You can recover using your 24 words seed. The private keys of the addresses that you use in Trezor are all generated from that seed. You'll be able to recover all your addresses if you ever break it using a BIP39 compatible wallet with the appropriate derivation path or just another Trezor.
That is possible. https://wiki.trezor.io/User_manual:Recovery__TT#Important_remarks_before_you_start

Proof of Stake. Ethereum has plans to shift from PoW to PoS but the security of that is actually quite debatable, IMO.

The complexity of PoW attacks lies with your ability to amass sufficient resources to attack the network in the first place. As the current mining climate is dominated by ASICs, there is no use for them after an attack and thus making pretty much all of the ASICs useless as the price is bound to tank after any successful attack. It really doesn't make sense for people to be able to mine by not incurring any real costs and would definitely be weaker than PoW.

Bitcoin having a huge electrical consumption by its nature is not incorrect. However, there are far more activities that incurs more carbon footprint than Bitcoin and provides far less utility as well. If we were to replace all of the financial systems with Bitcoin, the energy consumption could be far lower while providing numerous benefits. Any more efficient algorithms will probably not replace Bitcoin's PoW as it is pretty much impossible for the community to gain consensus on this issue. It is important to note that you're not wasting electricity by mining, you're being compensated and the benefits that arises from mining is the security of billions of dollars of transaction volume each day. The argument weakens as Bitcoin gets more adopted and its utility increases.

No. By default, running Bitcoin Core behind Tor sets listen=0 but you can configure it to allow incoming connection.

By running a node, you're by default supporting the network as you're still validating and relaying blocks and transactions to your peers that you've connected to. It would be even better if you're not restricting yourself to onion-only nodes, as you're able to act as a bridge between the nodes inside Tor and the clearnet.

Technically, it is not wrong. Miners can signal their support for various protocol changes to ensure a smooth transition for any soft forks or hard forks. It is always better to have support for all of the parties involved in the network before implementing any significant changes. But it doesn't necessarily mean that we need their consent in order to change any network rules. UASF was something that was proposed after the miners were not willing to signal support for Segwit and it would've resulted in a forced activation of segwit without the participation of majority of the miners.

Most of the soft forks were MASF, up to this day. But it doesn't mean that we strictly require the miner's consent to implement any network changes, though that would potentially introduce certain side effects for non-upgraded nodes, etc.

If it is your change address, then you shouldn't have only received 0.00185387BTC. The change address is used for the remainder after subtracting the value of the inputs with the amount sent and the fees. Is the balance in your Bitcoin.com wallet correct or is it missing the 0.00706326BTC as well?

Import the private keys on your offline PC and you should get all the addresses, at the starting wizard, select "Import Bitcoin addresses or private keys". Copy all of the Addresses down and import it into an Electrum on another computer with an internet connection, using the same way but with addresses this time. You'll be able to see all of the transactions in the wallet and that is your watch-only wallet. Go to Send and input all the parameters accordingly and press Pay. Adjust the fees accordingly at the lower right corner and press finalize.

After finalizing your transaction, go to Export > Export to File. Transfer it to that offline computer, go to Tools>Load Transaction and select the file. Load it and check the transaction again, afterwhich press Sign and Export to file again, Export > Export to File. On the online computer, press Tools>Load Transaction and select the txn file. After that, check the details again before pressing broadcast.

The offline computer should ideally be cleanly wiped and has never had internet access before. Do validate your Electrum installation with PGP beforehand as well.

It depends on the kind of changes implemented. If the change impacts the older client such that they can no longer continue to be on the same chain as the newer client, then it is a hard fork. This can be something like a change in block size limit, sigops, TXID structure, anything that results in the older clients being unable to recognize something that gets implemented in the newer client.

The nature of the open source codes gives the user a chance to review and decide which kind of changes they want to include or omit. Just because they've merged any changes, it doesn't mean that you have to follow them as well.

Probably a price crash due to the ease of carrying out an attack on the network, given that they constitutes such a huge proportion of the network, it would definitely have a lot of repercussions. The security of the network functions on the fact that it costs more to attack the network than what you stand to gain from it. If all of the big farms were to disappear, an attacker has to outpace the rest of the network, which is far easier than outpacing the bigger farms that disappeared.


