That debt is created using no resources; banknotes have no intrinsic value, they're exactly like bitcoin. They're created out of thin air, they can't be used for anything beyond transactions. It's just that their usage is being forced.

You say that debt is evidenced with deposits of those banknotes, I tell you that you can also create debt with bitcoin, if that's your only problem. We have a whole Lending sub-board. There are people who borrow coins with collateral, check it out.

As it was occasioned by Kakmakr, it's advisable to mention that democracy, which is the form of governance they describe, isn't the same as with consensus. In elections, you get to either vote for a party specifically, vote what the majority prefers, or simply leave the country. But, consensus is rather a decision you take free-willingly.

Nor the number of nodes neither the number of people who're running nodes matter. All it matters is what you do. If you want to make transactions reversible, change the block subsidy, the difficulty etc., there's nothing stopping you. But, you don't change bitcoin that way. And this applies to everyone, regardless of the percentage, regardless of their economic strength, regardless of their influence. The moment the majority changes a principle, that very moment, they stop being the majority.

In democracy, the BCH users would have to switch back to BTC, because as it seemed, the majority didn't want it. But, in consensus, they can have it; they can switch to BCH V2, BSV etc., if they like. They don't have to care what the others say.

Try running daemon/bitcoin-wallet with the salvage command.

It tries to recover the keys from the broken wallet's database. Alternatively, try pywallet:

Electrs 0.8.11.

Electrs does support version 1.4, and it seems they have been supporting it since 0.4.3.

No, because I don't save any logs!

Electrs could also be the fault here; I've been using a relatively old version. I also didn't try it in any other server, because of my privacy.

All's well that ends well. I don't find any reason to switch to 4.2.1.

Although unlikely, it could be faked, for some reason. I can't be sure it's 3 minutes unless I had some sort of node plugin installed that timestamps the block the moment it receives it. Anyway, it was probably an accident that occurred in the meantime.

That sounds incorrect, pal. 

Creating merkle trees does require a little bit more of the processing power, but there's no way this will disincentivize the miners if they're going to get an extra fraction of a bitcoin, just because the block subsidy is greater than that.

In the last 10 blocks, the average income from fees, alone, is 0.107 BTC. That's 1.712% of the block reward. I would bother to earn it, even with higher chance to be beaten by propagation, even if I had to compute merkle trees.

But, running a full node is a necessity if you want to be accurate and sure. Listening to an SPV node increases your chances to be beaten in propagation as you receive the info later than the others. (And you're trusting an entity that can set you up)

Why are they more? The steps are the same until RIPEMD-160, then it starts having a different path where there are different representations involved. Also, why would the distribution of collision be different? It doesn't matter if it uses SHA256(x) or SHA256(SHA256(x)), the odds remain the same, while the cost of address generation increases.

I suspect it's due to an accident. There might was something wrong with the mempool of the pool's node at that moment and during the in-between period they were trying to find out what's wrong, one of their miners solved the block.

There's no reason to dump so much money otherwise.

What do you mean? There's never been a collision with SHA-256.

How secure is what? The hash function? The process where we construct hash trees has to do with the efficiency of verification.

Trading, gambling, what's the difference. Both function unpredictably, both lead to more losses, both have mathematical strategies that make no sense, such as TA, both have gurus, both have to do with money.

And to be honest, I'd rather playing in a provably fair casino, gambling officially, knowing how I can win, what's the chances to lose, than to bet in a shitcoin with a sextillion units, a doggy thumbnail, a Twitter community/mob which always tweets with the hashtag, a non-existent wallet, brown-nosing billionaires to use it so I can dump it. That's pyramid.

Why not? Are they secure? Yes. Are they private? Yes. Are they transparent? Yes. Are they cheaper? Yes. Are they mine? Yes. There's no competition between a DEX and a CEX; the former is much superior. Especially if you want to use/hold coins. The only thing you don't get is gambling, such as marginal trading and trading shitcoins every minute.

What convenience? Pretty much the opposite, I'd say. If I knew that my money could be seized, get frozen, hacked etc., I'd be less convenient.

Except that you would, if you really wanted to. With 10,000 dozens of thousands of hours, if you decided to figure out what's going on behind all that, you would. You would have the time to understand bitcoin, you'd have the time to study how cryptography works, you'd have the time to comprehend economic terms you were unaware of, you'd have the time to ask questions, things you don't understand etc.

This is what I did. I had the time. I had the passion. I had the willingness. My point is: The world is made by people who're not smarter than you are. You just need to put in the effort.

According to their terms and conditions, they're already prepared for this bankruptcy scenario, which should have made the users who hold money there a little cautious. They have 100% control over their users. If they predict their business won't be profitable in the upcoming months, they can pretend to have got hacked.

But, who am I kidding, with this private data they're constantly selling to governments, chain analyzers and advertisers, they can maintain themselves without any additional fees.

Binance owns more than they do.

One more thing to say is that one can use a centralized exchange, because he's fully unaware that a decentralized exchange is a thing. He may feel he has to hand out all this info, because otherwise he has no easy way to acquire bitcoin. It's the same reason one will feel forced to integrate with PayPal to process payments, because he has no idea that electronic cash exists.

In that case, the merchant wouldn't say "I won't accept payments, because of privacy invasion", but "Unfortunately, I'll have to give up my privacy and my custody, because my business cannot operate otherwise".

@DarkStar_, shouldn't you update the signature codes in the OP? Both contain the obsolete, v2 onion link. And I just noticed n0nce, hosseinimr93 and Rikafip wear it.

I've verified this in the past. Just download the binaries from electrum-ltc.org and verify either Thrasher's or Pooler's signature. If you have a version prior 3.3.3, as it sounds you do, update as soon as possible.

He's making lots of mistakes and fallacies. Emphasis mine.


And further BS from his alt:

---

But, fiat money is no resource by default. It begins to have value once it's loaned. Once it's borrowed. Once it's used. Once it's demanded. Once it's supplied. Fiat, alone, does not create debt, which is the resource.

Ξυπνάω αυτό το thread πάλι. Ακόμα κι αν η Ελλάδα είναι φιλική με κρυπτο-φορολογία, σας έχει χτυπήσει ποτέ καμπανάκι αφού κάνατε μεγάλη αγορά; Θέλω να μάθω αν ασχολούνται απ'την κυβέρνηση. Στην Αμερική για παράδειγμα μέχρι και ξεχωριστό FAQ έχουν φτιάξει και είμαι σίγουρος πως κάνουν την αλυσίδα φύλλο και φτερό. Δε φοροδιαφεύγεις δηλαδή αν έχεις συμπληρώσει KYC.

Που το λέει αυτό;

I'll have to, silently, admit I had this mindset before I get into bitcoin. Fortunately, I never bothered to give KYC. It's not easy to understand what's going on if you're outside the rabbit hole the entire time. 

It doesn't have the same fees like Binance, wherein you're charged more than 20 times the fee you should have actually paid, but it does have fees. First and foremost, there are the trading fees; the taker and the maker pay combined 1% of the amount you trade.


Then there are the on-chain fees;

If you're on Electrum, right click on the unconfirmed transaction -> Child pays for parent -> Enter the fee you're willing to pay on "Fee for child:" and click "OK". You'll have to be a little bit more generous to encourage the miner include both.

That's the high fee currently: