Kog is correct, you're not.

The validation in Bitcoin Core and similar other wallets will check each and every transactions for their validity. It is simply impossible for someone to broadcast a transaction that does not follow the network rules to the network and expect anyone to accept it. It won't be relayed and it won't be accepted, its that simple.

51% attack doesn't involve anything invalid or the breaking of rules. 51% attack is just the downside with the way that the system is designed and it is not possible to be avoided. Bitcoin hinges on the fact that whoever has the largest POW is the correct person. 51% attack is when a miner attempts to spend the inputs of a previous transaction and use their block to essentially "replace" it. You cannot break any of the network's rule (ie. create coins out of thin air), or else you're on your own fork. Please read the post that has been written thoroughly.

You don't. The block files are pretty useless after you've verified them and have gotten the chainstate and other essential information. If your computer can verify its legitmacy, there is no problem throwing them away. You could have problems when importing addresses, etc. None of the potential problems actually affect the security; could just cause some inconvenience.
Yes. If everyone pruned their blockchain, then it would be a huge problem. Since the wallet prune itself as you get more blocks, no one would ever see the entire history if that were to happen. And yes, it would compromise the security greatly in that case. IMO, pruning is just for people who wants to run Bitcoin Core and to support the network, not really that much as to helping the network (debatable but thats my opinion).

You can't really add more nodes. Bitcoin Core limits the outgoing connections to 8, unless you somehow modify the code and compile it yourself. You're correct about the last part however.

IMO, neither the number of peers nor the quality of peers is much of a concern. Bitcoin Core wouldn't connect to peers who won't relay blocks and the speed of the transfer is usually much slower than the validation speed. The validation speed is almost always the bottleneck. You would experience significant increase in speed if you increase your dbcache, if you have enough ram.

Yes. It can happen. There is no mechanism that prevents this from happening in an infinite time space. In fact, more than a private key can correspond to a single address. If that ever happens, then all of them can be used to spend the funds in that address.

The probability is not just low, its incredibly low if your wallet has a functional random number generator.

I doubt that the 2FA seeds would be compatible with most of the other HD wallets, if at all. The 2FA seed contains the 2 of the master private keys instead of just one. Electrum also doesn't use a standard accepted by most wallet to generate the seed.

Are you sure you're able to get the private key for the wallet? Multisig wallets doesn't work the same. You'll have to wait for a trustable fork of Electrum to be out. The BTG version of Electrum isn't trustable, AFAIK.

Assuming that you're using Windows with default settings, go to %appdata%/Bitcoin directory and swap out the wallet.dat there with the intended one. The next time you start Bitcoin Core, you would need to key in the password to unlock it.

Just download and import your seeds into electroncash directly. There is no point downloading Electrum first. You should ensure that the addresses doesn't have any Bitcoins and never to use that set of seeds ever again. I wouldn't consider it secure after using it on something else other than Electrum.

Mining is definitely more expensive than buying them directly. The mining hardwares aren't cheap at all and they can be pretty slow to ship. If you were to factor in the difficulty, you probably would have a hard time trying to get ROI from that. They generate loads of heat too. Mining is pretty much only for the big players who can afford to have big farms of ASICs and get them at a discount.

Yes.

Bitcoin is a currency and it isn't really a viable investment option. The only reason why Bitcoin was so popular was because most people wanted to get rich with Bitcoin. People are now seeing that it isn't really a good investment and the regulations are proving this correct. Bitcoin will lose its popularity until somehow, everyone treats it as a currency instead of a speculative investment.

Are you mining them on a pool? If you are solomining, then it is possible to configure the coinbase to display some information about which miner has mined it.

To be honest, I find it very difficult to differentiate the mining rewards between the two miners. Why do you need to be so particular about it?

The third option to import is to import individual addresses and private keys; not for you.

What did you use to generate the seed? Some hardware wallets could be using differing standards/derivation paths to generate your addresses and that could be a problem. If you've generated it using Electrum, choose Standard Wallet and I already have a seed after that.

Solely for the purpose of allowing people to connect to your node.

The connections are usually bi-directional which means that you are still sending and receiving transactions and blocks to all of your connections, including the ones that you connect to. If you were to allow people to connect to your node, you're helping the network even more. Normal users don't have to do this unless they want to help the network by allowing more people to connect to their node.

For P2SH, one of the component of scriptsig structure is the redeem script and the redeem script contains the criteria or the conditions for which the UTXO associated with the inputs can be spent. For a transaction like that to be valid, the script must consist of various data script to be evaluated to true.

With reference to the question I've answered yesterday[1], the redeem script of the address is actually just 51. The redeem script translates to the address itself and when its put to the script, its evaluated to OP_TRUE which thus makes the transaction valid.

However, without the signature, it is considered non-standard. There is no point trying to broadcast a transaction from such an address, unless you are a miner. It's also pointless for any client to create addresses like that, unless their users wants to lose money intentionally.

[1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3121601.msg32299509#msg32299509

---

Yeah, kinda weird with the surge in the questions about this topic.

Anyhow, I won't be answering any of these again. Seems like theres more than enough resources on this.

The fees are pretty reasonable in general. Segwit addresses can potentially have a lower fee when compared to a similar legacy transaction. Segwit transactions has their weight counted differently which results in a "discount".
Yup.

Every service and wallet that I'm aware of supports P2SH addresses, nested segwit or not. P2SH has been around for a long time.

Nope. You can just hit enter.

I would seriously just recommend you to import your wallet.dat by going to %appdata%/Bitcoin and replace the wallet.dat in it. You might not have exported all the private keys and switching the wallet.dat is the only way to guarantee that you won't lose anything.

I'm pretty certain that the wallet.dat does not display the data in human readable format. If anything, the best chance you would have is to double check your key to ensure that its keyed in correctly. The key should have 52 characters.

Just to be sure, the command is (replacing the private key accordingly.)
Do you still have the wallet.dat of the previous wallet?

Does your private key start with either 5, L or K? If it isn't, that isn't a Wallet Import Format private key and it won't be accepted by Bitcoin Core.

Where did you get your private key from? Which application is it?

If you have an incoming connection, then your node is probably configured properly to accept incoming connections. Can you go to canyouseeme.org and key in port 8333. If it shows that its open, then it isn't much of a concern.

Have you adjusted any of the connection parameters (i.e. ports and maximum number of connection count)?

Broadcasting a non-standard transaction isn't hard. It's just that it probably won't get confirmed and no one else would be seeing it.

If you want a non-standard transaction to be confirmed, you would need the participation of the miner. You're better off contacting various mining pools for their help. F2pool[1] accepts non-standard transactions IIRC, but you need to ask macbook-air to get the referral code.


[1] https://www.f2pool.com/pushtx

Yes, it is certainly a strange transaction. The reason the scriptsig is weird and small is because it doesn't contain any signatures. It's a special case since transactions without any signatures shouldn't be accepted. The scriptsig has to return true for the transaction to be considered valid and in most cases, the condition (ie. transaction is signed by n-of-m parties for multisig) has to be met.

Take the transaction and decode it.

You will notice that the script line is "0151". The redeem script for that address is basically the number 51. It's the hex for OP_True and it is thus valid without the need for a signature.