One other thing just popped to mind when i read the spreadsheet for a second time... A new remark for both ledger and trezor: Both can be used together with electrum. If you use electrum together with a ledger or trezor, many of the "negative" features become "positive".

For example:

• No shit coins (whatever that might mean)
• no web app
• open source backend
• user can connect to his own node (he'll need an electrum node tough)
• Python instead of javascript
• multisig
• 2FA
• probably even coinjoin trough an electrum plugin???
• most of the extra features supported by electrum
• Tor enabled possible
• complete fee selection
• many price api's
• RBF enabled
• Coin control enabled
• user can broacast any tx
• message signing
• batch spending
• testnet
• ...

Couldn't agree more... I just read the table and was about to post the exact same thing when i saw you beat me to the punch.

I guess they're missing some factors when they're determining whether or not to recommend a wallet. If they'd take the fact that private keys never touch your computer into account and give these factors a high score, the table would look a tad bit different. But offcourse, if you create a scoring system that's focussed on a less secure wallet, and ignore the features of hardware wallets but still try to use the same scoring system for them, you'll end up "proving" desktop wallets are more secure (for newbies reading this: this statement is untrue... Hardware wallets like trezor or ledger are far more secure than any desktop wallet)

I've actually posted a video walktrough for the mainnet on one of my sites:
https://unblur.ninja/walktrough_eclair_android.php

It's for an older version of eclair, and you'll need to find a testnet node to connect to, but the main steps should be more or less the same.

If you have specific questions/problems, don't hesitate to ask!

what do you mean, "new format key from future". As far as i know, the private key format has always been a 256-bit number. This 256 bit number can be represented in hexadecimal format: 32 bytes = 64 characters.
Other formats, like WIF can be converted to hex (and vice versa).

In my previous post, this 64 character representation (HEX format) was one of the possible options.

Sorry dude, i'm going to stop following this thread... I feel we're getting nowhere.

Good luck tough!

To tell you the truth, i have a hard time following your posts...

I wasn't around in 2009-2010, so i have no idear what format your private key has.

• WIF: 51 characters base58, starts with a '5'
• WIF Compressed: 52 characters base58, starts with a 'K' or 'L'
• Hexadecimal: 64 characters [0-9A-F]
• Base64: 44 characters
• ...

At any rate, you should be able to convert your private key into WIF if you tell us which format it currently has. As soon as you converted it into WIF, you should be able to use electrum and follow the wizard to create a new wallet using an existing key... You can do the same with core, but it requires an extra parameter to create a non-HD wallet.

That being said, if you stopped mining around 2010, the total number of bitcoins in circulation would have been little over 7 million. Many of those are attributed to satoshi and other known figures in the bitcoin world. If you say you have an address that was funded with millions of BTC, i don't really believe this... Sorry...

EDIT: fixed a typo: 7 million instead of 5 million...

Any chance you can point us to this address that was funded by millions of BTC? I realise asking you to sign a message is moot if you don't know how to import your private key into a wallet, but pointing out the exact address might be a (small) first step?

This being said, it might be a good idear to create a non-HD wallet using bitcoin core and see if you can import your key then? AFAIK, you can't import keys into a HD wallet... You can sweep them, but you can't import them. A non-HD wallet should solve this.
Same stands for electrum... If you restore from seed, you create a HD wallet which can only be used to sweep... If you create a wallet entering the private key, you have a non-HD wallet in which other private keys can be imported.

BTW: what's the format of your private key?

Nope, not a crime... As a matter of fact, i think they're more or less obliged to tell you how many confirmations your deposits will need in order to be credited to your account...

Not disclosing this information can lead to abuse... If your tx has 210+ confirmations, i don't think they can use number of confirms as an argument in a discussion about not crediting your account.

Nope... There is no direct correlation, maybe a very indirect one tops. It's possible certain price fluctuations might have resulted in an exchange having more unspent outputs than usual (because of more deposits and withdrawals, so they might have chosen to consolidate. This fact, coupled with a low optimal fee might have prompted them to consolidate their inputs...

But this (and other) theory(s) is/are really far-fetched anyways. The odds are even bigger there is no correlation at all.

I've been running btcpayserver for quite a while now, however, btcpayserver =/= bitpay.

Bitpay is a thirth party payment processor. You create an account with them, read the doc's for their api, get some support, and you can start accepting payments with a very small learning curve, and in just a couple of hours. The downside is that they charge a fee and you do not controll the complete payment process.

Btcpayserver is a very elaborate script that allows you to act as your own payment processor. However, you need to run a full node and run several daemons in order to use btcpayserver. If you get btcpayserver up and running, you'll process your payments for free, and everything will be under your own controll, but if something goes wrong: you alone are responsible.

Don't get me wrong: i love btcpayserver, but for a newbie with not a lot of experience, the learning curve on how to get btcpayserver running *might* be to steep.

Well, nothing can stop somebody that wants to create 80Mb worth of 1sat/byte transactions, however, spamming with 1 sat/byte transactions won't start a bidding war. If the blocks found in the next couple of days aren't completely full with transactions paying a higher fee, some of the 80 Mb will probably end up in in blocks, otherewise they'll be pruned from the mempool in a couple of days.

It's a known problem:

https://cse.google.com/cse?cx=016660200577587308545%3Aesf40ml9aag&ie=UTF-8&q=electrum+windows+7&sa=Google+search#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=electrum%20windows%207&gsc.page=1

a quote from the first hit:

3 possible things could have happened, but without further info, it's hard to say which one exactly:

• Did you enable 2FA? 2FA is provided by a thirth pary and is a paying addon...
• A second thing the "commision" might have been is the transaction fee.
• A thirth explanation: are you sure you aren't talking about the change funding the change address?

Well, theoretically, there are more potential explanations for what happened, but these 3 have the biggest odds...

