I get this:

\xf9\xbe\xb4\xd9\

Why isn't it stored the other way around, as the magic number is d9b4bef9? Is this just the way bytes are stored in memory?
I'm aware this is a complete noob question, but could anybody help me understand this. Thanks.

See little-endian and big-endian.
The choice made by Bitcoin authors for data transmitted over the network is somewhat arbitrary. I think the reference implementation (Bitcoin core) chooses to store the data on disk verbatim as received from the network.
The standard for the Internet is called network order and is big-endian. The Intel x86 family of processors are little endian. The early software developers of Bitcoin didn't convert native order to network order when constructing packets. At least, not entirely.


text:
How to join a mining pool?
I'm running a Bitcoin node on my computer.
Can I configure it so I can join a mining pool?
If so, how to do this, or where can I find the documentation?

While this is not exactly what you're asking, I think your question might be obsolete after reading: In the ASIC-age, is it worth starting mining Bitcoin at home?

Yeah, that's what I got from the first answer. So I guess what you're saying is: whatever hashrate I'm introducing to the network is like adding a drop into the ocean?

Does this answer your question? How to activate the mining process in the standard bitcoin client? - not that you should do so, because it is pointless nowadays. I also had the impression that current versions no longer support this. Also I believe pools would refuse to let anyone join who doesn't have any significant hashrate.

To join a mining pool go to their website and create an account. Connect the ASIC machines (which you already bought) to their server using the stratum link they give you.
The mining pool has its own bitcoin nodes which will be used for mining. There is no way to connect your node to the pool - they don't want to use it. Your bitcoin node is only used for your mining if you run your own pool.
Miners just do the work the pool asks them to do, without knowing which blocks they work on.
In theory miners could use their own bitcoin nodes for a couple things:

You could verify that the mining pool is mining on the longest public blockchain. If you detected that this is not the case then you could automatically switch to another pool. This would ensure that you never assist a pool in performing a 51% attack.
If the pool allows you to mine with getblocktemplate instead of the stratum protocol then you could control which transactions go into the blocks you mine (if the pool allows this). Your bitcoin node would give you transactions to put in the blocks.

But in practice noone is doing either of these things.


text:
Which tool can I use to calculate the best fee for a specific time?
Let's say I'm okay with a transaction to be included in a block in about 24h.
The fee is obviously dependent on the network congestion.
Which (online) tools can I use to calculate the optimal fee given current network activity?

I like the btc.bitaps.com. Very nice! Thanks.


text:
Missing bitcoin... over 6 confirmations!
Ok, so I sent a vendor 0.0046531 bitcoins using Muun wallet. The address I sent it to is 3LTJzNzbXDBDdzHPxDSQk6sucLDKPW3zmN. The blockchain explorers I have used to track the money says they were received and “spent”, leaving the wallet with a balance of zero. Therefore I still owe the vendor money, but what happened? Is it fraud? I’ve used this vendor for years and something like this has never happened before.

Missing bitcoin

Nothing seems to have gone missing.

Therefore I still owe the vendor money

If you sent the money to the correct address, you do not owe the vendor any money.
About 25 minutes later the money was spent in a transaction with about 55 inputs and 15 outputs, maybe the recipient has a custodial wallet whose custodian reorganised some of their holdings or maybe the recipient ran the money through a mixer for privacy.
However, it doesn't matter what they did with their money after they were paid, the blockchain shows they were paid.

leaving the wallet with a balance of zero

You have no way of telling the balance of someone else's wallet. A wallet can hold many addresses. One or more of the output addresses in the second transaction could well be in the vendor's wallet.
If you are referring to your own wallet I don't see how your remaining balance is zero since there seems to be change going to it from the first transaction.

Thank you.... the invoice on the website said zero but the blockchain clearly showed that the money was received and immediately removed... probably for safety reasons. The detail that was stumping me is that the invoice said unpaid when I had sent to the right address. An email to the store sorted out the mistake and made things right.


text:
Master Seed from Mycellium does not concord with address Mycellium app generated for me
Created MYCELLIUM wallet in 2017 - copied down Master Seed, been transacting ever since.
Upgrades of various phones, always reinstalled latest Mycellium and used master-seed to restore, no issues.
Last week, app was "acting up" -- didn't want to sync and seemed to hang.  I decided to delete it and reinstall/restore from master-seed.  This time, incorrect balance is shown, and transaction log as well as looking on blockchain of public key shows no more transactions after 2018 ?!  (even though been busy until last week!)
Used this site https://iancoleman.io/bip39/ to generate the derived addresses from my master seed.  Seems to be accurate as the first 10 addresses are indeed mine and show me what MyCellium shows me.  However, when I do a search (in the pool of derived addresses) for a Mycellium generated receiving address I successfully used last week ... that address is NOT found ?!   I assume the addresses are used sequentially?  I generated 5000 addresses and still can't find that address in there!
Any insight/help/etc would be greatly appreciated!  I've never imported other private keys into MyCellium, only used the addresses provided by the app, and created another HD wallet from within the app.
Any chance to recover my lost coins ?


text:
How to force MyCelium wallet to show all transactions
Have been using MyCelium wallet regularly for the past 3yrs without any issues.  Last week after I transferred some funds, UI seemed buggy/laggy, not refreshing properly.  I uninstalled the app and did a fresh install. Restored from my master seed and to my horror:  the balance is WAY off.  I look at the sync'd transactions and it has stopped after 7/18/2018 !  I force as reload, refresh, everything I can think of and it's as though all further transactions have disappeared?!  I've tried loading in electrum wallet, same result.  Anyone know wtf is happening?  why can't I see the up-2-date transactions and why is my balance off by more than 10 btc ?!  Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Did you ever import private-keys into MyCelium?

@RedGrittyBrick no sir I did not.  I had thought of that -- how the master seed and backups only applied to anything derived from that seed and not to accounts imported via private-keys.  But no, only used the one account on MyCelium .. I have a ledger for cold storage and used MyCelium for "everyday fund transactions".  Everything was really fine until last week .. the weird bug/hang seems to have 'cut the chain" so to speak and disassociated many yrs worth of transactions starting from 2018-> present.  I've never encountered anything like this before :\


text:
How to move paper wallet funds to another wallet
I have an old paper wallet and private key.
I want to transfer bitcoin from this wallet to another wallet? How can I accomplish this?
I tried this on coinbase for example by going to:

I click “Receive”
A QR pops up with my coinbase wallet address

The problem is there is no place to input or transact where I want to receive bitcoin from.
What is the easiest way to transfer BTC from wallet to another? (I’m also a developer so API, code, etc work for me as well).

Does this answer your question? Import private key to coinbase?

@m1xolyd1an I’m just wondering why this seems to not have more clarity, wouldn’t this be the most rudimentary task when it comes to moving around BTC?

It is, which is why there are many other posts on this site with the same question. It's quite simple. You sweep the funds to a wallet you control, and then you can send the funds from that wallet you swept to then to coinbase or whichever exchange you want.

@m1xolyd1an I know how it theoretically works, but it isn’t that easy.  For example, you can’t move a paper wallet to coinbase.  You can’t from most other exchanges as well.

That's a non-answer, or at least an answer that requires yet more explaining. "You sweep the funds..." WTF specifically is "sweep"? Is there software involved, and if so what software?

The main purpose of Bitcoin wallets is to securely store a secret number we know as a private key. Therefore you need to transfer the private key from your paper wallet into a downloaded software wallet application.
Most wallet applications have a way to import a key.
Many wallet applications have a way to "sweep" a key.

When you import a key, the wallet application may expect the key to be provided in a form known as "Wallet Import Format" (WIF). You might have to convert your key into this representation.
When you sweep a key, the same considerations apply but what the wallet application does is create a transaction that sends the money to a new address created by the wallet application based on a different private key the wallet application created. This is considered safer.
So you could download a wallet application onto your PC or mobile device. Then import or sweep the key from your paper wallet into the downloaded wallet application. Then spend or send money normally.

Related

Private key to WIF process
More questions about WIF


text:
Cathie Wood "Bitcoin not suitable for ETFs" - why?
Cathie Wood of ARK Invest is quoted in a Bloomberg article:

Wood was a believer in Bitcoin, too, and it powered some of the early gains in her funds. But after discovering an adverse tax rule, Ark decided it wasn’t appropriate for ETFs. Bitcoin, which hit $20,000 this week for the first time, is a 7% position in certain Ark separate accounts. Wood said she remains “extremely bullish.”

Markup mine.
What is she talking about?


text:
Can you really trust a non-open-source desktop wallet?
I am a newbie in the crypto markets, but as a software engineer, it seems to me that a huge security vulnerability could be choosing a wrong wallet.
If you are using a hot wallet, and can't see the app code, doesn't that mean it is theoretically possible for the devs to steal your crypto, even if you can see your private key?
Shouldn't everyone be using exclusively open-sourced wallets for this reason?

Can you really trust a non-open-source desktop wallet?

Yes! Iff they hired top security experts and regularly undergo audits.
The only reason some people don't is the existence security-by-obscurity : Certain services only rely on the fact that the source code is not published for security. For as long as this is not the only protector, there is no reason not to trust! Using non-deterministically compiled binaries of open-source software is unsafe anyway.
For me, well-reviewed code is more important than open-source-ness. Not everyone, not even most of somethings' users, audit the source code! Open-source does not protect programmers from ignorance and making silly security mistakes.
So personally, open-sourceness only depends on their business model, which is not linked to their security guarantees anyway!

If you are using a hot wallet, and can't see the app code, doesn't that mean it is theoretically possible for the devs to steal your crypto, even if you can see your private key?

It is possible for devs to steal your money even if they use open-source! See event-stream
The problem is not being unable to see the code, it's about VERIFYING ALL of the code. If paid audits are taking place, I would trust them more than as if I saw their code!

Shouldn't everyone be using exclusively open-sourced wallets for this reason?

No. It's generally better to use stuff whose code you can see ... so if you're the developer of a closed source software, I don't see a reason not to ... given that the most recent audit was actually recent.

The reason open-source is considered superior is because being able to access the code makes people feel safer, even if they never will.

Based on what you said, it would seem as it is more a matter of opinion than of a real security difference?
Wouldn't you say that any application that is not open source has more chance of being intentionally malicious?

@NobodySomewhere It's easier to be malicious if your software is closed-source, but it's equally possible to be malicious in open source and closed source. Open-source tend to be safer in practice since it allows 3rd party audits and it's a signal that the developers pay attention to being transparent. I'm just saying that closed-source software, especially if it's well-funded and has trustworthy developers, is not inferior in terms of security.

Sorry I think you are plain wrong, it's not equally possible to be malicious in open source as it is in closed source, it is much more easy to be malicious in closed source software. Also, by saying open-source is safer in practice, you are contradicting yourself. I'm a software engineer so I know what I'm talking about.
My question is more about how easy is it for developers to run away with someone else's crypto if they wanted to; are there any safety mechanisms engineered to blockchain that can protect the user in such cases?

Yes it's easier for closed-source, but I meant that any talented developer should be able to hide malware in open source. If it's JS, hide it in dependencies. If it's a systems programming language, ship it with a DLL with the name of a known library. If it's in C, reuse malloc'ed portions without setting to zero and send it to a server. The reason I said "closed-source is not inferior" is because if a company pays another to code a cryptocurrency vault for them while paying them 50K per year, there is no reason that any open-source software should be more trustworthy.

Unfortunately anything in the computer memory can be read. So there is no way we can guarantee security. The closest I can think of is nLockTime which prevents coins from being moved until a certain time, but after that time, they can still be stolen.

Hardware wallets also exist and they might be safer than computers. Computers are unsafe environments. A compromised desktop software can't harm a hardware wallet if the user cautiously reads the hardware wallet's screen.


text:
Mining Pool hub support cpu miner?
I have a simple/old CPU (like dual-core/Quad-Core) with unlimited electricity and all the other stuff.
I would like to run 10 PCs with CPU mining.
It's better to mine solo or the join mining pool hub?
I know the profit of the mining will be very very low (I don't care :D)
Thanks for the help, Roee!

Does this answer your question? How much Bitcoin will I mine right now with hardware X?. You are competing in a series of round the world races using a child's pedal car while other competitors are all using hypersonic intercontinental ballistic missiles. The prize money for your pedal car won't be low, it will be zero. No race teams will accept help from pedal car owners.

With solo mining, realistically you won't mine a single cent.

You are about 10 generations of mining hardware too late to mine bitcoin with CPUs, mining pool or not.
2009: Bitcoin launched with CPU mining. I've been told that some people mined 50 or 100 bitcoins per day with an old laptop.
2010: GPU (graphics card) mining made CPU mining hard, so mining pools were invented. This way people could still mine with CPUs.
2011: GPUs had to get on mining pools, and CPUs were next to useless. Some hardcore CPU miners kept going but earned little. Gaming PCs made a good profit.
2011-2012: The first specialized bitcoin mining hardware based on FPGA chips. FPGAs gave GPUs a hard time. Some GPU miners kept going, but in 2012 earnings were slim.
2013: The earliest ASIC miners shipped to customers in january. ASIC mining completely destroyed CPUs, GPUs and FPGAs for mining.
Since 2013 there have been many generations of ASIC miners, each making the older ones obsolete.


text:
Forks, fees and Miners compensation
My question is simple. Does the miners' fee include some risk for the possibility that their blocks don't make it into the long-term chain?

Does the miners' fee include some risk for the possibility that their blocks don't make it into the long-term chain?

The miner's fees are fixed. The miner can't charge an insurance fee and the network does not reward failure.
There is a block reward that depends only on the current block height. This is a fixed amount per block that halves approximately every two years.
The miner also collects any transaction fees that people have chosen to include in the draft transactions they created. The miner can't change these. The miner can only choose which transactions to include in their block. Transactions with low fees are likely to be chosen last and therefore take longer to confirm. This gives people an incentive to offer a fee that will ensure their transaction gets confirmed in whatever time-frame they are prepared to wait (modulo about 10 minutes). Thus the transaction fee is largely determined by supply and demand.
These collected fees are non-spendable if their block doesn't get accepted. So miners have no mechanism in the Bitcoin protocol to collect from transaction creators any kind of insurance that pays out if their block is not accepted.

Yeah, ok thanks. However, what I meant is if the BTC per kB includes any risk premia associated with the possibility that the block is not accepted.

No. Not in any meaningful way. Not intrinsically, not explicitly. Only if an individual chooses to regard it that way in their business planning. Only in the way that the price of a tin of beans factors in the losses from shoplifting and accidental loss in the supply chain -- which isn't because grocery businesses use some special currency whose rules provide for this.


text:
How does the blockchain know if its block hashes have been tampered?
I'm dealing with some problems to finally understand how implicit consensus works and I've come across with one question. Suppose the following:
A malicious miner proposes the following block to be included somewhere in the middle of the blockchain. If he just copies the value of the previous block's hash pointer in the new block's header, and recalculates the following blocks hash pointers till the end of the chain, by coping the same header in each block in the original chain, wouldn't this blockchain be as valid as the original, considering that the new hash pointers match with the content of each previous block?
A way of trying to clarifying myself and answering to the question was to think of the implicit consensus. Could it be that the other well-behaving nodes will deny this proposing block by storing a copy of the previous state of the blockchain and comparing the old blockchain with a new one?

Possible duplicate of https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/q/69149/5406

Changing the previous block hash in all of the subsequent block hashes will change those block's hashes too. They become different blocks and are treated as different blocks by nodes. When other nodes try to verify those other blocks, they will extremely likely compute a block hash which does not meet the Proof of Work requirement, and thus those blocks would fail validation.
The way around this is for the attacker to recompute the Proof of Work, but then that takes a lot of time and computing power and is thus difficult to do.

Okay, understood. So the proof of work will fail because it's highly unlikely that the new computed proof of work hash would match the target space required by the proof of work. Therefore it falls to be computably unfeasible to recalculate all the hashes up to the head of the chain. Is that right?

Just one more question: how many proofs of work have to be verified when a new block is added to the chain? Is this range going from each previous block which includes every last validated transaction to which the new transactions of the minted block are referring to, to the last accepted block?

@ignacioaranguren to verify the state of the network, every block all the way back to the genesis block needs to be verified. A node only needs to do this once, and then each new block is verified as it is received, and this verification includes checking that previous block hash is included and correct (but the node has already verified that previous block - no need to do it all over again!).


text:
Connection Reset after sending mempool message
I build a python script to talk to bitcoin test nodes. When I'm sending mempool messages, my connection is getting is reset.
Also sometimes when connecting to Jimmy Song's testnet node (testnet.programmingbitcoin.com) I get and an inv message back, other times my connection is cut after sending a mempool message.
What's going on here? Is mempool mostly unsupported on testnet nodes?

I've got a hunch only nodes with services 1036/1036 allow mempool messages.

It’s just not supported on modern nodes, it serves little to no purpose for anything other than abuse.


text:
Are blocks stored in blkxxxxx.dat files per line?
Simple question. Is each line in a blkxxxxx.dat file a block?

Simple answer: no.
The files are not text files and therefore don't have lines.

So the only way to parse it is to check each block size in order to skip to the next?

Tested and confirmed!


text:
Are the blocks in blkxxxxx.dat files ordered by block height?
I'm parsing out de blockxxxxx.dat files for the bitcoin blockchain. Are the blocks ordered by height? So is the order of the data for everybody the same?

No, they are in the order by which your node received the blocks. This can be in any particular order as nodes receive blocks out of order during the initial sync. Furthermore, some nodes will receive and store blocks that become stale, while other nodes (particularly ones that come online after that block has been found) will not. So the blk*.dat files between two nodes are likely to differ.

So if I want to order them, only way to do it is to match them up by previous_hash from the blockheader then, right?

Yes, the order can only truly be determined by building the linked list.


text:
Bitcoin Takeover Possible?
I have a question / scenario im looking to understand regarding cryptos and wondered if anyone here wants to comment on the below and discuss...
It goes:
Given that crypto's are 100% reliant on organisations dedicating resources toward mining transactions on the blockchain for them to be viable currencies and that financial incentives for participating in the networks are based upon the amount of transactions successfully mined, then it logically follows that the more resources an organsiation can dedicate to mining transactions then the higher the profits they can earn. But whilst anyone can mine transactions, it rarely happens that individuals do, because the economies of scale have kicked in and the vast majority of mining transactions are processed thru these huge crypto data centres owned by unknown orgsanisations who can leverage large sums of $$$ to purchase rackspace, hardware, power, tech administrators and bandwidth.
[We've already seen the impact of economies of scale kicking in on the price of DRAM and 3D Video cards, which are double what they should be due to their ability to do better floating point math than CPU's.]
Without the transaction mining activity any cryptocurrency is dead. Therefore as a holder of crypto you are 100% reliant on these large crypto mining operations for the ongoing usability of the coins you hold. If they stop mining, the transactions times will take longer, utility of the currency will be affected and people will stop using the coins leading to the death of the network.
So exploring this idea that the miners are important for the success of the network and coin holders are reliant upon them, lets imagine for a moment that an organisation (or a consortium) has proprietary access to hardware  "Super X" that can perform crypto mining TEN TIMES faster & cheaper than any other organisation is currently capable of. That consortium would be at an advantage and is going to make larger profits because it's able to process more transactions than the competitors and gain a larger share of the market. The competitors to the consortium will see their profits dwindle and likely close their operations leading to the consortium having a monopoly controlling interest of transaction processing of the currency.
If you think that's crazy, just imagine a consortium made up of Google, Intel, AMD & NVIDIA — could they pull it off?
So if a consortium gained a controlling interest in mining (and I think it could) it begs the question, would such a consortium then push for a fork in the bitcoin core code fork (release) which then further favour them or some other entity they decided upon? For example maybe they could force through changes that mean you'd have to register your account with the tax office, or local bank or I dunno, publish your id with your wallet. Who knows what.
But effectively, is such a takeover feasible? Could a consortium or state backed organisation perform this kind of change?

