Unless GreenAddress does a poor job of figuring out the right fee, then switching wallets won't make a difference. An 11kB transaction is huge. You will not be able to avoid high fees if you continue to receive many very small payments.

https://bitcoinfees.21.co/ currently recommends a fee of 0.0007 BTC per kb, so an 11kB transaction should have a fee of 0.0077 BTC.

Also consider the Litecoin halving last year:

$440 is the bottom until it is not.

The supply will not decrease with the halving. Surely, you can't believe that the supply is less now than before the previous halving four years ago, or that there will be no bitcoins for sale when the subsidy goes to 0 in 2140.

The money supply increases with every block, whether the block reward is 25 btc or 12.5 btc. More money available means more bitcoins for sale.

My prediction is that the upcoming Bitcoin halving will look just like the Litecoin halving last year: a speculative bubble that pops just before the halving, followed by a long period of very slowly rising prices.

This software is probably malware, but even if it isn't, it will still take 200 years to mine $50 worth of bitcoin on your PC.

A small amount of information can be stored in the block chain using an OP_RETURN transaction.

The calculation for cost per bitcoin is actually very simple. The theoretical revenue (in bitcoins) per block is


where R is the block reward, H is the miner's hash rate, and D is the difficulty.


First, we calculate the energy expended per bitcoin. You can derive the theoretical hashes per bitcoin:


So, energy per bitcoin is:


where e is joules/hash.

If you are using an S7 (0.25 J/GH), then your energy/bitcoin today is:

(0.25/1000000000) * 194254820283 / 25 / 65535 * 2⁴⁸ = 8.34 GJ per bitcoin

The cost per bitcoin is simply that times the cost per joule. Assuming $0.10 per kWh, your cost per bitcoin today is:

(0.10/1000/3600) * 8.3 * 1000000000 = $231.76 per bitcoin

The difficulty computation assumes that the expected hash rate for the next 2160 blocks is the same as the hash rate for the last 2160 blocks. So, if the actual hash rate is higher then blocks will be found more quickly than expected, and if it is lower then blocks will be found more slowly than expected. The hash rate has generally been increasing over time, so blocks have been found more quickly than expected, on average, resulting in a halving date earlier than expected.

I don't know where you get "2³² possible accounts", but 1 million is ¹/₄₂₉₅ of 2³². Perhaps you meant 2¹⁶⁰. Your laptop can easily test 2³² private keys in a day.

Users want low fees. Miners want fees that are high enough to cover costs. The fees will depend on many things including (but not limited to), the number of transactions, the maximum block size, and the marginal cost of including a transaction in a block. They could drop to as low as 1 satoshi.

Ideally, total fees per block will be extremely high (whether due to a high fee per transaction or high transaction volume) because the integrity of Bitcoin depends on it. If the block reward is low enough, then there may be an economic incentive for someone mount a 51% attack.

This points to a flaw in the Bitcoin security model: There is no direct incentive anyone to protect the integrity of Bitcoin. It is a "tragedy of the commons" problem. A user pays enough to motivate a miner to add their transaction to a block, but not necessarily enough to discourage someone from mounting a 51% attack.

Like these?


https://www.bitcoinsuisse.ch/en/physical-products/#Certificates

This is why we need alternatives to Bitcoin Core. The most dangerous point of centralization right now is Bitcoin Core itself.

Has it occurred to anyone that maybe you believe that Craig Wright is not Satoshi only because he doesn't live up to the fantasy, legend, and mythology? Why can't Satoshi be a fallible person that is not a super-genius and has no social skills?

Craig Wright has done a poor job of proving that he is Satoshi, but nobody has proved his claim is a hoax.

The primary goal of this company is to put a miner in every device (so that the device can automatically pay for things). They keep pushing that idea. It will never succeed because 1) the miner generates very little money, and 2) the miner will generate less and less over time and will eventually cost more than it generates.

Their big thing now is mining on your PC (so that apps on your PC can automatically pay for things). We all know that mining on a PC is a waste of time and energy. What are they thinking?

The problem with low fees is that miners are willing to include transactions with low fees because rejecting them is throwing away free money -- the marginal cost of including a transaction is very low. Plus, even if one miner excludes low fee transactions, other miners will include them. As a result, users are not motivated to pay more unless they need the transaction in the next block.

So, now that we understand the problem...

If miners can choose 0% (or even 1%), then how does a percentage fix the problem of accepting low fees? Miners already pick transactions based on fee (along with other criteria). I don't see how you proposal changes anything.

Finally, transaction value has no effect on the cost of including a transaction, so it doesn't sense for miners to base the minimum fee on the value of the transaction. However, users do care about the fee relative to the amount of the transaction. A user sending $0.01 won't want pay a $0.05 fee. The result of this conflict in priorities will be the inevitable formation of two or more systems differentiated by transaction value. High value transactions will use Bitcoin and low value transactions will use something more appropriate for micropayments.

How is p determined and what is it a percentage of?

Are you assuming that Satoshi is American? He used British spelling, so he is probably not American.

Lower investment risk is not appropriate for a college student. The idea is that your work will generate far more wealth than the value of your current investments, so it is no big deal if they go to 0. At some point, it will become more difficult to replace your investments by working (if necessary), so then you would begin to invest more conservatively.

I have 30% of my portfolio in Bitcoin, 40% in stocks, the rest in other things like gold and cash. 0% in bonds.

Yes, it looks good. Just remember that if the address is in your wallet, then your wallet will think it is ok to spend the bitcoins. Also, when you send bitcoins to the address, you wallet may warn you that you are sending bitcoins to your own address, because sometimes people do that by mistake.

You can do that. Nothing is preventing you from doing that. There is a drawback. It works as long as the price stays between your trades, but if it goes above or below, you could lose money.