What was the exchange rate on the site when you used the service?

The exchange sent 0.00138782BTC to your address, are you expecting this amount? If you were expecting more, you have to ask the service yourself whether the exchange rate was right or if there were any undisclosed fees. There is nothing wrong with Electrum or does it have anything to do with Electrum. You have to know how much you exchanged your Euros for. Fees are indeed higher now, as compared to years ago.

Guys.. OP probably meant to send the funds in BTC instead of mBTC, hence why the reply to my post.

Sending 59 satoshis to anyone is completely absurd, Bitcoin isn't worth millions of dollars. I'm sure this topic is solved and no further discussion would be required.

Why did you contradict your own topic?

Nature of Bitcoin won't allow any third party to be accurately tracking illicit and normal transactions. These estimations are (probably) based on known and exposed activities.  I'd say Bitcoin has been integrated into loads of ransomware and used in place of the gift cards or WU that were mainly used for this purpose. Cryptocurrency are great for money laundering but fiat is far more untraceable.

The seed phrase is 24 words long.

If you've lost your seeds, you have to create a new wallet and transfer the funds to an address in the new wallet. You can't change the seed phrase without generating a completely new wallet anyways.

I've mentioned the tendency and the source of any statistical bias in my previous replies.

Check the links (CBECI) referenced in my prior replies. It doesn't take the data solely based on the pools but a sampling using the connections established to the pools, which accounts for 37% of the network hashrate. You can interpret it as the composition of the miners in those three pools, extrapolating to the rest of the Chinese pools would probably still bring it to an acceptable margin of error, note that some of the other pools also directly operates several farms within China, so those could possibly have even greater composition of Chinese miners.. Data is accurate for April only.

Anyways, unless someone is intentionally trolling, I doubt anyone in the right mind would try to use a VPN/Proxy to masquerade as a Chinese Bitcoin miner or to any significant capacity. Understand that it has to be an assumption but it is just so unlikely.

No, the stats that the user is providing is not completely wrong. As in the graph represents the aggregate IP logs across the (few) pools. I mean you can't really get anything more accurate than this considering the top pools are all based in China. You can interpret the stats both ways, whether it is indicative of the actual situation or not.

IMO, its a 50-50; you're counting only Chinese pools but a significant proportion (I think 2/3) of them is Chinese anyways.

Yeah so the pools that are Chinese controls about 80%. Only if the rest of the network are not Chinese, then I presume it would be around 50% actually.

If you're not an expert in this topic, then why do you assert that "QCs are nothing but FUD?"

1. You cannot protect outputs which requires an ECDSA signature to unlock. They are inherently vulnerable.

2. A successful attack will most likely not be detectable. Siphoning funds slowly from exposed addresses would be pretty much undetectable, given that people would go with the suspicion of a having malwares, etc and if the knowledge of a QC technology is concealed well enough, it could be quite a while before the community catches on.

Payout variance is something that you cannot solve without having miners in the first place. Miners are far more likely to favour larger pools due to their reliability as well, fees can matter less in some instances.
CBECI has randomized data here: https://cbeci.org/mining_map.

** I didn't see the edit when I was typing. But given that the data consists of only pools based in China, it could very well be possible that there might be some discrepancies from the actual values due to the sampling method.

Don't look at the data and judge it solely based on where the pools are based in. Most pools have servers in different locations and people from all over the world can connect to their pools, mainly from the lower fees or payout variance.

In the recent months, the proportion of China miners has indeed decreased in comparison to the rest of the world. US is certainly still not the most conducive place, isn't there still tariffs on ASICs from China? I'd think that labour laws are stricter there and probably would have to spend more on that as well. The decrease in proportion is most likely due to the decrease in the miners from China rather than an increase in miners from the US.

It is a known limitation with Bitcoin, miners having the say in the kinds of transaction to include would lead to potential problems like this.

OFAC is a US entity which likely has no jurisdiction elsewhere so that isn't really a problem. I'm almost certain that the Chinese pools won't bow down to pressure from US or any other countries. If there comes a point where a good proportion of the pools implement such censorship, those kinds of transaction gets more expensive but miners can still mine them. If it gets included in the block, should the other pools re-org the chain and effectively execute a 51% attack against Bitcoin?

While something like this is dangerous, mining pools do not necessarily have to be regulated by any government. International policies won't be effective as well, if history indicates anything.

