I am looking for a calculator that will calculate the amount of Bitcoin I have if the price was 50, 100 or 1 million dollars. I could do the math manually but it is hard to do if I want to check this regularly as I gain more Bitcoin.

Does this service exist?

I have a question on how TapRoot improves batch validation by replacing OP_CHECKMULTISIG(VERIFY) with OP_CHECKSIGADD, to support batch validation. I have been reading through the posts and documents supplied here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5140134.0

But I have been struggling to find the documentation explaining how and why this is an improvement. Is there anyone here that can explain the technical differences between OP_CHECKMULTISIG(VERIFY) and OP_CHECKSIGADD and what that means for the future of Bitcoin?

After getting Welsh's permission to make a infographic of his impressive guide to effectively report I managed to cook up a much simpler version of the thread. The idea of the infographic is to make the information provided by Welsh in a more concise and summarized version. Hopefully while reporting members will find it useful to download and keep it handy to help them. That is the goal at least.

I've simplified most of the explanations and examples and decided against including some of the information present on the original thread but I have made sure to include the thread link on the infographic for anyone seeking more detailed information.

[When requesting members]

I am thinking of using Vod's BPIP statistics and making some infographics for members that are requested. I still need to finalize some design details as I'm still getting used to making infographics. I'm using the MTAR of BPIP to have the little indicators and estimating where to put it depending on the rank of the member. Currently going to have different markers for certain values so the markers are consistent. So if you are above 100 in most trusted I would put you very close to the end of the right in the second position. If you are first it will be like above and if you are between 500-600 you will be put at the 50% mark etc. I have implemented "MP" as "most posts" too.

When requesting members
Please only request members who have significant history on the forum. I will be looking at every post made and choosing my favorites but if you guys suggest some important quotes made my the member that would be great. History tab will probably be hard to fill for most requests so I will priorities those that are easier to identify.

[History of Bitcoin & Bitcointalk infographic]

History of Bitcoin & Bitcointalk infographic


I have created an infographic based on information collected here on this post by member xtraelv . I have attempted to create a visual outlook of each event relating to either the forum or Bitcoin. I have included brief descriptions either made by myself or taken from the brief descriptions of xtraelv. I would like to thank xtraelv for making this possible by creating a topic with so much history collected in one place.

I intend on adding images and more information to the infographic as time passes. However being new to the creation of infographics I have been slogging away at this for around a week and thought I would release it for constructive criticism and hopefully being a useful guide. I am aware of a few spelling mistakes and grammar issues and the placeholder logo for the forum not being optimized.  

I will be creating separate versions of these infographics which will be dedicated to only the forums and Bitcoin.

The image is too big to preview on the forum and therefore I will include a link to the image instead.

Infographic Link
                                                                                     (https://i.imgur.com/xW6EDpB.png)

This is how the system should work:

1. User registration
2. User posts to whatever sub forum they would like too
3. The users post isn't displayed publicly
4. The post enters a queue which can be accepted or rejected

The idea behind this suggestion is to prevent people abusing how easy it is to register on this forum and spam their advertisement, viruses or whatever their malicious purposes are for registering. We recently had spambots register and were spreading their links to advertise their service this could have been avoided with this suggestion.

When the post is posted it appears publicly to the member who posted it but not to the rest of the forum. The post will then enter a queue which staff members get to accept or reject. Rejecting the post will in turn delete it and send a notification to the member to notify them that their post was deleted. This message should not mention that each post has to be approved before being submitted but I guess this will become public knowledge sooner rather than later.

In addition to staff members handling these posts I think we should open up the possibility of merit sources dealing with them too. Merit sources are not required to do it but they can volunteer their services if they would like too. After all merit sources are suppose to be on the look out for good posts and this would in turn allow them to merit good first posts and reject posts they think is spam.

I think this approval system should be in place until the member has either been whitelisted by a member of staff or received at least 1 merit. What do you guys think of this?

Simplicity. Ease of use. That is the only long term problem I see with Bitcoin that cannot easily be fixed. Fundamentally Bitcoin is a highly complex system which requires technical skills which may seem intimidating to those that are new to cryptocurrency. I also think seasoned vets within the computing industry don't fully understand the system and how the Blockchain is the most inspiring and promising part about Bitcoin.

