that would be science fiction-y.
not to mention that the internet would break because if you could find a way to mine bitcoin 1000x faster than the current entire hashrate with just your PC, that would mean SHA256 is obsolete and SHA256 is used in a lot of places on the internet.

hashrate is not some imaginary value that can be created out of thin air, it is the amount of work a specialized hardware can perform. imagine when you play a game with your PC using your GPU. if you have an old one and it can't handle the new game that demands a lot of "work" you can't do anything about it. there are optimizations but after that no matter what you do, you won't be able to run that game. you have to buy a new GPU or more than one to get more "power".

hashrate is the same. if your hardware (called ASIC) can only compute X hashes per second, you can't do anything to make it compute 2X hashes per second. that is physically impossible. you have to buy more ASICs to be able to have more hashrate.

majority of bitcoin nodes won't even accept a transaction that has a fee less than 1 satoshi/vbytes, the problem here is that some block explorers compute "vbyte" in a weird and wrong way that ends up being bigger than it should be so the result of dividing total fee by that value becomes smaller hence the wrong 0.4 value here.

you are both thinking about the end of 2017 not the beginning of it. or mainly the end of 2016 and start of 2017.
at the start things were actually pretty similar to these days. price was creeping towards the previous ATH of that time which was a little lower than $1200 and it was struggling to break multiple resistances since many kept cashing out and created sell pressure. we even saw a couple of crashes before the ATH was reached and broken. it took about 5-6 months to stabilize above that ATH (ie $1200) and never come below it again.

when you have the private key you can create a signature from any data that you want, whether that "data" is a serialized transaction that you want to send or a message string, the process is the same.

i can not see any reason for using such a service when there is a better alternative that protects user privacy better. and that is to import the "address" in a wallet that can notify you when the transaction confirms which are available for all platforms including mobile, and then let that remain connected to the network. that way you simple get a pop up telling you it was confirmed instead of wanting to sign up with a third party service and they send you an email so that you see the email pop up telling you it is confirmed!

it is not an issue, or lets say it is being exaggerated a lot. and the more "chain analysis" companies that sprout like mushrooms, the more exaggerated this situation is going to get.

bitcoin is a currency and is fungible and like any other currency it is used for a lot of things that includes illegal activities. at some point in the future (mass adoption) we may even see any transaction to be linked to some illegal activity in its history when you go back long enough. that shouldn't change anything though because you should always compare it with other currencies. take US dollar for example. majority of the bills in your wallet right now are already linked to some illegal activity which is usually drug trafficking. there is even traces of drugs such as cocaine on them. but nobody raises these issues because USD is not new and is not currently under magnifying glass.

as for mixers and coinjoins transactions that may cause some issues for the users, it is like that because their number is still low. so the exchange can easily restrict those handful of them and cause issues but if there were more (like if 80% of their deposits came from coinjoin txs) they would never be able to put any kind of limitations for such transactions.

this is a terrible article to both write and share here because it will make a lot of people think that making profit through 3 way arbitrage is easy and very profitable whereas in reality it really isn't. in majority of cases the difference between prices is too low to make a decent profit and most importantly the market is super volatile which means a price you see right now may not be the same price you see in a couple of seconds and buying/selling and transferring funds between exchanges takes more time than that. in other words the same trader could have easily lost 90% of what he borrowed which brings us to another huge mistake that he made, he invested the money he didn't even own and could not afford to lose!

the times in this picture depend a lot on how the passwords are stored in the database and what the hacker has access to. passwords aren't stored as plaintext, instead the hash of them is stored. and depending on the method used it could be trivially easy or extremely hard to brute force it.
for example both of the following are the hash of a very simple password "123"
while the first one is ridiculously easy to break because it is a single SHA256 hash of the password but the second one (although still easy due to shortness of the password) is a lot harder to break because it is using a strong KDF called scrypt with a strong salt.
the later is what any good website does to make it more expensive for an attacker to be able to brute force things even if they got access to their database somehow.

we are not selecting words from a dictionary or even the 2048 word long list to create the seed phrase. in fact there is absolutely no word selection anywhere in seed generation process.
as i said it is an entropy generated by an RNG and then encoded using a special encoding that returns words instead of characters. (pad with checksum to be divisible by 11 and then split the whole thing into 11 bit chunks each of which representing a word in that 2048 word long list.)

you can't really compare bitcoin with other cryptocurrencies because a big percentage of them are poor copies of bitcoin so there is no point even making that comparison, and the rest are also still very poor projects or purely pump and dump schemes which again comparing a currency with them makes no sense. in a handful of them that have real purpose like XMR that focuses on anonymity they have other issues such as scaling and are not popular enough to be considered for such comparisons.

it can't because seed or better said mnemonic is representation of an entropy so it is only as strong as your entropy generator which happens to be the same as when wallets used to generate a single key. so when you see 12 words you are actually seeing the human readable form of a 128-bit entropy which has the same strength as a bitcoin private key.
i don't know if there is any topic but you can look at https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0039.mediawiki

what you have in mind is digital money not bitcoin alone because being "digital" is only one aspect of bitcoin and it is not even the most important one. the biggest bitcoin characteristic that makes it valuable and is the main reason why it keeps on growing is its decentralization. otherwise if you just want to make money online, don't handle cash,... then can use something like PayPal too!

