I can't unmount it.

It says it'll cause severe damage:

Ο τρόπος αυτός ακούγεται περιορισμένος κι άρα επικίνδυνος χωρίς κανένα λόγο. Γράψε ότι φράση θέλεις, πέρνα την από SHA-256 και είναι έτοιμο να γίνει WIF.

Ξαναλέω όμως πως αυτή η λύση δεν προτείνεται εξαρχής, γιατί ο ανθρώπινος εγκέφαλος δεν παράγει τυχαιότητα με τον ίδιο τρόπο που παράγει ο υπολογιστής. Απλά χρησιμοποίησε τη φράση κι έχεις το κεφάλι σου ήσυχο.

Bitcoin Client Software and Version Number: Bitcoin Core 22.0
Operating System: Raspberry Pi OS
System Hardware Specs: 32GB SD card with a 1 TB HDD external disk.

Description of Problem: I opened up my Electrum after a long time (perhaps a week) and it couldn't synchronize; it had stuck at "0/20 synchronized". This made me login in my RPi 4 and see if things work properly, which weren't. Bitcoin Core has simply stopped working for, yet, unknown reason.

I run bitcoind:

I then go to /mnt/ext/bitcoin which is the data directory; hit a ls -l to check the file list:

It can't read it. I searched that up and it has to do with the hard drive. Has it happened to anyone before? I just want to ensure I don't have to erase it and re-install everything.

Τι εννοείς «να χωράει» στο format; Οποιοδήποτε κείμενο μπορεί να αναπαρασταθεί σε base58. (Και περνώντας το από hash function να γίνει private key)

Αυτή είναι μεγάλη υπόθεση. Υπάρχουν άτομα που έχασαν τα χρήματά τους από άλλους που κάθονται και ψάχνουν με brute force. Είναι αρκετοί για να μην χρησιμοποιήσεις τον απλό τρόπο με την έτοιμη φράση.

But, stable coins aren't decentralized and censorship-resistant. For example, USDT is owned by Tether; they decide what's the money supply and I'm subjected to their decisions. If they don't approve my transactions they might as well censor them, reverse them, remove them etc. It's even worse than the current monetary system that we're trying to redefine.

Did the developers convince them invest into it back in 2009? No, they entered the system at their own will; they had convinced themselves that it's worth the money. So, why should they expect a conviction now?

If SHA-256 became broken, right now, a chaos would prevail. Besides Bitcoin and other PoW cryptos that wouldn't be able to prevent double-spending in that case, software's integrity verification, passwords and encrypted messages that use SHA-256 could all be altered and read.

Check the log. In Windows, it should be in C:\Users\<USERNAME>\Appdata\Roaming\Bitcoin\debug.log if you haven't specified its location. The case with power outages is common, it has happened to me before too[1]. I think I got away with it with only a Bitcoin Core restart.

[1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5378761

Here are the reasons why this can't happen, at least at the moment.

• Volatility. You can't realistically make a living by using a currency that does +-5% a week.
• Few accept it. There's a significant adoption done this in the last 5 years, but it's just a tiny fraction when it comes to all the available stores.
• Propaganda. (Climate change, criminal usage, pyramid scheme or bubble etc.)

This free service is back in action. 

Added: Exchange rate.

No, this is not what I meant. I just said that the minimum value of Bitcoin isn't constant, because the cost to produce it constantly changes.

Again, the cost of producing Bitcoin isn't strictly connected with the value. There's a demand and a supply. Whether the energy rises to the top or falls to the bottom, the only thing that will change is the cost of producing Bitcoin. (ceteris paribus)

Energy can't worth $0. If we assume that the price of all kind of energy sources fell by 50%, then it'd suddenly become much more profitable to mine bitcoins. That would mean more computational power willing to be used. As a result, difficulty would skyrocket.

That it may function falsely. Welcome to software engineering.

You can't know you have a bug until you do something you'd never done before which appeared an unexpected result. The only way to lower your chances is to do structured programming which makes your code easier to read and develop further by third parties. It also takes less time to build things that way.

From my experience, when I start over-complicating my code for some reason, it's usually when I know I'll have trouble.

Start reading: https://www.ptsecurity.com/ww-en/analytics/vulnerabilities-rbo-2019/

I'll skip the mining efficiency proposal. You've got a perfect, summarized answer from odolvlobo.

Come on, seriously? That's an even worse answer than franky's, who believes that the main reasons are the block size and the low income. The main obstacles for adoption are clearly political. The problem is outside Bitcoin, cryptography, computer science.

Two are the main reasons; the volatility and the government's brainwashing, which includes misconceptions about the energy waste. Most people have got a false idea of what's Bitcoin, because the media have misinformed them so. They can't understand the benefits they can gain if they do this collectively. Most don't even know how money works.

It doesn't sound familiar to me. It may sound to you, though, who doesn't like any second layers and who can't comprehend that blockchain is inefficient.

The fact that you're comparing Lightning with an implementation of this meaningless concept is just underwhelming. It has already a solution on the first layer, no need to extend this further. Lightning is for micro-transacting, which can't be done efficiently otherwise.

But, keep trying. Everyone's ignoring you.

This is not true. First of all, it's not the reason they own your money that diminishes your privacy. It's the fact that the know which are the outputs you own. If by decentralized mixers we mean coinjoin, there's still a party that knows what you own.

Secondly, decentralized mixers aren't more private, that's the problem. If only they were. There's no case, I know, of a person who got traced after they mixed in ChipMixer, which is the most trustworthy and well-known. On the other hand, you can find lots of cases where a coinjoin was just not enough.

There's no purpose to create another useless token for this reason. If you want to ensure you'll own coins in X years, just follow the steps below:

• Create a new seed phrase and derive an address.
• Sign a transaction where you send all of your coins to that address and make it valid after a certain block.
• Lose access to your coins. (Delete the wallet file, destroy the old seed phrase etc.)

Now you have no coins until the block you chose is mined. Needless to say how not recommended this is.

It's used along with the public key, to verify the ownership.

It can't, because in each transaction you need to include the input, which is the id of another transaction (and many other values[1]). Each transaction is unique due to this identifier, which is the id (AKA TXID or transaction hash). You can't have the same signature, because you need to sign an entirely different message each time.

[1] https://learnmeabitcoin.com/technical/transaction-data

Okay, fortunately I turned out wrong. I guess case's closed now.

And what do you want from me? My soul? It's none of our business what you're doing with your money. What do you expect us? To give you investment advices?

Can you access the external drive from Fedora? If yes, have you tried using the datadir parameter?

It should be some sort of /mnt/tmp.

Edit: (datadir can also be set in the configuration file as rightly said above)