No. ASICs made Bitcoin more secure (and less in a way). Before ASICs, CPU and GPUs dominated the mining scene and if were to still be the case today, there would be large botnets profiting off Bitcoin mining as everyone has either a CPU or a GPU but most won't have an ASIC. The difficulty is in essence a measure of how difficult it is to mine a block or to attack Bitcoin by re-organizing the chain. Proof of work works best if it is significantly more difficult and expensive to attack the network than the potential profits.

Unfortunately, One CPU One Vote was never possible. You would have people running giant CPU or GPU farms sooner or later and that is akin to running an ASIC farm as well. Individual miners would probably not profit from that either ways.

Fees are not always dependent on any of the parties that you've mentioned. It is determined by the fee market where (or rather assuming) miners prioritize those with a higher fee and it is limited by the number/size of transactions that the miner can include. Whether we're CPU mining or ASIC mining will not make a difference to the fee market, it is purely limited by the capacity.

In most cases it does.
Bitcoin miners provides the derived demand for electrical consumption. If the cost of energy generation for fossil fuel is low, miners will use it. It is a blanket statement to say that Bitcoin miners are not contributing or otherwise exacerbating the problem because the truth is that they do, just perhaps to a lesser extent than most. Most renewable energy still have plenty of concerns with regards to the environmental degradation arising from this.

---

There is a stark difference between the scenario you've described and the predicament that we're in right now. The energy consumption doesn't have to be extrapolated over a larger timeframe for it to be enough of a concern; the network already consume a lot of energy. There is really nothing wrong with that and you really cannot debunk that. Whether it is worth for us to be mining silicon, building farms, wasting electricity for 2000 transactions per 10 minutes needs to be tackled from a completely different perspective. If you have a solid argument as to why the tradeoffs is worth, then you have a point to be made. Personally, Bitcoin deals with a huge transaction volume and the nature of PoW requires some form of resource exchange which is the electricity in this case and to a certain extent the environmental impacts. The point weakens as Bitcoin grows and scales to a much larger network, if that happens.

Elon Musk has gained such a huge following that the movement of the market hinges on what kind of content he tweets. Remember, when Bitcoin was at 30-40K, Elon Musk announced support for Bitcoin and it spiked quite significantly. It isn't wrong to say that the rise is due to Elon Musk's endorsement of Cryptos/Bitcoin in general. Having such a prominent figure insinuating that Bitcoin is intrinsically bad for the environment without having some form of qualifiers is terrible for Bitcoin.

Notice how he said he would switch back to Bitcoin if it adopts a more eco-friendly solution? Yeah, not a chance. He is as good as gone. The community doesn't have to budge for him.

I don't thin he actually said anything about making Bitcoin more popular too quickly? The closest resemblance I can think of is this; https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2216.msg29280#msg29280.

If Satoshi had any idea, he would have proposed it or at least told one of the lead devs at that time. Given that Gavin is pretty supportive of bigger blocks, I don't think there would be anything that could be gotten out from him. Satoshi could've probably proposed it under another alias since his disappearance so it would be tough to say that he chose to keep it himself. Satoshi is by no means a god, he managed to bring all the concepts together to form Bitcoin but he still had some oversight on certain aspects of the network.

Satoshi did mention that we could have increased the block size as well but he likely didn't think of the off-chain solutions and instead focused on making it scale on-chain.

If you really think Elon Musk actually didn't consider about the possible environmental impacts of Bitcoin mining, then I would strongly urge you to reconsider again. Bitcoin mining is energy intensive (no one can dispute that), if he doesn't find any point in accepting Bitcoin payment and chooses to disassociates himself with it while simultaneously advocating for Bitcoin to shift to a less energy intensive algorithm, then there is nothing much you can do.

Don't bother talking to/about someone who says his own company is overvalued. Anyways, back on the thread, would it be possible to add something about ewaste in the topic, I find it so heavily centered on electrical usage that any other environmental impact isn't really mentioned.

It is possible.

On your online watch-only wallet, start exporting your transactions sequentially:

1. Right click on the transaction > View Transaction > Export > Export to File and name them TX1, TX2, and so on.
2. Put them to your USB flash drive.

Afterwards, bring it to your offline computer, go to Tools> Load transaction > From file and start importing it sequentially as well. For each transaction, you should see an advanced transaction details Window. Click Save on the bottom right and it would be saved as a local transaction. Note that the balance depends on what transactions you choose to import and it is by no means an accurate way to determine the balance or the transactions as there is no way for Electrum to actually validate without having the headers. It won't display the actual balance as it isn't connected to any server.

