Yes, there are currently ongoing discussions (to put it polite, some might say an all out brawl) how to do this best. There are different approaches.

Some (bitcoin classic) prefer to simple increase the limit to 2MB first and do a more fancy solution called SegWit later. This however would split the network and would require everyone to update their client.

Others (bitcoin core) prefer to do SegWit first, which results in parts of the transaction (the signature) to be stored "outside" of the 1MB limit. It would allow 1.75 times as much transactions as the blocklimit, so with 1 MB it would allow 1.75 MB worth of transactions can be done without splitting the network. SegWit itself is not really a blocksize solution. It has other nice properties that make it a desirable solution.

Eventually both parties want 2MB blocklimit as well as SegWit.

I get a Mail when you send me a PM, I skimmed it when I woke up a few hours ago. Did not have time for the board until now, will be answering your PM as well as the others now.

What do you have that can convince me of the transfer?

Based on the word of QS and Lutpin I will temporarily remove the rating as I need some sleep now. Send me a PM if you want to keep it private.

I will ignore 2. and 3. as they have no meaning here. If you are saying you bought the account, do you have a signed message? The TX linked by Jhanzo is the finally one for all addresses so its possible that it was some sort of cash out.

I never accessed the account. I prefer to only hold the funds, ActSeller did expect me to hold the account and hold the funds at the same time though. We did it my way this time and switched to ActSellers system for other trades. The point of me holding the account is to verify that it is like described. Its essentially seller protection to make sure the buyer has no reason to back off because of the name. Thus even in those cases where I accessed the account I did not check the mail, nor do I keep a record of it.

I do advise to change the password, mail address as well as the security question (or remove it). Its part of the default text for account trades. I always assumed the buyers would do these steps, as they are quite important to actually secure the account.

What you described are so called HD (hierarchically deterministic) wallets. They use a seed or master private key from which all other private keys are derived. Examples for wallets/services that use this method are: Electrum 1.x and 2.x, Multibit HD, Armory, blockchain.info v2/v3 (its named v3 in their git repo, but commonly refered to as v2 as Im not sure which is correct), mycelium and many others. Many wallets however do generate private keys non-deterministic like Danny described above, examples are Multibit Classic, Bitcoin Core, blockchain.info and many others. The biggest difference for the user is that HD wallets need a single backup.

Is there anything I can do? I still have all PMs and the PGP signed agreement.

So you dont use the investment as an investment as such you dont need the investment to make profit. If you only use it as a way to distribute existing profit its not an investment. Its a dare.


I will start to cut down your posts like this, maybe it helps you to shorten them. Adding more words that have nothing to do with the topic are not helping me to understand you better, in fact they make me less interested to read your posts at all and just leave it as it is.


What even is an investment for you? For me an investment (unless its a ponzi) is needed when a company or business needs funds to expand and increase their profit. The need the investment to work with the invested funds. What you explain is not an investment in this sense. If you have a different definition feel free to share it.

I have to assume the 99% is just your assumption and not based on anything. I dont see a reason to reply to the rest of your points as we start to circulate. Its pretty obvious that we have greatly different views on the world and maybe some day we will meet in person and talk about it in more detail.

The incentive you give is like the fish in the proverb, where I prefer people would learn to fish instead. Maybe you are right and those that come here no longer have the mental capacity to learn fishing. I hope you are not. I will be here answering questions regardless, at least for a little longer.

Would it be possible to launch without the old blockdata? I think this would attract more people to join in. It should be enough to keep the UTXO as it was at a certain block. For the ultra paranoid this UTXO could still be verified using the pre fork bitcoin blockchain. For everyone else it would be 70GB less to start. Im not sure how viable this is to implement given the current state of the development.

Your posts have been rated as unconstructive as such you violated one of the rules and have been removed without payment. Continuing this argumentation will not help you. In fact it is very likely that you will get banned for some time because of your spam posts.

See here for more (including an assessment by a staff member) -> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1428897.0

In their code its called "v3", I thought it would be v2 as well.

Im a bit disappointed that they removed signing as well. I hope it will get added and thats is just not the highest priority. Blockchain.info is one of the most popular web wallets and as you say not many will be able or willing to follow the guide.

They are implementing BIP 32[1] so the seed should work with other BIP 32 wallet as long as its in hex format.

[1] https://github.com/blockchain/My-Wallet-V3/blob/master/src/hd-account.js#L197

Apparently April 2016
-> https://bitcoincore.org/en/2015/12/23/capacity-increases-faq/
-> https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases-faq

Its probably outdated though.

For the 1MB limit see the post by altcoinhosting. Id like to add to the bolded part. This is probably a misunderstanding. Any bitcoin will always be spendable as long as someone has control over the correct private key.

What the person that told you this probably referred to is that due to the limit it will be more expensive to make small payments. Due to the limit only a certain number of TX can fit into a block. This number currently is roughly 2000. If there are over 30k TX waiting for a confirmation (as there are now[1]) miners only confirm those that pay the highest fee per byte. This can become a problem if you want to transfer a very small amount (e.g. 0.0001) as the fee required to get a timely confirmation will need to be as high or even higher as the transfered amount. Thus it might no longer economical to use bitcoin for small amounts of coins.

There are different views on how to solve this, but AFAICT the great majoriy agrees that the limit must be increased - the question is how or rather in which order the needed steps are taken.

[1] https://i.imgur.com/BCDDom8.png

Hmm, kannst Du die wallet Datei auf einem anderen Rechner öffnen?

Also meine "unbenutzte" hat 1KB. Da sind ja primär auch nur die privaten Schlüssel sind. Die haben pro Stück 32 byte, klingt also erstmal nicht zu wenig.

Gemeint ist ((Blockreward + Fees) * BTC Zeitwert) / Anzahl der TX im Block. Also wieviel Geld erhalten die Miner für das finden des Blocks runtergebrochen auf jede Transaktion.

Hängt stark am Preis -> https://blockchain.info/de/charts/cost-per-transaction?showDataPoints=false&timespan=all&show_header=true&daysAverageString=7&scale=0&address=

A signed message to the admin via PM can do that. IMHO this should be a scam accusation as its about a trade where you got tricked. Its very unlikely that staff or admins will intervene here.

A pay-to-script-hash-address can not be used to sign a message, staking this address will not help you.

Mach ma zur Sicherheit ne Kopie und änder das.


Klingt komisch, ich würd erstmal auf die aktuelle Version updaten und gucken wie es da läuft (ohne Schreibschutz).