If you're using different wallets, you cannot do this. Pruning also means that you cannot import a different wallet into your Linux instance without a complete resynchronization.

That is because people have the perception that Bitcoin is capped at 21Million, and there is no tax. Your 1BTC today is 1BTC in 10 years, and Bitcoin is taken to be deflationary specifically because of that. A tax has an equivalent inflationary impact in that regard. The economics and the math would say otherwise, a generalization of the population would make any price movement inaccurate. I, for one wouldn't use a currency that has a tax, precious metal don't disappear when I keep them in the vault.
Then unfortunately that is not what Bitcoin is designed for. Bitcoin should be a medium for transaction, for which it was defined in the whitepaper and the progress that we've made with regards to scaling has pointed to that. Bitcoin is not a speculative asset and it would be dangerous for Bitcoin to go down that path.


It will definitely be very different, but both of it amounts to inflation. Inflation works in a very simple manner, which is what o_e_l_e_o described, for a store of value to be worth less than before. Injection of the funds actually is better, because you have to compensate for the lost coins that can never be recovered. However, if in the long run, you are always recovering the lost coins with your schemes, and thus inflation is always >0. The scarcity of Bitcoin if it is:

40 BTC generated but 50 BTC lost is better than
50 BTC recovered but 50 BTC lost per year.

That is what economist and quants are looking at when deciding on the viability of economies.

The issue is that the recirculation is infinite, which means the wealth is always being redistributed, which increases the inequality that you're already observing.

Actually, if you compare it to the actual tax that we have in the government. People who are holding less are affected deproportionately, and you end up in a scenario whereby miners are always far, far richer and we are always getting poorer. Counterproductive for what Bitcoin set out to do, taxation is crime.

Turnover rates for cars and any household appliances are far lower, they can be repurposed, sold, etc independent of a lot of factors. If a new and faster car comes out, not everyone would buy it immediately unless their car has broken down. However, if a newer and faster ASIC arrived on the market, chances are, ASICs would be replaced by them in batches and thrown into the landfill. They cannot be repurposed for any purposes. Billions of transactions were processed for MasterCard, VISA, etc. Are they the better alternative? Maybe, or maybe not. The only infalliable argument is that their throughput are much higher, with a larger relative utility as compared to crypto.

Most chips have various applications, but the chips in your mining ASICs would be thrown to the landfill with no way of repurposing them once they are obsolete. Obsolescence is one of the key contributors to e-waste.

There are different ways of doing it.  

1) Since you've already sent the small amount of Bitcoins, you can create a transaction that spend a small amount of Bitcoin to your address. You can spend a fraction of that with a small fee, the confirmation doesn't matter. So long as you can see the transaction on blockexplorer, it's fine.

2) Sign a message with the address. If you can verify it, then it would be fine.

3) Import it into an offline wallet. So long as the wallet allows it to be imported, it should be valid and its perfectly safe. Which is what you've done. Well-known and working wallet have sanity checks on your private key which prevents those which aren't working to be imported.

Industralization with how much utility to the community? Does it provide jobs or improve the standards of living for those surrounding it? Does it provide significant and tangible utility to the rest of the world?

ASICs can't be repurposed. Once S17 came out, most of the S9s were scrapped. Most ASICs were notorious for being terribly unreliable and plagued with high failure rate. Besides, remember that a single ASIC has tons of chips and silicon. Circuit boards are difficult to recycle as well. Again, my argument isn't geared towards Bitcoin vs Shitcoin. Comparing Bitcoin mining to my GPUs running ML simulation, one has better utility to the society and can be repurposed.

None. Energy production can never be truly carbon zero, but they an be carbon neutral. My point about it is when people are parroting it as being superior, "Bitcoin helps to combat climate change", "Bitcoin is the new green currency". They are all false. Bitcoin cannot fight climate change because it is a contributor to it. In fact, you are depriving someone of their ability to use clean energy because you are using it yourself.

Good for the environment is a misnomer. We would be much better off without any of those and it is very much a trade off and choices that we have made.

Money and politics. I have been through numerous papers and none of them explicitly mentions that Bitcoin Mining is good for the environment. Any news articles that postulates this often wraps the logic around their fallacy and blatant disregard for the numerous factors that are immediately obvious. Long distance UHV transmission has been achieved in numerous countries and instances, up to 3000KM long. The problem is the costs and time. Governments want to take the easy way out; they will build dams, solar arrays everywhere possible even if there is no use for it. They don't care about the environmental impact and Bitcoin Mining is a convenient way for them to make some GDP growth, if it is even half viable.

