There was no block size increase needed last year.
The solution already was there, but noone made use of it. Segwit.

Big exchanges didn't use segwit, didn't batch transactions and a quite heavy spam attack was going on. This all led to a heavy increase in the average fee (to get your tx into the next block).
In the end you choose which fee you want to pay.




It is not 'safe'.
It can not be regarded as safe without proper testing.

Btrash Bcash forked and increased their blocksize to 8mb without proper testing. Their network has still not been tested yet.
You can't predict how the whole network reacts to 8mb blocks. The network latecy. The increase in processing time for every node, the eventual abrupt termination of processes inside a node because the I/O operation took 8x longer than before.. you just don't know.

Without a testnet and proper testing over a long period the majority of btc user probably wouldn't support such a massive change in consensus rules.




Bitcoin does not have any 'devs'. It is a community driven project.
The user decides which consensrules he follows.

If you think you can improve bitcoin, do it. Make it better, convince everyone why it is better and maybe the majority will follow your 'upgrades'.




No. You got that wrong.

It does NOT depend on the size of the blocks. It does depend on the amount of transactions which fit into a block.
The amount of transactions can be increased with a bigger block size. But saying 'it is entirely dependent' is just wrong.

Segwit for example introduced weight. On average there are about ~2,2 times more transactions in a block now.
With 100% segwit usage there would be 4x more transactions inside a block compared to legacy transactions. Without a hardfork.




No, it wasn't.
Why increase the blocksize with a hardfork (and risk getting just another btrash coin) if fees are at 1 sat/B for 1 block confirmation? Can't get lower..




Maybe, maybe not.
Only time will till which innovative technologies appear to strengthen bitcoins functionality.

I do only know one: Claiming shit forked coins.

Although they impose quite a huge risk of losing any holdings (i.e. 'newcomers' trying to claim then without any security in mind), they are still very popular.
A few bucks seem to be worth more than security and privacy.




The reason you want to have your BTC on an segwit address is that you have them already there when fees got 'unreasonable' again.
If you still have to move them to an segwit address you do have to pay the higher fee. This fee would be even higher if you didn't consolidate your UTXO's by then.

May i ask why you are using blockchain.info?
Why don't you just use bitcoind (which gives you full control) ? Especially when running a service, i wouldn't recommend blockchain.info at all..




This 'feature' is called 'Double encryption' and can be found on the My wallet account details page.
Make sure to call walletpassphrase(password, timeout) with your password and a timeout in seconds before calling other commands.

This information is included in the link you have posted. Read the 'Security' paragraph..

How is 'block stream' involved into this debate?
It is the users (everyones) choice which way of scaling to support.

As long as one miner does not upgrade to 8MB (a hell lot of nodes didn't do this) while others do, there is a hardfork.
A hard fork occurs when no consens is reached. This was the case.




There is still only one bitcoin.
Those shitcoins named 'Bitcoin INSERT_ANYTHING' are NOT bitcoin. They just make use of the popular name to gain awareness/attention.




On-chain scaling is NEVER as efficient as off-chain scaling solutions.
And increasing block size is a very very bad approach to scaling (if not the worst one).

Increasing blocksize to scale sounds trivial. But this is just a short-term scaling. You can't always increase the blocksize. This does heavily lead to centralisation.

Raising the block size may be anything but elegant.. It is the exact opposite..




Funds can always be accessed in no time. I am not sure what you are talking about ?
The 'access' time depends on your storage type and wallet.

You can edit the coin you want to watch here: 


When you call getCryptowatchPrice(exchange, pair) you are the function 2 parameters (exchange and pair).

In your Sheet you simply just call the function with the pair you want to check.
E.g. getCryptowatchPrice('binance', 'xmrbtc') to see the XMR/BTC pair on binance.


You can read more about the cryptowat.ch API here: https://cryptowat.ch/docs/api.
And more about how to create own functions in a google sheet here: https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/create-custom-functions-google-sheets/.

The chance of a crash is always present. But i doubt we will see another fall to 5k.

The market seems to move in cycles. So while it is possible that BTC is going to move sideways for a few months (or a year) now before shooting up again, i don't think it will fall below 6k for more than just a few minutes.
Since adoption/usage/awareness is rising steadily it is even hard to imagine a sideways moving for several months.

While there probably won't be a heavy bullrun this year, i still think that the price is going to rise slowly but steadily (particularly because of increasing interest/awareness).
I am pretty sure of that if bitcoin hits a new ATH (regardless whether it will be this year or in 5 years), we won't see < 10k $ ever again..

This is a bad idea. You might once find out what happend. Maybe something trivial.  
If you post it publicly here the chances are high you won't get anything (if it can be recovered at all).

Did you start a thread here with useful information regarding your problem? Mind giving me the link?

How exactly did you try to add this private key to mycelium?

Did you do the following? (If not, try it):

• Create a new wallet in mycelium
• Go to 'menu' (3 dots at the top right corner) -> 'offline wallet'
• Scan the QR code of your private key
• Mycelium should detect it as an encrypted private key
• Enter your password
• Wait for mycelium to open.. might take a while.

Bitcoins are not stored inside a device. The private keys, which are necessary to use/move the corresponding UTXO's (which have been confirmed on the blockchain), are stored inside your device.
A simple backup of your private keys (or better: seed) can counteract a loss of bitcoins if the device breaks.




Split your holdings. Majority in a secured cold wallet and a small stack on the mobile/desktop wallet for daily purchases.
Or: Use a hardware wallet with seed being backed up in multiple secured places.

