That's a complicated question. I suspect the answer is probably yes because of all the redundancy, but there is no guarantee. However, I am not an expert.

BIP 32 describes how private keys are derived from the seed.
BIP 39 describes how the seed is derived from the seed phrase (and optional "passphrase").

Why?

I appreciate your contribution, but I must point out your errors.

The amount available in circulation is not halved. Instead, the production is halved. The amount of bitcoins in circulation increases every block until it reaches approximately 21 million.

An exchange is a place to buy and sell bitcoins. Trades on an exchange are not recorded in the block chain. Bitcoin transactions occur over the Bitcoin network and are recorded in the block chain.

A wallet typically has a nearly unlimited supply of addresses, so the term "wallet address" is a misnomer. Furthermore, it is a mistake to consider an address as like a bank account number or a routing number because it is typically only used once. It is more like an invoice number.

A hash is the result of a specific mathematical process applied to data. It has many uses in Bitcoin and in cryptography in general.

A transaction is confirmed when it is included in a block. Multiple confirmations occur when additional blocks are added to the block chain because each block confirms the blocks that precede it.

More precisely, in a pump-and-dump, the scammer buys a worthless asset and then promotes the asset by making fraudulent claims (the "pump"). Then, the scammer sells the asset as the price rises (the "dump"). The victims of the fraud are left holding the asset as it returns to being worthless again.

More importantly, fungibility is a property that describes how one bitcoin is indistinguishable from any other.

Cryptography is a technology that provides capabilities such as security, privacy, and authentication.

Market cap is the total value of the bitcoins in circulation.

That's not really what happened. It was not an "airdrop". In simple terms, Bitcoin Cash duplicated the existing Bitcoin block chain at the time. So, for all the Bitcoin addresses you control, you also control the equivalent Bitcoin Cash addresses and the BCH they might contain.


Nothing you do with Bitcoin affects Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin SV, or any of the many other forks.

The difference between a hard fork and a soft fork is compatibility. A soft fork is generally preferred because it is compatible with previous consensus rules, and that helps avoid an unintended chain split.

The idea that the difference between the two somehow limits which rules can be changed is misguided because, as Peter Todd demonstrated, anything can be changed with a soft fork.


Without resorting to Peter Todd's hypothetical 2.0 soft fork, I suppose that it would be possible with a soft fork to create a new on-chain token that is pegged to satoshis.

You can see it here: GBTC Discount or Premium to NAV

The checksum might help as an optimization. I think it is faster to validate the checksum than it is to check if the phrase generates a known address.

So, for each permutation, first checking the checksum would eliminate 93.75% of them. For the remaining 6.25% you would still have to check against the known addresses.

The most effective way to gain coins with any value is to earn money by doing real work and then buy them.

#3 and #4 contradict each other because #4 is not accurate.

#4 should should say that a person can deposit bitcoins into the trust and receive newly issued shares in exchange, and that Grayscale manages that process.

I'm not sure what level of detail you are looking for, but in simple terms they have a database that keeps track of how much of each coin is owned by each account. When you deposit USDT, they credit your account. When you withdraw USDT, they debit your account.

I assume that exchanges use proprietary software, but you might try looking at the open source payment processor BTCPay Server

If by free, you mean without having to do any work, the answer for any established coin is no. However, there are "airdrops" for new altcoins, but watch out for scams and pump-and-dump schemes.

I have problems some of the questions.


The answer according to the authors is that the price will rise, but reality often does not follow economic theory. The correct answer is that the "most likely" effect is unpredictable, which is not a choice.


The answer according to the authors is "Only the individual who knows the private key", but of course that is wrong. A wallet contains private keys, and the user typically does not know (and does not need to know) their values. Perhaps they meant "password" instead of "private key"? The correct answer of course is anyone that can access the wallet.

I think the concept being conveyed by the question is "not your keys, not your coins", so I think a better answer (which is really just a slight variation of their answer) would be "only someone with access to the private keys held in the wallet", or perhaps just the simplistic answer, "the owner of the wallet".


The relation of CBDCs to cryptocurrencies is superficial at best. It's like asking about ChatGPT on an economics quiz. But, their paper is about their methodology for choosing the questions, so it is what it is.


According to the authors, the answer to "Who confirms that a Bitcoin transfer is valid?" is "Anyone who runs software that implements the Bitcoin protocol" and not "only those who own bitcoin (proof of stake)". I think you are confusing that question with the question, "What is the term that describes a method of consensus in which individuals who pledge their own cryptocurrency funds...".

It is probably a scam.

That is not accurate. When a person buys shares of GBTC, the money goes to the previous owner of the shares. However, when allowed, a person can also deposit bitcoins into the trust and receive newly issues shares in exchange.



That is not accurate. The problem with a trust is that while depositing bitcoins and receiving shares is straightforward, redeeming the shares and receiving bitcoins is not. The result is that the price of a share can diverge from the value of the bitcoins it represents. An ETF has a different structure. An ETF also has a mechanism for redeeming shares, so it fixes that problem.

One reason that Grayscale wants an ETF may be that the amount of money Grayscale makes depends on the size of the trust and the trust cannot grow when shares are selling at a discount. If GBTC becomes an ETF, its size would no longer be restricted in this way

First, it is a mistake to think of a bitcoin address as something like a phone number or email address or street address or account number. Every time your wallet receives bitcoins it will generate a new address. Your wallet may eventually generate thousands of addresses, so it is wrong to think of one of them as "my address". It is better to think of an address as something more like an invoice number.

However, when you want to use an address to sign messages, you are choosing that address to be associated with your identity and it becomes your "signing address". And for privacy reasons, it is better if your signing address is never used to send or receive bitcoins. You may be asked to sign a message with an address to prove that you control the address. That's different.

Pick a wallet that allows you to reserve an address for signing messages. Use that wallet to sign messages and don't mess around with private keys. The wallet can also hold your bitcoins, but it is not required.

More conspiracy nonsense. Saying that changing amounts of BTC at an address indicates buying or selling is a stretch, especially when it isn't a specific address but all addresses holding a range bitcoins.

People may be whales, but addresses with large amounts of BTC are not. Addresses are not people.

Furthermore, that article also says this:

Sending BTC to an exchange indicates the intention to sell. So, while some hypothetical whales may have been buying BTC just before the announcement, actual whales were intending to sell.

Furthermore, the article implies that the purpose of the movement of BTC to the exchanges was to manipulate the price, and yet the graph shows that it had absolutely no effect on the price. So, no manipulation.

Now, I'm not saying that there is no manipulation of any kind. I just think that spreading and promoting dubious evidence actually hurts the case against manipulation. It's both crying wolf and chicken little.

Import the private key using gpg on Linux and look at the meta information.

I suspect that the wallet is a custodial wallet and that access to your account can be gained using the the RSA private key. I am not that familiar with the different custodial wallets, so I can't tell you which one it is.

However, if you import the private key into a PGP app, it may contain some helpful information.

I don't think consensus is an issue. All the cryptographic functions used by Bitcoin are standardized, and if any implementation deviates from the standard, including Bitcoin's, I assume it will be fixed.

It would be a mistake for me to implement my own cryptographic functionality, so I must rely on others. I considered using bitcoin's secp256k1 library and I may still, but right now I am looking for a comprehensive solution.

Most traders lose money.

People selling strategies or tips are preying on the ignorance of newbies.