I'm delighted we found the users to help us see a fuller picture of dynamics.

Still the users have to find good verses bad full nodes or they could be misled.

• How do users reliably find good full nodes?
• How does a user evaluate the blocks provided to them?
  

Even full nodes face the first question.  I configure my full node with 60 connections (enough more than the default of only 8?) and just hope the builders of the software did a good job and that the network hasn't partitioned me away from the good ones.  I do manually compare to various public sources of the blockchain, e.g. blockchain.info, etc., and hope they aren't compromised.  My confidence in being able to reach apparently good nodes has built up over the years but I don't want to become complacent.  I do examine peers for misbehavior and disconnect or ban them if I don't like what I see.  I watch various news outlets including this forum for indications of trouble.  If I am left behind or worse misled for awhile then I hope that eventually I will find the good ones and catch up and if needed replace the crap from the bad ones.

This I know; my fiat-denominated holdings are debased without any real effective say or recourse.  The only redeeming fact is so is everyone else's so I don't lose ground.  I feel very badly for folks without any appreciable holdings; the poor get poorer relative to the rich.  Bitcoin, by the rules, can't be debased; this is one of the attractive features of Bitcoin over fiat for me.

I'm pretty sure folks are talking past each other.  Let me see if I can help.

When a user comes along and connects to an available full node (how did they find it?) in order to transmit a transaction or check on the confirmations of one then it makes all the difference in the world which one they connect to.  Connecting to my compliant full node will get them to "the" "right" blockchain.  Connecting to a "bad guys" full node will get them a different view.  Ah, perhaps this is where the confusion comes in.  Users don't connect to mining systems per se.  Although a mining system without a full node somewhere in the mix is a pretty weird idea.

It is the mining systems that build on top of previous blocks that determine the forward growth of "the" blockchain.  I suppose errant/malicious systems can fork off and build another blockchain but the one with the greatest difficulty wins (given comparable reachability) as far as the users go.  Full nodes that don't mine can ignore (let's not call it reject) anything they want but will just end up participating less and less.

I run an unmodified full node; it entertains me to do so.  I don't turn on mining due to the noise of the fan mostly and concerns about the cost of electricity and system wear and tear (besides which my dumb CPU ain't likely to win the race to the next block ever against all those darn ASICs).  Despite the lack of mining, I feel happy about my contribution to the Bitcoin world -- I configured my full node to allow 60 connections (8 outbound/52 inbound) and upload 100's of GBs every month.

If a block comes along that violates the rules then it will be ignored by my full node.  It will also be ignored by all compliant full nodes.  Eventually if/when another block comes along that is legit then it will be accepted.  But make no mistake, ignoring a block does nothing per se.  Yes, it won't be propagated but it doesn't need to be.  The "bad guys" can forward it themselves without my help.

If a large enough fraction of the mining systems are configured to break the rules then they will overwhelm the mining systems trying to remain compliant.  My full node won't agree with the errant ones and so it will follow along with the compliant ones.  But following does nothing as such to help fight back the "bad guys".

Well now from the users' point of view the full nodes do matter.  Depending on which one they happen to connect to makes all the difference.  If they connect to more than one then they can compare and select from the "stronger" blockchain.  I suppose a user could also check themselves if the blocks are compliant to one degree or another (darn good idea).  That way (except for propagation) they don't need to trust the full nodes.  Well, to the degree that the user doesn't check every last detail they do have to trust the full node(s).

Ok, I just didn't stop researching waiting for your breakthrough to be revealed.  A lot of activity in crypto makes it feel like we are getting somewhere but if it all stands on faulty footing then it'll be ugly when it comes down.  Is there any version of this that is "good enough"?  Bitcoin appears to "good enough" for now.  I personally am not hot on Ethereum but plenty of folks are and I do see the appeal.  Monero is coming on strong.  If the emperor is wearing no clothes and you've got an outfit ready then for goodness sakes say so as soon as possible.

https://github.com/tromp/cuckoo/blob/master/doc/cuckoo.pdf?raw=true makes me think that being ASIC-resistant helps avoid centralization.

I will research it.

I wonder; can there be an orderly conversion from Bitcoin to your new thing?  I have a rather sizable investment at stake in Bitcoin and would like to convert it into your new thing if/when it becomes real enough.  Or am I missing the point?  If/when your new thing becomes real enough then it will possibly/likely accelerate the demise of Bitcoin (cutting into my investment).  Does your new thing have to be deployed disruptively?  I gather it can live side-by-side with Bitcoin but I'm hoping there would be an orderly way for everyone that wants to shift over to do it without a stampede.  I wouldn't want to get left behind.  If it is truly only disruptive, i.e. no facility for an orderly conversion, then it will be up to each investor to time the transition of their own investments.

I've toyed around with other so-called alt-coins but they hold little interest for me.  Ripple, please.  Litecoin, meh.  Dogecoin, seriously?  Monero, meh.  Etherium, meh.  Zcash, maybe.  Mimble-wimble, maybe.  Your thingie sounds potentially interesting but the meat hasn't been released yet to chew on.

Given the lack of a fee it might never go through as is as it competes with fee-paying transactions.  If you arrange for your wallet to stop retransmitting the transaction then eventually the network should forget it.  I haven't done it myself but apparently the right-click abandon transaction is the thing you need.  After that then you can send a new transaction with an appropriate fee which will go through in a reasonable amount of time.

