Would child-pays-for-parent be a solution? In other words, RBF the last transaction with enough fee to pay for its unconfirmed ancestors.

I use the travel agency cheapair.com for plane tickets and hotel rooms because you can pay with bitcoins.

I used to buy gold with bitcoins at apmex.com but they use Bitpay, which now has a really annoying KYC process.

I feel like you are making this more complicated than it needs to be. You have described all of the steps you are taking without really describing what you are trying to do, so it is difficult to help.

Let me see if I can summarize: You are running Kryptex's mining software on your computer. In exchange, the company deposits bitcoins into your account. You want to cash out the bitcoins in your account for dollars that you can spend. There also seems to be some kind of region restrictions, so you use a VPN to get around them.

Cashing out is not difficult. You basically send the bitcoins to a site where you can sell them for dollars. Then you send the dollars to your bank account so that you can spend them. In general, you cannot send cryptocurrencies directly to a bank.

However, Paypal makes it easier. You can send the bitcoins to your Paypal account, and then sell them to Paypal for dollars, which you can spend.

The region restrictions may or may not be a factor. It is hard to say without any information.

Sad to say that you were probably scammed.


Generally, you install a wallet such as Electrum and import the key, but your description doesn't match any format that I've ever seen.

Here are some examples of private keys:

Hex: E9873D79C6D87DC0FB6A5778633389F4453213303DA61F20BD67FC233AA33262
WIF: Kb8kLf9zgWQnogidDA76MzPL6TsZZY36hWXMssSzNydYXYB9KF5
Base 64: TWFueSBoYW5kcyBtY/WtlIGxpZ2h0I+Hdvcmsu36hWg=

Rodarmor is the inventor of Ordinals.

Ordinals is a protocol for enumerating satoshis and maintaining that enumeration while accounting for transactions and fee payment. The enumeration is arbitrary. Anyone can come up with an enumeration. However, Ordinals will always dominate because it was first and it works well.

Enumerating the satoshis makes each one distinguishable from all of the others. Thus, using the Ordinals protocol, a satoshi can be treated as a non-fungible token (NFT).

With Ordinals, all satoshis are equally rare -- there is only one of each. However, they can be classified according to Rodarmor' classification system, as well as others, in order to introduce ways to establish rarity. These classifications are arbitrary. It's up to you to consider whether some satoshis are more valuable than others according to the classifications you subscribe to.

In my opinion, Ordinals is harmless as long as there is no significant number of people who take it seriously. Otherwise, the fungibility of Bitcoin could become an issue.


Rodarmor also developed a related protocol called Inscriptions that associates data (such as text or an image) embedded in the block chain with an Ordinals satoshi.

I am not as familiar with Runes. If I understand it correctly, it is not related to Ordinals. Instead, it is a token protocol that stores data in Bitcoin transactions via OP_RETURN. It might be interesting to compare it to CounterParty and Omni.

That's a very bad translation job. The disconnected sentences imply to me that an image was translated using something like Google Lens.

Woah. The judge couldn't be more direct and to the point.


Here's an unpopular opinion: None of the evidence proves that he is not Satoshi Nakamoto. It is entirely possible that he is Satoshi Nakamoto, or that he was part of or contributed in some way to a Satoshi Nakamoto team.

However, I mean "possible" in the same sense as that it is "possible" to guess a private key.

Typically the author writes the article but an editor writes the headline.

The editor of the article is confused about what a wallet is. While the article states that the rate of new addresses in the blockchain is down, the title says new "wallets", which is a mistake.

The terms wallet and address are commonly misunderstood by newbies, but this lack of understanding is not something that you would expect from a crypto media site. It's an example of the poor quality reporting at many of these sites.

Basic escrow is as easy as sending to a 2-of-3 multisig address, with an arbitrator being the third signer.

A 2-of-2 multisig escrow must generally be done in a layer on top of Bitcoin, but that might change in the future. A Lightning channel is an example a 2-of-2 multisig escrow.

This should answer your question:

Note that the extra nonce is not part of the protocol, so really it can be any size as long as it fits in the coinbase transaction. The time stamp is 32 bits.

If customers acquire the tokens on your site and they can only spend them on your site, then I don't see a need for a block chain token. I think something like airline miles or v-bucks is more effective. You aren't doing a game, but the concept is the same.

Ok, I don't know if Kryptex is legitimate, but let's assume that it is.


