What service are you using? There is nothing that users here can do. All you can do is to contact support of whatever online wallet you are using.

As for the medium priority transaction, Blockchain.info's time estimates are usually wrong. If you need help with confirming a transaction, then it we need to know what the transaction id of it is.

There is no description of the format of leveldb files that I know of. You will have to write your own client which uses LevelDB in order to read the data from those db files.

The indices for the blocks are in a separate LevelDB database. The blk*.dat files are simply where the blocks are stored, but it means nothing to the software without the database which indexes the blocks. Those indices are kept in the index folder inside of the blocks folder. Bitcoin Core will write to the disk every valid block it receives, so this does include forks and stale blocks in case of blockchain reorgs.

The IP address is not an identifier. Because Bitcoin is a p2p network, the ip that relayed a block is most likely not the ip of the miner.

ip addresses are public addresses. Unless your computer is not behind a firewall or not secure, than simply knowing an ip is not particularly useful. Every internet connection has an ip address, and that includes Bitcoin which uses the internet.

Litecoin uses a different algorithm than Bitcoin. Mining Bitcoin is pretty much unprofitable unless you have a couple TH/s. 360 kH/s is not going be enough to make any significant amount mining Bitcoin.

The blocks are written to the disk exactly in the way that Bitcoin Core receives them. It just writes the actually block messages. What exactly are you asking?

Blockchain.info is neither regular nor the "original". The original wallet is bitcoin 0.1.0 released by Satoshi, and its successor is Bitcoin Core. So if you want to run a modern wallet that is the "original" then you are using Bitcoin Core.

Why?

TPTB_need_war, you cannot prove nor disprove that the Sartre text Craig Wright supposedly hashed is a collision for SHA256. The hash that he published is the exact hash that is signed by the signature that spent the Block 9 coinbase. Because calculating that hash is trivial and the signature is already public, it is reasonable and safe to assume that Craig Wright simply took that hash and claimed that it was the hash of the sartre text.

You also pointed out that he supposedly has access to a supercomputer. Even with access to a supercomputer, he would not be able to find a collision as other researchers have already tried. Simply having a lot of computing power does not mean that he can find a collision.

Alternatively, Craig could have found a vulnerability in sha256, in which case a lot more things than just Bitcoin is screwed. If Craig did not responsibly disclose such a vulnerability and instead exploited it, this would be incredibly sketchy and dishonest behavior.

The theory that the sha256 double hash is weaker than sha256 is false. It has been proven that performing multiple iterations of a hash is more secure than just one iteration. Specifically, many websites will store users passwords in the form of a multiple iteration hash. This is significantly more secure than a single iteration hash. The resulting hash of a multihash function (including multiple iterations) has the same collision resistance as the collision resistance of the weakest hash. This means that sha256d has the same collision resistance as sha256. What multiple hashes protect against is a preimage attack.

---

It isn't really, it started as a complaint against the removal of his thread and then he promptly continued the thread here.

That is what it is supposed to do. If you don't see your full balance, try rescanning. Continuing to get new addresses will only work if your backup didn't have all of the addresses you previously used.

It would be pretty normal if he didn't sign up with an email, thus that setting would not be enabled by default.

Also, note how he says that


Anyways, this is a pointless argument. Either way, he probably got malware on his computer which stole his password or his private keys, or both.

A password alone cant get you into a blockchain.info account, if you are trying to sign into your account with a new IP, you need email confirmation
[/quote]
It depends on your security settings. You don't need to have an email linked to the account and if you did, you could also have it not set to email you. It really just depends on what he set for security, and based upon previous cases, the most common issue is password theft, not private keys being compromised which is insanely difficult and almost impossible to do with a web wallet unless the service is hacked.

If a user has been banned from a campaign, the reason is usually negative trust or spam. It is fairly easy for someone to check whether the account has neg trust or if the posting history is spammy.

No, that is only when you import. When you sweep, the funds are automatically moved from the private key being swept to an address in your wallet via a transaction.

Your password was probably stolen. Check that you don't have any malware.

I beg to differ. Blockchain.info has had multiple security issues in the past. His private keys were not compromised unless he imported them. He most likely got his password stolen.

There is no way except to either ask every single campaign whether the account was banned or trust the seller.

I'm not entirely sure why they did that, but it does make indexing blocks easier and tracking forks.

Segwit doesn't replace any NOPs and it doesn't change the block header. The specs for segwit deployment have not been decided yet.

You have two confirmations already. If your wallet doesn't show that, then something is wrong.

While that is a user issue, it is not something that changing the protocol should mess with. If you change the protocol and you cause several users to suddenly have transactions that they just sent suddenly be invalid, you will anger many users and potentially cause them to stop using Bitcoin.

About destroying the keys, there are some companies that provide multisig addresses and a pre-signed timelocked transaction to allow users to withdraw their balance should the service suddenly go down. If the service went down and this change happened, those users would no longer be able to access their coins.

You can still use it, but it is recommended that you use 0.94.1 because it is the latest version that has fixed several bugs.

The databases for 0.93.3 and earlier are much much larger. Use 0.94.1 and the databases will only be a few hundred MB instead of several Gb

This is for aws, so it doesn't work on Amazon's normal sites. Since aws doesn't have regions, you can use it wherever you want.