Make no mistake, quantum computing is a threat towards anything secured by public-private keys. The amount of qubits required to break ECDSA is above a thousand and currently, there isn't any quantum computers that is close to that, without running it for longer periods of time and without errors.

It's not hard to design a new algorithm to secure the signatures but the harder part should be about securing the addresses with coins and were P2PK.

No. The nodes just need to delete the block files from your computer since it has basically gotten everything that it needs from the synchronization prior. The reverse is true however; you'll need to resynchronize if you want to disable pruning.

Nope, it's valid. The rule pretty much only dictates that the inputs must be referenced and confirmed. It's fine to have an unconfirmed input as long as it is confirmed in the same block.

As long as the coin is confirmed and sent to the specified address, the deal is complete. I regard any deal which has a valid transaction to the specified address as complete. Whatever happens after that is out of the control of the sender. What wallet is the recipient using?
If the funds were sent to the correct address as dictated, there is no dispute. Wherever the funds are sent to is a separate matter entirely.

It's likely just that someone has a script which automatically crafts a transaction to send the funds immediately to another address upon seeing it, confirmed or not. Both transactions were included in the same block


How would you know if the other address doesn't belong to the same wallet btw?

Bitcoin doesn't have any measures to counter a scenario whereby a huge portion of the hashrate gets taken out, resulting in longer block times. Bitcoin difficulty has a limit to safeguard huge difficulty drops and it could take a few difficulty adjustments before the difficulty returns to normal.

I doubt there would be a great decrease in the resources used to execute a 51% attack. Mining operations, though concentrated within China shouldn't be concentrated within the same place. Malicious actors, can however use the hashrate to execute any attacks against Bitcoin.

No. Electrum doesn't control your web browser so they can't restrict you from viewing the website. There is also no filtering on the things that you can display in that dialog box.

Pruned nodes and Full nodes are essentially the same thing to the user, but it just isn't as useful to its peers than say a full node. The block data for a Bitcoin Core client is not necessary for it to operate and it isn't used by the client very often. Unless the user is importing a new address, the client has no reason to rescan the block data at all.

Pruned nodes provides the same security as a full node. They download and validate every single block but they discard those which is not needed. The size of the block data selected provides the client with a buffer in the case of a major reorg. But I don't foresee that being a big problem.
Both full nodes and pruned node downloads the entire blockchain.

Nothing stops any hackers or the operators themselves to capture the seeds/private keys by injecting malicious code. Online wallets cannot be considered fully non-custodial as there is still a good chance that the codes can be modified without your knowledge.
You need the xpriv to generate the individual keys to spend the coins. That brings the issue of having having the compatible derivation path by importing it in a compatible wallet. If you don't use a wallet with the same derivation path, you won't be able to see some/all of your addresses.

Look at your trust rating left by others. Your account could've gotten hacked and was posting malicious links.

'Posting Fake Miner Software download link with malware !'

Realistically, in 2009, I don't think most people did.

IMO, yes. That's one way to interpret it though there might be other reasons why he included it. It's not defined in the protocol either.
CPU mining is so inefficient that I doubt even a farm of CPUs could outpace a GPU by itself. For the nonce field to be full utilised, it would need around 4GH/s and that would really require quite a big farm of CPUs. I think the main concern at that time was with botnets actually, doubt the operation of server farms would outpace botnets.

Given how it existed from the start and he envisioned a system with one-cpu-one-vote, it's not hard to see why it isn't that much bigger. He probably didn't expect Bitcoin to shift from CPU to GPU and to ASICs nor pooled mining.

It's pretty interesting but in the first stage of Bitcoin, extranonce proved to be a way for people to be able to track the miners. ExtraNonce increased in a predictable way which is also the reason how people manage to identify the potential satoshi addresses.

It's a pretty obvious phishing attempt. Hackers prey on the greed of the individual and they tend to be enticed by things like this. The best prevention is to not click on any links sent via email. If you need to click on it, check the contents and it's link after clicking it.

This is a really poor example. You can see the email addresses of others and this shouldn't be happening. BCC is often used for mass mailing to avoid violating GDPR laws.

Ahh apologies I missed that post just now. That's fine by me thanks!

TXID: 32d45fc1ece0323016a210689c1d912c1ec0d0e5824899270d584d8c6c03be9c

2, 3, a

Sending the payment in a lil bit

I'll take 0 and a. Will send when halfway full

Flags were created to attempt to supplement the trust system and make scammers more obvious. I feel like there's both sides to a coin; on one hand, banning scammers would prevent them from pulling off more scams, on the other, banning them forces them to create a new account and continue scamming.

Giving anyone the rights to ban users for scamming does introduce a potential situation with the conflict of interest. IMO, they tried to strike a balance in between by just giving the users easy access to the facts for them to make their own decisions while not banning the user completely. It's not perfect but a compromise should be made, especially in a Bitcoin forum.

Nothing, really. A good proportion of the transactions in the mempool are paying quite a high fee.

CPFP works when a miner notices your child transaction and decides to mine both the parent and the child to claim for the transaction fee. CPFP is a voluntary option by the miner and they can choose to include or not. Judging by the current fees, I would believe that miners who are looking for CPFP transactions would be pretty enticed by your transaction. I would give it a few more hours, that's the only thing that you can do anyways.

Do go to your settings in Electrum and enable opt-in RBF in the future though, the problem would've been solved easily .

How is it a scam?

The lack of SSL certificate doesn't mean its a scam; in fact, you can get one for free using LetsEncrypt. Unless there's a scam accusation, I can't see how this would be a scam.

Edit: They actually do have SSL certificate. Just go HTTPS instead of HTTP.

Any scamming incident is bound to have a two-sided story and it's not so clear cut. Trust system, though not perfect, at least allows users to comment on their trust and leaves the judgement to whoever is reading the trust. It's a lot easier to ban users for plagiarism or spam because what they're doing is wrong and the evidence is clear as day.

Agreed, such a system would've saved the user. However, it's worth noting that the trust system works based on the user's own trust list. It's easy to game the system if you were to show the guest everyone's trust rating; he can just spam to cover up the negative trusts. In trust-enabled sections, a warning is displayed for the guest if the user has more negative than positive ratings.

The forum cannot moderate scammers; it is simply too time consuming to review the evidences and the judgement can be biased and skewed. Shitposters and copy-pasters are much easier to ban in comparison. Warning Flags were introduced to help combat non-registered users from being scammed.

It checks for the validity of an address. A valid Bitcoin address is also a valid Omnilayer address.
You cannot change the address format of an Omnilayer address. A valid OmniLayer address has to be a Bitcoin address; the transactions are being done on the Bitcoin Blockchain itself. If the address isn't a Bitcoin address, then the transaction wouldn't work.

You cannot compare altcoins with Omni. Alt coins runs on completely different network while an OmniLayer has to piggyback on an existing coin's blockchain.