Despite its existing problems such as the size of the Blockchain, transaction fees, stability, and other things such as a reputation for criminals using the cryptocurrency. All of these problems can be either fixed over time or fixed immediately.

 The size of the blockchain and the cost of hosting a node will continue to rise and become an expense that most people will not be willing to do. But he fact that Bitcoin keeps rising and that nodes are required to keep the system operational and more secure there will be a good enough reason to do so. Also with emerging technologies we should see storage systems get cheaper and bigger over time. Potentially looking at ways of reducing the size of the blockchain could also be looked at and I'm confident in the future this will be a problem of the past.

Transaction fees are expensive and because of the way the price falls and rises over time and how often it does it can seem like a waste to pay expensive transaction fees. We see less and less transactions when the price of Bitcoin rises and thus the transaction fees rise however this is a problem for Bitcoins stability because for the value to remain high we need people holding, transacting, and selling/buying. This is what drives the market of supply and demand. Despite this issue transaction fees can be scaled and Bitcoin could be scaled in the future so that transaction fees are lower. There is also the option of using Segwit2x which has proved to be a worthwhile investment for those that send micro or regular transactions.

Currently people are automatically suspicious of Bitcoin because of all the news articles out there that point out the bad bits about Bitcoin and to be honest this is going to have an effect if our goal is using Bitcoin in every day life. However as times goes on and we have more reputable companies accepting Bitcoin and more reputable celebrities endorsing Bitcoin we should see an increase in its reputation and hopefully ditch this "criminals use Bitcoin" view point that much of the western world has.

Despite all of this there is a fundamental problem with Bitcoin if we are aiming to become a mainstream currency and that's simply simplicity. In its current state the Blockchain, exchanges, transaction fees, and mining is too complex for your every day grandma at the superstore. Which in turn could prevent us from becoming a main stream currency and in fact I think this is the biggest reason why we don't see more people buying into Bitcoin. Anyone who hasn't heard of Bitcoin will probably ask you "how do you buy Bitcoin" or "how do you sell bitcoin" or "how do you store Bitcoin". These are questions that can seem complex to an ordinary person who doesn't know anything about Bitcoin and wants to get into it. The complex answer which follows these questions will likely put off most people interested in it which is a massive problem if we are to ever become a mainstream currency.

So my question to the Bitcointalk community is how would we go about simplifying Bitcoin for an every day consumer?

I have an idea which will operate in similar terms to the current trust system possibly implementing flags for making things easier. This being a Bitcoin forum I think we should encouraging decentralized approaches as much as we possibly can. The current trust system has its flaws but I think at heart it has a good foundation and isn't bias. How would we feel about introducing a similar system to determining who is merit sources? At the moment we are relying on theymos who has a million other responsibilities to review and appoint merit sources. The primary concern here is members who have showed that they are a valuable asset to the forum and are both good posters and good at rewarding others for good posts are not being appointed merit sources or are being appointed long after they have made an application.

Just a few examples:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5158075.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5156799.0

Both of these members I would say fit the criteria for a merit source but at the moment we are waiting for the approval of theymos which could take a long time. To counter this I would suggest implementing a system similar to the trust system. Basically members can put people who they deem good quality posters into their list. The more people who have you on their list the more weighting you have. Anyone in the top 5%/10% or whatever we deem suitable for the size of the forum would then become a merit source. We could have several tiers like depth 1/2/3 which members in the higher tiers give their custom lists more weighting and thus anyone on their list more weighting to becoming a merit source. To avoid abuse we could implement this right away by allowing current merit sources to have more weighting and prevent account farmers from having an impact by reducing their weighting to almost nothing. I know that this is a semi decentralized way of implementing the system but I think this would be the most effective. This way we can have a continuous flow of merit sources and remove inactive merit sources quite easily without waiting for review from theymos and a more community driven effort. I understand with the current system there isn't much room for abuse when appointing merit sources and this new solution might introduce some sort of abuse but by allowing merit sources to have more weighting hopefully this abuse would be minimal because after all the first generation of merit sources would have already been appointed by theymos.

[What is a "hot" wallet?]

