This is not correct. The old transaction remains perfectly valid. The new higher paying transaction is far more likely to be confirmed in a block, but there is nothing stopping a miner from including the old one if they choose or if they don't learn about the new one for some reason.

I can see that OP has bumped his fee again, this time to 7 sats/vbyte, and his transaction has now confirmed. I would also suggest to OP that I don't know where he is getting his bitcoin from, but receiving >40 outputs to the same address, some of only a few thousand sats, is a very inefficient way to use bitcoin. You should try to receive larger amounts less frequently if you can. And given that almost all of those outputs predate the current surge in fees, I don't know why you've chosen to consolidate them now when you could have consolidated them at 1 sat/vbyte almost any time over the past year.

Of course it does. The coins are in escrow before any fiat transaction is made. If Bisq solved nothing as you claim, it would have collapsed due to endless scams years ago.

If I go to a merchant in person and pay with my non-KYCed bitcoin, or if I use my non-KYCed bitcoin to buy a non-KYCed giftcard which I then spend in person, how are the government going to track that?

Correct. When faced with some centralized service which is actively attacking bitcoin by proclaiming some coins as "tainted", the rational response is not to let them attach your KYC to all your coins and submit to their endless surveillance and invasion in to your life. The rational response is to not use such a service and instead use an alternative which does not do any of this nonsense.

Sorry - as nc50lc explained, I assumed you were importing two seed phrases in to the same copy of Electrum, rather than connecting two hardware devices. Using two hardware devices with the same copy of Electrum is perfectly fine - the two hardware wallets will only share their respective extended public keys with Electrum, with the seed phrases and private keys remaining secured within the hardware devices themselves.

Because you can import seed phrases directly in to Electrum itself. If you did this, then you would be completely negating the point of the hardware wallets.

What do you mean by that? Are you back ups encrypted? I hope you've also securely backed up you decryption key if that's the case.

This means you have imported both seed phrases in to the same wallet. While this will certainly let you spend your coins, it is a bad idea since it removes all the benefits you gain from a multi-sig wallet. Importing both seed phrases in to a the same wallet means that you now have a single point of failure, and compromise of that one wallet will lead to your coins being stolen. You should only import a single seed phrase and use the master public keys from the other cosigners. That wallet will then only be able to provide one signature, and not both. You would then move your partially signed transaction to a wallet on a different device which can provide the second signature.

You would still have to calculate the checksum for all 2²⁶⁴ combinations, which simply involves a single SHA256. After checking the checksum you will be able to immediately exclude 255 out of every 256 seed phrases (on average).

For the one seed phrase which does pass the checksum, you must then perform 2048 rounds of HMAC-SHA512 to calculate the root seed number, then various more rounds of HMAC-SHA512 alongside elliptic curve multiplications and additions to work down the derivation path, then three SHA256s, one RIPEMD160, and a Base58 conversion to turn that final public key in to an address to check to see if it matches the one you are looking for.

This is obviously far more resource intensive and time consuming that performing a single SHA256 in order to calculate the checksum.

First of all - thank you! I've lost track of how many times I've recommended your site to other users looking to reclaim their privacy and avoid the huge security risk of centralized exchanges.

Secondly, I love the redesign. The only small bug I've found is that if I try to visit the Audits page I get the error "Could not get audit logs, please try again later". I assume this is simply because there have been no updates yet since the new site launched?

Keep up the great work. Your site is a real asset for the community.

Sure, that's a big difference, but how are you proposing that the network forks in two, with one subset managing to suddenly mine two weeks worth of blocks in ~3.5 days in order to cause their difficulty to increase 4x, and with the other subset taking >2 months to mine the same number of blocks?

A change which resulted in a minority of the network talking more than 2 months to mine the next 2016 blocks would simply result in that minority chain eventually being abandoned. And no change can suddenly cause the hashrate to quadruple and make the rest of the network mine four times faster.

The number you are looking for there is 2.96*10⁷⁹, rather than 2.96⁷⁹.

That number is not quite right, however. It is the same number as 2048²⁴ or 2²⁶⁴. However, not all 24 word combinations are valid seed phrases due to the checksum. With the checksum being 8 bits long, it means only one out of every 256 seed phrases on average is valid. This means the total number of valid 24 word seed phrases is 2²⁵⁶, which is 1.16*10⁷⁷.

