I mean, it's perfectly fair for them to be doing so actually. You won't know how the exchange actually functions unless you're working for them. Simple things like regular consolidations could very well be why they don't usually have to take the funds from their cold storage and reducing the hassle. Liquidity is a huge issue with exchanges dealing with huge volumes, and I have no doubt that only consolidating when the fees are low would have unintended consequences.

IMO, none of us are qualified to dictate how an exchange should function. We don't have any clear understanding of their workflow and can't really dictate how they should conduct their business. If you can't agree with their practices, then probably just shifting away from the exchange would be better.

I've never seen a flying car but quantum computers? Definitely.

Quantum computers are not conventional/classical computers and you can't measure it as such as they're not designed to function similarly. You're talking about qubits which has been successfully with quite a few QCs, from IBM, Google and DWave. We're more interested about specific application of it in the field, Shor's algorithm, Grover's algorithm for example. They are designed to work with quantum computers and would produce more efficient results. Quantum physics is a proven science.

Their fees are fixed, they do not impose deposit fees.

For starters, I believe that they should impose variable fees so that the fees can be varied as and when needed and that they should charge each deposit a proportional amount of fees for it to be moved and consolidated (and depending on their structure, it might take a few transactions). Depends on when you withdraw, the total fees could be far lesser or higher than 0.0005BTC. Doing something like this could possibly hurt their revenue, if they do gain any from overcharging their users.

Vote with your wallet (figuratively) if you want something to change.

Here: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Target.

The target determines the validity of the hash of a block header. For it to be included in the current chain, the block hash must be lower than the target or else it won't be accepted by the nodes. When you're talking about difficulty, it is just a representation of the target numerically. In reality, the hash is compared against the target and not the difficulty. They have an inversely proportional relationship; the range of acceptable hashes narrows when the target is smaller/difficulty increases.

Nuclear fusion doesn't produce significant radioactive waste which is exactly why it is far better than nuclear fission which produces radioactive nuclei.

There has been a lot development in nuclear technology. Nuclear power plants and WMDs are not mutually exclusive nor does it have to be dependent on one another. It is obvious that nuclear power is one of the carbon neutral power source out there. Dismantling nuclear power plants takes a very long time due to its radioactive nature and it is very expensive as well. Nuclear Fission if it can ever be deployed and harnessed would be a far better way of producing power, and obviously Bitcoin mining is a direct benefactor of that as well.

Hardware wallets are very different from your USB. Hardware wallets contains the necessary components (MCUs) which is used to generate the signature using the private keys stored on it. LiveUSBs cannot do so and it relies on the computer for the signature which makes it vulnerable to BIOS root kits as well though that would be more complicated.

If you're talking about something like an OpenDime, it generates the key on the device itself and gives you the address. You will reveal the private key only if you poke the seal, pretty cool!

Links in the first reply.
Its up to you whether you want to change the structure or not. I found it far too wordy to be in the beginners and help section as well. There are 4 links in the first reply to this thread.

Dogecoin didn't gain it's value due to its utility nor does it utility come anywhere close to Bitcoin. The volatility makes it unsuitable for anything more than a speculative asset. Utility doesn't mean how fast you get a confirmation and I'll argue that 1min confirmation are less secure than 10 min ones.

Dogecoin's transaction volume isn't anything as compared to Bitcoin. Perhaps if more people begin to use Dogecoin and having to wait for several more confirmation in the meantime or if people stops pumping it, then we can revisit this topic.

You're just talking about the block intervals, no one decides which miners win. Very simply, whoever can extend the chain by providing a valid PoW can lengthen the chain.

Transaction validations are very fast, in the neighbourhood of milliseconds. You're just removing data from the UTXO set and adding new ones, validating the signature, etc. Any modern computer or devices can handle that quite quickly.

Bitcoin will always have a 10 minutes block interval. You can scale Bitcoin with certain optimization but changing the block interval can net a faster confirmation if that is all that you care about. Rather than it being slower, it is just more expensive. There are efforts made to optimize each transaction but there is a point the optimizations would hit a wall.

No. Pruned nodes validates blocks the same way as non-pruned nodes which gives it the same security in that aspect. The key difference between pruned and non-pruned nodes is that the former cannot retrieve any data about the blocks beyond the pruned range, thus not allowing the user to import new addresses, query any information from then as well. Pruned nodes will discard unnecessary block data as it synchronizes and maintains it within the size limit which is defined by the user.