Back when I first got into Bitcoin I decided that using a live cd of Ubuntu would do the job as I was just starting out and not holding a large amount of coin. However circumstances have changed over the years which has made me evaluate and do my own research on whats the best storage method for myself. Despite conducting the research myself and pulling information from many different sources I'm still open to suggestions from knowledgeable people on how I can improve security. However until then I'm going to be providing you with the pros and cons of storage methods for storing your coin and some real possibilities which could happen rendering you Bitcoin-less. Some of the examples will be extreme and very unlikely however over the years I've come to the conclusion that being prepared for anything and everything as much as you possibility can is the best option in life.

Firstly, there are a number of different methods which can be using multiple storage methods is not unheard of because of the suitability for each method. A great example of this is when you are holding a small amount of coin as "hot" change which means that this amount is only a fraction of what you hold in your "cold" wallet.


What is a "hot" wallet?
A hot wallet is usually connected to the internet in one way or another. If your wallet can connect to the internet it should be considered a hot wallet despite the way it was created. If you have a paper wallet which the private key was generated using a machine connected to the internet then you should consider that a hot wallet as its been exposed to the internet. This includes any funds stored on a exchange or wallet provider.  

What is a "cold" wallet?
A cold wallet is the exact opposite to a hot wallet. These are usually created offline and stay offline the beauty with Bitcoin is you can create your public address and private key completely offline and still use it to store funds. Creating your wallet on a live CD of Ubuntu is one of the ways that this can be done. However this also exposes you to certain risks and to be the safest you can be you should consider "deep cold storage".

What is "deep cold storage"
Deep cold storage is when Bitcoin funds are stored offline but in a means that its far easier to deposit than it is to withdraw. A example of this is storing your offline generated private key in a vault which is immune to fire, water and only authorized personal can access. However there are multiple methods this can be achieved.

This is the way that anyone serious about Bitcoin should be holding their Bitcoin and in fact big companies and exchanges often use this method. This doesn't mean that you can safety store your Bitcoin on a online exchange. What this means is exchanges keep their reserve in a deep cold storage method.

What are we looking to protect against?
1. Theft
Preventing theft should be a given. However many people are neglecting the fact that their funds are stored on a insecure storaage method just because its "convenient" for them.
2. Accidental loss
This could come from accidentally losing the private key, forgetting credentials, getting dementia and losing your funds. These are all possible things that should be considered when storing your Bitcoin. I don't care if they are far fetched if you are serious about this its time to consider all possibilities and neutralize them as much as possible.
3. Damage
Preventing damage either through malicious actions or acts of god should all be considered. For example not storing your private key printed on paper in a area known to flood might be obvious but have you ever considered not storing your private key on the bottom floor because of hidden pipes under the ground having the potential to burst at any given moment?

My ranking list of best ways to store Bitcoin

#1 Paper Wallet
Paper wallets are usually generated offline and kept offline. Don't store them digitally and have them stored securely in a offline storage area. Paper wallets are what I consider the best method of storing your Bitcoin. When done properly and generated offline they can be the best option. Paper wallets are immune to corruption, and sometimes damage. Remember that paper wallets don't necessarily have to be on paper and could be placed on something which is far more resistant to both damage and theft. Storing a paper wallet in a secure location could mean that you could return 100 years later and it would still be there intact with no damage and little degradation. This is the only method that is risk free from corruption as its the only one which does not exist on a electronic device. Many people use this in conjunction and as a backup to their devices without realizing it. Have you ever written down your private key just in case of hardware corruption? Effectively you've created a paper wallet.

Insecurities: Paper wallets are as secure as you make them. They can be completely impenetrable if you make them so or they can be just as bad as the lower ranking listings on this thread. YOU make it as secure as you want it to be.

#2 Hardware Wallets
Hardware wallets such as the Trezor/Ledger are created specifically for storing Bitcoin and other alt coins within its infrastructure and is designed with security in mind. However, there are criticisms to be made when talking about hardware wallets. Currently, hardware wallets are a lesser target for hackers and viruses due to the amount of people that use them. However, in time this could change and viruses could be made to target those that use them. As well as being a physical electronic device it is hard to safeguard this from both theft and damage. However hardware wallets are designed with being used to connect to the internet and are definitely safer than a ordinary wallet. What you could do is directly buy from the manufacturer and never connect the device to the internet and store it in a secure place which prevents natural occurring damage then this is a far superior way to store your Bitcoin. Login credentials still need to be remembered otherwise you risk losing access to the device. Sometimes people opt to generate and store a seed but you must make sure that you follow the same security tips with this as the device itself.

