There is a glimpse of hope that by the time we get to that phase, the market would've matured enough such that huge price movements would be less common. It would also signify that miners are just having a thin profit margin and shutting down the bulk of their equipment would be more worth than just keeping it running to earn a marginal profit.

I see block rewards as a way to distribute the coins but as the block subsidy decreases, the adoption rate would've increased. Currently, the main offchain scaling solution is LN. If the only time the on-chain transactions are needed is to open and close the channel, I would think that the total on-chain fees would increase while still having the same or even more utility.

For the fees to completely replace block rewards, assuming current levels should bring the fees about x6 more expensive and/or x6 increase in transactions/block. I would think that given time, the problem could be resolved. There is still a few years until block rewards would form a big bulk of the miner's profit.

Then there isn't really a negative to this. You still need to secure the wallet.dat, just that you don't have to do it every 1000 transactions.

By running your client with upgradewallet flag, it will dump all the used addresses into the wallet.dat and future addresses will be generated from the seed. AFAIK, it doesn't automatically sends the funds to a new address generated using the HD seed so you shouldn't really need to transfer the funds.

HD wallets allows for the generation of addresses from a single seed. As long as you have that seed, you just need to make a single backup. There should be virtually no limitations on the amount of keys that could be generated from a seed.
You can always consolidate when the fees are lower. HD wallets do provide much more convenience over older wallets and you won't have to make frequent backups to your keys as well.

If there's an option for seed phrase, even better. Paper backups would be even easier.

---

What wallet are you using now?

I've been waiting for a long time for a price drop so I can cash in my funds. It doesn't seem like it'll be very likely for any significant corrections in the near future. It's not like the past few bubbles, they were mostly a result of more companies accepting Bitcoin as a payment method. In this case, institutions are buying Bitcoins and they're sustaining the price more than any adoption could possibly do.

I could see a huge price drop if some bigger countries once again outlaws Bitcoin but that seems unlikely as well.

Most forums also bans scammer after sufficient evidence but this forum instead relies on the community's enforcement to warn others.

It's inherently difficult to accurately determine alt accounts and it's difficult to enforce. For every detected alt accounts, there's possibly many others which can't be linked. Banning those alt accounts would just eliminate those who are careless and would probably not eliminate most of the other alts who are more careful. Might as well leave it as it is.

You can encrypt BIP39 with a passphrase. It's defined in the standards as written in the BIP[1].

Obfuscating the seeds to hide it isn't always the best method.

[1] https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0039.mediawiki#From_mnemonic_to_seed

Given it's scale, it still does have some possible environmental impacts. I think it warrants some sort of research to alleviate the concerns.

I don't see Bitcoin mining as something that could directly harm the environment but there could be other environmental impacts like ewaste and opportunity cost from using renewable energy.

The site is very insightful and nice to look at.I skimmed through their collection methodology and it's decent. There's really no need to be so cynical. Doesn't hurt to have something like this.

I also don't think they meant to boil the ocean literally, that would literally not make sense. It's just a way to phrase their research.

I think you're using your Bitcoin address instead of your ECDSA public key. Go to your Address, Right click and Press Details there should be a public key. If you're unsure of the redemption process, I recommend you to test it out first with a smaller amount to get a better understanding.

1BTC. Remove the seed/wallet associated with the seed in the wallet.
No.

If someone has access to your seeds, they can construct a transaction and spend your funds anytime they want. Your timelocked transaction cannot be in the mempool until it's expiry. This also means that your timelock funds won't be truly bounded to the time unless you:
1) Destroy all traces of private key/seed after creating and saving the transaction.
2) Ensure that no one else can have access to your keys or seeds.


In gist, the only way for you to spend the funds within is only with that nLockTime transaction. The nLocktime only sticks with your specific transaction and not to the funds in your address.

For that reason, I prefer the P2SH method. It ensures that the funds within that address are only spendable at that specific date or block.

Ah okay, fair enough. nLocktime could suit you as long as you can take care to not lose your receiving address then I guess you can just use Electrum's UI and export your own raw transaction.

If you'd like, you can try exploring OP_CheckLockTimeVerify P2SH addresses. You'll be able to create a scripthash address which will lock your outputs till the block/time. Afterwhich, you can just create and sign your transactions as per usual. Benefit of that is that you can send to whichever address you want in the future and won't be restricted to that address specified in the nLockTime transaction.

See: https://coinb.in/#newTimeLocked for a nice UI to create your nLocktime address. You'll just need to keep the redeem script safe but to be fair, you can generate the redeem script anytime you want, just use the same public key and the same nLockTime date/block.

---

I won't (put) large amount of my funds into any nLockTime transactions. I prefer having some form of control over when to spend most of my coins. Perhaps just a bit locked in there as a fun experiment.

They're mostly located here: https://bitcoin.org/bin/insecure/.

I'm not sure why you need pre-compiled binaries that old. Unless you compile it yourself, there isn't really anywhere you can find trusted precompiled binaries anymore.