No, its a different situation. Its very unlikely that someone would amass all those resources just to manipulate the ledger, that makes no sense at all. My point is about an attack decentralised nature of the currency - via the way I mentioned above, a crypto could be coopted to become a fully proprietary currency under the control of central authority. The fact that it hasnt happened yet, doesnt mean it cant happen.

@JohnSmith it is not a different situation, a majority attacker cannot arbitrarily change the network’ rules. See for example, segwit2x

To change the concensus rules, the only leverage your consortium has is to take it's mining power away (e.g. to mine a fork with its preferred rules) but then everyone else just stays with the old rules and the mining difficulty automatically adjusts for the greatly reduced mining hashpower that remains, no matter how little.


text:
Can I recover my Bitcoins bought in 2009?
I am a complete novice to the whole Bitcoin thing.  Can someone advise me please? I bought Bitcoin in 2009 when it was first launched. I  had downloaded the wallet(been told it was a Bitcoin qt wallet)to my desktop back then but no longer have the computer now. I do not remember the 12 word phrase, but I do remember the email address and the password. The email service provider shutdown in 2017, so I can’t access the original email. I only did one transaction and that was to buy Bitcoin. My questions are...
Would the transactions be recorded in present day Blockchain? Or are there many different Bitcoin Blockchains at present or just one Bitcoin Blockchain?
Can I recover the Wallet ID just by knowing the email address and password?
Are my Bitcoins lost forever?
I am getting lots of people telling me different things, so confused at the moment. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks

It probably wasn't bitcoin-qt, as that name only appeared in 2011. Before that point it was just called Bitcoin. Bitcoin-qt (nor any of its predecessors) never used a 12 word phrase, and phrase based recovery didn't exist until a few years later. Bitcoin doesn't have accounts, so email is completely irrelevant. If it's actually from 2009, what you really need is a backup of the wallet.dat file you had at the time.

I had downloaded the wallet(been told it was a Bitcoin qt wallet)to my desktop back then but no longer have the computer now.

If you do not have the computer, you will need the wallet file or a backup of it.
As Pieter mentioned in a comment above, the software would have originally just been called 'Bitcoin' at that time.

I do not remember the 12 word phrase,

Mnemonic seed phrase backups for bitcoin keys did not exist in 2009

but I do remember the email address and the password.

The bitcoin software does not have anywhere that you would register an email address. Perhaps you were using a bitcoin wallet service of some sort? (though none existed in 2009, the earliest examples would likely be in 2010-11)

Would the transactions be recorded in present day Blockchain?

Yes, all transactions are stored in the chain for all time. If you owned coins and did not spend them, then they will still reside at the address you last sent them to. The only way to move them from there is to sign a valid transaction with the private key for that address.

Or are there many different Bitcoin Blockchains at present or just one Bitcoin Blockchain?

There is only one Bitcoin (BTC).

Can I recover the Wallet ID just by knowing the email address and password?

If it was a self-hosted wallet, then no. If you used a wallet service that is still around, then you will need to contact them to hopefully recover your account.

Are my Bitcoins lost forever?

If you cannot recover the wallet (private keys), then yes. They will unfortunately remain forever locked.
Your best bet is to very carefully check over any hard drives / old storage mediums you may have, as well as email addresses, or any other places online you may have stored your data. You could also look for physical backups of your keys ("paper wallets"), which would likely just be a printed sheet of paper with private and public keys listed for said address.
Best of luck!


text:
What`s a blocks coinbase value?
Under the bitcoin Protocol rules here:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Protocol_rules#Transactions
in the "block" messages section
There is the pseudo-algorithm for validating a given block.
On Point 16-2 It says:
"Reject if coinbase value > sum of block creation fee and transaction fees"
If we keep it simple,

I know that the block creation fee is calculated using 64 bit integer operations (in satoshis) as:
(50 * 100000000) >> (height / 210000)

And I also know that transaction fees are defined as:
the sum of input values minus sum of output values for a given transaction.

So the overall transaction fees on a block would be the total sum of all transaction fees in that block.
But how do I 'calculate' in pseudo-words, the coinbase value and what is it referring to?
I seem to not understand something here...
Thanks in advance

Isn't the coinbase value in that comparison the value of the outputs of the first transaction (coinbase) in the block?

Yeah, it's the sum of the output amounts of the coinbase transaction (first transaction in a block).

Thanks for the clarification! cheers

The coinbase value in that comparison is the sum of the amounts of the outputs of the first transaction (coinbase) in the block
(community wiki answer, to avoid having unanswered questions with answers in comments floating around and occasionally getting bumped to the homepage)


text:
Which cloud server provider is best for accepting bitcoin payments with BTCPay Server?
This video shows someone using lunanode for their BTCPayServer cloud server. What are the other top reputable and reliable cloud servers out there for running an online store that wants to act as its own payment processor via BTCPay?

Actually, it's my video :D
Lunanode provides easy "1 click install" process. You can host btcpay server on any other VPS server (like azure, aws, digitalocean etc.) but the process will be just a bit more complicated, and will require downloading and configuring btcpayserver.
As always any solution will have some tradeoffs, like cost or how easy it is to use, how reputable is the provider, etc.
All methods of hosting are presented in this document.

are you one of the developers behind btcpay server?

No, I am just an educator and content creator.

Can BtcPay Server be configured to receive payments at a .crypto or .eth domain address rather than the full-length wallet addresses?


text:
Is it safe to store seed phrases (private keys) in a bank vault?
If written on a piece of paper, would the recovery seed phrase or questions for accessing a collection of web wallets and hardware wallets be safe to keep in a mini vault drawer at the bank? Do bank employees have access to vault drawers somehow, i.e. in the event of natural disaster, or are there any procedures for opening vault drawers that might compromise the words on the piece of paper?
Given the above, also how safe is it to additionally store a copy of the same paper at another branch location as a back-up?

As a previous bank teller I can let you know when someone didn't pay their safe deposit box fee for over 90 days we would call a locksmith, drill out the locks, take out the contents, and send their belongings away for storage/ransom and will be returned to the customer if bill is paid.  So your seed could potentially be seen by a locksmith and bank employee.

if the vault is being paid on time though, the lock is inaccessible to anyone but me?

@user610620 that’s a matter of bank policy, you should consult the contract you sign when signing up for a safe deposit box, not the opinion of random strangers on the internet.

The best thing to do is use a secure passphrase in addition to your 12/24 word phrase, and keep the passphrase in a separate location, or even no location at all but your head and maybe share it with one or more family members.
Using BIP-39, the same 24-words with a different passphrase will create completely disjoint wallets which cannot be linked by outside observation. You can keep reusing the same words and have different wallets by using different passphrases. Make sure passphrases are a reasonable length and complexity and not dictionary words or birthdays. However, brute-forcing these is difficult because PBKDF2 is used for hashing, so you don't need to go overboard and use a passphrase you might forget.
It might be a good idea to include a small amount of bitcoin in the wallet using your 24 words, but with no passphrase. This can serve as a 'decoy' wallet, which can be monitored for activity to discover if your 24-words have been compromised. It also serves to allow plausible deniability to the amount of bitcoin you own, because if you are under duress from a person (the State for example) trying to force the information out of you, they cannot possibly know how many wallets are created from the same 24 words. You can plausibly claim that what is in the decoy wallet is all the bitcoin you own.
Since both the 24-word phrase and your passphrase are necessary to access your funds, the security of the 24-word phrase is not as paramount as without the passphrase. You should keep a copy on a steel plate to resist natural disasters, and keep a written paper copy in another location which is more accessible to you, but which can be safely disposed of with fire.

thanks for the idea about decoy wallets. any comments on bank employees' clearance privileges for accessing the contents of client vaults?

That depends on your bank and jurisdiction. I can't answer that for you and you'll need to check either the banking laws for your country and/or ask the bank about their policy.

See other answers about banks, contracts, and jurisdiction. But in general:

If you fail to pay for your bank vault, also known as a safe deposit box
A legal dispute could end with the vault being seized
There's been a least one case, where the whole 'bank' was seized by authorities in the US and all the vaults examined and seized.  The bank was under suspicion of being too close with mobsters.  But some of the customers were legit but their vaults were opened also.   See FBI Seizure...


text:
How to cash out a Bitcoin wallet into fiat anonymously?
If bitcoin is converted to fiat money on an exchange, the exchange has irrefutable knowledge of your identity because they require the account name and bank account name to match.
The only way to anonymize a withdrawal of bitcoin-converted fiat would be to first transfer a non-exchange bitcoin wallet to the exchange-based bitcoin wallet using a bitcoin tumbler or mixer so that it looks clean. It would longer matter whether account names match to the withdrawer because the exchange, at least, would no longer know the real source of the funds. However, the fiat is still associated with your name. So the tumbler approach is not really anonymization, but merely anonymization of the source.
How else can bitcoin-sourced fiat be withdrawn anonymously?

