I actually made a diagram that could be usefull once:


Basically, yes, you have to spend your unspent outputs to create a transaction in electrum funding an address from your core wallet (or vice versa). If you export your private keys from one wallet and import it into the others, you'll still be vulnerable to replay attacks.
After emtying your electrum wallet to fund your core wallet, you'll have to import your electrum private keys into a bitcoingold wallet, and also empty this bitcoingold wallet to fund a new bitcoingold wallet.. Only when all unspent outputs on both chains are used to fund a distinct address under your controll, and both transactions are confirmed, you are no longer vulnerable to replay attacks.

IF you either escrow the bounty + the 0.1 ETH that has to be mixed or if you pay in advance, i'd be happy to test out your mixer.

1. What do you like in a mixer
Answer:
Simplicity (no learning curve, easy to see how everything works), security (SSL certificate, no cloudflare, letter of guarantee, escrowed funds) and speed (mixing process should be finished in 15-30 min max, especially for ETH tx's)

2. What can we improve on the mixer
Answer:
Don't know yet, i'll tell you after i tried it out.. Like others have pointed out, a free subdomain does not improve the necessary trust level. There are also some spelling errors, and i have no idear why you'd want to know the user's sending wallet address. Also, the claim that you run 1000's of wallets sounds fishy to me.

3. What security and privacy measures do you take?
Answer:
I always use my hardware wallets to store larger sums, i only run my wallets on clean linux distro's, make sure everything is encrypted, use mixing services to make sure there is less chance of linking my wallets

Last but not least, i'd like to say that i have plenty of mixing experience. I've used bitmixer.io for years, at the moment, i'm using chipmixer, i've written reviews about mixing services in the past (don't know if i can share the link tough). I also have +0.1 ETH at hand, and i think i'm my seniority in the community is good enough for this task.

https://etherscan.io/address/0xd65400079adaba8cccad4f3d20d21f13b6240514#tokentxns

That's where i track any tokens for my eth addy. Just replace 0xd65400079adaba8cccad4f3d20d21f13b6240514 with yours and you're ready to go

At a certain blockheight, the fork will happen. At this point, the complete ledger is exactly the same for both forks. At blockheight + 1, there will be differences between both chains.
A fork has nothing to do with witch wallet you're using to manage your private keys and unspent outputs. So, it shouldn't matter where you keep your coins.
However, some exchanges/online wallets/gambling sites/... Will probably either refuse to split your coins, or they'll be lagging behind. So, if you keep your coins at an online wallet/exchange/gambling site/... You're 100% at their mercy.
Some of those exchanges will probably have their own rules, some will act very fast and give you and edge, some will steal your coins.

If you use a local (hardware)wallet, it's 100% up to you wether you split your coins, ignore the fork, take risks, play it safe,... Offcourse, this also means that if you want to split your wallets, you'll have to do this yourself, you can't make a thirth party do all the technical steps for you, altough some hardware wallets usually make it pretty easy to do a split.

Nobody is forcing you to keep those coins on an exchange. As a matter of fact, i always recommand to hold your coins on a local wallet, or even a hardware wallet (or paper wallet) if you have a large amount.

It's just wrong... If you controll any unspent output on the old chain, you'll controll the same amount on the new chain.
The only thing that can happen is that the value of the unspent output is to small to create a transaction, because it's not enough to cover a decent fee, or because it's considered dust... When holding BTC on an exchange, you are giving full controll to them tough, it's possible the exchange only credits your account if you have sufficient unspent outputs pre-fork, but that's not a technical problem, rather an exchange policy.

I actually have no idear what the future will bring, but i doubt we'll see an algo change in the near future. Even a discussion about how to solve the blocksize problem almost leads to a split in the community, so don't want to think about a discussing an algo change. Bitcoingold tried to do this, but they did it so poorly (in my opinion), not a lot of people even bothered to look at their fork.


Well, i certainly hope most CPU/GPU miners are actually mining altcoins. I know there are several altcoins that are still GPU minable, and some altcoins like monero are even CPU minable. That's what the piratebay is doing: they're mining monero... It's just the press that hears "monero" and writes "bitcoin" because they are ignorant when it comes to crypto currency.

