First of all: welcome to the forum.
I immediately want to correct your assumption: the MOST common HD wallets need ONLY the seed phrase, there is no need for the passphrase.

The seed phrase is used to create an xprv. Using a derivation path, private keys, public keys and addresses are derived from this xprv.

if you want to know more, i'd advise you to read the bip
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0032.mediawiki

I assume you've read only the very first post, then just typed your reply without reading what others have said to the OP?
I advise you to re-read the full topic, the correct answer has been given in the very first post, then it has been repeated a dozen of times in the following posts.

@OP: please lock this topic, the answer was given (about a dozen times), there is no need to keep this thread open.

Why don't you use a simple python script to derive addresses from an xpub?
Just create a new wallet with an SPV wallet like electrum or a ledger, export the xpub, move it to your server, then just derive a new address for each customer.

This way you won't rely on a thirth party, and you have full controll over everything that happens, while still having maximum security (since your xprv will never touch a webserver)

no worries, this stuff gets pretty confusing
As for the rest of your post: thanks for the clarification... I haven're read up on the S2X fork (yet), so this information is pretty usefull to me.

I don't think there was any confusion
The OP asked if he had to chose "legacy" or "segwit" wallets on his hardware wallet in order to get "free" coins after the segwit2x fork.
I then proceeded explaining that bitcoin cash was a hard fork, it now has it's own blockchain. I explained that segwit was a softfork, so both "legacy" and "segwit" wallets share the same chain.

So, i explained that when the segwit2x hard fork would happen, it did not matter if you chose "segwit" or "legacy" as your wallet type in your hardware wallet. After the segwit2x hard fork, transactions generated by both the "segwit" and "legacy" wallet's unspent outputs *should* be spendable on both the old chain, as they will be spendable on the segwit2x chain.

This is what i wanted to convey, and i think it's still valid....

However, you are completely right about the replay protection. I haven't dug into segwit2x, but if it doesn't have proper replay protection, you have to be carefull.
There are ways to circumvent the problem tough...It's not even hard to do:

how to avoid replay attacks:
you have a wallet, containing the private keys to spend unspent outputs spendable by address X. there are 2 unspent outputs spendable by you.

At a certain block height, there is a hard fork. You now have 2 unspent outputs on chain A and 2 unspent outputs on chain B.
IF you buy a pack of cigarettes using the unspent outputs on chain A and fund the seller's address directly, the seller can replay your transaction on chain B, and steal your funds... He can export his private key from his wallet on chain A and import it on a wallet on chain B...

However, if you create a NEW wallet on chain A, and a NEW wallet on chain B, then spend your 2 unspent outputs on chain A to fund an address generated by your new wallet on chain A, and do the same for chain B (spend all unspent outputs on chain B to fund an address from YOUR new wallet on chain B) the risk is gone...

Why? Because the cigarette seller has a wallet on chain A. You fund his address by using the unspent outputs in your NEW wallet. If the seller replays this transaction on chain B, it will not work because on chain B, there are no unspent outputs to spend.. The new walllet on chain A should have completely different addresses than the new wallet on chain B, unless you were *dumb* enough to generate an SPV wallet and used the same seed phrase to generate the new wallet on chain A and B... But i hope nobody will make that mistake.

Still not completely correct. Think of a bootstrap as a single file containing all blocks up untill a certain point. The OP is providing a fast server where you can download an archive off all blocks up untill last week, so you don't have to download these blocks from your (slower) peers one by one.
He won't save anybody any diskspace. You'd still have to download the bootstrap from his server and store it on your pc. His aim is to save people some time when they initially sync their wallet.
If you want to save diskspace, you can either run a pruned version of the blockchain, or go for an SPV wallet like electrum.

It's a noble initiative from the OP, but like others have pointed out, at this point in time, syncing is reasonably fast... On the other hand if the OP's bootstrap files save a couple hours for a couple hundred people a year, he did some good work 

Yes, but this has nothing to do with the way chipmixer works... It's just bitcoin's protocol. If your transaction size goes up, so does the recommanded fee.
As a matter of fact, you have to realise that if you controll a lot of very small unspent outputs, eventually you're going to have to pay a high fee to spend them. It does not matter if you have to pay the fee while funding a mixer's address, or if you have to pay this fee while paying for a pizza.

I think that this is what BillyBobZorton means, yes.

The thing is, bitcoin cash was a hard fork. This basically means that at a certain block height, bitcoin cash nodes started enforcing a new set of consensus rules. Bitcoin cash blocks could no longer be validated by non-bitcoin cash nodes. The end result is 2 completely different chains.
Up untill block x, both chains contain exactly the same blocks, and exactly the same transaction history, but starting from block x+1, each chain has it's own blocks and it's own (unique) transaction history. "core" nodes can not validate BCH blocks and vice versa.
Since both are now completely different crypto coins, but share the same transaction history, if you had 1 BTC before the chain split, you automatically have 1 BTC on the bitcoin blockchain and 1 BCH on the bitcoincash blockchain after the split.

Segwit was a soft fork, this means there is no chain split. Basically, legacy nodes get a stripped down version of exactly the same blocks as segwit nodes. So both have the same transactions in their blockchain, and exactly the same transaction history.

So, theoretically, if a new hardfork would occur on a chain during a softfork at height y, all previous transactions up untill this height would be in both chains, this would include transactions generated by both segwit and non-segwit wallets (legacy nodes don't receive the witness data, they see the transactions as anyone-can-spend outputs and redeems). Offcourse, i do not know if the chain that forks off has wallets and nodes that know how to handle historic transactions made by segwit wallets. I have no idear if they'll fork from the chain from a legacy node or from a segwit node... If they fork from a legacy node, they'll have blocks with segwit transactions but without witness data... I have no idear how they would handle those.