You find someone who wants to buy your bitcoin in person for cash lol.

I got what I need from the answer and comments below: Bisq, Hodlhodl, Paxful are non-KYC, decentralized peer-to-peer bitcoin-to-fiat exchanges


text:
BTCPayServer vs. Bitpay or other for accepting bitcoin payments in online store
For stores that would like to begin accepting bitcoins, would Bitpay or BTCPayServer be a better choice? The first seems to act as an intermediary, whereas the second does not. How do they compare in reputation, reliability, merchant anonymity (no ID submission required), and ease of use?
Ideally, the transactions are entirely in Bitcoin, and not covered later by credit card.
Are there other, better services besides these two?

It's my highly subjective opinion, but if you're not a government organization, using a service provider like Bitpay is a terrible idea. Bitpay was known to create anti-privacy features, perform KYC, and even known to stop some payments from going to the recipient. Every time you use a payment processor who is the custodian for the funds you want to receive you're in danger of losing those funds. And on top of it, you pay for that.
BTCPay is feature-packed, not only for bitcoin (segwit addresses) but also for lightning network, connectivity to hardware wallets and much more. If you want to use any compliance suit on top, cool, but you don't have to. Also there are no fees for using an intermediary. You can create widgets and use it as a patreon page, webshop, or just monthly subscription. Setup is extremely easy and running it in a light version costs less than $10 per month.

Made some small edits, and I think you meant "payment processor" instead of merchant there. Please check whether I got the changes right. :)

Thanks, sorry, still sleeping after holidays.

No worries, my pleasure. Thanks for the answer!


text:
Is there a bitcoin.conf option to disable the node from getting blocks?
I would like to use bitcoin core as a wallet only - to generate addresses and to sign transactions.
So I don't want it to download the blockchain.
Is there a bitcoin.conf setting for this?

Using the -h option gives a list of all available options including

-networkactive
Enable all P2P network activity (default: 1). Can be changed by the setnetworkactive RPC command

I haven't tried setting that to zero.

I set it to zero with networkactive=0...the results 2021-08-15T11:30:54Z SetNetworkActive: false and no blocks are being updated.

2021-08-15T11:36:44Z Waiting for network to be reactivated before querying DNS seeds.

Those messages are the sort of situation I would expect. Without downloading the blockchain, bitcoin-core cannot verify new blocks anyway. So the only use of this option might be to generate addresses and sign transactions - not to keep track of wallet balances. Maybe I misunderstood what you wanted?

No, it is exactly what I wanted. Keeping track of balance and a list of unspent transactions would probably have to be done by dumping the wallet and exporting all addresses and then checking on your full node.


text:
Is there a way to give `bitcoin-cli` a different default conf directory instead of specifying it each time?
I have changed the configuration directory for bitcoind.
However when I make a bitcion-cli request:
bitcoin-cli getblockcount

I get an error about RPC credentials using ~/.bitcoin/bitcoin/conf
So for me to actually run the command with the correct config and authnetication cookie I have to specify the configuration directory explicitly every time. Is there a way to make it implicit?
bitcoin-cli -conf=/media/btc/bitcoin/bitcoin.conf getblockcount
581510

In this case I would create an alias?
$ alias BCLI="bitcoin-cli -conf=/media/btc/bitcoin/bitcoin.conf"
$ BCLI getblockcount

On Windows you may use doskey.

It's also common practice to use the same name when using alias for setting default options: alias bitcoin-cli="bitcoin-cli -conf.... If one ever wants to call the non-alias command, it's just a matter of prefixing the command name with a backslash to prevent alias expansion: $ \bitcoin-cli ...


text:
How to get the raw transaction on my node with txindexset to 1?
Whenever I try to get a raw transaction I get an error:
ubuntu@btc:~$ bitcoin-cli getrawtransaction 2157b554dcfda405233906e461ee593875ae4b1b97615872db6a25130ecc1dd6
error code: -5
error message:
No such mempool transaction. Use -txindex or provide a block hash to enable blockchain transaction queries. Use gettransaction for wallet transactions.

Startup text:
ubuntu@btc:~$ bitcoind
2021-07-20T11:26:08Z Bitcoin Core version v0.21.0 (release build)
2021-07-20T11:26:08Z Assuming ancestors of block 0000000000000000000b9d2ec5a352ecba0592946514a92f14319dc2b367fc72 have valid signatures.
2021-07-20T11:26:08Z Setting nMinimumChainWork=00000000000000000000000000000000000000001533efd8d716a517fe2c5008
2021-07-20T11:26:08Z Using the 'standard' SHA256 implementation
2021-07-20T11:26:10Z Default data directory /home/ubuntu/.bitcoin
2021-07-20T11:26:10Z Using data directory /mnt/btc/bitcoin
2021-07-20T11:26:10Z Config file: /mnt/btc/bitcoin/bitcoin.conf
2021-07-20T11:26:10Z Config file arg: datadir="/mnt/btc/bitcoin"
2021-07-20T11:26:10Z Using at most 125 automatic connections (1024 file descriptors available)
2021-07-20T11:26:10Z Using 16 MiB out of 32/2 requested for signature cache, able to store 524288 elements
2021-07-20T11:26:10Z Using 16 MiB out of 32/2 requested for script execution cache, able to store 524288 elements
2021-07-20T11:26:10Z Script verification uses 3 additional threads
2021-07-20T11:26:10Z scheduler thread start
2021-07-20T11:26:10Z HTTP: creating work queue of depth 16
2021-07-20T11:26:10Z Using random cookie authentication.
2021-07-20T11:26:10Z Generated RPC authentication cookie /mnt/btc/bitcoin/.cookie
2021-07-20T11:26:10Z HTTP: starting 4 worker threads
2021-07-20T11:26:10Z Using wallet directory /mnt/btc/bitcoin
2021-07-20T11:26:10Z init message: Verifying wallet(s)...
2021-07-20T11:26:10Z Using BerkeleyDB version Berkeley DB 4.8.30: (April  9, 2010)
2021-07-20T11:26:10Z Using wallet /mnt/btc/bitcoin/wallet.dat
2021-07-20T11:26:10Z BerkeleyEnvironment::Open: LogDir=/mnt/btc/bitcoin/database ErrorFile=/mnt/btc/bitcoin/db.log
2021-07-20T11:26:10Z init message: Loading banlist...
2021-07-20T11:26:10Z SetNetworkActive: true
2021-07-20T11:26:10Z Using /16 prefix for IP bucketing
2021-07-20T11:26:10Z Cache configuration:
2021-07-20T11:26:10Z * Using 2.0 MiB for block index database
2021-07-20T11:26:10Z * Using 8.0 MiB for chain state database
2021-07-20T11:26:10Z * Using 440.0 MiB for in-memory UTXO set (plus up to 286.1 MiB of unused mempool space)
2021-07-20T11:26:10Z init message: Loading block index...
2021-07-20T11:26:10Z Switching active chainstate to Chainstate [ibd] @ height -1 (null)
2021-07-20T11:26:10Z Opening LevelDB in /mnt/btc/bitcoin/blocks/index
2021-07-20T11:26:10Z Opened LevelDB successfully
2021-07-20T11:26:10Z Using obfuscation key for /mnt/btc/bitcoin/blocks/index: 0000000000000000
2021-07-20T11:26:25Z LoadBlockIndexDB: last block file = 2659
2021-07-20T11:26:25Z LoadBlockIndexDB: last block file info: CBlockFileInfo(blocks=13, size=17474216, heights=691844...691858, time=2021-07-20...2021-07-20)
2021-07-20T11:26:25Z Checking all blk files are present...
2021-07-20T11:26:30Z Opening LevelDB in /mnt/btc/bitcoin/chainstate
2021-07-20T11:26:33Z Opened LevelDB successfully
2021-07-20T11:26:34Z Using obfuscation key for /mnt/btc/bitcoin/chainstate: 811ac9000cfb37f2
2021-07-20T11:26:34Z Loaded best chain: hashBestChain=0000000000000000000ed3eb1261750ddecb760d5914bc724963a65be5048d20 height=691858 date=2021-07-20T11:11:59Z progress=0.999995
2021-07-20T11:26:34Z init message: Rewinding blocks...
2021-07-20T11:26:35Z FlushStateToDisk: write coins cache to disk (0 coins, 0kB) started
2021-07-20T11:26:35Z FlushStateToDisk: write coins cache to disk (0 coins, 0kB) completed (0.00s)
2021-07-20T11:26:35Z init message: Verifying blocks...
2021-07-20T11:26:35Z Verifying last 6 blocks at level 3
2021-07-20T11:26:35Z [0%]...[16%]...[33%]...[

Bitcoin conf:
datadir=/mnt/btc/bitcoin
maxconnections=20
maxuploadtarget=144
disablewallet=1
txindex=1
maxmempool=4000
minrelaytxfee=0.0001

Blockchain info:
ubuntu@btc:~$ bitcoin-cli getblockchaininfo
{
  "chain": "main",
  "blocks": 691860,
  "headers": 691860,
  "bestblockhash": "00000000000000000009854076e894e617436163762f9e2ec46f616a2183f372",
  "difficulty": 13672594272814.14,
  "mediantime": 1626778212,
  "verificationprogress": 0.9999992519720163,
  "initialblockdownload": false,
  "chainwork": "00000000000000000000000000000000000000001fab3f9dd4dc1be7d6339a98",
  "size_on_disk": 403608388760,
  "pruned": false,
  ...
}

How can I fix this error?