Read it; more please.

For what it is worth, I am highly confident that my son did the work to build 0.13.0 from sources https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gitian.sigs/pull/401.

I'm investigating the Broad Financial approach again.

The fine is pretty small compared to the size of the trust so not a big deal in my mind.

What does worry me is the 2% annual fee per http://grayscale.co/bitcoin-investment-trust/.  *If* I could sell GBTC and purchase BTC directly in my Roth IRA then I would do it to save the expense.

Your transaction was pruned by Blockchain.info (which just means I can't check on the progress that way); so, what is the address involved instead?

Hmm, you should convert away from the legacy wallet.  Even the old wallet used a default of 0.0001BTC for the fee but this was manually overridden (don't do that).  I don't see an obvious way in the legacy wallet to redo the transaction to add a fee; we need to research that.  Worst case we might be able to load the private key into another wallet that does offer that feature.

After you convert, Blockchain says https://blog.blockchain.com/2016/03/16/introducing-dynamic-fees/ so it will calculate an appropriate fee depending on the current traffic.  The speed/quality of your internet connection is not the problem.

No.  Even without redoing the transaction to add a fee, odds are eventually the transaction will be included in a block so, no, the bitcoins will not be loss.

Hmm, https://blockchain.info/tx/fe09397d068f68fc3656d345e8e6621a3b7a1e301e50dd7884a84e42128ca6d9 indicates the transaction was received less than 2 days ago but perhaps it started before that elsewhere in the network.  The whole trick is to get it forwarded to miners.  Many (most?) nodes will refuse to accept transactions without fees.

If you had included an appropriate fee (instead of zero) then it would have gone through quickly.  https://bitcoinfees.21.co/ provides guidance; it is currently indicating a delay of 840-infinite minutes for transactions with no fee.

Which wallet are you using?  Many (most?) wallets these days have a feature to redo the transaction with a fee.

GBTC may be held in either a non-retirement or retirement account.  Holding it in either is just like holding any other asset.  That the BITS NAV and the GBTC exchange rate http://grayscale.co/bitcoin-investment-trust/#market-performance are so far out of alignment is interesting.  The premium for GBTC is almost certainly due to scarcity.  Arbitrage is impossible due to the length of time it takes to cycle through.  Make no mistake; buying GBTC is *not* buying BTC.  Yes, GBTC will tend to move in the same direction as BTC but it is not fixed to it directly.  You cannot convert GBTC into BTC; well, you can but only indirectly, i.e. by selling the GBTC and buying BTC.

GBTC has a huge advantage over BTC; it can be bought and sold through a brokerage account.  Now that might sound like a disadvantage but if what one wants is a retirement account then using a broker as your custodian is critical.  Buying BITS to get the GBTC is potentially lucrative but takes so long that the risk is high a price drop could bite you bad.

I got in through BITS at around $700/BTC which is like $70/GBTC so I am indeed happy to see the exchange rate north of that *but* it is just a paper gain until it is sold.  Or is it?  Wisdom says exit an investment after a gain (sell high) but what if higher is coming?  Wisdom says pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered and that can be a very real concern.  I'm watching the percentages of my investments.  When my non-retirement BTC and retirement GBTC combined values exceed something like 20% of my total wealth then I will consider taking some profits *but* where does one park it?  I'm looking for a better investment than Money 2.0?  Tough.

I pride myself on having an open mind; which does not mean I switch positions trivially.  If something makes sense in plain speaking terms then that means a lot (many thanks to those with the patience to explain their viewpoints).  I do tend to express a position more strongly than I might actually feel about it in order to learn more (my apologies to those offended by such tactics) although sometimes my position truly will swing.  Precision and accuracy are highly valued during the process of debate.

I sincerely appreciate Theymos' position; if/when non-hashed protected coins are taken then the market reaction will probably be strongly negative.  But now it seems to me the reaction will likely be much the same if the proper original owners of long idle coins move them.

In the long term, e.g. decades and beyond, I believe Bitcoin will be a foundational technology despite (because of?) the roller-coaster ride it will likely take along the way.

Ok then, the sooner the non-hashed coins are taken/won the happier I will be.  Perhaps it was/is the intent of the original owners to have this happen; we can't know.  Perhaps it was/is a deliberate reward designed to encourage folks to probe.  Mining is rewarded since it helps secure the network.  Probing non-hashed coins generates interest and can lead to a stronger Bitcoin.  The original owners have had plenty of time to move their coins through to hashed protected addresses; that they haven't is pretty strong evidence that they don't care to (or can't).

Only non-hashed coinbase coins that haven't moved through to a hashed address are at risk.  There is some sense to it; the sense of the community to reduce the roller-coaster ride.  Large fluctuations in exchange rates scare some common people off from adopting Bitcoin.  If we actively choose to allow the non-hashed coinbase coins to be stolen and the resulting financial turmoil then ok but at least we are going in eyes open.  Ah, the Bitcoin community should press to get the at-risk coins stolen as soon as possible to get the turmoil behind us.  It is possible the earliest thieves might altruistically use some to pay themselves back and then burn the rest for the good of the rest of the community.

My apologies; I didn't know consecutive posts weren't allowed.  How is one suppose to know?

Edit:  I was pointed at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=703657.msg7955645#msg7955645.