There's a much simpler way to look at it.

You've got a girlfriend who has an identical twin sister. Both your girlfriend and her sister have secrets and motivations you are only dimly aware of. They have a habit of sharing each other's clothes.

You need to be very, very careful.



For Trezor a few weeks ago they advised everyone move from a legacy to a "New Style (Segwit)" account in order to get the benefits of the new style, such as faster transactions and lower fees. I read that as true but not accommodating all the possible variations of split forks.

Thus for Trezor it seems reasonable all coins should be on legacy, non segwit accounts.

Mathematical proofs of the integrity of data are required.

Please stop with the "Trust me" game.

Nobody is fooled by it.

Maybe there's a shitload of viruses slowing your system down as they inject themselves into everything that's outward bound?

First, you didn't understand about how a signature of the file directory is the only verification.

Now, again, you stand on a position of perceived threats, and assure people as to that they should TRUST google.

But you make these assertions with respect to Bitcoin, which is defined as a peer to peer method of exchanging money WITHOUT TRUST.

I'm seeing a little conflict there.

Opinion?

All that you are saying here is that sometimes Muslims don't get their way, and then they blame the other party, and hate them.

I agree, but this is devoid of any responsibility for the many, many, many atrocities and terrorist acts by Muslims.

Thank you for your post though, because it is honest speaking from the heart, as opposed to 9 of 10 Muslims posting here who simply prattle lies. Takiyya.

I would like a big bottle of stupid pills.

All this reduces to is to expect dust attack against BTC and coordinated pump and dump schemes in the weeks following 2x.

That's the hostile takeover that people have sensed already.

It's a good point that the battle is over control of the "BTC" brand, currently worth over a hundred billion.

As for NYA, I wouldn't trust ANYTHING coming out of NY.

Q3 2017 Paypal volume was 114 Billion.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/277841/paypals-total-payment-volume/

Now for BTC volume

https://blockchain.info/charts/trade-volume?showDataPoints=true

Easily over 100M per day, 90 days in a quarter.

Granted the BTC values jump around a bit and one needs to consider "change" being returned but it sure looks like in last quarter BTC overtook PayPal!

Agreed. We seriously need a solution to USD1-10$ transactions and micropayments.

YES!

It's not that I stopped reading. I started reading Satoshi's paper five years ago and I am still reading it.

This thread is exactly what the title says. Bitcoin 101. For newbies/anyone who wants to learn.

I propose going through his 9 page paper one paragraph at a time, spending as little or as long on each as is useful.

I tried and failed to make any sense of this discussion. Way way too long and convoluted posts.

I think you've answered your own question there.

Satoshi Nakamoto's paper.

Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System - Bitcoin.org

https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

"Commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving as trusted third parties to process electronic payments. While the system works well enough for most transactions, it still suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust based model. Completely non-reversible transactions are not really possible, since financial institutions cannot avoid mediating disputes. The cost of mediation..."

Why was Satoshi opposed to trust?

NO.

Virus scanners routinely find (falsely) sections of the blockchain that they consider viruses. These are false positives, but rest assured that code can be disguised, such that it can be assembled later, without having a virus signature. That would be a false negative from the scanner.

In addition, it would be ridiculously easy to include extra files in the directories built, said files being outside of the blockchain.

You asked a question regarding an independent blockchain download method, and I answered your question. The proof of the integrity and safety of the download is the signature. Here it appears one would need several signatures, one for each subdirectory and one for the overall folder.

If this is not understood I'll be happy to elaborate.

Well, couldn't a malicious payload be embedded in the database? Something that could be lay dormant until a signal is received to activate? Think of it this way. The database resides in directories. Right now I can add files to those directories, and Core does not care. It's only operating on the files it is directed to. The additional files are undetected.

What you need here is a verifiable signature on the files which proves they match byte for byte with the actual master database.

Everyone should know the fallacy of downloading and using files without verifying the signature.

A classic way of injecting a payload into user computers is to start with a "thing they want," add the malicious payload, then prompt in various ways for them to download the "thing they want." In the case of bitcoin users, the most glaring example would be a compromised wallet.

Here we have a blockchain database. Suppose Bad Guy (BG) sees a lot of people dl'ing your database, then he grabs a user id one character off, creates a download link almost identical, and offers some appeal to greed to induce downloads. Before anyone catches it there are thousands of downloads.

Verification of the file signature prevents this. If Core is downloaded and it's signature verified, then that verified code is used to download the blockchain, one can say that the entire system is good.

Set up a Trezor, and get an account at a place like coinbase. Start buying at small amounts like $500USD and practice moving it to the hardware wallet.

Then do larger amounts, like $5000USD.

Spread the risk out this way. Then pretty soon you will have the entire amount secure in an offline cold storage. Keep a few hundred USD/0.1BTC in the coinbase/whatever as fun money.

The solution is slow the shops down, make them serve beer. Ring a bell every block solved.

All the world's shops must bow before Satoshi.

Huh?

Coinbase, for example, has said they (their program) will support both, and if after a while one dominates, then they will drop the weak one.

But miners still gotta mine or there's nothing.

There are other possibilities.

A) you had downloaded, unwittingly an infected copy of Electrum
B) someone walked by your computer, saw the open program and took what they saw

Ignore the forks.

Invest in AND USE Bitcoin if you believe in and want to further the idea of people moving to freedom from debt based currencies, freedom from national fiat money schemes and guys in three piece suits in skyscrapers telling them....

"Trust me."

That INCLUDES freedom from the new crowd of guys in three piece suits from skyscrapers who are trying to gain control of crypto currencies or enrich themselves from it.