Are you sure your node is using the bitcoin.conf? Have you tried enabling txindex using the CLI option?

It does mention Config file: /mnt/btc/bitcoin/bitcoin.conf. I enabled it on command line an it now says error code: -5 error message: No such mempool transaction. Blockchain transactions are still in the process of being indexed. Use gettransaction for wallet transactions.

Great, now you only need to wait for the indexing to finish and you'll have your txindex. In the meantime you can try to figure out why exactly your bitcoin.conf file isn't being read correctly.

Where is your bitcoin.conf located? It looks like it is not parsing any of the other arguments in your conf file, otherwise there would be multiple Config file arg lines, but there's only one for the datadir.

I had 2. One was in ~/.bitcoin/bitcoin.conf that contained just datadir=/mnt/btc/bitcoin. In /mnt/btc/bitcoin/bitcoin.conf was the other one - that was not being read. So I moved the contents of it into ~/.bitcoin/bitcoin.conf. I am still unsure how to use a different conf file location.


text:
Can I remove the initial bitcoin folder after installing its binaries to /usr/local/bin?
I know this's kinda a noob question, but I really want to be sure I'm not making a mistake.
I want to install Bitcoin Core GUI on my Linux by the following steps:

Download bitcoin-0.20.1-x86_64-linux-gnu.tar.gz into the Downloads folder
Extract it tar xzf bitcoin-0.20.1-x86_64-linux-gnu.tar.gz
Copy binaries into the /usr/local/bin: sudo install -m 0755 -o root -g root -t /usr/local/bin ~/Downloads/bitcoin-0.20.1/bin/*

Each step is exact the same as described here: https://bitcoin.org/en/full-node#linux-instructions
The question is: Can I now remove the extracted ~/Downloads/bitcoin-0.20.1 folder after installing the contents of its bin subdirectory into the /usr/local/bin?
Is it enough to have only binaries into the /usr/local/bin to run the program?

Yes, after you've checked if bitcoin is properly "installed" by checking its version you can remove the ~/Downloads/bitcoin-0.20.1. Be sure to double-check the processes and be careful before putting funds in without backup.


text:
How can I determine where a BTC transfer from one of my accounts to another went wrong?
I have two BTC accounts on a Ledger S Nano hardware wallet, which I can check via the Ledger Live software. I've transferred BTC many times already, to my own accounts and to other people, and never had a problem before.
Today, I tried to transfer some BTC from one account (Bitcoin Current) to another (Bitcoin Savings). The BTC went out of the Bitcoin Current account instantly and has now been confirmed 36 times. However, the BTC did not appear on my Bitcoin Savings account and several hours have now passed. There is also no record of the transfer in the Bitcoin Savings account, i.e. it doesn't say 'received x BTC' as usual.
I transferred the money in the same way as I normally do:

Click on the account where the BTC will be transferred
Click receive
Connect Ledger S Nano
Confirm Bitcoin address shown in software on Ledger S Nano
Copy the address (Here I copied the address to Notepad, then copied again from Notepad before using, which I don't think I've done before)
Click on the account from which to send BTC
Enter amount to be sent, Bitcoin address, etc., and confirm transaction on Ledger S Nano.

I would like to know how I can check where the transaction went wrong. Is there a way of confirming that the Bitcoin address I used does actually belong to my Bitcoin Savings account? Is there a way of checking whether somewhere in the process I accidentally sent BCH to a BTC account or vice versa (although I'm not sure how this would happen?). I found another forum where someone had an issue with an address that was incorrectly copied/pasted or had extra characters added in to it or something, how can I check this?
Thanks in advance for any help here

I don't know how much it will help, but you can search for the transaction using the Bitcoin addresses on a Block explorer, then maybe you can see if the destination address was wrong:
https://www.blockchain.com/explorer

Hi, thanks for the reply. I worked out that I did make the transfer to the wrong address after all because of a copy/paste problem. Appreciate the help!

It turns out that the reason the transfer didn't go through was because of a copy/paste error. The Bitcoin address I wanted to use didn't copy properly and I ended up using one that was stored in the clipboard from a previous transfer. As I know who the recipient is, there is, fortunately, a chance I might get the money back :-)


text:
Threat probability? 1 state controls >70% of miners. Other states go to war with them
This is almost certainly a silly question, but there are a lot of new bitcoin owners like me and a specific threat was made today which sounds credible to those of us who lack deep knowledge of bitcoin.
The specific threat is this one:
1: China controls 70% of the miners. SOURCE
2: They are using Hydroelectric and Nuclear Power reactors to do this. SOURCE
3: The United States (and allies) are seeking to destroy bitcoin in a war with China.
4: Bitcoin will go to 0 and US regulated coins will survive. SOURCE
So it's kind of 2 threats rolled into 1 and I'm trying to come up with a "probability of threat number" to determine if I should even devote time to considering this.
My guess is that the probability is less than 1% but it's just a guess and I have a high amount of uncertainty due to my current depth of knowledge.
Again, please forgive the silliness of the question, but any assistance to help improve my confidence that the threat is not to be taken seriously would be appreciated.

These might be the least reputable 'sources' I've ever seen posted to this stack exchange site... and that really is saying something.

China has dominated mining due to cheap power and hardware expertise. However, other than mining the US has been much friendlier to Bitcoin companies, startups, investors, open source developers etc than China. In addition, there are recent US based mining initiatives to attempt to decentralize mining and reduce Chinese dominance. A decentralized and censorship resistant protocol does not gel particularly well with China's surveillance and Great Firewall philosophy to digital communications and its renminbi currency controls.
With regards to probabilities, obviously no one can quote probabilities because it is purely speculative. It seems to me though that the probability of the US government banning Bitcoin or in some way attempting to destroy it via multi m/billion dollar attacks is extremely small (especially for the suggested motivation of hurting China). China holds over a trillion dollars of US government debt denominated in dollars which massively dwarfs any Bitcoin it may hold. Fiat currency wars and monetary policy are far more impactful than any attempt to devalue a country's Bitcoin holdings. The majority of attacks on the network would only achieve short term disruption at best and would be very costly when compared to using that investment to generate Bitcoin block rewards.
The US regulates the fiat to Bitcoin onramps and may seek to impose more burdensome regulation. However, it has funded and put in place a regulatory regime that has allowed internet companies to thrive over the past two decades and there is little reason for it to not to do the same for Bitcoin.


text:
Can I obtain my bitcoin wallet files back from my HDD from the old OS?
So i guess now its good time again to give my lost wallet files another attempt.
I'm an idiot for doing such a thing but then I heard perhaps I can unformat my HDD and retrieve my files back.
I definitely have an idea of the passwords I used and that won't be the issue.
I was buying btc around 2014-2015. I then decided to install a new mobo and I believe I wasn't able to unless I reinstalled Windows. I used the windows usb to re-install everything but I'm not sure. It was a very long time ago.
I also don't know if it was Bitcoin Core or MultiBit app that I was using on the desktop. Either way, I believe the files should be in the same place i.e. APP DATA > ROAMING > etc etc.
Is it possible to use a program like EaseUs to recover these files?
Is anybody willing to help me figure out if the files are completely gone forever or its still hidden under the old partition (which hopefully isn't over written).
Would it be perhaps under the Window.old folder? (i'm not sure if I have that folder, I need to double check back at work).
I was using WINDOWS 10 and nothing else I think.
If anyone can help me retrieve, I will personally send 0.3 BTC to you from that wallet. :)
Thanks for reading guys.
Hope you can help.
Louis

After you format your windows, did you put many other data in it?

Hi. I think I just reinstalled most of the programs but I do not think I intentionally over written data in those specific folders. Since it was a new OS install, I'm guessing the old files won't show up and will either be in 'Windows.old' folder perhaps. If not, then only an un-formatting software may be the last option?

But I guess after you format the PC you used it, I am just trying to know if you used it a lot or you are still using it because when you format your PC and you start to use the new fresh system, the system will overwrite the old files as much as you use it. If you didn't use it so much, maybe it is possible to recover some files that have not been overwritten.

Hi. Yes I just continued usage like normal but not heavily. I do not download many things so continued usage is more like playing games or using the browsers. I guess there is still hope. What steps would you take to figure out if my files are still somewhat available somewhere in the app data folder?

Hello! I would try a recover data software like this one: https://www.cleverfiles.com/disk-drill-win.html. The entire scan of your HD it should take several hours, after that you will have many data, you can try to search for the files with .dat extension, then you take a look if there is something similiar to your wallet.dat file. You can direct me on telegram, it is a fast way @lucablight

The files I would be looking for are from 2015 and sadly there is no record of them :( Thanks for your help anyway


text:
Broadcasting a transaction as a 3rd party
In a scenario I have a signed transaction from A to B and ready to broadcast. As C, I want to broadcast it but the part I am having hard time to understand is as the transaction is already signed and everything is settled how can I change the transaction fee I would like to pay? Can I pay extra from my wallet for example? Thanks.

If you have send your transaction but it does not appear on the blockchain yet it mean it is still in the mempool, the place where transaction are waiting to be taken by a miner.
Miner incentive are to take the transaction with the biggest fees first, so yes you can "double send" your transaction using the same element but with an increased fee, so that it has more chance to be mined fast.
You can check this question for more detail:
When increase transaction fee three times in few minutes - transaction had an attempted double-spent?

Thanks for the answer. Fee is input-output. So if everything is settled and signed, meaning that input-output is known, can a 3rd party broadcast it paying extra as an additional fee? This question is particularly of interest for off-the-chain transactions to be clear. Thanks again.

