Bitcoin is not a get rich quick scheme. You're treating it as a speculative asset and with that, most of them tends to experience loads of volatility, Bitcoin included. Elon Musk isn't the only reason why Bitcoin is crashing, China is as well.

Not saying that it's great that Bitcoin crashes but at least you're just eliminating those who don't see Bitcoin's utility in the long term. It is stupid to invest in something this risky if you can't afford to lose it.

Hash160 is secure by itself. P2SH is susceptible to collision (with birthday paradox) as the complexity is 2^80. This means that in the far future, it could be feasible for someone to be able to obtain a collision for a given script hash address.

It is not that big of a deal. P2WSH is far more efficient and Taproot is coming out as well. I'm not sure whether there would be any plans to phase out P2SH but that is likely not the case.
Nope.

You mean P2WPKH?

The rationale behind using SHA256 for P2WSH instead of HASH160 is stated here:

Nested Segwit (Multisig or not) is P2SH, not P2WSH. The standard is defined before we've decided on this and is different, there is no need to change that. There is no need for us to introduce a longer Segwit address for P2WPKH as well.

You need to do so in the exact order. As you've said, the script is hashed and changing the order also changes the hash. That is why we rely on the redeem script.

In your terminal, type in this:

After that, copy the string and type in this:

Replacing each of them accordingly of course.
The tool basically just pushes the TX to the peers that it sees, usage is included in the readme. Just using walletbroadcast=1 should be fine. I don't think there is any privacy repercussions.

Please avoid creating so many threads for the same issue. You can just continue from your first.

Yeah. 0.21.0

EPS was modified to broadcast the transaction directly to the peers within Tor and I remember that this was implemented quite a long time ago. I'm not sure what are the justifications, if any that would still hold water. If the user is running Core on Tor, then using the EPS would achieve the same privacy with running Core on Tor alone. Since its dependent on Core anyways.

I'm sure mining farms cannot afford to leave any working ASICs undeployed. CBECI's estimation is as good as an educated guess and that is all we can work with.

There are far too many factors that can (and will) affect the electrical usage of Bitcoin. Any noticeable decrease in energy consumption of Bitcoin is NOT enough; environmentalist are not happy with high perceived electrical usage in the first place. There is no reason why they would be content with say 30% decrease in electrical usage. When it gets to something that they're content with, Bitcoin isn't secure any more. Arguably, constantly phasing out and replacing ASICs will have significant environmental impact as well. It is not a one-dimension issue as media perceives it to be.

Economic-wise, the electrical consumption will probably not change and remain at a certain equilibrium.

Bitcoin Core offers a way for users to interact with it using their hardware wallets: https://github.com/bitcoin-core/HWI.

You need to rescan if you're querying any addresses unless you specify otherwise. Blockexplorers and other sites allows you to do so instantaneously as they parse the blockchain for the addresses and index them. Bitcoin Core does not index by addresses.

I think the rationale behind that is to improve on the privacy of the node. The initial consideration appears to be preventing the wallet from automatically rebroadcast transactions. Since the privacy and the rebroadcast logic has been worked on and improved in the recent versions, would this still be necessary?

When it becomes feasible and an attractive substitute for fiat or any other payment methods. Unfortunately, Bitcoin as its current form doesn't justify the replacement or even a substitute for most brick and mortar stores (perhaps LN can be but most merchants actually prefer on-chain TXes). The adoption for digital services is there, mostly due to the fact that Bitcoin TXes are harder to reverse than MasterCard, Visa, PayPal, etc. The waiting time for a confirmation is also not much of a concern.

Unfortunately, the nature of cryptos makes the value quite volatile. If it somehow stabilizes some time in the future, then more people would consider exploring it as a currency rather than a speculative investment.

Or an increase.

Miners always attempts to maximize their profits and introducing a more efficient ASIC would result in the sustained electrical consumption for that difficulty epoch (and steady increasing as the newer ASICs are deployed). ASICs are usually never retired until the revenue = cost, among other factors but a more efficient ASIC would likely not result in any significant decrease in energy usage.

A step in the right direction to prove that a certain percentage of Bitcoin miners are using renewable energy but I imagine the chinese miners aren't really interested in things like this. Regulations is far more lax there, as you can imagine why.

How about the opportunity cost? Would the renewable energy have been used for uses other than mining and thereby reducing the reliance on renewable energy? I think it would be a far better viewpoint (and perhaps a counterpoint that opponents of PoW would use). Elon Musk has been pretty active on Twitter and loads of people have been convincing otherwise, to not much effect.

