Even a destruction of the national corriculum would be a start so teachers have to work out what they're going to teach students rather than just teaching something they probably don't understand... For example, in chemistry gcse was simplified to a point where a teacher would have to forget what they learnt at university in order to teach it because a lot of it was too advanced and the exams are after something simplified to a point that it becomes utterly useless to know.

@coins, I get what you mean but I'm not talking about splitting people up completely by attutude, I merely think that more science driven students should be given an opportunity to focus on that and artsy students should focus more on that. There is certainly a good deal of crossover and maybe engaging students in projects is a much better way to do it (making those projects balanced so students know exactly what they're best at).

I'm starting to think it becomes obvious who is going to be quite intelligent in certain fields by about the age of 8 of 9 and I'm wondering if anyone does this with education?

To me it seems obvious that everyone should be able to get referred from a teacher or take a test (potentially a compulsory one like sats in the UK) in order to determine their strengths and their weaknesses. Thinking back to high school (ages 10-16) for the entire time I didn't really do much, sure we got to learn about a lot of varied subjects but it wasn't particularly time specific - you could pick up a language at age 7 probably to similar ease as you could at age 11). Producing something like a research focused education (similar to what is done in universities) should be of a higher benefit to students giften in certain areas to take that forward. A lot of the time I talk to English, art, history etc students and they have to focus on getting advanced techniques rather than following their own style which I consider to be a waste of time as you're not teaching people to be creative and individual and look at other implications, you're telling them to become a cog. An example I have of this would be the use of punctuation which isn't very well defined in itself a lot of the time, learning things like their they're and there might be helpful but we'll probably do away with them in a few years and you'll be forced to infer by context (like when spoken).

Even though I mention tests it should ultimately be up to a pupil to decide what they want...

I don't want to release the exact transaction I made but I bought something from a computer hardware store and this is the 2nd hop: https://m.btc.com/9dbeb5a3e0922080ec44b536deb0fd396c8de549128566b0c53af0ad68cef2de

They ended up with 15btc. That store could bring in those size inputs potentially since it sells a lot of different items from usb hubs to smartphones and laptops so this might be an interesting look if anyone wants to delve further...

---

Maybe they're right and it's about double the tx fee so they can cpfp if the transaction doesn't go through in a fast manner and they don't want to slow down the rest of the chain.

It won't happen I use tor and vpns here from time to time and it doesn't do anything to whether you're banned. As long as you're connected to the actual site and it's ssl (so no one can hack your account) you should be fine.

[easiest way to check if you're on the right site is to click the padlock and check its comodo limited and that its bitcointalk.org).

Well them being owned by Roger ver, bitmain and kraken means a lot.

Kraken - want the conversion fees
bitmain - mine bcash so want more
Roger - some weird attachment to bcash...

---

Point is, fees should be included. If I paid by visa on the same site it should've cost the same as bcash.

You've put this in the wrong place to start with.

Who did you bet with also, there isn't one bookmakers here...

Add the folder to your exclusions. Have you checked the screen where avasr said it was deleted? On my antivirus (symantec) thee is a recover function.

Run bitcoin core again after adding the exclusion, it'll be the virus signatures added around 2014 if I remember rightly there...

Volatility doesn't seem like a legitimate excuse for why they charge more for bitcoin than cash. I get that cash transactions are really cheap and these companies probably were convinced by bitpay to accept bcash so that could be why but its going to cause huge problems if a less secure and cheaper version of bitcoin gets advertised to everyone. Most of the major pools would be able to launch a 51% attack on bcash on their own and completely murder the coin...

Yeah you still have to reindex but it means the error shouldn't show up again as you have to manually get rid of the problem and then reload the database...

Have you looked into your history tab to check you haven't been credited those btc and its not just a lgitch saying there's an open channel?.

If it's partly closed, try finding that transaction?

Mixing works by combining your inputs with others and then sending you an equal sized portion of funds... If you're going to send 500 btc to a mixing service and pull out that 500 btc, you're likely to get caught. If that site saw 4000btc going in and only 100 coming out then ChipMixer have actually done a pretty good job at protecting their privacy. Mixers divide coins and then let them be withdrawn in a way that allows "evil" to be shared.

If you're mixing huge volumes of funds, learn how to do it correctly, there are more stages you can involve than just a mixer... And if you're pulling your funds out within a few days there's likely going to be a trace.

---

If that site manages to publish its results rather than looking as if they're trying to get views and customers of their service they might be believed further...

I doubt the hacker would only mix once if they've done their research, its not unlikely that those funds are ChipMixers too and they're trying to obfuscate the hackers funds (if they indeed did use ChipMixer).

---

I don't think it would be right for ChipMixer to confirm or deny this either and there isn't much for them to go on. Frankly the data they keep is probably deleted by now if the sessions were only 7 days long and weren't extended...

I wanted to by something and noticed the site accepted bitcoin, so I went through the checkout and got charged extra to pay in bitcoin rather than bitcoin cash, does anyone know why this is?

It seems bitpay get a lot of bad coverage now and there seems to be good reason why (I wouldn't have made a thread but the price was 50p different which was more than 1% of my total purchase)... As a community there may be issues if bitcoin cash dies or if it keeps going since some of these companies are clearly hugely invested in them.

I was going to pm as I'm not sure on this one but I was checking cex.io yesterday and they offer up to 10x leverage trading so it might be one to look at (I have no idea if they accept us customers though)...

WAIT!!!

It looks normal to me... It's still receiving blocks and still has active connections? It just means that the remote host has shutdown or has stopped connecting to you (it might have reached it's maximum number of connections or soemthing). I'm not sure what the error is precicely but I always get it every couple of blocks and everything seems to work normally... It still broadcasts it's blocks and still keeps downloading so I don't think it's an error.


I'm getting it on both windows and linux so it doesn't seem to be a problem to me.

From what I remember, this problem normally gets fixed by renaming the last fine in your block data directory (the "blocks" folder in the data directory) and then restarting bitcoin core.

Like etf says if you provide us with more information we might be able to help more (posting the debug.log). It might also be helpful to know if you have any antivirus running as that can sometimes tamper with the storing of blocks (if you do, quarenteen the block database folder - don't completely deactivate the AV).

I think there's also a thing about proving it as a currency (to yourself).

I might spend a small fraction of the btc I hold (10% maximum maybe) just to check that it still works to buy physical goods and is still accepted (as I anticipate it to be)...

I plan on putting what I plan to spend in the future into bitcoin and see if it increases by the time I spend it (find a point when the coin is low and dollar cost average out of it instead), but I'd have to be pretty certain of my stance.

Ahhh, I've always seen it as "if we give someone a number then they'll work to make it better and take more loans" maybe that isn't the case at all...

Let us know what response you get (if you need a link you can post it here: https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/issues/)

Is there a reason for the 2011 limit though? Did they start parsing the chain after then and store it in a different way as I assumed it was the same as how core works...

Do you not have a 28 day return window there?
I broke a flash drive in 28 days (ok it was badly made to start with) and got a full refund a couple of years ago. It might be a good idea... or just leave them a bad review and see if they try to solve your problem.

Go with chromium instead of chrome (get the Google virus off your machine). Can you not try going straight through electrum, maybe it already has a key. You can request a seed from there for hw wallets (I assume, never tried it though)...

---

I'm finding the impulse buy thing a bit funny, I was getting paranoid with quantumproofing the crap out of everything and decided to buy 3 trezors and use 2 laptops and a phone along with them in a multisig (6 of 6)... So far, 1 trezor is in active use, 1 is a failover of the first trezor and one is still sealed (I scrapped my old multisig too ).