You are right about it not being 100% fool proof, but when you run a hidden service neither you nor the other party ever uses an exit node, Tor is very very good when the traffic doesn't leave the Tor network, it is just harder to make a connection to the clear net securely, since there are bigger costs in running an exit node, so most legit users don't run them. But this still doesn't mean that they monitor ALL the exit nodes, you have to remember that these are nodes all across the world, in Russia, Switzerland,...There is no clear evidence that they can really monitor these ones in the other countries.

Your log clearly shows that you have a bitcoin data folder at /home/pi/.bitcoin/ . Which is a default path when you run as a user called "pi", but when you run as root the default is /root/.bitcoin and when you run sudo command it means that root is running it, so that one got created when you ran it with sudo.

There is no certainty, only prediction. You can use sites like already mentioned or https://bitcoinfees.21.co/
You can search the Internet on how to do a CPFP(only if the transaction is sending coins to an address controlled by you) or a double spend to get the transaction confirmed.
In future you can also use Replace by fee feature so you can just change the fee in your transaction even after it has been broadcasted to the network.

There is no real way to efficiently compress it and used it as such, since if you do compress it, you will be spending some CPU power whenever you need to access it anyway, but the previous reply is also right, it won't compress much.

Are you asking this so you can fit the blockchain on the SSD?
If so, you could try instead of pruning it, to maybe put the older blocks on the HDD and newer ones on the SSD. That should speed things up for the most requested blocks. You could probably do this by making soft (symbolic) links of the certain amount of oldest blocks until you are comfortable with the amount of free space you have left on the SSD.

You can see more about creating symbolic links here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbolic_link#POSIX_and_Unix-like_operating_systems

Because of the main problems with S2X is that it is a hard fork. Devs prefer a softfork, not only so other nodes don't need to update, but because hardforks shouldn't be that easy, this is security of the Bitcoin.

I am not fully familiar with the complete technical detail of SHA256, however to me this sounds like something other's have known about already.
You can check out AsicBoost http://www.math.rwth-aachen.de/~Timo.Hanke/AsicBoostWhitepaperrev5.pdf , it seems to me like your idea might be mentioned there as well.

PS: This technology is patented, as far as I know.

You could check the db.log file as well. It might have something to do with that. As for the permission part, I believe that when you use sudo, since you run as root, bitcoin-qt probably uses root home directory and it looks for the data directory there, which is probably "/root/.bitcoin". You can check if that folder was created and if it was, there is your answer to why it syncs again.

PS: In future, don't run any programs as root unless it was intended as so by the program creators. I know it was maybe your last resort, but last thing you want is a buggy network program to be running as root on your device.


He said the version in the OP, you missed it. "Running bitcoin client v0.14.2.0-91be5e3e-dirty on raspbian"

You can always check using an online block explorer like this one https://blockexplorer.com/ , just put your address in and it should show a balance and all the transactions. This way you can see is it up to your wallet software or have the funds not been sent at all or not confirmed by the blockchain.

You should also double check, if you used copy & paste on your address, that the address you provided is the same as the one in your wallet, since there is malware that changes addresses from the clipboard. You can check this by copying some address and seeing if it is different when you paste it somewhere.

I agree that I made the post only with mobile networks in mind. I guess that other forms of 2FA as Google Authenticator became popular in recent years and I haven't got used to thinking about it as a widely adopted alternative. I thought that 2FA services are dominated by use of cellular networks and see here that it might not be the case anymore.

I don't know. These are big companies that are pushing it, they don't want it their way and nothing else. I guess they were bothered by the whole debate so that is a balance of taking both. They also maybe don't want to have this debate again in the future as it causes uncertainty and short period price drops, which is bad for business. These are businessmen, not developers, they don't understand all the technical details and for them no solution is better then the other. They just see it as two groups having a debate about something they don't understand, but that hurts their business so they want to fix it. This is how businessmen reach a conclusion, they talk to both sides, shake some hands, reach a compromise between the two parties. There is no clear logical technical advantage of one system over the other, they simply don't get that.

To be honest you seem to have some allegations against you as well, so I wouldn't trust you on this matter. I would rather see some of the trusted members confirm this, but it seems like they are on his side.

Besides, you keep bringing law into this. No one will care about that here, this is about the forum's trust system, not about the law. This is a forum for people all around the world and laws on extortion differ from country to country. Don't try to bring the outside influence into this community like that has any relevance here, if you only rely on the government then Bitcoin and this place is not for you. That is just my opinion.

Of course there is no point. Even 1MB blocks work, since segwit adoption is still pretty low, we really have been running all this time on 1MB. Now we will use 4MB and we will have Lightning Network that will keep many transactions off the cahin, so we are not even close to the urgent need of a hardfork. The need for it is so far away that we shouldn't even be bothered thinking about it, since a lot could change by that time.

