Pretty useful research. Hadn't realised BitFury published papers, so thanks for the link. Report has slight error though, clustering isn't a new technology. It was already used as early as 2014, even by non-tech savvy journalists to help track down some dark market wallets. The same simple yet effective methodology also worked in the last stings organised by Interpol and Europol. I'm pretty sure blockchain forensics software have moved on to more sophisticated methods, although the new approaches detailed by BF  have a quite interesting bit against insecure usage patterns, without really going into it!

Curious to see 999 and PD listed as common tags

Actual white paper: http://bitfury.com/white-papers-research

Ah, so this is the reason for today's tumble? Didn't verify it myself, but I can understand the "wrath" from the crypto trading community, even if they should chastise themselves for falling for the numbers trap. If a simple data manipulation (of maybe I should just say recalibration) can cause this kind of panic sell-off, then traders should really be ashamed of themselves.

Anyway, I highly doubt it's really just that. Natural correction, unnatural swing, it's all logical now for Bitcoin. If the news is true and people "find out", then no harm done, traders get to buy back at cheaper prices and enjoy a good profit when market recovers from fake news.

Not sure what the error you're getting is, but from the screenshots:

1. 294 sats/byte (or 294k sats/kb) is the recommended fee for 6-block confirmation. Bitcoin Core wallet's estimator has been known to be inaccurate. This fee according to https://bitcoinfees.earn.com/ has a 90% chance of confirming within next 47 blocks.

2. Your manual fee is even lower! Even at the smallest transaction, your 25k+ satoshi fee would only come to about 100 sats/byte, which at current mempool is virtually zero fee (indefinite confirmation).

If you want a 3-block confirmation time, use the estimator above. Currently this is over 511 sats/byte.

Like I said though, can't tell what error you are experiencing as your screenshots don't show any error message.

I don't think any exchange makes it very clear - a lot of people, myself included, had to learn the hard way the difference between owning and controlling Bitcoin and having them "stored" on a third party account.

I'm a BitPanda user, so I'm not sure I understood your follow-up query. If you bought Bitcoin with a cash transfer, you haven't lost anything. Once BitPanda confirms the order and processes it, you'll see the balance of Bitcoin within your account wallet (just click Bitcoin wallet). Again, this is just a credit on your account. But if you entered your Electrum wallet as the receiving address, then you're good also. They'll simply send the Bitcoin to that address... I never bought from them so I don't know how long they'll take but their other withdrawals are very quick.

The BTC address from your BitPanda wallet is only for depositing. You have to click "generate address" the first time you use it.

I'll say! I haven't been following very much over the holiday period but I've gotten wind of some DAG coins running amok. I mean, raiblocks? I actually mined quite a bit last year... and threw away the wallet along with a tonne of others during spring cleaning. Thought would do myself some good to kick the faucet/grinding habit. Makes me quite frustrated to know it'd have been worth several thousand dollars today.

All that immense and sudden gain had to come down, selling off and profiteering's taken its toll on the market cap. Bitcoin losing 10% or so isn't a big surprise either. Doubt it's China news (old) or holidaying people returning (crypto traders don't holiday). Just the regular old Bitcoin rollercoaster.

I swear this is exactly what a lot of traders do. I'm now re-entering some of the spam groups I used to follow months back, just for the hell of it. To be fair, some of them put effort into TA, but as they should know by now, it's really a bit of luck into whether they're right or not. And it's "good" to see things haven't really changed: the most experienced people putting supposedly hours of work into analysis, and then getting excited or panicked depending on which big swing crypto decides to lean into.

Am really glad I've more or less stopped trading seriously. Better fun gambling!

I think acceleration services started out with anyway self-promotional motivations. ViaBTC, for example, loaded up that "manifesto" page in the months prior to the Bitcoin Cash fork. They may have helped a lot of people who unwittingly used low fee transactions, but yeah, after all these free services became known, I think people just used them to skimp on fees. You could say this just delayed the application of "correct" behaviour when it comes to spending coins, in a way cheating others who actually use good fees and maintain good wallet practises.

