If the network showed 15 confirmations but your account at Binance was still not credited, then the delay was entirely due to Binance.



Yoy have it exactly backwards. A custodial wallet is run by the custodian of the bitcoins -- the exchange in this case. A non-custodial wallet has no custodian. You control your bitcoins yourself.

1. It is a complicated way of saying that reusing an address reduces your privacy.

First, the presumption is that someone sending coins to your address knows who you are (or at least something about you). If you never reuse an address, then a sender knows only about the coins that they sent to you. They don't know what other people have sent you because they only know about the address that you gave them. When you reuse an address, then everybody given that address knows what everyone else has sent you.

2. There is nothing preventing or prohibiting any number of people from simultaneously sending coins to the same address.


It doesn't mean that. Also, a private key is generally associated with a only single address. While, a private key can be associated with multiple addresses because there are different address formats and transaction types, it typically does not happen.

You are probably thinking of a HD wallet that generates multiple private keys (and their addresses) from a seed (via a master private key).

The reason that the hash rate graphs vary so much is not due to the hash rate changing. The reason is that there is no direct way to measure total hash rate, so hash rate is estimated using the time between blocks. The time between blocks is random, so the graph looks random, even when the total hash rate is constant.

Your encoding scheme is extremely inefficient. A variable length code is not helpful because all characters have the same frequency.

As others have mentioned, the most efficient scheme would be to convert the 25-byte value to a decimal number. The result is a 61 digit address.

Alternatively, if you want the address encoded directly, you could assign a two-digit number to each symbol.

I asked my dog and he said you have some good evidence. He is going to investigate your claims right after he is done chasing the neighbor's cat.

You can sue the U.S. government to get them back, but you must prove that your coins weren't used illegally.

Also, if you used ChipMixer to send coins to a US. exchange, your account is definitely at a high risk of being seized, given the routine abuse of civil forfeiture laws by U.S. law enforcement.

You got bad information, or you misunderstood it.

There is nothing wrong with sending bitcoins from the same address more than once. However, there is a privacy issue with receiving bitcoins at the same address more than once. And, generally the only way to send bitcoins from the same address more than once is to receive them at that address more than once, or to have the change returned to the sending address (which is the same as receiving it more than once).

A public key that begins with 04 is an uncompressed public key. There are no security issues with using uncompressed public keys.

Perhaps the issue is this: to send bitcoins from an address, you must reveal its private public key. If the public key is revealed, then that is one less step needed to find the private key. However, the reduction in security from exposing the public key is not worth worrying about. The reduction of privacy from giving an address to multiple people is a much bigger problem (if it is even a problem at all).

If you assumed that the mining cost would somehow stay at 1 cent per BTC, still only 6.25 BTC per 10 minutes would be available at that price. Total trade volume is 1000's of times that. Only a tiny fraction of people could get that price and the rest would have to pay full price.

But, the mining cost would not stay at that price. Like you said, every man and his dog would mine BTC if the production cost were that low, and the result would be a swift rise in the difficulty and the production cost. So, whatever affect of production cost on price you think there might be would be temporary at most.

There are two big differences between Bitcoin and commodities that invalidate the dependence of its price on production costs.

1. Unlike commodities (and gold), Bitcoin production does not vary and is not affected by the production cost or the price.
2. Unlike commodities, bitcoins are not consumed.

The price of a commodity tends to move toward its production cost because the production cost acts as a floor and competition drives the price to the floor by changing the supply.

In contrast, the production cost of a bitcoin tends to move toward its price because the price acts as a ceiling and competition drives the production cost to the ceiling by changing the difficulty.

Thus, the price of a commodity may ultimately depend on the production cost, but the price of a bitcoin does not. Instead, the production cost of a bitcoin ultimately depends on its price.

If you keep your funds in your own wallets, then you don't need an exchange. And charging 1% is easy. If the pair trades at 1 to 100, then you exchange at 1 to 99 or 1 to 101.

But I see what you are doing. You don't want to hold any inventory and you want to act as a broker between the customer and the exchange.

Many wallets do what you want to do. They set up a relationship with an exchange that allows them to be a broker. Checkout Binance Connect

Not directly. But, wouldn't you at least agree that the bail out is offsetting disinflation, and that is effectively the same as inflation?

What makes it "true"? Perhaps you could explain what you mean by "fair" and "true", and how they relate to mining cost.

I'm still curious about my bitcoin. If it was mined for $5 in 2012 and I sell it today for $25000, is the buyer getting a fair price? Am I?

I would put it here: Marketplace > Goods > Collectibles

The Fed creates money to bail out the bank, adding to inflation. When the money is returned to the Fed, the inflation will be reversed.

I'm curious why Binance, which is an exchange, needed for your exchange.

Off the top of my head, here is a summary of how to create a simple exchange where you set the prices instead of using a market (because it is easier).

• 1. Create a wallet for each kind of coin.
• 2. Create a database for trades. Each entry would contain the amounts for each coin and their receiving addresses.
• 3. Create a site that allows a person to create a trade.
  
  • 3a. The site gets an address from the wallet for the coin the customer is sending and shows it to the customer.
  • 3b. The set gets an address from customer for the coins the customer is buying.
  • 3c. The site records the transaction in the database.
• 4. Create a backend that periodically scans the transaction database, gets the receiving addresses for the pending trades and checks the wallets to see if the coins have arrived. When the coins for a trade have arrived, it sends the customer's coins to the address they provided.

There you go. No need for Binance. Is that what you are doing?


Of course, I'm sure that there is a lot more involved in the implementation. You don't want to get hacked or end up like Mt. Gox.

You have it backwards. Kristi Noem, the governor of South Dakota, blocked a law that would create a definition of money that excludes cryptocurrencies.

Why is the mining cost the "fair" value? Also, I have some bitcoins from when it cost $5 to mine a bitcoin. Does that mean that those bitcoins are worth $5?

BTW, the cost of mining and the price are correlated because the price acts as a ceiling on the cost of mining. In general, miners will not mine when the cost of mining exceeds the cost of buying.

BTW, there is a good reason for manipulating the timestamp. It is included in the hash, so changing its value is a cheap way to compute a new hash.

I don't think it is obvious to everyone. I don't think it is obvious to anyone. If it is so obvious, it should be easy to provide overwhelming evidence of manipulation.

I don't doubt that low-liquidity coins are manipulated. There are plenty of pump-and-dump schemes out there. But, you seem to be generalizing that to all coins.

I think that one reason that coin prices move in tandem is that people invest in different coins for the same reasons, so they make the same short-term investment decisions regardless of the coin.

As for being controlled, I don't see how that would be feasible without being publicly visible. There might be one or more coins whose prices are manipulated, but I don't think that manipulation can exist across many coins.