Electrum doesn't require the entire blockchain to be downloaded to function. You aren't talking about old wallets and private keys has largely remained unchanged throughout.

You can indeed send the funds back to the origin address. If I were you, I would probably just transfer it by creating another wallet with a 12 word seed and send the remainder to one of the addresses within it. It'll help with your privacy immensely and also gives you the benefits of using a HD wallet. As long as both of your Electrum clients are recent (preferably 4.0.9), then it's perfectly fine.

Spending from, yes. Sending to, yes.
Not all. You can import addresses of different types on Electrum and Bitcoin Core as well. You can absolutely generate nested Segwit address from the same seeds but Electrum's checksum prevents this, probably to reduce the probability of newbies being confused when restoring their wallets.
No, why would you do that? You have to reference a UTXO that is valid, OP_return inputs are not stored within the UTXO.

Derived demand from mining does contribute to a larger electrical demand from those sources, for which if you're the government (and it becomes an issue), you would probably implement a tax directly on the miners to avoid the distortion within the energy market caused by it. While it isn't exactly a carbon tax, you're essentially making mining less profitable. I don't find it a huge problem, but it doesn't mean that Bitcoin will not indirectly result in pollution; increase in Bitcoin prices results in more miners and more ASICs -> E-waste and perhaps electrical usage.

Thanks for the warning as well. Thought that it was obvious that it shouldn't be done.

You can use less if you're choosing seed phrases shorter than 12 words.

Anyways, while it does indeed appear to be using the RNG correctly, provided that your browser correctly provides the entropy. I don't believe that open source codes means anything unless it is signed by someone you trust; for which the PGP is signed and available on github as well.

---

Formatting OS is safe enough, unless you're messing it up badly. Using a USB as a liveCD doesn't eliminate any BIOS rootkit or anything similar. While I personally wouldn't run Windows to do anything like generating a cold wallet, its still okay as long as it is offline.

Iancoleman's site uses the same entropy source as bitaddress, which is Crypto.getrandomvalues(). Not to be confused with math.random which isn't a CSPRNG. It should provide similar entropy levels as it does gather extra entropy from the OS. There really isn't a way to ensure entropy, just ensuring that iancoleman is getting the entropy from a secure source is sufficient.

Mining will never end; 2140 is simply the year for which the block rewards diminishes below 1 satoshi. I highly doubt that it is feasible to try to price the environmental impacts fairly or is it easy to impose the tax on the users themselves. It is perfectly feasible to be implementing it for miners but it would probably only affect the numbers of miners and their profit margin. Whether the price would drop would be an entirely different issues that isn't exactly affected by this; difficulty and the network hashrate could be affected if this ever happens.

Yes but the demands could've been caused by an external factor as well; take for example Dogecoin which rocketed after Elon Musk tweeted about it and Bitcoin when Tesla bought into it as well. These would influence the demand and probably cause more people to buy/sell it which would then result in a new equilibrium formed with the supply/demand curve.

Satoshi chose 1MB as the block size limit (before there wasn't any limits) but look, it is obviously not feasible if we need to scale up. If you only consider the original consensus rules to be the only version of Bitcoin, then you would probably not be using the Bitcoin that you have today. Satoshi did lay the groundwork but it is obvious that not all of the choices that he made has actually made any sense at all.
Would it have made sense to be following the original Bitcoin with no block limits, an overflow bug, no segwit, no p2sh, etc? It was obvious that Satoshi didn't mean to leave Bitcoin as it is, there is a set of rules which probably won't garner any support or would redefine Bitcoin but it doesn't mean you can't improve Bitcoin.

---

I don't think this is really up for discussion, I don't think Bitcoin would've survived if it didn't evolve.

Let's represent it with the number of permutations that a 12 words seed have.

2048^12 possible seeds, a little less than that if you want to adhere to the checksum (lowers from 132bits to 128 bits). 5.44 x 10^39 possible permutations. Let's say you can bruteforce 1 million seeds a second; giving you about 1.7264453e+32 years to exhaust the key space. It's roughly the security of a Bitcoin address. 24 word seeds has even more permutations.

Percentage of blocks, Miners Activated Soft Fork.

I disagree. I think users should have the freedom to choose what is defined as Bitcoin. You don't use Bitcoin just because Satoshi said so; you use Bitcoin because you stand with the rules that governs it (21mil coins, non-reversibility, etc). Having a fork such as the one that you have described would definitely not be unpopular but people can just continue on the fork that doesn't implement the fix like how Bitcoin Cash is formed.

You don't have to. If you don't want to implement the fix or to not burn the old coins, then an altcoin would be forked from that, just like how ETH and ETC came about.

Segwit actually had a bunch of activation periods where miners are supposed to signal for the acceptance of Segwit and if the threshold of 95% is reached, then the rule would be activated 2 periods down. It was started after one of the difficulty periods and its support was implemented after 0.13.1.

See UASF (BIP148) and BIP91 with the reduced threshold. Bitcoin users are as important as miners; if you don't follow the users, then you're just mining on your own fork and the users are using another version which gives you zero economical benefits.
Segwit was a controversial change with differing opinions from different camps and that's why you have BCH. If it's something that puts the network (both users and miners alike) at risk, I can't see how they would oppose such a change.

Just curious, has anyone tried running an explorer on RPi?
Sure, pruned nodes are still nodes anyways. I've made my point about the time taken and I think you have made yours clear as well. No point discussing it further since my point was from the general view that I had when interacting with other Bitcoiners.