As you say though, exchanges and other site-based wallets are themselves not using high-enough fees, and I can perfectly understand people use these acceleration services since they have no control over withdrawals processed from these sites. That's my own personal experience too, spending coins from a web service that ended up with a 400 sat/byte fee during the 300k mempool days. I accelerated that on antpool and it got confirmed in 2 days (estimator said 3 days), so I'm assuming it still works.

I've also now stopped accelerating for most people. I think a lot of us have been duped by newbie accounts feigning ignorance and asking for low-fee txs to be accelerated.

Theories about antpool: probably correct. They still accept valid tx IDs, so they must also have a queue that's virtually a mempool within a mempool. With its own (less severe) fee prioritisation.

Best thing you can do outside of attempting acceleration, is to simply wait, since this an exchange spend, they will of course want to ensure it confirms eventually. Even if you could or were willing to pay for this, the tx size will likely result in a very high fee for you.

Pretty much at the mercy of intermediaries when requesting withdrawals.

If you could share the txt id and other details, might be able to give you more information.

Great update and very nice to see that we're finally in Bitcoin profit - I know we shouldn't always see it like this but then we all did invest our precious BTC, didn't we? A 50% profit is very nice when we're only a quarter way through this experiment.

Was quite surprised that my selection - Peercoin is at 25% after three months, I hadn't expected it to perform better against the likes of Waves, for example, but there you go with crypto and alts. Kudos to LightZ for picking Ripple, too bad our Litecoin pick dropped out!

All those ID numbers you use are useful references only for BitPanda. What happens when you purchase Bitcoin from an exchanger like BitPanda (which is a centralised exchange platform), you get credited Bitcoin in your BitPanda account. This is important for you to understand:

You don't actually own any Bitcoin until you withdraw the balance on your account into your own personal wallet.
The balance on these types of sites/exchanges merely show you an amount they promise to honour if you request a withdrawal.
None of this takes place on the Bitcoin network and, therefore, is not viewable on the blockchain.

Once your account is credited with Bitcoin, request a withdrawal to your own personal wallet address. They will send you an email confirmation, click the link, and the withdrawal is processed.

At this moment, BitPanda spends from their wallet to yours. Once that happens, there will be a transaction ID on the Bitcoin network. You can use that to enter in a block explorer to track your transaction.

Alternatively, enter the Bitcoin address you are withdrawing to. Any incoming spends should show up on the block explorer.

Took me a while but I eventually recovered from the heartbreaks of losing El Nino and Suarez... for some reason I don't think I'll even need the time to get over Coutinho. All were great servants, and I hope Coutinho, like the others who left before him, will always recognise Liverpool played a huge part in getting them to where they're at. I'm still gutted, of course, but I guess the months of speculation have made the pain easier to bear. He still gave everything in his final months so no complaints there.

I do agree there's little logic in the move NOW. Champions League with Liverpool is simply going to be electric and that's one of the things Coutinho will miss out on. He must surely want to challenge for something - La Liga doesn't quite need the same mettle (given where Barca's at now).

All the same, wish him the best. Thanks for the memories, little magician. You'll still never walk alone.

As far as I know, and I've asked the same question within Poloniex support: you are NOT prevented from creating more than 1 account, as long as you use verifiable information (meaning, under your own name). In any case, I would always recommend that you fully verify any account you create before depositing anything. Polo has an automated verification for basic level and second level, which means you need sharp and clear ID documentations. But beyond that, it would seem it takes ages - even I've been waiting for months to have my account (newly) verified.

Looks like there's going to be a "competition" in East and Central Europe to be "blockchain/crypto hubs", with Belarus now added to the mix. They're going to have to present very attractive options now to compete with the likes of Gibraltar and its plan for a blockchain exchange (British) and Switzerland and all its small city states-like laws on crypto (neutral) in getting themselves the customers. No one beats Estonia at the moment, in terms of full blown adoption, or should I say, embracement? An EU member launching a national ICO, along with three different tokens.

Who said it's all doom and gloom for Bitcoin (and crypto)?