I mean, it's perfectly fair for them to be doing so actually. You won't know how the exchange actually functions unless you're working for them. Simple things like regular consolidations could very well be why they don't usually have to take the funds from their cold storage and reducing the hassle. Liquidity is a huge issue with exchanges dealing with huge volumes, and I have no doubt that only consolidating when the fees are low would have unintended consequences.

IMO, none of us are qualified to dictate how an exchange should function. We don't have any clear understanding of their workflow and can't really dictate how they should conduct their business. If you can't agree with their practices, then probably just shifting away from the exchange would be better.

I've never seen a flying car but quantum computers? Definitely.

Quantum computers are not conventional/classical computers and you can't measure it as such as they're not designed to function similarly. You're talking about qubits which has been successfully with quite a few QCs, from IBM, Google and DWave. We're more interested about specific application of it in the field, Shor's algorithm, Grover's algorithm for example. They are designed to work with quantum computers and would produce more efficient results. Quantum physics is a proven science.

Their fees are fixed, they do not impose deposit fees.

For starters, I believe that they should impose variable fees so that the fees can be varied as and when needed and that they should charge each deposit a proportional amount of fees for it to be moved and consolidated (and depending on their structure, it might take a few transactions). Depends on when you withdraw, the total fees could be far lesser or higher than 0.0005BTC. Doing something like this could possibly hurt their revenue, if they do gain any from overcharging their users.

Vote with your wallet (figuratively) if you want something to change.

Here: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Target.

The target determines the validity of the hash of a block header. For it to be included in the current chain, the block hash must be lower than the target or else it won't be accepted by the nodes. When you're talking about difficulty, it is just a representation of the target numerically. In reality, the hash is compared against the target and not the difficulty. They have an inversely proportional relationship; the range of acceptable hashes narrows when the target is smaller/difficulty increases.

Nuclear fusion doesn't produce significant radioactive waste which is exactly why it is far better than nuclear fission which produces radioactive nuclei.

There has been a lot development in nuclear technology. Nuclear power plants and WMDs are not mutually exclusive nor does it have to be dependent on one another. It is obvious that nuclear power is one of the carbon neutral power source out there. Dismantling nuclear power plants takes a very long time due to its radioactive nature and it is very expensive as well. Nuclear Fission if it can ever be deployed and harnessed would be a far better way of producing power, and obviously Bitcoin mining is a direct benefactor of that as well.

Hardware wallets are very different from your USB. Hardware wallets contains the necessary components (MCUs) which is used to generate the signature using the private keys stored on it. LiveUSBs cannot do so and it relies on the computer for the signature which makes it vulnerable to BIOS root kits as well though that would be more complicated.

If you're talking about something like an OpenDime, it generates the key on the device itself and gives you the address. You will reveal the private key only if you poke the seal, pretty cool!

Links in the first reply.
Its up to you whether you want to change the structure or not. I found it far too wordy to be in the beginners and help section as well. There are 4 links in the first reply to this thread.

Dogecoin didn't gain it's value due to its utility nor does it utility come anywhere close to Bitcoin. The volatility makes it unsuitable for anything more than a speculative asset. Utility doesn't mean how fast you get a confirmation and I'll argue that 1min confirmation are less secure than 10 min ones.

Dogecoin's transaction volume isn't anything as compared to Bitcoin. Perhaps if more people begin to use Dogecoin and having to wait for several more confirmation in the meantime or if people stops pumping it, then we can revisit this topic.

You're just talking about the block intervals, no one decides which miners win. Very simply, whoever can extend the chain by providing a valid PoW can lengthen the chain.

Transaction validations are very fast, in the neighbourhood of milliseconds. You're just removing data from the UTXO set and adding new ones, validating the signature, etc. Any modern computer or devices can handle that quite quickly.

Bitcoin will always have a 10 minutes block interval. You can scale Bitcoin with certain optimization but changing the block interval can net a faster confirmation if that is all that you care about. Rather than it being slower, it is just more expensive. There are efforts made to optimize each transaction but there is a point the optimizations would hit a wall.

No. Pruned nodes validates blocks the same way as non-pruned nodes which gives it the same security in that aspect. The key difference between pruned and non-pruned nodes is that the former cannot retrieve any data about the blocks beyond the pruned range, thus not allowing the user to import new addresses, query any information from then as well. Pruned nodes will discard unnecessary block data as it synchronizes and maintains it within the size limit which is defined by the user.

Bitcoin Core supports Multisig as well, but I assume you require a GUI which is why you're relying on another wallet.