Blocks in a fork almost always not have the same transactions. When a node sees a block that is on another fork, they will validate the validity of it. If its valid, they will evaluate the difficulty of the entire chain. If the difficulty of the fork chain is longer than their current, the chain will be accepted as their 'main' chain and the transactions that were included in the previous blocks in their previous chain would go back into the mempool.

If the fork is such that the difficulty is the same, they will wait until one of the fork is longer than the other, difficulty wise. The same thing would happen to the transactions as above. Transactions cannot be lost. It will be included in the chain or simply forgotten by the nodes/miners.

Hmm haven't we discussed this to death?

It is not possible for the police or any entity to tell, just by looking the transactions themselves. In fact, without any actual link to evidence, the transactions can't be identified. If the authority can get one of the addresses/transactions involved, they could get the whole link of addresses that are related but that isn't possible all the time and its rather inaccurate and useless.

GDAX probably misunderstood your message. If you've withdrawn the coins from Binance, Binance should be the one saying they can't reverse the transaction since they were the sender. GDAX should be the party that is able to fix this problem since they have the private keys to the P2SH Bitcoin address.

GDAX can use their private key to retrieve the LTC. Pester them more.

What is FUD about his post? Hmm its a free market and everyone is free to choose how much to pay and which to accept. Don't use Bitcoin if you want to deprive others of their choice.
I think your understanding is fundementally wrong. Decentralised means that there is no central authority that governs Bitcoin. It does not mean everyone should pay the same fee. I don't want to pay the same as someone sending a transaction that is bloated.

You seem to be trying to find faults (without proposing actual viable alternatives) to the problems. If you really don't like the concept, create a new crypto or payment system and we will see if your currency is flawless.

Bitcoin is more of a speculative currency than an actual one. Most actual currencies are backed by reserves. Gold is a physical commodity. In contrast, BItcoin doesn't actually exist physically. Its value is created by what people think it is worth. Mainly due to the supply and demand which is due to its scarcity.

The synchronizing is going to take forever since its constantly reading and writing to the disk. Why don't you consider pruning it? If you've got at least 550MB on your MacBook, you can prune it without sacrificing too much of the functionality.

Indeed. Most algorithms that were once touted as "ASIC-resistant" are not as resistant anymore. The development of ASICs would be viable for a coin that is so valuable. What most coins has done is to have an adjustable variable to adjust and render ASICs useless. They can be expensive to develop and they can't be used for a long time.

IMO, ASICs are fine. With CPU and GPU only coins, the possibility of botnets would still be there. One CPU one vote has never been a reality.

Not necessarily. In the future, the volume for Bitcoin might increase substantially and more transactions can fit inside a block. That means for any given block, more fees would be collected collectively. It would depend largely on how far the scaling has gone though.

If the efficiency of ASIC increases, the operating costs would be lower. If everything remains constant, then the difficulty would reach an equilibrium with the profits from the mining; if its too unprofitable, people stops mining and it becomes easier to mine and vice versa.

This is offtopic so move it to Meta if you don't want it to be removed.

Could you tell us which posts were removed? I guess it would be better to judge for ourselves than to listen to you criticizing the moderators and all. Based on our previous interactions, I can safely assume that the removal were justified.

Instead of acceptance, hasn't most banks actually discouraged people to use Bitcoin and some even outright banning the users whose transactions are associated with it?

Bitcoin is a great concept but possibly not better than the internet. How can something that is dependent on something else be bigger than the thing that it is dependent on? Internet came as more of a new technology for people in the early years. While Bitcoin is quite revolutionary in terms of the various kinds of things that is made possible, its not as impactful as the internet.

If anything, the fee is not indicative of how the developers or miners have been doing. Its a free market and they are free to decide how much to pay based on the transaction volume. Does the node trust anyone? That should be the main point of trustless.
Mining is not all about how fast your speed is. The speed is more about how fast it is, relative to your competitiveness. Bitcoin could go with a slower algorithm and still function. SHA256 was the newest standard for the SHA family in 2009. POS is whoever has the most coins win while POW is whoever is willing to invest and sacrifice their money for reward the most wins. With POS you don't have to incur any costs other than purchasing the coins and you won't lose any either.

Nice concept. It seems like the main point is that cold storage isn't safe when someone else has access to it. It seems like that would be the same with every wallet (ahem Ledger), hardware wallet or not. The whole attack hinges on the designing of the malware and I'm not sure how easy it would be.

The best precaution when using fully air gapped method is to just secure it in a safe, since malware attacks won't really be viable.

The design is pretty thoughtful IMO. It seems to be pretty complicated to implement a system which doesn't seperate Bitcoins into individual parts and UTXOs while still maintaining the difficulty of executing a double spend attack. Using the traditional accounting system to keep tab on every single address would be even more complicated.

Does an average joe need to understand how every single detail work? Probably not.

As far as I know, Bitcoin's reference nodes does not specifically check for invalid scripts for the output and the checking of address is mainly up to the wallet/software that created it. The reference nodes just checks the validty (eg. The amount of coins in the output is lower or equals to total value of output.).

The main problem is that the software wasn't tested by whoever did it and it went live on the network.

*Though as pointed out, it is nonstandard.

Loan is filled. Please pay back the loan within 7 days to either bc1qllfyz0tq2jlhkxr99uykghyyzymgqfdfe7hf8s or 1Yzig3e8vx79XyYMjJShk4yBPp1YcvPbQ.
TXID: https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/tx/da91b03c24a93a8b61260dcac1223f87588d077cdc42f6b5f6a087e7828701fa

I'll fill this for you. No interest needed.

If your wallet 2 contains addresses with the prefix of 1 and your wallet 1 is a 2FA wallet, then you didn't import the master public key of Wallet 1.

How did you export your master public key? Did you export the master public key of the cosigner instead of the wallet? IIRC, there isn't an easy way in the GUI for you to export the master public key (if its even possible).

They won't. As long as government exists, banks serves a purpose to the citizen. Governments will not do away with the paper money and they are unlikely to adopt a currency that is this volatile and virtually impossible to regulate.

In addition, the fact is, Bitcoin's adoption is still ridiculously low in the real life. It is very unlikely for mass adoption to happen anytime soon, unless the price somehow stabilises. Fiat would still exist and so will the banks.

I'm not sure if I've said it on this thread but yes I do agree with your point. However, the main point is, are they going to downplay the severity of the attack and say that Ledger is still safe to use? Even if none of the coins were stolen, it doesn't mean that the device wasn't secure at some point and the proof of concept doesn't work.

I personally wouldn't purchase anything from a company that advertises their product as having "robust safety features" while not being serious about the security of the wallet.

It seems like you don't own the addresses identified in the master public key.

The reason for it to return yes on your watch-only wallet is because your watch-only wallet contains that address but not the private key. Are you sure that you've opened the correct wallet? I don't think it would be possible for the master public key to be different after being imported. Can you try restoring your wallet using your seed?