Bitcoin Core supports Multisig as well, but I assume you require a GUI which is why you're relying on another wallet.

None of the replies actually answered your question.

Estimates puts it at after 2030, there could be a quantum computer that is capable to break an asymmetric cryptography, which is the ECDSA that Bitcoin uses. These are just purely estimate and currently, the highest known qubit count of a quantum computer is less than 100 (or somewhere thereof). You need more than 1200 qubits to be able to factorize it within a reasonable period of time and even that comes both in the huge cost of building one as well as running it. Bitcoin won't be the first to be attacked, it is just not profitable.

Should be done through Tor with some privacy precautions being done at least. It is possible to be tracked when submitting the transaction.

I would normally recommend doing this as it's far more reliable than using your client but you do need to give up quite a bit of privacy when doing so. Would recommend to just troubleshoot Bitcoin Core and see what's going on. This usually shouldn't happen with Bitcoin Core.

Your denominations. 1mBTC = 0.001BTC. You're sending less Bitcoins than the dust value which is about 546 Satoshis.

Go to your preferences and you can change it to BTC for a better clarity.

They are finding a suitable hash that meets the current target. PoW as the term describes, requires the miners to provide a hash of the block header that is less than or equal to the current target. As the occurance of a hash is rare when the difficult gets higher, miners are essentially going through many iterations of the block headers by changing specific components, most commonly the nonce or the extra nonce to try to find a valid block which meets the target requirement.

Block headers consist of the merkle root, timestamp, nonce, last block hash, etc. They are hashed twice to produce a result and is only valid at the current target if the value of the hash is below the current target.

It is not accurate to call it a puzzle we they're not exactly given a problem to solve.

No. You're supposed to replace the string with the raw transaction that you've copied to the clipboard. If you followed the steps that I've described, you should have copied the raw transaction to the clipboard already. Pasting the string after sendrawtransaction should suffice.

This will make your client rebroadcast your transaction to your peers. Since you're using Tails, I doubt you want to give up any part of your privacy or else, simply pasting the string into blockchair.com/broadcast works as well.

Focus is on the motivation section, not the security. People think that you're decreasing the entropy by implementing a version byte at the start. You can get more entropy with BIP39 if you want, 24 words provides you with more entropy. Electrum only has 12 words with that amount of entropy. Not a deal breaker for anyone at all.

Point taken. Can't blame Electrum for wanting to address the shortcomings of a system like this. There really isn't any confusion between Electrum seed and BIP39s, especially when their checksum aren't compatible with one another (implemented recently). Importing an Electrum seed is unambiguous, telling you the kind of seed it is. Importing BIP39 seed leaves you questioning what kind of seed, what kind of derivation path it is. If anything, Electrum is doing people a favour by addressing the shortcomings. Perhaps more wallets should stop ignoring the obvious failure of BIP39 and be like Bitcoin Core!

BIP39, as the BIP says is "Unanimously Discourage for implementation". It is the "industry standard" solely because it is made into a BIP and no one really bothers about it as long as it is secure.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0039.mediawiki

An air-gapped method is the only way to avoid your funds being stolen, there are plenty of guides around. Electrum is the easiest way to do so; get a LiveUSB, boot it load your private key in Electrum. I don't believe that you wouldn't be able to follow a few guides on this and it is really far from being a rocket science.

If you're unwilling to do so, then you have no other choice but to sweep it on an online computer and risk getting it compromised. Using a paper wallet should basically mean that you're going to have to use an air-gapped setup at some point in time.

No.
Yes. It should work. Do you get any thing after running the commands as I've said?

You can't exactly make sure your computer doesn't have malware and virus, it can just be undetectable and storing it offline is the only way for non-physical attacks to be prevented.



Storing your seeds in any digital medium will open up a whole range of attack vectors, malware, password compromise, encrypted data leak from the password manager. If you're storing your seeds on the cloud, I consider that as good as giving someone else your password. Most password manager encrypts your data locally but that doesn't mean an attacker can't get your encrypted string and start bruteforcing it. While it is unlikely that people can crack your encrypted strings unless you're using a weak password, why would you even take the risk?