It won't be in sync with the actual balance though without you doing so manually but if that is what you need, then doing so would be fine. When you're sending any transactions from the airgapped computer, click Save on the advanced transaction window as well.

Even worse. It is before the JSONRPC exploit, first post clarified that already.

No one should really be using Windows XP for anything, really. There are just too many exploits on XP after its EOL and Electrum. Not sure why OP wanted to use it, didn't ask as OP stated it in the post.

Taproot isn't activated yet.

Taproot offers most significant space improvements with Multisig due to signature aggregation. It does actually offer a ~9% decrease in the size for non-multisig transactions as well. BIP340 proposes to ditch DERs encoding for signature and a very small decrease in the public key size.

---

Perhaps some relation to Bitcoin prices? No one is really looking to sell when the price is just going down right now. May I add, the difficulty estimation at the start is subjected to loads of variance due to the smaller sample size. Difficulty might not go down during the next adjustment.

Try something below v3.0.0?

Electrum was shifted to Python3 (3.5.X) by then and the support for Python in WinXP has already ended with ,3.4.X, I believe. You can do some dubious modifications to make it work, by manually installing the dependencies but you won't really get anything done with it.

Not all of the wallets function similarly. Different derivation paths, gap limit, possibility of various exploits being present in each of the wallets, etc. Using the same seed across different wallets can cause loads of confusion.
Also possibility for certain codes in the program to leak your private key, intentionally or not. An example would be the Android Wallet exploit back in 2013 which had reused r values in their signature. You are increasing the risk of this happening if you were to use the same seeds across different wallets. I would not expose my seeds to different wallets unless necessary and would segregate them as far as possible. Besides, I personally don't have any scenario where I need multiple wallets, much less having to use a close sourced wallet.

Consider sweeping your funds to a new Electrum seed when the funds are low or when you're sending a new transaction (send the change to your new Electrum wallet). Electrum's seed system is much easier and unambiguous as compared to the BIP39 that other wallet uses.

It's hilarious people actually think that he woke up one day and suddenly realized Bitcoin isn't environmentally friendly.

I find it hard to believe that is actually the case. Any investments by any firms should be scrutinized carefully to ensure that it aligns with their company's values and vision, much less something that costs a billion dollars. Electrical usage of Bitcoin isn't low, that is true. But that is the cost of securing billions of dollars in transaction volume and is something that benefits the society as a whole. If he really wanted to go green, he wouldn't have designed electric cars specifically but made electric buses and other things that provides even lower carbon footprint. He has long been spreading FUD about various stuff; denouncing COVID-19 so his Tesla factories can function, efficacy of PCR tests, and now this. I'll be surprise if someone didn't short Bitcoin prior to this announcement  .

No. Think about your moral compass. Elon Musk is obviously filthy rich but that doesn't give him the rights to crash the market at will and make the rest of the 99% lose what would be pocket change to him. Just because you're able to wield all the power, doesn't mean you should abuse it.

Having a connection to/from more nodes will give you a far higher chance of the block propagated to you with the least hops. Granted this doesn't mean you'll have a direct connection but it does lower your margin of error.
You're right. I was thinking of something else.
Validation time depends on the hardware: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5312030.msg56181206#msg56181206.

Since the block doesn't necessarily have to be validated fully before being relayed, it becomes more or less a non-factor.
The time that it takes for validation is quite fast actually. This topic has been discussed numerous times but the most noteworthy one is this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5251592.0.

We're interested in being the fastest to find out when the block gets propagated. Having multiple nodes sending the block to us won't matter because we're only concerned about when we first see the block and thus getting a more accurate timestamp. Getting another block at the same height doesn't really matter.
Just run a zombie on their pool. You'll definitely be the first to see if a block gets mined. I wouldn't do this though, you're just wasting their resources and would probably get kicked. But that was how they were SPV mining in the past.

It is not untraceable. The way CoinJoin functions makes it such that it is more difficult to associate the inputs and the outputs and thus anyone trying to break the privacy would know one of the outputs belongs to OP but they would have a harder time trying to find out which. In a way, CoinJoin obfuscates the origin and the end-point but it doesn't completely break the link. An advantage would that it is basically trustless.

If you need to completely break the link, use an actual mixer. That alone wouldn't be enough, you have to take steps to ensure that your privacy is preserved when sending the coins or using the website.