Then the miners will move or evade the ban. Look at China for example. They banned bitcoin mining last year, there was a very short lived dip in the hashrate, and then a quick recovery and growth from the starting point. The miners simply moved to other countries (including here in the US), or ignored the ban. Today, China still accounts for ~20% of the global hashrate, so the ban hasn't exactly been effective. And it made literally zero difference to China's electricity consumption.

The exact same thing will happen in the case of a US ban. Temporary dip in hashrate followed by a return to the previous steady growth, with absolutely no difference in nationwide electricity consumption.

Sure, but I was talking about the scenario where the energy supplier is buying back excess green energy being produced by individuals. In this scenario, the supplier would be able to broadcast to the meter of opted in customers within the necessary geographic area that they would be paid at premium rates for any electricity they sell back, allowing each individual's system to work out whether it was more profitable to keep mining bitcoin or to shut down their miner(s) and sell the electricity back instead, and then vice versa when the rates drop again. Could all be set up to happen automatically, providing a great reserve of green electricity the grid can draw on during periods of peak demand.

It can obviously use all energy, and it will pay for whatever energy happens to be the cheapest. But as I outlined above, it can incentivize green energy in a way that few other industries can, by virtue of bitcoin mining requiring very little additional infrastructure, being entirely mobile, and being able to ramp up and down instantly without any long term negative effects (you can't just power down a whole factory, for example, without incurring significant costs in starting it all back up again in the future).

For all the faults of blockchain.com (and there are many!), they do at least use standard BIP44/84 derivation paths for their legacy and segwit addresses, so this won't be the issue. Blockchain.com does allow using both legacy and segwit at once though, which obviously Electrum does not, so it could be this issue as nc50lc has pointed out above.

Should be easy enough to do. With digital meters which send readings directly to the energy company, then the energy company could equally send updates on the price they will pay for electricity back to the meter. A small additional bit of programming to pull the current bitcoin hashrate and current bitcoin price from internet, and it is easy to work out the profitability of mining versus selling. And the user can of course set the limits they like, as some may wish to continue mining for the long term gains even if selling would be more profitable in the short term.

I'm not 100% sure about that. It's very strange that both Transaction A and Transaction B paid the exact same amount in fees. It could be that two different people/bots were watching the account as you say, and they were both happening to use the same generic sweeping script which therefore set the same fee, I suppose. Or perhaps it was a single person/bot whose script had a bug causing it to broadcast multiple identical transactions (except that it used a new receiving address each time).

We'll never know, but the answer is academical at this point I suppose.

Now there's a neat idea. Most states (and probably most countries?) have a set up where if you are generating your own electricity at home, then any excess you produce and cannot use/store is sold back to the grid. Depending on your net metering tariff, you will probably be more profitable using that excess electricity to mine bitcoin than you will be by selling it back to the grid. And that can tie in brilliantly with the demand response system I outlined above. Sudden surge in demand for extra electricity? Then the grid operator can up the rates at which they will buy your electricity from you, making it more profitable for you to stop mining bitcoin and start selling your electricity to the grid.

A network of homes all producing their own renewable energy and with a small bitcoin miner to act as a demand response back up. Amazing decentralization for bitcoin, optimal profits for the home owners flipping between mining bitcoin and selling their excess, and a robust 100% renewable electricity grid with a huge reserve capacity it can draw on when required. Win-win-win.

Bitcoin mining is uniquely placed to facilitate and enhance the move towards 100% renewable energy.

With standard electricity production, such as via burning coal or natural gas, supply can be adjusted to meet demand. More demand on the network? Burn more stuff. Less demand on the network? Burn less stuff. Straightforward.

With renewable electricity production, this is not possible. How do you create more wind for turbines or decrease the amount of sunlight hitting your solar panels? You can't. So you need to do something known as demand response. Demand response means changing the amount of consumption, rather than the amount of production. So whenever the power companies have a low amount of production with a high amount of demand, they can pay customers to reduce their electricity consumption. Bitcoin miners are well placed in such a scenario to be able to immediately reduce their electricity consumption without any lasting effects on future operations, and so provide a good demand response buffer for the network. This is already happening in places like Texas.

And then look at the flip side as well. When demand is low, with traditional electricity production then the power company scales down their operations. Again, they can't do that with renewables. So instead they generate a bunch of electricity which goes to waste, they have to dump, and they don't get paid for. Instead, bitcoin mining comes along and can immediately ramp up its consumption to utilize this otherwise completely wasted energy. The miners are happy since they get cheap green energy, and the green energy company is happy since they make money on electricity which would otherwise be completely wasted and earn them not a single cent.