This ^^^ is exactly the kind of discussion i wanted to stop in it's track. When talking about altcoins, sure, a cpu might have a function (i'm not into altcoin mining, but some altcoins might still be profitable whith cpu mining, don't know, beyond the point of the site). When talking about bitcoins... Well, just visit the link and see the mathematical proof that mining with a CPU will cost you money instead of giving you an income. Even if your power only costs 5 cents/kwh and you get your hardware for free, even mining BTC with the most power efficient CPU will be like flushing money down the drain.

I was so sick and tired having to repeat, time after time, that:

• you should not mine BTC with your CPU
• you should not mine BTC with your GPU
• you should not mine BTC with a cellphone
• you should not mine BTC with an old ASIC, unless it still has reasonable hashrate, you have free electricity and you got the ASIC for free

This is why i wrote a small tool that fetches the current diff, calculates the average block reward ( 12,5 BTC + average sum of fees over the last 24 hours) and applies this function: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=726962.msg8221939#msg8221939 to these numbers, then prints the outcome for a couple of CPU's, GPU's, mobile CPU's,...

I hope other people will point to this tool the next time somebody dares to claim that it's a good idear to start mining on your desktop. It basically proofs that it's not a good idear, so hopefully it'll stop any further discussions in it's track.

without further introduction:
https://www.mocacinno.com/nonspecialisedmininghardware.php

The tool uses blockchain's API for the difficulty and average fees. It also doesn't use a database, the hardware is just hardcoded into the script. If this page is loaded +100 times/day, i'll probably put the data into a relational database, and cache blockchain's api reply (so i only update the diff and block reward once every day).

If you'd like to help out by adding other hardware to the list, please do so in following format:

for example:

or

I haven't read the whitepaper of either of those coins, altough i seriously doubt they're using a POW algorithm that gives an edge to a mobile CPU. I can be wrong, but i seriously doubt it.

There used to be a couple of coins that had the same idear. Mangocoinz was one of them. IIRC, the coin was pre-mined by it's creator, and he created an app that would give you a portion of the premined coins for running the app on your cellphone while walking. It was rumoured that you mined mangocoinz with your cellphone, while in reality it was completely premined.

Like i said, i haven't read the whitepapers of sweatcoins and bitwalking, so i could be wrong here, but i'm assuming they have the same kind of deal. Either that, or the creator invented an unconventional POW algorithm, and he refuses to share the sourcecode, so it can only be mined using the binaries he/she is providing (that is a different theory to pull this one off).

This is wrong at some many levels... The video shows an SCRYPT miner, not an sha256d miner. So, even if the software was legit, it cannot be mining bitcoins.

Also, at 2,6 kh/s, you won't make anything, even IF the software was using the correct algorithm.

Why did you delete the post you made on the 9th of october, then just posted the exact same text you deleted earlyer?
Anyways, pls look at the reply i gave right above your post...

You're getting confused about the core concepts of bitcoin. A transaction is generated by a wallet and broadcasted to the network. If the transaction was valid, and "clean" (for a lack of better wording: basically, if it doesn't generate dust outputs, if it's inputs are found in the UTXO set, if the fee is decent,...), it will be broadcasted to +95% of the nodes in a matter of a couple of seconds.
At this point, the transaction will remain in the node's mempool untill it's put in a valid block, or it's dropped from the mempool, or it's cancelled (in case a transaction using the same unspent outputs is confirmed). But basically, if you have a "normal" transaction, it will be broadcasted to most of the network's nodes in a couple of seconds.

A valid transaction doesn't have to be included in a block in order to be valid.

The only thing that can happen to cause a "delay" is when your wallet (or wallet provider) doesn't broadcast your transaction immediately.



If said it before, in this very thread, and i'll say it again: bitcoin is not bound by a country's borders.

Please, read the thread before making these kind of replies. It has been stated clearly that you cannot mine using a cellphone.

