I don't believe that this drop means an indication of a bear market if you say so. Bitcoin did make these falls, but in this case, I think that we should only consider the halvings. It's the closest we can get to the final result of a bull market. Thus, I'd skip 2014, because there was no halving; it was just the year after the first one.


That would be true IF this bull run was over. You can't really know for sure that the $64k are the top of it, in contrast with 2017 and 2013 that we are now ensured how they ended. So the growfall may not be x6.3, I actually believe that it'll be ~x20. Kicking the $100k would seem impossible to me a year ago, but now? Nope.

Let's take a look on the halvings' chart. We are, right now, on the red part and you can notice these similar drops happened on the previous halvings too. Judging from this chart, I can gently say that this may be your last chance to buy Bitcoin at this price.

---

---

Also, I observe that history repeats itself as I recently mentioned. Back in 2017, we had McAfee, now Elon Musk.

What did you understand in the context of “change”? A consensus change such as 21M coins that would result in a hard fork? A change like SegWit and Taproot that would result in a soft fork?

It's been said by everyone and I also agree that PoW is the greatest choice and that this mechanism shouldn't be changed by force. But we can't be sure for any other innovative ideas, though.

Even if someone found a more efficient way to secure the network same like with PoW, I don't understand why we'd want that. The system works fine this way and the miners become more and more efficient, if we see this situation morally.

Wouldn't this be a hard fork?

In my opinion, Satoshi left this project to protect it, not to experiment with the society, if we assume that they're the government. There's nothing wrong I see about this. You see, sometimes it's not enough to characterize a network “fully decentralized” if the creator is known by everyone. The creator will sooner or later affect the market whether he wants it or not, especially if he holds an important amount of coins.

Why should Satoshi be Japanese?

You said it yourself. Burn addresses. No one holds their keys.

Ouch!

Well, that ain't good. No, you can't do anything with the second transaction that will “enable” any ability for the first transaction. You signed it, you broadcasted. That's all folks.

Probably electrum doesn't seem to have RBF enabled by default once you sweep a paper wallet. I guess that for the other one (kraken tx), had it normally. If you aren't too sure for both of them, note that you can view your transaction on electrum by right clicking on it and then “View Transaction”. Here's the RBF enablement:


It may take days considering the fact that it's a huge legacy transaction.

When was the “past”? A year ago, I could have my transaction confirmed within an hour with 1 sat/byte. Lots of things happened this year and yeah. There are, right now, 252,909 transactions in the mempool of my node. Remember, the more the transactions the greater the fee.

No, it won't help you. You want to get your first transaction confirmed. The second doesn't affect the first one.

But, you said that there's no RBF. You can't increase the fee if you have signed that replacing by fee isn't acceptable.

A legacy transaction is one that has inputs from legacy addresses (the ones that start with “1”). Well, if you use this type of addresses, you'll pay more in fees.

If you can't increase the fee of your first transaction, there's no direct point of increasing the second transaction. Not sure if miners will include a parent transaction just because there's a child transaction paying a lot in fees. As it seems, you've chosen 137 sat/byte and it hasn't helped.

As far as I can see from mempool.space, the low priority is 101 sat/byte, so I guess you'll get your 80 sat/byte transaction confirmed within the next few hours. Nothing to worry about if you're not in hurry.

I guess that since it's a paper wallet, the first transaction is a legacy one, which makes things worse. 

I don't fully understand what does that title have to do with the thread's content but I'd like to comment it. All things can crash. We've seen this in history and IMO, it could happen much more easily on an intangible item like Bitcoin, even if we're goin' through a digital era. It's just hard to happen if you compare it with altcoins.

Bitcoin has the privilege to be first mover, which is what makes it store of value.

Maybe. Maybe not. How can an ordinary member of bitcointalk know for sure?

I believe he did. He just said that Bitcoin has indeed changed a lot of times in the past, to improve the way it works. You see, sometimes, the “singers” of this network must switch tunes, but that's not necessarily bad. As long as there is harmony, we're fine.

I guess he said that PoW will either be changed or a new mechanism will replace it, although I doubt for both of them.

“Break” isn't the greatest word to describe this. The system has to change sooner or later and you should be okay with this, except if you haven't understood the way it is structured.

I'm quoting you a message of this forum:

Assuming it's a “he”.

---

But he did mine lots of blocks during the first month, while it was still under development and only known by those he was emailing that time. Didn't he?

Yes, sorry. My bad.

Okay, I was just curious because you said that you configured EPS and you rescanned it many times. So this is what you did. You ran EPS without rescan, you imported your addresses on Bitcoin Core and then you rescanned.

Doesn't this ruin the entire purpose of EPS? To prevent connecting to other electrum servers? Since I setup EPS, I'm starting my electrum with:

“Premining” is actually a made-up word, that we've defined it as a creation of some coins, before the cryptocurrency gets launched. Almost all cryptos are premined, even Bitcoin. Satoshi was mining for a month, before he/she announced it on bitcoin.org. I just wanted to point you that, let's move on.

