You cannot and should not delete any files. If your Bitcoin Core datadir is after the fork, DO NOT use it with Bitcoin ABC. Using a datadir built from after the fork will result in unknown and unexpected behavior as it will be using Bitcoin Core's chainstate which is invalid to ABC. Do not delete any files as that can and will corrupt your databases.

You can create a new Bitcoin ABC datadir and copy only the blocks folder (and everything in it) to the ABC datadir. Then start ABC with the --reindex option so that it builds its own databases and chainstate from scratch.

If your Armory is synced up with Core past the fork point, DO NOT use the Armory databases when trying to switch to Bitcoin ABC. That will result in unknown and unexpected behavior. Instead, just let Armory build its databases off of ABC once ABC has fully synced.

When you tried to sweep into electrum, which format of private keys were you entering? You need to have been entering the PrivBase58 ones, without spaces, one on each line.

To get Armory online, try going to File > Settings and uncheck the box "Let armory run Bitcoin Core in the background". Now stop Armory, start core, make sure that it is synced, then start Armory.

There is a brief window of time where your keys are held unencrypted in memory. If you have a sophisticated virus on your machine that can read your machine's memory, then it can extract the keys from memory and wait until your computer goes back online to send those keys to an attacker. Because of this risk, if you want to have your wallet not be connected to the internet, you should have it on a computer which never has and never will be connected to the internet.

If you password contains double quotes, then surrounding your password with double quotes is not going to help as the string parse will only read the string surrounded by the first double quote. To have such special characters in your passphrase, you will need to surround your entire passphrase string with single quotes. However if you have single quotes in your password, you will need to escape those single quotes with \'

This topic has been moved to Trashcan.

Malicious Link

This topic has been moved to Trashcan.

Duplicate thread

Yes, but I wouldn't recommend it. Using the datadir which has a chainstate of what ABC would consider an invalid chain may result in some really weird behavior. No one has testing doing that before, so no one knows what will happen and what could go wrong.

Yes. BTC transactions are invalid to BCC nodes and vice versa.

I believe this is the PR that made it: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7600

The code should all be in src/miner.cpp.

Your database is corrupted. You will need to reindex. You should also run hardware diagnostics to make sure that there are no problems with your memory or disk as those can cause database corruption as well.

You send your coins back to yourself. So you will spend your non-segwit utxos and create segwit utxos, all of which you control.

Yes, it is. It is because of the way they are requested and sent. Transactions are only sent with the witness serialization if that is what was requested. They must use MSG_WITNESS_TX and MST_WITNESS_BLOCK to get transactions in segwit format. Old nodes use MSG_TX and MSG_BLOCK so they receive the non-segwit format.

Blocks that contain non-standard transactions are not invalid. Non-standardness does not mean that the transaction is invalid

Serializing transactions to be signed is different from network serialization. Segwit will also change this serialization too but for segit utxos only. Old nodes cannot validate segwit transactions anyways since they won't even receive the signatures.

The txid and wtxid are unrelated to sighash serialization. Txid will still be the identifier, wtxid is only used for the witness commitment.

You look at the input scriptsig and the utxo being spent. Segwit utxos have a specific format, and if the utxo has the same format pattern as segwit, then it is considered a segwit utxo and must be spent as one.

Bitcoin Core 0.13.0+ (and its derivatives) use a thing called ancestor fee rate ordering. What this does is it takes transactions and their dependencies and groups them together. Then the groups are sorted by their combined fee rate. This results in a generally decreasing fee rate as you go through the transactions in the block, with occasional spikes due to CPFP where a child has a large fee rate, but combined with its parent, is a smaller fee rate so placed further down in the block.

Yes to all of the above.

The site is back up (it has been back up for a couple of hours now).

The datadir for Bitcoin ABC is the same as Bitcoin Core's datadir. This is C:\Users\<user>\AppData\Bitcoin.

Yes, but you cannot run both at the same time, and because there will be a fork, I recommend that you don't do that as you will have blocks that are invalid to one software and vice versa. Instead of downloading a new chain, right now, before the fork, you should make a copy of your entire datadir and have Bitcoin ABC use the copied datadir by starting it with the -datadir=<path> option.

Because some optimizations were made where the header is queued to be sent first, then the payload if there is a payload. This results in two calls to the kernel, but it should still be received as one message chunk even though sent separately.

Verack should not be part of the same response. It may be sent at the same time though, but multiple messages should not be in the same TCP packets.

Altcoins are unaffected by anything happening to Bitcoin. Any forking event with Bitcoin at any time (including August 1st) will not effect altcoins unless they are dependent on Bitcoin for something.

Except we don't know about all of the other implications about on-chain capacity such as bandwidth, storage requirements, computing requirements, etc. We only know what happens when we get the worst case scenario with 1 MB and how that effects the network. We don't know how the worst case would effect the network if we have larger blocks.

That's not how 2nd layer scaling solutions work. They are all decentralized, not some central thing that can crash or scam or whatever.

And miners wouldn't like increasing the block size either because that will lower the fees they gather in the short term. It would also mean that their nodes (which I'm told that many use fairly low end hardware) could be very negatively effected by various exhaustion attacks that come with larger blocks. So really miners want smaller blocks, not larger blocks.

Is Bitcoin Core fully synced? Is Armory fully synced? If not, make sure that they are synced.

Also, you should use Armory 0.96.1 as it has many bug fixes. You can get it from here: https://btcarmory.com/0.96.1-release/

Go to File > Settings and uncheck the box for "Let Armory run Bitcoin Core in the background". Now stop Armory and Bitcoin Core. Start Bitcoin Core, wait for it to be fully up. Then start Armory. What this does is that it makes it so that you have to start Bitcoin Core manually instead of letting Armory start it for you. I recommend that you do this as it does fix several potential problems.

Get an address from Electrum and send your Bitcoin to that address. Yes it will cost transaction fees, but you will have to pay those fees later anyways when you want to spend your Bitcoin. You can pay a very low transaction fee and just wait a while for it to confirm.