No. The duration only dictates how long your payment request is valid for. The transaction cannot be reversed after a specified period of time (barring opt-in RBF) and it would still be able to be rebroadcasted after it gets dropped from the nodes. No wallet will intentionally reverse a transaction after a specified period without confirmations.

The drop in March was unprecedented due to the Covid-19 situation. It was just following the market trend with the uncertainty of the situation around the world. I don't see Bitcoin having a huge drop in the near future, barring any ruling by governments that is not in favour for Bitcoin. Given the fact that the government's aren't really paying attention to Bitcoin nowadays, I don't see any new ruling that would jeopardize Bitcoin.

Hand implants seems a bit extreme and I don't think OP was specifically looking at that dieection. Anyhow, I feel that its just a novel idea and I don't think it'll be easy to implement security features to safeguard the funds in the NFC wallet. Unless I missed out something, I don't think authorising payments from the implant would be a clear cut process.

Ill take 7, 8 and e.
437d04d7f3ca57c74ebb06cf8f91bc24fd80f0e09e96f7d6f0eaabe15fbac50f

Might be the case with specific mid-range phones. The latest flagships all ships with NFC, given the high adoption of Google Pay, Apple pay and Samsung Pay. Even smart watches comes with NFC nowadays.

---

I'm not sure which wallet but I've had a Bitcoin wallet on Android that allows for the use of NFC to communicate. It's really simple; just put the Bitcoin URI in the chip and the smartphone receives it and treats it like the QR code. It's relatively easy to set up and if you can integrate it with a POS, you'll be able to input the amount to pay as well.

Malware on mobile devices isn't uncommon. It does happen more often on Android than Apple as it is more open. There were several zero day exploits in the past that allowed remote code execution or widespread infection to take place. I wouldn't recommend using mobile wallets to hold large amounts of Bitcoin because it is not specifically designed for it. There are obvious risks to keep large amount of Bitcoins in portable devices.


Accessing websites shouldn't make you vulnerable to any viruses. There are cases, however, where the malware will utilise pre-existing vulnerabilities within the web browser or systems to gain access to your phone. The most obvious risks is when you're downloading stuff from malicious websites. I wouldn't recommend you to click on random ads or link for that matter.

You can import the seeds into a compatible wallet with a similar derivation path. As long as the derivation path are the same, the desktop wallet will generate the same keys as the mobile Mycelium wallet.

What's the issue exactly? Were you sending the funds to your address on MyCelium wallet or from?

If you're sending it to, try checking if the address is in the wallet itself.

With a mixer, the hacker can obfuscate their identity before using the service. The mixer will attempt to break the linkage between the coins that were sent to them and the coins that are sent to the destination address. It's not a foolproof way but it is able to make your coins untraceable to a good percentage. If done correctly, there shouldn't be an easy way to prove that the coins were once from an X hack for example.
To complement the idea that Bitcoin should help with the user's privacy. Mixer breaks the linkage of the coins and outsiders won't be able to track where the coins came from. This helps to obscure the user's spending habits for example.

In a Bitcoin transaction, each UTXO is signed individually and provides its own signature so that the nodes would know that the UTXO can be spent in that transaction. The transaction has 2 UTXOs so you have to sign both UTXOs, as referenced by index 0 and 1.

Using IP as a way for users to request addresses allows the sender to know the IP that is associated with the address. Using IP as a identifier wouldn't help with the anonymity of the user. It does compromise the privacy to a certain extent but I don't think this was a primary consideration at that time.

No. As compared to gold, Bitcoin is a lot more volatile. Bitcoin being an intangible currency isn't as stable as compared to gold.

As compared, to being a store of value, I feel Bitcoin is more like a currency and gold is like the former. You're probably never supposed to use gold as a transaction method. Bitcoin, in comparison, is more suitable to be a replacement of traditional payment methods.

Multisig. Holding the funds in an address secured by multisig allows the access of the funds as long as the required amount of signatures is met. It helps if you were to set 2 of 4 multisig, with you holding 2, the attorney holding 1 and an inheritor holding onto 1. After your passing, the funds can still be accessed even without your multisig.
It really depends how much you value; your incompetence or your privacy. You could use your bank transfer but this would mean that someone else could easily see your spending habits and stuff. If you were to take appropriate security precautions, you shouldn't be facing a problem with your funds getting stolen.
Yes. If you bothered to Google or search this forum.

Compressed. It's much more practical for people to adopt compressed addresses as they are far more economical and segwit addresses derived from uncompressed keys are also non-standard.

The block of that coin merely sends the block rewards to the same address as Bitcoin's genesis block. It doesn't matter if they have the key pair or not and it is not a collision either.

It's based on Bitcoin and thus the addresses are the same.

It's good that Coinbase has done something good in this case and it is something to applaud for. However, it's still a fact that Coinbase has the control and can dictate who has access to your coins and your Coinbase account. This is something that demonstrates their power albeit in something that portray them in a good light.

It's definitely not a point for people to encourage users to start using shared online wallets which gives the third party the rights to stop or freeze your coins.

Seems to be an issue with your server not returning the fees. This was an issue that was reported a few days prior.

You need to update your Electrs to 0.8.5. The newest update fixed this, as specified in their changelog.

It doesn't. Verification of Electrum only ensures that the binaries are compiled and verified by ThomasV. You're still trusting ThomasV and someone else unless you review the codes yourself. Vulnerabilities can be put intentionally or unintentionally.

You're still obtaining the SHA256 hash from the site and that is the point for MITM attacks to happen. PGP is better since you're validating against an identity so you just have to make sure that the chain of trust is not compromised.

Not as far as I know of. Humans aren't the best at generating entropy anyways.
You can generate a large amount of addresses at once.

wallet.create_new_address(False) for i in range(X)

Or increase the gap limit.

Try changing servers?

Click the bottom right bubble, uncheck select server automatically and right click a server and click use as server.

Hmm interesting.. Will try it when I have the time.

---

---

I made a backup of my wallet file and started to modify it. I removed all the relevant TXID and turned my internet connection off. I loaded up my Electrum and it appeared back as an unspent output. So I crafted a transaction in the GUI, exported it and broadcasted it. Worked well but I had to take care to not mess the JSON formatting up or an error will appear when I initialize the wallet. Has to be done offline too or the wallet would load the unconfirmed transaction again.

Wish there's an advanced mode in Electrum which would give the user more liberty to mess around with the wallet.