If there are restrictions that require you to use a VPN, then you may not be able to transfer the proceeds from your mining account to an account at a U.S. company. For that reason, you will probably need a "non-custodial" wallet. There is a large number of wallets to choose from, depending on the kind of computer/tablet/phone and the features that you are interested in. Electrum is generally a solid choice, though I am not familiar with all of the wallets out there.



That is confusing. It looks like you can send bitcoins to your paypal account from an outside wallet. So, in short send the BTC from your mining account to your non-custodial wallet, and then send the BTC to your PayPal account. Here is some information from PayPal: https://www.paypal.com/us/cshelp/article/what-can-i-do-with-crypto-on-paypal-help893

Note that receiving bitcoins in small amounts will increase your fees for sending. I recommend waiting for your mining account to accrue at least a hundred dollars or so before sending the BTC to your wallet.

The topic is complicated, but there are many reasons why you might not want to do that. First, consider all of the games out there that allow you to buy stuff with in-game tokens. They generally don't use block chain tokens because it is complicated and the benefits are small. The main reason to use a block chain token is to allow the use of the token outside of the particular system you are developing. Also, the burden of buying and selling the tokens moves to an exchange if one is willing to list your token.

On the other hand, there are games that use block chain tokens. You could research them to determine if a block chain token is appropriate for your project.

Finally, token development on Bitcoin is not as well developed as it is on other block chains. You might try Solana.

It's actually not that cut-and-dry. Here is an interesting bug in the Bitcoin protocol that has been around since the beginning.

As you may already know, the difficulty adjustment is 1263600 (2016 x 10 x 60) seconds divided by the duration of the last 2016 blocks. However, that's not how it actually works. In reality, the difficulty adjustment is implemented as 1263600 (2016 x 10 x 60) seconds divided by the duration of the last 2015 blocks. That is a bug because it doesn't match the design or the intention.

Now, you can argue that it is a bug in the software and not the protocol, but it is present in all node software, and more importantly, a hard fork will be necessary to fix it. So, it is really a bug in the protocol.

FYI, this bug will probably never be fixed because the effect of the bug is trivial (10.005 minute blocks) and a hard fork would be necessary.

Also, note that most Bitcoin developers consider Bitcoin Core to be "The Bitcoin Protocol", further blurring the distinction between the software and the protocol. If a piece of software is not compatible with Bitcoin Core, it is not following the protocol.

I don't see anything obviously wrong.

If you are paying 200k sats for a transaction when the current fee is around 12 s/vb, then the reason is likely that you have received your BTC through a large number of transactions.

I encourage you to learn more about how fees work. The best solution for you now is probably to wait until fees are very low and then send all of your bitcoins to yourself in a single transaction. It will probably still cost a lot, but less than what it would cost when fees are high.

On the other hand, it also could be one of these:

• you tried to send when the fees were temporarily high or
• your wallet is not very good at recommending fees, or
• you are choosing a fee that will guarantee that your transaction will be in the next block.

The cloud mining scam has been around for more than a decade, but regardless of what year it is, if 99% of the cloud mining offers you come across are scams, then it prudent to assume that they are all scams. A cloud mining operation would have to prove to me that they are legitimate before I would consider it, and I don't consider claims of past profitability to be sufficient proof.

I am very skeptical. I have yet to see an example of an operation that benefits both the operator and the customers. Typically, any benefits to the operator are at the expense of the customers.

Here is the basis of my skepticism: If I am an operator who has built a profitable mining operation, when is it better for me to sell hash power for less than what I would get if I kept all of the mining revenue for myself? I believe the answer is "never". So, a legitimate cloud mining is at best a money loser.

It is also apparent to me that cloud mining customers don't ask themselves a basic question, If I pay 62k USD (the current price) for hash rate, will I end up with 1 BTC at the end? The answer is generally no if the operator also wants to make a profit.

Cool story bro. Is there a question?



The key id was used to get the PGP signing key, which is used to authenticate the download. It is obsolete.



Why are you telling us this?

That doesn't mean much without a time frame. Just through inflation, $62,000 will become $1,000,000 in 140 years at 2% and 70 years at 4%.

Sorry for being a broken record, but the supply is not cut in half. The supply continues to increase every 10 minutes until it reaches 21 million. It is the production that is halved. It is a common misconception.

The distinction is important because the claim that "the supply is reduced" it is typically followed up with a statement along the lines of, "and a lower supply causes a higher price." The logic is erroneous because the supply is not reduced.