But, here's 0.1.0 and 0.1.3 for what it's worth: https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/code/, they contain the executables.

Non-final transactions are not accepted by mempool as it'll allow for cheap mempool flooding. What's your use case for timelocked transactions? Would OP_CLTV work better for you? It's a P2SH address with inputs that is only spendable at certain height/time.

Electrum allows you to set a custom nLocktime but you cannot broadcast the transaction as nodes will not allow it. However, you can save it and send it to whoever you link.

Well, depends on how you look at it. For the amount of withdrawal fees paid, they should have a quick confirmation but it's true that not all of the fees paid are used to pay for the actual transaction fees. I guess it would be justifiable if a larger portion of their withdrawal fees are used for the actual transaction fee which is usually not the case.

Would be great if they could have variable fees for the user to choose and perhaps give them a notice about how the confirmation time would be longer etc etc. I'm sure most would choose to have a lower fees than have to overpay for it. I'm not sure how difficult it is to really implement that though.

That is because your SIM Card contains the information required to authenticate with the cell towers. Operators can permit an alternate SIM card to use your number but that doesn't mean that the SIM card has failed it's purpose. It's primarily purpose is to resist any bruteforce attacks to get the keys and CMIIW, most modern SIM card bricks itself during a bruteforce attacks.


The secure element on a debit card is used to protect against cloning attacks. It is difficult to clone the chips in an EMV cards while it is easily to clone the magnetic stripe cards. The scenario that you present isn't the point of EMV cards in the first place, it's designed primarily to combat swiping attacks. When I lose my hardware wallet, I trust that the secure element can resist the attacks until I can transfer my funds out.

The one time you can rely on the secure element is when the information that you need is inside the secure element itself. There is no one else to do social engineering to get the information within the SE unless the owner chooses to reveal it himself. When used properly, the secure element will not reveal the information held within and that is it's primarily purpose inside a hardware wallet, and inside a sim card, payment cards etc. For the scenario as stated, HW wallets containing SE still provides an additional layer of security.

Are you sure? My Electrum is telling me 9 sat/vbyte for 1MB from tip which is what the mempool estimation sites are also telling me, within a very small margin of error.

The only time it can be regarded as inaccurate is their ETA feature. It's designed to intentionally overcompensate so that the user's transactions can confirm within the specified period of time.

That's a fair point. Gemini can afford to allow (10) free withdrawal per month though, but I guess it's not really an apples to apples comparison.

Binance consolidates their transaction in large denominations and users typically send the funds in large transactions. Take this transaction[1] for example, it has a transaction fee that boils down to roughly 0.00012BTC per deposit. Note that the network was fairly congested at that time. This means that, for the exchange to start losing money, each user has to do up to 3 deposits per withdrawal for it to be worthwhile.

I can't wrap my head around how most exchanges won't try to optimize their consolidation habits to reduce the transaction fees. For starters, allowing Segwit addresses would have resulted in a huge fees savings. Choosing a more optimal time for consolidation would result in better fees rate as well. Perhaps there might be some rationale related to their operations for this so I would hold my pitchforks for the consolidation part.

There really isn't a fair way to estimate the profit/loss an exchange makes when users deposit/withdraw. I think the point still stands, there are ways to lower the fees but the exchanges wouldn't really care because the fees are typically being passed down to their consumers.

[1] https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/transaction/3fc2176aba09fdaaebabfb39685ce1521dcda84bdb58ac8621decebf7e1105a5

---

Well, I bet some people are just sat stacking as well. Not making any crypto deposits and only making crypto withdrawals. The only way this can be fair is if they start lowering the withdrawal fees and start charging for deposits which IIRC was a practice for some exchanges previously.

Surprisingly, you didn't mention one of the most high profile cheating incident in Bitcoin's gambling history.

Hufflepuff cheated Primedice 2,400 BTC a few years ago by exploiting a glitch that allows the reuse of secret seeds[1]. At today's value, that's worth 84 million dollars. I was skeptical of the winnings when I came across it on the forum and I was sure no one would be able to beat the house that way.


[1] https://medium.com/@Stunna/breaking-the-house-63f1021a3e6d

Electrum was developed very early on. Certainly a few years before 2014.

If you have to install something in your web browser to use it, I wouldn't trust it. Browser extensions are notoriously insecure when used. I would rather use something that doesn't require me using a web browser to use it.

The last commit was years ago on the official repo. The wallet was dead before the site went down.
The main benefit of Wasabi Wallet is the privacy features since it bakes CoinJoin and various other privacy methods into the client. It functions like other SPV wallets but with much more privacy features.

It's a known issue and it has made my post history a bit weird[1], it only happens with code tags presumably because the formatting has to be specific and wouldn't allow for line breaks.

It can be quite annoying to scroll all the way to the right to properly see the posts. If the max width can be enforced on the actual post, I'm not sure why it would break on that page itself.


[1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=334898;sa=showPosts;start=3140

Extract it. Electrum has never used any compressed format to backup their wallet files. It should be backwards compatible, please download and verify the latest Electrum version before using it.