I see. And where did the 2B come from?

Anyways, I see the problem. The 01 is actually part of the payload (i.e. the private key). It is a flag byte that signals that the private key should be used with a compressed public key. So the bytes you actually hash is
Hashing those as bytes with sha256d (you can use a tool like http://www.fileformat.info/tool/hash.htm) yields the following hash:
The first 4 bytes of that hash matches the checksum that you need: 5b6adee0

Yes. You can use the methods that involve double spending with different value fees, using locktimed transactions to split, and taint with outputs from coinbase transactions. These methods work to taint your coins to split them when no replay protection is available.

Almost. Private key as bytes.

You are probably hashing it as a string, not as bytes.

Also, what led you to think that you need to prepend 2b and what led you to think that you need to append 0134CC212A? What makes you think that 3081D30201010420 signals the start of a private key? What makes you think that 0578AA4071328241247763B63134918892FFDA1E3C1DFE402F0A01D623B3FB97 is your private key in hex?

From what I can find, the byte you need to prepend is 0x9e. 0134CC212A does not match the 4 byte checksum for Base58 Check encoding as it is 5 bytes. The private key should also be much longer as unencrypted private keys are stored in the super long form DER format.

The payload is the private key. The hex private key that you have represents the bytes of the private key. That is the payload.

The hex you are looking for is a checksum. It is the first four bytes of the sha256 double hash of the version byte (0x2b) and the payload (your private key). This process is known as Base 58 Check encoding and you can read about it here: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Base58Check_encoding

Post more of your debug.log. The snippet you posted is likely to be irrelevant and does not provide enough information.

Yes, but the only scenario where Core makes a PoW change is if miners decide to stick to mining segwit2x while the rest of the community uses Bitcoin. If miners choose to not follow the users and don't switch their hashrate back to Bitcoin, then and only then would a PoW change be done.

I believe that that is their plan, but there isn't a spec for anything that they are doing and that plan may not actually happen as they hoped so. Jeff Garzik has been repeatedly confused by/conflating block weight and block size such that the first time he tried to increase the maximum block size in btc1, he failed to do so because he had changed some constant related to block size not block weight. A lot of things in btc1 seem to be related to block size rather than block weight which is very stupid as segwit defines the limit by block weight and not size. So I wouldn't be surprised if Jeff Garzik failed to properly write code that makes a block have a weight greater than 4 million because he was thinking of things in terms of size rather than weight.

There is no "the system". Each cryptocurrency creator can choose how to represent an "address"; there are no rules that they need to follow nor is there anything to enforce the altcoin creators follow certain rules. Yes it would be nice if all addresses for different currencies used different prefixes, but there are not enough characters (at least characters that most people are able to type) and sometimes altcoin creators aren't smart enough to realize that that has to be done.

No, the rest of the address will be different. This is because the prefix character is not a character that is appended to the beginning of an encoded address (which is why using a currency symbol won't work). Rather it is a specific byte that is appended to a hash that happens to result in a specific character when encoded in Base58 (which is the base/alphabet that most altcoins use for addresses because that is what Bitcoin uses). That byte is a version byte and it is also hashed along with the actual data for a checksum that is appended to the end of the encoded data. This whole process is called Base 58 Check Encoding; google it.

More like the latter where a different countries are like different coins.

The address belongs to you and whoever holds your private key. Private keys and addresses have a one-to-one relationship (well almost). The private key corresponds to a public key and the public key corresponds to the address. Your address on the Bitcoin Cash network could belong to someone else, but it also belongs to you. If it belonged to someone else, then they also can control your Bitcoin that is associated with that address. Whoever has access to the private key for your address has control over the Bitcoin/Bitcoin Cash/whatever altcoin it is associated with. Private keys can work across multiple altcoins because it is just a 256 bit number that is used as an ECDSA private key. The address and its prefix doesn't matter; that's just an encoding for the data.

