As a self-proclaimed "long-term holder", I don't plan to cash out in the accepted sense of the term. My vision is greater than that.

I demand to buy whatever I want, whenever I want in electronic cash. Whenever I use Bitcoin, I admire us; we've proved, once more, that we're more capable of making decisions for ourselves. We can work outside this broken system. We can redefine money and settle transactions without unquestionable authorities.

I don't like the idea of holding bitcoins for a decade, just to return back with more fiat. They say don't put money above principles, 'cause you're gonna lose both, and that's my life motto from now on.

I've come to stay. 

We should definitely not include invalid URLs in our personal text. 

Petition to wear this on April fools. 

I wasn't talking about the hash function, but asymmetric cryptography. How's a rehashed blockchain useful? Say we switched to SHA-3; wouldn't that eliminate the work that is done in previous blocks?

Also, how's that related with efficiency?

You make it sound as if the paid participants would necessarily lie or mislead, just to fulfill the requirement. I've written feedback, and have got paid to do so, but I was as objective and sharply critic as possible.

Yes, it would be, indeed, another marketing trick, but I'm not convinced by the downsides.

In my opinion, that's the (only) reason:
So, even if we used a stronger algorithm today, it wouldn't last long 'til it was also considered unsafe in the long term. I don't know when will it be relevant, but it should definitely take a long time until someone solves the discrete logarithm problem within 10 minutes.

Let alone, it'd make the system less efficient.

This has already been done with MyCryptoMixer in the past and there weren't any problems, so I suppose it's okay. However, I hadn't read that restriction.

Perhaps theymos could enlighten us here.

The reason why you're verifying the signature has been written above, by hosseinimr93.

A hacker can have compromised the website for a while and insert their own, malicious version of Electrum, right before you visit it. The developers can't guarantee you that the site won't be compromised, but by providing a PGP signature, they guarantee that whoever verifies the binaries won't be victimized. A hacker would need to compromise both electrum.org and github.com at the same time to succeed.

You don't want to mess with the command line, so just stick with Kleopatra. Besides, you now know how to do it.

When you certify a key you essentially inform the program that you trust the signer. This isn't necessary, but it can be used in the future if you want to re-verify the new Electrum versions.

Unfortunately, someone who just wants to verify the authenticity of their wallet software must be familiar with things they don't even understand. That's a drawback of Kleopatra.

It's considered expensive, but it's not going to take lots of computational effort. See: [Questions] Public key cost comparison.

What do you mean duplicates? Addresses that have spent once and still have a balance?

Perhaps you're using Google Translate as this neither makes sense.

Any transaction that doesn't comply with the consensus rules doesn't get into the mempool. It's simply dumped immediately. I believe you meant transactions that were valid, but were dumped after a certain period from each mempool. I don't think there's a way to verify that, but there should be some.

Each node has time limit for each transaction that is held in memory. The default value is around 2 weeks, but it can change from the configuration file. Theoretically, a node can decide to never dump unconfirmed transactions.

As I said, after about 2 weeks.

---

Note that mempool isn't the same to everybody. Each node can have their own mempool, based on the order of the transactions they've received and the configuration they're run upon.

According to the 6th rule of their campaign, that's a tiptop.

---

Irrelevant, but when I was a bitcointalk neophyte and carried this cringy-newbie's attitude, I had formed a strict image of most of those managers.


It appeared to be a misjudgement. 

What an abnormal way to entertain yourself...

I wonder what can have gone so wrong in his life. The internet gives these people the opportunity to gain the attention they'd otherwise wouldn't. I must have talked with so problematic and autistic people during my stay in this forum.

Another, recent, example is Snowshow. He's appeared several times with alts, trying to force their own interpretation about the world, what's real and what's not etc. Why are they doing this? Do they demand social support and recognition?

Yep, my bad.

I'm not saying that the purchasing power of 1 BTC would change; I'm just trying to understand how would the economy look like. Would productivity rise or fall over the long term?

The price of goods would likely decrease if people used solely Bitcoin. If the economy grew, but the money supply remained the same, then the exchange rate of goods would decrease.

What's your problem exactly? Are you unable of importing a legacy address into Bitcoin Core? (And therefore unable of sign messages with it)

If that's the case, what error does it prompt you? You should just use the following command:

Note that recovering a public key from an ECDSA signature, alone, is impossible. To compute the public key (without knowing it from the transaction data) you need to know the values r, s and z, where (r, s) represents the signature and z the hash of the message you want to sign.

Also note that recovering a public key from r, s and z is a different (more computationally expensive) procedure than to recover it from the transaction data. When you sign a transaction, you include your signature with your public key.

I've taken the time to read the discussion. What's up with the continuing debriefing of the hardware wallets' disadvantages? It's clear that they are both needed; it's just that each satisfies the same needs, but for different people. (Except if they may also want altcoins etc.)

The reasons are portability, easiness on transferal and security simplified. I wouldn't buy a hardware wallet to avoid running my own full node; I'd rather give an extra buck to a Raspberry Pi and have my hardware wallet connected to my node. That way I could enjoy all the benefits.

If I didn't want to spare a single dollar to my Bitcoin node setup AND had an old dusty PC/laptop left over, I'd use it to run a node.

Okay, first of, no one has a clue of how many BTC they own and second, they aren't some kind of Gods who can change the total bitcoins that will ever be produced.

Then don't mess it up with "proof, reasoning and statistical analysis" as it's just a conspiracy. Maybe don't even bother to search of who they are for the reasons PrivacyG outlined.

Craig can claim that he's Satoshi, that Bitcoin is a scam, that he's met Jesus, that he's my dad; yet, he'll never provide any evidence for their statements. He's fraud, personified.

If the thief has either died or lost the keys somehow, they'll probably remain there for the rest of the century.