It would be fairer to consider Bitcoin as a currency and compare it to the next best alternative, which is the fiat system. Unfortunately, there really isn't any reliable estimations other than this[1] made about that but I would argue that they contribute far more carbon footprint as compared to Bitcoin mining, considering the numerous banking branches, offices, ATMs, etc.


Renewable energy in many regions are cheaper than coal and for most parts, the cost of purchasing the electricity offsets the R&D of that as well.
There is a PoS version of Bitcoin, which I'll argue is a shitcoin. I don't see a need for Bitcoin to change, personally. PoW is working as intended, hence the cries about its electrical consumption (which is arguably overblown by both Elon and the media). In general, Bitcoin has pretty much always adopted the mantra of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". There really isn't any reason as of now (perhaps ever) for any shift to a different algorithm.

[1] https://twitter.com/glxyresearch/status/1393166955864117248/photo/1

Possibly something to do with the inability to access a secured computer or device and OP also wants to check the balance on the go? I would never attempt to check my actual cold storage balance on any unsecured computer. Although it isn't accurate by any means, it would be sufficient for a quick reference for an albeit out-dated transaction history.

That is a lot but it is far from the truth.

Trying to measure Bitcoin's derived carbon footprint (as noted in the earlier reply; isn't directly) is fundamentally skewed. You cannot assume electricity generation to be equal, there are tons of renewable energy plants around the world that Bitcoin miner relies on. Why do Bitcoiners have to assume the responsibility of offsetting the carbon footprint? Are companies penalized enough for polluting the environment? Do they provide the same amount of utility as Bitcoin?

Clearnet nodes cannot connect to a Tor node. The DNS won't recognize and route onion addresses as they're contained within the Tor network. You need to have the node connect to Tor via a proxy.

The converse is true, Tor nodes can connect to clearnet nodes.

Not necessarily. The cost of mining is bound to decrease with time due to increase in the efficiency of ASICs and possibly a decrease in cost of mining. The electrical usage as it is currently is of some concern, given the limited utility of Bitcoin in it's day to day usage. You cannot argue that the electrical consumption will not increase or will decrease to a sustainable level; if you want adoption, that simply won't happen. However, if you can scale Bitcoin to become something that is capable of replacing the financial systems around the world, then there is quite a bit of benefits as compared to the cost.
It is not.

Regardless, you will face significant opposition from the miners.

Scaling is a far greater concern and would be easier to solve first. The problem right now is really not the power consumption; most banking systems, and fiat does incur quite a bit of environmental costs when compared to Bitcoin, perhaps more as every country has their own system. The actual problem is the utility of Bitcoin. If Bitcoin's transaction volume increases exponentially, then there is really no reason why you can justify having a lower power consumption. The ASICs and indirectly their power consumption secures Bitcoin and makes it far harder for any single entity to be able to attack Bitcoin as it'll be difficult to have that much resources.

If renewable energy gets even cheaper, then I foresee even more miners to be shifting to them. Problem with PoS and other algorithms is that it isn't secure by itself, you're not risking anything or incurring any costs by building on a fork. Given how the current distribution is skewed, can't see how it'll help at all and only serves to monopolize mining even more.

Actually, it's fine if you aren't. You're still validating and relaying transactions and blocks to the peers that you're connected to.

It'll be more than 10 peers actually. 2 of the are designated as block relay only peers that you're connecting to.

You can. GPU farms are pretty big and CPUs are pretty small. It wouldn't be hard to customize them and upsize it to become a whole farm. It all depends on the motivations behind it but it is definitely possible and would be done without ASICs anyways.

So if we're CPU mining or even GPU mining, they're profitable. You cannot blacklist or exclude anyone from the network; the nature of Bitcoin makes it extremely hard to single out miners actually. The reason why we know who mined the blocks is because mining pools put identifiable information within their mining pool.

Sorry, I missed this:
Partly that yeah. Of course, Bitcoin shouldn't come under the influence of any third party as it simply doesn't make sense to conform to his ideas. Shifting Bitcoin's algorithm would spawn an altcoin instead. It won't be considered Bitcoin.
Proportionally... It depends on how much hashing power you have. You'll probably earn a miniscule amount with a single ASIC and might not even be profitable depending on your electrical rates. Pool is a concept whereby people mine together and split the rewards. Big pools and smaller pools are all the same.

Probably the largest transaction volume and the easiest to get. Anonymity doesn't matter because it'll be quite easy to mix them around and be untraceable.

An antivirus can only do so much to protect their user. If you're a company that is of interest to any attackers, an antivirus would provide VERY little resistance to them. Your antivirus can only detect using their heuristic and suspicious behavior but it wouldn't matter if the attacker is able to use certain zero-day exploits or something similar to evade detection. Your best bet is to reduce your attack surface, airgapping for example but Stuxnet has proven that less than effective.