Some use the same addresses, others use different addresses. The vast majority of coin addresses correspond to almost the same data though, just represented differently. Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash addresses begin with a '1' or '3' (and this has caused significant confusion and potential coin loss) while Litecoin's addresses begin with 'L', '3', and 'M' (the one beginning with a '3' has also caused confusion and coin loss).

To get Armory online, you need to have installed Bitcoin Core and synced the entire blockchain.

To export your private keys, open Armory, go to "Backup This Wallet" and choose the option for "Export Key lists". This will give you a list of your private keys and some other information that you may want. The format for importing private keys into another wallet is "Base58 private key" (or something like that). You will also need to check the box for "Omit spaces in data" (or something like that).

That is what he meant but that is not what you said he meant earlier. However he (and many others) find that scenario very unlikely as miners would have a coin that has very few users and thus very little money to be made mining it.

Yes, it would be. However most Bitcoin Core developers aren't going to make a PoW hard fork just because the original chain has less hash rate. That would only happen if it has less hash rate and a lot of users (probably a majority of users). If the vast majority of users decided to use the 2x chain and called that Bitcoin, there won't be a PoW change done by the Core developers as most would just leave the project and stop doing Bitcoin related things.

As of now, a PoW change is not even a consideration to most Core developers as the situation that would require one is one that we find highly unlikely.

Listen to the question and answer for yourself: https://youtu.be/nSRoEeqYtJA?t=1h30m1s

Generally private blockchains are based off of the existing blockchains that cryptocurrencies used. They use some form of PoS or PoW which means that there may be miners or stakers. Private blockchains may also be permissioned which means that blocks and transactions need to be signed by specific parties.

Perhaps. Some ideas for private blockchains seem just like a traditional solution but way more inefficient (i.e. using a blockchain as a central database that requires central authority to read and write from it). Others are more decentralized where the parties using the blockchain need permission to use it, but those who are allowed to use it do so in a decentralized manner like with Bitcoin.

Blockchains are best used when there are multiple parties that wish to do something together but don't necessarily trust each other. Private blockchains can be used for doing things between businesses (that may be competitors so they don't trust each other). It can solve some problems that rely on trusting some middleman and potentially reduce fraud.

Generally, no. Centralized solutions are generally far more efficient than decentralized solutions. However that requires trusting someone and usually involves a trusted third party. Businesses may opt to use a private blockchain because it cuts out that trusted third party reducing the need to trust others and also reducing costs.

Probably not.

Where does he say that in that article? The only mention of a PoW change is a brief paragraph at the bottom without a quote from Greg that says
There is no plan for a PoW change because of Segwit2x and most Core devs are not even considering it. We might have to change the PoW in the future for other reasons.

Their current proposal (not yet merged into the btc1 repo) is to have opt-in replay protection by marking transactions containing an OP_RETURN output with the string "RP=!>1x". This is still just a proposal and is not finalized. The github thread about this discussion is here: https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/pull/117 (and its a complete shitshow).

That won't do anything. No need to uninstall. Uninstalling does not touch any of the Bitcoin Core data so it won't make a difference if you uninstall and reinstall. Go to the Bitcoin Core datadir and delete the folders named blocks and chainstate or rename them to something else. The path to your datadir is listed in the Debug Window (Help > Debug Window).

Backup your wallet.dat file which will be found in the datadir as well.

When you do all of this, make sure that Bitcoin Core is shut down.

bech32 works for all segwit versions. It encodes the witness version number.

No. Each send acts individually. If you make 3 payments and are in the middle of a fourth when one party in the chain closes a channel used in the payment, then only the fourth payment does not go through. The rest remain untouched. Note that this scenario can only happen if the preimages for the HTLCs are not available to everyone which means that the payment is not yet complete.

Indefinitely.

Then the transaction fails. C does not get his money from B and B does not get money from A.

No one knows; that requires predicting the future.

This thread is just Dorky and HCP flaming/trolling each other which is against the forum rules. Therefore this thread will be locked and potentially trashcanned.