I don't know where you got he info that national agencies don't know who he is and that they tried to figure it out in the first place.
Bitcoin wasn't as popular back then, so he kind of kept a low profile and as I understand he went away just when things got him a bit of high profile.
It also isn't easy to retrospectively try to find out someone's identity, if they didn't monitor the Internet back then, then there would be little they could do now.

I somehow doubt that he used Tor and PGP has nothing really to do with anonymity, but with security.
He might have used some public Wifi and/or some proxies, I doubt he went very high tech.

This doesn't make any sense to me, especially the last part. If some address belongs to an exchange, that is not that hard to find out if you do some data analysis and if you know at least some addresses of that exchange. This info isn't in the address or any particular place on it's own. It is just some research and inside knowledge. As for the wallet software that generated them, I guess there might be wallets that try to generate addresses in a certain recognizable way, but this isn't the case for any popular wallet I know, it is just harder to do so and there is no benefit, in fact it is at the cost of anonymity. It is harder to generate addresses that don't look random and you need to make an effort to do so.

To be honest, from the meaning of the word, you can't really see terrorism as so surprising and outrageous.
Is it so surprising that there are people who will do crazy things just to scare you enough so you don't bother them?
After all the invasions that America did on other countries, how is it so weird that there will be people who will blow themselves u, just for you to hear their suffering and pay attention to it. Life is cheap when your country is at war and all your family is dead. I don't support any kind of violence, but you should think about a different perspective. Wouldn't you kill people that were responsible or at least in part contributed to the death of your family? Think about a father who got their children killed in a drone strike, it definitively isn't ok to hurt people because of it, but is it so surprising?

You should all seriously chill about the whole islamophobia thing. All religions are dieing and all that is left of them, that is in any reasonable popularity, is belief in one god, all the rest is pretty much almost gone. Religions don't even differ anymore that much in most of population, most just believe in god and that is pretty much it, same as all religions.

Like in every other population, young people that are born into a Muslim family are less and less religious by a generations. They get more connected with the Internet and care less about those things.

You should worry about corruption, that there hasn't decreased a bit, climate change is a pretty urgent matter as well. Other stuff, you can set as a secondary objective for a while.

Not only is it unlikely that any government will just get into any project like that, created by someone else, but in general blockchain is unnecessary for voting as it is simply not a good solution for the problem. There are a lot more effective ways to implement decentralized digital voting system, then using blockchain, let along some coin distributed through some ICO. You should have asked this question before you went into the whole trouble of making it or at least did a bit of research first to see that it is far far from an original idea.

Yeah, I also think you will have a bit of a problem with #2. I wouldn't support it either as I am not yet convinced about it. You might want to look into the Pirate Party btw, as you seem interested in politics apparently. They also have international presence.

Sounds like the problem might not have been in the Trezor. First of all it is quite safe wallet and secondly not all your funds are gone, so there you go. I would look more into those addresses that got their coins stolen, I doubt some address was only partially emptied, I would assume that only some of your addresses were emptied and the ones that were are completely empty now. So I would trace my steps back about those addresses particularly, what is so special about them, what do they all have in common?

As for the altcoins, not only could be the same thing as I said above, but they also might have had trouble learning about how to use them and all, different wallets and making sure they can do in anonymously,...who knows...

I see people like you connecting PoS with the inflation. PoS is just a consensus algorithm, it has nothing to do with the monetary policy.
You can have an inflation using PoW just as well, and you can have PoS without inflation. They have nothing in common.
There will be blocks in Bitcoin after last coin is mined as well and miners will be only earning from the mining fees of the transactions, which should increase by that time in value.


You make a good point. Governments size a lot of Bitcoin when they raid. This could give them power to censor Bitcoin as well after they raid few big dark markets.


I am afraid that Bitcoin will always produce a lot of electricity. Cost of mining rigs are usually not the limiting factor for big miners, but the actual power that they can get into the building. Some real world resources need to be spent to secure the network, this is the whole point of blockchain, figuring out a way to bind Internet presence with the real world by giving problems that requires real world resources to be solved and it does it all in a decentralized manner. I know this is a pretty radical point of view, but I think that PoS blockchain is not a blockchain. It simply doesn't have any limiting factor that keeps the attackers from spamming the network with malicious votes on what the next block will be. This is better known as "The nothing at stake" vulnerability.

Now we might make a real world resource be something other then electricity, like hardware, but it is the same point. The point is that we need to make electricity production ( as well as all the other productions ) more ecofriendly, not trying to cut costs on security.