The Core wallet is not an HD wallet, so you can't.
Bitcoin Core creates new HD wallets by default now (since 0.13.x). It won't convert old wallets (yet) though. |
|
|
|
|
To add to what Danny says, what is your use case also? Are you spending from it often?
Do you have 0.1 BTC? 10?, 100?, 500? Etc. (I wouldn't recommend answering publicly). if you are storing a lot and rarely spending a different storage might be advisable.
|
|
|
|
The authoritarian Democrat regulators in New York don't seem to understand that innovation needs freedom. It seems unlikely that the lawsuit will end up being pointless given the political structure and judiciary in NY, but it is better to fight the battle than to not do so. |
|
|
|
|
So about a 400 x rise (400 * $1220) in 14 years. Bitcoin has done much more than that in the last 8 years. Even in the last 5-6 years it has grown more than that. So while it is purely speculation, it is entirely possible for it to happen.
Likely to happen, who knows, possible, for sure.
|
|
|
|
...
Remittance transfers are one reason. Bitcoin transfers to foreign countries have nearly doubled in the past 15 years and account for 0.75% of GDP, according to the World Bank.
...
There is a lot of nonsense in this article, notably the quote above. In the last 15 years, Bitcoin transfer to foreign countries have grown an infinite number of times given that 15 years ago was 2002 and consequently there was no bitcoin so 0 bitcoin transfers. 0 to anything is an infinite growth rate. Even discussing bitcoin 15 years ago just is nonsense. As far as price growth, certainly it *could* be $500,000 in 2030. Back in July 2010 you saw people who thought that $50 or $1000 was unreasonable and that it was a ponzi scheme, a scam etc. Anything is possible and if usage grows, it becomes more likely, but it is just speculation. |
|
|
|
what if someday when bitcoin has become the main payment instruments in the world. and how when the Internet network paralyzed. it means that we all can not perform various financial transactions? , is there any solution ?
Use cash. Or gold, silver, and other precious metals etc. If the internet was paralyzed, fiat might be experiencing disruptions too. |
|
|
|
What kind of malware was it? I am also using Windows and am afraid if this could infect my system also.
Can someone please elaborate how to prevent this from happening?
Check out this: https://bravenewcoin.com/news/bitcoin-stealing-malware-evolves-again/If you have malware, as others have stated, you won't get your coins back, there is no one who can "fix it" for you. As far as the "maleware" problem, if it was "femaleware" what would've happened.  Thanks for sharing this information but it is wrong to say that it cant be fixed.The same article that you direct me to explain the solution. Considering that the risk level of this trojan is "very low,” Symantec claims that it is "easy" to remove. The security company has already created and deployed the first threat definition for their software, which will detect and remove Trojan.Coinbitclip.Fixing the computer to remove the virus is completely different from returning the bitcoins. Removing the virus may be easy, getting the people who stole the bitcoins to return them will be very difficult since there is no central authority to contact who can "fix it" which was what OP asked. |
|
|
|
What kind of malware was it? I am also using Windows and am afraid if this could infect my system also.
Can someone please elaborate how to prevent this from happening?
Check out this: https://bravenewcoin.com/news/bitcoin-stealing-malware-evolves-again/If you have malware, as others have stated, you won't get your coins back, there is no one who can "fix it" for you. As far as the "maleware" problem, if it was "femaleware" what would've happened. |
|
|
|
I have a wallet backup before it was online what is private key? is it the password i used on wallet creation - if yes i do have i expected to see balance = 1.806 in the wallet and a transaction there Ok, that is what is there, if you check the link above. This sounds like the bitcoins are "there" but that your installation of Armory isn't displaying them. (Always make sure you have at least one, if not several, backups of the wallet because without it you would lose the bitcoins). As far as the password, there is a password to protect the wallet and then the wallet itself has private keys which allow you to spend the bitcoin. If you have the wallet, then it should have the private keys which Armory (or another wallet) will use to control your bitcoins. I am no Armory expert, but it may be that Bitcoin Core (which Armory uses) is still synchronizing with the network and your coins will be displayed by Armory once Bitcoin Core fully synchronizes. |
|
|
|
I made three withdrawals today at * 13:05 * 13:47 * 14:22 Not one of them have been confirmed yet. Here is the blockchain address https://blockchain.info/address/1JmdS4rtxV1xjS7E2CUzR7zkEs56B2CPfyWhat is going on? How can it take more than an hour to get a confirmation. My coinbase account doesn't show any of them, even under pending. Also: What in the world do those red buttons with negative signs mean? I didn't send any money from my bitcoin address yesterday. Edit: Wow, I even included a transaction fee of 100 sat/byte. This is ridiculous Low fees mean slow confirmations - there are a lot of transactions ahead of you. Things like SegWit would increase the number of transactions per second, but some miners are blocking it. See: https://bitcoinfees.21.co |
|
|
|
Is this really the end for bitmain and Bitcoin Unlimited? Are they really cheating and doing something unwanted against the bitcoin system? These are just some of the questions I would like to search for but eventually all I can see in the forum was the collision of groups and that BU and bitmain were the evil empire trying to take and invade bitcoin country.
