Quantum computers exist. Quantum computers just hasn't reached the level to pose a threat to encryption standards in the current day. Hypothetically, quantum computers can break ECDSA (and other asymmetrical algorithms) with Shor's algorithm. Quantum computer can theoretically weaken SHA256 (and symmetrical algorithms) but to a point whereby it's still very very hard to break it.

That option will result in Electrum sending the funds to a change address generated by the wallet. If the option is not selected, whatever is left after the fees are deducted is sent to the origin address. Ie. If the box is not checked, an A -> B transaction will result in the change being sent back to address A.

BIP32 has an intrinsic flaw which allows the full master private key to be compromised once the master public key and any of the child private key is revealed. It doesn't have to be hardened down to the last path so you can still generate non-hardened addresses using an extended public key. If you were to harden the path the whole way, the only way to generate a hardened address is to use the private key.

Taxes are pretty essential for any country but having anything more than 10%, IMO is too much. Is there any legistation regarding the tax in the countries? If its specifically directed towards crypto, then it's just trying to discourage people from using Bitcoin. Capital gain tax is pretty common among most countries and if the taxes is counted as a capital gain tax, then it's alright.

Bitcoin is a commodity and should be treated as such. Having a high capital gain tax is a whole other issue altogether, since it applies to things like capital gains from property, stocks etc.

Quantum computing is nowhere near the levels that is needed to break ECDSA.

It's true that Shor's algorithm makes ECDSA vulnerable to attacks by quantum computers which reduces the time needed significantly. However, if you look at it, the amount of qubit that is required to break ECDSA is estimated to be ~1500. The best quantum computer right now has 53 qubit.

If you don't reuse addresses, the effects are negated since it still takes time for the quantum computer to crack your keys. I don't see a real threat right now but the community would probably act on it when the need arises.

Most miners don't actually use getblocktemplate anymore and they have their own software written to accommodate for their needs (ASICBoost, custom msg in coinbase etc).

The documentation is here: https://developer.bitcoin.org/reference/rpc/getblocktemplate.html. The code is written here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/793e0ff22cbace2a0fbe1e4a2e88a7bc6bf44502/src/rpc/mining.cpp#L488.

Lot #1 - 0.018BTC

Lot #1:0.017BTC

Lot #1: 0.015BTC

Lot #1: 0.013BTC
Lot #2: 0.003BTC

Why do they need to test it out? It isn't rocket science to predict how much they can earn. So pools are willing to throw their hashpower at worthless coin just to throw them? Preventing others from mining requires hashpower thats directed towards the coin for long periods of time, and thus wasting money.

I've actually never heard of this happening in my life. Got any sources?
Okay, lets stop this. I don't think I want to mine a coin if it takes several months for me to even be able to touch my coin. I'll steer far far away from any coin that does this.

Remember, this means that I can release my coin today and it'll take months of effort to get paid. Even then, I can't guarantee how much I'll earn because no one can trade it yet.

Just use the source code from github and compile yourself. The alpha updates are merged regularly. It's not stable yet though, use with caution.

https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum

I never said they could...

You cannot deny that the capacity of the network has increased significantly from the past. Segwit has made transactions smaller and increased the theoretical total transactions per block. Lightning network has allowed for 2nd layer transactions. It has by no means stopped the high fees problem; adoption rate is way too low and its no silver bullet either.

As of now, the fee is approx. ~60 satoshi/byte for a reasonable timeframe which gives the total transaction fee of a normal transaction to be $0.50. Isn't that cheaper than a lot of the payment processors?

What do you want to do about it? There are developments on the scalability of Bitcoin and some progress being made (Segwit, lightning network). More could be done but there's obviously loads of compromises that has to be made at the expense of a larger transaction volume.

Fees is decided by the free market. You could pay a lower fee but it'll take a longer time but that's all that you can do right now.

96 - ranochigo

Thanks for hosting the raffle!

I've just scanned it with VirusTotal and the detection rate is 11/72. It's not a huge number but it could throw off newbies. IIRC, it started with the use of some component of Python within the program. IIRC, they tried to improve on the detection rate but some of the antivirus still detects it, albeit as riskware.

It's Microsoft Defender btw, better AVs like Malwarebytes are more prudent with their detection.

You shouldn't rely on "downloading from the official website" as the software being legit. Checking it against the signature is a safer way to verify software as the person signing it would essentially be endorsing it as it being legit. Once you download any malware/fake softwares, your security is as good as gone, no matter whether you delete it or not.

Antivirus seems to be particularly sensitive to the Electrum's build and often tags it as malicious. It's nothing to worry about *IF* you verify the binaries.

I imagine that it could be worse in some aspects. Transactions would be done faster, things would be more streamlined and it would be easier for people to transact.

However, the story could be different for those living in less developed countries; Lack of internet access/ stable electrical power would make it hard for them to transact. For the governments, it means that hyperinflation could be a thing of the past but it would be harder for them to
control capital flows within the country. Illegal activities would run rampant with a less regulated currency.

I'm mostly interested about topics going into the technical aspect of Bitcoin but I've seen loads and loads of statements that are just outright wrong. There is no problem with expressing opinions but it is extremely frustrating to see users posting things that doesn't make sense and doesn't show any willingness to learn. The worst part is that there's a chance for someone to heed their advice and potentially lose money. I do report them and their responses gets removed but it's still pretty common.

I do agree that the differing views does make for a more diverse discussion and I enjoy seeing a few of those who genuinely try to substantiate their opinion even though it differs from the norm.

The address would just sit inside the wallet quietly, doubt it would bother you. 

I use Bitcoin Core by using the request tab to generate addresses and I don't have to be confused by the addresses that were used by me. If any transactions somehow gets sent to my addresses (by accident or not), I would still be able to retrieve it.
No, the behaviour has been this way since a long time ago. Bitcoin Core doesn't support removing addresses because its not meant to be done. If you really want to remove addresses from your wallet.dat, consider using pywallet.

Saying that Bitcoin has 3.6 million coins out of the current 18 million right now burned is a great exaggeration. Even if you count out those Bitcoins that were intentionally burned, lost or so, it still doesn't come anywhere near even a million.

Satoshi coins or any coins that were mined in the early days should not be considered lost. There was a coin movement from an address that was dormant for many years. Coins that were mined in the early days should not be counted out.