1 - mocacinno

Personally, i feel bad i had to remove my support for the tag, but with the withdrawal of h4ns, i'd be supporting something the original victim doesn't want support for. It's perfectly possible it was a case of backmail, but so far there is no proof...
Blackmailing is a real life offence, not just breaking a forum rule, i personally feel that if h4ns is being blackmailed, the least of his worries would be getting GP tagged or flagged, he'd rather see him fined or behind bars. The only way to do this is getting law enforcement involved.
But once again, this is all speculation... I've seen no proof h4ns is being blackmailed. It's perfectly possible GP just payed h4ns the €210 to get rid of this problem, or that h4ns just decided to forgive GP since he tought €210 wasn't worth his troubles...

But, if there ever is a flag for blackmailing, and there is sufficient proof for me to conclude h4ns was blackmailed, i'd support that flag in a heartbeat. For now, i have left negative trust on GP's profile based on the things i've actually observed: his erratic behaviour, the fact that he posts medical information about mental illnesses without consent (thus invades other's privacy), the fact that he twists words and defenitions to find loopholes (think about fixating on dates, the word "donation", the fact that he makes financial claims for unproven facts and then deducts refunds from these claims,...

@GP's rant: keep repeating the same semantics over and over again won't make me change my mind. I find the fact that you don't think an email is a written contract semantics. I find the fact that you brought the word "donations" in your emails semantics. I find the fact that the original flag wasn't pinpointing the exact date semantics.

I'm not in DT1, but please contact Theymos if you feel i should be excluded from DT1 if i would ever make it into there by the voting system (highly doubtfull, i don't think a lot of people would ever include me in their trustlists)

The only reason i withdrew my support was because h4ns withdrew his flag... For some strange reason, you've gotten what you wanted...

I have, my memory fails me so i cannot find the topic in question.

This would change everything offcourse, but it would be really hard to proof blackmailing unless h4ns could confirm this.
If h4ns is being blackmailed, i'd encourage him to go to his local law enforcement agency and open a case against GP, then come to the forum with this case. Theymos has ip logs, there are payment traces, GP has an active website and claims to have defended cases. I'm pretty sure a serious law enforcement agence would be able to trace him in case somebody opened a police report against him.

I will continue to support all flags i'm confronted with that are based on valid claims, this includes any future flags on GP (for example, a flag for blackmailing, eventough i don't know which type of flag you'd have to create if you were being blackmailed). At this moment, I'm just confronted with the fact that the flag creator withdrew his flag, and i'm not presented with evidence that he was being forced to do so... So i feel i have no other choice but to drop my support for this particular flag.

I have mixed feelings about this post... But here I go:

I will drop my support for h4ns's flag and exchange my negative tag on GP's trust page by a different negative tag because h4ns withdrew his claim. I feel that when a flag has been dropped by the flag creator, i no longer have the right to keep supporting the flag or tag, since withdrawing a flag more or less means that h4ns was reimbursed or forgave GP (unless he tells us otherwise).

However, i still believe my initial support for this flag was correct. I read h4ns's topic and to the best of my knowledge, i tought it was valid.
I am not a lawyer, and i'm not interested in discussing wether or not an e-mail is to be considered to be a written contract (or not), or that mixing the word "donation" into the conversation results in making every payment a donation (or not).
As I said: i'm not a lawyer,  it's perfectly possible that in a court of law GP's statement would hold, however, my gut feeling tells me these are all semantics, and i believed there was some kind of agreement between GP and h4ns, and GP did not honour said agreement thus deserved a flag and a tag, no matter how hard he tried to focus on the semantics to find a loophole that would prove his "innocence".

But, like i said, the withdrawal of h4ns more or less forces me to withdraw my support... I still wouldn't trust GP with a single penny, the way he handles all criticism tells me i never want to be a client of his company, and leads me to believe he'll be able to weasel his way out of any commitment he makes.

No, doing this would be giving a donation to the miner or mining pool that solved the block including your spending transaction.

Spending an unspent output to fund a valid address whose private key is nearly impossible to find does not donate to a miner, but merely "destroys" the unspent output.

like Deathwing already said: not on bitcointalk... But don't despair, if ~$9000 is all you need, there are plenty of IRL organisations that could grant you such a loan (banks, loan sharks, pawn shops, friends, family). If you really believe in your project, loaning $9000 should be the least of your concerns.
In my country, it seems to be pretty easy to get a loan up to and including €15.000. Offcourse they charge an intrest rate of 5% and up...

BTW: please don't open a poll to ask these questions

I just wanted to chime in my 2 satoshi's...
The average faucet seems to be paying out <50 sat (source: a quick browse trough the list of faucethub, coinpot, freebitco.in,...).

This means you'll have to make about 2 million claims to "get" 1 BTC.
If you incorporate the fact that at least half of the faucets are dry, scams, dissapear, or have hidden their claim button so good nobody can find it), you'll need to visit at least 4 million faucets to get 1 BTC.

Opening the faucet, filling in all those captcha's, you addresss, claim, popups, even more captcha's.. I estimate it takes 2 minutes to make a claim.

So 1 claiming 1 BTC would be equal to spending 8 million minutes =~ 133.000 hours.

So, with the current BTC rate, you'll make about ~7 cents per hour... If the minimum wage in your country is higher than 7 dollarcents per hour (substract the energy you used for that hour of claiming, substract the cost of decent internet, substract the cost of the device you use to claim), it would be wiser to get an IRL job and convert some of your wages into btc rather than spending your time claiming from faucets.

That being said: there are "real" online faucets that aren't a scam (they "pay" 7 cents per hour)... I wouldn't trust those telegram bots tough, i don't get their businessmodel, i don't see where they get their money from, so i don't think they can operate without scamming people.