And so not only does bitcoin mining facilitate a robust renewable energy network, but it even incentivizes production of new renewable generation. I'm not going to build a big solar panel system if I know that the local grid will only utilize ~50% of the energy I produce and the other ~50% is going to be completely wasted and earn me nothing. It won't be profitable. But if I know that at times of low demand there are bitcoin miners who will scoop up every last kWh I produce and I'll get paid for 100% of the energy I produce, then that becomes a much more attractive investment. Bitcoin mining is fairly unique in that it can be located anywhere there is electricity being produced - right next to a solar farm in the middle of nowhere is just fine - whereas most other industries need a lot of surrounding infrastructure (transport, water, waste/sewage, etc).

Ahh, there's your answer then.

The invalid transaction you linked to there was timestamped at the same time as OP's original transaction (17:20). Call this Transaction A. The transaction which confirmed was timestamped 10 minutes later, which is the same time it was confirmed (17:30). Call this Transaction B.

Both these transactions were likely broadcast seconds apart. The invalid Transaction A was seen by blockchain.com, and so it was timestamped at the time it was first seen (17:20). However, this transaction was later rejected when the conflicting Transaction B was confirmed in block 754,092, which is timestamped 17:30. The first time blockchain.com saw Transaction B was when it received block 754,092, since it previously rejected Transaction B for being a double spend and conflicting with Transaction A, which was already in its mempool. And so it gave Transaction B the timestamp of 17:30, despite Transaction B being in other nodes' mempools prior to this.

This explains why blockchain.com's timestamps are all over the place and confirms OP's story that the funds were swept immediately.

Here you go: https://archive.ph/KUP67

It is of course complete nonsense. I don't see the point in pointing out on this forum for the 1000th time that bitcoin uses less electricity than everything from watching porn to running clothes dryers - everyone who has spent more than 2 minutes looking in to knows that bitcoin is a tiny fraction of a single percent of global electricity use. And I also don't see the point in pointing out yet again that bitcoin mining uses more renewable energy than any other sector on the planet, because again, this is common knowledge to anyone who cares to look in to it.

But these such articles are not targeted towards individuals who will bother to look in to it themselves. These such articles are targeted at people who believe everything they read online without a second thought. The government need something to direct people's anger at when they inevitably miss all the renewable energy and lower emissions targets they have set, and they also obviously have a vested interest in bitcoin not being successful. So someone in the press department put two and two together and realized that they could use both these issues to their advantage. And so we see articles like this, getting the average moron angry about bitcoin and giving the government a future excuse for their own failings.

Are you sure both wallets are generated from the same seed phrase?
Are you sure that your blockchain.com wallet does not also include any separate imported addresses which are not covered by the seed phrase?
Are the funds spread across many addresses? It is possible that there are some addresses beyond Electrum's gap limit.

Go to the "Addresses" tab in Electrum and the "Wallets and Addresses" page in Blockchain.com's options and see if all your addresses and values on each address match up.

It would likely be unwise for them to start discussing court proceedings while the trial is ongoing.

It's not just a protest, but a fund raising campaign. So far the community has raised over 70 BTC and a further $75k in support of paying Hodlonaut's legal fees: https://opensats.org/projects/opensats_legal_defense

---

Back on topic now: Does anyone know what format the trial is taking next week? I understand CSW's team will be calling more paid shills witnesses who will also not provide any verifiable evidence also say CSW is totally amazing, but I don't know what day that will be. What else is planned? When is the trial due to finish?

Also: https://learnmeabitcoin.com/technical/transaction-data

There is a 10 minute difference between when blockchain.com's site says it first saw those two transaction. This is not the same as there being a 10 minute difference between those two transactions being broadcast. There could have been problems with propagation, problems with blockchain.com's node, problems with its mempool, problems updating their website, and so on. The point is that transactions are not timestamped; only blocks are timestamped. You can pay attention to when any specific node first sees a transaction if you like, but that is not representative of the wider network. The only network-wide consistent way to timestamp a transaction is by the block it was included in (and even then the block timestamp can vary by around a 3 hour window when compared to the actual time).

Or perhaps OP's transaction was immediately spent by another transaction, and then 10 minutes later when it still hadn't confirmed the attacker replaced that transaction with a second higher paying transaction. We don't know.