I think the amount you intend to send and the receiver of your transaction are part of the elements of your transaction that are hashed so there is no known way to derive those element from your transaction.


text:
Recovering blockchain.com wallet
Kind of a long story, I'll try to be consice -

Back in 2013 I've opened 2 wallets at blockchain.com (back then it was blockchain.info) and I have funds in both wallets.
Tried to access the wallets about 3 years ago. Everything was OK with the first one, but when I've tried to access the second wallet, I did not got the confirmation mail from the site.
After some help from their support, I've figured that I've used 2 different mail accounts to the wallets and I don't have access to the second mail anymore.
I've asked the support team to change my 2FA mail of the second wallet to the mail address that I use today, which they did.
After the change was done, I tried again to access the wallet. I got the confirmation mail, but when I clicked it, the login page displayed the sad message of "Cannot decrypt wallet, wrong password", although I'm sure I have the correct password (read on and understand howcome I'm so sure).
Tried to use the recovery phrase - the recovery page asked my 12 words phrase, while mine is 17 words.
Wrote to the support once again, and they reffered me to a different recovery page, one that uses 17 words, since my wallet is now considered "legacy" wallet.
Recovered the password and guess what? It is the exact password that I have. I've double and triple checked it, but it is the same password.
Once again I've tried the support team, but all the responses that I got where the same - we don't store the passwords and we cannot help you.
Found recently the wallet.aes.json file of that wallet, I've decrypted it (using python script from this site. I've use my password and the file was decrypted correctly, showing my my public address, wallet guid and some other data.

To conclude - It looks to me that something went wrong with the site's copy of my wallet - either in the process of upgrading the site (even though my second wallet is OK), or in the process of changing my 2FA mail address), but they won't help me anymore.
My question -
What should I do next?
I know that there is an option to "import" my wallet.aes file to the site, with this link, but is it the right thing to do? The wallet is already in their database, so can it be "imported"?
Can I import that file to another site and gain access to my wallet?
Thanks :)

that other data you decrypted does also contain your private key, unfortunately not in WIF. you should convert it and import to Electrum, then have your funds.


text:
Is there a way to import bitcoin wallet into BitcoinJ?
I tried to create bitcoin wallet that could be available as from BitcoinJ as from standart desktop wallet client (Bitcoin.com client e.g.) but it seems that I don't get something important.
I exported the wallet from desktop client which looks like
this.
After decrypting it with https://bitwiseshiftleft.github.io/sjcl/demo/, I got this.
The problem is the Wallet.class methods to import wallets are all eventually have seed creation time as a parameter, which is not stated in exported version of the wallet (setting it randomly doesn't help).
So basically I need any options to transform this exported data into working BitcoinJ wallet.
Any help or advices would be gratelly appreciated!

You need to pass DeterministicHierarchy.BIP32_STANDARDISATION_TIME_SECS if you want to use it as a normal BIP 32 wallet. The sample code that you have should do the rest.

I tried the method described on the link, but got the wallet with 0 balance.(send some btc to the wallet in desktop client for test). Thought that it's related to BIP32 hierarchy used by bitcoinj (desktop wallet has BIP44). Tried to create wallet with BIP44 following the example given here but that changed nothing


text:
the 12 - word phrase dilemma
Just started with exodus. downloaded it and set up an account.
after a couple of days, I want to log in, but can't. The password doesn't work. When I want a prompt, I am asked for some 12- words -phrase that I never heard of before!
If I was never asked to set my 12-word-phrase before or given one (cause I don't know how it works, really) does it mean I never successfully started / opened my account?
the help guys didn't answer to my 2nd message....

See

https://support.exodus.io/article/37-how-do-i-get-started-with-exodus

Backup your wallet to keep it safe
Once you have had a look around the Exodus wallet and you like it, it is time to go through the backup. During the backup process you will receive your (randomly generated) secret phrase of your wallet. This is a secret phrase that functions as a master key to all of your assets, if you would like to know more about your secret phrase then please check out this article: 12-word secret “recovery phrase”

If the password to the wallet doesn't work and you haven't transferred money to the wallet then you can probably just start again.


text:
Am I really understanding how the "Trezor Model T", and hardware wallets in general, work?
Getting increasingly paranoid about losing my coins, I've yet again (for probably the 20th time by now) went looking for hardware wallets. The only semi-reasonable one seems to be the two Trezors. All the others seem fishy/unreliable to me.
But as I read and watch and listen, it seems like even the "premium" Trezor Model T requires "OS support" and even to go to a webpage (not hosted on the device itself) to actually use it. Its operations are not at all self-contained in the device itself.
Up until now, I always had the idea that the Trezors (even the first model) is entirely self-contained, and only plugs into a computer in order to use its network capabilities to be able to send coins and update its data. (Of course, doing all the validations and verifications on the device, so it doesn't have to trust the network or the computer it's plugged in to.)
Actually, I vaguely had the idea that I would be able to buy one and then physically take it with me somewhere, without any computer around, and sort of "beam" any amount of my coins into another person's Trezor or even other hardware wallet...
None of this seems to be the case. Even the expensive model with the touch screen appears to be entirely reliant on the "host computer" to do anything besides storing the coins. I bet the special Trezor "coin control panel" webpage doesn't even support my browser (I don't run spyware), and who knows how long that will stay online? I don't want to rely on some company's website, or require special "OS support" for my hardware wallet. That's why it's a hardware wallet! For it to be stand-alone.
Am I missing something fundamental? Are there no "actual" hardware Bitcoin wallets which can do everything by themselves: send and receive coins without any computer? I don't even have wireless Internet at home, but most people apparently have, so I definitely expected it to be using "wifi" on its own, but this doesn't seem to be the case?!
I really tried to find this out by myself before asking.

Hardware wallets such as the Trezor ones you mentioned are only a secure method of storing and using your private keys.  When you want to send BTC, that transaction will be signed mathematically completely within the confines of the key itself.
One could design a hardware wallet with a full user interface, negating the need for a separate computer all together, but that would be far more expensive; in the realm of the price of a modern mobile phone.  Keeping the code inside a Trezor to the utter minimum reduces the potential for security weaknesses and improves reliability, too.

Note that hardware wallets do you store any bitcoins. Without going too technical, hardware wallets securely store the private keys (derived from the special 12/18/24 words). All your bitcoins are stored in the actual blockchain. You use your private keys to unlock your funds in the blockchain. Think of your wallet as the key and the blockchain as the vault. The hardware wallet does the necessary cryptographic calculations to query your funds or send bitcoin to another address. It cannot do it offline, it must require internet connection to communicate with the blockchain.

Actually, I vaguely had the idea that I would be able to buy one and
then physically take it with me somewhere, without any computer
around, and sort of "beam" any amount of my coins into another
person's Trezor or even other hardware wallet...

That is technically possible but that means the wallets will require some sort of NFC and also connection to the internet (4G/5G/WiFi). The wallet will also require better CPU and higher RAM. This will significantly increase the price of the hardware wallet and also make it bulkier.
And finally, no, you do not necessarily need to use the Trezor website. You can host the web interface right on your laptop but might be of an overkill for any average user. See https://wiki.trezor.io/User_manual:Running_a_local_instance_of_Trezor_Wallet_backend_(Blockbook)


text:
How are segwit block transactions verified?
From my understanding, segwit blocks send transaction information without the witness, which includes the signature. I thought nodes needed the signature to verify the transactions?

This is not correct.
All segwit blocks do differently is having the witnesses (which include the signature) in a separately-hashed area. They're still an integral part of the block, and full validation cannot proceed without the witness data. Removing or altering the witness data will invalidate a block.
What this does permit is stripping the witness data without affecting validity according to pre-segwit validation rules. This is the basis for using segwit as a blocksize increase (the old 1 MB block size limit thus only applies to the non-witness part, as old nodes don't see the witness data). However, nodes that implement the segwit rules need the full witness.

Can you please explain what a non-segwit node sees when a segwit node notifies it of a new block, vs what a non-segwit node would see from a non-segwit node? I think I'm having trouble understanding how the witness data can be stripped and still be seen as valid

There is no difference. Non-witness nodes are never sent the witness data. Witness nodes strip it before sending it to them.

So they strip the portion of their block that contains witness data, correct? If this is true, then the non-witness node doesn't receive the witness data (which includes the signature). If so, how do non-witness nodes verify the block?

Yes. To them, the block is valid without witnesses. Every script that requires a witness looks like one that is always true to non-witness nodes.

So do non-witness nodes just accept blocks at face value from witness nodes? They don't need to validate it at all?

They validate everything they care about. That does not include the validation of witness spends, as those look like anyonecanspend to them. But non-segwit scripts are still validated, PoW is validated, inflation is checked, UTXOs must exist, ...


text:
How to secure a blockchain based on PoW against 51% attack?
I couldn't find a satisfying answer to this 51% attack issue, so for a new blockchain with only 300 mined blocks, from my understanding the attacker has to rebuild all the blocks from scratch, is that true, if yes then what if the blockchain has 100k or 300k blocks? is there a way to prevent or penalize a miner if he mines too fast? does having honest miners would solve the issue? what about multiple Full nodesI need practical solutions


text:
To what extent is the actual downloading of blockchain data what slows down a "fresh sync"?
I've just sat an old computer with fresh Linux Mint and Bitcoin Core installed to sync from scratch. Since its HDD is 250 GB, I had to enable "pruned mode" since the blockchain is currently 367.2 GB.
Having not synced from scratch since 2013, it feels like this will take an eternity.
Why exactly is it so slow? If I were to download 367.2 GB, yeah, it would take some time, but over Bit Torrent, with tons of seeders (as would be the case for something this popular), it would probably max out my hardware, meaning 10 MB/s (100 Mb/s), and then those many GBs don't seem so large anymore.
But I also realize that it's not just about downloading the data, but about verifying it. This, as I understand it, takes a lot of CPU and I/O power (possibly also RAM). Is this what primarily is slowing down a fresh sync, or is the actual "data distribution" part just sub-optimally optimized?
I realize that the answer, whatever it will be, will not help me download it faster, but still, I have to satisfy my curiosity. The progress indicator says "1%" currently.
I vaguely recall people talking about separately downloading the blockchain and then "feeding" it to Bitcoin Core, but that seems like more work than it'll probably be worth with all the presumed hassle it would entail... And it just goes back to my question: why is the downloading of the data not super fast? Or maybe it is? I frankly have no clue what goes on inside my network cables.