Insecurities:
Yes hard wallets have been known to have vulnerabilities themselves which could put your device at risk depending on the vulnerability. This is a risk whenever you use any sort of hardware wallet or software wallet as bugs and exploits likely exist. Devices don't last forever and can easily be corrupted.


#3 Airgapped PC
An airgapped PC is a computer which has had its connectivity removed. Preferably never been online. Despite this being considered the safest way to store Bitcoin I would have to disagree. Although this method is secure you would need to take into consideration the target market of viruses and storing the computer. Windows then Linux are considered the biggest target markets for those wishing to infect other computers with viruses and you have to be absolutely sure that the computer hasn't been exposed to this prior to hosting any of your funds on it.

Insecurities:
Corruption, theft, and damage are all needed to be considered. Corruption of hard drives cannot be helped and knowing the long term health of a hard drive is something which cannot be done. Theft and damage can be solved by storing in a secure location which would be immune to fire, water, other natural occurrences and theft.



#4 Mobile Wallets
Mobile wallets are exactly that wallets which rely on running on either the android OS or apple. Which by the way are usually always connected to the internet and have to be connected to the internet at some point to download the app. The mobile market is a huge target for attackers because of the amount of games and apps people install its easy to get malicious code within one of those and steal your Bitcoin by targeting Bitcoin wallets hosted on the mobile phone.

Insecurities: Where to begin? Like I've mentioned already you are exposed to malicious code injected via mobile apps. You have to connect to the internet at some point to download the app or the .apk.

#5 Online Wallets
Online wallets whether you control the private key or not are insecure in my opinion. I have a large emphasis in this thread about connecting to the internet. As soon as you connect to the internet you are opening 1 other possibility of attack. Thus anything hosted online is exposed to an extra risk that other physical offline methods don't have making it that much less secure.

Insecurities: Prone to man in the middle attacks, viruses, online wallet services going offline, needs a internet connection to connect. The list goes on. Online wallets that give you the private key doesn't mean that they are suddenly any safer.

#6 Brain Wallets
Brain wallets deterministically and statelessly converts a secret passphrase into private/public key pair. For example if you were to type the secret passphrase of "I love theymos cats" this would generate both a public and private key. However the problem with this is if anyone else decides to generate a public/private key this way and types the exact same passphrase as you they will have access to your funds. Remember that we aren't unique individuals and our minds think alike. You don't think someone else in the world likes a quote that you like? You don't think someone else would have thought of creating a wallet based on that quote? Especially relevant considering people think in the now and generally come up with passphrases that are relevant to them at the point of creation. A great deal of passwords are created by what people have currently in their head or in their environment. Trends if you will.

A brain wallet uses SHA-256 to hash a passphrase into a 256-bit string that on the surface looks random to anyone else that sees it. However we know that this was generated via our private passphrase. SHA-256 is good enough at the time of writing to be considered secure however its not what brainwallets use to generate the keys that's the problem. Its the end user that is inputting their passphrase that is.

Insecurities:
Prone to dictionary attacks, random password guessing, and human psychology. Its also worth noting that there are several tools out there dedicated to cracking brainwallets which are likely running 24/7 on botnets. They likely have already generated wallets that they keep in a database and as soon as they see money entering that address they will automatically withdraw from it.


That just about covers my opinion on the different storage methods available today. Please let me know your thoughts.

With the up and coming fork on it's way and will be due in roughly 10 hours time. What amount would you suggest to be the threshold for withdrawing your coins?

I have 3 Bitcoin currently on an exchange. I'm debating whether that is enough to justify moving the coins to a wallet which I have the private key for. My exchange hasn't announced it's support for the fork yet.

I also have another 0.1 located on blockchain.info. Would it be worth moving this to a wallet if I'm looking to earn from the forked coins?