why not? they may not be malicious themselves but it is still centralization and when we are dealing with centralization it means a single point of failure. imagine if government forced them to ask for KYC before signing any transactions. there is nothing they or their users could do except either giving up on the money they have in that wallet or comply.
not to mention that you will have 0 privacy using such wallets.

no it is not. the DeFi hype is 10 times less than the last same scheme and is the follow up to the same original scheme of raising free money for doing nothing called ICO. and each new one fails worse than the last.

that is not growth, that is staying the same.
when fiat value tanks, it is obvious that price of everything goes up against fiat. and that is what happened here. if you convert bitcoin bought with Turkish fiat to USD you still get the same 11 thousand something dollars no matter how much more Lira you paid.

so does this mean that "rar" technology and the encryption used by whatever software you are using is a "known technology" to you that you decided to trust that and can not trust the Electrum seed creation process and the BIP32 key derivation function?

OP_number is any OP code that is followed by a number is is simply pushing an integer to the stack. anything except negative one is used in SegWit outputs that is OP_0, OP_1, OP_2,.... OP_16.

here are two examples:
currently only version 0 (OP_0) is defined.

if we see this pubkey script is being spent then it signals the mandatory existence of witness in that transaction and some other rules such as signature script being empty.

no, an empty pubkey script means nothing special. a SegWit node verifies all transactions including those that have witnesses and constructs the block and its coinbase transaction as before with 2 additional steps:
- add a single witness reserved value in coinbase witness
- add the witness commitment as a new pubkey script using OP_Return
ax explained in BIP-141

no, a pubkey script that is in the way i explained above (OP_0 to OP_16 followed by a single push of between 2 to 40 bytes) is indicating a SegWit UTXO.\

this is similar to P2SH softfork. a pubkey script that is OP_HASH160 <20 bytes> OP_EQUAL demands extra steps that only new nodes understand and old nodes (before P2SH upgrade) can not verify.

no. nodes don't ignore anything and they must know which UTXO they belong to. keep in mind UTXO is not fetched by the script but by using the hash and index inside tx_in outpoint. the old nodes don't see the witness.

anybody who participated in the market matters but it is all about the degree of their influence and that degree is based on the volume. when the volume coming from other currencies in other exchanges is compared to the volume coming from major exchanges in USD then you can see that they are negligible.
in some cases there is also the problem of OTC trading that it doesn't really affect the price in centralized exchanges.

only a handful of people bought at $20k because it didn't last long enough for anybody to make a move. most of them bought between $8k to $12k which is why this range has been so active with a lot of older coins moving.
that is the nature of ATH which also is a bubble. regular people weren't really buying there, it was only day traders who also sold their coins right away and bought back and sold and bought back at least a thousand times ever since then.

the whitepaper only contains the idea and is not going to tell you whether the project is good or bad. the idea is most of the times excellent.
the roadmap and use cases are also promises and they also don't tell you whether the project is good or bad. the promise may not be kept as is the case with altcoins.

to ask proper questions you have to first be familiar with cryptocurrency and cryptography and a lot more in an advanced level which means if you are then you should start looking at the code itself first and then ask questions.
otherwise no question asked by a beginner who is unfamiliar with all that can provide any valuable information. a well versed pump and dumper who has been around could throw around enough buzzwords to look like an expert and make the shitcoin look good whereas under the hood it is pure garbage. all top 20 altcoins are like this.

all followers of social media of an altcoin are there to hype it and help its pump to be able to dump it and make some of their money back and hope for some profit. they won't provide that much valuable information either.

just because the market cap (aka the supply) of some altcoin is huge and it has gotten bigger pumps and has a better shilling community it doesn't mean that altcoin is good and "established". in case of ethereum it is the worst altcoin of all times. it is centralized, mutable, expensive, buggy, slow, hard to use as a smart contract platform in comparison and hasn't delivered any of the promises they initially made to pump it this high. as an investment it is also terrible because it has unlimited supply hence it is inflationary.

these are not "hacking bitcoin". so your title i nonsense.

the first and second have nothing to do with bitcoin. it is about security of centralized services and physical devices created by a company. bitcoin itself is secure. it is like posting your private key on a forum and then saying they hacked my bitcoin since that is how most exchange hacks are, they have low security with lots of holes in it and when someone exploits them, they hack their exchange not bitcoin.

and the third one is not exactly affecting the coins one has. it can only create new blocks in place of old blocks, and it is not just expensive it is extremely expensive to perform and actually rob someone because it requires a gigantic transaction to be sent first to someone in a trade where you get something else in return (like selling millions of dollars worth of bitcoin and receiving the fiat) then 51% attacking (that costs millions of dollars) to reverse that transaction. but the problem is that someone who has accepted such a huge transaction will demand a lot more confirmation which means the 51% attack cost goes into trillions of dollars range.