Same. Though I think most of the OEM computers that I've seen tops at about 1TB without upgrades, perhaps just catering to different market. Damn, I've never seen a 500GB drive that old though  .
Running a node is a piece of cake, my first full node was done using a bash script 4 years ago, whether people want to run it is a whole other issue altogether[1]. Running Bitcoin Core on your computer is also considered a full node.

[1] https://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/historical.html

---

Anyways, I'll try to set up a full node on my RPi and see how long it takes to synchronize. Maybe try to run a blockexplorer as well, while I'm at it. Will update this thread soon.

I would argue that CoinJoin and traditional mixers are different and the fees are never so clear cut, network fees still comes into play with Chipmixer both during the deposit and the withdrawal. They aim to obfuscate the path rather than to completely break the link and the trustless aspect of that is enticing for some, no risk of MITM attacks, etc. Of course using a full node will be marginally more secure, I don't think most people find it an issue though. Even if you're running a full node, you'll probably still be using a block explorer to search up on the transactions. Full nodes are limited in this aspect.

I have both unlimited and unmetered 1GBPS but it
No. There is no decent substitute for this, fiat, Litecoin, Ethereum are all intrinsically different. If your primary purpose is to use Bitcoin, to receive and send funds, why would you waste days trying to bootstrap the entire Blockchain when a simple Electrum download or Wasabi would be enough. I have to sacrifice my disk space and time just to set up a node, why would I do that when I can just use a SPV wallet in minutes?

I understand, I was talking about the motivation to move to altcoins; topic appears to be saying people may move to altcoin due to the TX fees, not solely because its not feasible to run a full node. It really depends on your definition of average. From what I can recall, most desktops that I have seen comes with a HDD of 1TB max. It's more than enough to store the entire blockchain on it, provided that you can stand looking at 360GB of block data occupying your HDD. Sure, you can upgrade but the whole process would probably appear to be daunting for most.

There are loads of clients that supports LN and there is no lacking of LN nodes. Adopting LN lies only on the fact that there are still a bulk of the merchants still not accepting LN at all. You don't have to use LN with custodial clients, Electrum isn't at least.

---

Yes, it is relatively cheap if that is the point you're making. If you're saying that people will run the nodes, I highly doubt that would be the case. I'm coming from the average user's POV, still see tons of people being put off by the bootstrapping on their own computer.

No guarantees that they are perfectly accurate as well. There are plenty of potential (small) delays from them getting the block, validating it, updating the site, their APIs, etc. Its much better to just host your own node yourself and use the RPC. After all, you wouldn't be rate limited by those APIs and there would also be times where you're faster than the block explorer, they're just another node like you.

Ledger Nano has most of its codes open source, the secure element is close source which is probably due to their NDA but could provide security through obscurity. If that is your main concern, then you'll probably have to choose some other HW wallets that is fully open source.
The seed extraction is due to the design of their microcontroller. While secure element can help to prevent this, the lack of it isn't the main reason why you can extract information from their microcontroller.

If you have a poor latency to your peers, then you'll probably experience significant delays. Block headers are fairly small to relay and can be relayed first before the block itself so bandwidth is no issue there if you only want to be notified of the latest block. As mentioned, the timing would vary depending on how many hops a specific block take before it reaches the target node and it would vary from time to time.

You also have to factor in the latency between the block explorer if you want to get your data from there. Here's a few blocks that I have compiled between two nodes that are fairly far apart, geographically. Interestingly, the difference is only 2 seconds but there's definitely insufficient sample size. Unfortunately, I'm unable to compare this to the Blockchair as they seem to be using Median time which doesn't reflect the actual time received.

Try changing your settings: https://coinb.in/#settings/.

Change the unspent output from coinb.in to another source. Coinb.in's own server seems to be down when retrieving unspent outputs.

Possible, using custom entropy in the checkbox. The words will still be derived from the list.

@OP, the benefits of extra entropy diminishes with the increasing seed phrase length. 24 word seeds are already an overkill, 12 words is sufficient it provides for 128bits of entropy. It is far easier to have to type/store a 12 word seed than a 24 word seed and of course, 600 word seed. Most wallets do not support seed phrases that long and there is really no usecase for anything like that.

Wouldn't using a Wasabi Wallet be just sufficient and better than the privacy that Bitcoin Core can provide? I don't think being able to run a LN node would be that enticing. You would probably be looking to run Bitcoin Core as a wallet instead of purely as a full node if your purpose is for the bolded part.
Right, so the topic is more about the fact that the fees for the transactions are rising rapidly and it is infeasible to use Bitcoin for day to day transaction.

When people are making decisions they'll generally evaluate whether something is worth doing or not. IBD on RPi takes several days of constant synchronization or at least that was from my experience. Waiting days just to run a Bitcoin node when the most I'll do with it is probably to point my SPV wallet at it is probably not that worth, considering that I've already spent ~$70 on it alone. So what is the point of running one when an SPV node will be more than sufficient? I have never found Bitcoin Core that useful if my primary purpose is to just send and receive coins, privacy and security isn't an issue.

If you want to accommodate even the current transaction volume, I guarantee that the storage and the bandwidth requirements will not be enough. Nevermind LN, it doesn't even have a comparable adoption rate in the first place. If people really want to run a full node, I doubt there would only be ~10K nodes with listening connection.