So you want to lock up a “premine”. To me, this sentence makes no sense, because of the definition of “premining” above. Can you give me an example of what exactly you want to do? When you ask for help on a forum, especially if it has to do with coding, you have to be precise.

You mean that your EPS listens to your full node and your electrum is connected to your EPS, right?

So you didn't make any changes and it just worked, like magic? If you did change anything, you should write it here. There may be people searching for a solution about this problem in the future, and your answer could satisfy them.

As for the strikethrough text, why are you referring to servers? EPS is a personal server that connects only to your node. There may be an either false formulation from your side (maybe a misunderstanding?) or a false interpretation of your text from my side.

Besides the fact that you'll have to re-index the block chain every time you create a new wallet, is there any other downsides of EPS? I personally find it very efficient if you don't want to require third-party servers.

Quoted again then and verified.

You're quoted.

It reduces the security and it's not practical. How sure are you that you'll receive that email in a few years? Can you really trust your email provider for that? Are you that sure that you'll have access to that email after all these years? From me, it's a NO!

But, here's what you can do to prevent yourself from panic selling: You can use locktime. This is actually your best option with no third party required. Essentially, you're creating an output that can only be spent after a specific block. For example, if I send 1 BTC and lock it for block 1,000,000 it can only be spent after 315,811 * 10 minutes = 2,193 days.  (around 21st of May 2027)

I doubt if you can use any Bitcoin's smart contract on Exodus besides the basic functionalities like Send/Receive/Show Private keys, but you can transfer your funds on electrum and do it from there. Assuming that you have transferred them to electrum this is what it'll pop you once you click to pay:

---

---

Also, read this: Using Locktime for inheritance planning, backups or gifts.

Just googled what's the birthday paradox, but haven't understood properly how could this be used to increase your probability of finding a collision. It'd be off-topic to analyze it here, so I may create a new thread about it in the future. Anyway, thanks for the clarification.

I may have misunderstood this. It wouldn't make sense to brute force invalid scripts, but valid ones. Why would someone brute force scripts that couldn't be redeemed?

Wait, P2WPKH stands for “Pay To Witness Public Key Hash” and an example is:

P2WSH stands for “Pay To Witness Script Hash” and an example is:

Yes, my bad. P2WPKH is what I meant.

So we have the witness script hash (P2WSH) and the witness public key hash (P2WPKH). This Bitcoin improvement proposal says that it will improve the security by increasing the size, from 160 bits to 256, because it'll be harder to find a collision. Isn't this a little ironic for the already existent address types? I'm trying to understand what's going on here, but it seems that I fail to.

If you increase the address size, then the transaction will also weight more, but it'll be more secure against a collision attack. But why did the developers change it to SHA256 since every other address type uses the HASH160? Making such announcement is like contending that HASH160 isn't strong enough, but it is. The fact that they did it exclusively for P2WSH seems weird to me.

Question: Is there a P2WPKH corresponding to P2SH? Or if I didn't place it properly: An address type that is longer than P2SH, but starts with “3”?

Oh, okay, thanks. So electrum doesn't sort them ascendingly.

In order to rank up, you'll need to have merits and activity. In summary, you slowly gain activity points for staying active and merits for making useful/helpful posts.

This will guide you: FAQ: Everything you need to know about forum 'activity, account ranks and merit

As for your old account, it may got compromised, at least if you don't remember what you did. I advice you to stake your address and be able to prove the ownership of your account in the future.

Was that what you wanted? I thought you already knew about the mathematical rules that govern Bitcoin. Assuming that every 210,000 blocks a halving occurs then we have:

• 10,500,000 coins in the first 210,000 blocks.
• 5,250,000 coins in the next 210,000 blocks.
• 2,125,000 coins in the next 210,000 blocks.

This goes on and on 'til the 31st halving that each block will reward 0.00000001 coins.

— But why is it 4 years?

Because of the block interval. The network is structured in a way to always generate a block every 10 minutes on average. If you multiply 210000 with 10 minutes then you get 2.1 million minutes which is 35,000 hours or 1,458.3 days. Divide that with 365 and you'll get 3.995 years.

Is there any reason why we use SHA256 instead of HASH160? Why does this change only in multi-sig and not traditionally on 1-of-1 P2WSH addresses? Using 160 bits instead of 256 would make the transaction weight less.

Also, why does that happen only on P2WSH and not on P2SH? My multi-sig nested segwit addresses aren't longer than those that aren't multi-sig:




But what is the exact order of the public keys? Since we're hashing a message, then the public keys must be given on the same order. For example, in electrum when it asks me to enter my cosigners' keys, do I have to enter them in the same order when we made the wallet or has it a way to then sort it out in ascending order no matter the way I entered them?