If the value is too low then just hold it, the pennies you'll get from their sale may not be up to the transaction fee.
Besides some of these airdrop coins get ridiculously pumped once in a while.
If the value rises well then sell them off and invest in better coins with a future.

This is a good article on the matter comparing scaling Blockchains and scaling DAGs.
https://medium.com/@lyaffe/scaling-a-blockchain-vs-scaling-a-tangle-8b7182eda980
DAGs have their own drawbacks with respect to DDOS and transaction propagation latency during high load periods.

To be fair, a 51% attack works by "withholding blocks" AKA private mining. It obviously won't work if the attacker broadcasts the blocks as he finds them.

BCT Name: Xynerise
Rank: Member
Current post Count: 256(+1)
BTC Address: 39twH4PSYgDSzU7sLnRoDfthR6gWYrrPoD
Wear Avatar: Can't
Wear Signature: Done

No.
Addresses have no effect whatsoever on block space.
"Addresses" do not even exist in the bitcoin protocol.

If they were in Core at the time of the fork then you can run for the addresses that contain the forked coins and then import the private keys into an SPV wallet of the forked coin.


If you already have a synced copy of the bitcoin blockchain then you can use it to bootstrap the other forked coin wallets because they share the same UTXO history as bitcoin before the fork.
Just follow the advice here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2816604.msg28871645#msg28871645

That's a terrible metric.
Addresses are created easily and most wallets do not allow for address reuse so you can't say that it's not just 10 people that have been using the bitcoin blockchain since 2009 with different addresses.

Go to Account -> Balance, then Withdraw.
Check the diagram below:

Relax, mate.
No one will attack your coin.
There is no point, really.
Lots of POW altcoins are launched daily and no one attacks them because there's really no point to.
Why would anyone waste hashpower they'd rather use to mine a profitable coin to attack a new and unknown coin?

A 51% attack doesn't necessarily need 51% of nodes to work.
51% attack needs more hashrate than the rest of the miners combined.

Even if you change the bitcoin source code and compile it, you'll still need to get people to install it which would be a very uphill task.
Also, if your revised bitcoin node does not follow the bitcoin nodes consensus rules, it will most likely be IP banned by other nodes it attempts to pair (peer)  to.
Any node software that does not follow the bitcoin consensus rules is NOT a bitcoin node, and it will form its own network.
For example, if your revised version attempts to spend more coins than inputs, the transaction will not be rejected by the nodes it relays the transaction to and the transaction will not be relayed to other nodes, therefore any node running your version of the software will form their own network different from the Bitcoin network.

After the first block reward halving from 50BTC to 25BTC in 2012, some miners patched their software to keep mining blocks with 50BTC block reward but the other nodes in the network just rejected the transactions and didn't relay it.
That is what will happen if your software changes any bitcoin consensus rules without you having majority of the node support.

It's possible, yes, but what would be the point?

Not possible at all
The Lightning Network runs as a second layer ON the bitcoin blockchain.
It's NOT possible to create a coin ON the Lightning Network.

However, other coins that share the same codebase with bitcoin (eg Litecoin) can run their own version of Lightning.

As you can read above, nodes are computers in a network -- in this case, the bitcoin network.
They form the basis of the blockchain.
All the bitcoins that exist exist as outputs on the computers that run the bitcoin core software, and all the transactions that have ever take place since the Genesis block in 2009 are stored.
Nodes perform an array of functions like validating and relaying blocks, etc.
You can see that nodes require a lot of storage (more than 150GB for bitcoin), and lots of processing power to validate blocks, and they must be online constantly.
These requirements are too much for a mobile device to handle so it is not possible to run a node on a mobile device.

Since when does blockchain.info wallet have segwit support?
I can't find anything about it anywhere, only articles from last year that they'll support Segwit and BCash in 2018

You can't force a code to be open source.
The person that deployed the smart contract does NOT have to make the source code available.
However, the bytecode of EVERY ethereum smart contract is always available and since tokens aren't arbitrarily complex, it is possible to reverse-engineer a token.

It should be possible theoretically, that a contract can be able to deduce the exchange rate of a token through Oracle's, however it is impossible for a contract to act on its own.
Contracts MUST always be called and they cannot call themselves so it's impossible for the token to make a transaction by itself without an external call.
Someone made an Ethereum Alarm Clock so you can schedule events to be called later.

When segwit transactions are related to legacy nodes, the witness data is stripped so they can be valid under the consensus rules that legacy nodes follow(i.e 1 million bytes block size limit) That was how Segwit was deployed as a soft fork.

 The so-called "witness data" is essentially the scriptSig(signature, pubkey, etc)
If the witness data isn't included in segwit transactions then how do you validate a transaction without the signature?
The witness data can be over 1 million bytes, that's how the block size increase segwit brings comes into play.
 There is no block size anymore with Segwit deployment, but block weight.
We get 2x the "block size" as you put it, because that that was the requirement

There is no BTX2X.
Garzik and DCG's Segwit 2x died a well deserved death before it launched.

There was a "relaunch" by a Russian scammer but AFAIK that didn't gain any traction.

You mean like a fork?
Bitcoin is open source software and anyone can fork it. This has been done many times over the years. Most times they change the name so people don't confuse it for bitcoin.
Unlike the recent spate of forks heralded by BCash where Roger and his cult are claiming it's the "original blockchain", the real bitcoin and Satoshi's vision ™>

We try to educate newbies not to fall for sure can tricks.

There have been forked coins whose sole intent was to steal private keys and hence bitcoins through their Trojan wallet.
The general rule of thumb for claiming forked coins is to send your bitcoin out of that wallet to one with a new private key before importing it into the fork wallet and treating that private key as compromised.


Code updates on the bitcoin core repo on GitHub, BIPs, etc.


The users running nodes do ultimately.
When there's to be a radical change its discussed by the Devs on the IRC (it's public and anyone can join), if the idea has been discussed and developed properly then there's a Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP) where the idea is fleshed out in detail with a proof of concept usually.
Before it's merged to the repo

Bitpay/Copay, and GreenAddress, I believe.

Depends on the number of co-signers you want, but you should do 2-2 or 2-3, so not everyone's private key is needed in case a cosigner loses their private key.

I believe the distinction is between full nodes and SPV Nodes.
Archival and Pruned nodes are subsets of full nodes.

Impressive.
According to Bitaps (https://bitaps.com/06d89bb591064c0c807ad2edb27656b49d4dae2f60181781d19b9939e7a09b8c), the transaction was confirmed in less than a minute.