If you're going to mess around with it then do it in a secure environment.
If any of the keys inadvertently leak then you 'd lose the bitcoins associated with that private key.

Like LoyceV says, first make a copy of the wallet.dat file, then download bitcoin Core.
Swap the default wallet.dat file with your own in the data directory.
Open the debug window
Open the console tab
Then type to get a list of addresses controlled by the wallet
You can check the balances of the addresses in any block explorer.
If you want to import the private key to an SPV wallet then unlock the wallet, and type

The bitcoin blockchain is pretty much secure
You shouldn't worry about that part.
The weak link in the  chain for users is in the private keys-- generating them properly, and storing them securely.

RGBkey is correct.
Transactions per second is not a valid metric of the Lightning Network because commitment transactions aren't broadcast to the blockchain, just transferred p2p across nodes.
However there are certain factors that can limit this, such as effective routing and channel capacity of the nodes.

First do


If that doesn't work then Check if you have other .git folders in subdirectories and delete them then do a

Multisig (P2SH) addresses start with '3'
This address, as you can see, was the recepient of the funds.
It starts with "1" so it is not -- and can never be -- a multisig address

Be careful with the byte order.
The byte order of the version is incorrect. It should be instead of So the  version,  previous block hash,  Merkle root,  timestamp in Unix time, difficulty and nonce, when concatenated gives us the byte sequence:
The first sha256 hash of it gives and the sha256d (the hash of this first digest) gives:
The byte order is reversed and written in little endian given us the block hash:

Technically, as long as the transaction has not been included in the blockchain, the UTXOs that transaction spends still belongs to the original sender, and s/he can spend them in another transaction.
This breaks no consensus rules because the transaction has not been mined yet, and so is not in the blockchain.

All ethereum transactions are actually computations, which have costs to prevent spam.
This is denominated in Gas, which is actually just ETH.
MyEtherWallet has a good explanation of it

There's really no way to enforce this, short of turning off the whole internet for the country.
Previous attempts to censor or limit the information or connections of citizens have always been bypassed easily. See China's Great Firewall.

Say a user was able to broadcast a transaction as an SMS, how would the user monitor the transaction without access to a bitcoin node?

Theoretically, yes, but practically it doesn't really matter -- for now anyways, and perhaps for a long time.

Segwit is not a the scaling solution for bitcoin, but it is a step in the right direction.
The goal is to reduce the individual sizes of transactions so more of them can fit in a block.

The Lightning Network will also play a part, by offloading lots of micropayments off the blockchain.

Like ranochigo says, bitcoin addresses are always visible, which is why you shouldn't reuse addresses.
When the Lightning Network is mature enough, you can open a channel with someone else and route some bitcoins to someone else entirely off chain.

Oh.
Well when you said this
I assumed you were going to use a gossip protocol to broadcast information across nodes.

If by "dig a bitcoin" you mean mining, then forget about it.
You can't even mine with the strongest GPU, much less a phone's CPU.
If you want to mine bitcoin, buy an ASIC and join a mining pool

Gossip protocol converges in O(logN) where N is the Number of participants.

I hope you're trolling or are a shill account.
Surely no one can be that dumb.

There are many possible reasons for proving ownership of a pubkey or pubkeyhash (address):
- proving identity, for example here in Bitcointalk forum. If you "staked" your address here before and you account gets hacked, you can easily prove ownership of the account by signing a message proving ownership of the address in question.
- dispute resolution with a merchant: you spent all the UTXO associated with an address in a transaction to a merchant but there was an error, perhaps you weren't able to make a payment within the specified time frame, so even though your bitcoin was received by the merchant, you weren't credited because the time frame had expired. You open a dispute with the merchant and prove YOU sent bitcoin to the merchant"from" that address by signing a message.

That's from the top of my head, other users may have more creative reasons.


Because you sign a message WITH the private key, and the message is checked AGAINST the public key.
If you can sign a message that verifies against a public key, it proves that you have control over that private key.

Addendum: bitcoin addresses are hashes of the public key, and the UI for verifying messages does not include the field to input the public key because it can be calculated from the message signed and the signature.

Oops
Thanks.
Fixed.

It means they are "creating" bitcoin out of thin air
Normally, in any transaction that's not a Coinbase transaction, the transaction MUST have inputs it references.
If A sends bitcoins to B, and B wants to send it to C, to spend the bitcoin, B must reference the output of the previous transaction (the one that A sent), and also if C wants to spend it, he must reference the output of the transaction he got from B, that would be the input of the new transaction, and so on.
(It should go without saying that a person can't spend more than the UTXO he uses as inputs contain)

 In a Coinbase transaction, however, there are no inputs to reference so it's like the bitcoins that are paid as mining rewards are created from thin air.

It doesn't have to be a bitcoin Core node, just any node that follows the protocol rules.
Also, 2 comes before 1.
The transactions in the mempool of the miner are aggregated before he tries to compute the proof-of-work.
Also, the Coinbase transaction (the one paying the miner the block reward and the fees of the transaction) is the FIRST transaction in the block always.
The winning hash is the one whose hash of block header + nonce is less than a given Target.
The target is known by all the nodes in the network and can be independently calculated and verified.
Finding the block header + nonce hash which is less than a given Target is the actual proof-of-work being done by the miner.

1.) Miner aggregates all the transaction in the mempool that can fit in a block. (the transactions are hecjed for validity, adding an invalid transaction invalidates the whole block)
2) The Coinbase transaction (that pays him the block reward and fees for the transactions aggregated) is included first in this candidate block (not a real block yet because it hasn't computed the proof-of-work and found a "winning hash")

---

NB: the miner just can't pay himself any arbitrary amount GREATER than the block subsidy as the block reward because the subsidy is fixed and halves after a set number of blocks that corresponds to 4 years. The current is 12.5 BTC , if a miner pays himself a larger amount than that, even if he finds the winning hash, his work will be in vain because ALL the nodes in the blockchain will REJECT his block as invalid, because it does not obey the consensus rules, and thus it wouldn't even propagate far. The only way he can do this correctly and succeed is if he somehow convinces the WHOLE network -- or most -- to run his custom software that uses a different set of rules.

---

3)Add previous block hash as a reference.
 Summarise all the transactions in the block (including the Coinbase transaction) as a Merkle tree, add a timestamp, and the Target. Then the  nonce
5)4 above forms the block header, the miner then hashes this value while changing the nonce after each hash until the hash is less than the target.
If he finds one that is less than the target i.e the winning hash, he then "publishes" the block, which other miners and nodes verify. If it is valid according to the protocol rules, then other miners will mine on top of it, and the transactions in the block have 1 confirmation.
Then the race starts all over again.

However, this Coinbase transaction that pays the miner his rewards cannot be spent until after 101 confirmations (100 blocks). This is because, in case of a temporary fork where 2 miners find the winning hash at the same time, one will be invalidated and dropped by the network (the one with less proof of work). If this happens all the transactions in the orphaned block (that aren't in the validated block) that were heretofore confirmed will be sent back to the mempool. The Coinbase transaction can't be sent to the mempool since it isn't a valid transaction because it references no inputs, so it will disappear completely.
If the Coinbase maturation didn't exist, orphaned blocks would cause a problem for the network because coins that once existed would no longer exist.

In that case you should read Andreas Antonopolous' book Mastering Bitcoin