This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Duplicate.

False analogy fallacy. I'm not surprised that your attempt at using logic is futile. DDoS-ing a exchange (a service that works with Bitcoin) has nothing to do with DDoS-ing Bitcoin itself. Similarly, you could just as easily DDoS websites that engage in trades of any kind of goods (including gold and silver). Remember, Bitcoin is still in its infancy stage.

I can only assume that you're using a 3rd party wallet service. This is not recommended as web wallets are bad and generally less safer in comparison to desktop wallets. If you are using blockchain.info or some other online wallet is very possible for it to occasionally have problems and for your transaction to 'not go through'. If you are using a desktop wallet, regardless of whether it is SPV (e.g. Electrum) or a full wallet (e.g. Bitcoin Core) this should never happen (unless you obviously aren't connected to the internet).

I assume that it's just a problem with Blockchain.info.

This thread is just an example of pure nonsense and ignorance.

Here's the first mistake that is clearly visible. The statement "would I trust" has no correlation to a trust-less system which is Bitcoin. The value of Bitcoin in fiat is trivial. It can be more-or-less easily manipulated until there are some ETF's and similar institutions should stabilize the price a bit.

Bullshit. This logic is very flawed. Nothing has any "credibility" in this view since practically everything can be taken down with DDoS.

There is no kind of 'trust' at all!

Stop making useless posts.

If you want to look at it that way, yes.

What I mean is, people worry about things with very low probabilities that may or may not happen in the future. I've seen a few threads about collisions. Why worry about private key collisions when it is more likely that Earth would be destroyed by a meteorite? People are just very bad with probabilities (this is why they play lotto). The only scenario in which I see miners turning off pretty much all of their devices is one in which Bitcoin is already dying/dead (so it wouldn't even matter).

There are multiple potential reasons why this could happen. Have you checked whether you have enough storage for Bitcoin Core (~70-80 GB is required)? It could also be a memory problem. Anyone that may be able to help you requires more information (e.g. debug.log).

You could extract the private key and import it somewhere else. The payment should not fail, you can check it on any block explorer by entering the address or TX ID.

Incorrect. It is completely misleading, even some people at /r/btc understand it by now:
Regardless of how you want to put it, Blockstream is not behind this proposal and most likely has nothing to do with it.

This is a situation in which one can easily spot the toxicity of r/btc, among other things. Almost nobody supports this proposal, regardless of whether one supports Core, Classic, BU (from what I've seen), yet they had to start this outright lie that Blockstream is trying to rewrite it (which is not the case). How classic.

You can easily see who can moderate what when you overview a section. I did not encourage anything. "They usually have no contributions in any way or form. " - is correct in most cases and thus has nothing to do with ad hominem.

Any global moderator will do: hilariousandco, gruez or CyrusV. It might be worth reporting the other participant of that 'interaction' as well.

How exactly does 'Cobra' suggesting changes equal to Blockstream wanting to rewrite the Bitcoin whitepaper? I'm not even surprised by the amount of manipulation and FUD being spread on r/btc. I don't see how Blockstream is relevant here, i.e. this is just another 'shill game'. I would also like to state that I don't agree with this suggestion. Maybe something in the lines of what btcdrak said would be fine, but that's it:

This wouldn't make any sense. The author of this article is braindead apparently or paid by someone.

Unfortunately, I'm unable to figure out the root cause here. There are three important events that I've noticed in this debug log:
There's something very wrong due to the amount of errors (first and second quote). Are you sure that you have enough storage on the storage medium/partition that you're using? The last one might even suggest a hardware problem with the HDD/SSD even though this may necessarily not be the case. I had a different problem recently that suggested a hardware problem (but it wasn't one), but you can check this using software (run a full sector scan). Have you tried deleting everything (backup wallet.dat) in the datadir folder and trying from scratch (everything except the wallet.dat)?

That's an interesting suggestion and similar to 'n of m' multisig. Keep in ind that paper can get easily damaged and lost as well. I wouldn't just give them the paper unprotected.

I guess it depends on the persona. I'm definitely not a fan of "long term cold storage" that is not attended. Even the sharpest minds are at risk of forgetting their passwords over a long amount of time if they don't use it at all.

Well, that is true. However, you have to remember 3 passwords which becomes a bit harder unless they are similar (which would defeat the purpose of using multiple passwords in the first place). As said, there's definitely not a singular 'best' method. You'd have to evaluate these suggestions and try finding a solution that fits your persona.