It is more dirty nonsense by the Blockstream bastards who want to own Bitcoin for themselves. Sort of a last desparate attempt to regain some lost ground. Don't worry, it won't work. Nobody is fooled. Jihan should hash away as best as he can and so should anyone else. If he boosts his ASIC, so be it. Totally fair. The others can boost theirs too. Before commenting one should at least be conversant with the topic. Clearly you are not, and clearly you are fooled. I would give you some links about what "boosts his ASIC" is, but if you search on "ASICBOOST" and "patent" you might learn something about it in general and then look at the difference between overt and covert usage. If you truly want bitcoin mining to be centralized, then please use fiat. |
|
|
|
|
It is always odd when authors write it as "FED" since it is not an acronym. It is just terrible journalism and takes away from the point they are attempting to make.
If they wish to talk about price stability, the Fed has done a terrible job of it over the decades, so their so-called expertise is severely lacking.
|
|
|
|
just for the security purpose.is it possible or not?
Yes, just delete the wallet.dat file. That will delete the private keys from Bitcoin Core. If you retain an off-line backup, you can recover them later. |
|
|
|
Interesting words from a man whose company lost to Google and now is a shadow of its former self.
David Pogue shows us exactly the kind of thinking that made Yahoo a 2nd tier company it is today.
He is not exactly claiming that Bitcoin is bad - he said that is is unreasonable to think you can be rich by purchasing BTC and he is right.
Another liability is when a bitcoin exchange goes out of business - and he is right here as well, but 3rd party companies are not part of bitcoin network.
Agreed. He has a bachelors in music. While he may be a good writer who is able to explain things to non-tech people and good musician, his ability to evaluate (not that new) tech is limited. |
|
|
|
the size of the block chain is ever expanding, by the year 2100 i predict it will be over 1 terabyte, making bitcoin unmanageable for ordinary people who want to run a node. which means we will have to trust our bitcoins to some third party intermediary at some point in the future. do you see this as a problem or no?
By 2100, 1TB will be a pretty small amount of memory. The issue isn't even memory, but storage - hdd, ssd etc. (My portable, which isn't new, has a 4TB ssd for reference.) Danny is right though, this thread should be locked because it is premised on nonsense. |
|
|
|
I can spin up a lightning daemon on one of my existing web servers quite quickly. And I could add bitcoind to it easily if it wasn't already on a particular machine. The barriers to entry are low. The cost on an existing server is negligible, but it can bring in revenue. It may be that this increases the number of bitcoin nodes because of this.
Whats the point of you being able to run a lightning node if no payments will be routed through it ? Just because you can run a node doesn't mean it will be used. You will have to compete with the bigger hubs on fees and uptime. The best lightning setup is with one central hub. What is your definition of "bigger hubs"? My cost is essentially zero, so my fees would be low (or zero if I wanted). My web servers are well connected, good memory, reasonably high CPU power, high bandwidth, low latency, extremely high uptime nodes. The web sites have been online continuously since 1993 or 1994 (depending on the web site). Why wouldn't payments be routed through any one I decided to set up? I don't see "bigger hubs" being a relevant factor - or even a useful description - as to why these "bigger hubs" would be more attractive than one I spun up on a different server. What would they offer that someone couldn't duplicate quite easily? :-) |
|
|
|
Except one crucial difference.
The strongest point of Bitcoin is its decentralization and this is why the scaling debate is such a big issue. Why is it that we're now ok with centralization ? If lightning leads to a few centralized hubs then we need to design it in such a way that this won't cause issues further down the road. We're taking this too lightly. I can spin up a lightning daemon on one of my existing web servers quite quickly. And I could add bitcoind to it easily if it wasn't already on a particular machine. The barriers to entry are low. The cost on an existing server is negligible, but it can bring in revenue. It may be that this increases the number of bitcoin nodes because of this. Very likely the numbers will be higher than the existing number of mining pools since p2pool hasn't been getting much love. Centralized mining is a huge concern. |
|
|
|
No. Today bitcoin can not handle 7 tx per second (in average). The information in wiki is outdated. Can this value be increased when the bitcoin system is used more intensively in the future? Is such a change needed? If there is such a requirement, can the protocol be improved? Yes, it can be increased. Larger blocks, SegWit, lightning are methods of doing so. There are lots of options. Needed? That is a question you'd get many different answers to, depending on who you ask. |
|
|
|
because people invested in ETH are way more technical understanding
ETH is a fiat currency. Who can invest in a fiat pretending to be a crypto? Only speculators and those who have no understanding what is a cryptocurrency. ... that absolutistic views of any kind are wrong. ... That is an awfully "absolutistic" view. The 21 million coins is an absolute too. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