This is exactly the reason why CSW chooses to fight these battles in court rather than via independently verifiable means. He knows he cannot provide any evidence he is Satoshi (because he isn't) via any of the methods the community are interested in, such as moving coins or signing a message,* and so he chooses instead to use a system which can be fooled with technobabble and by those with the most money to pay.

I agree, but now that such cases exist, it is in all our interests to support Hodlonaut (or anyone else fighting CSW) and to start to put an end to CSW's nonsense and threats to others in the community.

I'll link again to Greg Maxwell's Reddit post: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/ws8wfd/starting_september_12th_in_oslo_norway_hodlonaut/ikxqxoo/

---

*Of course accepting that a valid signature is necessary but not sufficient in the quest to prove someone is Satoshi.

You mean recover your wallet file from a back up every time you want to use it? Ignoring the inconvenience involved with that, it doesn't solve the problem being discussed. Your back ups are still vulnerable to attack, and the wallet can still be attacked whenever you have recovered it to your computer.

Anyone who trusts Mashinsky with a single satoshi going forward is a moron. But given that even after multiple centralized lending platforms collapsing there are still plenty of people using other such platforms like BlockFi, I'm sure Celsius v2 will have a steady stream of morons willing to lose their money.

Because he is doing exactly what the big players want him to do. He's screwing over all the individual users and funnelling their money to Celsius' directors, executives, large shareholders, etc. This is what happens when you are an unsecured creditor in a bankruptcy case. You are literally bottom of the list to get back anything at all.

Because it is completely centralized and controlled by a single entity who can do anything they like with it. Here is another example: https://www.theblock.co/post/129133/tether-freezes-over-1-million-usdt-single-address. Note this is the case for almost all so called stablecoins - completely centralized and can be frozen even within your own wallet: [UPDATED] PSA: Most Stablecoins Can Be Frozen, Even in Your Own Wallets

Not true. There are many ways a wallet can be hacked, especially a closed source mobile wallet like Trust wallet.

You don't. You don't even need to look at your private keys. Just write down your seed phrase on paper.

You are being disingenuous here.

Bisq, Electrum, Bitcoin Core, Linux, Tor. All of these things are open source and can be independently reviewed and verified. If you cannot do it yourself, then the trust you have is now decentralized among the entire community instead of in a singe person or entity,, since you can be fairly certainly if any of them tried to do something malicious then it would not even be merged. zkSNACKs coordinator can do anything they like with your data and not only can you not stop it from happening, but you don't even know it is happening.

You can't say that everyone should (rightly) use an open source Linux distro over closed source Windows spyware in one post, and then immediately say that using open source bitcoin software is no better than using closed source Wasabi spyware in the next post.

Which is kind of the point, I guess. The only "evidence" which is in CSW's favor is things which cannot be verified. Private "signing" sessions, testimonies of friends and family members of things which happened in private and of which there is no hard evidence, his claims about stomping on hard drives, etc. All the actual evidence which can be independently looked at and examined - previous statements CSW has made in writing and on video, the forged emails and documents, the fake signatures, etc. - all show CSW to be the fraud that he is.

Twitter user DanDarkPill has made a great little video of my favorite snippet of the case from yesterday: https://nitter.it/DanDarkPill/status/1570289532838506496#m

---

Due to my own oversight in failing to make this thread self-moderated when I created it, I have elected to lock it and to create a new self-moderated thread to continue the discussion without spam and trolls here: Hodlonaut Trial

Split from this thread: We are all Hodlonaut

For the background to the case, read the above thread and also this website: https://www.defendingbtc.com/
If you would like to donate to the OpenSats Legal Defense Fund, for Hodlonaut and future lawsuits against CSW, then do so here: https://opensats.org/projects/opensats_legal_defense

#WeAreAllHodlonaut

---

I split this thread from the other one so I could self moderate it going forward. Spam and nonsense from individual claiming to be Satoshi themselves will be deleted with impunity (unless they provide an appropriate signature, of course ).

Twitter users who are worth following during the trial:

https://nitter.it/bitnorbert
https://nitter.it/SpecificMills
https://nitter.it/kristiandoble/
https://nitter.it/wizsecurity

There are also a number of unedited videos from inside the courtroom courtesy of Bitcoin Magazine available here: https://www.youtube.com/c/BitcoinMagazine/videos

---

Edit:

A resounding victory for Hodlonaut and a complete loss for CSW. Read from this post onward for discussion of the verdict: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5413844.msg61153381#msg61153381