What you are describing is called money-printing. Unfortunately, it is the bankers who receive the air drop.

I made this prediction 4 years ago. Is it still a valid prediction?

The recent failure of Terra's UST and LUNA, as well as the fall in price of Bitcoin, have emboldened the anti-coiners and their FUD has gained some traction. Every misstep by some random shitcoin is now presented as evidence of Bitcoin's imminent demise.

Private key: the example generation of the private key is inappropriate. I would remove it or replace it with an actual method - random generation or deterministic generation using BIP-32.

Seed: I would label this "Seed Phrase" to be more accurate. The seed phrase is used to generate a wallets private keys using BIP-32. Note that a wallet using a seed phrase can have an unlimited number of private keys, and a wallet typically does not have a single private key. A seed phrase can be used to restore a wallet because the seed phrase always generates the same private keys.

Mining reward: The mining reward (aka "block reward") consists of the subsidy, which starts at 50 BTC and is halved every 210000 blocks, plus transaction fees. Eventually the subsidy will be 0 due to the halvings and miners will only get transaction fees.

Block: What you have listed as a block is really just the block "header" that contains information about the block. The block also contains the transactions.

How is this [seed phrase] generated? The seed phrase is an encoding of 128 or 256 random bits. See BIP-39.

Will the miner check if a transaction received is valid right? How? Miners validate all transactions before placing them in a block. Nodes validate transactions and blocks when they are received and only propagate the valid ones.

How it solve the double spending problem?? Does he check the balance before the transaction?? A transaction that spends a previously spent output is considered to be invalid and will be rejected by nodes and miners and will not be placed in a block. Note: balances are not tracked except by a wallet.

How this peer will confirm the received block? A peer receiving a block or transaction does not confirm its validity with the sender. It simply discards invalid blocks and transactions. A receiver may disconnect from a sender that sends too many invalid blocks and transactions.

How this peer will remove the transaction in the received block from his UTXO list? The node simply scans the block and removes the spent UTXOs from its UTXO list and adds the new UTXOs to its UTXO list. It also removes transactions in the block from its mempool.

How i can know if a transaction is mine or from another peer? The wallet keeps track of its own transactions.

is the Address convertible to pubKey? No, but spending a UTXO requires a signature that contains the pubkey.

How i  can get the wallet balance from here? The wallet keeps track of all transactions involving the addresses (and private keys) that it controls. That's how it maintains the balance.

How this are choosen?? ... The wallet keeps track of all the UTXOs associated with the addresses it controls. It decides which are the best to spend from.

Why is a list?? It could be just 1 for the payment and one for the change right??  With a list, a transaction can send to any number of addresses all at once. That's more effective than one transaction for each address.

Examples?? You can find transaction details and examples here: https://developer.bitcoin.org/reference/transactions.html

This might also clear up some confusion: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5163864.0

Please pardon my pedantic pickiness. Some minor corrections...

The "seed" is generated from the seed/recovery/mnemonic phrase, and not the other way around. It's a common minor misconception. The phrase is generated by "encoding" entropy, but the entropy is then discarded.


The actual formula is new_difficulty = old_difficulty * (20160 / time_elapsed_for_last_2015_blocks). 2015 blocks is a bug that will probably never be fixed.

Bitcoin's price has crashed several times.

2011: 93% drop
2013: 70% drop
2013: 71% drop
2014: 78% drop
2018: 83% drop
2021: 54% drop
2022: 60% drop

It's all BS. There is no magic formula. There is little chance of success if you follow arbitrary rules given to you by somebody else.

Sorry if that is not the answer you want.

Bitcoin mining has no emissions.


If we consider Bitcoin's energy usage to be a problem, we should consider the energy usage by all countries and industries whose usage exceeds the consumption of Sweden and Poland, and more than 100 countries and regions such as the United Arab Emirates, the Netherlands, the Philippines, Belgium, Australia, and Israel, to be a problem.

People claim that Bitcoin uses 0.5% of the worlds electricity. Shouldn't we be more concerned about the other 99.5%?

The answer is simple. A currency is a kind of asset, so if Bitcoin is a currency, then it is an asset.

In general, a cartel can have some influence on a price, but it can never have absolute control in the long run without full control of the market. OPEC is an example of a cartel.

I assume that you are proposing to use a merkle tree root as the hash for a message instead of a simply computing the hash of the message directly.

That will have no effect on the probability of a collision because both are single SHA-256 hashes in the end. The only way to reduce the probability of a collision is to increase the size of the hash (assuming that there are no flaws in the hash algorithm).

It probably doesn't matter to you, but many whales eat fish and don't eat plankton.

In today's cancel culture, I have no doubt that if satoshi's identity is ever revealed, there will be some form of rejection and boycott, regardless of who she is.

I personally don't think it makes a bit of difference. We don't care who invented the wheel and there are plenty of things invented by despicable people that we use today with hardly any concern.

BTW, the most important info I got out of that video is that Dan Peña is a liar and a misogynist.

When you buy bitcoins from an exchange or service, you pay more for the convenience. If you want pay lower fees, then you can buy bitcoins on the market through an exchange instead.

Do not buy bitcoins from a seller or exchange that doesn't give you the option to withdraw them to your own wallet.

Basically you are claiming that Blackrock and Citadel sold BTC and UST at a huge loss hoping that they could turn it into a gain by buying it back at a lower price.

I would avoid repeating ridiculous stuff like that. It makes you look stupid.

There is nothing wrong with consuming energy. We have an virtually unlimited amount of energy coming from the sun. People that believe that Bitcoin consumes too much energy are hypocrites or they have an agenda that has nothing to do with energy.

CSW has no credibility. Many of the documents he has provided have been proven to be forged or manipulated. Many of his statements have been proven to be lies. Nothing that he has said can be accepted as accurate or truthful.

The judge in the case you are referring to wrote this:

You have not imported the public keys of the signers, so gpg can't verify that the signers are who they say they are.

You can get the keys here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/tree/master/contrib/builder-keys

Verification instructions: https://bitcoincore.org/en/download/

Be very careful with these sites. Many of them are phishing sites. They encourage you to enter private keys in order to steal your coins.

The difficulty adjustment is designed so that mining is always profitable for the most efficient miners, regardless of the value of the block reward.

The real question is whether or not the block reward is high enough to make a 51% attack economically infeasible. One consideration is that if it is not, then perhaps it is because Bitcoin has failed and so it is not worth saving anyway.


There is nothing to support that belief. The halving does not halve the supply.