The key is to reduce the possible attack surface to a minimum.

And use your common sense. BTC's not only get stolen through digial/physical theft, but also through shitty ICO projects.

The lightning network (or scaling itself) does not necessarily imply a reduction of the blockchain size.
A reduction in overall size of the blockchain can only be accomplished (excluding forks) by non-full blocks.

Now, lets pretend the LN will work as intended and revolutionize online payments.
If people only use LN, and blocks are not full through all the funding/withdrawing, why would someone who is just joining the action choose to open a channel just to close it afterwards again if fees are already at < 1sat/B?
This person probably would just make an on-chain transaction. I don't think we will see blocks only filled 50% in the future.


The LN has been developed as a scaling solution for bitcoin. From 3-4 tx/s to 1000+ tx/s (with the same growth of blockchain size) is pretty impressive in terms of scaling.

While you are right with your statement, a small 'correction':
An ALU can consist of multiple ALU's. A 32-bit ALU, for example, consists of 32 1-bit ALU's in a parallel circuit.


@OP:
If you do understand the same under the term ALU as 95% of the population (excluding the people who think its being talked about aluminium foil), then the answer is: No, an ASIC does not have an ALU.

How is a block weight increase obvious ? On-chain scaling can never be as efficient as off-chain scaling solutions.
Reducing transaction size is just one way to approach the scaling issue. There are several others, reducing the amount of transaction (e.g. through the lightning network) for example.


@OP
A ledger size between 10 and 100 TB shouldn't be a problem at all in 120+ years. Neither storage- nor network-wise.
The storage technology is growing way faster than bitcoins blockchain.

What kind of output do you get? No at all?

According to the source code (https://pastebin.com/S8WARrRn):


You should get at least the output of the overall time it took to run the script.

If you do see how long it took overall (in source code: printf("%fs\n", (endTime-startTime));) the program went through all combinations and didn't found the correct private key.
If you do NOT see this output the script somehow (1) is not done yet or (2) aborted.

This script requires you to know the exact location of the missing chars. It will iterate through the positions marked with an '-' only.

---

Yes, this is only for ethereum.

Most, if not all, service provider to make error checks on addresses a customer enters.
Unfortunately a lot of them didn't update their code yet to accept bech32 addresses (starting with bc1..).
For the best convinience you should use the nested segwit (P2SH) address (starting with 3..).
This will give you the benefits of segwit (lower fees due to a smaller weight of the transaction) almost as profitable as bech32, but with guaranteed compability to any online service provider.




There are some more who do show/index bech32 addresses. Blockchair and blockonomics for example.

You have mentioned quantum computers.
If they would exist (they don't) they would be used to attack the ECDSA... not mining.
ASIC's are made for mining.




You have mentioned quantum computers.




1 or 2 'supercomputers' won't achieve as much hashing power as bitmain, for example.. with all their ASIC farms.
If you want to mine bitcoin efficiently, you need an ASIC.
Because thats what they do. Thats the only thing they can. They are made for the only purpose of calculating sha256 hashes.




Theoretically, maybe.
Practically not going to happen.




Or they rather choose to ban the possession/usage of cryptocurrencies, instead of investing billions into trying to stop something which won't be stopped.
Imagine governments spending all their money on building the biggest mining factory. A simple hardfork would completely destroy their whole 'investment'.




How is that now related to a backdoor?

While i think that there is a high probability of whales manipulating the market, because (1) they have the power to do so and (2) it makes them even richer, i don't think each small pump or dump is related to them.

I can't imagine those 'whales' do have nothing better to do than manipulating the market 24/7.
There may be coordinated pumps or dump (which can be achieved with a relatively small amount of money in this market), but not every price movement is because of whales.
Shitty news, FUD, trust does play a big role too.

This would mean he has to convince every miner to not confirm his transaction.
If one single miner decides to include his transaction into a block once he finds it, this is ruled out.
I think this does not fall under the 'Can I..' category.




This wouldn't work because transactions can be created locally and then broadcasted via several different methods. Either via core (directly to the network), via electrum server, via online-services, etc... It wouldn't be possible to block every possible way of broadcasting a transaction.


I agree with your other points. But these two don't seem realistic to me.

I agree with the most here that there isn't enough news that you could present in a daily show.
A weekly 30 minutes show seems to be perfectly suited.

I think a mix between some topics would be a nice approach to catch as many people as possible.
Maybe divide the show in ~3 parts

• News regarding bitcoin, exchanges, crypto
• TA / Price analysis
• Some technical background; maybe explain one single mechanism each week

A TV show is a very good aproach to get bitcoin in everyones head.
Even if they only see it while browsing through the channels. This alone does increase the publicity.

Quantum computers are not some magical machines which compute anything you want in no time.
They have to be researched, built, tested, .. It will tage ages until quantum computers might be able to break bitcoins security.

Neither does the government spend massive amounts on money to build asics to let them stay unused until they may decide to use them..




An attacker with 51% can't do anything he wishes.

Source: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weaknesses#Attacker_has_a_lot_of_computing_power

Op mentioned Shapeshift integration. Shapeshift [1] is an online 'currency converter'. Those buy your coins, exchange them on an proper exchange and send you other coins back.

Usually the exchange rate is displayed before you convert.
For an insight into their fee structure, visit https://shapeshift.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/202585602-What-s-your-fee-structure-

[1] https://shapeshift.io/