Does this answer your question? Sync with bitcoin-qt very slow (0,01%)


text:
What does the RPC call "getmemoryinfo" show?
What does the output of the RPC call getmemoryinfo actually mean? For example, this is from my node running in Docker. Does that mean the bitcoind process inside the container is only using 64272 bytes of memory? That's only 64k, that can't be correct, right?
{
  "result": {
    "locked": {
      "used": 64272,
      "free": 1264,
      "total": 65536,
      "locked": 65536,
      "chunks_used": 2002,
      "chunks_free": 2
    }
  },
  "error": null,
  "id": "curltest"
}

These are the processes inside the container.
/ $ ps -a
PID   USER     TIME  COMMAND
    1 bitcoind 12:52 bitcoind -zmqpubrawblock=tcp://0.0.0.0:28332 -zmqpubrawtx=tcp://0.0.0.0:28333
   43 bitcoind  0:00 /bin/sh
   51 bitcoind  0:00 ps -a

It is reporting the memory statistics of the locked memory pool, not all memory used in general.
The locked pool is used to store private keys and other security-sensitive material. Bitcoin Core requests from the OS that the memory used by this locked pool is not swapped out, to prevent it from ending up on a swapfile/swap partition on disk.

thanks for this info. I see that running cat /proc/$PID/status  | grep VmLck returns VmLck:        64 kB, which is in-line with the 65536 I saw earlier.


text:
List transactions after losing wallet and private key?
I have made various transactions with my wallet using bitcoind. If I lose my wallet (and private key) and somebody else somehow knows my private key and does some transactions, is it possible for me to somehow get a list of those new transactions?

If you have your wallet.dat in the Bitcoin core and someone else for some reason knows a private key that is associated with this wallet.dat, this person can spend the Bitcoins of that private key in basically, any other wallet, if this person does that, you will see this transaction in your Bitcoin core as the type "Sent to".
If you like to test it you can type listunspent in your Bitcoin core, then you will see the addresses with an amount to be spendable, then you can copy any of these addresses and take the private key for that address using the command dumpprivkey address, take this private key and import in any other wallet then send the Bitcoin to some other wallet.

Let's assume I have lost wallet.dat and forgot the private key, but somebody else has spent bitcoins using my private key. Can I somehow know the newer transactions if I only have the old transactions list?

Yes, you need to know the address, and you probably can get this address from the old transaction list, but you will probably need to look one by one in a block explorer.

If you have a list of old transaction IDs for transactions in which you received money, you can use those in one of the  blockchain explorers to find the Bitcoin addresses of the transaction outputs. You can then see if those outputs have been subsequently spent. You will be able to see the transaction-IDs of the transactions that spend the outputs.


text:
How do I solve problem of my iMac now refusing to let me access Bitcoin Core?
Immediately after a software upgrade to my iMac, an error message appeared: "Bitcoin Core quit unexpectedly" and I followed the instructions to "reopen" and the error kept repeating. How do I get back on bitcoin core?

What is in debug.log?

Do you have a backup of your wallet (or better, many regularly made backups) and a written note of your master private key?


text:
If I use a MacBook Pro to mine Bitcoin (and keep records for the blockchain), how much can I earn in 1 month?
I know people say it is not practical to mine Bitcoins using a computer any more, but graphics cards are usually used to mine them.
But suppose just for fun, I do use a MacBook Pro to

mine it 8 hours a day, and also
participate to be part of the blockchain to keep records

How much can I earn per month doing #1 and #2 above, even if it is just a few dollars?  Can I really download some software to do #1 and #2?

It will be hard to find exact numbers, as GPU mining for Bitcoin has been completely obsolete since somewhere in 2013 when the first ASIC-based mining solutions appeared.
Still, I wouldn't expect the CPU and GPU in a modern Macbook Pro to be able to mine faster than a few 100 million hashes per second. Even if we assume it can do 1 billion hashes per second (probably a serious overestimate), then as of January 2021, with 8 hours/day, you'd make around 0.002 USD per month in a pool (if they even permit you withdraw such a small amount). If not in a pool, it'd be exactly 0.
It won't be worth the added cost in electricity. It won't even be worth the cost in added wear & tear to your hardware.
There probably exists software that can do this still, but I don't expect it to be maintained or easy to set up as it has been obsolete for so long.


text:
Is using different addresses for bitcoin similar to having different email addresses?
I first got quite confused about having different "addresses" to get or send bitcoins.
But is it as simple as, we can have different email addresses:
molly.rosie@gmail.com
peterpan123@gmail.com
peterpan456@yahoo.com

and so you use them as accounts for yourself, to send and receive money, and nobody know who is who with these "addresses"?

is it as simple as, we can have different email addresses:

Yes and no. Mostly no.
You can, and normally should, create a new receiving address every time you receive money. You could, but normally shouldn't, create a new email address every time you want to receive an email message.

A street address identifies a specific place.
An email address identifies a specific person
An IP address identifies a particular network port on a computer
A bitcoin address doesn't identify anything.

The purpose of a Bitcoin address is unlike most other things for which we use the name "address". A Bitcoin address is really just like a random number in most regards. It's just a seemingly random number that in fact has a useful mathematical relationship to a really random number that is secret.

so you use them as accounts for yourself

You can use them that way. But that's something extra you do outside the Bitcoin network. There are also privacy issues if multiple people or businesses send money to the same one of your addresses. So you shouldn't use an address as a "sales" account for example.

nobody know who is who with these "addresses"?

Correct. But if you reuse addresses, information about you and your money leaks out.

No, bitcoin addresses are not analogous to email addresses.
A bitcoin address should be used only once, for important privacy reasons. If you re-use addresses, it is very bad for your privacy, and for the privacy of those you transact with. If you only use one address, then anyone watching the network will be able to know your entire financial history, if they know your address. On the other hand, an email address is almost always used more than once.
It is perhaps better to consider bitcoin addresses like 'invoices', in that you wouldn't give the same invoice to multiple people, you would create a new one each time.

so an address can be used 0 to any times (like a million times), but the advice is to just use it once?  Don't you have to use it at least twice? For example, receive 0.001 bitcoins from Mary, and then send it to your main account? But I guess that reveals who you are, if all these transfers go back to one "main" address. Then how does it work? Your wallet just have a lot of these addresses... each with 0.001 bitcoins, 0.000033 bitcoins, 0.2 bitcoins, etc?  So it is like a physical wallet with a lot of compartments?

As it happens, I do actually use a different email address for each different site I create an account on. Well, not always, but often. The advantage bitcoin addresses have here over email addresses is that they have no discernible connection, whereas my multiple email addresses are all on the same domain.

I suspect you don't use a different email address for every received email, though.


text:
Do Coinbase, Coinbase Pro, Robinhood, Gemini, GBTC count as Web Wallet?
According to a 99Bitcoins video and some writing, Web Wallets are to be avoided because they are not secure.
Does that mean when you buy bitcoins on Robinhood, Coinbase, Coinbase Pro, Gemini, or even the trust GBTC, they are all Web Wallets?
I think Robinhood doesn't even allow us to move the private keys to our wallet, while Coinbase, Coinbase Pro, and Gemini do.
GBTC, I am not sure: if they store the bitcoins "cold" in their trust, then maybe it is not as insecure? Robinhood also said they store a good portion of their bitcoins "cold", and I suppose they only move a small portion to their platform to satisfy the trading or the exchange-for-cash?
So should we consider Robinhood, Coinbase, Coinbase Pro, Gemini, or GBTC Web Wallets and avoid using them for too long but should transfer the private keys into our own wallets?


text:
is it possible to deposit bitcoin into an address without making the address public?
I thought one safe way to keep a bitcoin "cold" and safe is to not show its address ever to the public.
However, let's say if I create an address, so that means I create a pair of public and private key, and then the public key can go through some steps to become an "address".
Now, if I deposit 0.001 bitcoins from Coinbase or Coinbase Pro into my mobile wallet (or any wallet), isn't it true that the Ledger (the blockchain) has to have a record of
 Transfer of bitcoin from Address 123c6...e6.  to   987a1...39   Quantity: 0.001

So somehow, that new address has to be "public" because it is in the blockchain and anybody can see it?  So how would it be possible to have an address and be able to deposit some bitcoin into it without showing the address to the public?

Something like the long awaited MimbleWimble Litecoin is intending to roll out soon (tm)?

For all the researches I have done so far, the blockchain contains all the info about which address has how many bitcoins.  All the blockchain info is public.
So the address, when it already is associated with some bitcoin, cannot be unknown to the public.


text:
How New Bitcoin Addresses not using Signature ? Only witness or Very Short Signature?
I have Noticed Something strange to me
Newly Used Bitcoin Addresses show repeated very short Signatures
and Multiple Witness ??
and Some not even any signature for the transaction ?
what is happening actually ?
example : https://blockchain.info/de/rawaddr/3BMEXokv2vPoEKPn7YWEhXoPYyZuzauLXJ

It looks like that API is just simply broken. If you look at the web page results (or a different blockchain explorer's API for that address, all of script and witness information is presented correctly.


text:
Is there some way to estimate the proper value of one Bitcoin?
For example, if it is stock, there can be P/E ratio, or Price Sales ratio. For Bitcoin, are there some common ways people use to estimate the value of one Bitcoin?