The recommended practice is staying away from trash such as Blockchain.info, not the other way around.

I'm already on it. However, as Digicoin has already pointed out this could turn out badly due to some users that will have weird 'trade requirements'. I think that the simplest and the best way to engage in trades here is either:
1) Face value (something in the lines of 20-25$ per coin + shipping).
2) Trade for another coin (+ maybe a small compensation if the number difference is high) - Example of what we did.

---

Just imagine the horrible situation where one is the owner of 6/7 coins of a set and the other party refuses to engage or asks for something unreasonable. That's definitely worth a negative rating (extortion).

---

Thief! Give me back my coins!

This doesn't tell us much. You definitely have more than enough RAM to use Bitcoin Core. Without running hardware tests we can't draw to conclusions about your hardware.

Please upload it to some service online (e.g. ZippyShare, Mega) and post the link here.

The best thing that makes robbery obsolete is strong encryption. After a certain length has been reached (and difficulty) they would not be able to acquire your funds even if they could use all of the computing power on Earth in an attempt to crack it. With "forgetting how to access it" you mean forgetting your passphrase, or? I can't really think of good advice for 'backing up a passphrase'. Maybe you could split it into two pieces (2x2 backups) and store them somewhere as well.

I doubt that there's a free safebox that is actually 'safe'. I recommend paying for these services.

Wouldn't you still need to memorize multiple passwords to use all of those?

Nothing is technically safe from hardware failure IMO, there are life expectancies and device failure rates that variate depending on device type and product. This is why it is recommended to have a minimum of two backups.

What you're demanding is a very difficult problem to solve. The best way to make robbery obsolete is to encrypt the wallet (and device - optional) with a long passphrase (which you don't want to use as you're afraid) and the best way to prevent hardware failure is to have multiple backups (e.g. multiple USB keys).

I don't think there's a singular best option. A simple example would be: [1]Open up a safe-deposit box (or make a hidden/'safe' compartment somewhere in your house) and store some USB sticks (or HDDs, whichever you prefer/have) containing encrypted wallets.

Multisig 2 out of 3: Wouldn't you have to place 'trust' in additional people (2 in this case)?

---

---

[1] - This contains some basic, yet useful information about cold storage. Make sure to read it.

Relax, everything is fine. It is just a mistake in the chart. Initially Mitchell had received that coin, but due to the number of brass coins that he had received (50%) I decided to trade in one of my coins with that one. I'm the owner of #42 Brass now; I guess the list just needs to be updated and checked for duplicates (once in a while).

Exactly. I guess it is my bad for not stating that we had switched coins.

Already? Where is my contribution for helping you achieve this feat?

We would need more information in order to help you out. Are you running out of memory by any chance? Have you verified that the storage medium does not have flaws? Are you using a custom configuration (bitcoin.conf)?  
It would be very helpful if you posted the debug.log (found in your Bitcoin datadir) which should have more information in regards to the problem that you are currently having.

~Lauda

I definitely do not think that this rash plan would be good.

People tend to use these things for manipulation. Nothing surprising.

I doubt that. The HF proposal would most likely have a high activation threshold and long grace period, making it much safer.

People were too quick to draw to conclusions even though there have been practically no statements from any major pools so far.

The views and opinions of that individuals is in no way related to their staff contributions.

No, that's not it. What you're describing is a scenario where a portion of the miners stop hashing which makes the network more susceptible to such attacks. What OP is describing is a scenario in which all(?) miners stop mining Bitcoin. This is a very unusual and improbable case in which Bitcoin would most likely be going towards its death. However, let's assume that all of the turn on machines and nobody turns new machines on (also unlikely) the Bitcoin network would just come to a halt. Transactions would just go into mempools but they would never end up being confirmed. If you understand how Bitcoin functions, then you'd know that it couldn't work in such a scenario.

People are very bad with probabilities. This reminds me of people who worry about private key collisions when it is more likely that a meteorite wipes out Earth.

It's both interesting and sad how nobody ('forkers') mentioned this before Segwit was actually delivered. You're the ones that want to postpone it now and are going to blame Core later for "delaying" a capacity increase. I'm sure of it.

While the change in the block size limit might seem simple, a hard fork is definitely anything but simple. Additionally, you can see that 2 MB is unsafe without those additional (new) artificial limits added by Gavin. I also don't feel like Segwit is being rushed at all. It's been worked on since 2015 and tested for several months.