It's the same as anything else. My password for this forum might be Y}tz3Wd[^DkxY\2>5p$6. While it is theoretically possible someone could guess that on the first guess, in reality no one would ever be able to brute force that password.

Minor addition: Prior to the implementation of BIP34, we already had BIP30. BIP30 already prevented two coinbase transactions from having identical transaction hashes unless the first one had been fully spent, which would have prevented the issue here of 100 BTC being destroyed.

I'm not trying to convince you to use anything - I'm pointing out that your VPN is almost certainly not providing the protection you think it is.

And my interest is that everyone deserves privacy from any and all third parties they want privacy from, but a VPN is unlikely to achieve that in isolation.

The day I have to give up all my privacy to use bitcoin is the day I sell it all for monero.

I wouldn't. I would just change the walletdir path, relaunch Bitcoin Core, and then relaunch Sparrow, and let Sparrow create a new cormorant wallet on your main drive.

I assume you have managed to locate the bitcoin.conf file and figured out how to path to your main drive?

Based on the benchmark provided by btcrecover, that would be to exhaust 50% of the search space, which is the average amount of the space you would need to search to reach the desired combination.

Yes. But it is equally likely that you find it in the 4th result or that you find it in the 4th last result after searching 99.9999....% of combinations.

That word encodes 11 bits of data. Of those bits of data, some of them represent a checksum. For a 12 word seed phrase, 4 bits are a checksum. For a 24 word seed phrase, it is 8 bits.

That's not right, On average you need to exhaust half the search space. There is a 50% chance you find it in the first half, and a 50% chance you find it in the second half.

Somewhat off topic, but Opera have a built in free VPN which is absolute trash (just like every other free VPN), not to mention being owned by a Chinese consortium with links to the CCP. I wouldn't trust it for a second.

Some browsers like Chrome and Opera spy on you constantly, sure, but not all browsers. Just use Tor or Firefox instead.

That GitHub seems to confirm it's an issue with the wallet being on a different drive. Hopefully moving it to the main drive as I suggested will work.

Either add walletdir=PATH to your bitcoin.conf file, or launch bitcoin with the added command line or shortcut option -walletdir=PATH, with PATH changed to a path to a directory on your main drive. If you say what OS you are using I can be more specific.

A government could easily create a whitelist for certain VPN providers or servers used by corporations and a separate blacklist for VPN providers or servers accessible by individuals.

Not wrong at all. You have absolutely no way to verify your VPN provider is not keeping logs, sharing data with your government, or indeed a honeypot.

This attack is not possible without the cooperation of a majority of nodes. Block timestamps have an upper bound of two hours in the future based on network adjusted time, which is never going to be enough to result in any meaningful reduction in the difficulty. Only with a majority of nodes altering their local time to days in the future in order to accept the blocks with artificially delayed timestamps could this attack be successful.

Essentially yes. The wallet is generated based on two human created and memorized strings - an email address and a password.

Some will use cryptographic PRNGs of varying security, but if the wallet can still be accessed using a username/email and a password via a website then it remains highly insecure.

In the first instance, I would try using the -walletdir option within Bitcoin Core to change the location of your wallet directory to your main drive , but leave the blockchain data on your external drive, and then try again.

Failing that, check both Bitcoin Core's and Sparrow's log files to see if there is any useful information in them.

I would concur with hosseinimr93. coinb.in should be viewed as a tool for advanced users to construct transactions or addresses with particular unlocking scripts, and to broadcast transactions if necessary. It can also be used by advanced users on an airgapped device as a tool for signing transactions. It should never be used as a wallet because web wallets are not secure, even if they generate entropy properly and not via an email and password which is a terrible idea.

I wouldn't put coinb.in on any list of recommended wallets, especially not one targeted at beginners.

They also shouldn't be surveilling or censoring their users, but here we are.

No one from Wasabi has ever confirmed nor denied it is Coinfirm. We are assuming as much because of this code in the Wasabi codebase: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5457078.msg62438954#msg62438954

You've learnt enough about Wasabi to know they are an enemy of bitcoin and no one should ever use them. You can move on to learning about other topics now.