What do you mean by value if not exchange rate? If it is something else, can you clarify what? For example, what would the value of the US dollar be?

that's true... should we estimate the value of a Bitcoin like a stock or like a currency? But either way, what are some factors that can tell or give suggestions as to its proper value?

@nonopolarity I still have no clue what you mean by "proper value" that isn't its exchange rate. If you're talking about something other than an exchange rate, can you give an example for another currency?

Unlike stocks or precious metals, Bitcoin has no inherent value; it is only worth what people are willing to pay for it, and the only way to determine that is through trading activity on an exchange.
You can try to use the same technical analyses that are used on the stock and forex markets to predict the future price, but it's incorrect to call that its "proper value".

@Prayank You can assign an inherent value to a company's stock by looking at things like the value of assets the company owns, the profit it earns, etc., and when people say "this company is over/undervalued" they mean the stock price doesn't reflect this reality. Gold has inherent value as a non-corrosive component in electronics, even if people stopped wanting to trade gold. If nobody wanted to buy or accept your Bitcoin for products anymore, what else can you do with it?

I think you can say Bitcoin has no inherit value... but think of people having some "tokens" which they can exchange for some goods (like seashell long time ago)... if each person has 100 tokens and they commonly exchange it for a pizza, that establishes its commonly perceived value. But if each person only has 3... then maybe they rarely use it, and treasure it, and so it can be worth a bicycle or something. Also think about if each person only has 3 tokens, and it is among the very rich people, then it probably is worth a lot more

@nonopolarity Sure, so then again, the price is just based off of what others are willing to pay for it. If I had 100 tokens and people were willing to exchange 1 token for 1 pizza, then the value of 1 token is 1 pizza. If these same tokens were owned by rich people who were willing to exchange 1 token for 1 sports car, then the value of 1 token is 1 sports car. But note that the value is still, only what others are willing to trade for it, and on its own the tokens aren't worth anything, and therefore there's no such thing as "proper value" of the token.

@ieatpizza I said proper value, because, imagine each person has 3 tokens, and is used among homeless people, and their net asset is $10, I think 1 token might be worth $1 or something?  They care about $3 of liquid asset, and perhaps the 3 tokens represent the $3. Likewise, if the 3 tokens belong to people whose net asset is about $20 million, then it can be the liquid asset they can think of moving around is $1 or $2 million, so each token can be worth $300,000, and like you said, is a sports car

@Prayank Okay, so a company that has 0 valuable assets and 0 profit has 0 "inherent value". People might still want to trade the stock for whatever reason (maybe they got lied) and then we would call it grossly overvalued, because the price it's trading at doesn't reflect its inherent value. You are right, the USD also is only worth as much as people are willing to accept for it. If nobody wanted to accept USD anymore, the value of USD goes to 0. You can see something similar happening in countries that are experiencing extreme inflation: the money is worth less than the paper it's printed on.

@nonopolarity In your hypothetical these tokens again only have value because people are willing to trade for them. If I were a billionaire and I had a bunch of play tokens that nobody was willing to pay anything for, the tokens are still worthless, despite my own personal net worth. If my assets were made entirely of these tokens, I'm not a billionaire unless someone else in the world would be willing to buy my tokens for $1B.

@ieatpizza See, that's why I said there seems to be a way to estimate a proper value. You just said if 1 person owns all tokens and even if it is a billionaire, it is worthless, what did you do? Didn't you just give the token a "proper value"?

@nonopolarity No. The key part is "tokens that nobody was willing to pay anything for".  Anyways I'm also getting bored of this discussion since I feel like I'm just repeating myself now.

@ieatpizza You could at least burn dollar bills to keep warm or melt coins down to their useful elemental metals, so physical currency would still have minimal value even if no one wanted to trade. If no one wants to buy your Bitcoin, however, I can't think of a single useful thing you could do with it, meaning its value truly is zero.

Like most other forms of money, bitcoins don't have any intrinsic value.  Unlike commodities, they do not have material value and they cannot be used in manufacturing, and unlike stocks, bitcoins don't represent assets or shares of some entity. Bitcoins are a purely digital good that represents nothing but itself and therefore has only relative value. In fact, some argue that the absence of intrinsic value makes bitcoins an outstanding candidate for money. Given that, I'm not sure whether it makes sense to distinguish between price, value, and purchasing power of bitcoins.
The price of bitcoins is discovered on the market: the current price is that of the latest trade that a buyer and a seller agreed on. The price is updated whenever the highest bid and the lowest ask intersect.

I said proper value, because, imagine each person has 3 tokens, and is
used among homeless people, and their net asset is $10, I think 1
token might be worth $1 or something? They care about $3 of liquid
asset, and perhaps the 3 tokens represent the $3. Likewise, if the 3
tokens belong to people whose net asset is about $20 million, then it
can be the liquid asset they can think of moving around is $1 or $2
million, so each token can be worth $300,000, and like you said, is a
sports car

The price discovery is independent of the wealth of the market participants since the bitcoins do not represent their other assets in any way. Even high-net-worth individuals (HNWI) can only influence the price through the market. One could argue that people whose wealth is mostly made up of Bitcoin may be more likely to sell some to diversify or cover expenses, while the general wealth of HNWIs protects them from being forced to sell. Possibly, HNWIs may also be willing to pay more for bitcoins than other market participants. As such, HNWIs may contribute more to a rising price than other market participants, but I still don't see how the price of bitcoin would be a function of the general wealth of Bitcoin holders.
That being said, some bitcoiners speculate on the price by assuming which other uses of money or gold it may replace. An example is Vijay Boyapati's description of four valuation frameworks for Bitcoin. Various banks have published research modeling Bitcoin's future value. For example, a Citibank analyst made news in November with their price prediction.

I've updated the first paragraph to rephrase that passage.

@Prayank Okay, so... The concept of blockchain technology is inherently valuable, in that even if Bitcoin itself one day went to 0, the concept of blockchains as a data structure and the concept of a decentralized timestamping mechanism still have valuable uses in software. But note that the value of these concepts are independent of the value of Bitcoin itself... you don't necessarily need to use Bitcoin to use them.


text:
Is our hardware wallet safe if the PC or Mac has 3rd party apps?
For example, our PC or Mac might have 3rd party apps installed, such as Pixelmator, GIMP, or VLC player.  They are usually considered to be safe apps.
However, is it true that when using a hardware wallet, we need to use the PC or Mac, and if the PC or Mac is hacked or is affected by any 3rd party software, then our private key can still be stolen? How do we prevent it from being stolen?
Having said that, I heard that if we did not install the app as an admin on the Mac, that is, if we installed the app only by dragging the app into the Applications folder, then we can reboot the Mac and not run any 3rd party app, and at this stage, no 3rd party app should be able to do anything bad. If we installed the 3rd party app as admin (root), then it is a different story because now the app can be running itself or a small component in the background even after a reboot.

Typically, the signing is done on the device and the private keys never reach the computer. This means that the computer can never generate and sign transactions on its own
A wallet like Trezor (T) shows the destination address from its screen so that you press one of the buttons on the device itself. This makes it impossible for the computer to make the device sign a stealing transaction, because you would see that the destination address is not your intended recipient.
I would use Trezor T with any online computer.

is it true that to prevent the bitcoin lost when the hardware wallet goes out of order, we can back up the private key online (on Trezor's website) and encrypt it using 24 English words? If so, is the private key transferred online, or is the 24 English word transferred online?

Sorry I don't own a hardware wallet. I can't help your more than it is on this page https://wiki.trezor.io/Passphrase but you can ask a new question


text:
Can we think of an address a mini-account, and is re-useable and disposable?
Can we think of an address as a mini-account, and we can keep on using one, or we can use many to add privacy to our activities, and we can transfer or sell the bitcoins in it and make them empty and dispose of them any time?

No, you should not reuse addresses/treat them as a "mini-account". You should create a new one for every transaction and not re-use old addresses.
Your wallet software will generally handle this automatically for you -- just remember to request a new receive address each time you receive new bitcoin, and it should give you a new address that you should only use once.

Perhaps also important to note that under no circumstances this has any effect on fees. Reusing an address is not cheaper than creating a new one.

Isn't it I have to at least use an address twice?  The first time when the address is created, it has 0 bitcoins.  So when 0.001 bitcoins go into it (is associated with it), then it has 0.001 bitcoins, and ... at least you need to use it again to consolidate it into your bigger account (address), or that you need to send to another person, so that in either case, the address becomes empty (0 bitcoins), so that you can stop using it forever?

Or, one other way is: the time you spend that 0.001 bitcoin is the time you dispose of it.  So if I have 12 addresses with 0.001 bitcoin, and now I need to buy something or transfer 0.01 bitcoins to Coinbase, now, out of the 12 addresses, 10 of them will be transfer to Coinbase, and then immediately thrown away by my wallet?  So basically we only use the address twice: when bitcoins come in and when it goes out

You should not consolidate addresses. But yes, when we say "single use" we mean receive once and send once -- if you only use it to receive once, your wallet software should handle the rest automatically.

@nonopolarity I find this abstraction most useful: you have a single wallet, and it has multiple "entry points" that are addresses, which are used to receive coins into the wallet. But once received, those coins are held and managed by the wallet, and it's the wallet that sends them - not the individual addresses. In this abstraction, addresses are indeed single use.

so we can think of, one address, receive once, and send out once, and abandon it