This heavily depends on the merchant where you have ordered and what kind of payment processing system they are using.

Your best bet would be to directly contact the support and depict your case. Suggest them to make another transaction containing the difference.
Most merchants are flexible enough to accept it. But ask first!


Another question would be, whether you are able to pay the difference ?
Are you able to send (withdraw ?) such a small amount ?

If you could export the private keys (which i heavily doubt with wirex; but didnt use them yet) you could create an appropriate transaction.
But since this basically is like an exchange (right?), you'll have to pay fees + minimum amount of withdrawals ?

Note, that the 1.44 billion $ is the trading volume from USA on localbitcoins.
This is - by far - not the overall trading volume.

You can view the daily volume here: https://data.bitcoinity.org/markets/volume/30d.
Yesterday, within 24 hours, about 160k BTC were traded (about 1.031.200.000 $ with 1 BTC being worth 6445$).

Localbitcoins trading volume is relatively small compared to those from centralized exchanges.

Exactly this.

People seem to have completely forgotten about this.
Most only see bitcoin as toy to get rich quick. But they don't understand the true value.

Look at Greece for example. They restricted the maximum amount of withdrawals to 50€ per day.
They basically held the money of their customers hostage. It didn't matter anymore how much money 'you had'.
In the end the bank had it all. And in the end, they decide how much you are allowed to withdraw at what time. And if they don't like your reasons to withdraw the money, they can easily freeze it.


With bitcoin as a global tool for transfer of value, all of these problems are no longer a problem. I definitely believe bitcoin will become a 'standard' form of payment. At least (or especially) on the internet.

Did you cancel the transaction once you have seen you can't set enough decimals ?
Or did you broadcast a transaction with a wrong amount ?

If you didn't send any transaction yet, do what AdolfinWolf said and get another wallet which lets you adjust the amount precisely.

If you have already sent a transactions (which hasn't been recognized by the merchant), you'll have to contact either the merchants or payments processor's support.
They have to check it manually to (probably) send the coins back to you, or they send you another invoice for the missing amount.

That's a good point.
Currently, the bitcoin network consumes more energy per transaction than banks.

But if you'd compare this all with the LN being used as proposed (assuming the development progresses as expected), i'd be sure that the bitcoin network would consume by far less energy for the same amount of transactions.

This of course does require the LN to work as expected and to actually be adopted. Whether this will really happen in the future is unknown. Only time will tell if its going to work as expected.
One thing is safe. If it is going to deilver what it promises.. scaling, fees and energy efficiency shouldn't be any reason for FUD anymore.
And banks will be way less efficient compared to the capability of the proposed network.

Why should one sell now because the ETF got rejected?

IMO this whole ETF thing was way too overhyped. Bitcoin has not been created to be used as a speculative investment, which unfortunately is the case currently.
Additionally the ETF got rejected quite often yet. So that wasn't anyway surprising at all.


The future of bitcoin is completely unaffected by this event. The dollar-price may vary a bit now, but that shouldn't have any bit influence.
I'd say the future consists of further developing the network, improving the protocol (e.g. schnorr) and building the LN to a massively scalable payment network.

Whether an ETF gets approved or rejected, does only have influence in the short term. In the long term the technology is the important factor.

Bitcoin transactions are final. Visa's are not.
If used in daily purchases (and proper implemented), accepting 0-conf payments is absolutely fine.
They are marginal slower than visa payments.




Volatility will decrease with adoption.
The more people adopt bitcoin as a payment system, the lower the volatility will be which then again attract new user.




Scaling is taken off-chain.
With the LN all of these scaling-debates finally should have an end.

When LN is ready to be released and people are starting to use it, the average fee for your transactions will decrease.
And so will the confirmation time. You'll have instantly confirmed (not yet settled on the blockchain) transactions happening.

While it is true that keeping electronic devices offline does increase the security a lot, it does not automatically mean that it is unhackable.

Even an offline system does leak information. Whether in form of processing time, electromagnetic fields, etc.. is another question.
But these side-channel attacks are not pure theory. Successful attacks are definitely a possibility.


AES, for example, can be attacked through cache-timing. The reason for this is that the AES algorithm does use secret data as the index of an array.
Since the access time of an element of an array is dependent on the index, this leads to a possible scenario where an malicious actor could try to decrease the search space a lot.
This attack requires physical access to the machine (or an identical copy of the machine) and access to the same AES implementation.

This shows that even an offline system can be hacked. This depends on a lot of factors.
Such an attack might only happen if someone is targeting you and is ready to spend a lot of resources.


IMO nothing really is unhackable. It all depends on the circumstances.

Unfortunately the only way of getting your coins back is to link the addresses to a real identity.
This can happen through law enforcement agencies and their IP's or through any other sources.
Without this, the chances are pretty low.

Regarding the tracing, did you check whether the address which 'might be part' of the scammers one does have transactions related to the known scammer addresses ?




Bitcoin is NOT anonymous, not at all. BTC is pseudonymous.

Addresses can be linked together building entities with traces in between of them. Proper chain analysis can definitely gain knowledge regarding transactions happening on the blockchain.