Yeah, I was really hoping mempool would slowly drop, but sort of like the price, it seems to meet a resistance at 150k transactions. Of course, still a lot healthier than the 300k days of December, and at least the fees needed to get it confirmed in a day isn't too bad (can't quite believe it's come to this sort of thinking though!). I'm actually amazed that the price is climbing despite all those transactions in queue - so you're probably right on the buy support.

I still feel it's far too early for another rise, would much prefer a stabilisation period. But Bitcoin doesn't get told where to go, I guess.

Yep. Blockchain, perhaps naturally, is often seen by all these tech sectors as a "disruptive" technology and, therefore, slap it on to any product along with "disruptive" and other rubbish catchphrases as "revolutionary" and "innovative" - words that Bitcoin's creator(s) never actually used. There is some valid argument that looks at blockchain more as a foundational tech, which is something I lean towards. The follow-on problem is that the hype works, as seen by company shares rising in value simply by associating itself with crypto and blockchain.

And then we have all these projects that claim blockchain tech as solutions - but only to problems they've really created and not spent time to research and identify.

If you're using the wallet you posted about in another thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2699745.msg27594930#msg27594930 then you've got nothing to worry about. Encapsulated p2sh Segwit addresses (those that begin with "3") have no issues sending to and receiving from non-Segwit wallets.

GDAX's post should be about native segwit If you used Electrum native segwit, I believe you have no problems spending a segwit input to a non-segwit output... so yes, you could send GDAX bitcoin, but you wouldn't be able to receive it from them.

Yes, and no. You probably created it with importing private keys, yeah?

If you create a new Segwit wallet with Electrum 3.x, you'll get native Segwit addresses (Bech32)... these start with "bc1".

Your current addresses start with "3" so are nested P2SH addresses. Still Segwit, but not as efficient with data as native Segwit.

They're good enough for now though, even I haven't started using bech32 because it's not yet supported by the services I use.

Sorry, will try to help translating with Google.

According to blockchain explorer, the deposit address you used 1MbNEfZvKsshdduyeCWmMdqxpBoKskeauP only has 1 transaction of 0.03116893 BTC. This is the tx ID: https://blockchain.info/tx/7520ac31c80be94980186f025d6f48285a54eb7081a9103071dd7b21829e8992.

It doesn't match what you seem to have posted, so it would appear your transaction was never broadcast, or it has dropped off (not likely if you really did it with Bitcoin Core on the date you said.

That balance should still be in your wallet in this case, and probably better too as you sent it with an extremely low fee... effectively just over 20 sats/byte. Try sending with a higher fee next time, use bitcoinfees.earn.com to help.

It just shows that your wallet used an input of 0.044 to send the 0.03, and then returned the 0.014 change to your wallet. This is how Bitcoin works, whole inputs must be used to create the output, so either it combines inputs, or uses one big enough to spend - if you use wallets like Electrum you can have more control about how inputs are used (and how it handles change).

Antpool still works, but as they also receive a lot of requests for acceleration, naturally, they'll prioritise those with higher fees... but since you successfully submitted it, then it's just a matter of time before they get to yours - assuming they get to it and the queue doesn't get longer!

As user above suggests, Via will get you confirmed quicker, since their queue is limited to 100 txs per hour. Try submitting there exactly on the hour, every hour, when submissions reopen.

Blockcypher's confidence rating just gives an idea of how successful it thinks your transaction will be in getting confirmed. Think it's mainly affected by unconfirmed parents, double spends. The higher, the better, so good for you.

The house can be beaten, that's the nature of games, there are losers and winners. The point really is that the house eventually wins. Even if we presume to only play where there is zero house edge or even an edge to the player - and these do exist especially with crypto, I can think at least of crypto-games.net where the lottery is positive EV - you can always count on the gambler to eventually return to play, and eventually lose... that is the Gambler's way. Variance is heavily sided with the house, whose bankroll dwarfs that of any player. And should a player have a virtually limitless bankroll - the limits set by the house prevents a drawn-out strategy.

That's why the so-called professional gamblers stick to tournaments, trying to win a prize pot. They're playing against other players, trying to outdo them with skill and riding their luck when it comes. The eventual winners here still is the house - rakeback, commissions, fees.