The truth is that the topics in those sections are usually spammed to death. Most of the replies in the topics are either said a million times or are just copy and pasted. The merit system is discouraging such behaviours and anyone doing that would just encourage more spam.

You don't post intentionally to get merit. You'll get it, if you deserve it, wherever you post.

No. It isn't that exclusive being Legendary. Accounts are still being sold, Legendaries or not. Some of the members in that tier aren't particularly knowledgeable either.

Making the legendaries merit sources would just encourage account sale and help the account farmers. Its too much of a mess and it should never be given out freely.

No. Changing Bitcoin to a completely new algorithm isn't easy and it isn't something that should be attempted without sufficient justification.

The main problem with coins that are exclusively only CPU and GPU mineable is that they are an especially desirable target for botnet owners. Since not many people own ASICs, the impact of that isn't big. Companies and government can better attack Bitcoin if that were to happen; not everyone would own an ASIC.

Furthermore, the ASIC industry is huge and the miners play a part in the value of Bitcoin. The value of Bitcoin would likely tank if its changed to a more CPU friendly algorithm. It has been discussed from time to time. Lock the thread and read the others.

No. The block subsidy isn't going to last forever, else the coin cap would be infinity.
Yes.
It depends on a block by block basis. Check the block explorers and you should get an idea. Miners can choose what transactions they want to include and the transaction fees can be ridiculously high sometimes, especially if there are loads of unconfirmed transaction.
Transactions are still transferred through internet (probably). Transactions would still be included in the blockchain by the mining process in the future, same thing.

User: 25espia1994

Post:

Copied from:
https://www.investopedia.com/tech/how-does-bitcoin-mining-work/

They are given to the miner whose block has your transaction inside.

Miners can claim the transaction fees by including the block reward + transaction fee to an address in their coinbase transactions. They can choose to claim less than that but they cannot exceed it.

As long as your IP is blacklisted, you have to pay the fee. It is not a mistake, it happens if you use Tor exit nodes or known proxies too.

Ask your friend to register using his own house internet or pay the fee.

"Normal" transactions and Coinbase transactions are pretty different.

For "normal" transactions, the inputs are referenced from another transaction and so on. If the blocks were to get orphaned, those transactions are still valid and they can still be confirmed in another block. 6 Confirmations is a decent number of confirmations to deter attacks without 51% of the hashrate.

For Coinbase transactions, there isn't a referenced inputs for there. If the block somehow gets orphaned, any subsequent transactions from that coinbase transaction would immediately be invalid as well. This could affect many transactions, as long as they are linked to that coinbase transaction. The more confirmations there is, the harder it is to happen.

That's before the miner succeeds in mining the block. The coinbase and any other transactions are added before the miner hashes the block header and finds a hash matching the target. If you were to change anything within the block, the hash of the block changes completely.

What do you actually achieve by doing that?

Yes. The existence for the keypool previously is mainly to ensure that the backups that the user makes will be at least valid for 100 or 1000 transactions by default. With the introduction of HD wallet, they don't matter anymore since the keys generated will be consistent across every of your wallet files, no matter how many transactions. This is correct only if you haven't changed your password after saving the wallet files.

As far as my research goes, I've established that Cubit is an online wallet. The problem with online wallet is that the owner does not have access to the private keys and with these kind of problems, they are trickier to solve. If you have the raw transaction of the pending transaction, you could rebroadcast it and I doubt you do.

The thing that they should do is to craft a new transaction and broadcast it. No one else other than the people at Cubit can fix this problem.

Contact the sender.

If you can't find it on block explorers, it is likely that the transaction won't ever be confirmed. The likely scenario is that the transaction was dropped by most of the nodes across the network and miners could've dropped it too. If you can't see it on block explorers, it is the sender's fault. Pester them and request the raw transaction for it.

Where did you send it from?

If you can't even find it on the block explorers, it is certainly not Coinjar's fault and there is absolutely nothing that they can do to help you. If you can't find it on the block explorers, then the transaction does not exist in the block explorer's mempool or the blockchain itself. It might be dropped and you need to get your sender to either rebroadcast it or make a new transaction.

No advantage. As I've always said, Bitcoin does not have a concept of address. The transactions are basically creating outputs with a requirement to spend them, ie. the signatures. In a transaction, the inputs are signed individually and the input script each contain the respective public keys, even if they are the same. Hence, an input will be considered the same, regardless of which address is comes from. This could change with Schnorr signature in the future.

Its mainly for privacy reasons. Wallets usually display a new address after the previous address has had a tranaction. This discourages address reuse, which tackles mainly privacy reason while also addresses (negligible) security risks.

AFAIK, no wallet actually deletes those addresses and they are still stored within your wallet and are still usable. Bitcoin Core, Electrum etc, all has this behavior.

Try increasing your DB cache, if you have the ram. The rate increases by an incredibly amount once you increase it. Mine was about 0.3%/hour and it went to 5%/hour. The only side effect is that more of your ram would be used but otherwise, its a pretty reasonable tradeoff.

It wouldn't make it that much harder for account farmers. If you were to nuke those brand news, they would just post a random post somewhere in the offtopic or something and they can effectively circumvent this restriction. As far as I can tell, aged account which isn't at least a full member isn't particularly popular anywhere, especially with the introduction of merit system.

They aren't noticed till they are brought to attention by either the victims or someone who isn't so gullible.

Accounts like: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=494508

Deleting them would result in another person being able to use them and attempt another scam. There isn't a way to separate a brand new account and a nuked one.

Why would you want to free them up after a period of inactivity. I don't think getting a specific nickname here is that important. If anything, it would just add onto the forum's workload to implement something like this.

The brand new accounts doesn't affect anyone in any way.

Some of those accounts could've been nuked before after say, a spam or an impersonation attempt. If they were to be freed up, then it would open up opportunities for others to impersonate that person.

Blockchain.info probably gains quite some profits from the services that they provide. It isn't wise for them to stop supporting Bitcoin and abandon their profits altogether. To be fair, they did implement the weight units fairly promptly.

You'll be surprised at how much they care about testing stuff thoroughly before pushing it out.

---

---

Either way, no one should be caring about Blockchain.info and they're pretty irrelevant.