I guess you are trying to bruteforce a private key (known first char = 5 and length of 51 chars) ?

Basically you would have to guess the correct key out of 2^256 possible ones (which is practically not possible).

Since you are looking for a private key in WIF format, you'll have to add 1 byte at the front. Then put the first 4 bytes of the double sha256 hash at the end (this is the checksum).
And after converting it into base58, you will have your private key in WIF format (starting with 5.. ).


Fortunately, there is not enough energy on this planet to fuel the machines needed to bruteforce this search space.

Well, it actually depends on how you define censoring.

Miner do choose transactions based on some properties. And the most important one is the fee rate (sat/B) payed.

Since all miner have to agree, there needs to be an incentive for all of them. And all miner do definitely benefit from higher fees.
So most do choose the top X transactions from their list (ordered by fee rate) from transactions from the mempool.

They might not censor transactions from/to specific addresses since an incentive for all miner is missing here, but as far as all of them can profit, they probably always 'favor' transactions based on some properties.

This definitely is doable. You might simply want to do this with JS or PHP.
Then just host it and open source the code.




The signing and address generation should be done on the client side.
Your server should only be providing the required information (balances of given addresses, service to push the transaction, ...).




Besides all sensitive information always being processed client-sided, you'd need to create your backend which interacts with the core node to retrieve the information.

Blockchain.com (previously blockchain.info) basically does that with the exception that they are storing encrypted copies of the private keys.
The better approach regarding security would be to not store these information on the server (e.g. like MEW with a wallet file / seed).

It is. It does not belong into the technical support section.
It belongs into the Altcoin discussions section.

The technical support section is for:

While this might be nice to have in terms of the attitude that governmental approvals have never been expected to happen and that bitcoin does not need any 'official' approvals, it probably would harm the market a lot.

Unfortunately the majority of people invested into bitcoin are only looking to make fast gains.
They support each proposal which could bring new investors (or better: their money) into the market. And they sell the very first moment some news against new money flowing in are published.


In my opinion bitcoin doesn't need any approvals at all. Bitcoin shouldn't be used as a mean of high speculative investments at all.
I'd favor bitcoin being used as a currency and means of payment. Rising in dollar-value through adoption and technological performance, not because of rich people playing a game to get even more rich. But unfortunately this is not the case.

This does only apply if you are calculating using dollars.
If the whole calculation is being done with satoshis, you would pay the 50k satoshi the steak does cost according to the blackboard.

Unfortunately this only works with BTC being able to be used to pay for the restaurant owner's costs. Which would first require BTC to have a lower volatility and be widely accepted.
This on the other hand wouldn't create such a big span from 45k to 55k sats though.


So actually, this is an issue until we have reached mass adoption. Afterwards these problems will disappear.

I guess this depends on the definition of 'decent trading volume'..

ANY crypto can lose a big % within a few minutes.

It does matter a lot what coin you buy or when you are entering. Especially in short-term trading.
Decent volume alone is not enough to call an investment good or stable. The demand is a way more meaningful parameter than the trading volume.

With the current situation - where most alts are bleeding and declining in price each day - one should be very cautiously and confident regarding their altcoins invested in.
The low-quality projects will decline in short-term and never recover in long-term. While good projects will decline in short-term but eventually succeed in long-term surpassing their current value.


IMO, picking ANY coin as long as it has volume, is pure gambling.

The easiest way probably would be to verify at https://tether.to/.
Unfortunately the verification process takes some times. But afterwards you will be able to easily buy/sell USDT for USD.

Another option would be to buy BTC with your USDT and use an exchange which has BTC/USD traiding pairs (e.g. kraken or bittrex).
This, IMO, is the most convenient way to sell cryptos for fiat. Even without using tether.

You seem to be missing a few files. 
Did you check whether the needed files (correct names) are inside the correct directory ?

Did you follow the build process written on github ?

Who said it is an issue ?
This isn't an issue at all. It is necessary.

The adjustment each 2016 blocks is to keep a 10 minute average.




Changing difficulty each block is a horrible approach.
Mining a block is based on luck. And in a period with 2 or 3 blocks being mined successively the algorithm would adjust the difficulty to a level which practically wouldn't be mineable anymore.
Not to mention what kind of potential for abuse this offers.

That is the reason the interval of 2 weeks (2016 blocks with a 10-minute block time) has been chosen.
To adjust fast enough to not create a death spiral and to adjust slow enough to not get affected too much from short streaks with multiple blocks caused by 'luck' or an heavily increasing hashrate.




 




An algorithm for difficulty adjustment should be a working feature (e.g. BTC). Not an issue or something 'necessary' which needs adjustments and optimization to somehow work stable (e.g. BCH).

You can also just import the private keys. Create a new wallet by choosing 'Import Bitcoin addresses or private keys'.
You just have to tell electrum how to handle them (clicking the 'Info' button on import screen).

Place p2wpkh-p2sh: in front of your private keys (one per line) and it should work. (e.g. p2wpkh-p2sh:KyjHQ9JdAAPkrnLvpnwx7Uvpys3HHQN6ubKSB5vnwx7UvpARjwYZ).