Most of the dams are built to support the communities near the dam, and in anticipation of the industrialization of the surrounding regions. Not so much to cater for the population but rather for economic growth from the on-start. They still cause ongoing environmental destruction, from the disruption or redirection of water flow and these are usually consistent rather than a one-time. The cons of having miners enter the region basically means that they don't have to prioritize any efforts to deliver long distance power to the surrounding regions. That isn't desirable and besides, for the utility that Bitcoin provides, it doesn't do anything other than to simulate short term economic growth.

Key factor is also the salient environmental costs that is a direct result of mining, e-waste, etc.
Just comparing mining in general, not just Bitcoin. If you're just comparing Bitcoin specifically, you're going to have 2.88 megatonnes of carbon dioxide emitted, assuming 100% hydropower. Sure, not that significant but if you're comparing to the renewal rates of Bitcoin ASICs and the utility that Bitcoin actually provides, it just doesn't seem that worth it.

It depends on how you interpret it. The key thing about the value of a currency is the amount of currency in circulation, not the entire possible supply of the currency. For a currency that has a recirculating supply, there would be a fixed inflation rate of its equivalent in the fees. As compared to an endless emission, think a currency with its equivalent inflation, that would be the same. Though it can be argued that the real inflation of the former is constant, because they are always recovered and the effects of the burned coins are cushioned. If I had to choose between the two, having a stable inflation rate rather than a fixed tax is far less complex and less riddled with politics. It is very much a slippery slope to go into; miners would always want to earn more and users would always want to pay less. Tail emission might be a place to start in that regard.

The economics of mining by and large follows the value of the coin, which is regulated partly by the difficulty. Our optimal outcome would be to have a network that has a high difficulty and thereby a high opportunity costs that comes with any attack. If we were to consider the deflationary nature of Bitcoin, it is more likely for the price to increase in tandem with the deflation rate. Whilst for one with an inflationary nature, we would have the price decreasing with the inflation rate.

Case in point, if we do not see high adoption rates by the time mining rewards dwindle even further, it would just be an indication that Bitcoin hasn't been a successful experiment. More likely than not, a replacement of Bitcoin would be readily available by then and it would provide more utility than what we have.

Both. Bitcoin Core requires both to function.

When you start up bitcoind on Linux, you won't have to synchronize or validate from the start but you do have to ensure that Bitcoin Core is properly shut down on Windows before copying it over. Don't copy any sensitive files like wallet.dat. It'll probably be more efficient if you synchronize on the faster computer before copying it over.

Asymmetric Cryptography, for example RSA, ECDSA function by having a public key and a private key pair. Using the private key, you can create a signature that can be verified by using the public key and the signature and thereby proving that you have knowledge of the private key. Signatures are used in transactions and message signing for Bitcoin. In a transaction, there are address schemes (P2PKH, P2WPKH, etc) which requires the transactions to be signed with a signature and the public key being provided. Using the public key and the signature, nodes can check that the signature is signed with the correct keypair and that it corresponds to the redeem script of the output.

In message signing, it is usually done to prove ownership of an address but that is fairly debatable. Having a signature and a message that checks out merely means that whoever that has knowledge of the corresponding private key has explicitly signed the contents of that message.

PGP is an alternate application of asymmetric cryptography.

Are you running any antivirus or are you behind any firewall? Try disabling those. If the connections are established just fine and then disconnecting, it is highly unlikely that your peers or the software is the problem.

It's more likely that your firewall is intentionally disconnecting them after a period of time and thus blacklisting them. Is there anything in the debug log that specifies any disconnection?

All of them are invalid arguments. That being said, most of the proponents of Bitcoin mining as being "green" is sprouting nonsense as well. For starters, there is a difference between renewable energy and truly green energy. True green energy are carbon neutral and does no damage to the environment. Your solar panels contributes to environmental pollution, so does your dam which destroys habitats, your wind turbines which endangers wildlife, etc. People want you to believe that they are good for the environment, because they appear to be somewhat carbon neutral if you ignore the implicit costs. This is a typical type of greenwashing that everyone is falling victim to.

If you're talking about extra energy that is difficult to store, that argument is invalid as well. High voltage electrical transmission, whilst introducing high energy loss, is still a viable option for most. The fact that Bitcoin mining is consuming energy already means that opportunity costs are being incurred by them having to use that energy for mining instead for domestic purposes. That is not withstanding the environmental pollution that comes from e-waste as well as silicon mining. Anyone that attempts to argue that Bitcoin is beneficial or otherwise carbon neutral is straight up lying.

