No. It would actually be around here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/dd1304ec216c7d4bdb302195e184b15503819f67/src/main.cpp#L2923 where it checks the block. You need to add something there to check a parameter to see if it is yours. If you add something to the coinbase transaction, then you would need to add something here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/dd1304ec216c7d4bdb302195e184b15503819f67/src/main.cpp#L778 in the coinbase check to check the coinbase script for your parameter.

What is the transaction id of that transaction?

It probably would happen somewhere around here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/main.cpp#L4912 when the block is received and processed or here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/dd1304ec216c7d4bdb302195e184b15503819f67/src/main.cpp#L3190 where the block is processed to check the block for a certain parameter that indicates that the block was mined by you.

True, but if there are somethings where predicting death is a lot easier, like a terminal illness where the doctors say you have X amount of time left. And maybe if you live in a dangerous place maybe you shouldn't escrow, for more reasons than death. And if you live in a place where deadly natural disasters tend to occur, then it may be a good idea to also not escrow.

I think that the consensus rules shouldn't be tied to one implementation. I think it should still be consensus and essentially voting, but still have consensus as we do now. And instead of the current governance with the one reference implementation, we should move to how the IETF does standards for the internet.

Huh. Strange, although we did see this problem a few pages ago. What is your token?

But for the miners mining on one chain, if that were to lose, they would lose a lot of money. For businesses, which coin should they accept? Some people might take advantage of both and accept coins from both chains. Then people will have twice the money that they should have, essentially inflation. Other businesses might not know what to do and simply stop accepting Bitcoin until there is only one coin that is called Bitcoin.
Which coin is the "real" Bitcoin? You can't have two coins calling themselves Bitcoin.

Then there is another technical aspect, since both would still share the same magic bytes, the same port numbers, and some other stuff that I don't remember right now. That means that blocks and transactions for one chain will be broadcasted to nodes that support the other chain. This also means that it is possible for a node to be accidentally isolated from the network if all of its peers happen to be for the chain other than the one it uses. Then it wouldn't receive any blocks or transactions and any transaction it makes wouldn't be seen by the network. This can cause problems for both users and miners. Miners would have a higher orphan rate on both chains because their blocks would propagate slower as some nodes would relay them and some wouldn't. Same with transactions. Users would have a harder time with getting their transactions out. Both could simply become unsynced with the network. Having those two chains could probably cause some more problems that we haven't even thought of yet.

Are you trying a token from more than a week ago? They expire after a week.

Normal shows the full details of an account, while merchant only shows a stripped down version without the id, username, addresses, and the post counts and activity are rounded down to the nearest 20 to reduce the possibility of buyers to find out what the account is. It is good for selling accounts. This is an example of one for an account that I am selling: http://www.bctalkaccountpricer.info/?token=ikkkst6d

If someone bids within the last six hours of the auction, it will be extended for another 24 hours. If no one bids, then the auction will be extended for 48 more hours.

If the person knew that there was a high possibility that he might die, then he probably should not be escrowing or giving loans.

If he told people that he trusts (e.g. family) what he was doing with Bitcoin and how they can access his Bitcoin after he dies, family members or friends could continue his business or at least close out any deals so that others do not lose their money.

Otherwise, the coins are lost.

Yes. Part of the forking process is producing blocks with a version of a certain number or higher to indicate support for the fork. Once enough of the last n blocks (usually 750 of the last 1000 blocks, but that changes depending on how much consensus the developer wanted) have that version number, then nodes begin rejecting any lower version blocks and then some time after the fork actually occurs. This allows nodes to know that a fork is happening and that the fork is supported. Then there is the grace period for people to upgrade so that when the hard fork does happen, there is consensus and the blockchain doesn't actually split into two chains that could survive.

Hard forks by themselves are not bad. However doing a hard fork without consensus can lead to a lot of problems. The problem now is that there isn't consensus on what to do, so at this time, a hard fork is probably not a good idea.

He doesn't mean spend the same coins twice on the same chain, he means that with two chains, the amount of Bitcoin you have essentially doubles. If you mix your prefork coins with post fork coins on both chains, then you have the same amount of currency on both chains. You have double of what you had originally and can thus spend more than what you should have been able to.

Bitcoin is not a democracy, it is a consensus based system, which means that everyone has to agree otherwise the changes will not work. Since there is no central authority like in governments, no one is there to enforce the majority decision.

This took me several days to build, but it wasn't all too hard. So far the hardest part was upgrading to use a token system and fixing the queuing system.

Also, this is not definitive and it may not actually reflect actual account prices.

IIRC armory doesn't do any of the block validating stuff, it relies on bitcoin core to do it. Since bitcoin classic is a fork of core, you can connect armory to use it.

With current computers, it doesn't matter what the hardware is, pretty much any os will work. You won't have the greatest experience without the proper drivers, but you would still be able to boot from the USB device and be able to use it.

You can also install Bitcoin Core onto that drive and use it as a portable application. Since most computers you encounter will be running windows, you can just download the windows zip and extract the program. Just run bitcoin-qt.exe from the USB drive on whatever computer you want and it will run Bitcoin Core. You will need to create a shortcut or batch file to run the program and also set the data directory to the data directory on the USB drive. Otherwise it will start downloading the blockchain onto the computer you are using and that is not wanted.

Not necessary, but if you want to: 16mT7jrpkjnJBD7a3TM2awyxHub58H6r6Z

Nothing was wrong. It is just that most nodes will refuse to relay or accept a transaction to the mempool if that transaction spends an input that has already been spent by another transaction that is also in their mempool or in the blockchain. However, some software will relay those, like Bitcoin XT. The tool I was using just sent the transaction to as many nodes as possible and hoped that at least one of them would continue to relay the transaction. Obviously it did.

If this new one is confirmed, then it will invalidate the original. If the original is confirmed, then this new one will be invalid.

Here, I sent it for you: https://live.blockcypher.com/btc/tx/980e22b228edd1d45d50c2d6b21b85348fe4174d754f439829764e9018935c82/

I had to use a custom tool for this.

Actually it is not. That is the txid of the transaction itself. You misread the decoding.

OP, to push this you need something that allows double spend relaying. Unfortunately this means that Bitcoin Core can't do it, so I can't help. If someone has a Bitcoin XT node that would work since XT allows double spend relaying.

AFAIK, they don't have any way to handle more orphan blocks. They just deal with it. However, miners on Bitcoin aren't going to just deal with it because that would be a change that is detrimental to them. Other altcoin miners deal with it because that was how the altcoin was originally designed.