Conclusion : we need Achow101, DannyHamilton or somebody with more technical in this thread

If i'm not mistaking, it shouldn't matter... Both legacy and segwit wallets use the same underlying blockchain (segwit was a soft fork). So, in case of a new hardfork, it shouldn't matter if you used a segwit or a legacy wallet, all transactions for both wallets were recorded on the same blockchain, and after the fork those transactions should be visible in the forked coin's wallet... Unless i'm missing something here.

my first instinct would be to suggest upgrading to 2.9.3. Version 2.7.9 is allmost a year old.
Next, have you restarted electrum, have you tested multiple servers, is your network OK (can you do a telnet to port 50001 of the chosen electrum server), is there still enough diskspace (df -h)?

I think you're confused here... OP is providing free bootstraps, so other people that want to run a full node can use his bootstraps to speed up their sync process. It has nothing to do with hardware wallets.

@OP: if you have specific nginx related questions, you can shoot me a PM. I've never configured nginx on windows before, but i've done plenty of installs on *nix systems, so i might be able to point you into the right direction once in a while .

The correct answer was given by nitego:
The L3, just like all other recent bitmain hardware, has a controller embedded on the ASIC.

You just plug the power in, connect the network port to your switch using a standard utp cable and it's done. You only need a laptop or PC to surf to the webGUI to set everything up.

Any laptop, desktop, phone or tablet will do, as long as it's able to connect to your network and open a browser.

Once the setup is done, you don't need the laptop/desktop/phone/tablet/server/thin client any longer.

You are NOT using the laptop/desktop/tablet/phone to mine, only to setup (chose the pool, set some parameters,...)

For you information: all three of these devices are ASIC's, and the chances of ROI'ing (paying back your investment by mining) for all three of them are close to 0. The only way of actually making any profit (at all) is by getting them (almost) free and by stealing electricity (which i don't endorse)

If you were forced to chose, i'd defenately go for the gekkoscience compaq... But don't expect any profit from using it. The compaq is great for learning how to mine, for insta-mining new sha256d altcoins, or as a lottery mining device...  But that's it.

Here's the full profit calculation based on the following aspects:

• static diff (instead of rising diff)
• static btc price (instead of fluctuating)
• static block reward
• power usage of 3 Watt (so, i disregarded the driver completely and rounded the power usage DOWN)
• power price of 10 cents/Kwu (most people pay more)
• no shipping costs for the device
• no downtime... ever

link to calculator website

As you can see, with these conditions, you'd make 77 cents/year (after power costs have been deducted... You'd make $3.43 if you'd steal your power, but getting caught stealing power would probably ost you your job or worse). At 77 cents/year income, it would take you 65 years to pay back the stick...
In reality, the diff will probably rise. The block reward halves every ~4 years. The price fluctuates. The stick + driver use more than 3 Watt. You'll (probably) pay more than 10 cents/Kwu. You'll (probably) have to pay S&H. Your stick won't run 24/7 for 65 years.

So in reality, you'll probably never ROI by mining BTC with the gekkoscience compaq... The other ones in your list are even worse.

For the last couple of years, a new forum software is being developed (epochtalk).
Since the moment the development of epochtalk started, it was clear that no more development would be made for the old smf.

If questions like these used to come, i'd usually give this answer and just stop writing, however, lately i start to wonder if and when epochtalk will ever be completed...

Make sure you do all necessary calculations before attempting solo mining.... Solo mining at the current diff is more or less like buying a lottery ticket.

I'm disregarding the purchase cost and the power cost in this example, since those ones don't change your odds of finding a block.
At the current diff, it would take you (on average) 3918 days to solo mine a block using the most efficient ASIC currently available, the bitmain antminer S9 ( ref)
This means that if ~4000 people were running an S9 in their basement for a full day, on average, only one of them would solve a block.
It also means that if you solo mine with a single S9, and the network stays completely status quo, on average it'll take you about 11 years to solve a single block... Factor in the fact that the diff usually rises (it has some dips now and then, but the general trend is up), and the block rewards halve every  210,000 blocks (~4years)...

My conclusion would be that you either have to see your one S9 as a lottery machine and solo mine, or you buy at least 100 S9's, so on average you'll find about 9-10 blocks a year, or you join a pool with your S9 and steadily make    ~0.09BTC/month untill the diff adjusts.

It exhibits several signs of a ponzi... I didn't completely investigate but:
- the profit is unrealistic
- bonusses
- no clear contact info
- no endorsement of ASIC vendors
- no mining addresses/proof of mining

I think the odds of this one beying legit are low...

this ^^ is correct,
there is a non-technical workaround tough:

* You have 0.5 BTC and 0.5 BCH.
* Exchange 0.5 BCH on an exchange and receive 0.055 BTC.
* Make sure you withdraw this 0.055 BTC to a local wallet that allows you to export your private keys BEFORE the day of the fork
* Once the fork happens, you now have 0.555 BTC + 0.555 B??
* If you really want to have BCH, deposit 0.055 BTC  to an exchange and exchange it back to BCH.
* You now have 0.5 BTC + ~0.5 BCH + ~0.555 B?? (minus exchange fees, which can be nulled by buying at a dip and selling on a peak)

I once wrote this snipplet in python, can't find the original link anymore tough (it must have been posted somewhere on bitcointalk) :


python 2.7, pybitcointools installed (IIRC)

If i'm not mistaking it's just an altcoin that wants to ride on bitcoin's success by using bitcoin's name and just attaching "gold" at the end.
I can't find the website in my browser's history, but if i'm correct, it's an alt that switched to an algo that is currently only cpu/gpu minable.

Euhm.... What???
What does sql injection have to do with changing your username? Afaik, there are no vulnerabilities in smf that allow you to change any of you account parameters that way.