Generally, 51% attacks or the likes of it are one and done schemes. They are not intended to be sustained for very much longer than required and it wouldn't matter if the miners switch or not. Since 51% attack works by shifting the miners to work on an alternate chain simultaneously, the probability of the pool miners noticing it and shifting before the damage is done is pretty much zero.

The issue lies with the opportunity cost of executing such an attack. Most pool owners have a huge amount of Bitcoins and it is in their best interests to sustain the prices and keep them afloat. Any attack on the network would tank the price, destroy the mining economy and the probability of their pools ever being used again. It is simply not worth it to execute a 51% attack at any point in time.

Actually, JLopp was the one who postulated that there were possible instances for which the miner crashed, rather than being turned off intentionally. This is done if you were to look at the larger dataset, which isn't very representative of smaller samples which were at the initial stages of Bitcoin which was even more experimental.

In addition, both JLopp and Sergio said that it is quite likely that they were a single quad core processor, rather than a mining farm. This can be collaborated by looking at the block intervals and the nonce increment, if you were to assume Satoshi wasn't lying.

That is a very specific use-case of Bitcoin. Generally, for people to use Bitcoin, they don't have to use full nodes. Full nodes are resource intensive by design and it is practically not possible to go around that requirement. If you're in an extremely bandwidth constricted environment, do use an SPV wallet if you cannot synchronize your wallet with Bitcoin Core.

Satellite and mobile data are generally very unstable and unreliable. I would argue that having them on the network serves no tangible benefits to the rest. Constant disconnections results in nodes connecting and disconnecting intermittently which wouldn't be very useful for nodes who are bootstrapping.

Ditto on the game theoric approach. The main issue occurs mainly because the miner now trusts someone to verify their block for them first and thus risking building a ontop of an invalid chain. That would be detrimental to the network as we have observed previously.

Generally, miners are fairly well-connected now and validating the blocks would probably only take a couple hundred milliseconds (bitcoind takes 200ms but you can probably reduce overheads). The whole issue comes when we decide whether we should just save a couple of hundred milliseconds and sacrificing validation in the process. SPV wallets will always trust the longest chain, so they are responsible for their security.

Empty block isn't the problem, but the issue comes when they go along with it without validation at all.

I have seen quite a few blocks which were half filled if they were mined a few seconds after. Some of them might be included in the block template gradually after. I believe not all of the mining pool updates the block headers immediately either, there is a short delay in between full validation and sending a new work request.

Pool should drop this behavior regardless, the SPV mining problem demostrated that mining without prior full validation can have pretty big repercussions. The miniscule extra profits isn't worth it for the safety of the network.

When a block is mined, miners will verify the block and check the transactions, removing transactions that were included in the mined block. In the meantime, pool would generally send a template that contains the prev block hash, block height with a merkle tree that only contains the hash for the generation transaction. This way, the miners won't risk mining for an invalid block.

The practices differ for each mining pool and setup, but generally they would remove the transactions from the mempool rather than repopulating it again.

In addition, such practices are prevalent among SPV miners. They receive the hash of the block header and immediately send the new template to the miners without validating prior to that.

Fair point, but I was eliminating various possibilities before coming to this conclusion. If you're talking about weak entropy, the only possible point of failure lies with BitPay, Bitcoin Core does have a pretty robust system when it comes to RNG by taking randomness from multiple sources. It would be hard to imagine that it would be a point of failure and besides the there are no address reuse (I presume) and it would eliminate the possibility signature nonce re-use (nonces are deterministic anyways).

Taking in mind that the possibility of Bitcoin Core being flawed is fairly low, the only two possible factors would be any vulnerabilities within your server or BitPay. Regardless, eliminating possibility based on the possible psychological thinking of the attacker wouldn't be effective in determining the actual cause. Perhaps they are only interested in those, perhaps they didn't want to draw attention to themselves, etc.

The first transaction made included in block 170 and no transactions were made prior. It is well known that Satoshi was presumably the one mining and given how the client should report the timestamp in the block header and by the nonce increment, he likely turned his miner off. Latency has nothing to do with this.

It isn't downtime. The network was fully functional and if you were to run a miner at that point in time, you would probably get a block with relative ease. Those downtime that was mentioned on the site has to do with the fork that occurred after the two events; overflow of transaction amount and the unintentional fork. Those were times whereby it would be unsafe to make any transactions.