Seems like sockstat doesn't exist on openBSD either  
Doesn't matter, this is all we need to know:


bitcoind is no longer running... I already had the gut feeling we would see this output, since there were no new lines in your debug.log

However, as to why it stopped... That's a different question... I don't see anything significant in dmesg.
Is there still space on your disk?
df -g => look for the partition that holds your home

Other than that, you can look at the system logs, and see if there's something in there

Or, maybe you can run bitcoind on the foreground in a different terminal, and see if there is output when/if it's killed (just put a # in front of daemon=1 in your bitcoin.conf and start the daemon without the --daemon option)

Sorry, i tought you were running linux (not many people on this forum run openBSD, so i wrongfully assumed you ran linux), but most of my commands don't work on BSD... I'll update this post in a couple of minutes with compatible commands.

What i already see is that since you first posted a debug.log, it seems your daemon stopped synchronising. My best guess would be that bitcoind was killed for some reason.


Edit
The FreeBSD (hopefully also openBSD) alternative of my question:

Disclaimer: i didn't have an openBSD machine running atm, so i didn't test out these commands... They can't harm your system, but it's possible they won't work due to invalid parameters...

execute following commands, and post the outcome(exept from the last command, you'll have to use ctrl-c to stop it), remove the password from the bitcoin.conf output :



normally, you do not have to enter any credentials when using bitcoin-cli, as long as you're using the same user that was used to run the daemon. Unless, offcourse, you changed your bitcoin.conf AFTER you started the daemon. In this case, the daemon will run with the old bitcoin.conf parameters, while bitcoin-cli will use the new parameters.

If you enter daemon=1 in your bitcoin.conf, the startup parameter --daemon is no longer needed (but i does no harm).
If you use the default rpc port, there is no need to redefine it in your bitcoin.conf (but it does no harm)

You are correct, i didn't think about the aspect of a centralised system having to broadcast the transaction. But in this case, there still isn't a transaction delay, it's just a crappy centralised online wallet.
The person that had to pay the OP had a choice of using a decent desktop or hardware wallet, if he chose to use a centralised system, he cannot pass the blame to the bitcoin network. He either has to switch wallets, or he has to take it up with his online wallet provider. He cannot tell the OP he's not receiving his tx because there is a delay. (in my opinion).

Don't kid yourself. Bitcoin is pseudo-anonymous.
Anybody can see which unspent outputs are used as inputs by a new transaction, and which address got funded. By seeing which unspent outputs are combined in a transaction, addresses can be coupled to wallets.

Since a lot of exchanges started to use KYC regulations, and everybody and their mother are logging ip's, allmost all your exchange activity's can be traced back to you.

To make things worse, as soon as you buy a physical good using BTC, you have to enter a valid address, pointing directly at yourself.

Even mixers don't provide 100% safety, since you don't know who's operating them, and by the ever increasing field of data mining and blockchain analysis, to some point, it's even possible to join together mixer's inputs and outputs (or so it seems... I've never done this myself, but i've read that theoretically, it's possible).

As for the OP's question: i've bought some marihuana seeds and a knife using BTC... It's not really illegal in my country (they were both purchased on legal webshops, using my real name and address), but those are the most grey-area things i've ever bought with BTC

It doesn't really matter...
The difficulty adjustment makes sure that on average only one block is solved every 10 minutes.
The block reward is hardcoded, and halves every 210,000 blocks. The reward started at 50 BTC/block, but after 2 halvings, it's now 12,5 BTC/block.

Sure, a miner's bruto income will rise the more ASIC's he buys (unless the diff goes up more than can be covered by the additional hardware), but this doesn't matter in this case.
At this moment, on average, 12,5*6*24 BTC will be brought into circulation every day, by buying or selling of hardware, a miner can only influence how much of these BTC goes to him.

It does not matter if the miner that solved a certain block is known or not, it does not matter if private keys are lost, the bitcoins are brought into circulation, that's all that counts.

Only when a miner decides not to fund his mining address with the full block reward, bitcoin gets taken out of circulation.
If i were a miner, and i would generate blocks with a coinbase transaction funding my mining address with 12,499999999 BTC, my block could be valid for the network, but everytime i solved a block, i'd make sure that in the end (after the last halving), there would be one satoshi less in circulation.