As long as there is some form internet access (even with censorship), it is easy circumvent them and use Bitcoin.

IMO, it isn't feasible for Bitcoin to exist without the internet. If internet cease to exist, it would be largely impossible for people to download the entire blockchain without taking an agonizing amount of time. Using satellites and radio antennas to form a web and broadcast transactions is possible but it is just too slow for blocks to be relayed. There would be bigger problems than Bitcoin if internet gets shut down completely.

It isn't necessary for them to launch a 51% attack against Bitcoin at all. Launching a 51% attack against Bitcoin wouldn't actually kill off Bitcoin but it could just spin off another fork of Bitcoin for the community to use; one that is ASIC resistant. In addition, there isn't actually any incentive to take the efforts to amass such a huge amount of computing power from the ASIC farms to attack Bitcoin. If they want to push for their own currency, they could easily just continue what they're doing right now, to block off Bitcoin related sites using their firewall and promote their own online currency.

The motivation behind a 51% attack for a state attacker isn't huge given that the gains is largely intrinsic.

Confirming this. Thank you.

Looking for this again. 0.15BTC loan for a month with an interest of 0.015BTC. The address (bc1qupxdkw5p5vx093sphecla9zgydaq3r265y6pdr) will be the same as what was stated in the signed message.

Loan Amount: 0.15BTC
Reason: Need to purchase some stuff in BTC for christmas
BTC Address: bc1qlxl6g802rc754yttxglvs4mrdr6nt6e3qjxhzh
Duration: 1 month

Nothing. They can attack the network by mining on the same fork. The attackers just need to be in agreement.

Nothing that they can do. With 51% attacks, you can't change the network rules. You would mainly only affect the transaction's confirmation and the ability to double spend.
It'll be pretty screwed. If BTC somehow gets attacked, the main damage would probably be done with the first double spend. Subsequently, people would probably realise that it is under attack and people would switch to another coin which has a different algorithm. This could render the attack pretty useless but it'll still cripple bitcoin.

Yes. That is to prune the wallet.

Yes. The private key is the only thing required for you to access your addresses. As long as you have your private keys, you can import it into another wallet and use it.
Yes. You can use bitcoin.conf and use prune=X parameter to customize. The X is the space in MB. It doesn't really affect how much of a space you've allocated unless there is a major block reorganisation and that the blocks needs to be rolled back or if you want to import another wallet.dat.

---

The main caveat with pruning is that you'll need to synchronise the whole wallet again if you want to import a wallet.dat that was last synchronised beyond your range of pruned blocks.

Enabling the pruning option means that the client deletes the unnecessary parts of the blockchain as it synchronises. The client will retain the information that is relevant to the addresses in the wallet.dat while discarding the rest.

Your wallet cannot have the full transaction history without the client synchronising from scratch.

I doubt most of them are criticising the security of the wallet but they're talking more about the use of the phones as a secure hardware wallet. It is perfectly alright to use your bank accounts on your phone because the nature of bank transactions allows users to reverse transactions easily. The extra feature isn't necessary since you can use a wallet from any android phones.

Its a good thing to have the additional security features but the portability of a mobile phone doesn't make it ideal to serve as a hardware wallet.

I'm a firm believer in the fact that hardware wallets should be like a cold wallet; keeping it in a safe place and not bringing it everywhere.

When your wallet is brought everywhere, it opens itself up to a lot of attack vectors (mainly physical attacks). It would be way easier to target you as your wallet is easily accessible. My take is that those wallets should just be taken as a normal wallet but with the additional security features. A hardware wallet should be a dedicated device used solely for that purpose.

It does promote Bitcoin to some extent but I suspect that most would just overlook that feature because they have no need nor incentives to use it. Its more of a way to entice those using crypto to buy the phone.

The main problem is usually with the storage space. Given that the current size is about 240~ish GB. You would probably be using the bulk of your remaining space on the blockchain. If you're only looking to use Bitcoin Core as a wallet, you can still prune the blockchain. This would still benefit the network in general, just to a lesser extent.

Transactions won't be invalidated. If the block gets orphaned, the node should put all of the transactions in the orphaned block into their mempool again.

It is possible to extract the private key without synchronising the wallet. Go to Help>Debug Window > Console.
Type the following commands:
If it is encrypted, type:
walletpassphrase PASSWORD 600

If not, skip that and go directly to this step:
dumpprivkey bc1

Replace them accordingly and you should obtain your private key. After that, you can import it into a wallet like Electrum.

It's not exactly feasible for nodes to be able to obtain the IPs of every node, especially with dynamic IPs which means that the nodes would have different IPs every now and then. It would be impossible for them to tell which one is active if they do not connect to each node every now and then. And that is infeasible as well.
It's not possible for every node to keep the same transaction history without some sort of consensus. Having each node operate independently of each other means that no one can be sure if they have the full transaction history.
Which means, the one who has the most nodes earns the most. Who is going to determine who gets the "participation bonus"? No one can keep track of how long which node has been online for without a constant connection and a central authority. This defeats the privacy and decentralised aspects of Bitcoin.

The problem most likely lies with your transaction than with your client. For some reason, your transaction might be non standard and thus it doesn't propagate well within the network. If you want to eliminate this possibility, use an online transaction broadcaster with your raw transaction for testnet and try if it works.

I'm looking for someone to reship some shoes from me. The shoes are from Nike.com and they DO NOT take known reship addresses or PO boxes. Hence, I'm only looking for people who are willing to ship it to their home address before shipping it to me.

Do send a PM to let me know your postal code if you're interested.

Implementing any protocol changes would likely be met with significant resistance from the community in general. Changing the mining algorithm would definitely result in a lot more resistance from the mining community and it would probably result in no change.

Putting that aside, the main factor that is securing the network right now is the cost of the resources. While the new mining algorithm could make it more expensive to mine, it could potentially result in centralisation whereby the richer could afford to control a larger percentage of the network. In addition, even if you eliminate the cost of electricity, the infrastructure and the cost of land and labour are still cheaper in countries like China and it won't have that much of an impact.

There is no doubt that crypto are a suitable candidate for terrorist financing for the terrorist organisations due to their various features. Given the low acceptance rate and volatility of the crypto, I doubt it would be wise for them to be using crypto as a main source of their financing. It would still be more viable for the terrorist organisations to trade their resources to fund their operations.

The exchange have AML and KYC policies which could help to mitigate the chances of people purchasing Bitcoin specifically just to donate to the terrorist organisation. It would be unwise and inefficient to use Bitcoin as the main donation platform.

Which is why most bank statements are now digitalised. There is no doubt that there are various tangible advantages that banks have over Bitcoin but with respect to the transaction volume verses the amount of pollution produced, traditional methods still champions crypto in this aspect.

Not exactly. R-waste is a big problem in general but the fact that ASICs can only do one task makes it extremely inflexible and makes them obsolete faster. Farm's do not usually try to recycle them due to their high cost.

It doesn't matter if its generated by renewable energy or not. In countries like China, a lot of the farms uses renewable energy. It is mostly due to their proximity to such facilities. However, most parts of the countries are still largely dependent on coal as a method of producing electricity. The energy that was utilised could very well be used to supply to others and the dependence on coal would be much lower. Until the whole world is using renewable energy, Bitcoin would still have some contributions to the pollution, albeit indirectly.

Its important to note that due to the nature of ASICs, it is difficult to repurpose them for anything else. This makes it more economical to dispose them directly as opposed to recycling them. It thus contribute to the problem of e-waste.